Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

ehBeth I think you need to re-learn your definition of the word "normal"...

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

As far as justices of the peace, I just hadn't thought it out. I can't picture a marriage without a wedding. Seems kind of pointless, since weddings are better than marriages.

Both of my sisters and most of my friends had weddings AND were married by JPs.

So many points to address.....

Quote:

If gayness is entirely genetic and there is never any "gay procreation", we'd expect at most a roughly 0.05% of the population (the proportion of the adult population with Down's Syndrome, for example). But even with a reasonable level of gay procreation (anything significantly less than the level of straight procreation), the steady-state numbers would be unlikely to achieve ten times this number (i.e., 0.5% of the population). Since it appears that the proportion of gay humans is considerably greater than this, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that gayness is NOT entirely genetic.

Did you not wish to address that other thought on this subject that I posted on page 5? If homosexuality is genetic and the majority of the gay population doesn't procreate, wouldn't the gay-gene be able to be passed by a homosexual's siblings to their own kids?

0 Replies

I am interested Stuh in your definition of normal. Bonobo's tounge kiss, practice oral sex, commonly display lebianism, less often but still commonly display homoerotic behavior between males. A female dominated troop is kept in order through the grant of sexual favors by the dominant females, who are nearly constantly in estrus.

This should be an eye-opener for ya, Boss . . .

Bonobo Sex and Society

Come back later and tell me about normal again, 'k?

0 Replies

Setanta,

interesting article. but it doesn't change anything. "normal" still means what is "not average" and gayness, being only expressed in somewhere between 1 and 10% of humans, is certainly less than 90-99% and therefore it is not normal.

clearly it IS normal for Bonobo's...but we aren't Bonobo's are we?

0 Replies

Your figures are not significant--ten percent of a non-lethal mutation in any species is a pretty damned high rate occurance, and can't be ignored, as it is suggestive of a species survival benefit potential. No we are not bonobos, but bonobos and chimpanzees are our nearest biological, nearest genetic cousins. Who are you to define what is normal? Most of the population is right handed. Do you claim lefties are abnormal? Red hair is a recessive trait, and seems only to occur in Kelts. Do you contend then that red hair is abnormal? Are Kelts to be considered abnormal? My blood type is AB+, which represents fewer than 35 per one thousand. Do you claim i'm abnormal? What about the B- folks, one half of one percent. Surely by your criterion, they are "more" abnormal than homosexuals.

Ignoring the grammatical weeds, i'm assuming that your stating that only that which is average is normal. The average american female is about 5' 8" or -9" tall, if i remember correctly. My Irish-Hungarian sister-in-law is 6' 1" tall, and grew up fighting her five brothers. If you ever decide to tell her she's not normal, let me leave the room first.

0 Replies

Quote:

i'm assuming that your stating that only that which is average is normal.

indeed. and the line is drawn arbitrarily.

0 Replies

So, if average equals normal, that leaves most of us in the abnormal zone.

0 Replies

Would you agree, stuh, that in a human population it is normal that a certain portion are homosexual?

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

indeed. and the line is drawn arbitrarily.

And we are to assume that you deserve to be the arbitror?

That pretty well sums it up for me--you're wedded to a prejudicial point of view which is not ammenable to a consideration of the weakness of your position, so i doubt i'll waste any more time discussing with you that which you fear and loathe, as opposed to understanding.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Setanta,

interesting article. but it doesn't change anything. "normal" still means what is "not average" and gayness, being only expressed in somewhere between 1 and 10% of humans, is certainly less than 90-99% and therefore it is not normal.

clearly it IS normal for Bonobo's...but we aren't Bonobo's are we?

Maybe only 10% are "out" but there are far FAR more people who are either still in the closet so to speak or are bi-curious. So, that would make quite a bit more of America abnormal, as you say.
Also, "average" as a definition of normal is just plain ridiculous. There is no such thing as a "model" human being. You find the person who doesn't do something you think is weird and then we'll talk. And since that will never happen, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

0 Replies

Government has preempted the field.

stuh505 wrote:

freedom and respect for privacy are of the utmost concern. as long as people arent hurting other people they should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit. the government should not view gays differently than non-gays. BUT marriage is originally a christian tradition and the government also cant take away the the right for christians and their litle club to make up whatever rules they want about whos allowed into the tree fort.

No BUT's about it. See the First Amendment: Separation of church and state.

Any possible religious origins of the institution of marriage has no relevance in a country that separates church from state. Regardless, the state (the government) has preempted the field of domestic relations. No one can get married without a marriage license issued by the state. All marriages must be sanctioned by the state or they don't exist in the eyes of the law.

