Gallup: 54% say gay relations are morally acceptable
posted at 5:25 pm on May 14, 2012 by Allahpundit
The obligatory follow-up to last week’s post on gay-marriage polling. Interestingly, 54 percent marks a two-point decline from 2011, although it’s still fully 10 points higher than the number who said gay relations were morally acceptable as recently as 2006. Fluctuations in public attitudes are nothing new, though, especially on the question of whether SSM should be legal. Follow the last link and watch public support fall off a cliff in 2004 after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of gay marriage in late 2003. Support rebounded within three years but there’s a cautionary tale for David Boies and Ted Olson in that. If your ultimate goal is public acceptance of legal equality for gay relationships, the court strategy may be counterproductive.
The demographic breakdown from Gallup of where things stand in 2012:
Interesting data points: There’s a huge gender gap, even on the issue of morality; nonwhites actually approve slightly more than whites do of gay marriage; the south is nearly 20 points behind any other region on whether gay relations should be legal (not even 50 percent say yes); and Catholics, while only slightly in favor of gay marriage, say decidedly that gay relations are morally acceptable. And of course, younger Americans are nearly 20 points more likely than any other age demographic to say gay marriage should be legal. They answer all three questions here to the tune of 65-percent support or greater. How come? Television, possibly:
Glee is just one of many popular shows on television right now that feature gay characters. Those characters aren’t just entertaining us, they’re changing Americans’ attitudes toward homosexuality.
In five separate studies, professor Edward Schiappa and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota have found that the presence of gay characters on television programs decreases prejudices among viewers.
“These attitude changes are not huge,” he says. “They don’t change bigots into saints. But they can snowball.”…
More and more gay married couples are showing up on TV these days — like Grey’s Anatomy, for example — making something of a trend. NBC plans to roll out more programs with gay married couples next season. Whether these shows continue to build a positive image of gay people depends on how they’ll be portrayed, Schiappa says.
Yeah, this was one of Breitbart’s core insights, of course: In Byron York’s words, he knew that “culture is upstream from politics.” The more visible gays became over the last 20 years or so, the more the needle on this issue started to move. This is why I’m skeptical that the trend towards support for legalizing gay marriage will reverse, although no doubt it’ll eventually level off. I suspect that the more culturally familiar gays become, the less fencesitters who are otherwise leery of SSM will perceive the practice as a threat to society. They’ll reach a certain comfort level with openly gay celebrities and gay characters that’ll bring them around to the soft-support position (“I don’t care what gays do”) that I described last week. If I had to guess, I’d bet that support settles somewhere around 60/40 in the next few years — unless there’s a Supreme Court ruling, which could set it back hugely — and then stays there for awhile before ticking upward slowly over time.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Sigh: Indiana man faces possible jail time for nursing bald eagle back to health
GOP: Yeah, about that “relatively minor” and completely underhanded carbon-rule change…
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
How about just straight-up (pun intended) vigilante activity?
Stoic Patriot on May 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM
How ’bout ex-Catholics? They never ask us nuthin’.
:P
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM
libfreeordie,
I assure you my sex life isn’t boring, because I am more than satisfied without anal sex. Ever think yours is lacking if that’s what it takes to get you excited? Maybe removing the paper bag would help.
As Paul Rodriquez said many years ago …….. “That’s an exit ramp, man.”
Not for you though.
fogw on May 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM
People are accepting of relationships, but it doesn’t mean they accept whatever those other relationships want to impose on them.
It’s funny how the gays think that they are so accepted…last I heard, call any liberal Hollywood actor “gay” and they sue you for defamation.
The fact is, they are given a nod to live their lives in society, but not allowed to impose their actions onto society.
right2bright on May 14, 2012 at 6:26 PM
Here we go with the “Why aren’t you observing all of Leviticus” crap. Psst, JetBoy: Christians have a whole New Testament to work with. And Catholics have a Catechism, too.
spiritof61 on May 14, 2012 at 6:27 PM
You know what’s funny? Every poll that actually counts has voted ot down.
Crazy how that works.
