Votes on Gay Rights Never Match Public Opinion.

[Iangould]

Well you were also respectfull, and did not just throw random insults and said I'm an intolerant bigot. Or insult Christianity and whatever else. So yes the only thing that I have to argue against homosexuality is religion, and you can't use that in a debate since not everyone is the same religion as you. So I conceede that you have won the debate, since I can't think of any counter.

See this is where Christians who oppose gay marriage tend to make a logical error.

You have an absolute right to believe that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals.

You do not have the right to expect the state to enact laws based on that belief.

[dupersuper]

I don't think anybody wants to see that.

Ok: replace them with Scarlett Johanson and Jessica Beil. I so could've been a marketing genius...

just shut up and wish I had some pudding right now.

Can I assume you said that in a Bill Cosby voice?

[mikekerrIII]

Yeah I wont lie or try to weasel out, you guys definitely won this debate I cant think of any reason except religious and cultural-tradition to ban it. Congrats, also I did look up that there were gay mariage ceremonies in ancient greece, rome, china, and I would guess some of the other ones like maybe egypt, and babylon and so on. So basically all the important nations accepted gays, well at least before Christianity.

If you want to be really shocked look up how short a time (relatively) that christian churches have been involved in marriage.

[the4thpip]

See this is where Christians who oppose gay marriage tend to make a logical error.

You have an absolute right to believe that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should not have the same right to marry as heterosexuals.

You do not have the right to expect the state to enact laws based on that belief.

Hillary Clinton explained how that works in her best speech ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MudnsExyV78

[coveredinbees]

And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.


That is a fantastic speech.

[metr0man]

This pretty much sums up the whole "debate" for me. We pretty much have to wait these people out. Even now things are markedly different than they were during the 1992 election (when the GOP conference hissed and booed when Pat Buchanan called Clinton the most pro-homosexual administration ever) and the 2004 election (when the anti-SMS brigade was leading in the polls).



And it's not just democrats who think that... here's a Bush 2004 pollster:

Former President George W. Bush's pollster for his 2004 re-election, Jan van Lohuizen, has put out a memo to Republican operatives suggesting a shift in the way the GOP discusses same-sex marriage, a piece flagged by Jonathan Martin.

It notes what recent same-sex marriage surveys have found, which is a change in public support "at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down."

It adds, "The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position."

That trend isn't going to do a 360 folks. I'm sure there will be holdouts in deep red bible belt states, but I'm pretty confident in 40 years, the whole "the bible says gays are baaad" thing will basically be the same as "the bible says having sex before marriage is baaaad" ie most everypeople people just ignore it and only the most religious freaks actually care. Basic logic, the 18-36 year old demographic is massively in support of gay marriage, and in 20 years, they will be the 38-56 year old demographic (ie the ages that actually vote).

[dupont2005]

Not so sure history will remember it as sharply as we think. How many people remember the Republicans being against AIDS research because they thought AIDS was a plague sent by god to kill all the blacks and gays?

[Michael P]

Quite a few people, actually.

[dupont2005]

I think everyone should be allowed to get married to anyone who's legal to get married. If people do not want call it "marriage" call it a civil union. Would the divorce rate go up though?

The difference between marriage and civil union is a lot more than the title.

[Charles RB]

The BBC let the editor of American Conservative say what he thinks about same-sex marriage in the States (as a counterpoint), and even he thinks his side have lost. Admittedly, he blames The Media for it is going "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA", but he's basically admitting his side are fucked and seen as backward.

You would no more take a defender of traditional marriage seriously than you would take a segregationist seriously - or so the thinking goes. Trying to explain philosophically why homosexuality is not the same thing as race draws blank stares.

This is simply not something to be reasoned about, especially not with my generation of journalists: too young to have seen the black civil rights movement, and who are not about to miss out on their own version.

Though I firmly believe there is only a superficial connection between gay marriage and inter-racial marriage, the legacy of the civil rights movement in the South is precisely why I think marriage traditionalists are going to lose in the long run.

...

we Southern children of the 70s and beyond were catechised on the wrongness of racism primarily by television and media culture.

It was impossible to watch TV back then and not notice that the conventional racial opinions held by local whites were treated as backward and immoral.

They were, in fact, precisely that, but my point here has to do with media ecology.

Mass media framed the debate over race in America in a way that stigmatised white racism, and made old-fashioned views obsolete and even embarrassing. The rigid old way of thinking, happily, did not survive a single generation.

...

This tells us something about the future of gay marriage, given the dominance of the "civil rights" narrative in the public square.

As is commonly known, polling data show a stark generational divide among Americans on same-sex marriage. The younger the voter, the greater the support. The demographic tidal wave on this issue is undeniable.

Gay marriage opponents like to tell themselves that people get more conservative as they age - true, in general, but unlikely in this case.

As long as the traditionalist position on same-sex marriage, almost universally held only 25 years ago, is treated as irrational hatred and nothing but by the media, business, and social elites, there will be powerful social and psychological pressure to shun it.

[dupont2005]

That's a positive . Doesn't the consitution say there should be separation from state and religion ???? Wouldn't gay marriage fall under that?

Much like "Intelligent Design," the argument is 100% based on religious belief, the legislature being funded by religious institutions even, but by avoiding the religious talk and simply using vague terms like "Protecting Marriage" they manage to avoid the first amendment issues, at least so far.

[dupont2005]

So that explains why you have to pay for marriage license????

What?
No.
..

[Matt Algren]

Not so sure history will remember it as sharply as we think. How many people remember the Republicans being against AIDS research because they thought AIDS was a plague sent by god to kill all the blacks and gays?

We don't have to remember it; they're still saying it. This quote is only 15 days old, and it's from a high profile individual who is somewhat influential in the religious right, which Mitt Romney and other Republicans regularly pander to for votes.

There’s a passage that I love in Romans 1 – I don’t love what the topic is – but it talks about homosexuality and it says that they will receive in their bodies the penalties of their behavior. And the Bible again, it’s right every time, and studies keep proving that and that’s why AIDS has been something they haven’t discovered a cure for or a vaccine for, because it’s the fastest self-mutating virus known to mankind. Every time they just about get a vaccine discovered for it, it transmutes into something new and they have to start over again. And that goes to what God says, hey you’re going to bear in your body the consequences of this homosexual behavior.

[the4thpip]

I'm curious why so many people care about someone's personal life. I mean if you don't like somthing wouldnt ignoring it be best?

Note the research indicating that some very homophobic people experience sexual arousal at homosexual imagery.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Note the research indicating that some very homophobic people experience sexual arousal at homosexual imagery.

I get turned on when I see myself naked. Does that count?