The People Who Oppose Gay Marriage Are…

Is there any real reason to oppose marriage equality?

A new analysis of data by (Democratic pollster) Joel Benenson and (Republican pollster) Jan van Lohuizen finds that most of the people who oppose it fall into only a few demographic groups:

Exit polls and other surveys from last year’s election suggest that resistance to same-sex marriage is shrinking and mainly concentrated among certain segments of the population: older people, white evangelical Christians and non-college-educated whites.

They could’ve just said Republicans. (Zing!)

And I think their representatives are handling it well:

However, David Lane, who organizes conservative Christians nationwide, said the more than 65 million Americans who identify themselves as evangelicals are feeling increasingly alienated from electoral politics.

If GOP leaders embrace same-sex marriage, he predicted, “it will lead quickly to the collapse of the Republican Party,” causing a core constituency to leave for a third party or to renounce politics.

“The debate is good,” Lane added. “We need to decide whether we are a Christian nation or a pagan nation and get on with it. The glory of a nation lies in its righteousness.”

Because those are the only options, apparently…

This is exactly why those demographics’ opposition to gay marriage isn’t taken seriously. They revel in paranoia and lies. They don’t base their arguments and ideas on logic and reason. They base them on the Bible and FOX News and other things no one should take seriously.

If those groups feel like they’re being alienated… well, they’re right.

And our nation will be better off because of it.

(Thanks to Jeff for the link)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • cipher

    David Lane, who organizes conservative Christians nationwide, said
    the more than 65 million Americans who identify themselves as
    evangelicals are feeling increasingly alienated from electoral politics.

    I fail to see the reason, given the fact they’ve spent the past thirty years commandeering the process.

    If GOP leaders embrace same-sex marriage, he predicted, “it will lead
    quickly to the collapse of the Republican Party,” causing a core
    constituency to leave for a third party or to renounce politics.

    B’bye.

    • http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/ Andrew Hall

      Evangelical Republicans are schlepping their way to political extinction.

      • cipher

        We can only hope.

      • SecularPatriot

        I’m sure they will evolve.

        After all, religion is the end result of thousands of years of perfected memes and indoctrination techniques.

    • decathelite
  • http://www.facebook.com/gwydionfrost Daniel Parker

    In defense of some folks I know very well, I would ask you to amend your statement of “They could’ve just said Republicans. (Zing!)” to “They could’ve just said OLD GUARD Republicans. (Zing!)” because, to be honest, the young, new, college age GOP base doesn’t agree with that segment either.

    • rustygh

      The Republican Party is not a party of the young.
      Such a small percentage in fact stats show in next ten years gop will lose over 30%
      young new college doesn’t = gop

      • grindstone

        If the Repubs divest themselves of the religious nonsense and focus on fiscal responsibility, AND stop their worship of an unfettered corporate free-for-all, AND stay out of my womb, I could switch parties. Those are a lot of conditions, but hey, one step at a time. Of course, I will no longer be young when this happens, so your point stands.

        • rustygh

          I have to say if you can get all those things I’d look at them myself again as an option. ツ

          • http://www.facebook.com/brian.westley Brian Westley

            Even if I probably wouldn’t switch parties, I’d still like a sane opposition party so they can keep each other honest, instead of a religious litmus party that is losing public support so rapidly that voter suppression and gerrymandering are now a basic part of their political strategy, and most of what they do in congress is just try to block legislation.

          • fsm

            I no longer vote for the two big political machines, ever. Our two party system has only led to wide-spread corruption, and it’s legal! Why? because the two parties control the laws. Vicious circle.

        • Ibis3

          Conservatives always like to parade around with the banner of fiscal responsibility, but in reality they are fiscally reckless. They deregulate, allowing for more risk to the economy and the environment. They almost always spend more than they have because they hate to raise revenue (especially from those who can afford it). And when they’re not doing that they irresponsibly shed or privatise government services to the point at which public safety and well-being are severely compromised. It’s usually liberals who balance the books, impose rational regulation on business, and tax in a more judicious manner. It’s only because they spend money on things conservatives don’t like (i.e. social programs), instead of things they do (i.e. military), that the conservatives are successful at labelling them “big spenders”.

  • Jasper

    As long as we’re talking about dichotomies, how about this one:

    We can either be a free nation, or a Christian nation.

    • TheBlackCat13

      Define “a Christian nation”

  • Dan

    Lazy, predictable attack on Republicans. What percentage of the 47% of African-Americans describing themselves as evangelical and opposed to same-sex marriage do you think are Republican?

