Immediate 1.4 Evista-{Offerta Speciale...
Business & Finance1 min ago
Majority against homosexual marriages
104 Answers
http://www.dailymail....ose-gay-marriage.html
It's official /// More than half believe homosexual marriages should not be allowed and two thirds think the adoption of children by same-sex couples should not have become legal nine years ago.///
/// the ONS findings show many Britons still cling to conservative values ///
Er, excuse me but "clinging to conservative values" ?????
Don't they term it as being 'Homophobic on Answerbank?
It's official /// More than half believe homosexual marriages should not be allowed and two thirds think the adoption of children by same-sex couples should not have become legal nine years ago.///
/// the ONS findings show many Britons still cling to conservative values ///
Er, excuse me but "clinging to conservative values" ?????
Don't they term it as being 'Homophobic on Answerbank?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Kromovaracun
A very good laid out and constructive argument although you have tried to belittle me by assuming that i have a simplistic view on democracy, and it is only being arrogant not top add in my opinion, you can have a majority rule without it being 'mob rule as you state, otherwise every election would be classed as mob rule.
You spoilt your otherwise constructive argument by your last paragraph.
/// The idea that your memories (and yours alone!) are a wholly representative and authoritative portrait of the era you lived through is staggeringly arrogant and extraordinarily ignorant.///
By once again you could not help yourself by reverting to insults, incidentally I was, and only could speak for myself, but that doesn't make me staggeringly arrogant and extraordinarily ignorant, and only an ignorant person would assume this.
A very good laid out and constructive argument although you have tried to belittle me by assuming that i have a simplistic view on democracy, and it is only being arrogant not top add in my opinion, you can have a majority rule without it being 'mob rule as you state, otherwise every election would be classed as mob rule.
You spoilt your otherwise constructive argument by your last paragraph.
/// The idea that your memories (and yours alone!) are a wholly representative and authoritative portrait of the era you lived through is staggeringly arrogant and extraordinarily ignorant.///
By once again you could not help yourself by reverting to insults, incidentally I was, and only could speak for myself, but that doesn't make me staggeringly arrogant and extraordinarily ignorant, and only an ignorant person would assume this.
"although you have tried to belittle me by assuming that i have a simplistic view on democracy"
It's not an assumption, it's a fact. You think that democracy = majority rules. This is clearly not the case for the reasons I've laid out.
"you can have a majority rule without it being 'mob rule as you state, otherwise every election would be classed as mob rule. "
For one thing, elections are typically swung by large minorities (of the population as a whole rather than registered voters), but I accept that's a slightly fatuous point. But the whole infrastructure elections entail is much much more complicated than 'majority rules', surely? That might be the ultimate conclusion/outcome, but there's a vast infrastructure there specifically designed to protect minorities and make them feel safe about voting in the knowledge that no matter what the majority decides, they will not suffer undeserved persecution* - you couldn't have a fair election, or I'd put it a healthy democratic system, without such measures. I'd argue it's fundamental to modern-day democracy.
"By once again you could not help yourself by reverting to insults"
Sorry, it just really riled me, that's all. You said that the mid C20 was unequivocally better than today and that you didn't care what 'the history books' say. I'm glad you recognise you can only speak for yourself, but I'm afraid I still contend that to see that as some kind of comprehensively authoritative view of the time you refer to is arrogance. I can't think of any other word that describes it accurately. It actively places your own perception of the time above any and all evidence to the contrary - you said so yourself that you didn't care about 'the history books'.
It would be monumentally arrogant of me, for instance, to assume that on the basis of my lifestyle and experience (that of a middle-class 21-year old in East Anglia), that today is a far better time to live than the 1950s. Or to say so about pretty much any problem or issue. That's why I don't just throw in the towel when I hit that problem - I look for evidence further afield, which has to become secondary by its nature, but the ultimate judgement I can make will ultimately be better for it.
*Every society persecutes minorities, note. I have in mind murderers, the dangerously insane, kleptomaniacs/pyromaniacs and such. My point is simply that minorities must feel safe and willing to trust the majority in the knowledge that they will not be persecuted without good reason. I'd argue you can't have a truly democratic system without this.
It's not an assumption, it's a fact. You think that democracy = majority rules. This is clearly not the case for the reasons I've laid out.
