Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

Jnhofzinser, I thank you for saying that my comment at least appears to have value. The Yanomami had a way of life that was inconsistent with our cultural values, but that has nothing to do, as far as I can tell, with the subject at hand. I was merely saying that people who condemn and put restrictions on the freedoms of Homosexuals on the grounds of immorality and/or naturalness are doubly wrong. I know homosexuals who live as mates and do so in a manner very consistent with our most traditional values. They are mutually respectful and affectionate and VERY loyal to one another, more so than most of the heterosexual couples I know. I do believe that their orientation is natural, reflective of their fundamental psychological and physiological nature and that their commitment to live as married folk has made them much less harmful to society than they would be if they just inhabited gay bars, bath houses and public sex scenes, spreading aids, and venereal diseases. Imagine how disrupted our lives would be if heterosexuals did not marry. If everyone could have sex with anyone else. The conflict between males over women would be most dysfunctional for society. Let's make it mandatory that gays get married!!!

JLN -- I have no interest in condemning or restricting anyone. I only wish it were mandatory for couples with children to stay together (partly joking -- no need to ignite the flame-thrower)...

what i find ridiculous, is that after fighting tooth and nail for centuries just to gain a 'foothold' on 'equal rights', the homosexual community is now gung ho to fling themselves into the grip of an ancient ritual which holds no vestige of value for today's sexually migrant society!

As (was it Thomas jefferson?) said: (paraphrasing)
"I disagree with what they want, but i will defend to the death, their right to both 'want' it, and participate in it as they wish".

There's plenty of value, when you consider inheritance rights, work benefits and things like being considered next of kin when someone is declared mentally incompetent.

.....i meant "real" value; you know something that really matters, not involving 'things'.

protection of loved ones is not "things" ..... jespah, being the lawyer she is, I am sure did not mean to lead with an ambiguity

Thanks.

Well, there is a real economic value to marriage, but that's not the reason why most people marry. However, I think we're all kidding ourselves if we claim that economics never, ever factors into it.

My husband and I lived together for over 2 years but there's just something about being married. It is important to us to have this status. Yes, this is a sexually mobile world and a number of people do not want to have a commitment. Fine, no one's forcing it on them. But for those of us who want a commitment, having children or not, being able to have children or not, being of the same religion or not, being of the same race or not, or even being of the same gender or not, shouldn't matter to the government any more than whether we both like the Celtics.

isn't 'commitment' a personal thing to be taken to one's heart privately - i can't help seeing your list above as rather 'empty';
- commitment does not require papers
- marriage is not biologically 'enabling' rendering one capable of conceiving
- religious diversity should be cause for reassessment, not defaulting to religious edicts
- racial origin never inhibits true desire
- gender constraints may affect the genitals, but not the heart
- the monetary laws enacted by the government are 'handouts to their cronies the churches who gain most from prolonging foolish traditions

There appears to be considerable confusion about the "magic ingredient" that makes a "couple" into a "married couple" (rather than "conjoints faits", "common-law", "civil union", etc.)

Here is a list of some options...have I missed any?
- love
- sex
- commitment
- children/potential children
- legal/economic advantages
- cohabitation
- a ceremony
- a religious something
- some combination of the above

It appears that the concensus is that "cohabitation" with either "commitment" or "sex" is "it". But I agree with BoGoWo that the label "married" does little or nothing to enhance such a relationship. (Keeping in mind that the legal/economic advantages of marriage are a cultural and not a necessary component of "marriage").

Genetics and Homosexuality
If we are arguing genetics and homosexuality there are actually good reasons for it to exist on a genetic level.

First, lets set up a few parameters. We are dealing with a species that mates and has two parents that care for and raise a child, much like humans, in an ideal situation. There is competition for mates as each member of the species is seeking the mate with the best genes. Ok, so if it's all about breeding why is homosexuality a good thing for this species on a genetic level.

