In a couple of recent threads about same-sex marriage, I mentioned that its varying level of approval isn't so much geographical as it is generational. The younger the respondent, the more they approve of same-sex marriage. According to a recent Pew poll, approval is up to 61% among young Republicans aged 18-29:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/

I also just looked at a NYT poll which showed that support for same-sex marriage among Republicans overall has increased from 16 to 30% over the last 20 years.

My point being, as time passes and the older, more traditionally-minded conservatives die off, the next generation will be much more accepting. We've seen posts here saying that even a lot of BYU students aren't opposed to same-sex marriage.

Who knows, maybe in another 10-15 years, Prophet Uchtdorf will announce that the day has finally come where gay black married women can hold the priesthood. :-)

The conclusions of the article may be off though. Generally young people think as liberal democrats because they are poor and want their freedom of expression. As they get older they forget and start accumulating more wealth and stability. They want to keep their wealth and so naturally they become more conservative and become republican like their parents.

So I don't buy that young people are more accepting of liberal gays than they were in the past.

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The conclusions of the article may be off though.
> Generally young people think as liberal democrats
> because they are poor and want their freedom of
> expression. As they get older they forget and
> start accumulating more wealth and stability. They
> want to keep their wealth and so naturally they
> become more conservative and become republican
> like their parents.
>
> So I don't buy that young people are more
> accepting of liberal gays than they were in the
> past.

Forgive me, but your logic doesn't work on all levels. It is true that as people age, they tend to become more conservative compared to the generations after them. But they also tend to maintain a lot of the ideas they acquired in their youth. People who have accepted integration rarely go back to supporting apartheid, and people who accepted gays are not likely to go back to opposing gay marriage.

"The conclusions of the article may be off though."

It's not an article, it's a poll. The polls clearly show that acceptance of same-sex marriage is higher among young people and growing.

"Generally young people think as liberal democrats because they are poor and want their freedom of expression. As they get older they forget and start accumulating more wealth and stability. They want to keep their wealth and so naturally they become more conservative and become republican like their parents."

As Mateo Pastor wrote, your logic is off. Most people who go from liberal to conservative as they grow older do so because of fiscal ideology rather than social ideology. Same-sex marriage doesn't affect fiscal issues.

I'm 60 years old, and I've always been very conservative---at least, since the days of Jimmy Carter. I've never been opposed to same-sex marriage per se, but long before this recent push to make same-sex marriage legal, I believed that same-sex partners should be able to obtain legal domestic partnerships or civil unions. I believed that going that route would circumvent the hard-line Christians who are against gay marriage.

But since marriage is a legal contract, same-sex partners should be provided equal benefits as straight partners. People who oppose same-sex marriage do so solely on religious grounds, and that's unconstitutional.

"So I don't buy that young people are more accepting of liberal gays than they were in the past."

The polls clearly show that they do, and I'll predict that it will only grow as time passes.

You may be right. Perhaps it is mainly with fiscal policy that people become more conservative over time. I haven't thought of that?

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I don't buy that young people are more
> accepting of liberal gays than they were in the
> past.


You don't have to buy it, but it will be on the shelf of every store! And the majority of the US will be buying it. Get used to it.

poopstone--how did you interpret that approval of same sex marriage is "accepting of liberal gays"?

Believe it or not....and this is really scary...there are conservative Republicans who are....gay! Yes! It's true! And they want to marry!

Gay acceptance is a done deal. Those who have issues with it are dying off at a fast pace and anything they have instituted against gays will be overturned in time.

Today's young people have gay friends, gay relatives, gay parents. Gay is just normal and getting more normal every day. And thank god for it. It's about time.

Oh...and how do gays keep conservatives from maintaining their wealth? The same way that gay marriage threatens straight marriage? Because straights never know when, suddenly, one night, a gay couple might invade their bed and make them watch gay sex? Bwaa-hahahahaha!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjk5IyjfHkE

Perhaps your right but I'm still confused. Gay republicans is a new idea for me and I haven't met any up to this point in time however. What exactly is a Gay republican? As I perceive what gay couples are fighting for is SS benifits, insurance benifits, pensions, adoption rights. These are all the liberal agenda items. So aren't they all democrats?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2015 09:39PM by poopstone.

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps your right but I'm still confused. Gay
> republicans is a new idea for me and I haven't met
> any up to this point in time however. What exactly
> is a Gay republican? As I perceive what gay
> couples are fighting for is SS benifits, insurance
> benifits, pensions, adoption rights. These are all
> the liberal agenda items. So aren't they all
> democrats?


A gay Republican is a Republican who is gay. I think that is pretty clear. Google gay Republicans. They exist.

You need to stop categorizing everything in the black and white framework of liberal or conservative.

These are not "liberal agenda items"--"SS benefits, insurance
> benifits, pensions, adoption rights." These are HUMAN agenda items. Use your brain and evaluate things logically.

Stop watching Fox news fer gawd's sake.

poopstone,

Look up Log Cabin Republicans. Half of DC government employees are gay. (Many, not half).

Gay home and business owners revitalize every area they buy in to, and increase tax revenue, make neighborhoods safer... They have been paying taxes like everyone else without all the benefits as hetero people. Those are human rights.

"Religious freedom" is the new coded phrase to discriminate against gay people. Listen for it.

Young people are generally more accepting, regardless of party affiliation.

Additionally, young people are less likely to identify with party labels and to identify as 'independent.' Measured this way, party membership is shrinking for both Democrats and Republicans.

Millenials are also more likely to identify with typical libertarian beliefs (pot legalization, gay marriage, polyamorous relationships, etc.). Gay marriage itself was legalized in large part due to libertarian organizations pushing for it.

So, to OP's point, I don't think these young people will start disapproving of gay marriage as they get older.