Spliff Menendez on May 14, 2012 at 6:27 PM
Nobody asked this young voter what he thought about gay marriage/gay relations.
I am, have been, and will most likely continue to be firmly against homosexual marriage because, among other reasons, it isn’t marriage.
I do, however, support getting the state out of folks’ relationships – let any consenting adults write up a contract between themselves outlining the particulars of their relationship. Hospital visitation rights, alimony, childcare affairs, yadda – any consenting man and woman, whether intimately involved or not, should be allowed to draw up such legally enforceable contracts. Then when there are issues there’s no need for “family/divorce court” – you just have an arbiter of the law (likely a magistrate) handle whatever’s there to handle according to the terms of the contract. This would solve a BUNCH of our country’s issues.
Now, when it comes to regular ol’ homosexual relations – as in the physical stuff and day-to-day stuff, I’m presuming – I am morally opposed but I don’t believe that sort of thing is the state’s business to be involved with. If a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, or a “being of ambiguous sex” and any number of other folks want to do something in the comfort of their own home/other legal area and everybody involved consents then let ‘em #$%& each other in the @#$% all night for all I care. Adults should be allowed to make adult choices among themselves but that doesn’t mean anybody else has to accept those choices.
Aquarian on May 14, 2012 at 6:28 PM
libfree, I don’t think anyone with brain cells believes that black people as individuals are inherently anti-gay,. That would be ridiculous. However, the black community as a whole certainly seems to have an anti-gay attitude. You seem to put all the blame on the churches, but what about the segments that are less church-oriented yet still are that way? Is it a result of the attitudes toward the masculine and feminine?
McDuck on May 14, 2012 at 6:28 PM
It will decline even more.
The Gay Mafia overplayed their hand. At the end of the day, they only represent 1-2% of the population and their objective runs counter to natural law.
As long as voters get to decide; gay marriage will never happen. End of Story.
Norwegian on May 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM
Relationships =/= marriage
Spliff Menendez on May 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM
Seems that you don’t know what you are talking about.
SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM
7 or 8 states…which means oh, about, 80% of the country says I am right…even California, CALIFORNIA of all places agrees.
Glad you fully support that a court defines all of our words and not society…I happen to think courts can be wrong more often than the masses.
right2bright on May 14, 2012 at 6:30 PM
Oy…Guess you’re gonna side step my questions again, and try to divert with some other question. I’ll answer you fully if you simply show me how the Vatican finds homosexuality to be this grave, enormous sin…and how Gallup is a homosexual activist organization.
I simply can’t look away when someone flat-out lies like that and presents those lies as fact. It says a lot about your character and your ability to hold a rational debate.
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 6:30 PM
Allah throws out the link bait aaaaand … the SoCons take it with complete predictability.
Good job, AP. Salem’s watching all right. They’re watching the hits rack up on the site meter.
nukemhill on May 14, 2012 at 6:31 PM
6 states and the District of Columbia.
Dr Evil on May 14, 2012 at 6:31 PM
I don’t think JetBoy will be in any hurry to respond. Coherently, that is.
spiritof61 on May 14, 2012 at 6:32 PM
Because the argument over homosexuality and societal norms is based around, what, clothing and cuisine?
budfox on May 14, 2012 at 6:32 PM
In many cases, it was the legislature or the people directly through referendum. FWIW, I am appalled by seeing courts impose such definitions and I applaud the democratic actions that brought it about in many of those states.
As I said, depending on which state you are talking about, your definition may or may not be correct as a legal fact.
MJBrutus on May 14, 2012 at 6:34 PM
See what I mean?
spiritof61 on May 14, 2012 at 6:34 PM
Seems you don’t understand the difference between homosexual and homosexual acts. The official stance of The Church is that it’s unknown what exactly causes homosexuality, and it’s basically a part of the “no premarital sex” belief. In other words, the Church calls on homosexuals to be chaste. It’s sex outside of marriage the is the sin.
And if you want to know, I’m certainly not a gay virgin. I am a sinner, like all men are sinners. We all fall short of God’s good graces and we all will face Him when the time comes, to be judged by Him and no one else.
