Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

I'm curious about your first point. Could you elaborate.

Also, a question to everyone. It's not meant to be tricky, I am just curious. If a couple wishes to be married, and neither of them are in any way religious, what options do they have? Do they have to have a ceremony, or is there a way to just pay the fee?

0 Replies

And also from the website - Family Research Inst - some scary stuff....

Quote:

The homosexual historical footprint is large when it comes to the rape and murder of children.

Quote:

Dr. Paul Cameron, called for in the early 1980s for HIV. Cameron's suggestion was rejected as a 'hateful' and 'an affront to freedom' by officials at the Centers for Disease Control. Its leaders said publicly then that when it came to HIV they had three tasks: to make sure civil rights were not infringed (i.e., to make sure gays could have sex when and where they wanted), to develop a vaccine, and to 'educate' in order the slow the spread of HIV.

Quote:

Those who participate in homosexuality regard the gay infrastructure as a 'fun machine.' Their defenders say something like "Finally, people who enjoy having sex with their own gender can advertise openly and have a place to play. Freedom is always a good thing."

But the gay infrastructure is also a 'germ machine.' Freedoms that cost the lives of others, and threaten the lives of still more, are not a good thing. Especially when a plague is coming.

eesh.

0 Replies

SCoates, they get legally married by a justice of the peace. It's the state issued marriage license and it's called a marriage.

My point has been made before. Marriage is both a religious and a legal institution. As stated above, a legal marriage needs to have nothing to do with religion. People have been married this (legal) way for ages.

0 Replies

I'm tired. Osso, I'll try to remember to put a bee in your bonnet if need be.

0 Replies

Not something I've thought about. The diference doesn't change the issue in my mind, I've just always viewed marriage as a religious thing even if the participants were not religious.

I'm sure it has religious background, even if it has been adopted to "seperation of church and state" society.

0 Replies

My ex and I married at a local wedding chapel as that was what was listed under justices of the peace, jps, at the time.
We had lived in our house three years so there was no problem meeting some sort of time standard.

We wanted to waive blood tests (geez, I could do them, even now) since we owned a house and lived together in it for the three years, so somehow our legal doc became "undisclosed". Well, undiscosed is my word. Somehow we got into some seeming clandestine files of the married.

HUH?

However, we didn't chase it down, I guess we were always secretly but legally married, and 20 yrs. later, divorced.
Tap tap, shuffle, tap tap, shuffle, swoooosh.

Now, I think I get it that that had to do with the blood tests. If we took them and they showed we didn't have syphilis at the time, then we would have been in another category of the nonsyphilis annointed... which I suppose I would have opted for if I'd have understood the choices.

0 Replies

There are quite a few cultures through time that considered marriage to be more of a social thing than a religious thing.

The Egyptians and some Native American tribes come to mind.

0 Replies

But, with my understanding of history, that would be the equivalent of today's marriage not being considered religious. In other words, if we were living in ancient egyptian society we might still be debating if marriage had religious origins... on the ancient internet... on wooden computers.

0 Replies

Agreed, but my point is that there are a very large number of people in the world for whom, "holy matrimony", has no religious aspect. That has been the case throughout recorded history, so to say;

Quote:

I'm sure it has religious background, even if it has been adopted to "seperation of church and state" society.

Is somewhat unsupportable.

0 Replies

The point I made in my previous post on this thread and the one I still believe is pertinent is that religion plays no part in a marriage contract so far as the state is concerned. The only way marriage is in any way linked to relgion is that the state allows an ordained or licensed cleric to sign off on the contract and make it legal just as a judge or justice of the peace or ship's captain can legally sign to complete the contract.

A religious ceremony does nothing to complete or alter the civil contract - it just adds an addtional layer of expectation to the contract based on the beliefs of the participants. There is certainly no requirement that a person be religious, adhere to any religious group, or believe in any form of diety in order to be just as married as Mr. And Mrs. Billy Graham are married. There would be no reason a religious ceremony could be included in this process as well if the participants so desired.

Therefore, I see no problem with a compromise allowing marriage to continue in its current definition of one man and one woman, but let the law provide a civil contract for the rest of the people, gay or straight, to form themselves into family units with the usual benefits (taxes - rights of inheritance - hospital visitation etc.)

Just pick another word other than marriage for that.

If this compromise is made, I think all but the most radical religious and the most radical gay activists will shut up, everybody will have what they say they want, and the problem should be solved.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

If most that 10% of the population doesn't breed, why doesn't the 10% diminish?

Excellent question. If gayness is entirely genetic, it would necessarily diminish (i.e., mutations -- even simple ones -- are insufficient to reach those levels of proportion).

stuh505 wrote:

[S]ince gay people do not procreate [as much], any changes in their genes causing them to be gay would ... be passed on [less].

Absolutely correct.

stuh505 wrote:

The only reason gay people exist is because the mutation/imbalance is simple enough to occur that it keeps randomly occuring.

The assumption here is that "gayness" is entirely genetic. Unfortunately, due to the genetic forces at work, there are only two possibilities:

1. "gayness" is NOT entirely genetic. (i.e. a large gay proportion of the population does not depend on mutation)
2. the proportion of the population that is gay is very small. (i.e., if you depend on mutation to counter-act the effects of reduced-probability procreation, you end up with very small proportions of the population indeed)

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.

However, this is only tangential to the thread. I'm still waiting for someone to address the "magic ingredient" that makes a couple a "married couple" :wink:

Foxfyre wrote:

If this compromise is made, I think all but the most radical religious and the most radical gay activists will shut up, everybody will have what they say they want, and the problem should be solved.