"you can have a majority rule without it being 'mob rule as you state, otherwise every election would be classed as mob rule. "
For one thing, elections are typically swung by large minorities (of the population as a whole rather than registered voters), but I accept that's a slightly fatuous point. But the whole infrastructure elections entail is much much more complicated than 'majority rules', surely? That might be the ultimate conclusion/outcome, but there's a vast infrastructure there specifically designed to protect minorities and make them feel safe about voting in the knowledge that no matter what the majority decides, they will not suffer undeserved persecution* - you couldn't have a fair election, or I'd put it a healthy democratic system, without such measures. I'd argue it's fundamental to modern-day democracy.
"By once again you could not help yourself by reverting to insults"
Sorry, it just really riled me, that's all. You said that the mid C20 was unequivocally better than today and that you didn't care what 'the history books' say. I'm glad you recognise you can only speak for yourself, but I'm afraid I still contend that to see that as some kind of comprehensively authoritative view of the time you refer to is arrogance. I can't think of any other word that describes it accurately. It actively places your own perception of the time above any and all evidence to the contrary - you said so yourself that you didn't care about 'the history books'.
It would be monumentally arrogant of me, for instance, to assume that on the basis of my lifestyle and experience (that of a middle-class 21-year old in East Anglia), that today is a far better time to live than the 1950s. Or to say so about pretty much any problem or issue. That's why I don't just throw in the towel when I hit that problem - I look for evidence further afield, which has to become secondary by its nature, but the ultimate judgement I can make will ultimately be better for it.
*Every society persecutes minorities, note. I have in mind murderers, the dangerously insane, kleptomaniacs/pyromaniacs and such. My point is simply that minorities must feel safe and willing to trust the majority in the knowledge that they will not be persecuted without good reason. I'd argue you can't have a truly democratic system without this.
This question is a load of bull. What is more pertinent would be "Should gay marriages be allowed in the UK".
Also, whoever posted that the older generation are more conservative about sexuality is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT correct.
We're talking about people who lived with homosexuality being a criminal offence - now they're faced with civil partnerships, gay politicians, gay coppers, gay newspaper columnists, gay sportsmen...for the older generation, it must be like toxic shock syndrome.
But the older generation won't be around forever, and their opinions will be consigned to history.
Let's put it this way - if you surveyed 3000 people in 1965 and asked them "Should black and White people be allowed to marry", you can guarantee the results would be a lot different from what they are now.
And it's not necessarily bigotry on the part of the elderly (although some of them obviously ARE)...it's just what they're used to.
Before female emancipation, I wonder how many people thought women should have the vote?
Also, whoever posted that the older generation are more conservative about sexuality is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT correct.
We're talking about people who lived with homosexuality being a criminal offence - now they're faced with civil partnerships, gay politicians, gay coppers, gay newspaper columnists, gay sportsmen...for the older generation, it must be like toxic shock syndrome.
But the older generation won't be around forever, and their opinions will be consigned to history.
Let's put it this way - if you surveyed 3000 people in 1965 and asked them "Should black and White people be allowed to marry", you can guarantee the results would be a lot different from what they are now.
And it's not necessarily bigotry on the part of the elderly (although some of them obviously ARE)...it's just what they're used to.
Before female emancipation, I wonder how many people thought women should have the vote?
One other point (and i think it was massively stupid for the Daily Mail to do this)...but the survey shows something that the (let's not use 'homophobe') anti-gay movement haven't considered.
A massive 45% of those surveyed ARE IN FAVOUR OF GAY MARRIAGE!!!
That's bloody incredible.
Seriously, think back to the days of Section 28, and then fast forward to now. That's an astonishing figure, which proves that proves how far we've come!
A massive 45% of those surveyed ARE IN FAVOUR OF GAY MARRIAGE!!!
That's bloody incredible.
Seriously, think back to the days of Section 28, and then fast forward to now. That's an astonishing figure, which proves that proves how far we've come!
rov1100 - use of the word 'normal' rather depends on your sexuality - for a homsexual, then heterosexual activity is against nature. Being in a majority never has, and never wll automatically make your views, or your lifestyle the 'correct' one, and someone else's 'incorrect', soceity no longer functions that way.
You know full well that the actions of two loving adults in the privacy of their own home is a world away from inflicting life-damaging abuse on an innocent child - rather like saying holding an opinion on the world ecconomy makes you a proponent of the Final Solution.
