Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

At my mother's retirement home, they are all so loving to one another, it's like being in another world.....all of a sudden, when everyone is so old and weak, you realize how precious each one was.

Yes the predator and the prey will not shake hands...or will they? The Lion lays down with the Lamb so it says in bible prophesy...but I don't know what to think about all that stuff anymore, it seems to me the Lion and the Lamb are the same...Lion of Judah and Lamb of God...

And really Judas and Jesus and Christ and Satan (altogether lovely versus perfect in beauty)...well everything is starting to bleed over onto everything else, I'm not making much sense to most people anymore.

But I must not be the only one, the Matrix movies, I really loved them, my youngest son is a real fanatic and sucked me in, lol, Neo, had to be "perfected"...and Trinity and Agent Smith BOTH worked him over, but good...he never could have "saved" everyone...without the machinations of Agent Smith...Smith was Neo's "dark side"...

Neo to me was sort of Representative Man...every man has to save the world...after living as a curse towards it for a while...just bought a Leon Russell cd, he gave me so many beautiful new ideas...that Noah had to build his own "savior" so to speak..the Ark...and the flood destroys all the "sinners", but the kingdom of God is in our minds ("your mind makes it real", Morpheus)..well I'm veering way off topic, sorry...need to go to the religious forum and stay there maybe..

0 Replies

Matrix, Bible on TV?

0 Replies

Haha.

No. you are not getting off track. i see exactly what you mean. Well, that isnt entirely true. ( I never made it through all the matrix movies) BUT.. the concept is the same. And yes you are right. Neo could never have been "the savior" with out being ruffed up , taught , cheated , decieved and ignored by everyone else. You know what Neo means right? Neo = One. In the movie he is One. The One... my husband pointed that out to me . Of course all of america probally got that . It totally flew by MY head. I still think it is pretty cool. Smile

0 Replies

Welcome to the Movie Generation...Oy

0 Replies

If the Matrix were the bible then I just might get into this christian thing. hahahah!

0 Replies

I bet the Pope is behind all this :wink: .

0 Replies

would that be revolutions or revelations Question

0 Replies

shewolfnm wrote:

Everyone has a right to believe what they will.But I do not believe that anyone has a right to impose thier personal beliefs on anyone else.

Really?

Surely you draw the line somewhere on that thought.

What are laws but an expression of the collective will, based on personal beliefs?

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

Greyfan wrote:
Slavery is not just a source of cheap labor, its an altruistic setup which provides work, food, shelter, and religion for people too primitive to survive on their own.

Sarcasm, I presume?

No, simply a further expression of narrow mindedness.

0 Replies

The state has a legitimate interest in social behavior; in areas in which it does not have a legitimate interest, individual rights should prevail --in a free society. Where you draw the line is debatable, and changes as social values change over time.

The controversy over homosexual unions can be compared to the acceptance of interracial marriage, which has seen support grow from 4% in a 1958 Gallup poll to over 70% in a recent AARP-LCCR study. In this case, the majority of people now agree, the state did NOT have a legitimate interest.

A Washington-ABC News poll done in March places the current American public support for gay "civil unions" at 51%.

The accusation of narrow-mindedness can be used by either side, but adds nothing to the discussion; its just a snippy way of saying you disagree. In my opinion, society has no more right to prevent same sex marriages than it does interracial ones, and third party opinion as to the legitimacy or moral correctness of these marriages, as with the case of slaveholders, has little weight compared to the opinions of the people actually being enslaved.

0 Replies

Greyfan wrote:

The accusation of narrow-mindedness can be used by either side, but adds nothing to the discussion; its just a snippy way of saying you disagree. In my opinion, society has no more right to prevent same sex marriages than it does interracial ones, and third party opinion as to the legitimacy or moral correctness of these marriages, as with the case of slaveholders, has little weight compared to the opinions of the people actually being enslaved.

Well....it comes down to Pilate's question, "what is truth?" Or what is "good"? (God?) Whatever the "majority rules?"