I agree entirely. Any dissenters?

0 Replies

I think there is some research which suggests that 'gayness' is due to 'womb effects' - conditions of growth in utero.

0 Replies

So far as I know, there has been no gene pool for gayness discovered.

0 Replies

I've found religions lay claim to many things not of their invent. Morality comes to mind first.

Simple truth is: in terms of our society, the parts of marriage that make a change in our lives come from the US Government, not from a church. Churches can neither grant nor take away rights.

Presently, at least in the USA, churches and religious organizations are already allowed to discriminate to their heart's content when deciding for whom to perform wedding ceremonies. They will still be allowed thusly in the future. Nobody seeks to change that, and it would be unconstitutional to do so.

In my opinion, that pretty much takes religion out of the argument.

Which leaves: What legitimate legal reason exists to prevent the recognition of gay marriages?

The answer, as far as I have seen, is: None.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

........Therefore, I see no problem with a compromise allowing marriage to continue in its current definition of one man and one woman, but let the law provide a civil contract for the rest of the people, gay or straight, to form themselves into family units with the usual benefits (taxes - rights of inheritance - hospital visitation etc.)

Just pick another word other than marriage for that.

If this compromise is made, I think all but the most radical religious and the most radical gay activists will shut up, everybody will have what they say they want, and the problem should be solved.

This misses the entire point; the gay community does not wish "equal, but separate" status, the want to be considered, and accepted as part of the mainstream. (They basically wish to be 'ordinary'!)

All the genetic commentary seems fairly accurate to me; i see 'gayness' as simply a part of the standard 'Bell curve' of sexuality, not an aberration; it is as large a group as it is, simply because it has been around for ever, and is part of the natural variation.

Human rights mean nothing if they are not applicable to all 'humans'.

Adding 'gays' to the human race (officially), in no way endangers the rights of all, it merely strengthens them.

Look at it from the opposite perspective; if you lived in a society where gayness was the 'norm' (numerically), would you not expect to have the same rights, as an aberrant practicing heterosexual, as the mainstream?

0 Replies

Gay Marriages
If you don't like it, then don't support it. But don't condemn those who do believe in it. And honestly, don't be passing laws for something that doesn't affect anyone but those directly involved. If 2 men marry, it dosen't affect me personally in any way. "Family values" should come from parents, not society.

Currently, I live in a state in which it is illegal to have same-sex marriages. I think this is crazy. I elected a gov't official into office, not a priest. If we can't bring God into our schools (through prayer), how in the world can it be justified into the contract of marriage? And legally, that is all marriage is: a contract between two people.

Religious differences will always surround us and I accpet that there are others who have a different opinion. I do, however, HATE IT when people tell me gay marriages are against the church because they desecrate the sacrament of marriage. HA! I think us straight people have done a damn fine job of screwing up the sacrament of marriage. 75% (a conservative number mind you) of all married couples have one or both spouses engaged in extramarital affairs (physically or online) and there is a 50% chance that you will divorce if you get married. So tell me that allowing gay marriages will ruin marriage and I will tell you to check the current statistics.

Also, as for being something you are born with, I would have to agree, though I don't know why or how. One of my best friends is gay and I knew before he ever admitted to it. I knew when we were 12. He didn't look or act sterotypically gay, his family was not gay and I don't think that anyone would chose to be ridiculed and persecuted.

Maybe I am wrong. But I cannot say that we should deny these people the right to be happy.

0 Replies

As I've read, homosexuality (and other traits commonly lumped together with it) has multiple triggers.

Some may be genetic. It may not always be the same gene that triggers it (hence the difficulty in finding it). It might turn out to be a few possible combinations of genes that trigger it.

There's a *strong* indication that the cause of most homosexuality is an unusual level of sexual hormones (androgen for example) during the development of the brain in the three months surrounding birth particularly, but also perhaps up to young adulthood. These altered hormone levels which tweak sexual "identity" in the brain might also result from trauma, particularly if the trauma is sexual in nature.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with the fact whether you are gay or not. It has to do with whether you are male or female. Males have a larger sexual desire than females (in general). A male homosexual couple has more sex than heterosexual couples, yes. On the other hand, a female homosexual couple has less sex than heterosexual couples.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
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.

This has nothing to do with the fact whether you are gay or not. It has to do with whether you are male or female. Males have a larger sexual desire than females (in general). A male homosexual couple has more sex than heterosexual couples, yes. On the other hand, a female homosexual couple has less sex than heterosexual couples.

You don't know the gay women I know.

0 Replies

The Magic Marriage Ingredient
jnhofzinser asked for the "magic ingredient" that makes a couple married. Simple.

A commitment to each other. Whether it be through the church, a judge, each other...vows are said as a formality. One can make a marriage committment without a ceremony. And by commitment I mean something that the couple agrees to and sticks to.

If a couple agrees that monogamy, love, trust and financial security is what is most important to them, then those are the committments they make. They agree that both parties will be faithful, love and trust each other always and maintain financial balance between saving and spending. If a couple agrees that love and trust are important but monogomy is not, then maybe the committment they make is that neither partner is with anyone else behind the others back and they are always honest about their outside affairs.

Committment is defined by each individual couple. What is weird to one is normal for another. Which is why I think a lot of marriages don't last. People are taught to believe that there is one way to be married and that is just not true. You can find happiness with someone else in a way that everyone around you can't.

0 Replies

Why do most Americans oppose gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know