Well, there are a couple of reasons. First off, it all has to do with family. Long term mating like this will tend to produce siblings over multiple mating seasons. Your siblings share many of the same genes you do. So lets say two members of this species mate and have two offspring. One of their offspring is a homosexual, and thus unlikely to mate. Their other offspring is heterosexual and is part of the whole mating game and is seeking a mate. Offspring B finds a mate and produces a child. Offspring A does not, however Offspring A is able to help provide for and help raise children since it is a healthy adult. Genetically the offspring of its sibling is closely related to it. Thus if the children of Offspring B survive and mate some of the genes that Offspring A carries will be passed onto future generations. Which is really what this is all about.

So where is the benefit? Well, since Offspring A isn't going to have any children having sex with their own sex their best bet genetically is to help raise their siblings children. While not as optimal for Offspring A, this works o the benefit of Offspring B. Now the children of Offspring B have three parents providing for them. This means that those children are going to have a much higher percentage of survival. Three parents are providing for them, should one parent die they still have two, they are receiving more food, growing faster and Offspring B and its mate could support larger numbers of children in a mating season due to the third caretaker.

How does this apply to humans? It doesn't apply very well any more. But it does grant insight into why homosexuality exists though. From the perspective of the homosexual member of the species it means that they will die without passing on their genes. However there is a big benefit to the species since it means more and healthier children. Viewed this way it makes a great recessive trait. Members of the species who carry the traits are likely to produce both homosexual and heterosexual children, but with heterosexual children being in the majority. This means most of their offspring will mate and carry their genes into the next generation. Those children who do not mate will help make their siblings more successful and help carry the genes forward into the next generation as well, just in a more direct way.

When discussing genetic traits it is important to ask a simple question. Does it increase the fitness (ability to survive and breed) of the species. Not just the individual. In this case it does benefit the species, it also benefits the individuals with homosexual siblings, but it isn't a great benefit for the genetically for the homosexual individual.

Now for my personal opinion. I'm a gay man. While genetically there is a great reason for homosexuality to exist you can't really argue genetics as it applies to humans. We sort of change the rules. We do alot of things that do not increase our fitness as a species and I think they are right and good things to do. Our society and relationships are also not solely defined by the genetics we inherited. It is unlikely that I will help my sisters raise their children, since that would be weird for both of us. And honestly I want to adopt and raise children of my own. I think debates like this are interesting, but difficult. Really you are arguing whether people like me are a benefit to our society or a detriment, a touchy subject with strong opinions on all sides.

I hope my little aside didn't interrupt things to much. Hopefully it shed some light on how genetics plays into this whole mess as well.

Scoates / acquink,

You are quite right, calling homosexuality a mistake was an error on my part...all of our features are in a sense a mistake, and it is genetic mutations and mistakes that drive our own evolution.

I've thought about it more and I think the real reason that so many americans are against gay marraige is just that homosexuality is against many people's morals....which we don't choose ourselves out of logic, but they grow in us based on what part of society has influenced our life.

In answer to the question "Why do most Americans condemn gay marriages" and homosexuals as human beings entitled to the full American franchise, I would say it is simply a matter of smallness of mind disguised as morality. This is not directed to Stuh, given his admission of error.

Maggie Gallagher's conclusions are similar to ones I have arrived at independently. I am straight but like her, I have gay friends, professioanl associates, and family members and love them all dearly. After thinking long and hard on the gay marriage issue I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Marriage has a specific definition - a legal union between a man and woman for the purpose of forming a family unit that supposes the possibility of children. It does not matter whether the union is accomplished by a secular official or by an ordained minister. It is a marriage regardless. (A religious ceremony does not change the legal contract - it just adds another layer of expectations to the mix. Whatever ceremony or religious beliefs are attached to it, the civil benefits afforded to it are nevertheless via a secular civil contract.)

Gay marriage changes the definition of the word marriage.

