Ten years ago in the USA 57% of the population opposed gay marriage, 35% were for it, and 8% were too dull/stupid to have an opinion. Today it is pretty much neck and neck, at 46% vs 45%, with the dull rising to 9%.
I'd like to think that the swing is people changing their minds, but I suspect most of this change is simply bigots dying and being replaced in the polls by fresh young minds.
Politics is far too dominated by old twats set in their ways. Democracy is fine for most things but on progressive issues of morality society has to wait for the young generation to grow up and become politicians before the 'right' policy is enacted.
I talked a bit about what the direction of law should be in my very first post, which TBH I'd like to get some comments on as it's an interesting topic!
I don't think I have a point, or a solution to this, so feel free to suggest one.
10 comments:
I agree, laws must accompany society. if most people agree with gay marriage, it should be allowed. if most people disagree with gay marriage, a politician shouldn't allow it, not because 'it's wrong or right' but because society wouldn't be ready to accept it and there would only be conflit. there is a preparation to all this. for some time now gay marriage has been discussed and so gradually people start to accept it. yes due to a new generation :) that grows up hearing about these issues.
so laws do accompany society, at a certain point, but it's such a heavy machine; it takes time to shift; laws are slower.
"a politician shouldn't allow it, not because 'it's wrong or right' but because society wouldn't be ready to accept it"
how about in an islamic country where a woman who has an affair gets stoned to death and the man walks away? would you not change that in an instant if you could, or would you wait until a majority of people agreed that it was wrong?
if i ruled the world there would certainly be some instant changes!
It has to proceed from the people of that country; to intervene there has to be an internal sparkle; if everyone is happy with it, or if noone manifests, let it be. obviously in the islamic countries that's not the case, as you may see in the news, there has been a chain 'revolution' in islamic countries or at least a start; and the women recently have been fighting to change certain rules there. but while some women fight for changes, others still accept those rules and truly don't want change.
If I could of course I would like to change many things instantly, yes, but that's not how things work in reality. If I would change things at my will instantly as you say, they wouldn't be well accepted because they would be only a reflection of what I believe and defend and not taking into account the people...that reminds me something.
You sure do have a lot of empathy for someone who is a sociopath.
ana
the trouble is that while a person can be rational, people are not. and the trouble with democracy is that an irrational majority group can enact laws suit to suit their group at the expense of a minority group. no ruling system is perfect...
anon
1. i am not a sociopath, and have never claimed to be. perhaps i need to declare this somewhere prominent, lol!
2. who am i showing empathy with? gays? this post was simply about understanding something about politics and i could have chosen any irrational policy to make the point.
unfortunately that's real, but i like to believe things are changing slowly for best...
it's true. no ruling system is perfect.
You're forgetting the biggest factor. The say of the LGBT agenda and their power that has been slowly building up.
If a politician and or citizen lives in an area with a high-ish density of LGBT citizens, they are less inclined to be aggressively bigoted because it is in their best interest to cohabit peacefully. In addition, living in said proximity may lower or nullify some of their prejudice.
It's not that people are so much overcoming their prejudice as it is that the LGBT community refuses to stay quiet in highly populated areas now. How someone who is not part of that community reacts to said bravery depends on the individual and their possible aims.
TNP i see what you are saying, though it is cyclical between how vocal and 'out' the LGBT community is, and how accepting the wider community is of them.
It's a curious subject. For example displaying the heads of your enemies on spikes used to be not only the norm but something that made you greater than the average person. How can we know that the presumed bastions of tolerance and modernism we have will not be perceived as equally insane in the future.
People support gay rights because its been marketed in the media, like a consumer product. Most people are simply sheeple its as simple as.
Most of these people don't speak out about older teenagers going to prison for having sex with younger teenagers, but gay 'rights' are violated if they dont have full equality in trivialities like marriage. Sorry but I don't buy the publics compassion, on this or anything else.
The same human herd who now support gay marriage could just as easily support Fred Phelps if he manipylated public opinion through the media in the same way.
As for gayness, who cares, but equality is a ridiculous idea in any context.
Post a Comment