Plus now almost everyone knows, associates with, or is related to an openly gay person, and we are finally beginning to perceive it as normal behavior for a certain percentage of people. No one needs to stay in the closet any more.

I agree with your conclusion, Alpiner, but I must say that I have never heard of polyamorous relationships being a part of "typical" libertarian political philosophy. And your statement that "Gay marriage itself was legalized in large part due to libertarian organizations pushing for it" is inaccurate, unless your definition of "libertarian organizations" is different from mine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2015 10:24AM by postpostmormon.

To name a few:

CATO (co-funded by the much vilified Charles Koch): http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/moral-constitutional-case-right-gay-marriage

Reason: http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marriage-and-freedom

CATO filed amici briefs on multiple state gay marriage lawsuits in support of gay marriage. IE,

Virginia: http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/23/a-constitutional-case-for-gay-marriage
California: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cato-cac-divided-groups-defend-gay-marriage-rights

No argument that CATO filed amicus briefs to support same sex marriage cases, but so have many, many others. Just questioning your statement that "Gay marriage itself was legalized in large part due to libertarian organizations pushing for it." Groups like HRC and Lambda Legal laid a lot of groundwork before cases ever made their way to court.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:00AM by postpostmormon.

party names change through the centuries but conservative ideals vs liberal ideals has been the fight going on in mother England all through the middle ages up until now. The King and aristocrats against the hoi poi. The vernacular today is the 99% against the 1%.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2015 09:45PM by poopstone.

I can't see the church changing in 10 to 15 years. In 50 years, maybe.

"I can't see the church changing in 10 to 15 years. In 50 years, maybe."

I suspect that the speed at which the church will change will depend on pressure from their own younger members who will not want to be a part of a religion which still discriminates against gay people 10 or 15 years after the majority of the rest of the nation has accepted same-sex marriage.

It's sorta like the priesthood ban---the church ended that in 1978, 13 years after the civil rights act was passed. Imagine if the church had still denied blacks the priesthood in 1988, or 1998. The church would have received even more criticism than it did, and its missionary efforts would have been severely harmed.

IIRC, high-profile Mormons such as Marie Osmond and Steve Young have spoken out against the church's stance on gays. As time passes, Mormons younger than them will voice even more tolerance. I suspect that the church will have to change their dogma a lot sooner than 50 years from now.

It takes a couple of generations for social change to really kick in. You have to wait until the babies who were born during the changing years grow up. They will grow up just accepting it as the norm. As with any change, there will always be an older population who cannot change and cannot accept. So it takes a couple of generations for them to die off.

As much as I want to stick around while I have a good quality of life, I often think about how much better the world will be when mine and my parents' generations are gone. There won't be anyone who remembers growing up with institutionalized racial discrimination, even though there will always be those who were poisoned by their parents. It will take another generation or two for marriage equality. It will be when the baby generation of today are the power brokers and grew up with it just being the norm.

The change has happened. We are only waiting for the conservatives to catch up.

NormaRae, it won't take another generation or two for marriage equality. The majority of today's youth is already there. My friend's children are 25 to 30 and they all grew up with openly gay friends. It is no big deal to them and they can't understand why anyone would oppose gay marriage. If 61% of young Republicans support same sex marriage, that IS the majority.

Today, it is same-sex marriage

Tomorrow, it will be... Old man-child boy marriage (aka, p e d e r a s t y)

Perhaps they will also legalize P e d o p h i l i a.

When that day arrives, what moral arguments will our moral atheists have? Will they be against it or for it?

If God does not exist, then everything is allowed.

Loud Laffter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Today, it is same-sex marriage
>
> Tomorrow, it will be... Old man-child boy marriage
> (aka, p e d e r a s t y)
>
> Perhaps they will also legalize P e d o p h i l
> i a.
>
> When that day arrives, what moral arguments will
> our moral atheists have? Will they be against it
> or for it?
>
> If God does not exist, then everything is allowed.

Jesus H Christ on a leaking raft. Get over it. You and your close minded types have lost. Believe in your wrathful god and keep your poisonous beliefs to yourself. You have no logic. Marriage between two people does not equal child molestation. Only a pervert would make that assumption. Guess it shows what is on your mind?! Better see a therapist about those urges.

"If God does not exist, then everything is allowed."
Is this a Poe?
But seriously, if you have no morals without the big bad imaginary sky daddy's supervision, please do continue believing. Most of us mature into morals without threat of punishment around 10-12 or so, some earlier, some later.


"Marriage between two people does not equal child molestation. Only a pervert would make that assumption. Guess it shows what is on your mind?! Better see a therapist about those urges."
Quoted for truth!

pick up your placard and get back to yelling on street corners

Loud Laffter Wrote:

>
> If God does not exist, then everything is allowed.

Which is exactly what they said when blacks were allowed to *gasp* marry whites.

Or were they going to kill all of us, I donno, I keep getting you religious nuts mixed up.

...That everything under the sun is allowed with no god to preside over our genitals.

IDK if it has a psychological term yet, but it shows how sick and depraved your thinking really is.

Healthy, functional people do not think that children (and animals, because that's always the next claim) are appropriate sexual outlets.

Go see a shrink. And by all means, if your religion is preventing you from raping, killing and being an all around shitty human being, please continue to practice it.

Ruth Ginsburg (Supreme Court justice) recently had this to say:

The 81-year-old justice discussed the public’s increasing acceptance of gays against the backdrop of resistance by Alabama officials to a federal court order that took effect Monday and made it the 37th gay-marriage state. With the high court set to rule on the issue by June, she said it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans should the justices say that gay marriage is a constitutional right.

“The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous,” Ginsburg said. “In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor -- we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”