Posted on 07/27/2007 3:04:40 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, July 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new survey by the Pew Research Center (PRC) shows that the number of people who accept same-sex "marriage" remains a minority within the United States.
Entitled "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007," the study conducted telephone interviews with 2,007 adults, aged 18 years or older, across the nation from December 12, 2006 through January 9, 2007. The report investigated a variety of questions relating to religion, government, civil liberties, and political-ethical issues such as abortion and same-sex "marriage".
Regarding the question of homosexual "marriage", the study found that 55% of Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" whereas only 37% are in favor of it.
The report notes that these numbers have fluxed somewhat in the past few years but returned to almost exactly the same as in 2001. Support for homosexual "marriage" reached a high of 38% in July 2003, but after falling to 29% in August 2004, it rose to the present 37%.
According to the survey, three main groups support homosexual "marriage." 72% of Liberal Democrats and 60% of "secular individuals" support gay "marriage." 56% of young people between the ages of 18 and 29 are supportive.
Democrats as a whole are divided with 49% in support and 43% opposed.
Among Republicans, on the other hand, 75% are opposed, 51% strongly opposed and only 20% in support.
At the same time, however, the study states that public acceptance of those who are openly homosexual has significant increased in the past twenty years. For example, only 28% agree that a school board should be able to fire openly homosexual teachers whereas 66% disagree. In contrast, 51% percent agreed to the School Board's right in 1987.
The definition of marriage has varied from country to country, but whether or not two men or two women can be "married" has become a major worldwide issue. A July 11 article by Hope Lozano-Bielat and David Masci of the Pew Research Center notes that in the European Union, 49% of people oppose same-sex 'marriage' while 44% support it. Nevertheless, many countries have widely varying views. In Holland, for example, the first country to legalize same-sex "marriage", 82% of adults are in favor of it. Only 17% support it in Poland, a country where same-sex "marriage" remains illegal.
Legal rights for homosexual couples were first made available in the Scandinavian countries Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland during the late eighties and early nineties. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize homosexual "marriage" as such in 2000. Since then, gay "marriage" has been legalized in Belgium in 2003, Spain in 2005, Canada in 2005 and South Africa in 2006.
In the United States Massachusetts is the only State that performs same-sex "marriage" although Connecticut, New Jersey and Vermont (and New Hampshire next year) recognize civil unions.
Read the original Pew Research Center report:
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf
Hope Lozano-Bielat and David Masci article on Same-Sex Marriage around the World:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=235
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I am STILL opposed to gay marriage.
No need to answer that, just answer this: What were the results for the same questions in Rome, just prior to its fall?
I’m still opposed to gay marriage. It is far too loaded a gun to allow them access to marriage while the ultimate agenda of the gay movement is the secularization of church property, and the forced access of gay couples to churches that don’t recognize their alleged “right to marry”.
I am not, however, opposed to civil unions or the universal recognition of civil unions by all the states under the full faith and credit clause. I think if two people, regardless of genders, who are consenting adults, want to tie their financial and legal lives together, who am I to stand opposed? I may be inclined to think that such relationships are more prone to failure than heterosexual relationships, but it isn’t my money or my legal affairs being affected in such a case.
So, civil unions okay, marriage not.
Elizabeth Edwards told a prominent gay rights group that her husband would help repeal more than a thousand laws that discriminate against same-sex couples. “In many ways, John and I are like a same-sex couple,” she said. “So, we think we know how you feel.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Majority of Americans opposed to making the sun rise in the west and to making the value of pi equal to precisely three.
I want to be happy and to do that, I need to marry my dog (for tax purposes - I need another dependent) in addition to my wife. Where’s the social justice?
civil unions are just a trojan horse and a scam.
civil unions ARE marriage.
civil union is just another legal term of art FOR MARRIAGE UNDER THE LAW.
Don’t be fooled.
Homosexuals have a behivior which is based on a sexual fetish. ANYTHING done via civil/marriage unions is just a manipulation to sanction the sexual behavior of a man playing with another mans genitials (and vice versa for two females).
Society has absolutly no reason whatsoever to sanction such sexual recreation. Homosexuality contributes NOTHING to society. ZERO. Society rewards the institution not the individual. Homosexual are only concerned with individual orgasm recreation, not the benefit of society.
“civil union is just another legal term of art FOR MARRIAGE UNDER THE LAW.”
