Rapid change in attitudes to marriage equality

By Ken Perrott 23/07/2015


Click the image to go to the video (unfortunately I can’t embed the video here).

The video demonstrates “The Stunning 15-Year March to Marriage Equality Around the World.” And it certainly shows how rapid this change in community values has been.

I suppose many people will look at the map and feel they occupy the moral high ground because we are citizens of a country that has accepted marriage equality. The map certainly differentiates between those who have accepted and those who haven’t.

But the very rapidity of this change in community values is also a lesson. We should expect more countries to accept marriage equality in the near future. and secondly, we should be a bit humble and not make judgments on people and countries who have not yet accepted marriage equality.

After all, we were in that position a very short time ago.

Thanks to:  Same-sex marriage world map: Countries where gay unions are permitted after Supreme Court (VIDEO)..


0 Responses to “Rapid change in attitudes to marriage equality”

  • Obviously if you get threatened with losing your job, being fined by the government, ostracised by your community etc, you will “embrace” same sex marriage

    Anything for a quiet life.

  • The thing that most surprises me is that countries such as Spain and Argentina (with a strongly Roman Catholic influence) got in before NZ on this issue.

  • Yet in Iran, they hang gays. In Syria, they thrown them to their deaths off high buildings. We have just done a nuclear deal with Iran, how cool is that?

    In Sweden, the SD party tried to organise a Pride Parade through an area that is 75% Muslim, and gay activists are trying to ban the parade on the grounds that it is racist.

  • My point? Which one specifically? That countries like Iran and Saudi are stone age cultures that treat women and gays barbarically, and “liberal” countries like Sweden are bending over backwards to accommodate them?

    Of course the gay marriage agenda has nothing to do with tolerance, quite the opposite in fact.
    Just take a look at the pogroms being taken against Christian bakers who won’t bake a gay cake or a gay pizza

    Needless to say, the “liberals” who are attacking Christians and conservatives will do anything in their power to prevent stone age cultures like those from the middle east from being offended.

    That would be “racist” of course.

    This is why a 17 year old Somali boy in Sweden was given 180 hours community service for raping a 12 year old girl, and a group of Muslim men who gang raped a girl at a party were discharged without conviction.
    A 14 year old girl was raped in Saudi, yet it was her “fault” for not having a man in attendance and was sentenced to 100 lashes. Unfortunately she only made it to 70 before she died. Oh dear nevermind, we shouldn’t criticise them should we?
    It might “offend” them, and we wouldn’t want that would we?

    As for the gay cakes…

    I find it so offensive that someone in Montana might hypothetically not bake me a gay cake. Even though I am not gay and I don’t eat gay cakes anyway, or live in Montana.
    Oh the humanity

  • Well, thanks Andy. Still don’t understand why you see a necessary conflict between supporting marriage equality as a basic human right, and supporting human rights more generally in other countries. Seems like they go hand in hand to me.

    It’s somewhat hysterical of you to talk about ‘pogroms’ against against ‘Christian bakers’ (note that you pluralised what remains a single incident as well). For a nuanced discussion of this topic, see:

  • It wasn’t a single incident. There are several cases of Christian bakers being singled out by gay activists. One in Northern Ireland lost a court case for refusing to bake a cake with the slogan “support gay marriage”. I’d be interested to see a Muslim baker being forced by the state to bake a cake with a cartoon of Mohammed on it. We can’t do that of course, because it would offend their religion. Pogroms against Christians are OK though.

    This is hysterical how? Gay activists forced Brendan Eich out of his job as CEO of Mozzilla for giving a small donation to a pro-traditional marriage group, which is completely within his rights under the US constitution, and furthermore his views were the same as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at the time, who both were against same-sex marriage at the time of the last US election.

    Marriage is a contract between two people. I missed the bit when it became a human rights issue, sorry

    Anyway, it will be a short-lived concept. When we are all living under Sharia Law, as many will be by the middle of the century in Europe at our current trajectory, womens and gay rights will be a footnote in history

  • By the way, Canada has had same sex marriage for 10 years. They have removed all references of “natural” or biological parents from the statutes. All references are to “legal” parents.

    If you should dare to make the shocking and bigoted suggestion that the best people to raise a child are its biological parents, then you can face a fine of $10,000 and may lose your job.

    Some parents in Germany were concerned about their kids being taught about gay lifestyles at school, and had a small protest. Some LBGT activists responded by throwing human faeces at the parents

    We live in such tolerant times

  • By the way, I find it amusing that you use the term “hysterical” in this context. As you may know, the term “hysteria” and “hysterectomy” have the same derivation, which is the greek word for uterus

    “Hysteria” was misdiagnosed as a disease of the uterus for a long time, whose treatment was the removal of the uterus.
    Later, “manipulation” was used by a midwife for unmarried women, which then led to the use of vibrators and didos to relief the “hysteria”.

