Gay Marriage Opponents (in the US) now in the Minority

[Foxrac]

*Praise the GLBT flag*

 

[StSapphire]

Only for those who believe there are no absolutes in morality.

As far as the poll, it was about the legality of same-sex marriages, not the morality of same-sex relationships. Two different topics.

I would say that one would have to be okay with same sex relationships if they are not opposed to same sex marriage.

Everyone is free to apply absolutes to their own moral decisions...just not everyone's.

jillio's well studied in psychology and sociology. If I had to take a guess, she probably is a moral relativist, rather than a moral absolutist, or at least that's how I read her last statement. That's generally how sociology was taught (at least to me a couple of years ago), since it's basically the only way to be an "impartial observer" in order to actually learn about foreign cultures.

I can't decide which I am, myself. I've been reading more and more lately from scientific authors who have argued that the conventional theory (that you can't scientifically claim "superiority" of one culture or cultural value over another) was essentially borne out of a backlash against the practice of eugenics during the holocaust and has gone too far in the other direction.

The general idea is that you can start with a few simple bases (such as "pain is bad" and "increased general well-being is good") and extend that into a full and logically consistent scientific basis for valuing (or devaluing) moral systems and cultural values.

 

[Dixie]

I agree with Jillio that who they love shouldn't be right or wrong nor is it for anyone else to judge it's morality. It should be a personal decision. The United States is merely going into the direction that we are making it legal to make these personal decisions, whereas before, homosexuals were barred from marrying their partners legally despite having a committed relationship for decades as well as living together like a married couple would. In MA, homosexuals don't have to pretend they are married- they are really, truly, and legally married. This should be extended nationwide.

 

[jillio]

jillio's well studied in psychology and sociology. If I had to take a guess, she probably is a moral relativist, rather than a moral absolutist, or at least that's how I read her last statement. That's generally how sociology was taught (at least to me a couple of years ago), since it's basically the only way to be an "impartial observer" in order to actually learn about foreign cultures.

I can't decide which I am, myself. I've been reading more and more lately from scientific authors who have argued that the conventional theory (that you can't scientifically claim "superiority" of one culture or cultural value over another) was essentially borne out of a backlash against the practice of eugenics during the holocaust and has gone too far in the other direction.

The general idea is that you can start with a few simple bases (such as "pain is bad" and "increased general well-being is good") and extend that into a full and logically consistent scientific basis for valuing (or devaluing) moral systems and cultural values.

You discovered my secret!

 

[Daredevel7]

Hmm. Yeah, I was puzzled that I thought any one who is gay or lesbian involving in military duty, in military offices are not allowed to marry unless they are retired because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy but until my sister told me its policy no longer in Massachusetts (the first state to legalize gay marriage.) Well, I'm behind the news, especially isn't following Political news that often. Is this true? Because my sister is engaged right now and is going to marry in the next year of April. Two years ago, my sister told me she would get married once she retires from military duties at 55 but now she's 46 and told me the law has recently changed, bent the law.

I think you confused "military" with "minority" in the title.