Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Will: “Opposition to Gay Marriage is Dying—It’s Old People”
Cybercast News Service ^ | December 10, 2012 | Pete Winn

Posted on 12/10/2012 5:39:44 PM PST by Olog-hai

Syndicated columnist George Will, appearing Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” said opposition to same-sex marriage is “quite literally” dying, because opponents tend to be older Americans.

“There is something like an emerging consensus. Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s old people,” Will said. …

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: culturewar; gaymarriage; georgefwill; georgewill; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; pinkjournalism; prodeath
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-138 last
To: Olog-hai
You don't answer my arguments, you just keep changing the subject. (Which, by the way, is exactly what the college students do when I try to debate them.)

(What college, incidentally?)

Sorry, I'd rather not say.

Good night.

101 posted on 12/10/2012 9:37:41 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

He’s right. Outside of weekly churchgoers, you’re going to struggle to find anyone under the age of 40 who doesn’t either support gay marriage, or regard it as insufficiently bothersome to merit opposition. Frankly there are plenty of weekly churchgoers who are in the same position: they have gay friends, family, co-workers, etc. — it’s just not something that offends them personally even if they acknowledge that religious orthodoxy might invoke their opposition.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that conspicuous opposition to gay marriage has, in many social and professional circles, become simply regarded as bigotry: an opinion entirely beyond the pale. While some people rebel against those kind of strictures, human nature leads most people to adopt — ideologies which are not permitted to be questioned become, for the most part, unquestionable.

In any event, there’s a very good chance that the Supreme Court ends this within the next six months. 40 years of fervent pro-life campaigning hasn’t laid a finger on Roe and my guess is that nobody even bothers with a movement against gay marriage once the Supremes have legalized it nationally.


102 posted on 12/10/2012 9:37:50 PM PST by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

“Everything else tells us government shouldn’t be in the business.”

Not really. Rights of succession, inheritance, power of attorney, child custody, visitation, and support, even testimony in courts of law legitimately affect the state in the area of marriage. Society can’t function without legitimate marriage.


103 posted on 12/10/2012 9:37:50 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Government has an obligation to its youngest citizens, minor children to protect them from such known hazards as abuse and neglect, and being raised for faggot fodder.


104 posted on 12/10/2012 9:39:59 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: svcw

“Marriage is a spiritual act, I agree the government has no business having anything to do with it.”

Marriage is spiritual but also civil and societal.

It transcends categories. It is the basic building block of human society.


105 posted on 12/10/2012 9:40:58 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: only1percent

You trying to say that the vast numbers of blacks that voted for Obama are pro-gay-marriage . . . ? or the Hispanics and Asians?

I think I can tell the difference between stating fact and propagandizing for the other side. And blatant ageism is in Will’s statements, which is not only of a leftist source but reveals the man’s own thoughts rather than a continued support of conservatism as a conviction.


106 posted on 12/10/2012 9:42:38 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

Oh wow. Personal attack.

Yeah, you are in league with them, because you don’t see marriage as an essential part of civic society. You see marriage as a contract between two individuals.


107 posted on 12/10/2012 9:48:01 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
if the homos want to pretend they are married, go for it....my understanding of the Bible, limited I know, is that God intended for man and woman to be married, not just any two humans.....

but so be it....

there are consequences when there are no rules, no traditions, no sacred rites, no established patterns, no morals, no ethics, no common sense, no fear of God....

for those people, may all your dreams come true...because they will, and you will hate that day...

108 posted on 12/10/2012 10:22:18 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Even Lenin said “Destroy the family and you destroy society”, outlining how leftists would chip away at a strong society. Part of the family is marriage between one man and one woman. It certainly is not a mere “contract”. The Founding Fathers were adamant that religion and private morality (which the family cannot be extricated from) were the pillars upon which the USA had to stand, and without them it would fall.


109 posted on 12/10/2012 10:24:17 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Civilization is dying.


110 posted on 12/10/2012 10:24:43 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChad

I did not change the subject at all. But by all means, do the liberal run-away thingy.


111 posted on 12/10/2012 10:25:06 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

Jesus criticized the religious scholars of his day for not being able to recognize the signs of the times, even though they were written down in their law. If civilization is starting to die, that is a very big sign of something biblical impending.


112 posted on 12/10/2012 10:27:13 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Oh wow. Personal attack.