No, they’re civil unions. Which is what they ought to be. Marriage is a religious thing. Taxes and inheritance are a civil thing and there’s no reason gays shouldn’t have access to them just like straights do.
That said, yeah, I oppose gay marriage too. It’s the word that gives me pause — marriage isn’t same-sex. Not the way the word is used, in English, which is what I speak.
Ditto.........I’m still opposed to
QUEER UNIONS OF PERVERTS !
Probably the most important single tactic that I have learned about arguing against homosexuality is: “I don’t have to convince you, you have to convince me”. Once you stake out this position, the majority of the argument consists of not letting them turn the argument around. They will always try to put you into a position of trying to convince them. They will say it’s a right, and they will say it’s not fair, and that the current situation is unjust. These are not arguments, these are just positions. Statements designed to turn the argument around, and try to put you into the position of convincing them. Don’t fall for this sneaky trick, don’t let yourself get baited into the position trying to convince them. Then you’ve lost.
legally you are 100% wrong.
The strategy promulgated at various bar conventions is to simply make a civil union a marriage in all but the m word.
In addition under the law when you are married it is set up as a “civil union.”
You are just dancing around facts. Having actually attended the bar conferences and hear these lawyers speak with their own words, you view is merely self delusion or simply naive at best.
There is no reason, NONE, to give societal sanction because of a method of sexual release. Just because a homosexual squirts an orgasm with another homosexual is absolutly no reason to give them anything akin, similar, or comparative to the impramatur of marriage whether you use the word marriage or a synonym to fool the legally stupid.
“Remain Apposed”. Like we are going to go nuts and change our minds???
Can you point out a single law in any state that prohibits any person from inheriting under a will?
Or is a potential trust beneficiary?
These laws don’t exist, a couple hundred years ago some states had laws about a man willing property to his wife or daughter, but those are long gone.
Now, the leftists might be referring to being able to gift a spouse money free from estate taxes, but there is a very simple solution for that that benefits a whole lot more people than a handful of wealthy homosexuals.
“legally you are 100% wrong.”
No, actually, I’m 100% right.
That’s the beauty of civil unions. They fix the problem. They let the gays have their hospital visits and tax stuff and inheritance stuff and maybe everyone can forget about the whole issue.
And we won’t have to read about what sort of “squirting” people do in their own homes. You’ve got issues, man.
“So, civil unions okay, marriage not.”
The problems is that activists will not be satisfied with civil unions. The gay rights movement is not lead by moderate people. I quoted Michelangelo Signorile on a recent post. Writing in “out” magazine in Dec./Jan. 1993/94, he advocated “fight(ing) for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefin(ing) the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk of myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake - and one that would perhaps benefit all of society - is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.”
I know. Homosexuals probably would've had civil unions by now if the activists weren't so intent on "marriage". The primary reason they want "marriage" is so that they can use it to attack religious freedom from government regulation.
I've also noticed the most vocal and rabid of the so-called activists tend to be straight, anti-Christian, pro-abortion, liberals/communists who could care less whether or not homosexuals ever receive some kind of consideration under the law for their sexual preference. In point of fact, their entire agenda seems to be to promote the worst stereotypes of homosexuals by rubbing the rest of our faces in their blatant displays, exhibitionism, and vulgarity. Attributes most rational and decent people find offensive regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants. This seemingly contradictory agenda is directly opposed to integration of homosexuals into our society as normal human beings, and is intent on parading them about as if they are all mentally ill, inbred, distant cousins.
Now, having seen, met, and spoken to a number of gay people, I have enough perspective to realize that such parades represent a small, liberal faction of the gay community, but they, unfortunately speak for the majority. Most of whom probably exist somewhere within your social circles, living their lives privately and quietly, doing their jobs, and staying out of the lime light. As for those activists, well - they're nothing more than a bunch of hypocritical hate mongers who intend on stirring up as much reaction against them as possible, in order to have something to point at.
No, I agree you're right. The activists have no interest in civil unions. Civil unions don't give them what they want, which is a fight over the legitimacy of the Constitutional right to freedom of worship. For those activists, that's right up there with their belief that the right to bear arms is also wrong. Ironically, for a bunch of people who don't believe in absolutism or morality, they sure have some very definite and very queer ideas about things that are "right" and things that are "wrong". In fact, if they were to be completely honest about their positions and beliefs, they'd have to admit that they have established an entire religion around their allegedly secular politics, complete with tenets of their faith, and a requirement that its members conform to such tenets, but that many things must be accepted on the basis that there is a consensus that it must be true, regardless of facts.
