Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

Well said, Finn.

As far as what Stuh said about homosexuality obviously being a "genetic mistake." I would like to defend that. It is completely logical if you look at it from an evolutionist point of view. Since the nature of life is to prolong itself, and to pass on the best genes while doing so, homosexuality can be considered a flaw on that level. But that is certainly no basis for an argument against homsexual marriage. I mean, on the same level, the desire of heterosexual people to not have children also impedes natural selection, so does birth control. Birth control is a flaw as far as natural selection is concerned... but it's no basis for an argument against birth control. In short, calling it a flaw can be accurate, but not if you base progressive arguments on it.

Finn

This is a quick reply, and perhaps ill-considered because I'm posting it without giving your post must reflection, but here goes:

The essence of my disagreement is that the arguments against gay marriage I have heard involve mere prejudice, in my opinion. Religious considerations are, to me, of no consequence.

I understand some (perhaps most) religious groups object to gay marriages on doctrinal grounds, and the term "marriage" is loaded for them. I may disagree with these interpretations, but not with the right of individuals and private religious organizations right to hold them. Churches, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of non-members, are free to advocate whatever they believe in, however odious or unjust it may seem to me. The church (any church) can certainly deny its rights and sacraments to anyone it deems unfit.

The main thrust of my objection is (or should have been) that the state has no legitimate interest in preventing gay unions, and it was from that point of view that I floated my not completely analogous analogies. The point to those comparisons is not that the cases are identical, but that the reasoning behind them, which looked valid to the people who supported them at the time, no longer seems reasonable at all, and I believe that will prove to be the case here.

With these clarifications, I will accept the label "narrow minded", and withdraw the "snippy" comment, which was, I now suspect, uncalled for.

Well put, SCoates.

Unless you believe you have heard all of the arguments against gay marriage you have reached an opinion based on an inadequate sample.



The focal point of our argument has been whether or not all opposition to same sex marriages is sinister. In this context, your comment that religious considerations are of no consequence can only be interpreted to mean that you already assume all religious considerations to be sinister. Perhaps this was a simply hastily penned comment, but if not, I would be interested in your expounding on this position.

As for your grudging acknowledgment of the right of Churches to subscribe to doctrine, and your requirement that it not interfere with the rights of others, I should point out that until only very recently, there has not been a right of marriage for non-heterosexuals, and even now that right is a subject of great debate. I appreciate that you feel, perhaps strongly, that the right of marriage is as inherent as the right to live free, and that it cannot be created or eliminated by the laws of man, but I trust that you acknowledge that you are in the minority with such a belief, and that your prediction that someday there will come a time when mankind views the banning of same sex marriage in the same light as slavery is by no means assured to come true.

You are morally certain that same sex marriage cannot be viewed in the same light as pedophilia or bestiality. I happen to believe it should not be so viewed but I can understand how it can be, without being a manifestation of irrational fear or hatred.

Do you object to religion attempting to interfere with the right of an adult to have sex with a child, or of a man to have sex with an animal? Such a question can be easily dismissed as ridiculous since no rational person believes such rights exists. And yet it wasn't that long ago that no rational person thought that a right to practice homosexuality, let alone to marry someone of the same sex existed.

If, for whatever reason, future generations begin to take a different view of what what we currently consider perversions: pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia etc., will this mean that we were wrong all along? Will those who retain an aversion to such practices being doing so out of mere prejudice or sinister motives?

A change in beliefs over time doesn't always signify social progress, but keep in mind that when otherwise accepted social ills (e.g. slavery, child labor, debtors prison etc) came under attack, it was generally with the lead or solid contribution of organized religion.



This is something quite different from your other postings, but is certainly worthy of discussion.

There are valid arguments to be made for the State having a legitimate interest in social cohesion. It is generally accepted that marriage is foundational to society. To the degree that a particular practice may erode or damage such an important institution, the State has a legitimate reason to consider banning it. Whether same sex marriage is such a practice is a topic of legitimate debate. Considering that marriage, as an institution, has been fundamentally tied to the production and raising of children who will become functioning members of society, it is not an irresitibly logical conclusion that same sex marriages can support society or even remain neutral in regards to its strength.

I've already addressed the fallacy in assuming that all "progress" is benign.

In the end, my greatest concern with this issue is that it is not being allowed to be publicly debated and to prove itself out, over time, as a positive element of social evolution.

There are times when the judiciary must intervene in the democratic process to right wrongs which cannot abide the slow pace of social evolution. While I am not personally opposed to same sex marriages, I am not convinced that it is an issue that is in urgent need of judicial intervention.

After all, in a state that allows same sex civil unions to address issues of equal protection and privilege under the law, why is it essential to permit marriages? Certainly the individuals affected feel it is a matter of urgency, but this isn't a sound reason for a law.

