|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 28, 2007 6:58:36 GMT -5
True enough, but to attempt to argue based on what was and not on what is is rather futile.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Jun 28, 2007 7:48:59 GMT -5
Marriage is, as Diana has said, a social institution evident in much -if not the majority-of human history. There appears to have been some kind of "ceremony of union" between couples throughout every kind of society, time and place. There is, however, as Mestima has already pointed out, a difference between the legal element and the religious one.
Religions may voice their negative view regarding same sex unions but it is perfectly within the rights of the state to recognise them and give gay people the same legal rights and benefits deserved by everyone. Europe, Australia, New Zealand and I believe (though I may be wrong) Canada all recognise the difference between a state sanctioned union and one based on the teaching of one religion or another when it comes to gay people marrying.
In Britain, gay people don't get "married" in any legal sense. The word "marriage" is in fact not used in any legislation governing it (although in everyday language people do still say "married"). The term coined is Civil Partnership-which some gay rights groups felt was a cop out but I think was used to placate religious objections by making it clear the state was not forcing an equivalence (within a religious context anyway) between homosexual and heterosexual unions (although again in secular sense the two are treated as equal).
The fact is the Civil Partnerships give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples re boring but necessary things like pensions, inheritance rights, tax benefits, next of kin decisons etc. They are not about forcing religious bodies to marry same sex couples in their holy places against their will. The legislation makes it clear the two are totally separate.
Has America become governed by a Christian Theocracy all of a sudden? No? Then it must recognise the rights of its gay citizens as clearly that are Americans too. "These truths we hold to be self evident, that all men are born equal..." and all that
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 28, 2007 18:12:13 GMT -5
Doug, my main problem with the gay agenda is that it does desire to enter religious bodies -- not to force them to perform illicit marriages but to control them: to prevent them from teaching the same moral lessons which have been taught throughout history.
There is absolutely no reason why the matter cannot be handled the way you describe. But for some reason here in the U.S.A. the idea of civil partnerships is not enough for activists. They want "marriage" with all the rings and bells. And that's something that any God-fearing Christian should never stand by and watch silently. Marriage is a holy institution. It is not -- and was never in the history of this country -- considered to be nothing more than a civil union or a contract without covenant.
Putting laws into effect stating that there is such a thing as "gay marriage" is comparable to putting laws into affect saying that there is such a thing as a Moslem Bible. It's a proposal that is wholly inappropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 28, 2007 18:38:14 GMT -5
Doug, my main problem with the gay agenda is that it does desire to enter religious bodies -- not to force them to perform illicit marriages but to control them: to prevent them from teaching the same moral lessons which have been taught throughout history. Wow. This is simply you being paranoid. Not to mention it is an appeal to history/tradition argument. There is absolutely no reason why the matter cannot be handled the way you describe. But for some reason here in the U.S.A. the idea of civil partnerships is not enough for activists. They want "marriage" with all the rings and bells. And that's something that any God-fearing Christian should never stand by and watch silently. Marriage is a holy institution. It is not -- and was never in the history of this country -- considered to be nothing more than a civil union or a contract without covenant. Please be so kind as to present an example of 'different, but equal' that worked. Putting laws into effect stating that there is such a thing as "gay marriage" is comparable to putting laws into affect saying that there is such a thing as a Moslem Bible. It's a proposal that is wholly inappropriate. I disagree. This is about doing away with the laws that ban same sex marriage. This is about equality. More specifically about same sex couples being equal to opposite sex couples under the law. Shall we rewrite the Constitution to fit YOUR theological agenda: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal (unless they are gay); that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 29, 2007 5:28:04 GMT -5
