latest polls on homosexuality

seem to show that 8-10% of Americans changed positions on homosexual rights with fewer favoring them since the Supreme Court decision decriminalizing homosexual sex. What's up with that? What would have caused that kind of shift?

A majority of American's opposed the death penalty prior to Furman v Georgia. After 10 years with no executions it began to swing so now most people favor it. Is this a shift like that or a blip or bad polls?

... don't have one. Thank you, and good night.

What would have caused that kind of shift?

Talk radio and Faux News. Same way they shifted public opinion to back the invasion of Iraq.

I find it hard to believe that someone could actually swing on this issue, I have yet to encounter someone "on the fence" regarding gays and lesbians in general...people generallly either seem to think them as just another person, or immoral "sodomites" or whatever they call them...

Cool it! There is a serious backlash developing. Came from a party, suprised at some of the remarks said by certain people. The media covered the "sodomy ruling" as if it were a big ruling. Failed to mention that most of the civilized world deleted these laws long ago. When the Georgia supreme court overturned the sodomy law here not that much was made of it-that was 98. In 2003, the ruling by the US Supremes, the media asked whats next, oh horror gasp, gay marriage. There is a sense that gays want to take over and are getting into your face. This trendy Gay chic stuff (Gay Eye, etc,) pushed by members of the Gay community is not helping. There is a sense devloping that this going too far. People that used to be ok, have now switched to anti-gay, Read on Buzzflash, that Barney Frank said they are using this issue to distract from issues unemployment Iraq, etc,. He is right this why Bush's media whore squad is so focused on this gay marriage stuff. Look at the last weeks top story in USA today: Poll that is sighted here, and story about Bush opposing gay marriage-USA shows its Bush apologist hand by saying President calls for tolerance, etc. My advice, lay off, fight for rights that married couples have, leave the word "marriage" alone right now. I think if Mass and New Jersey rule against "gay marriage" it will be good for the long term. Trust me, I hear what your "straight friends" say when you leave the room.

Have you ever caught yourself saying "cool it!" to straight people? Have straights gone too far with them flaunting themselves on tv, trying to "take over", etc? (I love the double-standard..)

I do agree with you on one point. Whoever uses the word word "marriage" will get severely burned. The term "civil union" needs to be used repeatedly until the public understands and is comfortable.

many straights think, they are more honest with other straight people or people they think are straight. I am telling you what I hear, that is all. Yes, there is a double standard, many more people are Straight than Gay, but a double standard is something you have to deal with.

is outrageous! I'm not taking a seat on the "back of the bus" for anyone. If you want someone to "cool it," kindly direct your comments to the White House.

we are talking about a freaking word.....marriage.

are you going to let the perfect get in the way of the excellent?

we are talking about civil unions being doable.
we are talking about social security equity.
medical insurence equity.
equity in medical situations and taxation and inheritance.

in the current climate, all these things will come to pass.

freaking walmart just extended heathcare to gay partners. combine this sort of stuff with the SCOTUS ruling madia acceptance and we were on a roll UNTIL the focus was shifted to a word instead of real change.

the word marriage will kill all this because it is such a hot button word and because marriage is not totally the perview of the gov. marriage has a religious conotation as well and while there are churches and pastors who will do a gay marriage, NO WAY can the government force them to if they don't want to.

i realize there is a civil component to marriage....it is a civil union in it's own right. so why should we wave the red flag in front of the bull by demanding 'marriage' when we can get what we want by simply using the term civil union instead?

anyone who feels this strategy is demanding people sit in the back of the bus is looking to cut off their nose to spite their face.

or maybe what they really want is an issue, rather than results.

As to you Christian, you need to calm down, these angry little displays aren't going to work this time on the larger community. (Your "back of the bus" comment, would offend many Afiracn Americans, btw.) All I am saying is what I hear from others. As far as Iam concerned all gays could get married, I don't care. I am reporting to people on this board what I am hearing. Don't believe me, Christan, ask older gays and lesibans, about the state of things after the late 70s and early 80s, ask them what is what like being gay around after 1985. That is what you are looking at.

I can see where you're coming from.

Are you calling straights on this double standard? I'm interested in how they justify it.

Do straight people know that there is no clause on the Equal Protection clause that says, "oh, and by the way.. tradition trumps this guarantee of equality"?

With civil unions.. we all know the 9-0 Supreme Court precedent on "separate-but-equal."

standard, they are just if "gays want to do 'their thing' ok, but marriage, like my mom and dad, and me and my wife, wtf. If you try to call them on it they think they are being fair enough by saying, I don't care what they do in their bedroom. The hardest are other straight men> I actually had one that is generally not anti-gay, say he didn't believe in a 'gay gene' and that gays can change. He knew this for a fact because "a guy he knew in high school" (read him) had sex with other guys and changed. Then the light bulb on why certain straight men are so homophobic turned on. They see their sexual exploration as being "gay."

