A Plurality Now Supports Gay Marriage...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Treating all fellow human beings that mean you no harm, and do not threaten you or your families livelihood and well being are deserving of respect and full equal treatment under the laws of the United States of America. Including the full recognition of equal rights for gay couples to marry and enjoy the same secular rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.
America's belief in equality with respect to treatment of homosexuals, specifically their right to marry is, and has been changing. A plurality now support gay marriage.
And so, once again we see the concept of individual rights and the application of equality under the secular laws of the United States of America being resisted by the Socon Evangelicals that would have all live by their interpretation of the scriptures. One can not help but wonder from where our greatest threat to liberty lies. Is there any difference between this and Muslim Theocracy? Just asking...
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Treating all fellow human beings that mean you no harm, and do not threaten you or your families livelihood and well being are deserving of respect and full equal treatment under the laws of the United States of America. Including the full recognition of equal rights for gay couples to marry and enjoy the same secular rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. America's belief in equality with respect to treatment of homosexuals, specifically their right to marry is, and has been changing. A plurality now support gay marriage.
POLITICO - A plurality of Americans supports gay marriage.
A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll found 40 percent of those surveyed said that same-sex couples should be able to be legally married. Thirty percent thought same-sex couples should be able to enter into civil unions but not be allowed to get married. And 24 percent said they should not be allowed to have any type of legal union.
The poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted Dec. 2-6, just before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Friday announcement that the justices will consider two same-sex marriage cases. The full poll results will be released Monday.
One in five surveyed admitted to changing their view on same-sex marriage in the last few years, as President Barack Obama said he did earlier this year.
Nearly half, 48 percent, approved of Obama’s handling of the gay marriage issue. Seventy-one percent of Democrats approve, and 65 percent of Republicans disapproved. Independents approved the president’s handling by a 16-percentage-point margin, 50 percent to 34 percent.
The generational gap on the gay marriage question persists. Younger people, who tend to view this as a civil rights issue, overwhelmingly supported gay marriage. A full 63 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds backed marriage, and only 14 percent wanted no legal unions for gay couples. It dropped off to 36 percent support among both 30-to-44-year-olds and 45-to-59-year-olds.
Only three in 10 seniors supported gay marriage. Another three in 10 supported civil unions. And 28 percent wanted no legal unions.
Predictably, the country divided along political party lines. Among Republicans, 40 supported percent civil unions and 37 percent didn’t support any legal unions. Just 17 percent of the GOP accepted legal marriage. Among Democrats, 60 percent supported legal marriage and 19 percent backed civil unions. This left 16 percent opposing legal recognition.
Self-identified independents tracked with the electorate overall: 42 percent supported legal marriage, 32 percent preferred civil unions and 18 percent wanted no unions.
Just over half of those who attend church infrequently supported gay marriage. Only 18 percent of those who attend services at least once a week did.
Roman Catholics are significantly more supportive of full marriage for gays, 42 percent, than Baptists and evangelicals, 18 percent. Among mainline Protestants, 35 percent supported gay marriage, 31 backed civil unions and 27 percent wanted no recognition. {Read More}
And so, once again we see the concept of individual rights and the application of equality under the secular laws of the United States of America being resisted by the Socon Evangelicals that would have all live by their interpretation of the scriptures. One can not help but wonder from where our greatest threat to liberty lies. Is there any difference between this and Muslim Theocracy? Just asking...
Via: Memeorandum
So then, why do unmarried straight couples not get the same treatment? Then, why can ANY pair or group of friends or relatives not get the same treatment? Furthermore, if men can marry men, and women marry women, what excuse do we have to disallow polygamy? Or beasteality? Once that line is crossed, there's no justifiable place remaining to place ANY line!
ReplyDeleteWhy wait til a majority accepts?
ReplyDeleteWe forced a war to to ensure Constitutional rights (end slavery).
Where is the protection for the minority?
"...what excuse do we have to disallow polygamy?"
ReplyDeleteIf consenting adults wish to enter into a polgamous relationship, the government should not impose restrictions. IMHO.
"...Or beasteality?"
Beasts cannot give consent. The extremists on the right seem not to be able to grasp that basic concept. Nor should brothers and sisters marry, since that would create a genetic catastrophe.
TWo or more consenting adults should be able to enter into a relationship, which would have no impact on anyone else's life.
It's that simple.
BTW, polygamist relationships are in the Bible. Why should anyone care if women want two or more husbands [polyandry] or men want two or more wives?
Once that line is crossed, there's no justifiable place remaining to place ANY line!
