Gallup -- This is Good News?
Fascinating results in the new Gallup poll. Well, fascinating questions, anyway. You look at how they frame these items, and see how in the world they came out with such a rosy conclusion.
Their summary is, people are more approving of homosexuality than ever before. OK, good. Glad to hear it.
Does that seem weird to you to say "high ebb?" Wouldn't you say "high tide?" Well, what do I know, I grew up in the desert.
Uh, but I lived on the coast for ten years. No, we didn't say "high ebb." We said "high tide."
This Gallup site gives a lot of results from different questions. Like 59 percent of Americans think that "homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal."
Excuse me, but that doesn't sound like something to get excited about. Think it should be legal? You mean nearly half of Americans think the government should step in and arrest people for sharing their lives with someone they love? Sorry, I see the numbers are higher than they used to be, but ... that's sickening.
Oh, and you love this question: Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle? Are you kidding me? They asked people that? Fifty-seven percent said yes, but what did they mean by that? That it's acceptable? That it's an alternative? That it's a lifestyle?
Who writes these questions?
The poll shows support for marriage equality increasing, naturally.
Forty-nine percent of people said homosexual relations are not morally acceptable; forty-seven said that they were.
Now, I'm thinking about that one. I'm guessing that people who are asked that question apply it to themselves: would it be moral for me to have homosexual relations? And the answer, for straight people, would likely be no. Because it would mean, I guess, depending what a "relation" is, having sex or dating somebody who is not especially attractive to you. And why would you be doing that? Would it be because you have absolutely no standards in your sex life? Would there be a moral issue there? Why, yes, I think there is a possibility of that.
What if Gallup asked questions like these:
See, if they asked those questions, the American people I love wouldn't look like such flaming idiots.
<walks_off_muttering>lifestyle ... moral ... alternative ...</walks_off_muttering>
Their summary is, people are more approving of homosexuality than ever before. OK, good. Glad to hear it.
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, finds current public tolerance for gay rights at the high-water mark of attitudes recorded over the past three decades. There is still considerable public opposition to complete equality for gays, particularly with respect to marriage. However, after several years of lower support for gay rights, support is now springing back to the relatively high levels seen in 2003, just before the Supreme Court's June 26, 2003, decision striking down a Texas sodomy law. (According to Gallup trends, that ruling appeared to produce a backlash of public opposition to gay rights.) Tolerance for Gay Rights at High Ebb
Does that seem weird to you to say "high ebb?" Wouldn't you say "high tide?" Well, what do I know, I grew up in the desert.
Uh, but I lived on the coast for ten years. No, we didn't say "high ebb." We said "high tide."
This Gallup site gives a lot of results from different questions. Like 59 percent of Americans think that "homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal."
Excuse me, but that doesn't sound like something to get excited about. Think it should be legal? You mean nearly half of Americans think the government should step in and arrest people for sharing their lives with someone they love? Sorry, I see the numbers are higher than they used to be, but ... that's sickening.
Oh, and you love this question: Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle? Are you kidding me? They asked people that? Fifty-seven percent said yes, but what did they mean by that? That it's acceptable? That it's an alternative? That it's a lifestyle?
Who writes these questions?
The poll shows support for marriage equality increasing, naturally.
Forty-nine percent of people said homosexual relations are not morally acceptable; forty-seven said that they were.
Now, I'm thinking about that one. I'm guessing that people who are asked that question apply it to themselves: would it be moral for me to have homosexual relations? And the answer, for straight people, would likely be no. Because it would mean, I guess, depending what a "relation" is, having sex or dating somebody who is not especially attractive to you. And why would you be doing that? Would it be because you have absolutely no standards in your sex life? Would there be a moral issue there? Why, yes, I think there is a possibility of that.
What if Gallup asked questions like these:
- Do you think it's any of your business if two people you don't know fall in love?
- Do you believe the government needs to regulate people's dating behavior?
- Do you think it is important for people to pick a mate that the public agrees is appropriate?
See, if they asked those questions, the American people I love wouldn't look like such flaming idiots.
<walks_off_muttering>lifestyle ... moral ... alternative ...</walks_off_muttering>
posted by JimK at 8:46 AM
26 Comments:
These are interesting numbers, particularly since the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" is so loaded.