You talk about 'the older generation' as though changes in the world represent some kind of unacceptable shock therapy which has suddenly been foisted on them overnight.
Society's changes are relatively slow, and assimilated by people as they become accepted, and eventually, the norm - and part of havng lived in society long enough to quality as 'the older generation' means that you have learned to accept that the world changes, because it always has. it did for your parents, it does for you, and it will for your children.
The acceptance as acceptible behaviour something that was once seen as shocking is nothing new - there are thousands of examples everywhere you look - from women wearing trousers at one extreme, to women having the vote at the other - and so on and so on.
The idea that you can pass off bigotry and hostility as some sort of acceptable behaviour on the basis that people are 'old' is no more acceptable than passing off drunken violence and rioting as acceptable because people are 'young'.
We all inhabit this piece of space, and we all have a duty to accept that other people lead their lives differently from us in myriad different ways. Tolerance does not mean whol-hearted acceptence, it means what it says - being tolerent of the difference in others.
Try it - you'll feel better.
You know full well that the actions of two loving adults in the privacy of their own home is a world away from inflicting life-damaging abuse on an innocent child - rather like saying holding an opinion on the world ecconomy makes you a proponent of the Final Solution.
You talk about 'the older generation' as though changes in the world represent some kind of unacceptable shock therapy which has suddenly been foisted on them overnight.
Society's changes are relatively slow, and assimilated by people as they become accepted, and eventually, the norm - and part of havng lived in society long enough to quality as 'the older generation' means that you have learned to accept that the world changes, because it always has. it did for your parents, it does for you, and it will for your children.
The acceptance as acceptible behaviour something that was once seen as shocking is nothing new - there are thousands of examples everywhere you look - from women wearing trousers at one extreme, to women having the vote at the other - and so on and so on.
The idea that you can pass off bigotry and hostility as some sort of acceptable behaviour on the basis that people are 'old' is no more acceptable than passing off drunken violence and rioting as acceptable because people are 'young'.
We all inhabit this piece of space, and we all have a duty to accept that other people lead their lives differently from us in myriad different ways. Tolerance does not mean whol-hearted acceptence, it means what it says - being tolerent of the difference in others.
Try it - you'll feel better.
craft1948
Older people are certainly less accepting of homosexuality, cited by the International Journal of Public Opinion Research. There's an abstract from their report (plus a full PDF with their findings here:
http://ijpor.oxfordjo...tent/9/4/361.abstract
The poll by the ONS would've made much better reading if the demographics had been broken down by age, geography, religion etc
Older people are certainly less accepting of homosexuality, cited by the International Journal of Public Opinion Research. There's an abstract from their report (plus a full PDF with their findings here:
http://ijpor.oxfordjo...tent/9/4/361.abstract
The poll by the ONS would've made much better reading if the demographics had been broken down by age, geography, religion etc
I'm with craft. I am cheesed off with people on here having preconceptions about me based on the fact that I am no longer young. It seems I shouldn't be on the road and if I am I cause accidents, I'm homophobic, grumpy and intolerant of the young and hate change. And I can't remember any more cos I is old.
I too have gay relatives and I accepted it from the off. Also, living in Brighton & Hove, there is a large gay community and in my small block of flats there are several gay couples and 2/3 single gay guys and several have become friends. And we all get on splendidly, young, old, gay, straight so don't call me homophobic and don't dare suggest I'm scared of appearing un PC. Surely I cannot be alone in my acceptance among older people. We don't all have closed minds.
// "...and the majority of the AB posters who were interested in getting involved in the debate couldn't care less what the survey said - they still believe that bigoted and narrow-minded views are out of step in a caring democracy."
Just wanted to be sure that the quote you took from my post was seen in context. //
..................they still believe that bigoted and narrow-minded views are out of step in a caring democracy."..................................
.
Andy looks to me like you are saying that anyone who does not agree with you and your mates are a bigot
Just wanted to be sure that the quote you took from my post was seen in context. //
..................they still believe that bigoted and narrow-minded views are out of step in a caring democracy."..................................
.
Andy looks to me like you are saying that anyone who does not agree with you and your mates are a bigot
Latest Posts
Music1 min ago
Crosswords1 min ago
Food & Drink2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV9 mins ago
News9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.