2-to-1 against gay marriage

A new USA Today poll showed that:

"Americans opposed recognizing same-sex marriage by more than 2 to 1. . . . The divide on the issue is wider among those who feel strongly about their position. By more than 3 to 1, strong opponents outweighed strong supporters."

Sixty-five per cent said homosexual marriages "should not be valid," while only 31% said they should be. A clear majority of Americans, 52%, said they felt "strongly" about their opposition to homosexual marriages, while only 17% said the felt "strongly" that such marriages should be deemed valid.

Not trying to restart a conversation we have had several times. Just thought it was worth posting.

America is changing, correct? These polls would have been a lot different 10 years ago.

America is changing, correct?

Interestingly, the Constitution isn''t. Maybe an argument that these issues could be changed via legislation which represents changing attitudes rather than by judicial fiat.

It''s interesting, and not dramtically surprising. Still, I bet those numbers are shrinking as people become accustomed to the idea of homosexuality. I also note that the poll uses the hot-button word ''marriage'' and would be interested in a purely academic sense to see how those number might shift if the word ''union'' were used instead.

I also note that the poll uses the hot-button word ''marriage''

It is a particularly strong indication of how much America has changed when ""marriage"" is a hot-button word...

It is a particularly strong indication of how much America has changed when ""marriage"" is a hot-button word...

In this context it is. Or perhaps the hot-button phrase is ''Gay Marriage''. On its own, its not a hot button word. That wasn''t my point.

I know, but I still find it funny that ""marriage"" is hot-button in any context.

I''m curious as to what their sample size was. I''d also be curious to see what parts of the country the respondents were from.

<edit> I found the poll. At most they asked 1000 people. Personally, I hardly think that constitutes a significant percentage of people.

Statistically speaking, 1000 people is absolutely fine for a poll of that size. I know it seems small considering the size of the country, but almost no polls are ever taken with a sample size greater than 2000, and 1000 is pretty much the average. It leaves the margin of error around 5% I believe, which really doesn''t improve much even doubling the sample size.

USA Today is considered a reliable and scientific source for polling data.

Here is a link to an npr article i heard last night.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature....
NPR''s Robert Siegel talks with Adam Clymer and Kathy Frankovic about their recent polls on the issue of gay marriage -- and a constitutional amendment that would ban it. Clymer works for the Annenberg Public Policy Center; Frankovic is director of surveys for CBS News.

Its surpisingly on topic......

I think gay marriage is an inevitability. Gay is everywhere, even on the TV. Some comedian said there are so many gays on tv he has to wear a condom to change the channel.

Now don''t flame me, I didn''t say it, someone else did.

Some comedian said there are so many gays on tv he has to wear a condom to change the channel.

Why, he gets that turned on by them or something?

From the same poll:

Fifty-seven percent of Democrats said they opposed same-sex ""marriage,"" and 52 percent favored a constitutional amendment. Democrats split down the middle -- with 46 opposed and 46 percent in favor -- on the question of whether homosexual relations should be legal.

Looks like opposition to gay marriage isn''t restricted to us ""evil"" Republicans... The fact that a Democrats are split evenly on whether homosexuality should even be legal blew me away.

I think the whole issue is around the word ""marriage"". Call it legal union, or just union, and noone would really care, would they?

I think the whole issue is around the word ""marriage"". Call it legal union, or just union, and noone would really care, would they?

Which is interesting, in that the civil unions grant exactly the same status as marriage, as far as the state is concerned. So either the public really doesn''t care if gays marry, or they have been foooled into thinking that civil unions are somehow different than marriage, which I assume is the point of tryign to accomplish the same thing simply under a different name.

Exactly. Face it, the word marriage has alot of connotations that go along with it, including religious, social, and legal dimensions.

If you are hell bent on trying to change the prevailing religious views, more power to you, but you aren''t going to get anywhere.

But if you are legitimately concerned about the legal status of gays/lesbians, and want to ensure that they have the same status under the law, then why not avoid the word marriage altogether?

But if you are legitimately concerned about the legal status of gays/lesbians, and want to ensure that they have the same status under the law, then why not avoid the word marriage altogether?

Or you could recognize that they already have the same status under law and forget the whole thing...

Or you could recognize that they already have the same status under law and forget the whole thing...

I suppose this comes down to whether you perceive homosexuality as being a choice. I find that highly unlikely anymore than I chose to be heterosexual. Thus, it seems to me the benefits and securities afforded heterosexual couples are not reasonably attainable by homosexuals.

Thus, it seems to me the benefits and securities afforded heterosexual couples are not reasonably attainable by homosexuals.

It doesn''t have to have anything to do with whether you view homosexuality as a choice or not. Personally, I don''t think it is a choice, per se. For many, this issue is about whether you consider marriage to simply be a way for the state to affirm two people''s love, or whether the compelling interest in the state supporting marriage is centered around procreation.

In my opinion, the state has no compelling interest in offering financial benefits and legal protection simply because people want to be a couple.

In my opinion, the state has no compelling interest in offering financial benefits and legal protection simply because people want to be a couple.

Equality?

Equality?

All couples do not automatically get the legal and financial benefits of marriage, nor do individuals. I can''t call my roommate my spouse just because I want a tax break. And the reason said tax break exists in the first place is not to affirm that people who care about each other should have more money to spend.

The state''s only interest is obviously to continue churning out married couples because that''s what insures the ""continuation"" of the social order. Marriage teaches men to be part of the social order, I think.

However with the recent trend in divorces, maybe that''s counterproductive.

Does the US actually differentiate between a Civil Union and a Marriage? Here in MX you''re never legally ""married"", you have a ""civil union"". And we are a pretty religious country.

The state''s only interest is obviously to continue churning out married couples because that''s what insures the ""continuation"" of the social order.

It goes deeper than that. People are going to fall in love, and to be frank, have children without the state, and without marriage - but marriage creates a lasting relationship between people, hopefully making a more stable environment for children. It is this stable relationship and environment for children that the state is rewarding and incenting.

Marriage teaches men to be part of the social order, I think.

I''m not sure what that means. Are single people not part of the ""social order""?

However with the recent trend in divorces, maybe that''s counterproductive.

The divorce rate in the US has never been anywhere near as high as the media makes it out to be.

It is this stable relationship and environment for children that the state is rewarding and incenting.

Not really. There are rewards and protections involved in the legally recognized institution of marriage, which is simply not available to homosexual couples, that apply to the wealth of married couples who don''t have children. That''s an entirely different issue.

The divorce rate in the US has never been anywhere near as high as the media makes it out to be.

According to who? Pick a source, and get the statistic you want - I''ve read on various sources that the statistic goes from 20% to 70% divorce rates, depending on the study you pick.

I just can''t imagine that it''s the same divorce rate as it was in the 50s or 60s. The social stigma associated with divorce does not exist anymore, except perhaps in the more ""rural"" areas.

There are rewards and protections involved in the legally recognized institution of marriage, which is simply not available to homosexual couples, that apply to the wealth of married couples who don''t have children.

Just because we allow for exceptions doesn''t change that the legal and financial benefits and protections for marriage are there to support children in a stable environment. If the purpose (by the state, that is) of financially incenting and legally protecting marriage isn''t based around providing for children, what is it?

If the purpose (by the state, that is) of financially incenting and legally protecting marriage isn''t based around providing for children, what is it?

What a good question. Once you get past the notion that the financial incentives of marriages have little to do with children (other tax credits, breaks, incentives do that) you begin to realize what our point has been all along.

A columnist named Cal Thomas wrote recently:

Marriage was not invented by the postal service as a convenient way to deliver the mail. It was established by God as the best arrangement for fallen humanity to organize and protect itself and create and rear children. Even secular sociologists have produced studies showing children need a mother and a father in the home.

The first mention of marriage is in Genesis 2:24: "".a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."" The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, which will be used by gay rights groups to lobby for striking down all laws limiting marriage to heterosexuals, is just the latest example of a society that has abandoned any and all authority outside of itself.

History, logic, theology and even the dictionary have defined marriage as: ""the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family"" (Merriam-Webster); or ""a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife"" (Cambridge).

