Americans Reject Gay Marriage
Typical of polls on the subject, a Fox News poll conducted after the Massachusetts ruling found that Americans oppose same-sex marriage by an overwhelming 66 to 25 percent margin. A majority of Americans also support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll in August 2003 reported that 58 percent of respondents favored amending the Constitution, with 34 percent opposed. A Zogby poll released in February 2004 found that, by a 51 to 43 percent margin, voters agreed that a constitutional amendment should be passed limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Similarly, a February 2004 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of responders favored a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, with 44 percent opposed. Homosexual marriage is a potent political issue with opponents ever more dedicated to preserving the traditional marriage. A follow-up Pew Research poll conducted in February 2004 found: “Gay marriage has surpassed other major social issues like abortion and gun control in its influence on voters. Four in ten voters say they would not vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on gay marriage, even in they agree with the candidate on most other issues.” The poll reported that “voters oppose gay marriage by more than two to one (65 percent to 28 percent), a margin that has remained generally steady since October.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
As a student of psychology with a high interest in sociology, I would like to submit some thoughts primarily by Anthropologist Dr. J.D. Unwin author of the book "Sex and Culture" (1934), and some ideas by the founding father of psychology, Sigmund Freud. To lay some ground work, Freud said it best when he spoke regarding "sexual energy ". "With natural impulses and desires comes energy to satisfy those desires." Freud says, however, that "rather than always satisfying their impulses, men can ‘sublimate’ those desires", which means they can direct their “sexual energy” in some other way rather than just sexually" Since the sexual urge, according to Freud, contains the most energy of all the impulses, sublimation of a sexual desire would allow for the use of greater energy in another sphere of life." (Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Sigmund Freud, 2010, p. 86). In other words, they redirect this towards human accomplishments instead, Furthering technology, the arts, completing architectural wonders and conquering nations.
I'm not introducing absolute absence, I’m introducing the management and in above normal instances the suppression of one’s sexual urges to be sexually promiscuous. (Promiscuity as it is referenced here, will be defined as anything outside of a marriage between man and woman and prenuptial and postnuptial continence) In doing so, America will remain a great nation.
Dr. J.D. Unwin supports this idea when he writes about The Roman Empire (Because of the vast amount of information that can be gathered about them). Especially when the Plebeians came to power during the 3rd century B.C., They brought with them a very strong set of sexual principles (No forms of sexual promiscuity were allowed). After this change Urwin notes that the Roman Empire had "tremendous" energy. It was during this time they conquered Italy and the entire Mediterranean area! Sometime later a change occurs, “In their turn, the provincials [of Rome] reversed the habits of their fathers by extending their sexual opportunity" says Urwin. By the time the 3rd century A.D, the energy of the empire had fallen dramatically and fell completely soon after. The most interesting part is this didn't happen once! It also happened with the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Anglo-Saxons, and the Protestant English. Concluding his research, Urwin states, "These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony."
Dr. J.D. Urwin is highly credible and correct in his research. He is used nationwide at the college level, and stands from a perspective outside the religious circle.
Sociologist Carl W. Wilson noted that "History reveals that nations decline and eventually die when sexual immorality becomes rampant and the traditional family is discarded in favor of group sex, homosexuality, infidelity, and unrestrained sexual hedonism." Dr. Stanley Kurtz has great concern for our nation when addressing the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US; fearing that it will lead to the destruction of marriage completely. Homosexual marriage will open the door to other strange marital/sexual arrangements such as polygamy and polyamory.
This is my best attempt in showing the failures of our past so we might make correct choices for our future. These are the facts as I see them. I welcome all further discussion.
Your definition of promiscuity is quite flawed. The assumption that the only valid form of sexual intercourse is between a married man and woman is quite narrow.
Further you present a skewed view of history... as the Roman Empire fell after it was Christianized.
Great points Joelly209. Indeed researchers have identified the historical promiscuity of marriage. I would ask today what does marriage mean to people and how does one measure promiscuity? One thing is for sure. Marriage has changed alot.
What is considered legally right in a marriage has been progressively altered by the hands of media . It is psychologitsts like you that guide the thinking of healthy marriage. My thoughts would be if same-sex could render positive results for generations to come. Even though it is wrong on certain levels, it could prove to be a good model for marriages falling apart. Two men or women committed to each other and not to other partners. This unfortunately does play a role in the homosexual community, but it doesn't mean it could not change for the better.
Although I agree that we can learn from history, it cannot be the entire basis of our decisions today. However, I think it is important to look at today's context of marriage and sexual morality. What was sexually immoral then, is not considered immoral now. Therefore, it is important to ask the question, what is sexually immoral? Just like sexual immorality is culturally relative from past to present, it is culturally relative amongst our world today. Thus, arguing that history gives us reason to reject same-sex marriage is not entirely a valid reason. I lean more towards not legalizing same-sex marriage however I do not believe that same-sex marriage will necessarily destroy our country.
Reminiscent of slavery? How about women 's right to vote ? People are naturally resistant to change because they worry about their way of life changing. How will a couple's life be changed if homosexuals are permitted to marry? Answer: their life will not change. People just need to understand that they are not being put in danger by allowing homosexuals to be married, just like they weren't hurt by allowing women to vote.
First of all, people see what they want to see. Personally I have seen many polls on the gay marriage issue and the majority of those I've seen indicate that most Americans are in favor of some kind of gay marriage whether it be called a marriage or a civil union. This article is clearly biased toward only those poll results that are favorable to the FRC's side of the argument. The accuracy of polls is always unsure and I highly question the results of some of the polls listed in this argument. Second, whether or not most people agree with banning same sex marriage or not is essentially irrelevant. Majority does not necessarily rule in this country. The majority at one point thought that slavery was acceptable but that does not make it any more justifiable. Prejudice is prejudice regardless of how many people you get to back it up.
Assessing the validity and bias in statistics is a tricky business, and to do it right would require a thorough examination of the study itself, which I certainly can’t do here. However, I can say that it is does not make for a good argument if you cite sources that are outdated. All of these polls cited here are from 2003-2004—if there hasn’t been a more recent poll, given the proposition out in California and the election, I’d be quite surprised—are over four years old and do not reflect the current political trends in the American public. Thus, the assertion that “Americans Reject Gay Marriage” is not adequately supported by evidence. Even if it was, why should that stop our advocacy? If we should make laws to allow gay marriage, then we will be doing so by a democratic process, an instrument of the will of the people.
"It is irrelevant for equal protection review of statute that voters rather than a legislative body enacted the statute. Lee v. State of Or., D.Or.1995" U.S.C.A. Amend 14, Vol. 8
It doesn't matter who puts the laws in place. If the law violates Equal Protection Clause, it's unconstitutional. End of story.
When people say that "gays" will be "living among us" it sounds like you're referring to aliens or some unknown life form. But the fact of the matter is, they are people. Living, breathing, human beings just like you and me. They will be “living among us” whether or not gay marriage is legalized. Gay couples are no more playing house than kids who marry young. A man can fall in love with a man just like a man can fall in love with a woman. And who says marriages between a gay couple won’t last? Now days, opposite-sex married couples are getting divorces left and right, what about their children? Should getting divorced be illegal because of that reason too? Other people are free to live their lives happily without the whole world scrutinizing who they fall in love with. Why should they get to dictate how those who are gay get to live? Gay people will always “be among us”. They’re not going anywhere. It’s not like they are a separate species that can be extinct. I say stop fighting and let them live.
I realize that and a lot of times there is a reason for people marring young and that is only because there is an unexpected pregnancy involved no that doesn’t make it right, but there are also laws on getting married to young. If we legalized gay marriage in the U.S. then people would think its ok and safe but there are so many negative effects such as STD’S I realize that there are STD’S in other places too but the risk of getting them is a lot higher when being in a gay sexual relationship. And do you really think its possible for someone to be bi-sexual. To me its just a disgusting joke that people are wanting to experiment with. And that’s wrong.
I'm serious. I've never equated the two, and I'm asking how you came to that conclusion. I find a lot of things disgusting, and I find a lot of things morally wrong, but they usually do not overlap.
Well, the probable reason why male homosexual sex gives more STDs is that you have two factors involved: (1) penetration and (2) pregnancy.
As a male, you can't get pregnant, so there's no reason for most contraceptives. Similarly, STDs have more commonly passed from penetrator to penetratee (though I'll probably have to find a citation for that one).
As you said, it is "just a disgusting joke" -to you-. To some people, it's a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. How can we have your judgment be more valid than another person's judgment?
Most of Americans don’t want to legalize gay marriage, but how does that affect all that oppose it? If gay couples want to get married, why is it up to the whole world to decide whether or not they can? To all opposing and opposite-sex couples; why should you get to be happily married to the one you love and same- sex couples are denied the right in most states? Whether or not you think “being gay is wrong” doesn’t matter. There will still be gay couples so why not let them live life as happily as you are.
I see what you’re saying, but if we legalize gay rights then they will be living among us, and influencing the minds of our children in a negative way. So in the end it is in the hands of the Americans. I hate to say it but when a couple is gay they are just experimenting and playing house. Do you honestly think that those marriages’ will last? Then that will effect and children that might have been involved between that couple.
According to many studies (including a fairly recent one performed by Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson), revealed that children in same-sex families were no more likely to be predisposed to gay, lesbian, or bisexual lifestyles than their opposite-sex family counterparts.
Please do your research before making such claims.
"A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children." Thats part of an article from the family research council for you to read its really good here the URL...Enjoy.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01
Oh, you're right! Here, let me parse up the articles for you.
Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.
Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821.
David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999).
Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
Hey, would you look at that?! Most of the articles are talking about the -absence- of a parent! Maybe it's -divorces- that cause psychological problems, not lacking a parent of one gender or the other.
Obviously you did not read the points of this article right...
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
2. Children need fathers.
3. Children need mothers.
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.
once agian heres the URL if you would like to look into the details of the points...
Obviously you really dont know what its like to grow up with same-sex parents. so you really dont know anything!!
Wait, what is this about women and marriage domesticating men?
Sexism at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry, ladies, gentlemen, and wild, crazy, chaotic men who have not yet found a woman to tame them.
I care what sources the article cites. Any old article can make any old claim, but unless the sources they cite are relevant and compelling, the article is as good as Joe Schmoe's rantings about why the world will end in ten days.
Once again, I implore you to look at the titles of the references. You'll see that most of what's written in the article itself is just clever wordplay and misusing research to further one's own ends. The article might -tell- you that the research is against same-sex marriages, but in reality, the references are against divorce and single parents.
You can't build your argument off of research that is making a very different point. You can't pull research out of context and use it for your own ends. That's academic dishonesty.
The majority of Chinese citizens thought foot binding made a beautiful foot, and women accepted the corset.
That it's currently a societal norm means little to nothing on its being "good."
During an episode of "Penn & Teller's BullSh*t", Penn & Teller interviewed a "pollster" named Frank Luntz who gathered info for Fox News. He admitted that his job was to ask the questions in a way that he gets the "right answer". He (Luntz) even got a guy to say that he doesn't mind spending money on education and healthcare for illegal immigrants, but also that the government is spending too much money on them. (video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4 )
Who is to say that the (relatively) few people in the poll can represent the views of 300+ million people? A
This “debate” is about defending what those who have taken the “YES” position believe to be an indefensible prejudice: Not allowing consenting adults to marry whom they choose is derived from traditionally entrenched prejudicial beliefs about homosexuality. The FRC’s argument here is that as this prejudice is held generally, it is justifiable. If they are committed to the position that “great numbers represent justification” then, would they similarly react to polls in the 80’s that showed an overwhelming disapproval of making “spousal rape” a crime (i.e., wives are the property of husbands)? Or polls throughout the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s that approved of “Jim Crow” and racial separation? On this line of reasoning, these policies are seemingly justifiable. If not, the FRC is engaging in selective reasoning and should be criticized as such.
While most of Americans may not want to permit homosexuals to marry, The United States is not about the majority opinion. The government itself is designed as a mechanism to ensure equality - not to propagate inequality through the tyranny of the majority. It may not always work that way but it is the whole purpose of checks and balances.