Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

I think gayness should be tolerated but not supported, since it is in fact an abnormal sexual desire...and many gay people are much more about sex than straight people.

But onto my real point...
It is a very good point that people who are gay and live together should receive the same kinds of benefits as married people. But this is not BECAUSE they are gay, it is because they are trying to share the support of living with another person. I certainly think that all legal implications of marriage should be stripped and put into some kind of "legal union" that has absolutely nothing to do with religion or sexuality, and everything to do with two people agreeing to live togethersimply for financial reasons, they could be married lovers, friends, relatives, anything. That way marriage could be a ritual reserved for Christians, and every other group of people could make up whatever spiritual rituals and agreements for union that they wantedbut at this point marriage ties church and state and that should be ended.

0 Replies

I have noticed whenever I get angry, or unnaturally defensive when arguing, I am usually not completely right. Sometimes I am completely wrong, but there's always at least something I need to rethink.

0 Replies

Semantics Stuh.

A marriage, by any other name, will suck as much.

0 Replies

Marriage should be reserved fro christians? Where does that leave hindus, moslems, buddhists, jews.....?

0 Replies

SCoates, I think that's an excellent point. One that we would all do well to pay attention to in our own lives.

0 Replies

I thought Stuh's point was well-thought and well-put. I was surprised at the negative reactions.

Specific religions should not be required to offer marriage to anyone.

States should not base their laws on what religions decide.

That covers just about everything... right?

0 Replies

I wasn't being negative, was just pointing something out.

Stuh seems to be saying that gays should have all the same rights as "normal christian" couples, just so long as they don't actually call it "marriage".

That's just semantics.

Littlek's point about other religions is valid too.

0 Replies

SCoates, I think any religious person capable of performing religious marriage ceremonies shoyuld be able to marry or not marry anyone he or she wants to. I don't think anyone is saying that a catholic priest should have to marry a gay couple. What people who support same sex marriage want is for all state clerks responsible for filing marriage licenses be required to marry same sex couple.

And, again, marriage is only valid if the state says so. You can be married in a church and be married under your god, but it's not valid for the state/fed gov't unless you get the license.

0 Replies

I have to curl up from the waves of opinion I disagree with and come back with some sensible response, in, of course, my own opinion.

Nag me if I don't.

0 Replies

But isn't that the problem? I see it as a problem irrelative to same-sex marriage. The problem is that states reserve privileges for those involved in religious institutions.

It should not be the state's concern if anyone decides to have a ceremony before they live together. Why should the state decide that two people must be in love to enjoy these privileges? Charge us a fee, sure, but why deny privileges to those who are not physically involved with each other.

I realize this may be viewed as a digression.

0 Replies

I also take a little umbrage at this line:

"....since it is in fact an abnormal sexual desire...and many gay people are much more about sex than straight people."

When you stop to think about the 10% gay population. It's across the board, by the way. If most that 10% of the population doesn't breed, why doesn't the 10% diminish? I don't know if you can call it abnormal. It's not normal, in that it's a minority population group, but it's normal enough that it doesn't go away through breeding - natural selection.

Also consider that 10% population means 1 in 10 people is gay. How many people do you know? Then, do the simple math, how many gay people do you know? If you say none, it probably means that you just don't know it. I hope you don't go around telling people you know that you think gay people are abnormal.

And the second point about gay people being more about sex. What does that have to do with anything else you have to say? And, if that were so very true, why is the group so interested in being able to marry one another?

0 Replies

Quote:

Stuh seems to be saying that gays should have all the same rights as "normal christian" couples, just so long as they don't actually call it "marriage".

That's just semantics.

No...I am talking about separating church and state. Currently we have the state giving certain benefits to a Christian tradition and this brings about all kinds of problems because the Christian tradition is biased towards gays and many people in this country are not.

My idea is for all legal attachments to marraige to be stripped. Then make just 1 kind of legal union where the law sees everyone equally and there are no vows or anything. The union simply states that the people will be living together and sharing financials. Married people would be able to do this when they get married, as well as gay people, or people living plutonic relationships together, this would separate church from state like it should be and solve the problem for all ethnicities.

0 Replies

Quote:

When you stop to think about the 10% gay population. It's across the board, by the way. If most that 10% of the population doesn't breed, why doesn't the 10% diminish? I don't know if you can call it abnormal. It's not normal, in that it's a minority population group, but it's normal enough that it doesn't go away through breeding - natural selection.

haha, you need to think about this one a bit more. the thing is, evolution can only affect our genes. since gay people do not procreate, any changes in their genes causing them to be gay would never be passed on. the only reason gay people exist is because the mutation/imbalance is simple enough to occur that it keeps randomly occuring. it is likely that this figure of 10% will never change.