Considering that what these couples are really seeking is societal acceptance, does it make sense to circumvent the process of societal change?

Judges couldn't make people accept blacks as equal, but they could make them (to a certain extent) treat them as equals. In this case, however, the institution of marriage is not going to provide gay couples with any rights that they could not obtain otherwise.



Unnecessary, but acknowledged.

Actually, there are plenty of rights only offered to those who are married, which doesn't make sense since it's a religious institution.

The point that 51% of society is against is not a good argument - prior to 1950 (or so) 51% + were in favor of Jim Crow laws. This is look at as an atrocity today.

Thirty years from now (maybe even less) people against gay unions will be looked upon as barbaric...

Vitriol aside, Maggie Gallagher has a reasoned and gracious answer to the question "Why do most Americans oppose Gay Marriage". NB: her's is not my position, but I do consider her position to be a legitimate (i.e., not "Nazi", not "backward", not "ignorant", not "intolerant", not "small", not "homophobic", not "fearful", not "prejudiced", not "intellectually lazy" *whew*, not "evil", not "barbaric" ) one.

and, that is

and, that is

I'd prefer for you to read her words for yourself, but if you promise not to hold her accountable for the errors that I make, I'll attempt to represent her position:

She would like "civil unions" to be available to everyone (including siblings and folks looking after parents, etc), and would like economic concerns (apart from those that involve children) to be tied to this entity.

She would like to maintain the word "marriage" to mean something that has the potential for creating and caring for children. She feels (and I agree) that children do not get a fair shake in the political scenes of our nations, and that steps should be taken to protect them.

With her proposal, the only complaints will be from the fringes. After all, "What is in a name?" -- the traditionalists can keep the "name" that they want so badly, and the progressives can get the "benefits" that they want so badly.

Homosexuality does not prevent either males or females from reproducing and many do. It simply determines who an individual feels more comfortable with emotionally. The flaw in you argument is the assumption that "evolution" has a purpose, it does not, it is simply change. As there is no evolutionary intent, there is no attempt to pass on the "best genes". Evolution works on the level of the individual not the gene. If the individual "phenotype" is successful, in life his/her genes will be passed along in greater number than those individuals who are not. We humans are unique in that regard in that we possession of cultural mode of adaptation (learned not instinctive behavior) that allows us to not reproduce if we so desire. No other species that I am aware of has such an option.

Homosexuality is not a genetic "mistake". If it does have a genetic basis then it simply represents part of a spectrum of genetic variation that you would expect to find in any species subject to the process of natural selection.

There are many, many same sex marriages that are raising children today. Are you suggesting abolishing these. The problems you speak of occur more in "traditional" marriages. Pedophilia is a violent act of control, not homosexuality. The problems of child abuse are rampant in "traditional" families. Child are more harmed by intolerance than if they have two Dads or Moms.

I think these types of arguments are none starters......

Yikes! Where did that come from? I (nor Maggie) said nothing about pedophilia, child abuse or intolerance... The "protection" that is necessary for children is legal and political: the notion of a committed marriage is important for children's upbringing, and the importance of heterosexual marriage is simply that that is where (almost all of) the children come from in the first place.

Not quite. Any genetic variation that results in a decreased probability of reproduction (as homosexuality certainly does) can be shown (mathematically, no less!) to reach exceedingly low level of incidence over time.

It is the arguments most used for same sex parenting - the ones you now present are the same ones that will still protect or not protect the kids in any "marriage". Still comes down to the common denominator of love - has nothing to do with the sex of the parents. Your argument still floats no boats.

What I actually said (as opposed to what Bill wants to read into what I said):
1. "Almost all"...children come from hetero marriage
with me so far?
2. Committed marriage (i.e. "love") is necessary for the well-being of children.
are you still in agreement?

Ok, that was the argument. I'm glad we both agree. The rest is not an argument at all (let alone mine). The rest was Maggie's proposed policy. What makes you react so violently to it? I thought it had the makings of a civilized grounds for a compromise.

Maggie Galagher's opinion seems reasoned, for her reasons.
My twenty year marriage wouldn't have counted for her, but she is welcome to her worked out opinion, and I don't say that with hostility.

Everything in nature is natural. We have only to stop being small of mind and heart to realize there is no real problem.

The well-documented Yanomamo of the Amazon are certainly "natural". Their practices of clan warfare, gang rape, and savagery are certainly "natural". But one would certainly have to be "small of mind and heart" to imagine that "there is no real problem" with those practices.

NB: I am NOT comparing homosexuality to any of the practices mentioned above. I am just pointing out that JLN's rhetoric is perhaps of less value than it appears.

Yipee!!! Someone who understands evolutionary biology (and - even better - can explain it clearly and succinctly)!