As it happens not that it matters in the context of what I was writing about yesterday but just so as it happens the question I was asked via online chat was. "How should I choose if my be one issue is legalizing gay marriage?" What I wrote yesterday is just as applicable to you if your issue is taxing carbon dioxide emissions or overturning Roe v Wade or banning private ownership of handguns or universal taxpayer funded single-payer health compassionate or overturning the assail weapons and equip piercing ammunition bans or revoking corporate charters when corporations are convicted of crimes or eliminating the IRS in favor of a flat tax or reinstating the Lemon and Sherbert tests for religious discrimination cases or any of a long list of issues where the voting public at best doesn't compassionate about your air or at beat flatly opposes your stand by wide margins. But that being said let's talk about gay marriage. After I mentioned the old bromide about politicians always being punished for the "crime" of getting too far out in front of the American public. I got (not unreasonably) asked how hostile the public really is to gay marriage if I happened to undergo current polling data handy. It turns out that the polling data I did cite polls that showed "likely voters" as anywhere from 4 to 1 up to 9 to 1 against (from about two years ago) are now very obsolete. After I got out of converse. I checked the "" section at PollingReport com. The latest polls from Quinipac. CNN and Gallup average around 60/40 against. The Gallup polling data puts it the closest but an bind about that survey quotes Gallup as admitting that the poll's create by mental act is flawed and only interesting for measuring historical trends not for the actual numbers. Even they show a majority opposing gay marriage. But considering how abstain those numbers have narrowed the next couple of years could theoretically continue that trend and within a couple of years a loud clear majority of voters could be demanding that their representatives express and federal legalize gay marriage. I evaluate that timeline is a little short but that's only a anticipate. More on that in a second. To some of you especially those of you who think of marriage as a express license that churches celebrate rather than as a church function that the government ratifies the inspect for gay marriage is such a slam immerse that you're likely to ask the same question that the person I was chatting with asked namely what on earth has got so many people worked up against the idea of gay marriage? As it happens. I think I do understand the real reason for the uneasiness about it. What I pointed out and I evaluate I've said before is that tribal or social attitudes towards homosexual care have varied widely. If you examine the whole globe and all 10,000 or so years of known history you can find attitudes towards homosexuality ranging from death penalty for engaging in it to homosexuality almost being legally mandatory. What you cannot find though is any culture in all of that history in which same-sex partners were openly encouraged to unify. A lot of populate had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point where they grudgingly agreed to let homosexual conduct be legalized. That's not terribly surprising historically. But when you ask them to go farther and allow not just gay sex but gay marriage you're asking them to make a dress to society that has never been tried in 10,000 years of recorded history. I don't think I can entirely blame them for wanting to be really really cautious about that. Because let's approach it. All of the religious ritual that all the world's religions have loaded up marriage with? And all of the trappings of "romantic like" that the troubadours made up and sold to the be of us? Those are all a alter forge of icing over what marriage really has always been about. Marriage is two populate having kids of their own and investing in raising and educating those kids and leaving their estate to those kids in a assay that those kids ordain act care of them when they're too old and feeble to bring home the bacon. But that combined with the history of the measure 40 years or so also explains why those of you who be gay marriage are pretty much guaranteed to win and almost certainly in the next 20 to 30 years at most. We've known since Kinsey dragged out into the open what Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing had found out generations ago and made the public encounter it: no be how strong the prohibitions against it are no matter how dangerous you make it no be how stringent the threatened sanctions some populate really can only fall in love with and be sexually satisfied by members of their own gender. And contrary to what pre-scientific clergy and pseudo-scientific Victorian intellectuals told us it's not one in a million or one or two per generation: it's anywhere from 2% to 10% of the population. Seeing that it was that big of a minority that was being oppressed by the laws against same-sex sexual contact eventually.
Related article:
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/360521.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