Well, okay then. Since it seems the almost majority of Americans support this 'gay marriage' thing, then let's just go ahead and allow it with roses and cake. We can even make sure government money goes to it in some fashion, since homosexuals should be a protected minority, like blacks, and their plight is completely the same as the civil rights movements of the 60's. I mean, since people are born black and can't change this, and people are born homosexual and can't change it, then blacks and homosexuals are in the same category, right?
ReplyDeleteDB, Jr.: "Well, okay then. Since it seems the almost majority of Americans support this 'gay marriage' thing, then let's just go ahead and allow it with roses and cake."
ReplyDeleteI agree. The only difference is that I refer to this "gay marriage thing" as "marriage equality."
DB,Jr., "We can even make sure government money goes to it in some fashion, since homosexuals should be a protected minority..."
Why government money? No one is asking for that. What people want is equal protection under the law, a Constitutional guarantee. It is our Constitution that protects our citizens, not government money.
DB, Jr.: "...like blacks, and their plight is completely the same as the civil rights movements of the 60's."
Not completely. The LGBT community did not have their right to vote impeded, but that community was often discriminated against--even to the point where they had to, while serving their country--lie about who they were. And sometimes, like our African-American citizens, they were brutally murdered because of who they are.
DB,Jr.: "I mean, since people are born black and can't change this, and people are born homosexual and can't change it, then blacks and homosexuals are in the same category, right?"
I don't get the "...and can't change this.." part of your comment. Why on earth should they WANT to change who they are. You were born, I presume, white and heterosexual, and can't change it, can you? Would you want to? And if not; why not?
It seems to me your comment implies that somehow African-Americans and homosexuals would, in a perfect world, need to change to the community you inhabit, white and hetero. No American who lives under our Constitution should EVER feel they are less deserving of respect and inclusion than their neighbor because of the color of their skin or their sexuality.
That's the meaning of "liberty and justice FOR ALL."
A number of people are angry about the fact that we Americans have come around to accepting homosexuals as equals among us. IMO, religion is to blame for much of this attitude.
Shaw,
ReplyDeleteHomosexuals feel they are being denied rights that heteros have, meaning financial/insurance/tax status benefits. This is what I meant about government monies.
The leftist talking heads have compared the homosexual movement to the civil rights movement of the 60's regarding blacks. I am merely parroting their mindset.
I was born caucasian, true. Aside from chemical darkening/cosmetic surgical efforts, I cannot change my skin color easily. But I choose to be heterosexual, mainly because I quite enjoy my wife's body as God made it. (Hubba-hubba.) If I decided to, I could easily choose to be homosexual, since an orgasm with a guy would feel the same as with a female. I choose heterosexuality as my sexual preference for sexual gratification.
Please notice how your ire was provoked since you believed I was seeking to align black people with homosexuals, in regards to 'rights', but the left has been preaching this and you seem unaware of it. Yes, I have links for you to peruse, since I want you to see what I see.
---------------------------------
**Kenyon Farrow says: “The people that are working in gay organizations say that the same people who don’t want us to get married are the same people who sent Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. They have zero to none practical experience working on racial justice movements. To me the problem is that they aren’t actually interested in racial justice and they’re only interested in using the narrative of the civil rights movement. The comparison is not right because there are different sets of issues.”
http://www.blackenterprise.com/lifestyle/gay-rights-is-a-civil-rights-issue/2/
**http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/naacp-backs-same-sex-marriage/
**http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/black-pastors-group-launches-anti-obama-campaign-around-gay-marriage/
In a fiery Tuesday press conference at the press club, Owens said Obama was taking the black vote for granted and decried the idea of similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, an assertion made by the NAACP following Obama’s same-sex marriage support.
**http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/12/14/are-gay-rights-civil-rights.html
------------------------------------
For me to say to you, 'Shaw, I am simply not convinced that homosexuals and blacks have the same dynamic as far as civil rights go', is not me saying I hate blacks or homosexuals. It is merely an observation based on the talking points of the liberals, seeking to drum up emotional dregs.
I hope these comments of mine shed some light onto my thinking and how many other Conservatives think about homosexuality as a protected minority. Thanks for reading.
@Shaw,
ReplyDeleteI forgot to add this, sorry.
You believe that religion has much of the blame to shoulder for Americans not being happy with homosexuality in America. By this you mean Christianity, not just religion, for many religions are ambivalent to homosexuality.
Have you considered a more secular humanist approach to this displeasure of homosexuality? I mean, taking God out of the issue, homosexuality cannot procreate naturally. Sure, lesbians can be injected with sperm and so forth and possibly have babies, but at first glance, homosexuality does not propel our species forward. It actually stagnates it. Perhaps people dislike homosexuality because they don't want to see us cease to be, simply from a biological standpoint. Maybe it is some sort of 'survival instinct' kicking in. *shrugs* Would a strictly homosexual community be able to thrive and grow without scientific means to procreate? Or would it dwindle away?