Whether any particular religion sanctions gay marriages is not relevant. No one is depriving any member of any religion from maintaining his or her own beliefs. No religious sect determines who may or may not be granted a marriage license. That is the exclusive province of the state and the state is engaging in discrimination, pure and simple.

The road blocks in this country that prevent same-sex couples from getting married are unconstitutional state laws that oppress same-sex couples, interfere in their private decisions concerning their own lives, and deprive them of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even if we apply an extremely deferential rational basis test to the application of laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry, there is no rational basis for the discrimination.

If a state attempts to justify the discriminating law by claiming most people are against same-sex marriages for moral or religious reasons, e.g., a marriage cannot be acknowledged unless sanctioned by "God," this rationalization fails under the First Amendment. God has nothing to do with the issue of whether the state will grant you a license or not. The constitution requires separation of church and state.

If a state attempts to justify the law by claiming that marriage is an institution created for procreation of the human species, that argument also fails under the rational basis test because no one is required to procreate as a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license.

Laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry (when the right is granted to other couples) are unconstitutional.

People can get their shorts in a bunch over the issue and the U.S. Supreme Court might be too chicken-**** to decide the issue in this century--but sooner or later--same-sex couples will be allowed to get married.

At that point in time, most people will accept that same-sex couples have the right to marry just like everyone else (just like people were forced to accept that blacks and whites have the right to marry each other). However, they will have their shorts in a bunch over some other issue.

That's life.

0 Replies

debra writes

Quote:

Laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry (when the right is granted to other couples) are unconstitutional.

I disagree since every adult of legal age now has the identical right to marry any other consenting adult of the opposite sex who is also of legal age. The system is explicityly fair and nondiscriminatroy.

To allow gay same sex couples to 'marry' and deny that to straight same sex couples or any persons who wish to form themselves legally into a family group would make the system unequal, unfair, and discriminatory.

This is explained in greater detail in an earlier post.

0 Replies

Gender based law

Foxfyre wrote:

I disagree since every adult of legal age now has the identical right to marry any other consenting adult of the opposite sex who is also of legal age. The system is explicityly fair and nondiscriminatroy.

Splitting linguistic hairs without identifying the unlawful discrimination.

A marriage is a union between two people.

Here is what is unconstitutional: The state defines marriage in such a way as to allow only two people of the opposite sex to join together in a union recognized by state law.

The state discriminates based on gender and/or sexual orientation.

Two people of the opposite sex are allowed to marry each other.

Two people of the same sex are NOT allowed to marry each other.

What is the rational basis for the state to allow a state-recognized union in the first instance but not in the second instance?

0 Replies

Maybe the same laws based on tradition that make it legal to have separate restrooms for men and women; that makes it legal for a role depicting a mother to be restricted to women; that makes it legal to have separate men and women sports teams.

There are some laws allowing discrimination when it is practical to do so. As marriage is an institution that presumes the best environment for the raising of children, it falls into the practical class.

Having said that, in an earlier post I am on record as favoring a separate civil union to be authorized for gays or any others who want or need to form themselves into family groups. I will adamently support this. I just want them to compromise and call it something besides marriage. I think then all but the tiny minority of fanatics on both sides will get what they want and need and everybody can calm down and get on with life.

0 Replies

Kinda like it was non discriminatory for laws to allow anyone to marry another person of the opposite gender and the same race.

blegh.

0 Replies

Not enough

Foxfyre wrote:

Maybe the same laws based on tradition that make it legal to have separate restrooms for men and women; that makes it legal for a role depicting a mother to be restricted to women; that makes it legal to have separate men and women sports teams.

There are some laws allowing discrimination when it is practical to do so. As marriage is an institution that presumes the best environment for the raising of children, it falls into the practical class.

Having said that, in an earlier post I am on record as favoring a separate civil union to be authorized for gays or any others who want or need to form themselves into family groups. I will adamently support this. I just want them to compromise and call it something besides marriage. I think then all but the tiny minority of fanatics on both sides will get what they want and need and everybody can calm down and get on with life.

Sorry Foxfyre, tradition can never serve as a compelling interest or rational basis for discrimination. Your remaining rationalizations simply belong on a sinking ship.

At one time, the law presumed that children raised by gay parents would be harmed by the "slings and arrows" of a disapproving society. However, that presumption has been struck down as unconstitutional in every state in the union. The law cannot embrace nor endorse prejudice.

Whether you call a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between two people (to which the consent of the parties is essential) a "marriage" or a "civil union," it is the same thing.

The relationship (union) may be solemnized by either a civil servant or through a religious ceremony--but the method of solemnization is a choice that the people involved make for themselves.

If I have two potatoes sitting on my kitchen table, it might make me feel better for some reason to call one of those potatoes a "carrot," but that doesn't change the fact that I still have two potatoes sitting on my kitchen table.