I'm gonna"trust you" bwhahahahahaha1 i'M SURE YOU MEAN WELL , WHAT CAN YOU UNDERSTAND HOW YOU SOUND?!honestly tho, "marriage coud be the kiss of death I am an "older"gay used to drink at tinewall before the RAID . it was tough. these young ones don't understand how toughit was. But ask me if I care what a straight person says about me when I leave the room. I know. Guess what , we are not too kind to straights either and most of us have never trusted them. Not about to start now. All I know , if I was going out at night , as a gay, I would be armed. Thankfully I am married for 27 years , very few straights can say that.

You educated your ignorant friends and associates. That is your job, don't pander to them. You don't pander to people's ignorance, thell them why they are wrong.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Want to be on record as responding to a charge of pandering.

This is a BIG rulling. I am no longer considered a common criminal for loving my partner. Hey I came out of the closet a long time ago and I am not going back in.

they were deleting a ireelevant law.

gays and straights should all "cool it." Wouldn't want to upset the 'phobes. :eyes:

"Going too far." Equal rights for all Americans is going too far?

"Gay Eye . . ." It's what the remote is for. Use it.

"People who used to be OK have now switched to anti-gay." Bullshit. Cite me your source.

This whole post stinks to high heaven.

As one poster said earlier, if you don't like gay marriages, don't have one.

Your shooting hissy fit bullets at the messenger. I am not advocating, just reporting on what I see. "If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one". Ha Ha Yea, that simplistic slogan is going to work just fine. NOTTTT! BTW,If you read my comments, instead of your knee jerk reaction, you would see I am not against gay marriage, I remember posting that, read what I said, please.

That was deep and I'm truly, truly devestated. OK, I'm over it now. :eyes: In my "real world" no one has said any of that to me -- nor to anyone I know, to my knowledge. What the hell part of the country do you live in, anyway? Criminee!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

pot, meet kettle. :eyes:

There are items in my deleted post, I would like to remain on the record. Poster claims that in her 'real world' no one is making remarks against gay marriage. I said that it appeared to me, they may not want to argue with her because they wanted to maintain peace.
I have since learned, visiting another thread, that the poster is an activist Democrat supporting Howard Dean in Fresno, which means she would not likely find such oppostion to gay marriage there. Not questioning her work as an activist. My job requires that I deal with manufactuing plants and a host of other businesess, I have contact with plant workers and managers throughout the country. I am suggesting that I may have a better pulse of the feeling of the general population. She asked what area of the country do I live in; my reply, that had she read the first post I made on this thread she would not have had to ask the question. If she is suggesting in a indirect way that the south is more homophobic than the rest of the country, I will not argue with that. But I do recall, was it the #9 or Knight bill that California voters approved against Gay marriage. Anotehr Deleted poster was also was blaming southern bigots. I used no profane language in my reaction to her post, and was attacking her behavior. My opinion, the removal was unfair.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Its not just southern white bigots. The poll said the biggest shift against gay rights was among African Americans. Some of the most blantant homophobic remarks are made by co-workers who are African American- yea, I answer back. the same remarks are made in other parts of the country including Mass, Calif, you name it.

Your post is very puzzling to me. Why does backlash mean that supporters of gay rights should back down? Go on about "the real world" and "what straights say when gays leave the room" all you want - fighting for civil rights has never been about making people COMFORTABLE, fergawdssake....

Seriously, if all activists ducked for cover whenever a poll came out suggesting that things are GOING TOO FAR, we'd never get anywhere. If you think your straight buddies are uncomfortable, think about how uncomfortable it is to be gay in a country where right wing Christians are still a dominant political force!

And as for the whole "trendy gay chic" deal -- do you honestly believe that it's gay rights activists who are "pushing" this stuff? These shows would never hit the airwaves unless some corporate hack thought there was a market for it.

Blame Bush and his media lackeys for stirring up divisiveness on this issue.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

after the Supreme Court there was a slippery slope mentality put forward by conservatives and Repubs, "gay marriage" is now an inevitability. The thing about Americans supporting "gay rights", a certain percentage of them support "equality" but not "marriage" so the numbers drop depending on exactly what gay rights is being discussed.

just after the Texas decision. But it is more than just orgainized scare tatics by the right.

... in the phrasing of the question... or in the "interpretation" of the results... or in the (so-called) cross-section that's polled, the results always, always, ALWAYS reflect on how the pollsters want (or expect) the results to be.

-- Allen

P.S. In a recent telephone survey, it was determined that 100% of Americans have telephones, and that 100% of Americans are willing to participate in telephone surveys.

I dont get it either. The results are sometimes contradictory, too.