Your posts to me in this thread have not been exactly civil. I cannot recall reading a more egregious post than #87, so obviously trolling for a volatile response. So spare me your feigned offense.

At least *this* post of yours doesn't seem offensive - probably because your reasoning escapes me. I just don't quite follow the link from "being in league with Islamists" to "don't see traditional marriage as essential...." Care to connect those nonsensical dots?

As a matter of fact, I DO see traditional marriage as an essential part of American (and more generally, Western Judeo-Christian) society. What's more, I didn't even mention it in this thread. I didn't deride traditional marriage and certainly didn't speak up in favor of gay "marriage". But, since you allege otherwise, I challenge you to find and cite this comment of mine which supposedly minimizes marriage to the point of a "contract between two individuals". Take your time, dig though my old posts.

I'll check back tomorrow. Be thorough, now.

113 posted on 12/10/2012 11:50:32 PM PST by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I guess that is why it has only been voted in by the popular vote in one state I think Hawaii

and been voted out in over half the states

man...with GOP establishment who needs Democrats


114 posted on 12/10/2012 11:54:55 PM PST by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I don’t know how old you are but 25 year olds change a lot

or they should

I sure as hell did


115 posted on 12/10/2012 11:59:43 PM PST by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; Charles Martel
That poster is an absolute nutjob with his bitter resentment over his own upbringing and projects it on the forum....blames the world for his ills...sounds like a dogma we reject here doesn't it?

Anyone who lives anywhere near concentrations of youth knows that youth is far more leftist than boomer parents, boomers or Xers

to think otherwise is absolute nuts

and said poster is so daft as not to realize that all that 50s/60s/70s crap we all deride...well most us anyhow, some here applaud 60s race legislation...was foisted on us by boomers parents and grandparents in their electoral prime

has doofuss ever even looked at how youth under 30 voted in 1972 for Nixon(52-54%) versus McGovern juxtaposed by how youth vote today for Obama(66-68%)...

today's youth are far more liberal...brainwashed by the culture and education

Charles...you merit your nick very well sir...far better than said poster's service to the inestimable antebellum Senator from Kentucky

116 posted on 12/11/2012 12:20:12 AM PST by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
opposition to same-sex marriage is “quite literally” dying,

Right or wrong? Good or bad? As long as most people support it, it must be OK.

117 posted on 12/11/2012 12:42:05 AM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: windsorknot

There’s also “true or false”. I see a lot of governmental support, and the media is so distorted that I can’t really see just how strong or weak the popular support might be. Will’s ageism is simply not a conservative tenet—that is the weapon of leftists and leftists alone, and I see absolutely no basis in fact, even among Obama’s voters (unless someone can definitively prove that a majority of blacks, Hispanics and Catholics actually support this abomination when everything I hear from those segments of society is to the contrary no matter what age group).


118 posted on 12/11/2012 12:45:51 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: realcleanguy

“It was a younger generation in Sodom and Gomorrah that decided homosexuality was the only way. And we know that ended badly”

Nowadays the old ways are just trivialized into myths by our media; the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is questioned (as is Christ Himself) by atheist scholars on the “intelligent” channels (History Channel, for example). I used to be a big fan, though now I never watch it because nothing on it is true. We’re in the season (Easter is another one) where we’ll be bombarded with scholars questioning the birth of Christ and what that meant.


119 posted on 12/11/2012 3:31:55 AM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

“Ultimately, it is a social contract, when society is ready, it will happen.”

It is a legal contract; that is why “marriage” itself is disappearing for American men while it flourishes with mental patients “playing normal”. Anyone who knows what the freaks do to each other opposes everything about them; they are plainly sick.


120 posted on 12/11/2012 3:34:34 AM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

with age comes wisdom. except when it comes to pundits.


I have a placard on my office wall that states”

Good judgement comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgement.

Nothing more true in life.


121 posted on 12/11/2012 4:26:52 AM PST by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Marriage licensing is a relative modern concept.


122 posted on 12/11/2012 7:04:43 AM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
A man and a woman have a baby. The woman runs off with the child. Should the state step in? If the man refuses to support the woman and child, should the state step in? The list of potential injustices is endless.

The only reason the state steps in is because for every dollar of child support exthorted from the non custodial parent they get a matching dollar from the feds.

I say that they should only mediate and make sure that some type of payment is made but not to the child support enforcement who then gets their matching dollar and gives it to the non custodial parent.