You are essentially waving a "carrot" in front of people's noses as enticement for a compromise. It's just insulting to people's intelligence.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

0 Replies

Re: Not enough

Debra_Law wrote:

At one time, the law presumed that children raised by gay parents would be harmed by the "slings and arrows" of a disapproving society. However, that presumption has been struck down as unconstitutional in every state in the union. The law cannot embrace nor endorse prejudice.

And to think that the law would rather disallow it when the issue is with the population rather than the couple raising the kids..... Doesn't really make much sense to me.

0 Replies

Re: Not enough

littlek wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
At one time, the law presumed that children raised by gay parents would be harmed by the "slings and arrows" of a disapproving society. However, that presumption has been struck down as unconstitutional in every state in the union. The law cannot embrace nor endorse prejudice.

And to think that the law would rather disallow it when the issue is with the population rather than the couple raising the kids..... Doesn't really make much sense to me.

If you have a straight parent and a gay parent fighting for custody, the courts will no longer allow the straight parent to invoke a presumption based on societal prejudices against the gay parent. It's pretty simple. The straight parent can't prevent the gay parent from winning custody simply because he/she is gay.

0 Replies

Cases
Other people's prejudices cannot determine the best interests of the children.

Florida Appeals Court Detects Anti-Gay Prejudice in Custody Decision

Sending a strong message that the best interests of children are not served by baseless assumptions and anti-gay stereotypes, a Florida appellate court has rejected a custody decision because it allowed prejudice to keep a lesbian mother from her two young children.

ND Supreme Court Overrules Custody Determination

This decision struck down a 1981 decision that has been used to deny lesbian and gay parents custody of their children solely because of their sexual orientation. By reversing its earlier decision, the Court ruled that possible prejudice from others is not a valid reason to take children from lesbian and gay parents.

0 Replies

Debra wrotes

Quote:

Sorry Foxfyre, tradition can never serve as a compelling interest or rational basis for discrimination. Your remaining rationalizations simply belong on a sinking ship.

I think I just demonstrated that tradition is a consideration when it comes to law. There are cases that men and/or women have been prosecuted and fined for using the restroom designated for the other sex. In at least most states there is no law compelling a men's football team to accept a female player. It is tradition that puts a female attendant in the women's locker room, etc. even though a man could serve that duty equally well.

Quote:

At one time, the law presumed that children raised by gay parents would be harmed by the "slings and arrows" of a disapproving society. However, that presumption has been struck down as unconstitutional in every state in the union. The law cannot embrace nor endorse prejudice.

But the court can use reams of available evidence in consideration that children of all races, ethnic groups, and socioeconomic situations do better with a loving mother and father in the home. In other words, there is a need for both a mother and father. That does not negate the fact that children do very well with a capable single or gay parent, but it only speaks to the fact that the ideal arrangement for children, whether the children are straight or gay, is for there to be a mother and father in the home. (Another thread I think in this forum exhaustively lists the evidence for this and I will decline to hunt that up and post all those links again.)

Quote:

Whether you call a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between two people (to which the consent of the parties is essential) a "marriage" or a "civil union," it is the same thing.

No. A marriage is traditionally, and by most state law, a civil union between a man and a woman. To provide similar/same benefits to others should be called something else.

Quote:

The relationship (union) may be solemnized by either a civil servant or through a religious ceremony--but the method of solemnization is a choice that the people involved make for themselves.

There is nothing in the law that requires a marrying couple to be sanctified by any church or any religion There is no requirement that the couple love each other or give a flying fig about the relationship. The fact that the law allows a religious cleric to perform the ceremony is moot other than to illustrate again that tradition has been considered in the law. The resulting contract looks like any secular contract signed off by a judge or ship's captain and the state places no distinction between marriages performed by a priest or performed by a justice of the peace.

The attempt to make this into a religious issue, therefore, is specious.

Quote:

If I have two potatoes sitting on my kitchen table, it might make me feel better for some reason to call one of those potatoes a "carrot," but that doesn't change the fact that I still have two potatoes sitting on my kitchen table.

I agree. But we are not talking about potatos; we are talking about marriage as being between a man and a woman and also consideration of other contractual arrangements that would be of different combinations than a man and a woman. You seem to want to make the carrot into a potato.

Quote:

You are essentially waving a "carrot" in front of people's noses as enticement for a compromise. It's just insulting to people's intelligence.

I'm sorry you feel that your intelligence is insulted. I think I have been entirely reasonable in this discussion and offered a compromise that should satisfy all but the most extreme who obviously have a different agenda other than finding a working solution for this issue.

Quote:

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

No argument from me there. And I recognize a rose when I see one three out of four times.

0 Replies

Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know