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 6:36 PM
We have been through this…the bible say little, basically nothing about being a homosexual, that has nothing to do with sin.
It say a lot about the act, that actual action…so one can be “homosexual”, the bible doesn’t take a stand against that, it takes an issue with the actions…one resolves sinful urges by being in control, that’s the difference between humans and animals.
The argument that gays have to have sex, is telling everyone they are animals and not in control of their urges.
Everyone has some “urge” they have to keep in control…it’s called be civilized.
right2bright on May 14, 2012 at 6:36 PM
lol…you claim I won’t respond to questions by using Rebar’s example of…not answering questions.
Oh, brother.
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 6:37 PM
There’s a big difference between personal failings, personal sin, and advocating sin in others and advocating directly against the Dogma of the Church.
As far as Gallup, are they a homosexual organization? I have no idea. Have their polls regarding homosexual marriage been wrong in every case? Yes.
Rebar on May 14, 2012 at 6:40 PM
No, JetBoy, like the rest of us I saw your argument just get crushed like a peanut…and correctly predicted that your response would be an ad hominem.
spiritof61 on May 14, 2012 at 6:41 PM
You’re admitting it yourself…it’s the “act” that is the sin. I agree. And I don’t know how you come up with that line that “gays have to have sex” thing. No one “has” to have sex just like no one “has” to have chocolate cake for dessert.
And if I understand you, gays are “animals” if they have sex, but all those straight guys and gals having sex before marriage aren’t.
Gotcha.
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 6:41 PM
First of all, TMI. Second, this is a pitiful attempt to blur the difference between straight and gay sex. When gay sex creates babies, then they can get married.
“Gay sex is like straight sex”. Does anyone really believe that? It’s a gay wish, a fantasy.
Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2012 at 6:41 PM
Of course the United States would find SSM as “morally” acceptable. We’re the same Nation that finds abortion “morally” acceptable…
sandee on May 14, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Yeah, “legal fact” is just a phrase, it just means it is a way to introduce legal “evidence” sometimes circumstantial…a fact is fact independent of “legal”…and redefining a word by a judge is not “fact” it’s just a court action…sheesh, creating words to create an argument.
right2bright on May 14, 2012 at 6:42 PM
You know what I mean…but nice try to move it to an emotional response.
Yes, people who cannot control their urges are acting like animals…obviously you were never a teenager in the back seat of a car…
right2bright on May 14, 2012 at 6:44 PM
That’s a nice sounding assertion, but how can you back that up? What distinction can you make between vaginal sex using birth control and gay sex? Both are done for recreation and not procreation.
MJBrutus on May 14, 2012 at 6:44 PM
The problem with this debate over redefining marriage is that, as a society, we have already accepted the redefinition of sex. Two men cannot have sex. Two women cannot have sex. What they are doing is mutual masturbation. But defining what they do as sex was the first necessary step to trying to redefine the term of marriage, since marriage and sex are seen as inextricably linked.
Shump on May 14, 2012 at 6:48 PM
Oy vey. What a pointless argument you are trying to make. A contract, such as a marriage is a legal entity. In states where same sex marriages are legal such a legal entity is in existence. It entitles the partners in the contract to the same obligations and benefits whether they be of the same sex or not. The term marriage has as much “reality” as any other abstract entity such as a loan agreement or tax deduction.
MJBrutus on May 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM
That’s not what you said earlier.
*facepalm* Here we go with the “We have a New Testament” excuse to cherry pick the gay sex abomination out of the Old Testament’s Leviticus by saying it’s out-dated except for that one part.
If gays were such an enormous group of sinners, I figure Jesus might have had something to say about it…but not one word did He utter.
Not to mention, the New Testament does not negate the Old Testament…it “fulfills” it.
Romans 13:8– Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM
“Relations” are fine, but civil unions are enough.
disa on May 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM
That sounds like a nice assertion. Tell me, what distinction do you make between straight sex and gay sex when birth control is in use? Both are purely recreational activities and not procreative.
MJBrutus on May 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM
This poll was obviously taken in San Francisco.
lhuffman34 on May 14, 2012 at 6:52 PM
The term marriage has as much “reality” as any other abstract entity such as a loan agreement or tax deduction.
