Gallup: Record number of people (including Republicans) now support Same-Sex Marriage

I wonder if anybody here has actually read Gorage's book.

You can be sure the Gallup mathematicians are well qualified. Their job is to extrapolate from limited data, something they have been doing well (though imperfectly) for many years. Let us not take MMXX too seriously. He is not, I think, a mathematician.

Strathos said:

Are you trying to say that the Tower of Babel never existed, or just that it wasn't the original source of all of the world's languages?

Click to expand...

It wasn't the original source of all the world's languages.

I have a vague memory of hearing about the remains of a ziggurat type structure(s) in the area of old Babylon. The tower itself may be based on a real building which was incorporated into the Babel myth.

OB

The Tower of Babel is off topic, surely?

[Frankly I don't much care if it existed or not. It is pretty clear that languages have been spoken in every part of the world for thousands of years.]

Whyayeman said:

The Tower of Babel is off topic, surely?

[Frankly I don't much care if it existed or not. It is pretty clear that languages have been spoken in every part of the world for thousands of years.]

Click to expand...

You're right - we're off topic. @Strathos and I wandered off down a side road. We are naughty.

OB

TLK Valentine said:

N.B. This is not a discussion on the morality of homosexuality or same sex marriage, merely the public and political perception of it...

A Record Number Of Americans, Including Republicans, Now Support Same-Sex Marriage



Guess we're seeing which side of history is the right one...

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

support for civil rights and support for moral activity are different things. I support the civil right of same-sex unions but I do not support it as a moral action. I also support the civil right to monetize your body in the sex industry but that doesn't mean I agree with the sex industry in one bit. I support the right to drink, or smoke but I myself don't drink or smoke. Paul says "everything is permissible to me but not beneficial..." just cause we have the right to do it doesn't make it right.

I think polls like these can be used to suggest wide support for the morality of same-sex relations but actually are just about the civil rights to join to another and are stripped of any moral judgment. I personally think the state should get out of the business of marrying people and just issue civil unions then let religious institutions ordain the unions as marriage as historically marriage has been a religious definition. Civil unions may be beneficial for non-romantic/sexual partners like two sisters living together and never getting married but entering into a legal union that gives them the same rights as another civil union.

Same sex marriage is not compulsory. The point is that it is now permitted in law, conferring the same rights to gays as heterosexuals.

There is a high rate of approval for same sex marriage; calling marriage a civil union makes no practical difference in law; it seems to be a plea for reserving the term marriage for the minority who regard marriage as a specifically religious institution.

TLK Valentine said:

Unfortunately, asking the government to abdicate a power to the Church that it already abdicated a long time ago isn't going to work... The idea of having civil unions be a separate but equal option to marriage isn't going to sit well with certain aspects of society... who remember that this nation attempted "separate but equal" in the past with less than impressive results.

Click to expand...

Love is subjective and certainly a contract of an expression of love just as subjective where civil unions far easier to define. I'm suggesting the law get out of the subjective space and let other institutions ordain a "marriage" to their own rules. If a same sex couple wishes to "marry" then then let them seek an institution of their peers that values same sex marriage to ordain that marriage. If a male and female wishes to get married then it's the same process, let them seek an institution that values a marriage of a male and a female (if that's important). If they are atheists then a civil union definition is far more consistent with that value system. This would allow a space for both secular and religious systems to co-exist and if you want to seek the titles then be free to seek them but what business is it if the law? However civil unions should be the unchallenged rights of all

TLK Valentine said:

N.B. This is not a discussion on the morality of homosexuality or same sex marriage, merely the public and political perception of it...

A Record Number Of Americans, Including Republicans, Now Support Same-Sex Marriage



Guess we're seeing which side of history is the right one...

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Every thing is bent towards destruction. It is no wonder that our reasoning and mental acuity is also in that state.

TLK Valentine said:

This is all very true -- which is why I'm not arguing morality, merely public acceptance.



As it should be -- our government and society permits all sorts of behavior that some members consider immoral.

Abortion, gambling, alcohol, Cannabis (in a growing number of states), prostitution (in certain counties in Nevada)... anyone who does not consider such activities moral is, of course, free not to engage in them.

You have the right not to drink, not to gamble, not to have an abortion... and now, if a person of your own gender proposes marriage, you have the right not to accept.



Unfortunately, asking the government to abdicate a power to the Church that it already abdicated a long time ago isn't going to work... The idea of having civil unions be a separate but equal option to marriage isn't going to sit well with certain aspects of society... who remember that this nation attempted "separate but equal" in the past with less than impressive results.

Click to expand...

Abortion is murder.

Morality? What is good for us as a whole. What promotes stability and growth as a society? Drugs, alcohol, gambling, and sexual immorality destroy lives and hurt society as a whole.

HIM said:

Drugs, alcohol, gambling, and sexual immorality destroy lives and hurt society as a whole.

Click to expand...

Legal prohibition of them causes more harm to society and destroys move lives then would have been were they legal and regulated.

Most polls ask questions that could well mean legal acceptance, not that it’s ok morally. The latest results I can find on the latter are 9 years old. Fewer Americans Believe Homosexuality Is a Sin - Lifeway Research 37% sinful 45% not. But that’s a large enough change from the previous year that you’d really want to verify it by follow ups. I haven’t seen it. If you do a web search the number most commonly reported is from this source, but it’s the 2011 number, which is 44 it’s a sin and 43 not. I’d really like to see a more recent number.