No one should not be entitled to anything that they would be entitled to if they had a different gender orientation. Period. No discrimination should ever be permitted no matter what, against anybody. We are all human beings.

to do gay marriages. how would that law read?

you say
"No one should not be entitled to anything that they would be entitled to if they had a different gender orientation"

and i reply that many churches won't even marry people who aren't a member of the church, let along gays. they discriminate against people of other faith everyday. jews are not entitled to a catholic wedding..only catholics are.

how can the government stop that?

the government can only stop stuff over which they have control and marriage is not one of those things. the gov only liscenses and regulates the civil aspects of the union. we can get that. but we will never get the same rights to a marriage as others have because marriage is a "sacriment" of the churches and the gov cannot compel them to change.

Before the SC vote, I imagine among those who were sympathetic to gay rights, there was a segment who were operating 'in theory.' Now, that segment of the crowd is going to have to confront themselves and see if they still are pro-gay rights in reality. Some of them aren't going to make it.

Keep in mind, for political reasons, the Republican party is going to use this issue as a divider. How successful they will be will be partly determined by the efforts pro-gay-rights people in reaching out to the not-so sure. ie, 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it' likely needs to be replaced with 'We're here, we're queer, and we're a lot more like you than you imagine.'

PS - I believe ProdemSouth is right on the head of the nail where he (she?) speaks of a brewing backlash. Like I said, the Republican party is going to work this issue for all its worth. Does any pro-gay-rights person want to help them? I sure as hell don't. I have little doubt we'll start seeing heavy media coverage of the more flamboyant gay events/parades that have gone on for years, mostly unnoticed by CNN and Joe Nebraska.

It is he by the way.

I am sure that had Gallup conducted a poll in 1933 prewar Germany, the vast majority of Germans would have condemned Jews for being greedy, immoral, and responsible for the suffering of the German people.

A similar poll about "Negroes" in the 1950s South would have found that the vast majority of people viewed Blacks as lazy, immoral, and infiltrated with Reds.

Human rights are not subject to popularity polls!

Goebbels had nothing compared to Roger Aisles and 19th Century Fox!

there are plenty of people who probably aren't comfortable with gay marriage but don't think they should be arrested just for being together. since that no longer can happen the issue in question is gay marriage now, since it's all the right is ranting about. what's funny is the ruling officially has nothing to do with homosexuality, all it says is the government can't belong in ANYONE'S bedroom, homosexual or heterosexual.

By using the word marrage you are overriding folks' religions. Forget about the word "marrage" for at least a few presidential cycles and just try to keep a Constitutional amendment from passing that bans it.

It's totally impossible to defend the the term "gay marrages", right now, to the majority of the American people. I promise you that Bush will try to use that term and the media will also try to use that term. I suggest that you try to get that term out of headlines and allow the term "civil unions" to be used instead.

yeah that sounds about right! :thumbsdown: :puke:

Just stay away from the word "marrage". Present your case as an ethical, moral and Constitutional case for equal rights and not wanting to interfere in folks' religions.

Down the road, maybe there will be support for the the word "marrage". Or maybe down the road there will be support for the word "civil unions" as the legal term for marrage, allowing "marrage" to be used as a religious term.

What matters is that gay couples have the same rights as hetersexual couples. Period.

Churches can refuse to marry anyone right now if they want to, so why would legalizing gay marriage change that? Some churches would allow it, most wouldn't.

it was comfortable and therefore acceptable.

Take my brother who is slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun, he tells me he has no problem with gays so long asn he doesn't have to think about them and if they don't "flaunt" it.

Then came Ellen Degeneris (appologies for spelling), KD Lang, et al, Will and Grace and finally the Supremes.

They're saying 'enough is enough'.

It might be partly religeous but its mostly that they would rather not think about it.

"Then came Ellen Degeneris (appologies for spelling), KD Lang, et al, Will and Grace and finally the Supremes.
They're saying 'enough is enough'."

Until you brought up the Supremes (Diana Ross came out? lol) all of the things you mentioned have nothing to do with civil rights. Will & Grace et al are part of popular culture, not politics, and they wouldn't even be on your brother's radar screen if it wasn't for some corporate media hack recognizing that there was a a market for that programming.

To echo my questions from post #39 - since when has fighting for civil rights been about making people comfortable? How uncomfortable is is for gays and lesbians to be called "sinners" by the president of our country?

I don't have much sympathy anymore for straight people who would "rather not think about it" -- no one's asking them for extended episodes of creative visualization. If they're burnt out on Will & Grace (I am!) they can change the channel. But that doesn't make it acceptable for them to deny people civil rights.

but the initial issue that the other posts failed to address (how come) I think has mostly to do with this.

The great middle will go along with things up until you start pushing them to do things they are not comfortable with.

Make this a campaign issue and see what I mean. Let it ride along largely under the radar and things will change. Force the issue and things will also change but not positively.

i'd think they would likely be as uncomfortable as the fundies and the rest of us.

repeating...maybe ad nauseum

bush said we are all sinners.

he did not specify gays

he followed this up with a lesson on tolerance which, to thinking people. implies the sin is on the other foot, so to speak.