MJBrutus on May 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM
That abstract entity has meant one thing since time immemorial. And the voters of the state where you claim to live,NC, agreed with that definition 61% to 39%, along with 30 other states, so far.
kingsjester on May 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM
The reprobate gay catholic is attempting to lead astry again?
Knock me over with a feather boa.
tom daschle concerned on May 14, 2012 at 6:56 PM
I said these gay push polls that Allahpundit loves so much, are wrong, and perhaps he should stop using data that he himself acknowledges are wrong and presenting it as fact.
And yes, you are equally a Catholic Moby as well as a Conservative Moby.
Homosexual activity is a Sin, Homosexual marriage is opposed, in the Catholic Church, now you’re trying to wrap up your progressive homosexual agenda in the language of Catholicism the same way you tried to wrap it up in the language on Conservatism – and failed the same way.
The simple fact is – you’re a lying progressive activist. That everyone on this blog doesn’t know this by now, is a mystery to me.
Rebar on May 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM
Sorry, you loose yet again, twisting the scripture. I says love, and the specific word used is agape which is spiritual love, not sexual love which is eros.
SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 6:58 PM
I loathe the semantic game-playing when it comes to the Church’s position on homosexuality.
Homosexuality defined as the mere inclination toward relationships with one’s own sex itself is not a sin, just like pedophilia isn’t. Predilections themselves, as they involve no choice and cannot (to my knowledge) be avoided, are not sinful.
Homosexuality defined as following through on homosexual inclinations – whether in a physical relationship or not – most certainly is a sin, just like following through on pedophilia is.
Not difficult, folks, and playing “gotcha” games with this sort of nonsense is childish at best.
Aquarian on May 14, 2012 at 7:00 PM
Without childish gotcha games, JetBoy has nothing.
Rebar on May 14, 2012 at 7:01 PM
Well, as to your first example, I think most of us have heard about same-sex harassment. It happens. Not nearly as often as hetero harrassment (heterassment?), of course, but it happens.
But as to your latter point, what the &%$# are you talking about?!
Drew Lowell on May 14, 2012 at 7:04 PM
The Bible doesn’t have to say anything about homosexual acts specifically, because it is quite clear about ALL sexual acts outside of marriage as being sinful. There’s plenty of references to choose from. And the Bible is equally clear about what marriage is, and two men it is not. When you say “unmarried people should not have sex” and “two men cannot be married” you do not also have to say “two men should not have sex”.
Shump on May 14, 2012 at 7:05 PM
Once more, I wasn’t talking to you. You seem to have problems with seeing that.
And what a shock…Rebar and the “I know you are but what am I” shtick. Have fun…Jet, out.
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 7:05 PM
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 6:41 PM
I know I’m butting into (no pun intended) a conversation you are having with others, but I’ve been reading your posts on this issue for several years now, and I’ve got to say that it is evident to me that you are really struggling with your homosexuality because of your Catholic identity. Your attempts at trying to square the circle on this issue is honestly painful. I mean no disrespect to you at all, JetBoy, but you might want to consider having a conversation with a priest on this issue to hear it for yourself where the Catholic church stands on all the facets of homosexuality.
You know, you remind me of a poster on HotAir several years ago who admitted that he was gay but that he was trying to remain celibate as a way of remaining faithful to his Catholic identity. I admired that he was so sincere in wanting to do the right thing, but I also sensed that he was having an incredibly difficult time of it–and it came through in his posts.
Please know that I mean no offense–just an observation on my part.
KickandSwimMom on May 14, 2012 at 7:05 PM
On that, I totally agree. It’s not that homosexuals or homosexual acts are sins specifically, but that all sex outside of marriage is the sin, and homosexual acts fall under that definition. I’m absolutely right there with you on that.
Seems that quite a few people have no problem criticizing and condemning homosexual sex than they ever do regarding heterosexual pre-marital acts is all.
Just seems like selective outrage.
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 7:09 PM
The thing is, even this is dicey if you’re not careful, because there’s no shortage of progressive priests out there ready to throw the catechism right out the window at a moment’s notice.