I think, for each person, "god" is what he believes...and if he REALLY believes, he'll stand firm against the group for it, die for it, (be crucified?)...

But for human society "caesar" is "god"...this may be majority rule, as in a democratic society...or it may be domination by the most powerful and aggressive...but whatever, to be in the group you must render to "ceasar"...or go outside the gate...into the deserted lonely places...

I guess I truly am of a fundamentally religious mind....thinking that there is Reality that is not strictly a matter of opinion...though I also agree with Morpheus (of Matrix fame) that the state of mind goes a long way toward defining "real" for any individual...

I think there is a difference between marriage and slavery. Slavery, in that the weaker serve the stronger, that is the basis for a lively society, when you remove it, the whole game falls down into chaos. But in America, slavery was irrational, determined by race and not social utility...and it lasted a long time but was a cancer on society...the recovery has also lasted a long time, I am constantly amazed however at the changes that have come in my lifetime (b. 1951).

If the strong were controlled by the weak, that would be toxic slavery.

The purpose of slavery, that is, work under obligation and not "freely"...is to get human needs met, as successfully as possible.

All human life is really about obligation...even if you are a beggar on the street, you are obligated to your own physical needs, to try to stay alive...if you are ready to die, you are "free"...

The purpose of marriage is to create new members of society. And again it is about a union of opposites, that is where real life comes from. As a philsophical principle alone, I would not like Reason...or whoever the Power in charge is...to say that a union of like things has the same value as the union of opposing things.

It's kind of a denial of reality, to say that there are no differences between men and women...we CAN be "interchangeable"...when the circumstances require it...but a society of all "Pats" (old Sat Night Live character)...well it makes me feel a little ill...

If I was Caesar...and I AM btw, in my own mind....and God also...I would permit people do whatever they like in private but I would not call a union between people of the same gender a marriage...it is more like Narcissus.

There is another purpose of marriage...well many purposes...really each person sort of lives for the praise of the other gender...I think Freud spoke a lot of what men did for the "praise of women"...and women want the admiration of men...and each is so bitter when they give all they have and are not praised for it...but condemned for not being the opposite of what they are.

0 Replies

Quote:

Well....it comes down to Pilate's question, "what is truth?" Or what is "good"? (God?) Whatever the "majority rules?"

I think, for each person, "god" is what he believes...and if he REALLY believes, he'll stand firm against the group for it, die for it, (be crucified?)...

I don't see how you can use "good" interchangeably with "God." Sure, you believe in God, and you seem to also believe in the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent...but many of us do not. So, you cannot say "each person believes in God," if you change that to "each person believes in good" it makes a lot more sense.

Quote:

But for human society "caesar" is "god"...this may be majority rule, as in a democratic society...or it may be domination by the most powerful and aggressive...but whatever, to be in the group you must render to "ceasar"...or go outside the gate...into the deserted lonely places...

Does this make sense to other people? Because it makes no sense to me. I know of two definitions for this word...Caeasar was a Roman general, and a caesar is a dictator (similar to Caesar). But the way you use this word, it fits neither definition...

Quote:

The purpose of marriage is to create new members of society. And again it is about a union of opposites, that is where real life comes from. As a philsophical principle alone, I would not like Reason...or whoever the Power in charge is...to say that a union of like things has the same value as the union of opposing things.

I don't think you can say that the purpose of marriage is to create new members of society. I think the purpose of marraige is to solidify the emotions two people have for each other, by making a contract binded by love and recognized by the government. This has nothing to do with the government wanting us to procreate, in fact, I would argue that it limits procreation.