Wow. This is simply you being paranoid. Not to mention it is an appeal to history/tradition argument. Not so. Are you not aware that there are existing legal battles along these lines? San FranciscoMontanaItalyGreat BritainI could go on, but I'll be late for work... There's nothing equal about homosexual unions. They are completely lacking in the procreative aspect which is inherent to the marriage covenant. Wrong. This is intellectually dishonest. Until the past decade or two there were ZERO laws on any books regarding same sex marriage. You are attempting to re-write history again. Wrong. This is about re-defining "equality" so that it encompasses two things that are not in any way equal: marriage -- which promotes stability in society, provides the appropriate environment required by children in the home, and ensures the continuance of humankind in the way we were created and homosexual union -- which does none of those things, since emphasis is placed on individual sexual preferences and the manufacturing of children rather than on family values Is it your interpretation that the Constitution was meant to cover same sex unions as marriages? If so, why were there not any prior to this century?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 29, 2007 10:37:44 GMT -5
Wow. This is simply you being paranoid. Not to mention it is an appeal to history/tradition argument. Not so. Are you not aware that there are existing legal battles along these lines? San FranciscoMontanaItalyGreat BritainI could go on, but I'll be late for work... Now you are merely attempting to show the exception as the rule. Is this perhaps in preperation of a slippery slope argument? There's nothing equal about homosexual unions. They are completely lacking in the procreative aspect which is inherent to the marriage covenant. This will hold up ONLY if you are going to take the stand that marriage is for procreation. The problem with that stand is that ANY couple who cannot or will not reproduce should not be allowed to get married. That is not the case. Wrong. This is intellectually dishonest. Until the past decade or two there were ZERO laws on any books regarding same sex marriage. You are attempting to re-write history again. I am not rewriting anything. The current "agenda" (as you like to call it) of same sex couples is to be allowed to get married and share the same benefits as a married couple. They have not been allowed. Wrong. This is about re-defining "equality" so that it encompasses two things that are not in any way equal: marriage -- which promotes stability in society, provides the appropriate environment required by children in the home, and ensures the continuance of humankind in the way we were created and homosexual union -- which does none of those things, since emphasis is placed on individual sexual preferences and the manufacturing of children rather than on family values Basing your idea of equality on antiquated information that has since been shown faulty at best and flat out wrong at worst does not help your argument with anyone who bothers to find out just how antiquated it is. Is it your interpretation that the Constitution was meant to cover same sex unions as marriages? If so, why were there not any prior to this century? It is my opinion that unless a legitimate legal argument for the banning of same sex couples is presented, that it is in fact covered by the Constitution. Not any what prior to this century? Same sex marriages? For the same reason there weren't any inter-racial marriages before the law stepped in and allowed it. In fact, if you look it up, you will see the same arguments against inter-racial marriage back then as you see against same sex marriage now. Including the ever popular "marry a dog" defense.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 30, 2007 5:38:36 GMT -5
Now you are merely attempting to show the exception as the rule. Is this perhaps in preperation of a slippery slope argument? I don't agree that it's the exception. It seems to be the rule wherever activists are loudest. Not so. Again you have it backwards. My argument is not that marriage is for procreation. My argument (which also happens to be the Catholic argument) is that the procreative bond is as essential to marriage as is the bond of intimacy. You are correct -- because it is possible for seemingly infertile couples to conceive. God does work miracles -- so long as we operate within the parameters of what we know is moral and right. Which such benefits (other than procreation) cannot be obtained via civil unions? No one has shown any of my information to be faulty or antiquated. In fact, teancum and I are the only ones thus far to post current and relevent facts with supporting documentation. Basing your ideas on this subject on popular media is poor scholarship. It is my opinion that the writers of the Constitution assumed that people would operate within a moral and religious context. I've posted this before, but I do believe these quotes from the founding fathers support my view well: George Washington: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
"..And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."
Noah Webster: "No truth is more evident to any mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."
Benjamin Rush: "The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments... Without religion, I believe learning does much mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
"We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
William Penn: "Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them... Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad... But if men be bad, the government [will] never [be] good."
Thomas Jefferson: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
John Adams: We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion..."