Kensington on May 14, 2012 at 7:11 PM
That’s because Catholicism in America is a Buffet, take what you like and leave what you don’t, and Jetboy is a perfect example of that mentality.
SWalker on May 14, 2012 at 7:14 PM
I know what you mean, and the Jesuits in particular lean progressive.
KickandSwimMom on May 14, 2012 at 7:16 PM
For the benefit of JetBoy, who may be legitimately confused (though I doubt it), allow me to summarize the Catholic view of homosexual marriage:
1.Homosexuality is an objective disorder, but it is not a sin per se. However, there isn’t anything at all virtuous or admirable about being one.
2.Homosexual acts are sinful and immoral, never to be condoned. Ever. Even Gay Pride Week or your local Democratic Club.
3.Marriage is a sacrament. It can only be between one man and one woman.
4.All sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful. This includes masturbation, pornography, prostitution, etc. No need for details.
All homosexual acts are sinful in a double sense: a)Since there cannot be a sacramental marriage between homosexuals, homosexual activity is by definition extramarital and therefore sinful as above; and b)From the direct moral commandment that homosexual behavior (acts) are immoral, wicked, and offensive to God.
This has been the teaching of the Church since the time of the Apostles. If any Catholic tells you different, that person is in error. Be careful, there are a lot of “liberal” and “buffet” Catholics teaching lies on this topic. And please, don’t take my word for it–read all about it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, readily available everywhere.
spiritof61 on May 14, 2012 at 7:20 PM
And what a shock, I backed up everything I said, but it’s a “shtick”.
More: I’m firmly in the mainstream of conservative and Catholic thought, but you still call me an “extremist”. Yawn.
Is there anyone here who doesn’t think JetBoy is a Moby now?
Rebar on May 14, 2012 at 7:21 PM
YeY, a civilized opposing view. Those like you are always welcome to “butt in”…and I have to say that “butt” pun wasn’t what is was “cracked” up to be lol.
I really want to continue this with you further, but I’m already late for a dinner date :P
I’ll be brief…I can honestly tell you that at present, I’m not “troubled” or “having issues” about being gay and being Catholic. I used to…as well as I uswd to feel I was some kind of mistake, or “gay” was just a phase, I was going to hell, I was abnormal…well, you get the idea. I even hit rock bottom once and I was slumped in a corner an emotional wreck about being gay with a carving knife in my hands.
I have since been able to accept who I am and what I am, and I have no reason at all to be ashamed of being gay. God made me, and He does not make mistakes. Sinning by having sex won’t send me to hell as much as turning my back on Him would, I’m guessing.
I don’t take offense to anything you said there. It’s just that you are off the mark. And I’m not trying to “square any circles” in that regard…I’m simply calling out those who bastardize the Word of God. We can all debate opposing viewpoints on this, but at least be factual.
Cheers…I’m out the door… :)
JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 7:22 PM
Some of the commenters here seem to be treating gay marriage as if it’s some issue that’s off in the future. Gay marriages are already happening. I think it’s eight states so far that now have thousands of legal marriages between same-sex couples.
This train has left the station, and Republicans had better wake up fast.
Drew Lowell on May 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM
The distinction is biological! One is designed for procreation, the other, as another poster mentioned, is mutual masturbation. People can argue the feeling of romantic love between two men is of the same character as between a man and a woman. But life is more than feelings. The reality is … you know, facts? Facts of life? Ask your mother about that. Then to say the only difference between gay and straight relations is equipment, you’re closing your eyes to our inherent biological natures.
Paul-Cincy on May 14, 2012 at 7:30 PM
“All gay all the time at HotGay“
Django on May 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are!
Rebar on May 14, 2012 at 8:08 PM
.
And that station is in Western Europe. Pay attention and in the next decade or two you will observe a truly frightful train wreck.
Mike OMalley on May 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Every time I think about gay marriage I’m forced to think about the absurdity of asking the government to tell us what is and is not a marriage. If it’s about equality, why are we letting the government decide what is and is not acceptable in the first place?