------

I oppose gay marraige, and I'll tell you why. There's no debating that it's a genetic mistake, since we were naturally selected for by reproduction with a male and female. People who are gay are put through much more societal tramua than straight people, and I don't think our children should have society giving them an option. If they are gay, fine, nothing can be done about it. But confused kids shouldn't be told "it's okay, go ahead and be gay" because a lot of people who aren't really gay will start acting that way, and it's perverse. There are some people who are attracted sexually to their parents, or children, or brothers and sisters, or to animals...and this is EQUALLY unnatural as gay attraction, because it is not the attraction that was genetically selected for. I think our society would become chaotic if all of these strange forms of sexual attraction were to be accepted as "okay". There is no reason I can see to separate gay sex from bestial sex or incest. If there is a genetic mutation that causes someone to be attracted to a member of the same sex, that person doesn't deserve to be ridiculed...but come on...they should practice their unnatural desires behind closed doors.

0 Replies

Stuh,

I fail to understand your reasoning. Confused

IF; and a big IF homosexuality is a genetic mistake then society by prohibiting "gay" marrige is in fact and deed encouraging these "misfits" to marry and inter breed with the "supposedly" normal (heterosexual) component of our society thus insuring the proliferation of the homosexual genetics.

Allowing gays to "marry" ie. Allowing them the benefits that the state bestows on "married heterosexual couples" will eventually diminish the number of gays in the gene pool. They are less likely to reproduce.

I am merely pointing out that your position in forbidding gays to marry is actually counterproductive to your stated "beliefs". Not an unusual situation, regrettably Sad

.

Frankly the state or society has no business telling me who I should share my life with. I am opposed to "State Sanctioned" marrige between ennybuddy. The Church can marry you if someone wants to. The State can sanction any economic arangements through "articles of incorporation" including protection of minors.

I do take some slight umbrage at your terming homosexuality as a "mistake". It's a normal component of human genetic variability and is no more a "mistake" than a dark eyed blonde is. But dark eyed blonde females are not normally discriminated against. "Au Contraire" I might say. Smile

0 Replies

Interesting, aka, and I don't mean that sarcastically. I know some people have said (I am paraphrasing) marriage is a state of being sanctioned/sanctified by a religion, and that a civil compact should be regarded as different, but I have always dismissed that, since in my view, people making long term vows to each other are married, in my sense, with or without civil or religious blessing, and that getting civil blessing - which happens in the US when one is married in a religious ceremony, and when in a civil ceremony - gives certain legal benefits. So, it seems I agree with you re primacy of personal vows.

I have, though, thought of it as that people who went through civil ceremonies only being as much married as those who went through religious ones; and having an acceptance that some who don't go through ceremonies at all have commitments that are, effectively, marriage. In other words, I have been fighting in my mind for the right to use the word marriage for one's expression of long term vows.

Now I am beginning to think more straightforwardly of a legal document with some name to be determined that legally protects/gives rights/ to the people who make vows by whatever means, from personal to civil to religious. Maybe that word is marriage and religious ceremonies get to pick another word. Or maybe religious ceremonies keep it, and the legal acknowledgement of vows gets another word.

I'm not sure I mean that. The word marriage has a certain longterm cache, and I am thinking, here, to shift it to a certain variety of a more general ceremony.

A slight twist in my line of thought happening here, for the moment anyway.

0 Replies

Ossbuco,

Yes, we generally agree. Personally I have decided that the term "marriage" has been a religious term for so long and that it so denotes a particular rite that I think that we should let the churches keep the word but the state should not be able to deny benefits to cohabiting couples that for one reason or another do not accept the rites of marriage.

It would be no more fair of the state to deny unemployment benefits to an unbaptised person, than it is to deny hospital insurance or housing allowances to another couple who may share their lives and fortunes with one another for at least the life of the contract.

The State IMO has no business whatsoever enforcing religious obligations. It may well have a valid interest in enforcing contracts.

About 1970 four of us went into business in the state of Maryland USA.
A lawyer drew up a standard form which outlined the duties and obligations of each party and also assigned a "ficticious" name to the corporation. It was so similar to what I envision a marriage contract ought to be that we made jokes about it amongst ourselves.

