8 votes

61% Of Young Republicans 18-29 Favor Gay Marriage

Young people continue to be the strongest proponents of same-sex marriage. And as public support for same-sex marriage continues to grow, the gap between young and old is nowhere more striking than within the Republican coalition.

Today, 61% of Republicans and Republican leaners under 30 favor same-sex marriage while just 35% oppose it. By contrast, just 27% of Republicans ages 50 and older favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

Continue... http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-...

(I hope this trend continues, because it's always right there in the way of most Republican candidates.)



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

God of The Bible Represents True Freedom?

Okay, let's pretend there are 2 men on a beach.

Man 1 walks up to a child and says; Bow before me and worship me, or you'll live eternity in INTENSE PAIN. You MUST ACCEPT that you're NATURALLY EVIL FROM BIRTH and that everything I BELIEVE YOU MUST BELIEVE OR BE SHOT IN THE HEAD.

The child runs away, frightened by the nasty man.

Man 2 walks up to the same child and says; "Hi there little one. Would you WANT to LISTEN to me speak about freedom and liberty? If not, that's okay. By the way, I recommend staying from that man over there. He's a mean SOB!

I escaped the prison and immorality of organized religion. Please don't suggest it's some kind of path to freedom. It's not. It's about conformity and servitude to a mythical tyrant.

Organized religion will do nothing but put you in chains..

Freedom in Christ will actually free you.

I just follow what is the reality in this life friend, If you claim you have no sin (and never have: you're a liar).

If God is just (but also Good), then He must hold us accountable. If He is good, and perfect then He must also be love (even for those that reject Him), and if that's the case Christ is the reconciliation between God's Love (of His creation, ESPECIALLY every person) and His Justice..

You have liberty of course to either accept this purchase of your debt or you can reject it. God gives you freedom to chose, but I chose to accept Him and freedom!

Jeremy

Just wondering why you care

Just wondering why you care about the definition at all? It's not like it's impossible to list a couple of hundred well-known christian leaders or politicians who have had affairs outside of their marriage with both men and women. So much for the sanctity of an old tradition. And like someone previously mentioned, over 50% of marriages end in a divorce.

There's more single people than ever before. And that isn't gonna change. You can also love and live with someone just as well without marriage. So just let people do whatever they want.

Let's put it this way:

I don't want the government to redefine marriage (which is what the left/gay marriage advocates want).

If we are against big-gov. then why should we LET big-gov. redefine marriage??

Jeremy

Why can't we keep the

Why can't we keep the government out of marriage like what Ron Paul was avocating? You are essentially favoring the U.S. federal government should interfere with marriage. Why can't people live their own lives the way they wish?

Marriage interferes with

Marriage interferes with happiness. LOL

This should come as no surprise.

Male sodomy was removed from the Criminal Code in most Western nations by the late 1960's. Anyone born after that date would then grow up and be educated in a society where there was a concerted effort to "normalise" male sodomy and lesbianism using the media and entertainment channels to effect social change. Legislative changes followed to criminalise any anti-male sodomy speech and to legitimise same sex relationships by forming civil unions then marriages.

This represents 45 years of constant pressure to change the way we think about male sodomy and lesbian relationships which at one time were considered to be at the very least abnormal and usually a perversion that evinced revulsion in the majority of the population. To so change the normal reaction to one of virtually complete acceptance within a little over a generation is an amazing accomplishment that has been attainable only due to the complete pervasiveness of modern electronic media and highly sophisticated conditioning, i.e. brainwashing techniques. This points to a deliberate agenda by very powerful interests, not necessarily themselves sodomites or lesbians, to degrade the moral strength of the population and render them more susceptible to central control.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Freedom of choice

and mind your own business, and not mine!

Liberty minded common sense thinking,,, nothing wrong with that!

NOSHEEPLE

Simple

Just make it a simple contract between two consenting adults. PERIOD. No need for anything else. If that contract is in place, you are "legally" married. I get that Marriage is baked deep into the tax code, but that tax code shouldn't be there in the first place. Bummer this has to be such a big damn deal.

This

This would also filter out the "why can't I marry my dog then" crowd, because dogs can't sign contracts. Although there maybe should be a clause for Monkeys, wouldn't put it past them!

You're going to upset Sen.

You're going to upset Sen. Santorum. I think he want's to, you know, man on dog, or, whatever...

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

"because dogs can't sign

"because dogs can't sign contracts"

They could piss on it as an affirmation

Is marriage religious?

I am confused. Read the etymology of the word marriage and you see it has only been around since 1250-1300AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology

The old testament from what I can gather was compiled between the years of 1500bc - 500bc. How can any religion claim the word in any sanctity? To define marriage as between one woman and one man is disingenuous as the old testament is rife with polygamy.

Does the word marriage even appear in the old testament or is it a "modern" day translation for convenience sake?