The following figures, near the end of the report, are particularly instructive.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/Default.aspx?ci=27694
Generational, Political, and Religious Divides
Gallup has historically found that one's age, religiosity, and political party affiliation are all strong determinants of Americans' support for gay rights; gender also relates, but to a lesser degree. The vast majority of all of these groups believe gays should have equal job rights, but major differences are seen with respect to the perceived legality of homosexual relations, whether homosexuality should be an acceptable alternative lifestyle, whether it is morally acceptable, and whether same-sex marriages should be legally valid.
This table summarizes these demographic distinctions for the issue of whether homosexuality should be an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
Homosexuality as an Acceptable
Alternative Lifestyle
May 10-13, 2007
Yes
No
%
%
Men
53
44
Women
61
35
18-34 years
75
23
35-54 years
58
39
55+ years
45
51
Republican
36
58
Independent
60
36
Democrat
72
27
Worship services
Attend weekly
33
64
Attend nearly weekly/monthly
57
40
Attend less often/never
74
22
Nature vs. Nurture
The nature vs. nurture argument about the origin of homosexuality has been an important element of the gay rights debate over the years, and it is clear why. Americans who believe homosexuals are born with their sexual orientation tend to be much more supportive of gay rights than are those who say homosexuality is due to upbringing and environment (and therefore, perhaps, more of a lifestyle choice).
Americans are closely divided today over which of the two explanations is correct: 42% say homosexuality is something a person is born with while 35% say it is due to factors such as upbringing and environment. The balance of public opinion on the question has shifted back and forth in recent years, but the long-term pattern shows a clear increase in the view that one's sexuality is determined at birth.
As noted, substantive attitudes about homosexual rights are closely related to views on this question. For example, nearly four in five of those who believe homosexuality is congenital think it should be an acceptable lifestyle. By contrast, only 30% of those who think homosexuality is caused by environmental factors agree.
"FORT WORTH, Texas (May 29) - Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized an anti-war movement with her monthlong protest outside President Bush 's ranch, says she's done being the public face of the movement.
"I've been wondering why I'm killing myself and wondering why the Democrats caved in to George Bush," Sheehan told The Associated Press by phone Tuesday while driving from her property in Crawford to the airport, where she planned to return to her native California."
Uh, Cindy, they just said all that stuff to get elected. They were cynically exploiting the understandable public uneasiness with the war.
"I'm going home for awhile to try and be normal," she said."
At least she sees that the radical fringe is not normal. Knowing you have a problem is halfway to solving it.
"In what she described as a "resignation letter," Sheehan wrote in her online diary on the "Daily Kos" blog: "Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love"
Ok, I'll bite...
* Do you think it's any of your business if two people you don't know fall in love?
No; absolutely not.
* Do you believe the government needs to regulate people's dating behavior?
Goodness...I hope not: no.
* Do you think it is important for people to pick a mate that the public agrees is appropriate?
Hummm...define "mate"...come now, Jim, just come right out and say it full throated: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.
Anything...and I do mean ANYTHING that keeps a man and woman separated, be it a ban on inter-racial couples, or same-sex marriage, should be resisted.
I remember years ago, my landlord dragged me off to a nightclub that was at the time called the "Garage." We must have looked particularly butch that night, since the doorguard said
"You do know this is alternative lifestyles night, don't you?"
I asked, "What's alternative lifestyles (I was innocent and naive at that point in my life)?"
He said, "Gay and Lesbian,"
to which I replied "Honey, that's just not all that alternative."
Decades ago, I've heard, the Gay rights movement pushed freedom from persecution as a right Americans have, and fostered the idea of "alternative lifestyles," that is, that people should have the freedom to live the way they want to live. Then science and research took over, and the general scientific consensus was that sexual orientation and gender identity are intrinsic biological traits, and the language changed. The opponents of lgbt rights adopted the phrase "alternative lifestyle," since, I think, they could raise money from their congregants by selling the notion of perverts choosing to sin; but a lot of people still use that language, thinking that they are being tolerant.
Orin said: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Actually, Orin, I don't think this item is about marriage, I think "homosexual relations" would include dating and/or having sex.
JimK
Roberts writes,
Decades ago, I've heard, the Gay rights movement pushed freedom from persecution as a right Americans have, and fostered the idea of "alternative lifestyles," that is, that people should have the freedom to live the way they want to live. Then science and research took over, and the general scientific consensus was that sexual orientation and gender identity are intrinsic biological traits, and the language changed. The opponents of lgbt rights adopted the phrase "alternative lifestyle," since, I think, they could raise money from their congregants by selling the notion of perverts choosing to sin; but a lot of people still use that language, thinking that they are being tolerant.