We legally became a "family". Mechsmith, Buddybender,Monkeywench, and Sandidoo trading as Double X services. I think that something along those lines would work for committed cohabiting couples. The state should have no concern about the gender of the participants. Incorporating or otherwise. Nor should it accept simple participation in a religious ceremony as enabling for the provisions of state (taxpayer supplied) benefits.

Idea

I wonder what would happen if all Marriage Ceremonies performed in Massachussetts prior to Mar 1, 2004 were declared invalid, and if every person wanting any appropriate governmental services had to "incorporate into marriage" so as to speak. Might be interesting to find out Twisted Evil

Have a good evening, M.

0 Replies

When Massachusetts and Connecticut were first settled in the 1630's marriage was just as aka described his business contract. It was a civil contract sanctioned by the government and religion had nothing to do with it. This was the radical protestant position at the time and it did not last. In part due to opposition form England and part due to the opposition of New England clergy. The idea remained which is why you can be married by a JP and why divorce is (and always has been) legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut (and now else where). It is the nullification of a contract. There is no reason we can not go back to that system. It is unlikely that 17th century New England would have sanctioned same sex marriages. But times change and if marriage were again only a civil contract there would be much less of a fuss.

0 Replies

Yes, Acquiunk, and still you call that civil contract marriage... as I think I do... which would then leave those who want to distinguish their unions by religious ceremony to add another word if they chose to emphasize the additive religious aspect.

I know additive is an irritating adjective to someone who thinks the religious ceremony is primary, but not to me, who thinks the vows between the two people are primary.

0 Replies

I haven't read all previous pages, but here's my take on this, and I still can't decide for sure. I could probably argue both sides.

I was raised Southern Baptist, youth group, church every Sunday, choir, etc. It's what I know. I hear a lot how God created marriage. Um, I don't think I agree with that. God didn't create marriage. Society created marriage to provide a family unit for the purpose of procreating and raising children. And gay people can't naturally procreate with each other.

And then I ponder some more.

Our society is well past the point of required procreation to further the species. Straight couples get married all the time and choose not to have children. Or can't have children, and don't adopt. No "family" unit. Still, a marriage. And gay people are able to conceive artificially or adopt children.

So the whole idea that the original intent of marriage for the purpose of a family unit to procreate and raise children no longer applies.

I don't guess I'm going anywhere with this, just thinking out loud.

I figure that it's gonna happen. Just like interracial marriage happened, so shall gay marriage. In my lifetime, I expect it to become commonplace.

I also think it's gonna boil down to capitalism, not theology. The wedding industry alone will skyrocket with the super fabulous gay weddings guys will plan lol!

I also think that George of the Bungle has zero intention of pushing through a constitutional amendment, nor would it fly anyway.

It would need 2/3 ratification in the House. There aren't 2/3 GOP in the House, and the Dems don't have public pressure to force them to jump the fence and vote against party line. It would need 2/3 ratification in the Senate. There aren't 2/3 GOP in the Senate, and the Dems don't have public pressure to force them to jump the fence and vote against party line. Not to mention plenty of GOP that don't want a constitutional amendment, anyway, they believe it belongs at the state level also.

If it were to inexplicably get through both the House and Senate (which it wouldn't), it still needs 2/3 ratification of the states. The ERA couldn't get 2/3 ratification despite an extension in the deadline and that was decades ago and had far more public support.

So anyhoo, I figure that sums it up. Doesn't matter what I feel, it will happen and King Dunderhead won't be able to stop it with the Constitution.

As long as I still get my hetero marriage, what do I care?

The original thread question was Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage? I don't think "most" is accurate. Otherwise ... Fear. Change. Humans aren't known for their ability to manage change quickly, or very well.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

People who are gay are put through much more societal tramua than straight people

Really? Geezz never knew that...

stuh505 wrote:

...and it's perverse

I think this is the essence of your post, not whether it should be excepted according to 'nature' (I always learned that you should never involve 'nature' and all that stuff in these issues; I don't want to compare you with anyone, but 'genetically insuperior' was used in other cases than this one too you know...)