Quote:

Also consider that 10% population means 1 in 10 people is gay. How many people do you know? Then, do the simple math, how many gay people do you know? If you say none, it probably means that you just don't know it. I hope you don't go around telling people you know that you think gay people are abnormal.

I have heard this number many times. I also do not believe it. I think that it includes bisexuals, which is a whole different story.

Quote:

And the second point about gay people being more about sex. What does that have to do with anything else you have to say? And, if that were so very true, why is the group so interested in being able to marry one another?

Gay people tend to flaunt their sexuality in a way that is uncomfortable for other people to deal with. For many people, being bisexual or gay is a conscious choice which they make because it feels "bad". When popular opinion says "that's ok" then people need to find things which are even more abnormal to get that same bad feeling...I don't want to see the spiral get out of hand. I know a LOT of girls who chose to become bisexual simply because they thought it was "cool" because our current society is so accepting of it. It's disgusting.

0 Replies

I am off fighting other dragons, still interested.

0 Replies

Quote:

haha, you need to think about this one a bit more. the thing is, evolution can only affect our genes. since gay people do not procreate, any changes in their genes causing them to be gay would never be passed on. the only reason gay people exist is because the mutation/imbalance is simple enough to occur that it keeps randomly occuring. it is likely that this figure of 10% will never change.

I have been thinking about this point. I know that to a small degree, homosexuality clusters in families, so maybe it's not the random mutation you think it is (does the same random mutation occur at the same rate - 10% of the time?). But, I think my point is moot all the same because the gene does cluster. I'm guessing that the gene is recessive (I don't really know). I think, if my brother is gay (which he is) and never has kids, it may be that homosexualitycould still pass through to my sister's kids. Does anyone have any research they can link to on this subject?

Quote:

Gay people tend to flaunt their sexuality in a way that is uncomfortable for other people to deal with. For many people, being bisexual or gay is a conscious choice which they make because it feels "bad". When popular opinion says "that's ok" then people need to find things which are even more abnormal to get that same bad feeling...I don't want to see the spiral get out of hand. I know a LOT of girls who chose to become bisexual simply because they thought it was "cool" because our current society is so accepting of it. It's disgusting.

This is a stale arguement. I've never seen this substantiated. And, I have personally seen more sexually emotive young women and men of the heterosexual variety than I have of the gay variety - and I live in Boston where there is a large homosexual population.

0 Replies

Littlek, you do have points, and you have brought up flaws in the statement, but that doesn't mean the entire statement was flawed.

For example, by focusing on the fact that not only christians have the religious institution of marriage, you overlook the point--"marriage is religious." Failing to mention all of the religions that support it does not weaken the point.

I've got a bad headache today. I feel like I'm rambling a lot. I hope my posts aren't as bad as I feel. I'll do some rereading tomorrow.

0 Replies

Ah, I posted at some length on this on a thread that died, which was quoted in another thread that died. I'll drag them back here since at least I ... think my post was interesting.

Heh. But please, littlekb, natter at me if I fail to do this.

0 Replies

Stuh, that last point confuses me. First you said that the only thing that can cause people to be gay is a simple genetic mutation, but then you say that most bisexuals or gays choose to be gay.

That seems to contradict. On the first point did you mean that the only genetic mutation which could cause homosexuality must be simple? Wording it that way still allows for other causes.

Personally I believe (a belief which is constantly changing) sexuality is largely a choice. I feel that I could become gay if I really tried hard enough. Fact is I don't want to, and there wouldn't be any incentive to change. By that I conclude that a homsexual could become heterosexual if they truly willed it. I see there are some flaws in that conclusion, but I certainly think it is possible. Most of them just don't see any incentive. Thoughts?

0 Replies

Little, one factor in clustering is soley based on environment. If you raised children in a community where they never saw the opposite gender, and all of their adult role models were homsexual, do you think the percentage of them which become homosexual would surpass 10%?

If in fact it would then we can determine that environment does have an effect, regardless of how substantial, and regardless of the fact the the experiement is obviously extreme.

0 Replies

no, SCoates, marriage isn't fundamentally religious. Or, at least, I honestly don't believe that it is.

I did google around on the percentage of gays and lesbians in the population. The stats for percent of gay population going from 1.7% to 11.7% (with fewer lesbians at 2.6% - 7.4%). Family Research Institute

The general estimate (at a variety of sites) is around 4-8% for homosexuals. There wasn't any mention of Bisexuals and there wasn't any differentiation between gays and lesbians.

0 Replies

Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know