Interesting observation there, Robert...ok, fair enough, then what would be an appropriate way to refer to it as? Eventhough GLBTI is clearly a "deviation" from the sexual norm (or, am I incorrect on this?), it would not be appropriate and would be seen as an insult to use it as an adjective in front of "lifestyle". What to use without giving offense and yet being accurate at the same time...
Jim writes,
Orin said: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Actually, Orin, I don't think this item is about marriage, I think "homosexual relations" would include dating and/or having sex.
Well, in the present social and political climate I don't really assume that this may at the very least be an underlying assumption.
Still, if that is the "upshot" of this question,
Do you think it is important for people to pick a mate that the public agrees is appropriate?
then I would have to say no to this question of yours as well.
So, how did I "score"?
Jim writes (in his original entry),
See, if they asked those questions, the American people I love wouldn't look like such flaming idiots.
GIGO...garbage IN, garbage OUT. Still, a majority of contemporary Americans do have a "live and let live" as expressed by an ever increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians.
andrea-not anon
The LGBT "lifestyle" - okay, so these people go to work and have families and go grocery shopping and walk their dogs. Gosh ,so do I(okay- I don't have a dog anymore).
Second topic- Too bad for Cindy- I am firmly against the war but I love America. I am grateful that it gave all of my grandparents a place to live where they could be free and raise their families with hope for the future. Cindy needs to remember that the administration or other elected officials are not "America". i understand her frustration but she certainly doesn't speak for the many many of us who hate the war but love our home
Orin said "Anything...and I do mean ANYTHING that keeps a man and woman separated, be it a ban on inter-racial couples, or same-sex marriage, should be resisted.".
Orin, you are either profoundly stupid or incredibly malicious (or some combination thereof). Same sex marriage in no way keeps any man or woman seperated. To equate that with a ban on interracial couples is incredibly obnoxious and just wrong, wrong, wrong. The gay couple down the street getting married doesn't prevent any heterosexual couple from doing the same. Jeez, wake up and smell the coffee.
Orin said "a majority of contemporary Americans do have a "live and let live" as expressed by an ever increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians.".
Pretty ironic comming from someone like you who obviously doesn't have such an attitude. Not to mention the contradiction of that statment with your statement that when gays get equal access to marriage it won't help in the slightest in terms of gays being accepted by society.
Orrin asks:
Interesting observation there, Robert...ok, fair enough, then what would be an appropriate way to refer to it as? Eventhough GLBTI is clearly a "deviation" from the sexual norm (or, am I incorrect on this?), it would not be appropriate and would be seen as an insult to use it as an adjective in front of "lifestyle". What to use without giving offense and yet being accurate at the same time...
**********************************
Orrin, maybe you will find this useful. A "lifestyle" typically connotes a CHOICE of how to live, like Robin Leach's old show "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." The the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" is used by those who disapprove of homosexuality to suggest a promiscuous lifestyle. And it connotes that people have a choice as to whether to be homosexual and that that choice is always to be homosexually promiscuous.
So let's start with this question: "Do all of these people live "the heterosexual lifestyle"?
Paris Hilton.
Warren Beatty (in his younger days).
The late Wilt Chamberlain.
The late Ronald Reagan.
Franklin Roosevelt.
Newt Gingrich and his various wives and girlfriends.
Rudy Giuliani and his various wives.
John McCain and his wives.
Fred Thompson and his wives.
Bill Clinton.
Mitt Romney and his wife.
Michelle and Barack Obama.
Elizabeth and John Edwards.
Roslyn and Jimmy Carter.
Bess and Harry Truman.
Some of these heterosexuals are (in Wilt's case, were) simply promiscuous.
Others were serial (or overlapping) monogamists.
Others cheated on their spouses.
Others are, by all accounts, simply monogamous and faithful to each other.
The point is just as all heterosexuals do not share the same "lifestyle" when it comes to questions of sexual fidelity, neither do all homosexuals. All one need do is to get to know so many gay and lesbian couples in Montgomery County to learn that, in terms of family structure, they have more in common with the Romneys,the Obamas, and Trumans than they do with the Hiltons, the Beattys, the Gingriches, and the Giulianis.