What are your thoughts on a humanist approach to homosexuality based on the criteria I presented here?
ReplyDeleteDB, Jr.: "I was born caucasian, true. Aside from chemical darkening/cosmetic surgical efforts, I cannot change my skin color easily. But I choose to be heterosexual, mainly because I quite enjoy my wife's body as God made it. (Hubba-hubba.) If I decided to, I could easily choose to be homosexual, since an orgasm with a guy would feel the same as with a female. I choose heterosexuality as my sexual preference for sexual gratification."
I don't agree. I do not believe anyone chooses to be heterosexual or homosexual. In fact, if homosexuality were a choice, why would homosexuals, before our more enlightened present era, have "chosen" a sexuality that would have brought them disgrace, disgust and rejection by their families, friends, and religion or put them in prison and even given death sentences in some instances? Who on earth would "choose" pariahs in their community, forced to hide from their family and friends who they really are? No one. You didn't choose your sexuality; you were born with it. When two people share sex, it isn't just for orgiastic gratification they also express a deep and satisfying love for each other.
**Kenyon Farrow says: “The people that are working in gay organizations say that the same people who don’t want us to get married are the same people who sent Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. They have zero to none practical experience working on racial justice movements. To me the problem is that they aren’t actually interested in racial justice and they’re only interested in using the narrative of the civil rights movement. The comparison is not right because there are different sets of issues.”
The LGBT community are working toward equal protection, a Constitutionally guaranteed right. In that sense, they ARE working for civil rights. Perhaps we should look at Loving v. Virginia as a comparison, since it was illegal in many states in this country for interracial marriage. And many religions worked against tearing down the barriers to it.
DB, Jr.: "I forgot to add this, sorry.
ReplyDeleteYou believe that religion has much of the blame to shoulder for Americans not being happy with homosexuality in America. By this you mean Christianity, not just religion, for many religions are ambivalent to homosexuality."
I don't single out Christianity for its prohibition against homosexuality. Most main-stream orthodox religions do. But we now have Christian and Jewish reformed churches that welcome gay congregants into their communities and marry them as well. So there has been some improvement for gays who also wish to practice a religion.
DB,Jr.: "...taking God out of the issue, homosexuality cannot procreate naturally."
Neither can a lot of heteros.
DB, Jr.: "Sure, lesbians can be injected with sperm and so forth and possibly have babies, but at first glance, homosexuality does not propel our species forward. It actually stagnates it."
Not "possibly" have babies, ACTUALLY have babies. Our former vice president, Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter has had two babies with her partner. Aside from that, homosexual couples, male and female, manage to procreate in many ways that are available to them AS WELL AS heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce naturally, or where the husband or the wife cannot produce eggs or sperm. Modern medical science has made this a moot point.
DB,Jr.: "Perhaps people dislike homosexuality because they don't want to see us cease to be, simply from a biological standpoint. Maybe it is some sort of 'survival instinct' kicking in. *shrugs* Would a strictly homosexual community be able to thrive and grow without scientific means to procreate? Or would it dwindle away?"
With Earth's 7+ billion population, there is no danger whatsoever of "ceasing to be," and that's not an excuse to dislike anyone. Lots of heteros choose not to have children or can't have children, and people don't dislike them for their inability to contribute to the 7 billion people worldwide. In fact, some of us think they are doing the Earth a favor. Many people die of starvation every day because our human ability to feed people in heavily populated parts of the world is wanting. We lucky few hundred million here in the US don't worry about such things, but half the world goes to bed hungry.
@Shaw,
DeleteI am impressed that you have actually been responding to my questions and comments without getting ugly. I appreciate it. I will use the tried and true copy/paste method to dig in deeper with you regarding this conversation.
-----------------------------
***DB,Jr.: "...taking God out of the issue, homosexuality cannot procreate naturally."
***Neither can a lot of heteros.
Yes, true, but I have yet to see a woman on woman sexual encounter produce a pregnancy or a man on man sexual encounter produce a pregnancy. This is what I meant when I said 'naturally'. Men and women fit together perfectly in a sexual way, and have the appropriate equipment and plumbing, when combined, to create life. Homosexuals, using homosexual sex, simply cannot. I fail to see how you responding with "Neither can a lot of heteros" makes a point, as if being incapable of procreation as heterosexuals validates homosexuality not being able to procreate.
-----
***DB, Jr.: "Sure, lesbians can be injected with sperm and so forth and possibly have babies, but at first glance, homosexuality does not propel our species forward. It actually stagnates it."