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [/u] SOURCE[/blockquote] Not so. There weren't inter-racial marriages because there was very limited inter-mixing of the races prior to the founding of America. There have always been homosexual interactions. Always. Every society has had to deal with the dynamic of homosexuality. And every civilized society has forbidden it -- until just prior to a fall.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 30, 2007 8:47:26 GMT -5
Gee Diana given the significant problems the History points to, not to mention that homosexuality is greatly disliked by the vast majority of people in this county and goes contrary to the teachings of most religions, not to mention the whole ying yang stuff. I can't see why anyone would not welcome it with open arms and pretend it is the greatest thing sense sliced bread. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 30, 2007 11:53:34 GMT -5
No one has shown any of my information to be faulty or antiquated. In fact, teancum and I are the only ones thus far to post current and relevent facts with supporting documentation. Here is a little list of documentation showing how your information is antiquated wishful thinking: "The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983) "Homosexual Parents," by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley, San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)
Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551 (1983)
Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)
Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior 167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay & Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers' Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44 Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133 (1991)
Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)
Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience: Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)
Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)
"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris & Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)
Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A Constitutional Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego Law Review 799 (1975)
"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law Review (Harvard University Press, 1989)
Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers," in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed. by Gonsiorek & Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)
Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child Custody," 40 Human Organization 6-14 (1981)
Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of Southern Maine, 1992) Please look into the above list before you attempt any more ad hominem. [/u] SOURCE[/blockquote][/quote] oh goody. a quote fest: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Treaty of Tripoli
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." ~Thomas Jefferson in letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." ~Thomas Jefferson in letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law." Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."~Thomas Jefferson in letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' " [U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1] This is the only oath given in the Constitution, and it is entirely secular.
" But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all.
[...]
Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions." ~ Justice Brewer The United States: A Christian Nation [/u], 1905 " Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian, the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776" --Lynn R. Buzzard, Exec Dir of Christian Legal Society, as quoted in "They Haven't Got a Prayer," Elgin IL: David C. Cook, 1982, p. 81 " When we start deceiving ourselves into thinking not that we want something or need something, not that it is a pragmatic necessity for us to have it, but that it is a moral imperative that we have it, then is when we join the fashionable madmen, and then is when the thin whine of hysteria is heard in the land, and then is when we are in bad trouble." ~ Joan Didion[/blockquote] LOL Nice way to leave yourself an 'out'. So any and all societies who have not/did not forbid homosexual behavior is/are merely not civilized? Funny also is your belief that races did not mingle until after the founding of the USA. Gee Diana given the significant problems the History points to, not to mention that homosexuality is greatly disliked by the vast majority of people in this county and goes contrary to the teachings of most religions, not to mention the whole ying yang stuff. I can't see why anyone would not welcome it with open arms and pretend it is the greatest thing sense sliced bread. ;D Significant problems? Please be so kind as to present these alleged 'significant problems.' appeal to numbers { greatly disliked by the vast majority of people in this county} followed by appeal to divinity { goes contrary to the teachings of most religions} though I admit I do not understand how you make homosexuality anti ying-yang.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 30, 2007 13:56:22 GMT -5
I'm not an expert in Eastern philosophy, but I find the balance of opposites to be interesting. In a marriage a man and a woman (two rather opposite beings) learn to get along build on each others strengths help to compensate for the others weakness etc.
It is like putting a round peg in a square hole and making something really cool as a result. Whatever homosexual relationships might be they can't bring together men and women the way a marriage can. This no doubt will be considered to mean nothing by many, but frankly I think it is a vital part of our society.
Oh and BTW numbers and God both matter.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 30, 2007 16:43:00 GMT -5
I'm not an expert in Eastern philosophy, but I find the balance of opposites to be interesting. In a marriage a man and a woman (two rather opposite beings) learn to get along build on each others strengths help to compensate for the others weakness etc. So in your opinion, the opposite of man is woman? It is like putting a round peg in a square hole and making something really cool as a result. Whatever homosexual relationships might be they can't bring together men and women the way a marriage can. This no doubt will be considered to mean nothing by many, but frankly I think it is a vital part of our society. And why does YOUR opinion matter more than those whose opinion differs? Oh and BTW numbers and God both matter. Not in a society where there is needed a legitimate legal reason to make something into law.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 30, 2007 17:18:54 GMT -5
"Not in a society where there is needed a legitimate legal reason to make something into law. "
Are you kidding me. Have you studded any of this nations history. Slavery was kept when this nation was Founded not because of a legitimate legal reason but because a whole lot of people wanted it that way. I have seen very few laws are are a result of legal reason and not the popular whims of people.