You are correct

You are correct. The word "marry," "marriage," "married," etc. in the OT are paraphrased (yes even in so called "word-for-word" translations). the Hebrew phrase is "take a woman." In fact, there isn't even a word that means "wife/husband" used in the Hebrew or Greek bibles, just woman/man: so, "my wife" or "my husband" would be "my woman" or "my man" - I'm not sure if there is a phrase "take a man"...I'll have to look into it. Greek does have a word for marriage, but it is mostly used in the NT, almost never in the LXX.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Denise B's picture

Actually,

the idea of one woman and one man being united in marriage appears in Genesis, the very first chapter of the Bible: Genesis 2:22-23 "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." And then in Genesis 2:24, God himself states "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Notice the use of the word wife.

I have no idea where you are getting your information, but the term marriage is used in each of the following O/T book: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Daniel & Malachi.

It has always been understood throughout history that marriage was a sacred union created by God between one man and one woman. It has only been within the past several decades that anyone dared to challenge or question this concept and it is no coincidence that this coincides exactly with the overall attack we have witnessed against Christianity in this country, to the point where a Bible is not even allowed inside the classroom today.

I am baffled how some people can be so aware of the concerted attack to destroy this country in so many areas, but are blind to it when it comes to this one issue. David Robertson is correct, this is because of a massive propaganda assault by the media and popular entertainment, but the biggest assault has occurred right under parent's noses in our public schools. They are brainwashing our children beginning as early as the third grade (when discussion of a sexual nature have no right being brought up AT ALL) to not only accept homosexuality, but to embrace it and to ridicule and reject anyone who does not do the same, especially those from a Christian perspective. They are taught that people who do not embrace this choice of lifestyle is guilty of hate. Talk about double speak! They preach tolerance and non tolerance in the same breath and most parents are completely ignorant to the fact that this is what is going on in their schools. It is no wonder that 61% of our young adults favor gay marriage....it is because they have been brainwashed to celebrate homosexuality and despise God's Word. And you people wonder why we are in the mess we are in?!?!

For those of you that still don't get it, it has nothing to do with caring about people's rights!!! Does it make any sense to you that the people that are taking away our God given rights every single day are the same one's that are screaming about the homosexual's right to marry?! These people DO NOT care about your rights!! They are trying to destroy the social fabric of this country (the family unit and belief in morality and God) and they are just about there. Ever hear of eugenics? Guess what...for every person that embraces the homosexual lifestyle, there is at least, on average, two children that will not be born. So lets do the math....1,000,000 embrace the homosexual lifestyle, 2,000,000 children never born....that translates to at least another 4,000,000 in the next generation, and then 8,000,000 and so on and so on and so on.

I do not hate homosexuals nor do I think they should be punished for being homosexual. On the contrary, I love them and I pray for them. But as a Christian, I also have a right to my beliefs and I am taught and believe that it is God's Word that is to be put above all things and if God has stated that it is wrong and immoral, I have no right to over ride His rule, for any reason. As a Christian I believe it is wrong, not of my own accord, but because God has said it is wrong. I can not and I will not support "Gay Marriage" because it is an affront to God's Word, and God is the one who created and defined it in the first place!

Did you read my post?

No. The word "marriage" is used in translations of the bible. Can you tell me what Hebrew word(s) are being used in any of those references? How about the word for "wife" in Genesis 2:24? Did you read my post?

"It has always been understood throughout history that marriage was a sacred union created by God between one man and one woman. It has only been within the past several decades that anyone dared to challenge or question this concept."
Apparently you've never read Genesis (try 4:19).

I agree with you about homosexuality, but I'm not sure why you brought it up in your reply to me, since I didn't mention it nor allude to it.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Denise B's picture

No, I did not read your post,

because I was not replying to you; however, to contend that marriage (i.e. the union between and MAN and a WOMAN which is sanctioned by God) is not a concept used in the OT shows me that it is you who has failed to read it. I am not going to argue over translations because that is the newest ruse used to try to discredit and confuse God's word. Not only is the concept of the sacred union between a MAN and a WOMAN used repeatedly throughout both the OT and NT {call it what you want, (although the KJV and most versions use the word marriage over and over again)it is also the same concept which is used to describe God's relationship to His people, first in the OT: Isaiah 62:5 "for as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: as the bridegroom rejoicedth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." to cite only one of many, many references. The concept continues in the NT Mark 2:20 Jesus states (speaking of himself) "But the time will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them; and when that day comes, they will fast." There are literally dozens of references where Christ is referred to as the bridegroom of His church.

Arguing over translations is a ruse and disingenuous, to say the least, because any student of the Bible does not question the fact that God himself sanctioned a sacred union between a man and woman and then uses that same concept to describe the union between Himself and His Church. The fact that the Bible documents people who married more than one woman is also not relevant to the argument as to whether or not it is scripturally repulsive for two men or two women to distort the union that God had ordained to specifically be between a man and a woman and himself and His church and to do so is an affront to God Himself. Did people marry more than one woman in the O/T, yes, people did a lot of things outside of what God commanded them to do (and still do to this day), but please do cite for me just one instance in either the old or new testaments which indicates that the union of two men or two women was ever sanctioned by God. Quite the opposite is true, but somehow I am quite sure that you are aware of that.

I also am not sure why you question why I brought up homosexuality because it is the topic of the article, but in any event, I was not responding to you in the first place.