***Not "possibly" have babies, ACTUALLY have babies. Our former vice president, Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter has had two babies with her partner. Aside from that, homosexual couples, male and female, manage to procreate in many ways that are available to them AS WELL AS heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce naturally, or where the husband or the wife cannot produce eggs or sperm. Modern medical science has made this a moot point.
But without science's intervention, then, homosexuals cannot produce life. It is physically impossible to do so naturally. Hence, homosexuality, left to its own limitations, would stagnate our "species".
-----
***DB,Jr.: "Perhaps people dislike homosexuality because they don't want to see us cease to be, simply from a biological standpoint. Maybe it is some sort of 'survival instinct' kicking in. *shrugs* Would a strictly homosexual community be able to thrive and grow without scientific means to procreate? Or would it dwindle away?"
***With Earth's 7+ billion population, there is no danger whatsoever of "ceasing to be," and that's not an excuse to dislike anyone. Lots of heteros choose not to have children or can't have children, and people don't dislike them for their inability to contribute to the 7 billion people worldwide. In fact, some of us think they are doing the Earth a favor. Many people die of starvation every day because our human ability to feed people in heavily populated parts of the world is wanting. We lucky few hundred million here in the US don't worry about such things, but half the world goes to bed hungry.
Ouch, Shaw. Your sermonizing on Zero Population Growth is mildly creepy. I can see your pro-abortion face peeking through. It's easier to limit human expansion due to over-crowding and starvation, through abortion (and please don't tell me this isn't one of your solutions) and praising homosexuality since it, by virtue of its inability to reproduce naturally, cannot bring more humans onto our planet. This breaks my heart to even consider such a horror, and how casually you would pursue it. Bu, *shrugs*, you are you and I am me and that's how it is.
((I would slightly get off-topic here and say that America produces a surplus of wheat and corn which could easily be sent to urban areas of our Nation AND to third world nations in the world that need food. I haven't been able to figure out why this isn't happening. But I digress.))
Anyhoos, thanks for your responses and courteous tone. The brutal truth is that we will not see eye-to-eye on homosexuality. I would welcome any further dialogue you have on this topic, but then again, is it necessary? Perhaps it has been exhausted. Your call. I'm easy.
"But without science's intervention, then, homosexuals cannot produce life. It is physically impossible to do so naturally. Hence, homosexuality, left to its own limitations, would stagnate our "species".
DeleteThere is no danger in our species becoming stagnate, since a majority of humans are heterosexual. Homosexuality is a natural human condition, since it has been part of humanity forever. It is therefore a minority sexual preference, the majority being heteros. And now with reproductive advancements in medicine, both hetero and homo couples can reproduce. Whether or not a couple can produce offspring has no bearing on any couple's, hetero or homo, ability to marry each other, so long as both give their free consent.
I think you also miss the point when you talk about how men and women naturally "fit together" and, therefore, that is the only way sexual activity is natural. Again, I say that since men and women are themselves "natural" beings, the way they consent to give pleasure to each other is "natural." And most important, none of these choices should have any bearing on anyone's Constitutional guarantees.
I will never understand why the major religions of the world stigmatized natural homosexuality. Perhaps the attitude was handed down to religious humans from an age that had little understanding about human beings and their sexuality. Perhaps thousands of years ago people did fear that there wouldn't be enough people to continue the human race. That's certainly not true now.
In any event, I would hope you understand that marriage for the LGBT community will not produce a drop of injury to heterosexual couples.
@Shaw,
DeleteYou mention "natural homosexuality" several times. Allow me to ask this, then.
If indeed we are no more than an evolved species of intelligent animals, sans any kind of Intelligent Design, and we have developed through the years into what we are today, how does 'natural homosexuality' factor into this? I mean, and bear with me here, if we are just here to eat, fight, reproduce, and interact, how does homosexuality promote reproduction? As mere animals, wouldn't the survival of our species be paramount, and if there are members of our genus who refuse to reproduce due to homosexuality, that homosexuality would be viewed as an anomaly, or a defect?
Consider, say, monkeys. They mate and reproduce. They even eat their young or abandon them if there is some kind of birth defect detected. The species must survive, and monkeys have no tolerance apparently for making accommodations for less than the strong to survive.
So if we're animals, (the evolved monkeys), why would we wish to entertain or allow homosexuality? Our survival instinct would be to eliminate such abnormalities.
Just a thought. What say you?
Interesting research going on right now in this area. You may want to read what it is about.
ReplyDeleteIndeed a very interesting article. I'm certain as time and research progresses forward answers will be found to explain and answers questions as to how and why homosexuality has remained.
DeleteThanks for sharing this Shaw, although I suspect the socons won't bother to read and understand the implications of the article.