![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Solving the gay marriage vote
I know a lot of people are upset about the measure that passed in Maine denying gay marriage.
My first reaction is that this will all be moot in a few years because as soon as some old people die and some young people turn 18, gay marriage initiatives will easily pass. I do have some data to support that -- unless people who support gay marriage stop supporting it as they get older (which seems unlikely), we're just a couple of years away from having gay marriage initiatives easily pass in more liberal states.
To me, the anti-gay crowd has already lost the culture war, and it's only a matter of time before they're outnumbered. When I was a child, openly gay characters on TV and in movies were very rare, but now they are very common.
So it seems like the path of least resistance is to just wait a few years.
However, I understand that this issue deeply hurts people now, and that they want to see the change happen faster. This is totally understandable. It seems like the key to making this change happen faster would be to understand what specifically causes people to flip from being anti-gay-marriage to being pro-gay marriage. I'm curious if there's been any systematic large-scale study about what recent converts cite as their reason for converting.
Some ideas of potential reasons:
- Family members or friends who have come out as gay
- Human-interest stories they see on TV or in newspapers about gay people who want to marry but cannot
- Political commercials
- Fictional gay characters in movies/TV/books
If the causes are known, it's easier to come up with a strategy. There are of course issues with the accuracy of self-reporting but surely some data is better than no data.
I do know funding has a big impact, so I'm curious if the various strategies that are used to impact funding are successful. Are there any documented cases of companies stopping their political contributions to antigay measures after boycotts are put in place?
That's me. I like being data-driven and solutions-oriented.
My first reaction is that this will all be moot in a few years because as soon as some old people die and some young people turn 18, gay marriage initiatives will easily pass. I do have some data to support that -- unless people who support gay marriage stop supporting it as they get older (which seems unlikely), we're just a couple of years away from having gay marriage initiatives easily pass in more liberal states.
To me, the anti-gay crowd has already lost the culture war, and it's only a matter of time before they're outnumbered. When I was a child, openly gay characters on TV and in movies were very rare, but now they are very common.
So it seems like the path of least resistance is to just wait a few years.
However, I understand that this issue deeply hurts people now, and that they want to see the change happen faster. This is totally understandable. It seems like the key to making this change happen faster would be to understand what specifically causes people to flip from being anti-gay-marriage to being pro-gay marriage. I'm curious if there's been any systematic large-scale study about what recent converts cite as their reason for converting.
Some ideas of potential reasons:
- Family members or friends who have come out as gay
- Human-interest stories they see on TV or in newspapers about gay people who want to marry but cannot
- Political commercials
- Fictional gay characters in movies/TV/books
If the causes are known, it's easier to come up with a strategy. There are of course issues with the accuracy of self-reporting but surely some data is better than no data.
I do know funding has a big impact, so I'm curious if the various strategies that are used to impact funding are successful. Are there any documented cases of companies stopping their political contributions to antigay measures after boycotts are put in place?
That's me. I like being data-driven and solutions-oriented.
no subject
But of course, there is always a dangerous assumption that things will inevitably get better. Dark ages can, and do, happen, especially immediately after empires get toppled. The good fight is a never-ending battle, and we take so much for granted. Sure, information wants to be free, and sure, science is progressive and strong. But never underestimate the power of superstition to take hold of the minds of people, especially among those in charge.
Tolerance of homosexuality has oscillated in history. We're only on an "upswing" because science has advanced our thinking, and religious leaders have continued to make poor choices that alienate an already dwindling congregation (American Episcopalians, among others, excluded).
When the Invasion of the Monkey Men will next occur is anybody's guess. In the interim, I am happy to be a member of the Pink Army.
no subject
I know Egypt has significantly backslid on women's rights since the 1970s.