Politicians made this an issue by forcing government into this aspect of our lives, and now they’re using it as a toy in an election. We say we want government out of our bedrooms, but we’re the ones accepting the idea that it can define our most intimate relationships.
I’m not against marriage or the government recognizing our unions for tax and heredity purposes, but it doesn’t make sense that the government should be able to define these relationships for us.
Esthier on May 14, 2012 at 8:35 PM
Who cares who gets married? I’ve seen married people, not thanks. I’ll pull a Rush and just give her half of my vast wealth and send her on her way.
Oh, and the genetic material solely from two men can indeed be used to create a child. ‘Course, it can only be male.
antisense on May 14, 2012 at 8:39 PM
Ask Elaine Huguenin why you should care.
Rebar on May 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM
Hey AP – get a poll on whether evil exists. still trying to get this distraction some air time.
Fuquay Steve on May 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM
you can’t possibly poll such a thing as gay marriage. people do not feel obligated to tell you how they really feel when you ask a question that may reflect on themselves or cost them although their response may reflect their true fellings such as the ” does this dress make me look fat” question. Why not poll people on their views on porn if you really want to see people lie !!
rik on May 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM
It’s not “relations” that is the key issue, but marriage, the attempts to redefine marriage at the cost of religious liberty.
I’d venture to guess that just about any behavior possible for any man or woman to do is done and that most the rest of us are aware that this occurs and is possible. We don’t have to sanction it, however, and our Constitution says we’re at liberty to maintain our liberty in denying to do so.
Lourdes on May 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM
Sorry your train ran off the track.
Lourdes on May 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Morality is a matter of public opinion? News to me. I still keep coming back to this, whether we’re discussing homosexual conduct or any other sin:
Emphasis mine, natch.
OhioCoastie on May 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Sincerely, I cannot imagine just which “Catholics” were responsible for such opinions.
Lourdes on May 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Whomever may “say decidedly” such but it doesn’t mean that, then, the majority of Catholics believe that.
My impression is people in groups are polled and they tend to be among the youth who are subject to social pressures.
Lourdes on May 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Ahem.
OhioCoastie on May 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM
its entirely acceptable unless you are a paste eating moron that believes in that awful bible nonsense.
Your Mamma loves me on May 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM
So anyone who’s a Christian is a “paste eating moron,” eh?
OhioCoastie on May 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM
Polls and newpapers are corrupted by their unforgiving bias. Making any kind of decision based on the facts presented by a newpaper or poll is the first sign of intellecual bankruptcy. The bullying story about Romney in the Washington Post is the epitome of petty, journalistic trash.
volsense on May 14, 2012 at 9:38 PM
East Germany awaits you.
Rebar on May 14, 2012 at 9:41 PM
Most people don’t care what “acts” two adults perform in their bedroom as long as it is voluntary to both parties.
Trying to mainstream homosexuality via tv and movies, etc.
is not working. Try as the liberals may, it is NOT the same
as a marriage between a man and a woman. It creeps me out to hear Ellen (whom I like) and
Rosie (whom I can’t stand) call their homosexual partners, “wives”.
However, most of the heterosexuals I know do not care if “gays”
have civil unions. Gay couples should be able to have health
insurance, death benefits; etc. via a civil union contract. They
can also have a huge attorney bill when they split up!
Amjean on May 14, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Totally agree!
KickandSwimMom on May 14, 2012 at 10:06 PM
After the Church, an institution that lies big in the lives of many black men is the prison. I doubt that even most homophobes would want to argue that the attitudes of prisoners are those that we want society to embrace.
thuja on May 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Many were in the ‘I don’t care’ position when homosexuality was legalised in their various jurisdictions – but then they saw how it led to an extra push here and a little shove there. Now, anyone who believes it will stop with ”getting married” is fooling themselves. The homosexual activist movement wants nothing less than a complete revision of what marriage means – they want to remake it in their own image. People who are fencesitters really need to do some independent research and reading to find out what homosexual relationships are really like, not simply accept the party line from TV shows.
The Thin Man Returns on May 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM
If you are trying to imply that gay people want marriage to be exclusively gay marriage, you are living on another planet. Even the weirdest, most delusional leftist gays just want marriage to mean exactly what Medieval troubadours sang about: love between two people.
thuja on May 14, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Yep, that objection is old and stale.