Oddly enough, these activists even have tax exemptions for their organizations. They hold weekly meetings, if not more often. They collect tithes. They have tele-evangelists. They proclaim to help the poor, and to care for the weak and innocent. They have their fanatics. They even have theologians, who publish articles and books on the philosophical and spiritual questions surrounding their tenets. And last but not least, they have conferences, ministers, and gurus. Why, they've even declared a Crusade on the Right, to reclaim their Holy City of Washington D.C. and restore their Temple (The White House), to its proper inhabitants, be it their High Priestess, or the upstart from Illinois.
If that doesn't sound like organized religion to me... Well, I'm sure they'll get around to publishing a Holy Book. As of yet, they have yet to hold their Council of Nicenea. But even Christianity had to wait until it was supreme in the Roman Empire, before we had ours... But if we remember history, when the Liberal Left finally does get around to it, you can rest assured they'll eat their own heretics alive, if they don't already.
Good news. The MSM makes it seem like the U.S. is similar to Holland which has 82% in favor.
The fact that 37% are in favor of “same sex” marriage is telling. Close your eyes and pretend you’re reading this in 1975. The answer would be 2%.
The incremental social radicals are continuing their slippery slope of cultural rot and change occurs over decades.
“It’s sick out there and getting sicker”.
“The fact that 37% are in favor of “same sex” marriage is telling. Close your eyes and pretend you’re reading this in 1975. The answer would be 2%.”
Actually, it might not be quite as bad as you make it out to be. A Newsweek poll in 1992 found 35% supported gay marriage. In 1994, a Time Magazine poll found 31% in favor. I don’t know about 1975, but it’s not growing quite the way the MSM claims. Rasmussen last year found 68% against gay marriage.
*facepalm*
}:-)4
You seem to be more liberal than some people on this forum.
I don’t think that civil unions would be a good idea because they water down marriage. If a heterosexual couple has a choice between traditional marriage and “marriage lite”, as civil unions have been called, they may opt for the lite version. Two roommates could “marry” for tax benefits. I think that some activists that you have characterized in such an interesting fashion may also back civil unions for this reason.
Some people would object to my argument because they want gay couples to have access to the various benefits granted to married heterosexual couples, but it must be remembered that the government has no compelling interest in granting benefits to adults simply looking after adults without anything coming back to the government (i.e., future citizens, recruits for the military and so forth). This argument is less compelling than it once was what with the availability of sperm banks and invitro fertilization, but the great majority of children will continue to be (re)produced in the old-fashioned way.
The world is not a perfect place. Some gay couples remain together faithfully and some heterosexuals do not, but these exceptions should not blind us to the fact that traditional marriage was set up and supported for the purpose of producing and raising the next generation, and of course our entire future depends on that.
Sure, sure... I must be liberal because I don’t believe on imposing all of my moral beliefs on those of others. Some, yes... but not all.
I don’t believe homosexuals are necessarily bad people or that their having certain legal considerations for inheritance and tax purposes under the law via civil unions is going to destroy our social fabric.
As for marriage and marriage lite, as you call them, civil unions are already available for heterosexuals, and those who are inclined can and do use them. Regardless of whether or not a couple is in a civil union or marriage, dissolving such an arrangement is a hassle and a legal nightmare when it comes to community property. And while I have heard of heterosexuals who have established so-called marriages of convenience, and no doubt some or many homosexuals will avail themselves of such conveniences that would be available under civil unions, I see this as a problem that exists today as a result of things other than homosexuality.
But unless you’ve read all my posts on this subject, you probably don’t know that I’m adamantly opposed to gay marriage. I could care less if homosexuals get civil unions, tax benefits, and inheritance rights. As far as I’m concerned, they’re about to discover the joys of “divorce” court. Talk about unintended consequences. But the activists’ agenda of pushing for nothing short of gay marriage has only one purpose, and that is to force open our churches to performing services for gay couples. That is what the push for gay marriage is all about. However, I don’t consider the court house consecrated ground, and that’s where civil unions are likely to take place, if not out doors, or any other secular location.
Heck, we already have too many taxes, and the so-called tax benefits for couples are a joke when one considers that we’re being overtaxed for what our government supplies already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.