So what phrase to use? If a phrase must be used, why not just say "living honest gay lives"? Living one's life in concert with one's sexual orientation is not living a "lifestyle." It is simply living a life -- an authentic life.
"malicious"
Wonder why Randi keeps saying this. Must be some lifestyle thing.
Anonymous, I keep saying it because I keep encountering it.
Now. that's just malicious.
RE Orin's "live and let live"
Orin, I tend to think that, too. I go out and hang around with these good people, and my sense is that they're glad for their freedom, and are willing to grant the same to others. But look here, in 2007, more than 40 percent of Americans believe that the government should arrest someone for having a relationship (which we assume to be romantic or sexual) with a person of the same sex.
That doesn't sound like "live and let live" to me. That's just plain scary.
JimK
Jim, when one considers 1 in 3 Supreme Court judges also concluded that a government can make mere private, non-commercial homosexuality between two consenting adults a criminal act... the 40% seems less bewildering.
(No less scary, of course).
"Life, Liberty and Happiness" to these people appears to mean their liberty of use the mob and make the lives of a minority an unhappy one.
Weirder yet: the punishment... was often to send them to gaol.
Yep, good preventative measure for homosexuality that one. Commit the crime of homosexuality... and we'll lock you away with a bunch of men for a year or so.
---------------------------
Orin,
Still curious about how the ability of gay couples to legally marry would prevent men and women from getting married. Your reasoning would be, what?
Are marriage licences rationed where you live???
Would Bob tell Jane "That's it, the wedding's off -- because The Gays(c) are now getting married!"???
Or, perhaps you envision us using our "insider knowledge" within the marriage reception industry (which we run, I might add) to book out all the suitable halls etc from now until doomsday???
Orin uses the words: ""deviation" from the sexual norm "
Orin, shame on you. "Alternative lifestyle" isn't hugely offensive, just bothersome because it has been adopted by anti-lgbt forces to foster the notion of "choice", thus to raise funds, pass "crimes against nature laws', etc.
However, "deviation" and "norm" are offensive. From my point of view, straight people aren't "normal" while I am not, nor are me and my peeps "abnormal." Being gay is a normal variation in human sexuality, much as being left-handed is a normal variation in handedness and being 5'8" in a normal variation in height.
You complain when Randi accuses you of being hateful for opposing gay marriage. You should know better than using language such as you did. Do you really think lgbt people are deviating from the norm?
rrjr
Btw, do "norm" and "deviation" have any roots outside of statistics? The word for me conjures up ideas of "normal range" and "normed data." The words have become pejorative, as have many words (such as "gay"), I think simply because in middle school they represent a non-majority group.
Yours in etymology.
Orin said "ANYTHING that keeps a man and woman separated, be it a ban on inter-racial couples, or same-sex marriage, should be resisted."
That statement makes no sense to me because allowing same sex couples to marry each other will not keep any man and woman who want to be together separated. Let's use the example of your neighbors, the gay couple that seems to have been your friends for a long time. I'm going to have to assume, since you've told us they are gay and live together, that they have no romantic interest in members of the opposite sex.
If they were allowed to marry each other, please tell us how you think their marriage would "keep a man and a woman separated."
""ANYTHING that keeps a man and woman separated, be it a ban on inter-racial couples, or same-sex marriage"
Orin, do you think that if I didn't marry a man, I would marry a woman? Ooh, no, yecch. I didn't all those years I was in the ex-gay movement.
rrjr
Andrea- not anon
Why is it these people can never explain how same-sex marriage will harm straight marriage? Personally, I do find a lot of gay men more attractive than straight men but I would still be marrying a man- so that can't be it.
Come on Orin. We're waiting...
I sent Orin an email telling him a few of us were interested in his response. He said he'd been too busy to respond but that by Saturday he would "hammer out a reply" do a "rough draft" and "polish it up". Sounds like he plans a lot of explaining for a pretty straightforward question. I see he's posted on one of the threads above, maybe he realizes he can't "explain" the idea that allowing gays to marry somehow keeps men and women apart.
Thanks for the update, Randi. There are several hours of Saturday left. Maybe Orin will come through with his thoughts about how any same-sex marriage like his neighbors for example, would "keep a man and a woman separated."
David S. Fishback writes,
So let's start with this question: "Do all of these people live "the heterosexual lifestyle"?
Some of these heterosexuals are (in Wilt's case, were) simply promiscuous.
Paris Hilton
Warren Beatty (in his younger days).
The late Wilt Chamberlain.?
Others were serial (or overlapping) monogamists.
The late Ronald Reagan,
John McCain and his wives.
Fred Thompson and his wives
Others cheated on their spouses.
Bill Clinton,
Franklin Roosevelt,
Newt Gingrich and his various wives and girlfriends, and
Rudy Giuliani and his various wives.
Others are, by all accounts, simply monogamous and faithful to each other.
Mitt Romney and his wife (her name is Ann, btw),
Michelle and Barack Obama,
Elizabeth and John Edwards,
Roslyn and Jimmy Carter, and
Bess and Harry Truman.
The point is just as all heterosexuals do not share the same "lifestyle" when it comes to questions of sexual fidelity, neither do all homosexuals. All one need do is to get to know so many gay and lesbian couples in Montgomery County to learn that, in terms of family structure, they have more in common with the Romneys, the Obamas, and Trumans than they do with the Hiltons, the Beattys, the Gingriches, and the Giulianis.
Everyone is different, with loads of variation in each group…ok, I would agree.
So, what phrase to use? If a phrase must be used, why not just say "living honest gay lives"? Living one's life in concert with one's sexual orientation is not living a "lifestyle." It is simply living a life -- an authentic life.
Fair enough.
JimK writes,
RE Orin's "live and let live"
Orin, I tend to think that, too. I go out and hang around with these good people, and my sense is that they're glad for their freedom, and are willing to grant the same to others. But look here, in 2007, more than 40 percent of Americans believe that the government should arrest someone for having a relationship (which we assume to be romantic or sexual) with a person of the same sex.
That doesn't sound like "live and let live" to me. That's just plain scary.
No argument here either…then again, just about any opinion poll it would seem is bound to bring to the surface unsettling realizations, like this,
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
found here,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm
grantdale asks,
Orin,
Still curious about how the ability of gay couples to legally marry would prevent men and women from getting married. Your reasoning would be, what?
Are marriage licences rationed where you live???
Would Bob tell Jane "That's it, the wedding's off -- because The Gays(c) are now getting married!"???
Or, perhaps you envision us using our "insider knowledge" within the marriage reception industry (which we run, I might add) to book out all the suitable halls etc from now until doomsday???
I wish I could say that I sense that your questions seek a better understanding of this issue; alas, I cannot. In fact, they exhibit a rather narrow and provincial view of marriage that denies any understanding of it as a public and social institution that spans many centuries, indeed millennia, not to mention bridging all civilizations.
Robert said...
Orin uses the words: ""deviation" from the sexual norm "
Orin, shame on you. "Alternative lifestyle" isn't hugely offensive, just bothersome because it has been adopted by anti-lgbt forces to foster the notion of "choice", thus to raise funds, pass "crimes against nature laws', etc.
I am sorry…as I thought I made clear, I understand “deviation” not to mention “deviant” as perjorative terms that are clearly offensive.
This is what I wrote,
Interesting observation there, Robert...ok, fair enough, then what would be an appropriate way to refer to it as? Eventhough GLBTI is clearly a "deviation" from the sexual norm (or, am I incorrect on this?), it would not be appropriate and would be seen as an insult to use it as an adjective in front of "lifestyle". What to use without giving offense and yet being accurate at the same time...
Please don’t shame me when what I am trying to do is understand better this issue and how to correctly address it.
Rober writes,
However, "deviation" and "norm" are offensive. From my point of view, straight people aren't "normal" while I am not, nor are me and my peeps "abnormal." Being gay is a normal variation in human sexuality, much as being left-handed is a normal variation in handedness and being 5'8" in a normal variation in height.
When less than 1 out of 10 in any given population is GLBTI, I fail to see how recognizing that as a deviation is offensive. Am I mistaken in the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm?
You complain when Randi accuses you of being hateful for opposing gay marriage. You should know better than using language such as you did.
As regards Randi, it would appear with her that any disagreement on issues related to sexual orientation are not permissible, hence “hateful” “bigoted” “(insert your favorite adjective as a put down)”.
Do you really think lgbt people are deviating from the norm?
Are they a deviation from the norm? Ok, let us suppose that half the human population is heterosexual, while the other half is GLBTI…50-50. In such an instance, there would be no deviation from a norm because there would be no norm. Correct? (I may be incorrect on this and if so depend on you to explain how).
So, absent any information you may provide, I would be left to conclude that yes “lgbt people are deviating from the norm.”
Btw, do "norm" and "deviation" have any roots outside of statistics? The word for me conjures up ideas of "normal range" and "normed data." The words have become pejorative, as have many words (such as "gay"), I think simply because in middle school they represent a non-majority group.
This is the use I am intending in the use of the words “deviation” and “norm”,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28sociology%29
Aunt Bea said...
Orin said "ANYTHING that keeps a man and woman separated, be it a ban on inter-racial couples, or same-sex marriage, should be resisted."
That statement makes no sense to me because allowing same sex couples to marry each other will not keep any man and woman who want to be together separated. Let's use the example of your neighbors, the gay couple that seems to have been your friends for a long time. I'm going to have to assume, since you've told us they are gay and live together, that they have no romantic interest in members of the opposite sex.
If they were allowed to marry each other, please tell us how you think their marriage would "keep a man and a woman separated."
Ahhhh, the $64,000 dollar question…
Marriage as a public institution is a common good and as such until recently was accepted as serving a public purpose. Recently I finished a book that I have been reading since about the middle of March; the book is The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn (Encounter Books, 2007). The book originated from a lunch conversation that the author had with Evan Wolfson back in the summer of 2003. “He wanted me to speak out publicly in favor of expanding marriage to include gay and lesbian couples. I hemmed , hawed, and equivocated. He had anger and urgency. I had anguish and doubts.
Some of our discussion concerned moral values. With passion, Evan spoke about equal human dignity. With passion, I told him that every child deserves a mother and a father.”
(p.1)
And so the book is an extended answer to the questions from this conversation. In an article in USA Today back in March (http://www.americanvalues.org/html/FUMA.htm), Blankenhorn put the issue this way, “We're either going to go in the direction of viewing marriage as a purely private relationship between two people that's defined by those people, or we're going to try to strengthen and maintain marriage as our society's most pro-child institution," he says.
Largely due to social (no-fault divorce) and medical (modern contraception) developments, we have come to view marriage as something quite different than what it once was, a public institution. What same-sex marriage will do is further “deinstitutionalize” (chapter 6, “Deinstitutionalize Marriage?” is particularly good since the author quotes chapter and verse numerous academics once opposed to marriage that now support marriage…provided, of course, that includes same-sex marriage). And yes, it is true: heterosexuals have done the most damage to marriage to date…no argument and without a doubt. The remaining question then is this: will society allow this institution to be further eroded?
I have said it before, and I will say it again here: marriage has a purpose both PRIVATE and PUBLIC, and those purposes necessarily define certain limits intended to continue to preserve the PUBLIC meaning, no matter what the PRIVATE meaning is to any one couple. To answer Aunt Bea, allowing same-sex marriage will so radically redefine what marriage means (in a public sense) that it will further the trend of deinstitutionalizing marriage, and all that it strives (imperfectly) to accomplish. As the author put it, “After all, the big idea is not stopping gay marriage. The idea is stopping the erosion of society’s most pro-child institution.” (p. 235)
Robert said...
""ANYTHING that keeps a man and woman separated, be it a ban on inter-racial couples, or same-sex marriage"
Orin, do you think that if I didn't marry a man, I would marry a woman? Ooh, no, yecch. I didn't all those years I was in the ex-gay movement.
I hope you wouldn’t because it would not be fair to you or to the woman.
Ok, there you have it…my reply to your answers. I want to get this posted so that I keep to the commitment I made to get this written by 7:45 AM, MST.
Grantdale asked Orin "Still curious about how the ability of gay couples to legally marry would prevent men and women from getting married. Your reasoning would be, what?".
Orin replied "I wish I could say that I sense that your questions seek a better understanding of this issue; alas, I cannot. In fact, they exhibit a rather narrow and provincial view of marriage that denies any understanding of it as a public and social institution that spans many centuries, indeed millennia, not to mention bridging all civilizations.".
A rather cowardly dodge of the question Orin, of course, what else could you do, you know as well as we do that your original assertion was preposterous.
Orin said "As regards Randi, it would appear with her that any disagreement on issues related to sexual orientation are not permissible, hence “hateful” “bigoted”".
Once again Orin, you're wrong to speak in absolutes. I would never say that "ANY" disagreement is not permissible, in fact it can be permissible to be hateful and bigoted and what's hateful and bigoted is not living up to the rule "Do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in anyone else's right to do the same". By that fundamental moral measure your opposition to equal marriage is hateful and bigoted.
Aunt bea asked Orin "If they were allowed to marry each other, please tell us how you think their marriage would "keep a man and a woman separated."
Orin replied "Marriage as a public institution is a common good and as such until recently was accepted as serving a public purpose...blah blah blah, blah blah blah...blah blah blah...“After all, the big idea is not stopping gay marriage. The idea is stopping the erosion of society’s most pro-child institution.”".
LOL, Orin, why can't you just be a man and admit the obvious? - you made a rash statement when you claimed same sex marriage keeps men and women apart and you were wrong. Instead you try to change the subject and even that falls flat on its face. That last statement of yours is totally disingenous. It isn't about "stopping the erosion of a pro child institution" its about demeaning gays and keeping them as second class citizens.
Tell us how gays getting married is going to result in any fewer children having mothers and fathers than if gays don't get married. If it was about children you'd be supporting equal marriage because 1/3 of gays have children and those children benefit just as much as children of heterosexuals do by having two married parents. Letting gays marry in no way affects how the children of heterosexuals are supported in marriage. Equal marriage simply changes NOTHING for heterosexual marriages or the children in heterosexual marriages.
Once again, I challenge you, give us a specific step by step cause and effect explanation as to how the gay couple down the street getting married in any way affects the children in a heterosexual marriage. Don't give us any of this ambiguous generalties crap either. And you still haven't answered the question as to how letting gays marry keeps men and women apart. How about you be an honest responsbible adult and admit you were wrong to make that statement.
Orin reported David told Evan With passion, I told him that every child deserves a mother and a father.
Does every child of a heterosexual couple have a mother and a father present in the home day after day? No. Thanks to death, employment, and divorce, plenty of kids grow up in single parent homes.
What do studies of children raised in single parent families compared to those raised in two parent families tell us? Studies show that children raised with two parents in the home, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, do better on academic and emotional measures than those children raised with only one parent in the home. Randi has posted tons of studies showing these findings elsewhere on this blog. It's time to face the fact: children raised with two loving parents in the home, regardless of the gender of the parents, do better on a host of measures than children raised with only one loving parent in the home.
We're either going to go in the direction of viewing marriage as a purely private relationship between two people that's defined by those people, or we're going to try to strengthen and maintain marriage as our society's most pro-child institution
I agree we should "strengthen and maintain marriage as our society's most pro-child institution." That's why it's so important for families that are headed by same sex (SS) couples to have the same legal rights to care for the children as families headed by opposite sex (OS) couples. Yet you insist on making the children who are raised by SS couples suffer by only allowing them to have one legal parent.
SS couples mean there two parents in the home, day after day, caring for the children, doing all the usual stuff parents do -- bagging school lunches, kissing boo boos, taking the kids to the dentist or soccer practice, attending recitals, etc... Sometimes when marriages end and the custodial parent remarries, his or her new spouse will adopt the children, which is to the children's benefit because they once again have two legally recognized parents raising them. You say we should deny this benefit to children if the new spouse is of the same sex. That's like cutting off the kid's nose to spite the kid's face!
If marriage is "society's most pro-child institution," why do you insist on denying it to SS couples who intend to raise children together? SS marriage won't hurt children; it's denying SS marriage that DOES hurt children by denying them the same two parent legal protection that children of OS couples have. Your advocacy to deny SS marriage proves to me that your true motivation is something other than the wellbeing of kids SS couples raise.
Largely due to social (no-fault divorce) and medical (modern contraception) developments, we have come to view marriage as something quite different than what it once was, a public institution.
Marriage remains society's most pro-child institution. I'm not concerned about the couple's motivation to be with each other (frankly, it's none of my or anybody's business why two people want to marry each other) as long as the kids have the benefit of the legal protection of both loving parents who want to raise them.
The remaining question then is this: will society allow this institution to be further eroded?
No, I think the question is more basic than that: will SS marriage erode marriage or strengthen it? The way I look at it, SS marriage means more people would be allowed to marry than are allowed to now. Further, no one who is allowed to wed now will be denied the right to wed should SS couples be included. So, yep, IMHO marriage will be strengthened by allowing more couples marry, at the very least in number.
There's another benefit to allow SS marriage namely the example married SS couples will be for LGBT youth. Do you want LGBT youth to only strive for the isolation of the closet or the risks of promiscuity, or do you think society would benefit if LGBT kids also had examples of monogamous married SS couples to learn from?
I have said it before, and I will say it again here: marriage has a purpose both PRIVATE and PUBLIC, and those purposes necessarily define certain limits intended to continue to preserve the PUBLIC meaning, no matter what the PRIVATE meaning is to any one couple. To answer Aunt Bea, allowing same-sex marriage will so radically redefine what marriage means (in a public sense) that it will further the trend of deinstitutionalizing marriage, and all that it strives (imperfectly) to accomplish. As the author put it, “After all, the big idea is not stopping gay marriage. The idea is stopping the erosion of society’s most pro-child institution.”
Good heavens Orin, that's a lot of double talk. What erodes "society's most pro-child institution" is customs and laws that only allow one of two loving parents to be the legal parent of children being raised in the home. The gender of the parents is irrelevant -- that's the personal part of marriage. It doesn't matter if custom allows spouses to choose each other or if their parents choose for them, and it doesn't matter if they're opposite or same sex spouses. The public part of marriage, the care and protection of the children, is what matters. If the institutional character of marriage is the children, then it's their wellbeing and care that we should all be concerned with.
"We're either going to go in the direction of viewing marriage as a purely private relationship between two people that's defined by those people, or we're going to try to strengthen and maintain marriage as our society's most pro-child institution."
By limiting marriage to only heterosexual couples, we are "viewing marriage as a purely private relationship between two people that's defined by those people."
There are a few more interesting points about same sex marriage in today's Washington Post:
In the Close to Home section, a law professor writes about how the Supreme Court's Loving decision back in 1967 resonates 40 years later:
Interracial marriage bans now seem obviously invidious. But go back far enough and the consensus flips. At one point, most everyone thought such bans were legitimate. The same is true of segregated schooling and discrimination against women. It is true of just about everything the Supreme Court has held that the equal protection clause prohibits: At one point, all of these practices were seen as legitimate reflections of the world, not as invidious attempts to impose inequality. When the court held these practices unconstitutional, it was neither enforcing a rule that had existed since 1868 nor creating a new rule. It was recognizing that social attitudes had shifted, and with them the understanding about what is reasonable and what is invidious.
This point connects Loving to current social struggles, most notably the debate over same-sex marriage. Opponents decry the "activist judges" in Massachusetts who struck down that state's same-sex marriage ban and warn that the Supreme Court will someday follow. So it may -- but, if it does, responsibility will not lie primarily with judges.
The past few decades have brought a dramatic change in social attitudes about homosexuality. The American Psychiatric Association, which once classified homosexuality as a mental disease, abandoned that position in 1973. Public opinion polls show an increasing acceptance of homosexuality, and state legislatures are beginning to follow. Restricting the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples is increasingly seen as invidious, an inequality inflicted for no good reason.
If the trend continues, this view eventually will find expression at the Supreme Court level, just as it did in Loving. This is not judicial activism. It is how we make the Constitution ours.
--Kermit Roosevelt
Philadelphia
The writer is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of "The Myth of Judicial Activism." His e-mail address is krooseve@law.upenn.edu.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060101932.html
And also in today's Washington Post, George Will discusses what voters want (leaders who are competent) and notes:
Writing in the New Republic, Thomas B. Edsall notes that in the late 1980s voters by a margin of 51 to 42 percent believed that "school boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known homosexuals." Today voters disagree, 66 to 28. In 1987 voters were evenly divided on the question of whether "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior." Today voters disagree, 72 to 23.
Recent Pew polling shows that a combined 48 percent of Republican voters say that Iraq (31 percent) or terrorism (17 percent) is their principal concern. Abortion? Seven percent. Gay marriage? One percent.
IMHO it is time to end discrimination against same sex couples who simply want to get married, raise their children, and grow old together. It's time for all kids with two loving parents to benefit from the legal protection of both of them, regardless of their race or gender.
Post a Comment
<< Home