Desk trauma said:

Legal prohibition of them causes more harm to society and destroys move lives then would have been were they legal and regulated.

Click to expand...

That is subjective.
To make them legal is promoting and opens the door for more corruption. Regulated or not, most people can not handle these things mention without abuse and causing harm to themselves and others. Society as a whole suffers.

HIM said:

That is subjective.

Click to expand...

It very much is not. The violence associated with the illegal drug trade, illegal gambling an illegal sex work would not exist but for them being made illegal and run by criminals in the shadows rater then in the open where they can be regulated.

HIM said:

To make them legal is promoting and opens the door for more corruption.

Click to expand...

It the other way around. With the demand existing regardless of legality illicit trade pops up and the corruption that goes along with it from bribery etc.

HIM said:

Regulated or not, most people can not handle these things mention without abuse and causing harm to themselves and others. Society as a whole suffers.

Click to expand...

Prohibition means that we have all of that damage, plus more that would not otherwise occur.

I think one thing that hurt the conservative agenda against ssm is its failure to see the harm it was doing to families and households. When people live together as an interdependant unit, they need access to health benefits, life insurance and such. By advocating against such things they came across as thoughtless and heartless. IMO, Christians should have been in support of ssm for those reasons alone.

I support ssm simply because I'm content seeing people happy and healthy. I'm not convinced marriage is the key to those two things, but let folks figure that out on their own. Who am I to say they shouldn't learn the hard way? I have yet to hear a viable argument from conservatives of how it will be the downfall of society. When I think of the downfall of society, that's not what comes to my mind these days.

All in all, I think conservative Christians took the wrong approach (hindsight and all). Instead of a paternalistic impulse to control, they should have focused on compassion, meeting household needs, and live and let live. They didn't have to say they approved, only that all people are to be loved and accepted as bearers of the divine image. If folks want to get married, that's between them and God. Had that been the approach, things would have been different, I think. Whatever, that should be their approach today. They should really let it go. Who wants to be the last person to realize it's not about them?

Desk trauma said:

It very much is not. The violence associated with the illegal drug trade, illegal gambling an illegal sex work would not exist but for them being made illegal and run by criminals in the shadows rater then in the open where they can be regulated.



It the other way around. With the demand existing regardless of legality illicit trade pops up and the corruption that goes along with it from bribery etc.



Prohibition means that we have all of that damage, plus more that would not otherwise occur.

Click to expand...

Corruption in the sense that if legalized it would open the door for profiting off the hurt of others and our society. As is very apparent and mentioned before, most can not handle the things mentioned responsibly.


Legalization is promoting and would increase the number of participants and would decrease the productivity and general well being of our populus.

Never mention prohibition. The Government should promote abstinence and increase the penalties for those whom cause problems for themselves and others through the use of the things mentioned.

TLK Valentine said:

That's your opinion -- not mine, but I respect your right to disagree.

Click to expand...

It is life. To take it is to kill or murder. That is no an opinion. That is an objective fact.

TLK Valentine said:

And yet they remain legal... and you continue to have the right to abstain while others indulge.

Others ask that you respect their right to disagree.

Click to expand...

No disrespect but what others ask in this respect we hold to no regard.
What benefits the whole is all that matters. All of the things mentioned cause problems in this respect.

HIM said:

Corruption in the sense that if legalized it would open the door for profiting off the hurt of others and our society. As is very apparent and mentioned before, most can not handle the things mentioned responsibly.

Click to expand...

It would open the door or legal regulated business which would mitigate the harm causes. Unlike out current situation where even more profit is made illegally with no regulation nor thought spared for the impact on users nor others and with the added bonus of violence being how disputes are settled there being no legal recourse available.

HIM said:

Legalization is promoting and would increase the number of participants and would decrease the productivity and general well being of our populus.

Click to expand...

Legalization is accepting realty. Drug use, abuse and sale will go on regardless of the law. We will be better served if the trade is out in the open, regulated and not controlled by violent criminals.

HIM said:

Never mention prohibition.

Click to expand...

Yes you did, just not of alcohol. For whatever reason we have chosen not to learn from the abject failure of alcohol prohibition, applied the same idea to other substances and gotten the same result.

HIM said:

The Government should promote abstinence and increase the penalties for those whom cause problems for themselves and others through the use of the things mentioned.

Click to expand...

That is not mutual exclusive with legalization and regulation.

Won't go on and on.

Desk trauma said:

It would open the door or legal regulated business which would mitigate the harm causes. Unlike out current situation where even more profit is made illegally with no regulation nor thought spared for the impact on users nor others and with the added bonus of violence being how disputes are settled there being no legal recourse available.



Legalization is accepting realty. Drug use, abuse and sale will go on regardless of the law. We will be better served if the trade is out in the open, regulated and not controlled by violent criminals.



Yes you did, just not of alcohol. For whatever reason we have chosen not to learn from the abject failure of alcohol prohibition, applied the same idea to other substances and gotten the same result.



That is not mutual exclusive with legalization and regulation.

Click to expand...

Legalizing and regulating in any sense is promoting and taking part in an ill that affects our society in a negative way. Increase the penalties to those whom partake and cause problems to themselves and others through their use.

No desire to go on and on. So we are kicking the dust from off our feet. Take care.