Skip to comments.Over Time, a Gay Marriage Groundswell (NYT Uses Its Crystal Ball)
Posted on 08/27/2010 8:57:30 AM PDT by zort
Gay marriage is not going away as a highly emotional, contested issue. Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage, has seen to that, as it winds its way through the federal courts.
But perhaps the public has reached a turning point.
A CNN poll this month found that a narrow majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage--the first poll to find majority support. Other poll results did not go that far, but still, on average, showed that support for gay marriage had risen to 45 percent or more (with the rest either opposed or undecided).
Thats a big change from 1996, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. At that time, only 25 percent of Americans said that gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, according to an average of national polls....
According to our research, as recently as 2004, same-sex marriage did not have majority support in any state. By 2008, three states had crossed the 50 percent line.*
Today, 17 states are over that line (more if you consider the CNN estimate correct that just over 50 percent of the country supports gay marriage)....
This trend will continue. Nationally, a majority of people under age 30 support same-sex marriage. And this is not because of overwhelming majorities found in more liberal states that skew the national picture: our research shows that a majority of young people in almost every state support it. As new voters come of age, and as their older counterparts exit the voting pool, its likely that support will increase, pushing more states over the halfway mark.
State figures are based on a statistical technique has been used to generate state estimates from national polls....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Also, I was amused by this comment:
As new voters come of age, and as their older counterparts exit the voting poolLOL -- older voters don't exit the voting pool... they stick with the Democratic Party forever. ;-)
“Gay marriage is not going away as a highly emotional, contested issue”
When has the NYet Times ever led off an article about protecting unborn children with a sentence like this?
I don’t care if 99.999% of the people support gay marriage. I don’t, won’t and never will...
And as more red diaper doper babies are edumacated through public schools, oppositition to Communism, Socialism, and the decline of America’s standard of living also wanes.
How about if their polls showed 103% support for it?
NYT should start with a poll of their reporters and editors—and publish it.
The poll was BS when first published, and it is still BS.
From where I sit there is only a small hard-core minority of gay activists who are really FOR gay marriage.
The rest of the population is divided between those who are adamantly opposed, and those (mainly younger people) who seem indifferent on the subject.
1) gays will get married
2) the gay divorce rate will be 4 times that of straight couples
3) the primary cause of the high divorce rate in gays will be ‘adultery’-—read about the very promiscuous lifestyle of the homosexual community.
4) lawyers will make a killing on the high divorce rate(what else is new)
5) gays will blame the high divorce rate on ‘nonacceptance prejudice’ from straights and demand new laws
6) NAMBLA will push for lowering the age of consent
7) Blacks and Hispanics will be the greatest opposition to gay marriage YET STILL vote democrat
And in addition to what you mention, we will see the same legal arguments for same-sex marriage (i.e. consenting adults in relationships want equal rights, etc. ) will be used to justify polygamy and group marriage. Limiting the number of people in a marriage to two will be said by judges to be as discriminatory as limiting marriage to opposite sex partners. The seeds for this are being planted now.
Yep. I say this all the time, but no one gets it. This is why homosexual marriage is inevitable. Without support from blacks and Latinos in 2008, Prop 8 would have failed. Exit polls in other states in 2004 showed a similar dynamic - heavy support for traditional marriage from minorities. Those same blacks and Latinos then voted for politicians who either pass homosexual-friendly legislation, or nominate and confirm homosexual-friendly judges.
On NAMBLA, it's never going to happen. First, consent laws are set by the state, not the FedGov. Second, the sickos in NAMBLA don't want to have sex with teenagers, they want to have sex with children - they're pedophiles. That is never going to happen. For a lot of different reasons, the age of consent is never going to be lower than 15 or 16 (for sex between a minor and adult). It is lower is some states for sex between two minors.
You mean like the Equal Rights Amendment?
Wasn’t that also inevitable?
20 years ago they were saying that about homosexual "marriage". Now you're throwing in the towel and being a defeatist, calling it inevitable. 20 years from now, another defeatist may be saying the same about NAMBLA.
Give an inch and they'll take a mile.
No, it won't. Why? Because in addition to social conservatives not wanting to lower the age of consent, militant feminists don't either. They believe that sex between a grown man and a teenage girl is rape. NAMBLA has no friends on the left, nor right.
I'm not a "defeatist". I'm a realist. I'm smart enough to understand practical realities, demographics, law, and the legislative process. Prohibitions on homosexual marriage will be struck by the Court, probably within the next five years, and there isn't the political will to pass a constitutional amendment. If you think there is, you don't have any idea how constitutional amendments are passed.
“Give an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
Ah, the slippery slope. Unfortunately, this is a battle thats been going for a reasonable amount of time. But the problem is related to desensitization, which means that people get used to it and stop caring about it and more significantly stop opposing it. So disappointing as it may seem (and it really is) this does seem inevitable.
I’d wait for a few more polls to confirm or deny any given result.
The phrase “Mr. and Mr.” will never be uttered by me.
Yup. We won on abortion, didn't we. We were ASSURED that it was ONLY in the case of incest, rape and the life of the mother. It would NEVER be used as birth control.
militant feminists don't either.
You mean those women that are all over islam for women's rights?