    We now know that this “hysteria” was merely sexual frustration, of course.

    So our attitudes do change, in this case for the better.

  • Andy – it seems to boil down to the conflict between antidiscrimination law and freedom of conscience (as per that article I referred you to). I quite like this summation:
    “This whole issue strikes me as a case where coerced nondiscrimination would wind up making almost no one better off—how many people want their wedding serviced by people who object to their union?—while making a small number of Christians and most gays worse off, the former because they’ll face the conscience/legal sanction dilemma, and the latter because the battle for public opinion that gays are quickly and decisively winning can only be set back by aggrieved Christian bakers in the headlines. If policymakers just do nothing, the problem will get smaller with every year that passes, because anti-gay animus is rapidly decreasing, and once it’s gone, the number of religious believers who’ll still object to gay weddings to the point of not selling goods to them will be minuscule.”

  • Carol, do you approve of LBGT activists actively seeking out Christian bakers purely for the purpose of harassment, which would appear to be the case?

    I don’t really see how this kind of behaviour is helping the gay rights cause.

    You might be surprised at how many gays, and gay atheists, were against same-sex marriage

    Naturally, there will be a diminishment of people opposing same-sex marriage if you fire them from their jobs, destroy their business and property.

    The question really is, do you think society is better and more tolerant as a result?

  • Yes, I really do believe society is better and more tolerant as a result of marriage equality.
    No, I don’t approve of harassment.
    Nothing much would surprise me in terms of diversity of opinions.

    And now I don’t think I have any more to say on this topic.

  • So you don’t approve of gay activists harassing Christian bakers but you think society is becoming more tolerant as a result.

    Since you don’t have anything further to say, I’ll leave this little thought from Lindsay Perigo, who is of course a gay man himself:

    ” Homosexuals, once the victims of Nazism, are now among its foremost advocates, says SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists) Principal Lindsay Perigo.
    This, in the wake of news that the British government is proposing a law to ban “homophobic speech” and make such speech punishable by up to seven years in prison.
    Perigo, himself as gay as God, cites British gay commentator Christopher Biggins’ comment on this brazen assault on free speech by Britain’s PC Labour Government on behalf of PC poofs:
    “I despair at the mood of edict-issuing, word-censoring dreariness that seems to have overtaken the leaders of the gay rights movement. They, more than anyone, should be on the side of flamboyance, eccentricity, laughter and earthiness. Instead, they are acting like old commissars of some Eastern bloc regime or a bunch of Victorian moral puritans, clamping down on politically incorrect words.”
    “Make no mistake,” says Perigo, “these book-burners will soon enough be attempting to have the United Nations require similar laws all over the world, including New Zealand. The gay movement is infested by faggot-maggots with totalitarian intent. All freedom-lovers, gay and straight, should unite in resistance to this 21st Century Hitlerism.”


  • Andy,
    Your reasoning is a little hard to follow.
    The fact that a minority of gays/gay supporters have harassed Christian bakers does not mean that the world has become less tolerant overall. The debate over same sex marriage has allowed many people to rethink their biases against same sex couples becoming more tolerant.
    Lindsay Perigo is well known for his right wing views (and a good example that not all gay men think the same) . Personally I don’t think much of an argument based on insults (faggot-maggots) rather than reason.
    I’m sure I would be surprised if many gays, and gay atheists were against gay marriage – can you provide some figures to support this or is it based on anecdotal information. (Because anecdotally I would think the reverse it true)

  • Your reasoning is a little hard to follow

    Obviously, because you, like Ken, are a leftist cretin..

    I looking forward to you shouting outside your local mosque in favour of “gay rights”

    By the way, what does “science blogs” have to do with this subject?

    • Oh dear, Andy. Looks like you are in the turps again.

      Could you please lay off the personal attacks. I will request you be put you in moderation if you don’t

  • Could you please lay off eg personal attacks. I will request you be put you in moderation if you don’t

    Ok sure, but you seem to think that I have a drinking problem.

    Since I can construct a logically and grammatically correct sentence, perhaps you would like to tel me why I need to be put under “moderation”, unless of course you are just a leftist authoritarian control freak that Mr Perigo alludes to (by the way I don’t subscribe to his Ayn Rand cult either, in case you care)

  • It is kind of funny hearing Ken asking me to lay off the personal attacks when he has spent a large part of his latter life defending the junk science of “dangerous global warming” and marginalising all dissent as “deniers”

    Shame for “Sciblogs” that we have these snakeoil salesmen. It’s hardly surprising young people don’t want to study science anymore