(10-08-2011, 07:01 PM)kandrathe Wrote: I'm looking at the history of the US. Much of Europe's issues with religion had more to do with dictates of various monarchies, and the Holy Roman Empire.
So, because religious people in the US are respectful, and Fred Phelps is not respectful (and is in the US), therefore he's not religious?
This is a weird argument. Wouldn't it make more sense to say he's religious in a way which is outdated, extreme, or foreign to the US? Rather than trying to construct an argument about how a fire-and-brimstone pastor is not religious?
(Of course, that wouldn't manage the "no true scotsman" implication...)
Quote:More like 58% say homosexuality should be accepted, and 33% say it should be discouraged with 8% don't know, or undecided. However, in the 58% group, only 45% favor same-sex unions. I think the attitude of that 13% would be described as ambivalent to what people do in their relationships, but are more concerned for changing what marriage means.
So, we've gone from "the bulk" of the opposition to gay marriage being mostly concerned about "marriage" rather than "gay," to it being less than a third of the opposition?
I would say that means "the bulk" is from people who are just anti-gay, and only a middling minority are concerned about the niceties of exactly what "marriage" means. (As if we had some kind of consistent definition about *that* either.)
-Jester