    • wyocowboy

      Don’t know and good question…I disagree w/ ur comment….1st David is wrong about America being a x-tian nation…we ARE a SECULAR nation…our constitution has NO Fing god in it

    • Ryan Jean

      I’ll try to approach this a different way…

      [...] finds that most of the people who oppose it fall into only a few demographic groups [...]

      This is basic statistics. Demographics for the US indicate that about 72.5% is white, while 12.5% is black. 47% of 12.5% is less than 6%. Given that opposition to SSM is in the mid-40s (and thankfully dropping) overall, that means that about 40% of the US is opposed while not being Black, meaning that they dwarf Black opposition to SSM by more than 6:1 in actual numbers. Even if we only count the White component of opposition, that’s still around 30% of all people, or more than the total Black opposition by 5:1. So, yes, the significant majority of those opposed to SSM are White, period, and of Whites the majority will be older, evangelical, non-college-educated, or some combination, to the point that just the evangelical and/or non-college-educated White opposition to SSM significantly outnumbers the Black evangelical opposition.

      This doesn’t mean that we should ignore Black opposition to SSM; merely that they don’t make up a large amount of overall opposition. Outreach to Black communities could be better, and I would venture that it’s improving. Let’s look at what you said, though.

      What percentage of the 47% of African-Americans describing themselves as evangelical and opposed to same-sex marriage do you think are Republican?

      Only about 7% of Blacks self-identify as Republican, period. It’s a safe bet, however, that nearly the entire 7% is in your 47% figure. Further, how much of the roughly 20% Black self-described Religious Right do you think is contained within your 47% figure? Again, I’d venture nearly all. Nearly 30% of Blacks self-identify as Conservatives. While I would assume this would be less clear-cut than the other two subgroups, it would be shocking if less than 3/4 were within your 47%. Overall, a reasonably strong assertion can be made that your 47% is composed of, at the very least, 2/3 people fitting one or more of those descriptors (Republican, Religious Right, or Conservative) and that very little of the 53% outside your figure would fit one of those labels. Just like in the White community, the problem with opposition to SSM is still overwhelmingly on the right — whether Republican party, Evangelical, or just Conservative — and is most strongly associated with those enmeshed in all three.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Lumry/1078456243 Scott Lumry

        I would say that Dan made a “lazy, predictable attack” on Hemant, when you actually spend time doing the numbers like you did Ryan Jean. Thanks!

        • Ryan Jean

          “…when you actually spend time doing the numbers…”
          Doing the numbers took less than a minute. What takes time is putting them into words. That’s why it’s such a pity how mathematically illiterate society is, and how lazy they are about sorting through the numbers even when they know how; they could easily disabuse themselves of such foolish notions as Dan’s with but a moment’s reflection, and make less work for the rest of us, too, but it’s easier to get riled up and sling mud. Thanks for the compliment, though!

      • Mario Strada

        Well, good job, thank you. I see this “percentage equivalency” all the time and it makes me cringe, but I am usually too lazy or busy to distill it into a post. Thank you for doing the work.

    • Sven2547

      Shorter Ryan Jean:
      What percentage of same-sex marriage opponents do you think are non-Republicans?

      • http://www.facebook.com/abb3w Arthur Byrne

        Counting Democrats, non-GOP-leaning Independent, and third party, and with both opposed and strongly opposed, GSS-2010 gives 50%. Only about 20% of supporters identify as Republican — mostly Gen-X and younger.

        • Sven2547

          “GSS”?

          • allein

            General Social Survey, apparently..http://www3.norc.org/gss+website/

            • Sven2547

              Man, I’m having a horrible time finding the relevant statistics on their site.

              • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                The NORC website just provides the raw dataset, for SPSS and the like. The interface at Berkeley’s SDA is a bit easier to use. Variables for this would be MARHOMO and PARTYID, though I also alluded to COHORT.

    • http://www.facebook.com/abb3w Arthur Byrne

      Based from the 2010 GSS, of the African Americans who were opposed to same sex marriage and strongly religious, the fraction who were Republican was indistinguishable from that for all African-Americans: circa 10%.

      Yes, blacks still tend slightly more opposed than whites — or at least did as of 2010. Attitudes are shifting relatively rapidly, and President Obama’s public shift in stance apparently caused some impact in the attitude polling among blacks. However, the 2012 GSS data isn’t out to play with.

      • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

        Correction… the 2012 GSS data is out, but so far only in the raw dataset. Expect news articles to start showing up for the rest of the month.

  • slaq

    Or we could go with what the Constitution says and embrace the fact that we’re a secular nation that protects religous freedom for everyone.

    Just sayin’.

  • skinnerrcitycyclist

    ‘“it will lead quickly to the collapse of the Republican Party,” causing a core constituency to leave for a third party or to renounce politics.’

    Aren’t those the same thing?

    • Michael

      I would wholeheartedly support a viable 3-party system. So collaps away!

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        The US electoral system isn’t set up to make for a viable 3-party system. Our system is straight-up majority wins: if you win more votes than your opponent(s), you win the election. That means if three parties compete, splitting the vote 34%/33%/33%, the party with 34% wins the whole thing. This dynamic naturally collapses into two major parties with almost no room for any additional parties.

        That doesn’t mean I don’t want the current Republican party to collapse. It just means it’s highly likely a new party will arise to take its place. I’m betting on a Libertarian party- a party that agrees with Democrats on most social issues or is even more liberal than they are but is extremely fiscally conservative (subscribes to Randian/Austrian/Chicago school economics instead of Keynesian ones) and is very non-interventionist in foreign policy.

        • TheBlackCat13

          Not actually true. You have to have a majority, that is more than 50%. 50% or less won’t get you anything.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Um, you do realize that several Senate and House seats have been won with ~47% of the vote, right? The numbers were something like 48% (R or D), 45% (R or D), 7% (other such as Libertarian or Green). The person with 48% still gets the seat. We have absolutely no requirement in the US that the winner of an election get the majority of votes, just more votes than anyone else.

            The only institution that works on a majority basis like that is the Electoral College which decides the President. That is not how most elections in this country work, though.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    Given the choice between the traditional pagan festivals and the christian versions I would go with the traditional versions. Oh that reminds me, happy belated Lupercalia everyone.

  • indorri

    Aside from being wrong that marriage equality makes something “pagan” (no, silly person, it makes it secular), substitute the word “Jewish” for “pagan” to see the bigotry explicit. It’s like they don’t even realize some people are actually pagan. How is it that they demand respect for their beliefs while disparaging other’s religious positions?

    • AxeGrrl

      substitute the word “Jewish” for “pagan” to see the bigotry explicit.

      That’s always a great litmus test for bigotry, imo :)

  • http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/ trivialknot

    Note that the survey contradicts the common stereotype that non-white people are more homophobic.

  • ganner918

    They do have a point. Republicans are kind of screwed on this issue. If they cave, the opponents of gay marriage are SO crazy about it that they very well might leave the party, or at least won’t turn out. And if they keep fighting against it, they alienate the growing majority that think anti-gay bigotry is unacceptable.

    • baal

      Hence the gerrymandering and on-going election fraud. They are 33 seats ahead in the House despite having 47% of the vote (ie should be in the minority and not majority).

  • AxeGrrl

    All the arguments against same sex marriage distill down to this:

    ‘how can we continue to feel special/superior if we let those people in our country club?’

  • Raven

    It’s almost like anti-gay evangelicals don’t actually own Christianity, much less America.

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

    Question for atheists. What do you actually believe in? I know what you don’t believe in as its inherent in your name – theism. But what are you actually believe?

    • http://www.facebook.com/abb3w Arthur Byrne

      I find the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction pretty much the most basic of my beliefs — that (P OR Q) is equivalent to (Q OR P) such that either may be inferred from the other.

      • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

        I agree

        • TheBlackCat13

          So you don’t believe in the trinity?

          • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

            What makes you assume that I am Christian?

            • TheBlackCat13

              If you aren’t a Christian, then something along the lines of “no, I don’t believe in Jesus at all” would be a sufficient answer. Care to answer the question?

        • http://www.facebook.com/abb3w Arthur Byrne

          Presumably, you also have no problem with the Associativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction — that (P OR (Q OR R)) is equivalent to ((P OR Q) OR R) such that either may be inferred from the other.

          Next would be the Robbins Axiom expressed via Logical Joint Denial — that ((P NOR Q) NOR (P NOR (NOT Q))) is equivalent with (P).

    • Thackerie

      What I believe is that this comment has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        I believe I’ll load another bowl.