2. Gays have the exact same rights as straights do at this time. Every unmarried person of legal age has the right to marry another consenting unmarried person of legal age who is of the opposite sex. The fact that the other person may not be appealing or desirable or anybody one would WANT to marry is irrelevant. Everybody has the same rights in this regard. In other words equal rights exist.

To provide marriage for gays and not provide marriage for same sex heterosexuals who wish to form themselves into family units for whatever reason makes the system unequal and inequitable.

3. The system as it exists is sometimes wrong when it comes to gay people. There definitely does need to be some provision for gays to be able to enjoy the tax benefits, shared insurance benefits, rights to hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. enjoyed by married couples. These benefits should also be extended to same sex heterosexuals who form themselves into family units as well.

4. The solution to me is to have a dual system. Don't mess with marriage that has been one of our most valuable and enduring institutions and, in my opinion, is critical for the well being of children.

But allow a civil union for everybody else to be able to form themselves into family units. Those who want the union 'sanctified' by the church could certainly do that too.

In other words let's do it but all sides need to agree to a simple compromise here. The 'religious' will get off the back of the gays who want to be able to do this. And the gays will pick a different word for it than marriage.

Ankou's remarks about the value of homosexuals in a human community are right on the mark, in my estimation. The ancestors of most of here were from tribes speaking Indo-European languages. Through philological studies as well as references to the earliest texts on these various tribes (such as the Greek tribes, the Italo-Tuscan tribes, the proto-Keltic tribes of the Hill Fort people, the later historical Kelts of the La Tène civilization, and the Gaels and Britons), it becomes clear that what we refer to as the extended family, living as a group in a single large structure, was the rule.

In such a situation, the arbitrer of disputes would be the "Old Man," or "Old Woman." But otherwise, those within the group were largely adult free agents, in so far as their actions did not threaten group stability or survival. Homosexuals in such a context help to relieve pressure on the choices of the breeding population while fulfilling all the group expectations for the contributions of adult members. I have read that researchers report an increase in homosexual activity among laboratory animals kept in close quarters. In a family tribes situation in which resources are limited, adult members who are not going to reproduce, but who still contribute to group welfare may well be a positive benefit which is unintentionally selected for by the evolutionary process.

It is more than a little ironic to me to consider that those who insist up the revealed truth of the OT, with its scenes of slaughter, slavery, misogyny and incest, will speak of what is or is not unnatural, of what is or is not moral. The Semitic cultures of the ancient middle east, although not arsing in family tribes as did the "Aryans," the Indo-Europeans, would still have had in their temple societies the same benefits accrue from a portion of the adult population being homosexual.

I think most Americans oppose it because they've been conditioned all their lives to think of gays as bad people.

I agree, limbodog. I also think that the religious-right have been using a highly excited tone, in their campaign against gay-marriage, which is meant to instill fear and rage into the hearts of anyone susceptable to being influenced by such rhetoric. They use the same tone when discussing terrorism and Iraq as well.

Sadly, I think I agree. Although I would not use the word rhetoric. I realize it is a matter of taste, but rhetoric is an art form. For example, when hicks would shout, "niggers is dogs," I wouldn't consider it an appeal to emotion. Even though it is, it just doesn't deserve the dignification of intelligent definition.

Unfortunately, I imagine that there'd still be large numbers of americans opposed to same sex marriage - even if the emotional rhetoric ceased right now. It's pretty sad.

I am very much opposed to the hate, and mob mentality surfacing on the issue. And, of course, it all comes from my side... it's depressing.

I haven't once heard news of retaliation from those who support same sex marriage. I'm reminded again of the struggle african americans faced. They never faught back (at least, any instances where they did are far outweighed), they showed great character in my opinion, and those who attacked their character were in fact the real villains.

I listened to an interview with a leader of one of the anti same sex marriage groups and the leader of the HRC (I don't know what their official postions are, sorry). He was being an ass, imo, and this very strong, eloquent and unbelievable calm lesbian mother was addressing him. This is her life - the man was invalidating much of what she very personaly stands for. It was wretched.