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
“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.