I'm not sure why you are so

I'm not sure why you are so belligerent, but if you weren't responding to me, you shouldn't have replied to my post. What's with all these straw men: implying that I think gay marriage is biblical and I disagree with the "union between a MAN and a WOMAN"? Someone needs to tell you that your anger is clouding your mind when you are replying to posts you're not replying to and arguing with people who are agreeing with you.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Denise B's picture

Please excuse my "belligerence";

because apparently there was a misunderstanding on my part when you stated "you are correct" to the previous post, (which I was initially responding to) which included the statement; "How can any religion claim the word in any sanctity? To define marriage as between one woman and one man is disingenuous as the old testament is rife with polygamy". Apparently when you stated "you are correct", and used this as the title for your entire response, you were not, in fact, referencing your agreement with this particular portion of commentary; and it was in fact this particular statement that prompted my response and ire. Although I may be angry, my mind is not clouded. It sees crystal clear the concerted effort to redefine what marriage has always meant in this country and who's roots are traced back to Genesis. My mistake for falsely believing you were affirming the previous posters entire comments, when you were in fact, only affirming a portion of them, but alas, all this confusion began when you responded to me in error in the first place. Ooops all around!!
Peace :)

Where is the word marriage

in the biblical quote you cited? If it is a religious term why hasn't anyone sued the state for establishing a religion?

deacon's picture

Marriage?

Is a contract between god with one man and woman?
Soloman had many wives,David had wives,one recorded in the bible worked
7 yrs for one wife,and another 7 yrs for the sister of the other one he married.David even so far as to have one husband killed,just to cover up for his sleeping with the dudes wife
The deal with Adam and Eve was for procreation,propagating the species,seeing no other way will work
God's word says this and that,and god claims what is a sin and what isn't?
He also claimed killing was a sin,but had no problem killing or telling his own whom to kill.Why is it,it is wrong to kill,but god told Moses,and followers to kill all in this and or that land?
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Denise B's picture

Deacon,

if there is one thing the Bible makes abundantly clear, it is the fact that since the very beginning, man has a propensity for sin and to ignore God's rule and commands. Even those that loved Him dearly and were closest to Him are not immune to the sins of the flesh. That is who we are and what we do. That is why God sent a Savior to redeem us from our own fallen, sinful nature. Just because the bible documents sinful behavior, it does not mean it is condoning it. It is a case study of man since the fall and it is a sad commentary of our nature indeed. It is very fortunate for us that God is full of patience, mercy and forgiveness or we would all have ceased to exist a long time ago.

Yes, God's word does say that it is wrong for us to commit murder, because judgement is reserved for Him alone. God alone gets to decide how and when people die, and if you haven't noticed, we all are going to one day. God gives life and God has the right to take it away, but unlike ours, His will is perfect and so are His judgements.

some

connect the word "Marry" to "Mary" as in "Mother", which is what marriage was for, children/ heirs.

Now contracts go way beyond heirs so much so, many are never heirs, rather their debts are to the state and creditors. Go figure.

My dad used to say, "Marriage is a woman's institution" (He was an objectivist, loathed religion with a passion). http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/1.html

The government should not be involved

two people that are married or in a civil union should not get different treatment(benefits) than a single person.

amen

and amen

Wow, it truly is the party of Lincoln

I prefer straight marriage.

100% of Libertarians

don't think that gov't has any role in allowing who should marry whom...

#justsayin
#liberty

It is discriminatory that only gays are protected from marriage.

Being slightly over the age of 29, it is my opinion that if homosexuals want to ruin their lives, let them.

Why would anyone want to be

Why would anyone want to be part of an institution that has a 50% failure rate?

How can you applaud the success of the elites agenda?

Polling a bunch of 'youngsters' (how someone 30 could be considered a 'young person' is beyond me - I was insulted when at 26 I was referred to as 'young', I was an adult - period) who've been brainwashed by a corrupt ejukation system doesn't make it something to gloat over or praise. The fact that a tiny segment of the population of a certain sexual persuasion goes out of its way to force a visual image of its private acts on the vast majority by proclaiming every chance it gets that they are gay etc shows an immaturity and disrespect that beggars belief. No one should be forced to have any other's private acts imprinted in their minds. I would hate to be defined by who I sleep with. I am a human being. I need no other definition.
As has been said, 'marriage' has a definition. Since LGBT have a definition for themselves apart from human being, they should come up with a definition that suits their desire. No one can have it all.
This is the freakin' United Nation pushing an immoral agenda and breaking up family. The UN's goal has always been to rework the entire order of things and not for the better. That you, Robert, are sucked into it makes me wonder.
This is the latest from the UN. Instead of just addressing child abuse in the Catholic Church, the UN is practically demanding the Church change Canon law to fit the UN's secular push 'recommending' the Church abandon its teachings on abortion, contraceptives, and that it should get rid of textbooks in its schools that have 'gender stereotypes'. No more books that have Billy and Suzie going on vacation with Mommy and Daddy because that creates 'gender bias'.
I don't know how anyone can support any part of the UN's agenda.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison