Gallup Poll: Majority backs same-sex marriage for the first time

posted at 2:52 pm on May 20, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Not since Gallup started tracking the issue in 1996 has a majority of Americans supported the right of same-sex couples to legally marry — but, according to a poll released today, 53 percent of Americans now say they do.

Just 45 percent of Americans expressed opposition to legal same-sex marriage — also the lowest level of opposition in the history of the poll. The results came from the May 5-8 Gallup Values and Beliefs poll.

Last year, the results were almost exactly the inverse: 53 percent of Americans did not think same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, while just 44 percent thought it should be recognized as valid. The nine-point increase in support for same-sex marriage is the largest year-to-year shift yet, according to the poll summary.

Go back even further and the contrast is even clearer: In 1996, 68 percent opposed gay marriage and just 27 percent approved it.

More supportive views among younger Americans and the ever-evolving views of Democrats and Independents drove the shift, as Republicans’ views did not change. Nearly 70 percent of Democrats now support same-sex marriage, up from 56 percent last year, while independent support increased by 10 points from 49 percent to 59 percent.

My thoughts: First of all, while unprecedented for Gallup, this cannot come wholly as a surprise. Don’t forget an ABC poll earlier this year already found a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Activism is effective — and on this issue, we’ve seen plenty of it. Parades, protests, petitions, pledges, propositions, etc., etc., etc.

Within the past year, as the poll itself points out, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gay and lesbian members of the military to openly reveal their sexual orientation for the first time. The Department of Justice officially decided to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama’s official switch can’t be far behind: He says his views, too, are “evolving” on the issue.

But secondly, conservatives and libertarians alike should consider the potential implications of this poll with thoughtful concern. Edward Feser, associate professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College, says it better than I ever could in his essay “What Libertarianism Isn’t.” This excerpt is long, but well-worth the read (as is the full paper, which is some 10 pages):

[W]here traditional moral scruples are concerned, the Hayekian libertarian ought to regard change with as much caution as he would changes to the institutions of property and contract. Nor is it hard to see why this is so, not just at the level of abstract theory, but at the level of the everyday social and political reality. The family, as we’ve said, is one of the main barriers standing between the individual and the state, for it (rather than the state) is the primary focus of a person’s sense of allegiance to something beyond himself, and is also the arena within which a person learns (or should learn) how to become a responsible and self-supporting citizen of the community. When the family is absent in the life of the individual, the state — especially if such other “intermediate institutions” as the church are themselves weakened — tends inevitably to fill the void. Hence the tendency of single mothers, seeking in government assistance a surrogate to absent husbands and fathers, to be among the Democratic Party’s most loyal voters; hence the listlessness and waywardness of so many of the children of those mothers, giving rise to further social problems to which the same party is only too willing to offer state-empowering “solutions”; and hence the self-accelerating cycle of moral decline leading to state intervention leading to dependency and further moral decline which has characterized social life in the Western world since at least the sixties. For such reasons, maintaining the stability and health of the family must be a chief concern of libertarians as much as of conservatives.

But a libertine ethos is manifestly incompatible with this concern. For the health of the family depends essentially on the willingness of its members to make sacrifices for its sake, and this means, first and foremost, a subordination of the fulfillment of the parents’ immediate desires to the long-term project of building a stable and loving home for their children. That, of course, calls for marriage, and also for precisely the opposite of the frivolous attitude with which marriage is currently treated in the Western world — as primarily a vehicle for “personal fulfillment” which one can enter and exit at will. A society in which the family is strong is thus a society in which adultery is abominated (even in presidents) and in which divorce, even if occasionally permitted, is frowned upon. Since so “stringent” (to the modern mind, anyway) a conception of marriage might make it less likely that men especially will enter into it if (as our mothers used to say) they can “get the milk for free without buying the cow,” it follows that taboos against pre-marital sexual relations, pornography, etc., will be almost as strong as the taboos against adultery and divorce in a society in which the family is taken seriously.

In the end, regardless of what happens in the legal battle, gay marriage will always remain a question of morality in the etymological sense — a question of particular behaviors and of how we interpret the significance of those behaviors. The case against gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Anyway, if the gays get this it will always be something else. They’ve long ago been supported by Hollywood and the MSM to normalize their deviancy. We (or future generations) will not only be forced to accept them, but to hold them in higher regard than heterosexuals who will then be the new deviants (or at least the very “un-cool” to deride and tsk tsk about).

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 20, 201

A gigantic straw man – you can do better.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:47 PM

You have nothing left to argue.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Ernesto so tell me why did you say the opposite several years ago? Were you lying to me then? Or are you lying now?

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:45 PM

So since you told me that you did not tell your partners that you were bi you have gone back and told them now?

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:47 PM

You don’t oppose gay marriage, in fact you support it, explicitly even.
 
ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:34 PM

 
You’re confused.
 
Look at Sunday blue laws, mandatory product purchasing (healthcare), motorcycle helmets, anti-salt, seat belt legislation, and/or any number of the other meddling laws we have. Saying that local voters should decide doesn’t mean I support anti-salt legislation, seat belt laws, or any of the others. What I support are voters being able to decide based on their population and dissatisfied voters being able to take their tax dollars elsewhere if they don’t agree with the decision.
 
You said “only”. Can you see how that’s a bigoted view and realize that you are assigning a characteristic to people you don’t know based on your own prejudices?

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 5:48 PM

gigantic straw man
ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Well you would know.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:48 PM

So since you told me that you did not tell your partners that you were bi you have gone back and told them now?

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Yep. Sure, maybe my prom date from junior high didn’t know, but everyone knows now. What will you do now???

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:49 PM

They all know, CW. Every single one knows. You have nothing left to argue.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM

You know what is interesting …your responses exhibit so much dishonesty. Watch some videos on how to detect deception.

Later. Gotta go. At least we definitely know now what you are made of.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:49 PM

You said “only”. Can you see how that’s a bigoted view and realize that you are assigning a characteristic to people you don’t know based on your own prejudices?

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 5:48 PM

There was no “federal” qualifier posed here; either you support gay marriage or you do not. The federal/state question is irrelevant. You support gay marriage. I’m glad that you do. If you didn’t, I would consider you a homophobe.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:49 PM

You lose, we win – end of story.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:51 PM

That’s not true at all. In countries who have adopted gay marriage, few gays actually choose to get married and the divorce and out-of-wedlock births continue apace.

Gay marriage hasn’t been around for that long anywhere. It will take some time for gay culture to adapt. As for divorce rates, those are up pretty much everywhere.

It neither harms nor benefits society.

Then why oppose it?

It benefits individuals to an extent but those same benefits could be obtained with the title “civil union” without deliberately antagonizing and ostracizing religious people.

alwaysfiredup on May 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM

If gays shouldn’t care about the word “marriage,” why should religious people? Why not call straight marriages civil unions? Because words are important. For true marriage equality, it has to actually be called marriage for everybody.

RightOFLeft on May 20, 2011 at 5:53 PM

The federal/state question is irrelevant.
 
ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM

 
Again, I think you’re confused. There is no moving/taking tax dollars away from a federal decision.
 

either you support gay marriage or you do not… If you didn’t, I would consider you a homophobe.

 
Bigot.

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM

You lose, we win – end of story.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:51 PM

If you held your breath until you turned blue and jumped up and down when you said that, you’d probably make a bigger impact.

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM

You’re absolutely right. Homophobe was the default position for thousands of years, and now its finally over, similar to the way that the default western position used to be pro slavery, before we progressed beyond that. Funny, how society works? Constantly progressing beyond base hatred…

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

…or devolving into anti-religious cesspool of societal destruction. Funny how progressing is such a relative term.

98ZJUSMC on May 20, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Polygamy predates monogamous marriage, period, end of story.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Wishing doesn’t make it so. Which is getting to be a theme here.

tom on May 20, 2011 at 6:01 PM

At least gay marriage threads and ernesto are good for HA Capitalism.

Schadenfreude on May 20, 2011 at 6:04 PM

No, I’m dead serious. If you oppose gay marriage, its because you wish there were no gays in the world at all. Anyone who would deny a gay couple the right to start a family in the eyes of the law MUST hate gays, as there is not a single justification for the denial of marriage rights outside of “I dont like gays”

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

The bottom line is that you are making some severe – and inaccurate – assumptions when you say stuff like this.

Not supporting gay marriage does NOT equate to hating gay people.

I do not support gay marriage because I believe that marriage is an institution created by God to be one man and one woman.

It is because of my same faith in this same God that I do NOT hate gay people and in fact it is the opposite. I have no ill will towards gay people, even if you do not believe that because I do not agree with your sexual preference. Also, one of my oldest and dearest friends is gay; the idea that you can sit there and tell me that I hate this man is ridiculous.

Because of my faith in God I do not agree with a number of things that happen in society. Recreational drug use, heavy alcohol drinking, being in the porn industry, polygamy, Wicca, etc etc. But I do not hate those that live those lives.

You, as an intelligent human being, should be able to differentiate between the value of a person and what that person lives for, right?

There is strong, passionate disagreement here on this issue between you and a lot of others here. And some of them have said things to you in return that have not been very kind. I want you to know that the differences of opinion on gay marriage simply do not – for me and for most of the people I know who share my faith – mean that we hate you in any way because you do not see things our way or live the same way that we do.

MikeknaJ on May 20, 2011 at 6:17 PM

$5,000 says society survives gay marriage. You in?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM

If you really feel the way you do, then you ought to advocate a ban on divorce, and a ban on single mothers bearing children. Will you explicitly state right now that the law should ban single mothers from bearing children?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Bans are things liberals like. I’m not a liberal. You can have whatever ceremony you want, catered by anyone you want. But any arrangement deviant from the one I outlined will never be a family, just as single motherhood will never be desirable.

Government’s relationship to marriage is about the endorsement of a behavior that is beneficial to society. Behaviors that are not beneficial should not be endorsed. Families that deny the right of children to both a mother and father are not neutral, they are detrimental, and thus should not be installed into the definition of marriage.

Such a definitional exclusion does not require the heavy hand of government policing personal behavior.

BKennedy on May 20, 2011 at 6:19 PM

…or devolving into anti-religious cesspool of societal destruction. Funny how progressing is such a relative term.

98ZJUSMC on May 20, 2011 at 5:55 PM

$5,000 says society survives gay marriage. You in?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 6:19 PM

But any arrangement deviant from the one I outlined will never be a family, just as single motherhood will never be desirable.

BKennedy on May 20, 2011 at 6:19 PM

And again, the only reason you can feel this way is because you hate gays, and moms who don’t marry, for whatever reason. Sure, 2 parents are better than one, but that’s more arithmetic than anything else; the sex of the 2 parents is irrelevant, as studies have already shown. Unless you’re willing to really stick your neck out and prevent single mothers from bearing children, you’re just a bigot who can’t even stick his neck out for his beliefs. A scared bigot, if you will.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Not too bright

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Wow, now how long did it take you to think of that…just brilliant…gosh, I can just imagine how good you are at waiting on tables…

right2bright on May 20, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Just because homosexual stand in front of judge and exchange vows does not make them married in the eyes of the Lord. In fact, he is insulted at the idea. I don’t care how mad it makes anyone, I will never go along with these insults.

BillCarson on May 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Just because homosexual stand in front of judge and exchange vows does not make them married in the eyes of the Lord. In fact, he is insulted at the idea. I don’t care how mad it makes anyone, I will never go along with these insults.

BillCarson on May 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM

No one asked the lord.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Just because homosexual stand in front of judge and exchange vows does not make them married in the eyes of the Lord. In fact, he is insulted at the idea. I don’t care how mad it makes anyone, I will never go along with these insults.

BillCarson on May 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM

No one asked the lord.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 6:48 PM

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” Rom 8:

You might be right about that last one.

tom on May 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Ernie has adopted the crr6 method of debating. Goes something like this

I am right. You are wrong. End of story.

angryed on May 20, 2011 at 6:59 PM

So how long before 3 women, 2 men and a 15 year old transgendered can all wed each other simultaneously?

I say 2020.

Any taker on the over/under?

angryed on May 20, 2011 at 7:01 PM

This is so typical. If you don’t agree with gay marriage you hate gays. Hate really takes a commitment to maintain that I am just not willing to make.

Best I can do is just not care…

tomlw on May 20, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Just because homosexual stand in front of judge and exchange vows does not make them married in the eyes of the Lord. In fact, he is insulted at the idea. I don’t care how mad it makes anyone, I will never go along with these insults.

BillCarson on May 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM

We have to outlaw divorce as well as anything else that insults the Lord? Jesus didn’t bother to change, or even substantially comment on, Roman government. Let churches handle people’s salvation and government deal (poorly) with the few simple temporal challenges it has.

dedalus on May 20, 2011 at 7:06 PM

When will a majority back getting government the hell out of a religious ceremony? Oh that’s right, never, because too many people have vested interests in forcing their views on someone else.

Meanwhile the Middle East burns, the Venezuelan Missile Crisis is brewing, and we’re this close to a complete financial collapse…

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 20, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Goes something like this

I am right. You are wrong. End of story.

angryed on May 20, 2011 at 6:59 PM

That and Bible verses are about all I see from the opponents (oh yes, and Chicken Little nonsense about their marriages suddenly being invalidated). Come up with something better.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 20, 2011 at 7:13 PM

It’s not the socially conservatives who are forcing anything on anyone. We are trying to maintain what already is. The socially liberal are trying to force society to change for them.

Rose on May 20, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Unless you’re willing to really stick your neck out and prevent single mothers from bearing children, you’re just a bigot who can’t even stick his neck out for his beliefs. A scared bigot, if you will.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Actually, since gays and lesbians can’t bear children, that’s an irrelevant comparison.

And the primary use gay and lesbian couples have for children is to have sex with them and give them HIV.

Notice how neither ernesto or any other gay-sex marriage supporter have criticized this. Notice how this gay couple has not been publicly condemned by any gay rights organizations or the Obama Party.

This is normal behavior in ernesto’s sick, sick world. Indeed, ernesto makes it clear that if you criticize gays who do things like this, you are a homophobe and a bigot.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Personally, I think the generational difference on this topic is simply due to the fact that the vast majority of young people do not know or understand the purpose, promises, and value of marriage.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Doggone spam filter..what is it now?

Mcguyver on May 20, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Also, it should be noted that ernesto screams “homophobe” here even as ernesto and his fellow leftists support and endorse those who strip gays of all rights and imprison, torture, and murder gay and lesbian people.

Ernesto is an epic hypocrite, a liar, and a pervert. Obama Party supporters like himself endorse the murder of gays and lesbians. Ernesto and his fellow Obama Party members support and endorse those who murder gays and lesbians right here, right now, and on a daily basis.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2011 at 8:23 PM

National Geographic surveyed the Taboo audience and found a majority supported marriage to inanimate objects…

Roy Rogers on May 20, 2011 at 8:55 PM

And again, the only reason you can feel this way is because you hate gays, and moms who don’t marry, for whatever reason. Sure, 2 parents are better than one, but that’s more arithmetic than anything else; the sex of the 2 parents is irrelevant, as studies have already shown. Unless you’re willing to really stick your neck out and prevent single mothers from bearing children, you’re just a bigot who can’t even stick his neck out for his beliefs. A scared bigot, if you will.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Unlike you, I am not a hate driven being. I don’t fear mealy-mouthed little vermin like you. Studies have only indicated reduced capacity to harm, but common sense (yes, I know you are common-sense-challenged ernesto) would indicate that arrangement of one mother and father is superior, and all other arrangements are measured as by how little harm they do, not by how much better they are.

You are free to settle for lower standards. I will not. You are a bigot ernesto. Did one of your sexual encounters break your sphincter? Is that the source of your rage? Because you have said more threatening, hateful things than anyone else.

You are a bully. A weak, pathetic bully. You have no substance. You cannot argue with facts or reason, only with insults and intimidation. I pity a creature such as yourself. You need the government to ban everything that threatens you. Like a scared child cleaving to its mother’s breast, you need a large, comfortable bosom to hide in.

I on the other hand do not need the government to enforce a lifestyle, I merely demand that it not endorse or subsidize lunacy. If a single mother wants my help, she need only ask and I will do anything in my power to help her either reconcile with the father of her child or get her off government assistance, cleaned up of any other malady, and generally become a net contributor to society again.

My philosophy is teaching people to fish so they can feed themselves. Your philosophy, if infantilism can be called a philosophy, is to forever depend on the heavy hand of the state to impose your will.

I am not afraid of bullies like you. If you weren’t so pathetic, you’d be amusing.

BKennedy on May 20, 2011 at 9:24 PM

How many times do we have to tell you people … put gay marriage up for a referendum. Let The People vote on it.

We will defeat it. Every time.

Bring. It. On.

No gay marriage.

moochy on May 20, 2011 at 9:35 PM

BKennedy on May 20, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Don’t get upset with ernesto, a first class poop-disturber. Else, you make him look good by comparison.

AshleyTKing on May 20, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Why is government involved in marriage anyway?

John Deaux on May 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM

It is a contract.

Gay marriage is one tool in the liberal’s tool box used to dismantle the family, which is the bedrock of our society. You slowly destroy society by continually attacking each of its most valued institutions one by one.

TheBlueSite on May 20, 2011 at 3:11 PM

The welfare state is the real atom bomb on the nuclear family. And while the counter-culture was for the most part corrosive, I can’t find a good rational objection to gay marriage.

Why should straight people have a monopoly on misery?

Wander on May 20, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Exactly.

AshleyTKing on May 20, 2011 at 9:52 PM

The case against gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.

Whoa, ain’t that good enough, right there?

AshleyTKing on May 20, 2011 at 9:58 PM

unity between romantic partners

Whoa, ain’t that good enough, right there?

AshleyTKing on May 20, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Who’s stopping them from unifying? Or is ya stoopid?

Lanceman on May 20, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Still waiting for the science to finally settle the fact that homosexuality is normal. They managed to use Global warming science to prove…well hold on now!

b1jetmech on May 20, 2011 at 10:16 PM

It’s all about the word…and the perception of normalcy that it brings.

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Because of all the normalizing of “freaks” there won’t be any entertainment left for the circus.

b1jetmech on May 20, 2011 at 10:20 PM

State after state says NO to gay marriages-this is just hype for the gay s to make us think they are winning. Not so- Who believes a Gallop poll anyways?

Bullhead on May 20, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Inevitable, and right.

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 20, 2011 at 11:11 PM

If you wish to deny gays the right to marry, its because you hate gays, end of story. Just try and explain otherwise.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

The reason gay sex – and thus gay marriage – is just plain wrong biologically (and thus immoral spiritually) is because for one): the an*s was never designed by nature to be penetrated because for the purpose of food/nutrition absorption, the an@l walls are made very porous and thin, thus it tears the an@l wall, and when that happens all kinds of bacteria enters the bloodstream causing auto-immune-deficiency-syndrome (AIDS) so named because a constant flow of bacteria is released into what is normally a resilient immune system.

This also explains why AIDS is primarily predominent in Gays but not in Lesbians as women-with-women engage in vag!nal sex (usually) rather than penetrating the dirty an*s.

Since per the Constitution, we cannot suppress free speech, however true also is that an@l sex contaminates the blood stream and endangers other non-involved people through various passive contact points, therefore, we then need to regulate an@l sex – but not necessarily the free union of gays – the same as we do drunk driving.

As many times as I have posted this, nobody can/has refuted me because you all know that this is true!

Any voices against what I have just elaborated above, has to be a retrobate mind that has turned against their own humanity because for 2) gay/lesbian sex does not reproduce after their own kind so that as such their kind will naturally go extinct, and for 3) vag!nal sex is a lot more clean, fun and therefore stress-free and pleasurable.

Normal sex is the way nature/God designed it, as oppposed to an@l sex which is really nasty and disgusting (or so I have heard).

Only animals and the most base of human beings engage in extra-natural behaviour.

Mcguyver on May 20, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Mcguyver on May 20, 2011 at 11:23 PM

I hope you’ve never kissed a girl, as lips weren’t made for kissing and as such you would be among the most base of human beings if you engaged in said activity.

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 21, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Aquateen, you are truly an idiot.

Does the act of kissing – French or otherwise – endanger another’s blood stream because it allows a constant flow of bacteria into the blood system?

Answer: no.

So you see, you are an idiot.

Guudbye..

Mcguyver on May 21, 2011 at 1:32 AM

Only animals and the most base of human beings engage in extra-natural behaviour.

Kissing is “extra-natural.”

QED

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 21, 2011 at 2:05 AM

Notice how gays rely more on judges (9th District) overturning popular referendums, than on what the MAJORITY are forced to vote on what is normal and acceptable?

When challenged, gays respond they have a “civil right” to “redefine for their own conveniance” whatever THEY WANT to make themselves “feel normal.”

Pathetic.

Roy Rogers on May 21, 2011 at 8:42 AM

If find the dishonesty of the promotion of homosexuality rather aggravating. The reality is that it is pushed because it serves as a proxy for more wide spread irresponsible behavior. It’s especially irritating when the same-sex-marriage backers hold up Hollywood serial marriages as a negative example to justify same-sex-marriage, when the reality is that they are part of the same problem.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 9:14 AM

The case against gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.

What you are missing is that that is the whole point of “gay marriage” — destroying the concept of marriage as the basis for a family.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 9:16 AM

I for one don’t believe this poll. It is incomprehesible that mankind would disavow 2000+ years of societal norms.

Gays have gone from asking for tolerance which was granted , to asking for acceptance which was given , and now they want their lifestyle to be validated by marriage. That is where most moral people draw the line.

There is nothing worse than providing a bad exmaple to a child. What confused message does codifying a narcissistic sexual proclivity give to children.

sirpatrick on May 21, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 21, 2011 at 2:05 AM

Simply saying “QED” does not make it so. But of course, you know that already.

DrMagnolias on May 21, 2011 at 10:02 AM

And I suppose this is good news?

theaddora on May 21, 2011 at 10:10 AM

There is nothing worse than providing a bad exmaple to a child. What confused message does codifying a narcissistic sexual proclivity give to children.

sirpatrick on May 21, 2011 at 9:42 AM

It will be a positive message for the gay ones and ignored by the straight ones.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM

It will be a positive message for the gay ones and ignored by the straight ones.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM

“Gay” is a social construct — one which a person chooses to subscribe to, typically after learning homosexual arousal (but sometimes before). There are no “gay ones” until they choose it. The point is that we should no more be encouraging them to choose to conform to the “gay” social construct, particularly when it discourages them from subscribing to the more stable “strait” social construct.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 10:45 AM

I stand with Ted Olson.

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

pbundy on May 21, 2011 at 10:48 AM

pbundy on May 21, 2011 at 10:48 AM

*facepalm*

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Yeah – Ted Olson sounds like a real idiot.

pbundy on May 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM

This line

Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual

should get anyone laughed out of the room, if only because it is completely oblivious to the fact that heterosexual behavior is also a choice.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Olson has been married four times.

Ah, there we are: twice divorced (third wife was murdered). Just another guy pushing the normalization of homosexuality as a leaver to justify his own behavior.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM

There is nothing Republican, Conservative or Christian about supporting gay marriage.

http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/05/majority-now-support-gay-marriage-christians-beware.html

The moral decline of the family plays right into the hands of Totalitarians, and the Democrats are the exemplifying the lust for total power over every aspect of our lives. The normalization of homosexuality will mean that anyone who dares question it will be met with true hate, bigotry and intolerance. There can be no dissent on this issue.

Blue Collar Todd on May 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM

One million quadrillion flies like to eat sh*t……….. do the numbers make it allright to eat sh*t???????? DUH!!!!!!

jordy2009 on May 21, 2011 at 11:32 AM

“Gay” is a social construct — one which a person chooses to subscribe to, typically after learning homosexual arousal (but sometimes before). There are no “gay ones” until they choose it. The point is that we should no more be encouraging them to choose to conform to the “gay” social construct, particularly when it discourages them from subscribing to the more stable “strait” social construct.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Man (or woman) is a social construct also. Like gay, the terms are built upon underlying biology. The small percentage of people who are primarily aroused by the same sex aren’t going to be helped by being coerced into a straight life. Certainly, their eventual spouses won’t enjoy a more stable life.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM

The moral decline of the family plays right into the hands of Totalitarians, and the Democrats are the exemplifying the lust for total power over every aspect of our lives. The normalization of homosexuality will mean that anyone who dares question it will be met with true hate, bigotry and intolerance. There can be no dissent on this issue.

Blue Collar Todd on May 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM

I don’t think Totalitarianism really comes into it, and it is more an attack on general social norms than on particular religious doctrine. In fact, the religious arguments against normalizing homosexuality are mostly treated as straw men, since the people they are trying to convince are more turned off than persuaded by appeals to religious authority.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Notice how gays rely more on judges (9th District) overturning popular referendums, than on what the MAJORITY are forced to vote on what is normal and acceptable?

When challenged, gays respond they have a “civil right” to “redefine for their own conveniance” whatever THEY WANT to make themselves “feel normal.”

Pathetic.

Roy Rogers on May 21, 2011 at 8:42 AM

It’s not pathetic. It’s American values…. letting adults decide for themselves and the government promoting a level playing field rather than setting up hurdles or prohibitions for one group or another.

lexhamfox on May 21, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Man (or woman) is a social construct also.

True for “masculine” and “feminine”, but not for male and female.

Like gay, the terms are built upon underlying biology. The small percentage of people who are primarily aroused by the same sex aren’t going to be helped by being coerced into a straight life. Certainly, their eventual spouses won’t enjoy a more stable life.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM

There is no coercion — we are talking about social reinforcement. A great deal of damage has been done to the lives of many people just by the assertion that impulses have to be acted on and that responsibility is unimportant — and the “gay community” is really just the most crystallized example of that.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Oops. Quotation fail.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Only animals and the most base of human beings engage in extra-natural behaviour.

Mcguyver on May 20, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Only the ‘most base’ people enjoy oral sex in your world. How sad.

lexhamfox on May 21, 2011 at 11:53 AM

It’s not pathetic. It’s American values…. letting adults decide for themselves and the government promoting a level playing field rather than setting up hurdles or prohibitions for one group or another.

lexhamfox on May 21, 2011 at 11:50 AM

What hurdles of prohibitions?
This is all about what privileges government hands out. There is a justification for granting certain privileges to those who intend to produce the next generation of citizens. Friends with benefits, not so much.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Only animals and the most base of human beings engage in extra-natural behaviour.

Mcguyver on May 20, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Only the ‘most base’ people enjoy oral sex in your world. How sad.

lexhamfox on May 21, 2011 at 11:53 AM

“Unnaturalness” arguments have always been sloppy, lazy, and besides the point.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 11:57 AM

There is no coercion — we are talking about social reinforcement. A great deal of damage has been done to the lives of many people just by the assertion that impulses have to be acted on and that responsibility is unimportant — and the “gay community” is really just the most crystallized example of that.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM

A small percentage of people face social pressure to redirect their sexual desires. This is important to straight people, because? Not sure why, but straight people are able to apply this particular social pressure without any cost to themselves individually.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Hmmm….Gallup….hmmmm.

Christian Conservative on May 21, 2011 at 12:10 PM

A small percentage of people face social pressure to redirect their sexual desires. This is important to straight people, because? Not sure why, but straight people are able to apply this particular social pressure without any cost to themselves individually.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 12:03 PM

So you are against the social pressure not to be obscene in public? To not be racist, sexist, or demand that others conform to your religion?

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 12:15 PM

DrMagnolias on May 21, 2011 at 10:02 AM

God/Nature made lips for kissing? How strange! How did this idea come about?!

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 21, 2011 at 12:22 PM

So you are against the social pressure not to be obscene in public? To not be racist, sexist, or demand that others conform to your religion?

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Some social pressures are helpful to individuals (e.g., exercise) others are harmful (e.g., most anything on MTV).

The examples you reference are focused less on the individual in question than on protecting those they affect–feel free to be a racist alone at home but treat others in racist manner and there’s a problem.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 21, 2011 at 12:22 PM

You must not have much familiarity with the Bible, which describes how Adam immediately fell for Eve. If she had lips like Marilyn Monroe’s, it’s hard to imagine he did not instantly want to kiss them. It’s hard to imagine you find this foreign or unnatural.

DrMagnolias on May 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM

I think the poll is bogus.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 20, 2011

Yep

dogsoldier on May 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM

No, I’m dead serious. If you oppose gay marriage, its because you wish there were no gays in the world at all. Anyone who would deny a gay couple the right to start a family in the eyes of the law MUST hate gays, as there is not a single justification for the denial of marriage rights outside of “I dont like gays”

ernesto

Taking it up the butt has caused you some major brain damage.

xblade on May 21, 2011 at 1:37 PM

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

1963 Communist Goals : (one of many)….
Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural,
and healthy”

pambi on May 21, 2011 at 1:58 PM

I’m with Rush …
Polls are not intended to REFLECT opinions, but to SHAPE them.

pambi on May 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM

With all our problems….

Memo to Tina….nobody really gives a S%*#t!!!

PatriotRider on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I do. I know there are others.

“Of all the dispositions and habits wich lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.”

_George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States … Prepatory to his Declination, 1796, pp. 22-23.

George Washington would not call anyone a patriot, who would separate religion and morality from public life and policy.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled my morality and religion … Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequte to the government of any other.”

_John Adams, Works, Vol IX, p. 229

And something else is coming along … we see it all around us.

“Men, in a word, must necessarliy be controlled either by a power within them or aby a power without them, either by the word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or the bayonet.”

_Robert Winthrop (US Speaker of the House), Addresses and Speeches on Various Occaisions, 1852, p 172.

Continue murdering our unborn children, accept and promote homosexuality, and the like … Until this country repents and turns to God, the decline of this people and subsequently the nation will continue.

AZ_Redneck on May 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Public Education…Propaganda tool for the left.

True_King on May 21, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Some social pressures are helpful to individuals (e.g., exercise) others are harmful (e.g., most anything on MTV).

The examples you reference are focused less on the individual in question than on protecting those they affect–feel free to be a racist alone at home but treat others in racist manner and there’s a problem.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM

A) no, they are all harmful to the individual and to society
B) What point are you trying to make, exactly?

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 4:14 PM

AZ_Redneck on May 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM

You aren’t helping the argument so much as showing that many of the founding fathers were religious bigots.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

A) no, they are all harmful to the individual and to society
B) What point are you trying to make, exactly?

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 4:14 PM

A.) Not directly. Indirectly perhaps but a lot of activities we let individuals decide on for themselves provide a chance of societal harm.
B.) My point was offering criteria toward evaluating which societal pressures I favor and which I don’t.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 4:42 PM

A.) Not directly. Indirectly perhaps but a lot of activities we let individuals decide on for themselves provide a chance of societal harm.
B.) My point was offering criteria toward evaluating which societal pressures I favor and which I don’t.

dedalus on May 21, 2011 at 4:42 PM

“Applying social pressure” is not the same thing as not letting people make choices. Laws are for things that directly and materially affect other people — social pressure is properly for things that directly affect only the individual, but indirectly affect others. The promotion of the gay paradigm has indirectly caused a lot of grief to those that have been seduced into it, but not in a direct way that would really call for legislation.

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 6:44 PM

DrMagnolias on May 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Whatevs.

QED

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 21, 2011 at 8:01 PM

ROFLMAO!

So the same folks who have been screaming for years that public opinion is irrelevant get a single opinion poll which goes their way for the first time ever and suddenly it means something?

Someone should slap both their faces.

Adjoran on May 21, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Count to 10 on May 21, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Then prepare for slavery.

AZ_Redneck on May 21, 2011 at 11:40 PM

The last time the “majority” got a twinge like this was when they elected Barack Obama. Look where that got us.

I’m beginning to think we really may be seeing the end of the Great American Experiment.

Damn.

Squiggy on May 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM

Then prepare for slavery.

AZ_Redneck on May 21, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Just look around the world: religion hasn’t protected anyone else from slavery.

Count to 10 on May 22, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Just look around the world: religion hasn’t protected anyone else from slavery.

Count to 10 on May 22, 2011 at 8:46 AM

On the contrary, they’re usually twisted to bolster slaveowning. Look at how verses from the Bible were used to give a facade of civility and sense to the American cotton barons.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 (January 10, 1963)

Current Communist Goals

#26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

If at first you don’t succeed…

Roy Rogers on May 22, 2011 at 1:00 PM

I know I’m coming too late to this thread for a response, but I feel obligated to provide my perspective:

I am not religious (well, not really).

I am straight.

I am married.

HOWEVER, I don’t believe in applying the term ‘marriage’ to a gay civil union.

I don’t think I should be able to call my union a ‘marriage’ as I was not married in a church.

Do I feel less than equal as someone who’s really in more of a civil union than a marriage?

No. So why would gays?

I also want to know:

Do they really want the ‘marriage penalty’ tax that badly???

Miss_Anthrope on May 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM

While the “gay marriage” agenda is, on the one hand, a futile quest for “normalcy” and on the other, a realistic quest for reasonable, humane, and legally equal treatment of people who are or at least intend to be in stable, loving relationships (sexual or not–really doesn’t matter for hetero or homo-unions). Heterosexual/traditional marriage carries no requirement for procreation and has proven sadly unstable. We would like for those “family values” to be the distinguishing features of “marriage” vs. “civil union,” but they’re objectively not. The larger question in most married heteros’ minds–why would people who are “gay” want to partake in our misery? I kid. Really.

Ay Uaxe on May 23, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4