These classic examples are being updated to reflect the mood of the times. The online Encarta dictionary defines marriage as a ""legal relationship between spouses; a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners."" That''s a big difference.

What is happening in our culture is an unraveling of all we once considered normal. Anyone who now appeals to virtue, values, ethics or (heaven forbid!) religious faith is labeled an enemy of progress, an intolerant bigot, a homophobe and a ""Neanderthal."" There is no debate and no discussion. By definition, anyone who opposes ""progress"" in casting off the chains of religious restrictions on human behavior - which were once considered necessary for the promotion of the general welfare - is a fundamentalist fool, part of a past that brought us witch trials, slavery and back-alley abortions.

But the problem is deeper than the courts. Some of the people who most loudly proclaim the standards by which they want all of us to live have difficulty themselves living up to those standards. A culture is made up of people, but if large numbers of them no longer ""hunger and thirst after righteousness"" (to invoke a biblical metaphor), neither will their government.

Leaving God out of the equation, it is irrefutable that Nature had a well-ordered design. Male plus female equals offspring. It is a certainty that male/male and female/female unions don''t meet Nature''s standard. They may occur ""naturally"" in that one does not consciously elect to ""Be Gay"", but such unions fall short of any design that matches Nature''s intentions. It also seems clear that our moral codes and institutions were created primarily to protect that design in the interest of the species and civilization.

Thus, marriage - for all its flaws and miseries - has evolved to promote, support and nurture that basic necessary unit. If the state goes out of its way to make marriage attractive, it is because marriage is so difficult and, in many ways, unnatural. It is far more natural for humans, animals that we are, to enjoy gratification whenever and wherever than it is to settle for decades into a system of monogamy.

That many fail, however, is no justification for eliminating the goal of the nuclear, male-female, monogamous family, which has worked well if not perfectly for most of civilized memory.

One might argue logically for extending certain benefits to same-sex couples, but marriage isn''t necessary to that end. Surely next-of-kin issues for corporate and death benefits can be managed outside of marriage. Moreover marriage isn''t only about civil rights. Marriage is mostly the institutionalization of an ideal that we honor in observation of a higher natural order.

The fact that some homosexual households already include children isn''t sufficiently compelling to redefine marriage either. To extend marriage rights to gays on that basis presupposes that raising children in homosexual households is just as good as raising children in heterosexual homes with two parents.

Surely no one needs a scientific study, or God forbid, a poll, to ""prove"" what is written in our human DNA - that sons and daughters need the qualities of both their parents, Mother and Father.

That said, it is unlikely that a few thousand married homosexuals will topple civilization, as some have warned. Or that homosexual men will suddenly opt to marry ducks, as Bill O''Reilly proposed.

But this is not an insignificant social experiment. Making homosexual unions equal to heterosexual unions - the superior natural order of which cannot be disputed - is not just a small step for equality. It is a gargantuan leap from a natural order that has served mankind throughout civilized human society.

We should look long and hard before we leap.

What a good question. Once you get past the notion that the financial incentives of marriages have little to do with children (other tax credits, breaks, incentives do that) you begin to realize what our point has been all along.

I have no idea what your point is here. For an articulate person to respond to a direct question with ""figure it out for youself"" doesn''t particularly lend confidence to the hope that you actually have much of an argument.

There is no reason for the state to provide financial and property benefits to married people, unless it is for the support of children. please fel free to enlighten me otherwise.

Making homosexual unions equal to heterosexual unions - the superior natural order of which cannot be disputed - is not just a small step for equality.

Various species of fish, (and other land animal, tho I don''t recall the name now) that switch genders to accomodate the current population? Or maybe microbes or such that don''t need another gender to propagate...

I agree that samesex marriages won''t topple civilization, but using ""Marriage is what mother nature intended"" doesn''t really convince me.

Also, from what I read, the US doesn''t really put that much effort into education lately, so ""State marriage is intended for the safety of the kids"" doesn''t sound too strong either.

What the hell is the purpose of marriage anyway? Love doesn''t last a lifetime, in most cases. It''s not kids either, because, hell, you know about people raising whole other families out of wedlock. I think it has something to do with preserving some kind of social order, of ""working for the relationship"", to give you something to fill your life with. I don''t know.