    • baal

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/02/07/edward-tarte-revisits-the-most-viewed-video-among-his-800-videos/

      Oh if only this topic of what do atheists believe were ever talked about….
      Paul Grimm, this topic actually gets addressed with some regularity. I invite you to watch Edward Tarte’s take on answering the question.

      • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

        It seems as though Edward Tarte just talks about his day and at the end says that it would be foolish to believe in God. He doesn’t say why. This doesn’t answer my question of what atheists believe but states what they don’t believe. I also find contradiction in that he says he does not want to live forever but then records pretty much everything that he does so that will live forever.

        • TheBlackCat13

          By definition, you CANNOT say what atheists believe merely by knowing they are an atheist, any more than you can tell what people who don’t collect stamps do for a hobby just by knowing they don’t collect stamps.

          By definition, the position of atheism is purely, solely, and exclusively a statement about what you don’t believe, just like not collecting stamps is purely, solely, and exclusively a statement about what you don’t do for a hobby.

    • Sven2547

      Depends on a person-to-person basis. There isn’t necessarily any particular thing that ALL atheists believe in.

      I believe that the basis for good government is to secure human rights. I believe that charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence are virtues vital to the perpetuation of a moral society. I believe that the Aristotelian philosophy of “Eudaimonia” is a noble goal of self-improvement that any person ought to aspire to.

      But those are just my beliefs.

    • Mario Strada

      I believe you could have found a better post to ask the question. How’s that?

      But since you asked, and I took the time to reply, here are some of the things I believe:

      I believe that raising my daughter to adulthood was one of the best things I have ever done in my life. I believe I could have done a better job, but I did what I could and things did turn out OK.

      I believe in empathy and in helping those less fortunate. I believe that knowledge is a wonderful thing and a worthy pursuit in life.

      I believe my wife and I were destined to grow old together and to take care of each other.

      I believe in Skepticism for the pursue of truth is one of the noblest things in life.

      I believe that death is a state similar to not being born.

      I believe we live in an ancient and vast universe that most certainly was not designed for our benefit, given the fact we inhabit a small part of a tiny speck of a planet in a remote solar system and we would die immediately if we tried to live anywhere else.

      I believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most elegant scientific theories ever devised and it explains magnificently how we came to be.

      I believe the young skydiver that died 10 years ago and whose organs I and several others are now using, was a hero for giving consent to harvest his organs as he was dying of his injuries. Because of him and his selflessness, because of the power of his convictions, my daughter grew up with a father, my wife grew older with a husband and many others can now see, live, laugh and love.

      I also believe that few things are sweeter than a well executed tennis backhand or as exhilarating as driving a race car or a motorcycle at the limit, throttle wide open, an inch from death.

      I think few musical pieces are as beautiful and powerful as Verdi’s Requiem (with the possible exception of Mozart’s) and I believe that few composers combined love, poetry and music as well as Giacomo Puccini.

      I do not believe in god. I do not exclude the possibility of a god existing, but first, I would need believers to agree among themselves. I don’t see that happening for a while.

      • Pepe

        Man, that was awesome!

      • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

        Thank you for answering my post. It’s intent was inquisitive and not malicious. I believe in everything you believe with three exceptions. 1) I do not believe that the postmortem state is similar to a state prior to conception 2) I believe that intelligent design and our inhabitence of earth are not mutually exclusive. 3) I think it is illogical to think that all theists need to share the same creed when atheists do not share the same creed.

        • Thackerie

          You still don’t get it. Atheists don’t have a creed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

            See this gives me an even bigger problem with atheism. If atheists don’t share the same creed than which atheist has the truth? If atheism doesn’t believe that it is possesses the truth then why should I bother with pursuing it. If atheists believe that they posess the truth and don’t share a creed then one possesses the truth and all others are not correct. Or all do not posess the truth.

            • TheBlackCat13

              Let me ask you this: 100 people meet up and agree that 2+2=4. Does that mean they have a creed? Does that mean all of them but one are wrong about what 2+2 equals?

              Of course not. They agree on the answer to one particular question. They don’t necessarily agree on any other question.

              A creed requires they agree on a lot of questions. But just like the 2+2=4 crowd, there is no reason you need a creed to agree on whether God exists, or whether chocolate is tasty, or whether baby frogs are cute. You can’t build a creed around a single question, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t find more than one person who agrees on the answer to that one question.

              • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

                So atheists only share one thing in common – disbelief in a supreme deity?

                • TheBlackCat13

                  YES! You finally get it.

                • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

                  Ok that was my question. It’s hard to argue with the atheist creed because they have no creed.