Everyone is entailed to their opinion. However in the case of homosexual marriages many run around labeling those who oppose it with a mental disorder.
I've yet to see a logical legal reason for the Federal government to endorse any paraphillias. If you find one (outside of stretching pursuit of happiness as that one could be used to justify mass murder, rape and any number of nasty crimes as well as smaller social ills). Please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 30, 2007 18:34:54 GMT -5
"Not in a society where there is needed a legitimate legal reason to make something into law. " Are you kidding me. Have you studded any of this nations history. Slavery was kept when this nation was Founded not because of a legitimate legal reason but because a whole lot of people wanted it that way. I have seen very few laws are are a result of legal reason and not the popular whims of people. Nice appeal to emotion. I have already shown several cases where the majority did not rule. Here they are again for your review: Abortion Seat belt laws Bush as president (Gore won the popular vote) ten commandments on government property prayer in school Everyone is entailed to their opinion. However in the case of homosexual marriages many run around labeling those who oppose it with a mental disorder. When have I done this? And if I have not why even bring it up? If I have, please present when and where. I've yet to see a logical legal reason for the Federal government to endorse any paraphillias. If you find one (outside of stretching pursuit of happiness as that one could be used to justify mass murder, rape and any number of nasty crimes as well as smaller social ills). Please let me know. Nice. Perhaps you would be so kind as to show just exactly how same sex relationships are paraphilia?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 30, 2007 21:02:13 GMT -5
The selection of President is done in a way that has been endorsed by the majority of people for a long time. It can be changed quite quickly if enough people wanted it to be. All the laws of this nation are subject to change.
Paraphillias are "on the side of" Homosexual relations are only one of many possible sexual practices that are not of any benefit to the State. So why should the state endorse them? This will no doubt bring up the question of marriages where couples don't want to or can't have children. Bottom line it is to fine of a hair to split.
We are not talking about jailing homosexuals or lynch mobs which I would oppose. This is a mater of wither or not the US government is going to endorse something that is both very much contrary to the values and opinion of most of its citizens (to the tone of about 80% not a slight 51%) and as some research has suggested very unhealthy.
I don't know if you have personally gone around calling every person who does not worship at the alter of homosexuality a homophobe, but a large number of persons I've talked to do.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 30, 2007 23:21:49 GMT -5
The selection of President is done in a way that has been endorsed by the majority of people for a long time. It can be changed quite quickly if enough people wanted it to be. All the laws of this nation are subject to change. Really: Among those surveyed, 45% favored scrapping the electoral college, 33% favored continuing to use it, and 22% were undecided or didn‘t offer an opinion. www.ncvotered.com/research_publications/research/2000/11_17_00.htmlParaphillias are "on the side of" Homosexual relations are only one of many possible sexual practices that are not of any benefit to the State. So why should the state endorse them? This will no doubt bring up the question of marriages where couples don't want to or can't have children. Bottom line it is to fine of a hair to split. Seems you have your own definition of the word. paraphilia : a pattern of recurring sexually arousing mental imagery or behavior that involves unusual and especially socially unacceptable sexual practices (as sadism or pedophilia)
mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paraphilia We are not talking about jailing homosexuals or lynch mobs which I would oppose. This is a mater of wither or not the US government is going to endorse something that is both very much contrary to the values and opinion of most of its citizens (to the tone of about 80% not a slight 51%) and as some research has suggested very unhealthy. LOL 80% please present your source for this rather high percentage. Here are my finding for those opposed to same sex marriage according to year: 1996-JUN 65% 2001-MAR 57 2003-JUL 53 2004-FEB 63 2004-AUG 56 2005-JUL 53 2006-MAR 51 www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5.htmI don't know if you have personally gone around calling every person who does not worship at the alter of homosexuality a homophobe, but a large number of persons I've talked to do. Since I have not done so, why even bring it up? A few things of interest from the last link: A bit of perspective: It may be worth noting that a rapid change in the U.S. occurred over a little more than four decades: In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry. 16
In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S. 17
In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time. 17
The change averaged slightly less than 1 percentage point per year.
|
|