Remove the financial rewards and you will see more women trying harder to make things work.

123 posted on 12/11/2012 8:16:56 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Check out what deviant marriage has done to Scandanavia.


124 posted on 12/11/2012 8:20:49 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

beltway disease.

with a serious NYC stupidity infection.

George Will should stick to writing insignificant books about about baseball.


125 posted on 12/11/2012 8:47:25 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Marriage has rarely been a self-defined situation, even in Roman times there were laws related to marriage, and the Catholic church used to be a form of law.


126 posted on 12/11/2012 10:02:59 AM PST by ansel12 (A.Coulter2005(truncated)Romney will never recover from his Court's create of a right to gay marriage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: svcw

“Marriage licensing is a relative modern concept.”

Perhaps the word “licensing” is?

But laws throughout cultures and history acknowledge the marriage relationship, as one man and one woman, and impact inheritance, bigamy, taxation, adultery, adoption, legal testimony, rape and sexual assault, power of attorney whether it is called that or not, visitation rights even as to prison and so forth, child provision responsibilities, etc.

It is a HUGE civil partnership that is unique. It is not spiritual only.


127 posted on 12/11/2012 11:09:06 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: svcw; Persevero; little jeremiah; xzins; P-Marlowe; trisham; Coleus; narses; metmom
Marriage licensing is a relative modern concept.

That's utter nonsense.

The Catholic Church began requiring banns of marriage in the early 13th century, it was done in many areas even before this. Banns were explicitly kept as a requirement by Protestants during the reformation.

So, I would hardly call eight hundred years "relatively modern" as it predates nearly all other forms of English Common Law on which American laws were based.

Moreover, prior to VERY RECENTLY, NOBODY would have ever thought to define marriage as anything other than between a man and woman. Even cultures that practiced polygamy never defined marriage as between two members of the same gender.

The whole "government shouldn't be involved in marriage licensing" is simply the latest libertarian attempt to support the left's agenda while pretending not to.

128 posted on 12/11/2012 11:21:01 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Ok, the Catholic church was the government.


129 posted on 12/11/2012 1:07:27 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I have no problem with churches defining marriage, I have a problem with governments defining marriage.
If the government can define it as between one man and one woman, they are then permitted to define it as anything they want.
The civil union part needs to be separated from the spiritual part called marriage.


130 posted on 12/11/2012 1:24:45 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I have no problem with churches defining marriage, I have a problem with governments defining marriage.
If the government can define it as between one man and one woman, they are then permitted to define it as anything they want.
The civil union part needs to be separated from the spiritual part called marriage.


131 posted on 12/11/2012 1:25:25 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

I have no problem with churches defining marriage, I have a problem with governments defining marriage.
If the government can define it as between one man and one woman, they are then permitted to define it as anything they want.
The civil union part needs to be separated from the spiritual part called marriage.


132 posted on 12/11/2012 1:26:15 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The whole "government shouldn't be involved in marriage licensing" is simply the latest libertarian attempt to support the left's agenda while pretending not to.

***********************

Exactly right.

133 posted on 12/11/2012 1:29:58 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

The point is that the government does have the power to regularize and solemnize marriage. Has, at least under the Common law (which the US is a part of), the state has had this authority for at least 500 years.

Hence the references to Habeaus Corpus and to trial by jury. Marriage is included among this. This is why the state should retain this power to protect the definition of marriage. Given that marriage predates the common law, the common law cannot change marriage, it can only protect the definition of one man and one woman.

The second concern is immigration. Insofar as the state issues spousal visas, the state has the power to regulate marriage. Removing state control of marriage is in effect, unrestricted immigration into the US or elimination of spousal visas. Is that really what you want?


134 posted on 12/11/2012 2:37:19 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Maine, Maryland, and Washington all legalized agay marriage by popular referenda this past November.


135 posted on 12/12/2012 4:57:45 PM PST by Clemenza ("History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil governm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Cake lovers


136 posted on 12/13/2012 11:37:49 AM PST by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Yep.


137 posted on 12/13/2012 12:41:28 PM PST by Clemenza ("History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil governm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

George Will: The Ellsworth Toohey of the Chardonnay Conservation crowd.


138 posted on 01/07/2013 9:32:10 AM PST by AdaGray (squi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-138 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson