Australia isn't on the Graph.

That's true. We don't know whether convicts hate teh gays.

Actually, Australia is also full of crazy religious types.

Wait, justifiable?

Gooooo Sweden!

Convicts might hate teh gays. There's no way to be sure.

No statistics on that graph, but all of the trends look pretty similar.

They can't get away with murdering Jews anymore, so what's an evil religion to do?

"Never Justifiable" What the hell does that mean? (And how do you translate a weird statement like that into Japanese?)

Thanks for the graph. This parallels pretty much with many other opinion polls. It was around 2001 that opposition to gay marriage in the U.S. actually shot up to 60% or more. Many people were beginning to feel sympathetic in the late 1990’s and then the Church came in and put its big old hypocritical foot down and people that were indifferent to gays in the 90’s were suddenly on high alert because of what they were being told from the pulpit about the institution of marriage. (when it was really about a perceived threat to their revenue stream and in some cases priest recruitment) While approval for gay marriage now begins to cross the halfway mark I am amazed to see that “Never Justifiable” percentage still climbing. I wonder if it is actually still climbing or just that there are only a couple data points since 2001.

Really? Even in 2005, more than a fifth of Canadians thought gayness was never justifiable? Ugh.

The US also has the lowest tax rate of any of those nations, and the highest average household debt.

In the U.S. the average CEO's pay is 17.5 times the average worker's pay. In the UK/Japan it's 12 times. In Germany it's more like 6.

Sweden has the lowest income inequality in the world. The US has by far the highest of any of these countries.

In fact, I just checked the CIA statistics on income inequality and the ranking from this chart maps perfectly to the order of the nations income inequality. More economic inequality = more opposition to homosexuality. More equitable income distribution = less opposition to homosexuality.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications…

Without the underlying data and margins of error, we have no idea if the ~4% "increase" over the 2000s is a real trend or meaningless noise.

Surprised it doesn't continue to drop through the 2000s, I guess, but maybe there's a "solid bigot" block of around 30-35% that are just never gonna change their minds. At least they will eventually die.

Anyway, on the long-term just look at how far we've come. We're winning.

There was one time I met a British TV star and we joked about American standards of what is acceptable on broadcast versus what is acceptable in the UK, and it drifted logically into politicians. At the end of the conversation I made a smart ass joke with the punchline of basically, "thanks, by the way, for sending us all the religious extremists in the 1500s and the 1600s." He stared at me dumbfounded a moment and then belly laughed.

I don't think Brits in general get the joke they played on us.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Madonna's "Justify My Love" was released in 1990, when all graphs seem to take a significant downtick.

"I'm open and ready / For you to justify my love"

LOLZ@ 15

(My point is: anti-gay attitudes and support for right-wing religiosity generally seem to result from economic pressures. People feel like everything's falling apart and they are looking for reasons why. They feel anxiety about the stability of their families; they are working so hard with so much debt that they don't have any time to spend with their kids. But our popular media, educational system, etc, doesn't give them the tools to see economic inequality as the root of their anxiety, and so the anxiety gets mapped onto various external "threats". Sexuality is one realm where this drama is staged.

Fix the economic inequality and opposition to homosexuality will plummet.)

I would venture to suggest that Dan's right in re anti-gay campaigns making a difference in the US. Canada and the US are pretty culturally similar, and Canada is overwhelmed by the influence of US culture. You'd expect them to trend more closely together. But Canada has never seen the crazy anti-gay hysteria the US has (or at least hasn't in decades), and the Tories have never used gay rights as a wedge issue in election campaigns.

So discrimination against french canadian is more socially acceptable than against gay. Discrimination should never be socially acceptable.

Yeah, poor use of hyphens for sure, #9. "Anti-gay hate campaign" is a lot different. Sweet punctuation, how I adore you!

The U.S. line on this graph is majorly depressing.

The weird 15% spike in the UK line is far more interesting than the 4% ramp on the US side. It causes me to suspect the validity of the whole chart.

In fact, the original posting of this chart is far more interesting- it compares it to attitudes towards prostitution.

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2…

@26: The strong shift was due to the attempts to repeal Section 28.

Will we did get the Puritans, but we also got convicts forced into indentured servitude. Australia isn't on the chart, but they do have a political party that is taking the charge for equality -Greens (http://greens.org.au/node/5687). Tis true that the bill that went before the senate in Australia for marriage equality lost, but they are not defeated, the Greens are trying again (http://www.theage.com.au/national/senate…).

I'm guessing that Australia would be in the clump. Hopefully, doing better than we are. I'm happy for them that they have the Greens. It gives me hope for their future.

For us, I'm hoping that the increase is just the last great struggle before the end. History often indicates that things get worse before they get better.

Okay but ain't the original home of the Puritans in the USA, Massachusetts? You know, like where gay marriage is legal? Hell, most of puritanical New England is in support of gay marriage. Try again.

@30: You fuckwit.

I wonder what caused the huge spike in gay-hate in the UK a few years ago? Was there a similar campaign there?

@32: The move to repeal Section 28

@22: The back-and-forth on the two solitudes in Canada breaks my heart, and it makes me ill. Having lived in both linguistic strongholds, I am like so many others who struggle to find answers that make sense to everyone regardless of linguistics. So, so frustrating.

And Dan, apologies to Mr. Mudede, but wtf is up with your subsequent Slog post? Some context might be useful — though since I call you a douchebag and all sorts of other colourful descriptors, don't do so for me. Do it for other Slog readers.

@30

Nowadays, Massachusetts is far more Irish than Calvinist. And Cambridge is affectionately referred to as the "People's Republic" thereof.

@35: Which post?

Quick history lesson, Dan:

Actually, Canada didn't "get the French". The French, before the 1789 Revolution and before the end of the French-English Seven Years' War in Europe, got to North America first. What ended up a very ugly proxy battle to said Seven Years' War, what is known in Canada as the Plains of Abraham (or a dark chapter in La Conquête, depending on interpretation), was the beginning of a political shift towards a disproportionately anglophone population. The French might have won that battle, changing history in a different direction, had Louis XV not foreclosed on North America's bounty of pelts in favour of Montserrat's sugar cane (he couldn't afford to defend both by then).

Even this summary is subject to much dispute. And therein lies the frustration.

Quick history lesson, Dan:

Actually, Canada didn't "get the French". The French, before the 1789 Revolution and before the end of the French-English Seven Years' War in Europe, got to North America first. What ended up a very ugly proxy battle to said Seven Years' War, what is known in Canada as the Plains of Abraham (or a dark chapter in La Conquête, depending on interpretation), was the beginning of a political shift towards a disproportionately anglophone population. The French might have won that battle, changing history in a different direction, had Louis XV not foreclosed on North America's bounty of pelts in favour of Montserrat's sugar cane (he couldn't afford to defend both by then).

Even this summary is subject to much dispute. And therein lies the frustration.

dammit, you stupid "an error occurred, try again" server . . .

@37: This one.

@41: Out of respect for Dan's family, just drop it.

There's a reason there are no comments on the thread. I know you don't like Dan, but just drop it.

Take courage. See how the UK takes a hike up just before legalisation hit? Do whatever they did.

I think Telsa probably honestly doesn't know that that's a picture of Dan's family. This is probably the anniversary of his mother's passing away, Telsa.

@22, the truth is there is no-one. NO-ONE. more racist than the French Canadians. It is ridiculous. They will say any racist thing and not even realize that anyone would find it offensive. They have random xenophobic and anti-English laws. They will go on rants about how Hassidim shouldn't be allowed to have a different culture and still live in Montreal. They're no puritans but their culture has plenty of other asshole tendencies of its own.

Hi Samual @ 33,

It's been awhile. I hope you and yours are well.

I'm not sure what you are asking me or why you are asking me. I'll be honest, I don't have the time to figure it out. I beg your forgiveness, but my thoughts are too sad at present. Grief has that effect.

But, I will tell you what your question made me think of. It made me think of how the church evolves, in what it believes and why it believes it. For example, " articulated by the second-century Irenaeus of Lyons. He argued that Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil. Specifically, so the theory goes, Christ was paid as a ransom to the devil to free people's souls. This was a clever ruse on God's part, however, for unknown to the devil, Jesus was actually God Himself. Unable to constrain Jesus' divine soul, the devil was defeated and Christ emerged victorious. This view, known as the "Ransom" or "Classic" theory, was taught consistently by nearly all of the Church Fathers, including Augustine." and it held for a millennium until it was finally debunked by Anselm of Canterbury (ca. 1033-1109). Anselm gave a different answer: Jesus' life was paid as a ransom not to the devil, but to God.

"The Protestant Reformers developed this doctrine by replacing God's honor with His justice and by speaking not only of Christ's passive obedience (death) but his active obedience as well (his fulfilling the law). Simply put, God requires that humankind obey an immutable law in a life of perfect, perpetual obedience. The purpose of the Mosaic law, it is taught, was to prove humanity's inability to live up to these requirements. By perfectly keeping the law, Jesus earned salvation. By suffering our punishment in our place, Jesus extends this salvation to us."

Fascinating.

Which takes me back to my post @ 29. What we know about Jesus of Nazareth (via the canonized Gospels, the rejected Gospels, Jewish Antiquities, and the Jewish Wars) is that he was inclusive, that he accepted and welcomed the rejected, poor, sick, and homeless. That he went to Jerusalem to take on the collusion of Rome and the Temple and that he knew those who spoke out against Rome died for it. Many were crucified during that period. He spoke for justice and equality, he did it through nonviolent means. He offered the righteousness of God (which actually means to remove those things that impede justice and block compassion). He began the work for equality and I aim to continue it.

rewind:

Forgot to cite. http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/a…

I'm surprised that Canada's was so high 5 years ago.

I'm curious as to what it would be like now, especially since gay marriage has been legal for these past 5 years.

There was plenty of lovable gay television characters in the living rooms of the "never really thought about it much" group of Americans, which fell out fashion around 2000 and were replaced by nightly news footage of people who—instead of being good-looking and saying zany shit for you and your girlfriends to giggle at—where pushed into a corner and forced to assert themselves for basic rights the rest of American's enjoyed, which isn't as cute.

Or this pole is bullshit.

@42: I'm sorry. I only picked up on Slog just prior to the SR-71/McGinn elections. So for one, I lack context. For another, the photo was posted on a Slog entry, which seems a bit baffling to "drop it" if it was first raised by the author of the post. It sort of compels a quick, even respectful primer for those who are left in the dark Otherwise, it's the kind of thing to keep on the discrete on a personal blog, or just amongst friends and family (either of origin or acquisition).

@44: No, I did not know who those people were. I could only make out that the photo was scanned from a print and was at least a few years old.

With that, I'll drop it. Sorry I ruined the day.

@46 I don't understand your hate of french canadian and I don't want to start a sterile exchange on that blog.

My point was that you will always have hater in the world. It is the general population opinion that can be slowly changed and can allow society to evolved. I don't think the attitude toward gay will be greatly better than the one in Sweden.

I don't think that Dan Savage cultivated a particular hate of french canadian. So his posted, by allowing general negative opinion against french canadian to be socially acceptable, is more damageable than your direct french basher attitude.

@46 and @22: I've lived in a lot of places. I say this because I've seen a lot of stupidity in that time. Places include Québec and Texas (as well as other provinces and states).

Québec and Texas are very different flavours of racism — or rather, I should say "social animus of difference", as the construct of a French or English "race", as applicable to Canada, is ludicrous and an illogical vestige of antiquated federal legal language prior to la révolution tranquille. What I see now is the way in which social and political elders are still lobbing nasties at one another in backhanded ways. Who hurts most from this are the younger people, the new arrivals to Canada — whether Québec, Ontario, B.C., Alberta, wherever — and the people who visit these places.

Whereas in the "Two Solitudes" (this phrase deserves to stay locked away in the 20th century) the animosity stems back to some very real grievances prior to 1960 — and manifest now with some very nasty looks if you open your bouche in the wrong tongue (admittedly, I've found this to be more problematic in Québec, alas, but no less pig-headed is the idea that Western Canada is also only meant for one language) — the racism in Texas is genuinely worn on people's sleeves, and the contempt is rarely disguised, especially if you know what you're looking for. In Texas, it invariably comes down to pigment-based and, secondarily, to linguistic differences. This has moderated somewhat since the 1980s, but just avoid East Texas and the Panhandle entirely if you're too dark or too queer, lest you get killed.

And let's be realistic here: both of these models suck, yet pale against the kind of ethnic animus which led Hutu rebels to slaughter Tutsis, or any other such historic action within our lifetime. What I'm saying is that the Francophone/Anglophone schism in Canada is heartbreaking to no end, given that relatively speaking — Toronto's population spread excepted — the entirely of the country is stunningly homogeneous and have more in common than they care to admit relative to the diversified face of the U.S. in 2010. This was a detail mostly forgotten on me until I went back to Seattle last month and was sort of blown away.

Depeche Mode were hella naïve, but they certainly got it right in 1984.

Undoubtedly, America has become "dumber" since Bush was elected (and I consider homophobia as a form of being dumb).

The dumbing down of America may take years to recover from.

@46: Have you met any Serbians? There's a Serbian guy in my dorm who grew up in Texas. He's not overtly racist, but he says things like "Oh, the Trail of Tears wasn't so bad" and then doesn't understand why people are mad at him.

@55: Yeah, that's a fail.

Let's not, uh, Balkanize this further.

@58: I'm eating matzah and wondering why you think you have a monopoly on religious truth.

Samurai, did you ever dream?

Samual,

Thank you for your kind condolences. She passed a little over a week ago after lingering in agony from a sudden stroke. I had just come across a note from her, and seeing her handwriting made me sad. Given some time my pain, my family's pain, will become less acute. As QE II said, "Grief is the price we pay for love." Love is worth the price.

Thank you for explaining where you were coming from.

I was making reference that opposition to justice is often is met with a final, large and desperate campaign against equality.

Yes, I'm aware that we have different opinions about people who are gay.

And, yes, I am aware that there are those who equate being gay to being a murder, a rapist, a thief, etc. I am aware that they believe that being gay is a choice that is made. Perhaps, they think everyone of us makes a conscience choice to be gay or not. They must remember when they made the choice to be a heterosexual. Just as they may or may not have made a choice to be a Christian. Just as long ago the catholic (using the meaning of universal, here) made a choice to reject the Doctrine of Ransom that the early church fathers taught during the first millennium of the church's existence and replace it with the Doctrine of Satisfaction/Penal Substitution. Or, just as the church made the decision around 1500 CE to canonize some of Gospel narrations and letters into the Bible and reject others. Just as a murder chooses to kill. Just as a rapist choses to rape. And, just as a thief chooses to steal. To them a gay chooses to be gay.

So, under the theory of choice it makes perfect sense to discriminate, because gays can choose to stop being gay and therefore be treated equally and fairly under the law. That's why we can't allow the laws of the US to treat every person as equal, because the gays are just making a choice. Their families can't be equally protected under the laws. They deserve to be discriminated with regard to employment, housing and to be bullied, beaten, murdered and raped. Right, because they choose to be gay? Funny how the laws will protect the families of the murder, rapist, and thief. The murder, rapist, and thief are not discriminated against provided they have made the choice to be heterosexual.

Yes, I'm aware that many believe that the return of Christ will be because God will have reached the end of his tolerance for the "wickedness" of the world. Perhaps, the return will come not because of the "wickedness", but because of the injustice. And, that those who made the choice to become Christians and to follow Christ, have failed to see that Jesus was about justice. "The Way" is about dying for justice. For injustice is the stumbling block that blinds people to the goodness of God, or knowing God with the name Jesus used for him "Abba".

Who knows, if Christians made more of an effort to eliminate injustice throughout the world, we might find that we lived in a world that was less filled with "wickedness" and immorality.

Thank you for your apology. It has been accepted. I, too, am sorry for not always expressing myself with compassion and grace.

I'm out of here. I have too much to do today. Perhaps, I'll catch you on another thread someday.

Take care,
k

What accounts for the sharp drop in the 90s, I wonder? Was it just a certain generation hitting adulthood?

the only thing wrong with French-Canadians is that their language is taught really, really poorly at school.WTF is up with all of us Canadians getting like, 10 years of schooling in this language, but all we can read is the back of a cereal box? That's some crap ass teaching methods right there. We should all be bilingual (or multi lingual. Cree, anyone?)