Hilton Barlach

Banco Central do Brasil

This conversation is closed.

Do you think gay marriage will be universally accepted in the next 10 years?

As gay marriage is being more and more accepted in several parts of the world the issue remains very controversial.

  • Jun 24 2012: No because everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

    But I accept it, because you can't write rules in love.
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2012: I think MAYBE it will receive full political support, but there will always, no matter what, be the select few of society that will look at homosexuals as being filthy in their ways.
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2012: Acknowledged, legislated, or recognized maybe but accepted no way. Lech hit the nail on the head. Most of the civil unions are about benefits. If there was no benefit to the union would there be the same clammor. I think not. Also mentioned was Obamas endorsement. That is for votes. Since he basically lost the Catholic vote he will say anything to garner votes from any group. He is making the same promises he made in the last campaign and never acted on. The second term is "universally". Again no. Even though Gay Rights makes the news a lot it is still a small sector who endorse and practice. One of my three jobs had a high ratio of lesbian to straight femals. The group exchanged partners regularly. and flaunted their lifestyle choice to the extent that it made everyone else very uncomfortable and almost afraid to interact for fear of offending and having a complaint lodged. One lady was called "the predator" and was a supervisor who attempted to "change" "straight" ladies into trying the lesbain way. There was a high turnover ratio in her area but the agency was afraid to act against her.

    Legislation and policy change will occur but do not confuse that with acceptance.

    All the best. Bob
  • Jun 14 2012: It all depends on what you mean by "accepted." In the USA, there is a different between "legislated" acceptance and "social acceptance." In theory, if something has widepsread social acceptance among the majority of the voting population, then laws are either enacted---or changed---that reflect the will of the majority---as long as they don't infringe upon the "Constitutional rights" of the individual. Until recently, the requirements for---and definition of---"legal marriage" have been left to each State to determine for themselves---other than to forbid interracial marriage. Some States allow first cousin marriages; some do not. None allow polygamy or sibling marriage.

    The majority of Americans are not nessarily in favor of gay marriage nor opposed to it. But the populations within some States have a majority opinion one way or the other. In the recent case of California, the majority of voters opposed gay marriage and passed an amendment to prevent it; but a federal court intervened and said the "will" of the voters didn't matter, and ruled the law as "unConstitutional." That doesn't mean that gay marriage is "socially" accepted in California; only that gay marriages must be legally-recognized.
  • thumb
    Jun 12 2012: I do not think that it will be universally accepted as even forms of marriage that have been around much longer are not universally accepted yet. Examples include non-arranged marriages in India. Multi ethnic or multiracial marriages. This is not even getting into plural marriages of the various types. The issue is not one of logic, but one based firmly in the concepts of social norms and religion. Both social norms and religion seem to be very resistant to change of any type. But here is hoping I am wrong.
  • Jun 12 2012: Jefferson gave us a good guideline. What matters now is what we are thinking. Society is an evolving system.
  • Jun 11 2012: Tolerance for homosexuality/gay marriage is already here but the universal acceptance of gay marriage will require a major paradigm shift in attitude regarding the social value of the practice. Unlike race or religion, acceptance of Gay marriage will probably remain out of the mainstream for a long time to come - not because people cannot come to terms with the practice, but because they cannot find sufficient identity and empathy for the practice.

    Since I am not happy with the reality I just delineated above, perhaps I like to rephrase your question to What will it take for gay marriage to be accepted universally? The answer of course is a universally acceptable and useful social value - like say, population control or sustainable development or ......... anyway, you get the point.
  • thumb
    Jun 11 2012: The answer depends on what you mean by "universally accepted". If you really mean universally as in all over the planet the answer is a clear no. Many cultures have strongly rooted prejudices against gay marriage and I do not expect such prejudices to be set aside very soon.
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2012: You're right of course, but I think it will be a complete non-issue in the Western world in the coming years (except the bible belt maybe), considering Obama has publicly endorsed it.
      • thumb
        Jun 12 2012: Again, it depends on what you mean by the Western world. I can assure you that in countries with a long Catholic tradition like Italy, Poland or Ireland gay marriage won't be accepted that soon. Same goes for countries with a strong Orthodox belief in South-Eastern Europe like Romania, Ukraine or Serbia.
  • Jun 10 2012: Marriage is a civil institution. Civilization will catch up. All men who are created equal have these rights according to the founders of our nation.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      Jun 12 2012: Are you sure that in the declaration of independence Thomas Jefferson was thinking at the marriage between men ?
    • Timo X

      • 0
      Jun 12 2012: The problem is that the civil institution of marriage is totally entangled with the religious ceremony of marriage. The most respectful way to go about it, to me, is to clearly separate church and state with a clean break. This can be done by converting all existing marriages into newly formed civil unions and transferring all civil rights associated with marriage to the bond of civil union. From that point forward, civil union can be entered in by any two (or more, if this is desirable) consenting adults, regardless of beliefs, race or sex.

      Meanwhile, marriage loses its legal status and becomes a purely private affair. Private organizations can thus define their own (even if discriminatory) rules for when to recognize a marriage as such. This allows Christians to refuse recognizing civil unions between same sex couples as Holy Matrimony, even though their union is recognized legally. And a man may even marry his horse, provided he can find an institution who will perform the ceremony, but it will not influence his legal status as a single man. This solution provides the freedom to define marriage according to people's own terms, but will treat every civil union the same before the law.
      • Jun 14 2012: Another significant question is why was civil marriage originally instituted to begin with? I have asked several younger people the question, "if there were no civil benefit to getting married (i.e. tax benefits, inheritance benefits, health insurance benefits, and medical decision-making benefits), would as many people still want to "get married" today?" Most said, "No, why would they?" Religious moral traditions are being supplanted in the younger generation of Americans by secularism.