[quote=""stuh505"]and this is EQUALLY unnatural as gay attraction, because it is not the attraction that was genetically selected for.[/quote]

I suddenly remember my Biology teacher saying 1 out of 5 male guinnee pigs is gay...I bet Mother Nature has made another natural 'mistake'...

stuh505 wrote:

I think our society would become chaotic if all of these strange forms of sexual attraction were to be accepted as "okay".

You may think that... I think it's just another exaggeration, concerning homosexuality.

stuh505 wrote:

If there is a genetic mutation that causes someone to be attracted to a member of the same sex, that person doesn't deserve to be ridiculed

Ever thought of the fact homosexuality is not solely based on genes? There are strong clues which suggest that homosexuality has it roots even more in social upbringing than genes. Though scientists can not make a conclusion on both sides (upbringing/genes), I think you are much too far by concluding "wrong genes ----> unnatural -----> should not be accepted".

0 Replies

Greyfan wrote:

The state has a legitimate interest in social behavior; in areas in which it does not have a legitimate interest, individual rights should prevail --in a free society. Where you draw the line is debatable, and changes as social values change over time.

The controversy over homosexual unions can be compared to the acceptance of interracial marriage, which has seen support grow from 4% in a 1958 Gallup poll to over 70% in a recent AARP-LCCR study. In this case, the majority of people now agree, the state did NOT have a legitimate interest.

A Washington-ABC News poll done in March places the current American public support for gay "civil unions" at 51%.

The accusation of narrow-mindedness can be used by either side, but adds nothing to the discussion; its just a snippy way of saying you disagree. In my opinion, society has no more right to prevent same sex marriages than it does interracial ones, and third party opinion as to the legitimacy or moral correctness of these marriages, as with the case of slaveholders, has little weight compared to the opinions of the people actually being enslaved.

Here's where you are wrong.

My original posting was that it is narrow minded to assume that all opposition to same sex marriages has a sinister motivation.

This is not a "snippy" way of saying I disagree, it is a way of pointing out that there are reasons for opposing same sex marriage that are not sinister or immoral. To consider this possible would seem to be a perfect example of open mindedness.

You countered with a ( dare I say, "snippy") comparison of opposition to same sex marriage with opposition to the abolition of slavery. Essentially, you continued the narrow minded perception that all opposition to same sex marriage has a sinister or immoral motivation.

If you wish to encourage an open discussion on the issue you will not perpetuate narrow minded perceptions.

As to your specious comparison:

Depriving homosexuals of the institution of marriage is in no meaningful way equivalent to depriving someone of their freedom. It's a hopped up comparison chosen for it's emotional charge.

Now you've toned your argument down to specify Interracial Marriages.

Except that the word "marriages" is involved, the comparison is no more valid.

With rare exception (and with these one could even argue that 100% of all opposition to interracial marriages was not sinister or immoral) the motivation for opposition to interracial marriage was based on a premise that skin color and features alone was enough to distinguish between the relative worth of a human life. opposition to interracial marriages didn't exist in a vacuum, it was merely another manifestation of opposition to equal rights for blacks.

The same cannot be said for opposition to same sex marriages. A great number of the people opposed to same sex marriages are accepting of same sex civil unions so that gay partners can benefit from equal protection under the law.

A great number of people opposed to same sex marriages are also opposed to discrimination in the workplace, in housing, and in expression based on sexual orientation.

Are there opponents of same sex marriage who harbor an irrational fear or hatred for homosexuals? Of course, but they are not, by any means, the totality of the opposition.

Perhaps you are far more enlightened than many of your fellow citizens, but to a lot of people, sexual attraction for the same sex goes well beyond skin color in terms of a distinguishing factor, and if you are, luckily, so enlightened, do you really think you are going to help the rest of the masses along by equating their beliefs with an advocacy of slavery?

The premise that all opposition to same sex marriages is sinister is narrow minded, and if you chose to adopt this premise, you reveal yourself as narrow minded, despite all of your sanctimonious comparisons.

0 Replies

Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know