The part that addresses the Leviticus objection is about half way down this page:
Homosexual Myths
I think it was also discussed and refuted in this video
Video Response to Dan Savage, Along with a Challenge
TigerPaw on May 15, 2012 at 1:31 AM
So, if two guys get married, which one is the wife? Which one is the husband?
Oh, we now have a marriage without a husband and wife! But marriage wasn’t “redefined” in any way!
To argue for same-sex marriage requires either redefining the meaning of husband and wife, or redefining marriage to no longer consist of a husband and wife. Yet you claim that it’s “baloney” to say that marriage is being redefined.
Do you even hear the words coming out of your mouth? Or is justifying what you want all that matters?
There Goes The Neighborhood on May 15, 2012 at 2:38 AM
Get the beam out of your own eye before you start picking apart “translational errors” in a Bible you refuse to accept.
The problem is in the reader, not the Bible. Don’t blame the Bible because it condemns something you enjoy.
There Goes The Neighborhood on May 15, 2012 at 2:45 AM
its entirely acceptable unless you are a paste eating moron that believes in that awful bible nonsense.
Your Mamma loves me on May 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Classy name. Classy comment.///
kingsjester on May 15, 2012 at 6:49 AM
How many gays and lesbians are unemployed?
It’s the economy.
albill on May 15, 2012 at 6:56 AM
The key words here are “activist movement”. Most gays & lesbians are not part of an activist movement, just like most blacks are not part of the New Black Panthers. All they want is to get the same benefits and perks that hetero married couples get. And yes, it stops at marriage for them. They don’t want to brainwash kids, they don’t want to sue churches, they don’t flaunt their sexuality… just like any other mature, civil couple.
For all the griping that black conservatives do over comparisons to the civil rights movement, I can’t help but see an awful lot of parallels here.
TMOverbeck on May 15, 2012 at 7:11 AM
I’m not sure why the religious feel the need to impose their views on others and cast judgements on other people, especially when Jesus himself instructed them not to.
Whether or not gay people can “marry” is a legal decision, not a religious one. Or do people seriously fear the gov’t will force churches and synagogues to perform gay marriage ceremonies?
Seriously, gays being able to marry has no effect whatsoever upon me or my heterosexuality. Why should I care? IMO, socons should focus their attention on their own lives and living up to their own professed values rather than trying to impose what they believe on everyone else.
Which is why, ultimately, social conservatism is inconsistent with political liberty and freedom. In fact, it’s a cancer on the conservative movement as a whole. We should be looking for ways to make people free of big government, not looking to redirect it toward new goals…like imposing decades-old bigotry from “the good old days.”
That’s why I usually refer to myself as a small-L libertarian, not a conservative. You socons are embarrassing, and I don’t want to be associated with you.
DRayRaven on May 15, 2012 at 7:56 AM
That’s why I usually refer to myself as a small-L libertarian, not a conservative. You socons are embarrassing, and I don’t want to be associated with you.
DRayRaven on May 15, 2012 at 7:56 AM
Yeah. It’s a lot easier to adjust your morals and ethics to popular culture’s standards, isn’t it?/
kingsjester on May 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM
Although I identify more with conservative political thought, and not with libertarians, I agree with what you said…to a point. Social conservatism in general is no “cancer” on the general conservative movement…the right to life is as important an issue as it ever was, gun control is still aa violation of the constitution, and religious freedom from the state is what makes this nation one of the greatest.
True, there are too many Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians running around perverting Holy Scripture to fit their own personal agenda, for example, by condemning anyone…that’s God’s job. Jesus loves us all…saint and sinner alike, and we’re told to first focus on our own misgivings before we become so concerned with the perceived sins of another. (I’m catholic, so that’s where I’m coming from on this)
Socons in general aren’t “embarrasing”, but for sure, the anti-gay faction that uses their religious faith to justify beating down another…well, just look at the Muslim extremists to see how that kind of thinking can turn out.