                • PietPuk

                  Or deities.

            • Thackerie

              You still still don’t get it.

              All atheism means is not believing in deities. That’s it. No creed. No church of St. Atheia. It’s not that we’re exclaiming that we possess The Truth™; just that we haven’t seen any convincing evidence of what theists claim is their “truth” in regards to god or gods.

              I don’t see why this is so hard for you to understand — unless you’re just pretending to be this ignorant so you can argue against atheism.

        • TheBlackCat13

          Correct, trying to argue against someone regarding a position they don’t hold is difficult.

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

      As others have mentioned, all atheists are different. To me, being an atheist isn’t even important. I’ve always been an atheist. It’s not a big deal. I admit that I get confused when asked what I “actually believe in” since not believing in a god doesn’t affect my daily life. I believe in all the same things other people believe in, minus the supernatural.

  • smrnda

    The notion that we are either a Christian or ‘pagan’ nation (I think it would be hard to call us a pagan nation, as very few people in the States are actual pagans) is mostly that the religious right has no concept of neutrality. To them, a secular state is the same as an evil Satanic empire, since you’re either 100% for Jesus or else a disciple of the anti-Christ.

    A point I try to make with these people is asking them how they’d like to live in say, Iran and be a religious minority. Under such circumstances you tend to think of the benefit of a neutral secular state, but I find most people who think this way are barely aware that the rest of the world exists.

  • onamission5

    I was unaware that the only religious choices left were christian or pagan. Where did all the other religions go?
    Ohhhhh, he means heathen. Bet he doesn’t know that the word pagan? Describes a whole bunch of different religious beliefs. Yup, I’d bet real money on that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

    I would like to apologize for asking my question on this post. It is just something that has been nagging at me for a while

    • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

      However it seems like the atheist church has no specific creed which makes me think that it is just another morally relativistic reactionary church that therefore has no authority

      • TheBlackCat13

        1. There is no such thing as the “atheist church”, just as there is no such thing as “the national society for non-stamp-collectors”

        2.”has no authority” and “morally relativistic” are not the same thing. You can derive your morality from something other than authority. In fact, in some ways an authority-based morality is more relativistic, since it is entirely determined by the authory (or in the case of religion, peoples’ interpretation of what that authority would think).

        3. There is nothing “reactionary” about atheism. The reactionary ones are the ones trying to roll back the progress we have made towards equal rights, by definition.

  • Amerist

    Wait, we can really decide to be a pagan nation? Wow, that would make me a member of the privileged class! Actually, I think that I’m more inclined to accept that the US is a secular nation and let religious privilege deflate away so that it’s easier to deal with other problems.

  • kaydenpat

    If the GOP decides to support marriage equality, those opposed to gay marriage would have to get over their bigotry. There are only 2 major political parties in the US. I don’t see a 3rd party becoming viable enough to make a difference on the national level.

    If the Supreme Court decides in favor of gay rights this Summer, the GOP may have no choice but to embrace marriage equality.

  • Robster

    Will losing the gay marriage debate be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? The way those tainted by religious belief are responding to this percieved threat would suggest that on losing it, they’ll give up god and the baby jesus, wine and crackers at church, that silly old book of theirs possibly even incense. They’d save money by letting the recently departed pope to return to decompose on site at the vatican and when he shuffles off, thay could can the whole pope thing and save a fortune. Surely they must realise that with the creator of the entire universe onside, to lose would suggest this creator fantasy if complete nonsense and move on being nice to everyone, not just the equally deluded.

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

    Another follow up question for atheists. How do you account for the growth or even the existence of the homosexual and still believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution. It seems as though you cannot believe in both as homosexuals do not the propagate the race

    • TheBlackCat13

      *sigh* Ignoring the fact that gay people can have children and always could, it is no more difficult evolutionarily than explaining why males have nipples. Evolution does not work on individuals. Traits that help members of a population survive more on average are likely to survive, even if they may negatively impact particular individuals.

      To put it in more concrete terms: there are sometimes men who fall in love with men because it is beneficial for women to be able to fall in love with men, just like men have nipples because it is beneficial for women to have nipples. (it works the other way around, too)

      There are numerous other plausible explanations, but this is one of the simpler ones.

      • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

        This doesn’t seem to explain the sudden increase of homosexuals in the past 50 years.

        • TheBlackCat13

          What makes you think there has been an increase? They have become more visible and open as society has become more accepting, but I have not seen any data to suggest they are becoming more common.

          • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

            sorry I replied to the wrong post. It is above. I understand that you have to take wikipedia with a grain of sand.

            • TheBlackCat13

              I see nothing there that shows any sort of trend in the number of homosexuals. The numbers are all over the place.

        • midnight rambler

          If there really has been an increase (which I think is extremely dubious and probably unprovable given how societal acceptance has changed, but possible), the leading reason can be summed up in one word: plastics.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I’ve been playing waaay too much Civilization V … when you research Plastics in the tech tree, the dude says something about the future blah blah blah one word: plastics.

            • midnight rambler

              Kids these days…

              [That's not what I was referring to, but it's where your line is from]

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                Oh ok, cool. Just to make you feel super old, I’ll let you know that movie is twenty years older than I am :P

      • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

        To compare male nipples to homosexuality seems illogical as male nipples are vestigial. Unless of course you think that homosexuality is vestigial. In which case why would you be pro homosexual?

        • TheBlackCat13

          No, male nipples are not vestigial, they are atavistic. An atavism is a trait that is not itself beneficial, but is the result of another trait that is beneficial. A vestigial trait is something that was once beneficial but is not anymore, or at least not as beneficial.

          But that is totally irrelevant. The evolutionary reason for a trait is meaningless from a social standpoint. The trait exists. People have it. I have seen no good reason to punish them for it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm
          • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

            Neither do I. But we aren’t punishing them for it. All of the tax benefits of marriage were designed to promote fecundity. Why should we allow people who do not procreate a benefit designed for people that do?

            • SphericalBunny

              “Why should we allow people who do not procreate a benefit designed for people that do?”

              Ah, so you would also insist on mandatory fertility tests for hetero couples wanting to marry, would ban marriage for older people and those that stated they didn’t want to procreate, and would make it so that married couples must have their legal status revoked once they became infertile by age, accident, illness or medical procedure? Tell me, how long should a couple be allowed to be married before the law forced them to breed or have their marriages dissolved?

            • TheBlackCat13

              Baloney. People who don’t procreate are able to get married just fine. There are no rules again marriage when one partner is sterile, no rules against marriage when neither party wants to have children, no rules against marriage when the woman is past menopause, and no punishment or fine for couples who don’t have children. Having children never has been and never has been a part of the rules regarding marriage.

              Further, marriage entails a lot of things that have nothing to do with child-rearing. For instance being able to make medical decisions for the spouse has nothing whatsoever to do with child-rearing.

              So no, I simply don’t buy that “All of the tax benefits of marriage were designed to promote fecundity”. There is nothing in the rules regarding the benefits, or the nature of the benefits themselves, that would imply that.

              Further, as I already pointed out gay couples can have children. They might need to adopt, they might need a sperm donor or surrogate mother, but they can and do raise children all the time, including children that are biologically related to one parent (or sometimes both, if they get a sperm donor or surrogate mother who is a relative).

    • SphericalBunny

      The theory of evolution does not mandate that every individual has to breed or OMG extinction1!11!! You might as well ask “How do you account for the growth or even the existence of the infertile and still believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution.” It would sound, and be, just as stupid.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      In hunter/gatherer or other “primitive” cultures, children with non-mated aunts and uncles fare better than children whose close relatives all have their own children. So while homosexual people may not breed, their genes are still more likely to propagate through the offspring of their siblings. Evolution is about the development of species, not the propagation of any individual. Otherwise death by childbirth (extremely common) would have spelled the end of humanity because some women died instead of breeding.

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Anna

      There are so many things wrong with this question that I would hardly know where to begin.

  • NoGayAllowed

    Don’t worry, sooner or later those freakin’ homos will be eradicated from this world along with “those peoples” who supports them :)
    deep in your heart you know this

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

    Last time I checked. Gay men and straight men ha exact same rights. In all 50 states Gay men are not allowed to marry other men. Straight men are not allowed to marry other men. Gay men can marry women. Straight men can marry women. And vise versa

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Yeah, just like white men could marry white women and black men could marry black women…

      idjit.

  • http://twitter.com/ETalicia talicia

    Homosexuality is no worse than the other sins. But it’s still a sin none the less, and it shouldn’t be condoned. We don’t condone adultery, pedos or sex with the family pet, and we shouldn’t condone this either. I agree with Rand Paul, just get marriage out of government altogether. That’s better than it being redefined and perverted.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X