They believe that sex between a grown man and a teenage girl is rape.
They back what is politically expedient at the moment.
I'm not a "defeatist". I'm a realist.
You're also not a conservative.
I agree - as perverse as the idea of legalized gay marriage undoubtedly is, it still is a choice of consenting adults and affects how the Courts would see it. NAMBLA is an impossibility at every level that I can think of and conflating gay-marriage with it is absurd.
That attitude isn't popular on FR. This is not just a forum. It is a grassroots activist site. If you won't fight, get out of the way.
“You’re not a conservative” is not an insult.
True -- that argument is the equivalent of equating minor rollbacks in the welfare state with throwing Grandma out to starve.
That's your opinion. It's not mine.
When someone is called "not a conservative", when speaking on a conservative forum, it is plainly insulting.
Do you think it was a compliment? It was an attempt to define me. It was either a flattering definition, or an insulting definition. I'm sorry you aren't able to discern that.
Just a statement, that’s all.
You’d have to be incredibly thin skinned to feel insulted by that.
Frank Bruni swears he fell on it in the shower.
Statements aren't necessarily made in a vacuum - absent any prior history. Just saying.
Again, you’d have to be INCREDIBLY thin skinned to be insulted by that.
I dunno — basically, it’s an accusation that “you don’t belong here”.
Sorry, it’s not an insult.
Neither is telling someone they’re thin skinned.
Oh, and “Welcome to FR.”
You'd have to be a pretty unintelligent person to think that this was our first exchange.
You don't think that, do you? And, you'd have to be pretty thin-skinned if you think being called unintelligent is insulting - it's just a statement, right?
See how this works.
Saying someone is not a conservative on a conservative website, isn't flattering and it's not a term of endearment. Insults are either bad for everyone, or they're bad for no one. It can't be something in the middle.
You’d have to be INCREDIBLY THIN SKINNED to be insulted by that.
And you would have to be INCREDIBLY OBTUSE to think that.
You can call me names, and I can call you names. It isn't that complicated, to anyone who isn't INCREDIBLY OBTUSE.
I can be just as argumentative as you seem to want to be. In fact, I enjoy it.
Still doesn’t change the fact that you would have to be incredibly thin skinned to be insulted by a statement.
You can wiggle, squirm, and try to best Lawrence Taylor’s football field footwork all you want, doesn’t change the fact that you’d have to be incredibly thin skinned to be insulted by “You’re not a conservative”.
>In fact, I enjoy it.
No, you don’t.
Is exactly the argument someone would make who was incredibly obtuse. You’ve got that down. You should look for a publisher. Your first book is going to be a blockbuster.
For someone who is so hurt over the words “You’re not a conservative”, you sure like to try to dish it out.
So why try?
Being that thin skinned means you’re only going to be MORE hurt afterwards.
I dont care if 99.999% of the people support gay marriage. I dont, wont and never will...”
This poll is suspect:
WHOM they ack questions, as well as exactly HOW the question is phrased is key.
If I ask 500 horse owners if they like horses, I have totally skewed the poll.
Is the conclusion someone would come to if they were obtuse.
You think I'm thin-skinned and I think you're obtuse. I believe that has been established. Do you have anything additional to add to the dialogue, other than my alleged thin-skinnedness?
Some people do enjoy being abusive.
Thanks for steering the thread back on course.
Abuse in gay marriage? NO!!!
And after the groundswell, the rip tide of divorce.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Oookay, so the NYT, which a very few years ago had at least 75% of its staff admitted homosexuals, is now Nostradamos? Predicts the future in favor of "Perversion Wins"? Anyone who places any credence in this propaganda is either a spineless, gutless coward eunuch, or on their side. Trying to instill defeatism in others is a nasty coward's way of fighting. I see a lot of it lately on FR.
If a person actually has conservative principles but is constantly telling others stuff like "It's over, it's hopeless, they'll win, get used to it" - they're as bad as that coward in "Saving Private Ryan" who refused to deliver the ammo and caused so many deaths. Cowards can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.
And those who are not the cowards with supposed principles are just regular leftists (aka "pragmatists" and "realists" - btw, so well described in Screwtape and "That Hideous Strength") who want to instill fear and defeatism in conservatives so their side can win.
It's that simple. Read my tagline by C.S.Lewis. He was right.
There was another thread yesterday about a lesbian that killed another woman over her ex. I didn’t get if it was a love triangle but it does show the emotional instability of homosexual relationships. Homosexuals are emotionally unstable. I have a brother that is “gay”. I spent time with him and his friends. They are emotional children.
I agree. FR is not just a forum. It is an activist site. Part of it's purpose is to counteract the left's message. Those that give in to defeatism and call it reality are counterproductive and aiding the left's agenda. FR's message should be "fight or shut up".
You’re both wrong, of course. NAMBLA used to march in “Gay Pride parades until the organizers realized it made bad propaganda.
Plus, eliminating - no lowering, but eliminating - all (as in “ALL”) age of consent laws was on the original platform of “gay” rights, but they had to soften that up (for now). It’s their goal, though.
So you are both 100% wrong. Not surprising, though.
It’s not that he’s insulted; it’s just that he isn’t a conservative, knows it, and doesn’t want to be totally outed and banned.