And of course, just on the right-to-life issue, too many socons promote…correctly IMHO…a right to life of a fetus as a human being. It’s just that if that baby turns out to be gay, then it should be shoved out of the way and treated as less of a citizen with limited rights. And again, we know what has happened when that logic has been applied in the past.
JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 9:10 AM
The culture has a meaningful effect on morals. Certainly the culture today is different than that of the Old Testament or Medieval Christian Europe. Moral opinions differ on matters of slavery, torture, capital punishment, rape. The question today about people’s consensual sexual relationships seems a comparatively less consequential concern.
OptionsTrader on May 15, 2012 at 9:13 AM
…and when the crowds were asked who should Pilate release, they responded passionately to release the evil doer and to crucify the God of truth and love. What else is new?
Don L on May 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Last I heard, the Catholic position on homosexuality was: The homosexual orientation – the actual same-sex attraction – was not sinful in itself, only the sexual acts committed between two people of the same gender.
TMOverbeck on May 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Anybody wondering why folks won’t just accept teh ghey without reservation needs to take a peek at this article, posted here earlier:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/700224421/Gay-Liberty.html
Long story short: While, by and large, gay folks might not want to #$%& with the protections of conscience and freedom of opinion others may have, a sufficient number of them will agitate and do damage unless otherwise checked.
I don’t appreciate having anything shoved down my throat, thank you very much.
Aquarian on May 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM
You’re half right.
Homoseuality in and of itself has yet to be fully explained, and is not considered a sin. But nor are homosexual acts specifically the sin either…any sex outside of marriage is the sin, gay or straight. Gays are called upon by the Church to remain chaste in the same way that heterosexuals are supposed to on this…by abstaining from sex.
JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Morality by poll = nihilism.
kingsmill on May 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM
No “half” to it, and I would appreciate it if you would kindly STOP being disingenuous.
Here’s a quote from the Catechism for you – look it up if you want to:
Emphasis mine. Homosexual acts themselves are disordered and sinful because they fundamentally lack “a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.” Period, end of story. Spin the wording around if you like, appeal to random passages of the Bible, but you can’t change reality to suit your self-serving gay (literally) whims.
Aquarian on May 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Maybe we should let actual Christian scriptures guide our understanding of what God thinks of homosexuality. After all, it is He who defines what is and isn’t moral:
Jesus Christ preached that he had fulfilled the law of Moses, so many of the micromanagement aspects of God’s Old Testament laws (e.g., animal sacrifice) were replaced with higher forms of worship. Unfortunately for homosexuals, defining homosexuality as an immoral act did not change. Throughout the Bible, homosexuality is clearly defined as sin, as an act that is against the natural laws of God. That being said, God gave man free agency. Men and women have the right to choose a homosexual lifestyle. But, they cannot change the laws of God. Unless God reveals a change to this fundamental doctrine against homosexuality through a modern prophet, the doctrine remains as written in Biblical scripture.
NuclearPhysicist on May 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Pattosensei on May 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM
I’ll simply ask…just asking, don’t get your panties in a bunch…if your outrage over homosexual acts as not being “affective” and “complimentary” is shared…in your outspoken opinion…in regards to heterosexual sodomy, masturbation, etc.
Or, is your outrageous outrage selective…? And I’m taking this tone with you for assuming I’m being disingenuous in regards to my catholic faith. Heck, I’m no Vatican theologian, nor am I perfect…I could very well be wrong about some things, not saying I am, but it’s certainly possible…but I believe in God, Christ, the bible (the true translations, not the heretical Protestant tomes) and know in my mind and heart that the Catholic Church is the one, true church of Christ.
So if you’re going to start off impugning my faith, then it’s you who needs to brush up on what God has commanded us to do.
JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 12:22 PM
That’s all well and good…in the context of Christianity. But it’s irrelevant to the state, and gay marriage being recognized by that secular state. Some can try to strawman that into “the next step is to bring down Christianity” if gay marriage is recognized by law…but it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand.
JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM
No, sorry, fella. It’s not a straw man, nor is it irrelevant. That is the goal of the activists. Your denial of reality doesn’t make it so.
JannyMae on May 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »