June 6, 2013

In your words: Views of same-sex marriage, homosexuality

In several nationwide surveys the Pew Research Center conducted in 2013, we gave respondents the opportunity to give their thoughts about issues related to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Here is a sampler of what our survey respondents said — in their own words — that reflects the breadth of the public’s views on these topics.

While responses above are about different aspects of the debate, and are from different surveys, these questions present a range of voices and look at what’s changed, and what hasn’t, in the American public’s thinking on the issue. Of course, these questions aren’t mutually exclusive: Just because one supports legalizing gay marriage does not mean that he or she necessarily accepts homosexuality and the reverse may be true.

Our complete series, “LGBT in Changing Times,” includes new surveys, interactive data visuals, maps and legal analysis.

Now, it’s your turn. Do any of these voices speak to you? Tell us your own views on gay marriage and homosexuality in the comments section.

Topics: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality, Social Values

  1. Photo of Sara Goo

    is Senior Digital Editor at the Pew Research Center.

Leave a Comment

Or

All comments must follow the Pew Research comment policy and will be moderated before posting.

106 Comments

  1. steve3 weeks ago

    gay marriage is going to happen if we like it or not, I do not think same sex should get married, but that is my opinion. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

    Reply
  2. RexTIII7 months ago

    I look forward to the very near future, when those who consider themselves superior in their natural way of being will have fewer places to rant and rave about people they don’t know anything about. The shrill of voices, all knowing and yet knowing nothing at all will find a new issue to captivate their desire of condemnation. The simple nature of humanity is what it is, our sexual attractions and those we fall in love with are who we are. For a majority of human beings it is someone of the opposite ‘gender’ while for many millions of others it is someone of the same gender, a ratio consistent throughout history.

    Many of those who consider themselves superior human beings as we ride through our lives, short moments of time here on our shared Planet Earth, are completely unable to even learn to use a language of understanding. Fortunately, Marriage Equality throughout the United States and the entire Westernized World will soon be a matter of complete legal reality. Those who find their lives ruined as a result, will be but a few and with no evidence in hand proving how the legal protections shared by all loving couples and their families was the cause of their individual ruin.

    Carry On.

    Reply
  3. your choice11 months ago

    However, even if a person believes that homosexuality is a sin based upon this scripture, the next verse does say that homosexuals can inherit the kingdomif they come to the Lord, Jesus Christ.1 Corinthians 6:11 – “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (NIV)

    Reply
  4. your choice11 months ago

    One of the most greatly debated scriptures regarding homosexuality is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NIV).

    Reply
  5. 131 year ago

    at 13 I have many strong opinions and am according to most humorless. I think homosexuality is wrong but that does not mean that I think we should throw insults at them. we need to treat them with respect and like any other person on the streets. I am a Christian and I hate the way I see other believers of god abusing their faith by using it to degrade others. in fact the way they answer with their faith is unacceptable. the bible says to love others not tear them down. though I do believe homosexuality concept was and is not the way God designed sexuality or relationships to be. we were made to be above animals and by saying that ‘animals do it so why can’t we is degrading yourself and others. I know many of you will not like this comment and will degrade my beliefs but I think everyone’s voice should be heard young and old gay lesbian or straight

    Reply
  6. J.L. Reebel1 year ago

    How can people who claim to want a moral stable society be against
    the marriage of same sex couples? Marriage is an institution that
    promotes stability and morality. How can anybody be so against anything
    that fosters love and fidelity, especially in these times. Family you say?
    same sex couples don’t usually procreate. They adopt. This is an
    additional benefit to society.

    Reply
  7. Wm Stanley1 year ago

    I have expressed my views and logics about same-sex marriage over the past few years. While tolerant – All folk are just people and children of the same spiritual parents/source. Here are some broader views on the subject:

    There is according to science great power and affinity for like beings and even at a cellular level. There is a shared reality, closeness and communication that is only possible among those of a like makeup. At the same time despite the mutual attraction there is potential rejection or repulsion when two items are too attached. At the physical level there is the phenomena of magnets – while connected the particles align and work together – when broken the pieces immediately reverse in a polar realignment. Another example: Our blood marries with oxygen in the lungs and then exchanges these molecules that in turn nourish the rest of the body. But there is a far greater affinity when single oxygen molecules (0-) be available, as in the case of Carbon Monoxide. Thus with hemoglobin in the blood is attached to the O ion there is no release and no exchange with the rest of the body. And thus when there is too high a percentage of the O ion in the blood suffocation (not poisoning) occurs! Smokers may experience a shortness of breath – low oxygen levels – so that more O2 can arrive in the blood stream. A low percent of partial combustion is always present. As the proportion increases the quality of health decreases. This same analogy holds true for society – There must be an exchange of genetic material sufficient to compensate for the attrition of bodies in a civilization. When the percentage exceeds a certain level that body or society will perish. This observation has been true for all bodies and social groups. There must be an exchange.

    Now what is the objection to plural unions and families? At this time multiple sex marriage is now legal in the United States! How? Here is an example: In some States same sex unions are recognized, but not in the others. Therefore two couples of same sex marriages in one state could wed partners of the opposite sex in a state that refused recognition of the homosexual union. Thus plural marriage can be legal in the United States.

    NB: This commentary is not intended to offend or deny the rights or proprieties of anyone, but to encourage a broader viewpoint and level of tolerance and understanding.

    Reply
  8. James Walker1 year ago

    Here is the rub — expecting the masses that have no inclination to please their Creator God to live according to His directives which lead to full and wholesome lives and communities. It is unrealistic to expect non-Christians to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ and Scriptures. There are those who pursue Biblical righteousness and there are those who could not care less about what Scriptures tell us. The Bible relates the Will of God to those who care about His will in their lives. Notice the comments: “my rights”; “I believe in gay rights”; etc. etc. Me, my and mine! It is not natural for human beings to ask, “What would the Lord have my life to be? What will please the loving God who created me.” These are the question that genuine Christians ask. Yes, we Christians would love to live in a society that reflects God’s will for human kind. Regrettably, the same Scriptures we espouse are the Scriptures that tell us that the world will be wallowing in depravity when Jesus returns to this earth. Meanwhile Jesus said, do not “cast your pearls among the swine” where they will be trodden under foot. Many of us Christians only reap hatred and anger from the homosexual community when we try to give the pearls of God’s Will from the Scripture. There are struggling souls who long to here what God has ordained for their lives; but they are a rarity when compared to the masses demanding the unrighteousness is righteous. Truly — God wants we who profess to love Him and want to be with Him for all eternity to live our lives according to His teachings. It is unrealistic to expect anyone else to do so.

    Reply
    1. Daria Blase1 year ago

      The Lord is great. The Bible is inerrant.

      Leviticus 26:29
      King James Version:
      “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”
      New Century Version:
      “You will eat the bodies of your sons and daughters.”

      Numbers 31:17
      King James Version:
      “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”
      New Century Version:
      “Kill all the Midianite boys, and kill all the Midianite women who have had sexual relations.”

      Luke 14:26
      King James Version:
      “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
      New Century Version:
      “”If anyone comes to me but loves his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters – or even life – more than me, he cannot be my follower.”

      Nuff said.

      Reply
    2. PerhapsLove11 months ago

      You over simplify the issue. You assume there is Christian and there is homosexual. You either are a Christian and take the Bible literally or are a depraved homosexual lost to God. News flash there are a large number of devout gay Christians. They are not mutually exclusive. I know many LGBT clergy who were called into service by God. A few are in 20+ year relationships. They are gifted teachers. You can be gay and pursue “Biblical righteousness” as you put it. Amazingly most Christian LGBT people I know are well versed in the Bible and the deeper meanings behind the words. Besides did not David have love for Jonathan “more than that of women”?

      Reply
  9. shenry1 year ago

    The new testament clearly tells us that living the gay lifestyle is sin. Check it out for yourself. Google a searchable bible & search keyword homosexual. More than once scripture tells the reader that its sin. He says to confess & repent of sin. I don’t believe homosexuality is reversable. Yhis my opinion. But like other wrongs can be halted by God’s grace if you pray for His help. Jesus tols a prostitute to “go & sin no more”. He’s a caring compassionate God. He loves everyone.

    Reply
    1. Daria Blase1 year ago

      The Bible is truth.

      Leviticus 26:29
      King James Version:
      “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”
      New Century Version:
      “You will eat the bodies of your sons and daughters.”

      Numbers 31:17
      King James Version:
      “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”
      New Century Version:
      “Kill all the Midianite boys, and kill all the Midianite women who have had sexual relations.”

      Luke 14:26
      King James Version:
      “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
      New Century Version:
      “”If anyone comes to me but loves his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters – or even life – more than me, he cannot be my follower.”

      Amen. Spread the Word.

      Reply
    2. Wm Stanley1 year ago

      The Bibles (Yes there are more than one) put down truths for a successful and lasting civilization. We should heed well lest we perish. Please read my postings elsewhere for a broader view on this subject. Perhaps you might put your views in language that would be understood by those who may not yet agree that the Christian Bible is God’s law. There are more that do not agree than accept the Holy Scriptures.

      Reply
    3. PerhapsLove11 months ago

      The New Testament says no such thing about “living the gay lifestyle”. If you actually studied the Scriptures you would know that in ancient Biblical societies there was no such concept of “living a gay lifestyle.” That doesn’t mean that men did not have sexual relations with other men or women with women. But reality check the whole notion of “sexual relations” was different 2-3,000 years ago than it is today. Also if you truly studied scripture you would know that the word “homosexual” that you Google with the Bible NEVER appeared in any translation prior to 1947. So for 2,000 year the word and concept did not exist. The context by Paul is quite different than what we see with two same gender people in loving committed relations and was more geared towards references to male temple prostitutes and male to male rape. Problem with Google references is you see someone else’s opinions and take that as gospel. Try reading and studying the Bible for yourself and not just the words but the societal contexts of the writings.

      Reply
  10. Kaleb1 year ago

    The only abomination and sin is religious vitriol.

    Reply
  11. verbs1 year ago

    There is nothing wrong with encouraging the acceptance homosexuality and bisexuality in society. It certainly won’t hurt anyone. It should be seen as normal and equal to heterosexuality, because it is! A huge benefit to society is that same-sex couples can adopt babies to give them a loving home and family.

    Reply
  12. fred1 year ago

    The argument of people who oppose same sex marriage is very simple——it is against the will of the Almighty God… may the people who support this type of marriage acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and be Born Again. Holy Spirit will guide them to a Godly decision…

    Reply
    1. Daria Blase1 year ago

      Yes, the argument is simple. “God” exists and the Bible is infallible.

      Leviticus 26:29
      King James Version:
      “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”
      New Century Version:
      “You will eat the bodies of your sons and daughters.”

      Numbers 31:17
      King James Version:
      “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”
      New Century Version:
      “Kill all the Midianite boys, and kill all the Midianite women who have had sexual relations.”

      Luke 14:26
      King James Version:
      “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
      New Century Version:
      “If anyone comes to me but loves his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters – or even life – more than me, he cannot be my follower.”

      Welcome to the 21st century.

      Reply
  13. nomikhan1 year ago

    i belive that gays have right to live togather.if we have attrection for each other why we feel shy.people using many bed ways in female sex which has side effects and same in gay sex but we should care of these ways other way i love live as gay

    Reply
    1. Michael Patterson1 year ago

      nomikhan…………. The very fact that you choose to participate in sodomy is proof that you are of a despicable, disgusting sub human nature.

      Reply
  14. Tony1 year ago

    I believe that gays should have the right to coexsist also the right to benefit from insurance , social security , inheritance , etc. But I do not believe a relationship between two men or two women is the same thing , if it were the same these gay couples could naturally produce children . Let these people have civil unions , but gays please leave marriage alone if your parents thoght like You , You probaly wouldnt exsist

    Reply
    1. PerhapsLove11 months ago

      So you are saying that straight couples who marry later in life and are not able to have children should have civil unions and not be allowed to marry? Or infertile couples who do not want children should only be permitted to have civil unions? Then what about people who live together but have children…out of wedlock?
      Your argument does not hold up to scrutiny

      Reply
  15. Jamie1 year ago

    Homosexuality is an abomination because it is against Science,Biology,Nature and most of all, it is against the teachings of Jesus Christ/The Bible.

    Reply
    1. Daria Blase1 year ago

      The truth hurts. Gay lions, ducks, swans, dogs, dolphins, giraffes, and much more have been caught in the act.
      youtube.com/watch?v=Q8gttC6P3bE
      youtube.com/watch?v=OuHRpVhy258
      Welcome to the Info Age. Ignorance is not an excuse.

      Reply
    2. PerhapsLove11 months ago

      It is very natural within the animal kingdom and if you read your Bible you would know that Jesus made absolutely NO comments against same gender relations. In fact Jesus cured the “pais” or boy servant of the Roman centurion. In those times the “pais” usually (but not always) had sexual overtones.

      Reply
  16. Michael Patterson1 year ago

    They’re different. They know they’re different. They insist on being different. They will always be different. They have their own social make-up within our society. So is it not rational for them to be viewed differently by common society? Marriage or civil union, they will still be different! Some will tolerate them and some won’t. In my opinion, improper sexual preference is not the problem, it is the indication that there is a problem.

    Reply
  17. kursan1 year ago

    I don’t believe that a civilization which has incorporated this social form will continue. Pope Benedict said it all: love the human but condemn the behavior

    Reply
  18. Tonya Campbell1 year ago

    The beliefs of the public is so messed up. People have the right to be happy it is a right that was given to us all many many years ago, they scream seperation of church and state (that has truly never happened) I am not gay but I do believe in gay rights I am 53 years old and have always thought this way. What is everyone so affraid of your child seeing a man with a man a woman with a woman. That would only say to them our country is truly free to love who we wish. And on another.note the benifits alone with the cost of.marraige licence and then a copy beforr.you can even change your.name and then the cost of changing your.drivers licence hell to state makes money. I know.I just got married. The church needs to stay out.of.the affairs of.the government and visa versa. I am all for gay marriages, be in love, be happy, spend your life.with the one that gives you that.

    Reply
  19. Katelynn1 year ago

    I couldn’t change even if I wanted to.

    Reply
  20. Katelynn1 year ago

    Let us have equal rights!

    Reply
  21. Katelynn1 year ago

    I am a lesbian and so is my sister. We couldn’t change even if we wanted to. I mean I know this country and these states started on the word of god and te bible, but that’s a book written over 3,500 years ago. This book we so call the bible could be false and it could be a nonfiction book. In the bible “God” says not to judge somebody but, you judge us. Why can’t we just love who we want to love? I respect the straight people and I respect us gays, and lesbians. I respect the gays and lesbians more because we stand up and don’t give a damn what people think. Thank you.
    -Katelynn

    Reply
  22. Ediie1 year ago

    LGBT’s (or whatever acronym they’ve come up with and/or adopted in order to purposely single themselves out and exclude themselves from others in society) think they are entitled to special rights above and beyond what they rest of us enjoy. Equality my butt. being opposed to the idea of people attempting to redefine a word to make it fit a lifestyle it doesn’t.. is NOT infringement on ones right. If that’s the case then single people are having their rights violated too, because they don’t have the same rights as gay
    “married” people when it comes t to state and federal benefits.

    Reply
    1. PerhapsLove11 months ago

      Your bias shines through when you reference “they”. The LGBT community is NOT trying to exclude “themselves” from society. In fact we are working hard to become part of society. There are NO special rights and you are echoing the rhetoric of right wing hate groups without an understanding. Attempting (and badly I might add) to a comparison by stating single people are having their rights violated too is preposterous. Two people who are in love and committed and want to share a life together should be allowed to have a legally recognized “marriage”. Marriage is a secular institution licensed by the state and is not required to be a religious sacrament. Straight people have redefined “marriage” over the past 2,000 years. Up until recently it was primarily a financial transaction not rooted in love in any way. Biblically marriage was polygamous with Solomon having 700 wives.

      Reply
  23. Stacey1 year ago

    If you truly believe in American ideals, then you believe in equality for all. It is that simple. LGBTQ people should have the right to marry and the right to equal protection under the law.

    Reply
  24. 12 year old female1 year ago

    for those over religious people who think gay marriage is punishable by god:

    you beleive that your god created all men, right? The god you worship then also created homosexuals. But, you say homosexuals shall be tortured by god because of their views. So, the god you worship creates certain people just to punish and torture them. then, you beleive in evil, YOU practically worship the DEVIL. your beleifs contradict themselves.

    there is also homosexuality in the animal kingdom. So if it is so unnatural, than why does it appear so much?

    Reply
  25. Steve1 year ago

    As a teenager in the late 60’s I remember looking for information in my library about homosexuality. To my horror it was all tragic, ugly and horrible. I can still remember the day I spotted a copy of Time Magazine with a cover of two men walking hand-in-hand with the cover “Is Gay Good?”. I had never heard of gay before, but it was the first time I had ever read or seen anything about that was not ugly and horrible. And to read about the Stonewall was beyond thrilling. I nearly floated out of my body. I can still remember the smells and sight of the library where I read this over 40 years latter. It took many more years to finally come completely out and deprogram myself of the self-hatred the Catholic Church tried to instill in me. In 1969 a Gallup poll of Americans found that 2/3 thought Gay people were criminals deserving of prison and the other third thought we were mentally ill deserving of treatment. Really progressive sates like California thought lobotomy was especially effective and kind to us. In the 19060’s we stood completely alone. Not even the Communist Party would have anything to do with us and they were really desperate. Yes things have changed dramatically, but not without a long, difficult struggle.

    I have seen a journey from the days of the universal closet, to the heady days of Stonewall to the wild 1970’s, to the plague days, to the time of the Gay Renaissance. What a ride, and not always pleasant. I stopped counting at 80 the number of friends and loved ones I lost to the plague. The struggle goes on. When will it end? The year that the Gay Pride in NY is cancelled because everyone is to busy shopping for bargains at the Pride Day specials at department stores. We are not there yet, but we are so much closer then farther away.

    Thank you to all those righteous straights that helped us along the way. Thank you to all those who came around. It has been a long wait.

    Reply
  26. John1 year ago

    I am among those who believe that the homosexual lifestyle is a chosen lifestyle. There has been much research attempting to show that there is a gene responsible for this situation, but nothing of consequence point in that direction. Unfortunately in these relationships there is much violence, serious medical consequences in many cases. It is beyond me why anyone would encourage this behavior with all the negative aspects that result. Some married people, apparently mostly men, leave their family including children and chose the homosexual lifestyle. These actions are celebrated and encouraged without even thinking about the children involved and the effect of losing one of the parents in a family. Although some are able to successfully raise productive children in a family with two parents of the same gender time after time it has been shown that neither parent is expendable in the opposite gender family. It appears that children do better when they are blessed to have both parents for role models. Both boys and girls need a same gender role model to help them struggle their way through all the influences that the world presents to them. Since the children are the most important part of family life giving them all the advantages possible to be productive members of society is to me the most appropriate path to take. I believe that to suggest or encourage any other path is wrong.

    Reply
  27. Alan Rafe1 year ago

    The need for the state of marriage is for the protection of the female and her children. If two same sex people wish to live together,that is a decision they must take themselves. but mostly will be unrelated to the protection of children I could agree to live with my dog,and this may be a good partnership, but it would not be marriage Marriage must be between one female and one male,for the production and protection of the family group Two same sex people may need the love and support of another person,but it cannot be marriage,and at best can only be a personal choice partnership between two people who feel for each other and have a need to study the interests and well being of another person.

    Reply
    1. RS1 year ago

      So you mean to say that two people of opposite sex can’t marry if they don’t want any children? Your views are narrow-minded and ignorant. You don’t seem to realize that the romanticized view of marriage so popular today is fundamentally different from what it originally was.

      Women used to be the property of their fathers until said fathers basically sold them into marriage with dowry as payment. These women then became the property of their husbands. If the married couple had male children and the father died, the mother would become the property of the male children. Marriage had only ever been an economic arrangement until laws recognized women’s rights and forbade dowries, and until media depictions of romance and love altered the public image of marriage. The only thing which currently prohibits same-sex couples from official marriage is the law regarding marriage.

      While you are mostly correct to claim that marriage has only really been an arrangement between men and women (not entirely, as some religious ceremonies have existed for centuries to acknowledge and celebrate a union between same-sex couples), historically, men have been allowed to marry multiple wives, and this aspect of marriage has been glorified in the religious texts of every major religion.

      Your comparison of same-sex marriage to your relationship with your dog seems to imply more about your relations with your dog than it does about same-sex marriage.

      Reply
  28. TJ1 year ago

    Romans 1 clearly describes homosexuality as being a perversion of God’s design for human sexuality. Despite the popular notion that this is merely a matter of civil rights and equality, God’s natural law trumps any civil or personal feelings on the matter. Within the gay community we have seen higher rates of drug use, promiscuity, depression, suicide, and disease which are largely ignored by our popular media who romanticize homosexuality and demonize those who express anything less than total acceptance of it. I realize that we live in a nation that consist of many religious and non-religious philosophies, many of which do not acknowledge the Bible’s authority in matters of national policy and I respect a persons free will when comes to personal belief. When it comes to the issue of gay marriage however are we to allow two men or two women to marry and then deny a bi-sexual person the right to marry a person(s) of either or both sexes. If bi-sexuals are permitted to have more than one spouse, what about those who would practice polygamy. The implications of the restructuring of marriage in the name of equality has the potential to fundamentally erode the functionality of family and of our society. For those bound to homosexuality I would say that God does love you and he is gracious and merciful despite our sinful ways. He does command us to confess sin rather than seeking legal liscense for it though.

    Reply
    1. RS1 year ago

      The U.S. officially prohibits the governmental institution of religion. Your point about God’s natural law trumping Civil law is moot here, as it clearly does not.

      You can site all the biblical references you like but you seem to ignore one of the most important Christian tenets: Judge not lest you be judged.

      As for your claim of higher rates of depression, can you really blame gay people for feeling depressed to the point of drug use and suicide? Think of all they’ve had to endure. They have people like you who seem to view and treat them as “less than.” They face discrimination, physical violence, and psychological abuse (many on a daily basis). Until the late 1960’s they couldn’t even legally congregate in the U.S. They still face execution in some countries, most of which follow religious laws. In the 1980’s-90’s they had to watch as everyone they knew slowly wasted away from AIDS (don’t blame promiscuity for this disease; many people who never had sex developed AIDS). If society had largely treated gay people as anyone else, most of these things would not now be nor would have ever been an issue, including same-sex marriage.

      I find it mildly offensive that you presume all bisexual people to be poly-amorous. Suffice it to say that bisexuality has only to do with the number of sexes which elicit one’s arousal and nothing to do with the sex of one’s partner(s). A bisexual person might only ever engage with members of one sex and not the other, and this person might also only engage with one person at a time (or even ever); this does not affect the potential for both sexes to elicit this person’s arousal.

      Marriage has nothing to do with family. Many happily married couples have no children and never intend to have any. Marriage really has nothing at all to do with love, either. Many people marry for money or social status. Marriage has only ever been an economic and social arrangement to manage the transmission of property (i.e. women). You really can’t separate the defense of “traditional” marriage from the objectification of women, even if you try to use the wedge of “true love” or the cudgel of child rearing. Even if you were to try, same-sex couples have proven capable of long, loving relationships and of raising children just as well as male-female couples (studies have shown this to be the case, the children just need loving parent figures, regardless of the biological sex of said figures).

      Reply
    2. PerhapsLove11 months ago

      You clearly misinterpret Romans 1 to fit your political agenda. When studied deeper the word Paul uses “para physin” in closest modern translation means “against nature”. In the context Paul uses it is quite probable that his warning is against heterosexual men participating in relations with other men which is not natural for that person. But as there was not a general understanding of homosexuality it can also apply in modern context that for a gay man or woman to engage in relations with the opposite gender would be against their particular nature. As God created all humankind and all creatures he created same gender some of these with same gender attractions. Throughout nature these same gender attractions exist so it is not “unnatural”. You reference higher rates of drug use, suicide depression etc among the LGBT community and this is true but mainly because Christians cast judgment and make these people feel less than whole and shamed. It is the pressure from Christians who should be loving their neighbor that cause most of this societal phenomena. And as for your bisexual polygamy claim I will only say that Solomon in the Bible had 700 wives and God allowed that.

      Reply
  29. agustin beaver1 year ago

    I’m tired of the gay marriage debate!! When the solution its so simple, legalize gay marriage!! But make their divorce forbidding, both sides win, everybody, gay I mean happy!!

    Reply
  30. Enielsy Sierra1 year ago

    I think Love is love No matter what. who are we to think otherwise. if to people love each other then they deserve to get marry. it’s not up to some stupid church/religion to determine that. i think the church and all the bigots who are being prejudiced to a group of people, don’t know what love is all about. they dwell in the bible to much. the bible is just literature not an everyday dogma. it’s better to love than hate. Remember that.

    Reply
  31. Maggie1 year ago

    My issue isn’t with the 2 people that want to be together, they can do what they want, I was taught hate the act not the person. My issue is that they want to call it Marriage. They are trying to change the definition of a word that has been around for centuries. the definition is a union between 1 man and 1 woman. Why don’t they just come up with another name for it. I’m sure that if enough people brain stormed they could come up with a name that would suit everyone involved.

    Reply
    1. RS1 year ago

      Why bother to hate at all? Why do you even care what people call it? How does calling the union of two people of the same sex “marriage” damage you in any way?

      These people want to focus on the “union” part of the definition (the most defining characteristic of “marriage”). “One man and one woman” means nothing without the “union.”

      Reply
  32. Allan Mills1 year ago

    When my son was young, he asked me about it. I took him outside for a walk.

    We looked at our dogs, and I asked him “what would happen if one of those male dogs jumped on the back of another male dog, and tried to breed him?”

    Then we walked past the chickens, and I asked him “what would be the result of one rooster mounting another, looking for some romance?”

    We went to the hog barn, and he got the same question.

    Then we walked out to the pasture and I asked him the same about the bulls.

    The boy was brought up in the country, so he immediately knew the correct answer, to all of my questions. “Something is about to die!”

    The moral of this story, “It ain’t natural”.

    I will not get all caught up in the moral issues involved, but I say to look around you at nature, if you want to know what is natural and what its not.

    Reply
    1. RS1 year ago

      Your points are ignorant of the fact that the natural order of the animal kingdom includes well-documented instances of homosexuality. This is not merely an issue of dominance, nor is it an issue of animals in captivity. Wild animals often engage in same-sex sex for recreation and affection. What is not natural is animals forming lynch mobs to torture and kill the animals who do engage in homosexual activity. That’s an entirely human invention.

      The animal kingdom is not nearly as simple as your captive farm animals’ lives would lead you to believe. Some species are entirely hermaphroditic (mostly invertebrates). Some species reproduce without sex (not just single-celled organisms, vertebrates as well). Some species engage in ritual slaughter of mates after intercourse. Some species will even mate with deceased partners (see: ducks). Hell, if you’ve ever owned a male dog, you should know that most animals don’t know another member of their species from your leg. My point is that although you live closer to nature than most, you really seem to know little about it.

      Maybe your boy “knew” the answer because of what you taught him: bigotry.

      Reply
  33. Ginny Monroe1 year ago

    Human gender and sexuality is determined by each person’s DNA. The past 10+ years have brought so much scientific information to us about the role DNA plays in making us each the unique individual we become. I believe this information is gradually helping those who were raised to hate homosexuals or people experiencing true gender issues
    to seriously consider the possibility that because of each person’s unique DNA we are born straight, gay, lesbian or experience transgender issues.

    Reply
    1. TJ1 year ago

      Care to share what “scientific information” you’re basing your comments on? The ever elusive “gay gene” remains just that. Do more research before manufacturing a reality that does not exist.

      Reply
      1. RS1 year ago

        Actually, science is not likely to find any one “gay gene,” and I for one am glad of this fact because once that happens, some bigots with money will fund the “cure” for homosexuality.

        Current research indicates that sexuality results from a combination of genetic factors, environmental exposure to hormones in the womb, and environmental exposure after birth. Sexuality even ebbs and flows with changes in hormonal balance from puberty through adolescence and into adulthood. I’m too lazy to cite sources, so do a Something search.

        Reply
  34. John1 year ago

    Gay marriage is unnatural act between two people of the same sex. If everyone was gay the human race would expire, it is obvious that this issue is push by gays and liberals because it serves their purpose. It is not the design that God had for humans and gays want people to justify their unnatural relationships.

    Reply
    1. EasttoAK1 year ago

      I am wondering what the shelf life of this latest argument is (“marriage is all about procreation!”). John, people aren’t stupid – they realize that gay marriage doesn’t have a negative effect on the heterosexual birth rate. Nothing else has ever stopped the straights from having lots of sex – gay marriage certainly won’t infringe upon it.

      It is sort of fun watching the anti-gay folks try to come up with new excuses when the general public (inevitably) rejects their old ones. If everyone was gay? Well, if everyone was suddenly turned into a frog, that would cause the end of the human race, too. Should we ban frogs? But keep it up John. Every time folks like you speak, another group of Americans cringe and turn the other way.

      Reply
    2. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

      If human sexuality is a gift from god, then how many more gays must he create in order for you to accept us. It was once thought that being born with black skin or interracial marriage was “not the design that god had for humans”. Society changes for the better of all people and equality is not an agenda but is a fundamental human right.

      Reply
    3. RS1 year ago

      So, what then is the gay purpose? To end humanity? If you believe that, then you must be way way way too deep into the whole religion thing to be able to accept that gay people are just people who happen to feel attraction for other people of the same sex. People like you are too self-centered to view anyone else’s perspective. You smack of paranoid cynicism, so you probably think that the Devil put gays and liberals on Earth to convince you to sin so he can take your soul to Hell.

      Newsflash: the world does not revolve around you; other people exist and have unique thoughts and feelings of their own.

      Reply
    4. 12 year+old+female1 year ago

      Maybe it is unnatural, but people have the right to be happy.

      Reply
    5. PerhapsLove11 months ago

      John gay marriage is not unnatural. It may be unnatural for you but it is clearly natural for 3%-5% of the population. The argument “If everyone was gay…” is stupid. God created all people…even LGBT people….and only an estimated 3-5% of the population identifies as LGBT. So you 97% need not worry. But that is like saying “If everyone was white…” or “If everyone was 6 feet tall…”or “If everyone had an IQ of 100 or more…” Hopefully even you can see how prejudicial such claims are. But I will say if everyone had an IQ of 100 or more we would not even be debating this issue and it would be clear that for some people same gender love is natural and they have a right to happiness and relationships and marriage.

      Reply
  35. John McMahon1 year ago

    Marriage is a contract between the state and a couple(whatever their genders). Religion is not part of it. Don’t try to force your religious views on me. Reading the bible in its ORIGINAL languages changes many things. Plus 21st century American know NOTHING of the customs of nomadic tribesmen, the Jews and others living in the area of the near east. Many books were LEFT out of the bible . Do you still try to believe that Christ as a good Jew did NOT have a wife or children nor his disciples. 8 other disciples, his mother or father could not write about the saying and time spent with Jesus? The bible is cherry-picked material, some clergy didn’t want published because it diminished clerical power over believers.
    Women a that time are nothing more than chattel! Property nothing more. All the concubines in bible plus multiple wives and you guys hold this book up as an example of ‘righteous”: living. When the clergy stops raping the congregation ONLY then will I listen to their words. They are hypocrites.
    Please let me practice MY RELIGION & I won’t force mine on you. I want FULL & EQUAL rights of every free American, nothing less will do. Canada, Spain, Portugal Italy etc are functioning fine with same sex marriage. The downfall of civilization is a LIE to perpetuate PREJUDICE, HATRED and IGNORANCE.

    Reply
  36. Vitaly Klitschko1 year ago

    There are only two legitimate manifestations of sex. One for procreation. The other transmutation in order to create what is called the ‘soul': a finer body inside the physical body that will survive death. This knowledge is the hidden kernel of every major religion. For example, Catholicism and Buddhism mortify the flesh because the flesh is “evil”. This is not for any arbitrary reason, but because the inertia and habits of the body oppose the Will. If a man is to attain personal power, especially power over himself, he must deny the body. Hence the practice of chastity and sexual abstinence by monks. It is why Carlos Castaneda admired chaste monks. This is also why the Buddhists teach the virtue of suffering. Because suffering is the fire which allows inner transformation to take place and a man to become immortal.

    As in hermetic philosophy of “as above so below”, the major religions are based on the notion of natural law. That cosmic laws are fixed and immutable. This also explains the notion of Original Sin.

    What homosexuals must understand is that transmutation is impossible in a crippled or perverted organism. Unless the man or woman suffers – by denying the body through what is called intentional suffering and conscious labor – they have no future of any kind. The physical body returns to dust. Modern society creates an enormous number of sexual psychopaths who can never be either real men or women, but are instead a third sex – what has been described in Russia as “prostitutes in trousers”. Generally speaking, this is the result of childhood onanism.

    Reply
    1. RS1 year ago

      Your esoteric religious B.S. is rambling and nearly unreadable. I will include as my response the third, perfectly legitimate, “manifestation” for sex: recreation–to stave off boredom and/or produce enjoyment.

      To deny the body is to deny the self. To deny the needs of the body is to damage the mind and spirit (in this case, I use “spirit” not in reference to any incorporeal form which can exist without the body and mind but in reference to what comprises one’s personality). Do not deny, rather embrace. Embrace the expression of love for another human being.

      Reply
    2. PerhapsLove11 months ago

      It is also why the Catholic Church is paying out MILLIONS of $$$ to settle claims against pedophilic priests. Sex is not just for procreation, that concept isn’t even believed by straight Christians in the 21st century.

      Reply
  37. Willem1 year ago

    We gays want equal rights like all other Americans, nothing more nothing less.
    As for same sex marriage if it wasn’t for homophobic churches this probably would be a non-issue,
    And in a few more years it will be just that, like in many European countries.
    Many churches have poisoned this issue while they worried too much about our sexual performances their priest and bishops were raping little girls and boys.

    Reply
    1. simon1 year ago

      You mean homosexual priests and homosxual bishops…you so conveniently forgot to mention. When sodomy becomes legal, then the act you described would just be an act of affection…..how convoluted your web becomes

      Reply
  38. Anthony :)1 year ago

    Legalizing same-sex marriage won’t keep males from liking males or females for liking females. I am gay, and personally I don’t really care a whole hell of a lot about if same-sex marriage is legal or not because I love my boyfriend and it really won’t change if the government approves of it or not.

    Reply
    1. Laura1 year ago

      @ Anthony.

      Good for you. That’s how it ought to be. No one is precluding you from leaving all your savings and material possessions to your boyfriend – all you need is a Last Will and Testament, like the rest of us. This document also includes a Power of Attorney for everything.

      BTW, the legalization of same-sex marriage is just a means to an end, and does not give a bloody care about homosexual. It is all about Power. Once that power is secured, they will determine what we have/don’t have. The October Revolution of 1917 did away with the entire Criminal Code, and the new Russian Criminal Codes of 1922 and 1926 eliminated the offence of muzhelozhstvo (homosexuals) from the law. In 1933, Stalin criminalized the behavior. есть хороший день

      Reply
    2. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

      Anthony: I too am a gay man and feel very sad that you don’t care if people like us are allowed to marry or not. It is exactly what the homophobic people want you to believe. A kind of “Jim Crow” of the gay community that will take what the authorities give us. Marriage is about 1,100 + laws that come into effect after it is made legal, but most of all it is about love and proclaiming our love for our partner to the world. This clip from YouTube will hopefully help you understand why I stand so vigorously on this issue.:
      youtube.com/watch?v=2xxpd3Ye0zA
      Hopefully you get a good laugh out of it as I did.

      Reply
  39. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

    Gay marriage is about equality, not a religious definition of a word. Traditional biblical marriage has been changed and is no longer allowed because it involved polygamy. David, Solomon, etc. all had several wives and saw women as a commodity to be traded for land or livestock. Once you remove the religious components and assumptions from this argument then you have no logical, scientific reason for opposing me from marrying whomever I wish; whether male or female. In the end, equality is inevitable and love conquers all.

    Reply
    1. simon1 year ago

      The premise to support gay people redefining marriage is based on conflating the definition of marriage with redefining marriage. The argument to support gay people redefining marriage looks like this:

      1. The definition of marriage is the union of two people who love each other.
      2. Gay people are being denied the right to marry.
      3. Therefore, gay people are being discriminated against.

      This argument gives the illusion of discrimination that isn’t there. Why? Because both premise #1 and #2 are false. The argument uses a slight of hand trick. They change the definition of marriage before they make their argument.

      The correct argument really looks like this:

      1. The definition of marriage is the union between one man and one women.
      2. Gay people are not being denied the right of marriage. Any man can marry any women he wants.
      3. Therefore, it is false to say that gay people are being denied the right to marry

      Reply
      1. Bridget1 year ago

        Hey, Simon…can I PLEASE use this on a tshirt?! :) I LOVE IT!

        Reply
      2. RS1 year ago

        I really don’t understand the vehement opposition to gay marriage. The people who oppose it have no vested interest in the situation. You, whether you are married or not, lose absolutely nothing from allowing same-sex marriage.

        Your insistence on adherence to tradition for tradition’s sake only serves to stymie progress. Yet you fail to recognize that your definition (emphasis on “your”) is not accurate. Marriage is merely an economic social arrangement to ensure transference of property and allow ascension of social class. Historically, it has not even been limited to two people as many men have had multiple wives. The arrangement “marriage” has undergone changes through history based on changes in society, and it will continue to do so, regardless of whether people like you try to get in the way of change.

        Again, you personally have no real vested interest in the alleged definition of marriage, but same-sex couples do. Get out of the way.

        Reply
        1. simon1 year ago

          Marriage is far more profound than our contemporary culture would lead us to believe. It is a lifelong commitment that restrains self-centeredness, self-indulgence, and self-gratification. It is the one relationship that effectively prepares and conditions us for living in community with others. By restraining self-centeredness and promoting love of another, marriage then becomes the foundation for social order. When this commitment labeled marriage is reduced to nothing more than a mere contract between two consenting persons, one option among many, or redefined to accommodate any type of participants [or number], it ceases to provide the same societal benefits.

          In 1934, the noted British anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin’s research demonstrated that those cultures that held to a strong sexual ethic—in which sex was strictly constrained to the marriage relationship—were as a result more productive and therefore prospered in contrast to cultures that were “sexually free” (Unwin, Sex and Culture, London: Oxford University Press, l934, 411–12, 431–32).

          Unwin studied eighty primitive and sixteen civilized cultures spanning more than five thousand years of history and found this principle to be an indisputable fact (Sex and Culture, 324–326). He observed that the cultural condition of any society depends upon its “social energy, which is of two kinds, mental energy and creative energy” (Unwin, “Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior,” address given on 27 March 1935 to the medical section of the British Psychological Society, later printed by Oxford University Press). Unwin added, “In human records there is no case of an absolutely monogamous society failing to display great energy.” He further observed that “expansive energy has never been displayed by a generation that inherited a modified monogamy, modified polygamy, or an absolute polygamy.”

          Oh, yes, on commenting to your last sentence….”get out of the way”(very prehistoric)…..dialogue usually involves 2 people or are you used to talking to a mirror ? Anyway, it’s my pleasure to enlighten your ignorance!

          Social energy, Unwin argued, is the collective social effort that is directed toward the betterment of society and the common good. Societies with high levels of social energy were inherently more expansive, which gave rise to exploration, discovery, and progress in every category of creative growth. This would include those areas of culture such as economics, science, justice, education, arts, and so on. This social energy, he concluded, was greater within those cultures that held strong marital restraints on sex and greatly diminished in cultures with more liberal sexual ethics. More specifically, “Those cultures which allowed sexual freedom do not display a high level of social energy—their energy is consumed with meeting their physical appetites—they do not think large thoughts about the physical world—they are not interested in metaphysical questions regarding life and its meaning. In these cultures, life is for now” (Sexual Regulations). In essence, Unwin discovered that throughout history, a sexually hedonistic society is inherently less productive and lacking in social vision. Thus it fails to achieve what we would define as a civilized status

          Reply
          1. simon1 year ago

            Procreation, reproduction, even community – no longer are used on what marriage is (what is mentioned is the needs of the ‘transgender community’). What is happening here is a naked redefinition of marriage by the state, the diminution of the social, generational role played by marriage in communities, and its replacement by a highly individualised, companionship-based conception of marriage that speaks to the narrow needs of gay campaigners and the prejudices of modern bourgeois elites. In essence, all marriages are being redefined in order to massage the identity needs of small numbers of homosexuals who wish to define their relationships as marriages.

      3. PerhapsLove11 months ago

        Simon you are narrow minded and it is foolhardy to say any gay man can marry a woman and so he is not being discriminated against. And who are you to declare marriage is between one man and one woman? Not even the Bible says that, or Solomon would not have had 700 wives. Marriage used to be solely a financial transaction with the woman as property of the man. Then you straight people had the nerve to redefine it and allow the silly concept of love to enter the equation. See you straight people started this whole slippery slope to gay marriage

        Reply
  40. Nancy Burton1 year ago

    No person should be denied the legal and morally acceptable right to share love with any person of their choosing. We are born with love and only learn to hate. The judgement of others is not a right granted to religions, organizations or individuals.

    Reply
  41. FoxyMcGee1 year ago

    I don’t know, I can see where both sides are coming from on this subject I think, and a lot of times it seems when I see comments about this subject, there’s a lot of blame and misunderstanding, and assumptions going on that just aren’t the case, at least from my perspective.

    I have many gay friends that I care a lot about and I hope they receive as much joy and opportunity in this life that I would hope for myself. I don’t see why any benefits that are entitled to married couples cannot be given to gay partnerships as well, and it seems rather silly to me that this is such an issue.

    I do however understand the opposing side too, in that “marriage” is defined by the rules of the religion, and no man can change the rules just to fit with their lifestyle. If this were the case, the ten commandments wouldn’t be a big deal. I am not saying I would personally be upset, but I can see why others would be upset that the government is imposing itself onto the religion and trying to change those beliefs and rules. Maybe I’m really lucky, but I don’t have a single Christian friend that is opposed to the gay community or them seeking partnerships, or having the same benefits given to them. The thing is…it is the government that has given these benefits to the people, not the religion. The religion never said that married couples would receive such and such entitlement. Marriage in Christian religion is believed to be a union between man and woman, by God, and that isn’t a rule created by man. To impose this, would likely be just as bad as denying gays the benefits that government has provided to those of married status, because it’s impeding on a freedom either way. I think the government’s involvement with trying to impose its rules on religion is what is getting most people upset, not the idea of gay unions themselves, if that makes sense.

    I also think a lot of times people regard marriage as proof of loving someone, which is certainly not the case, although in an ideal world perhaps it would be. There are lots of cultures that arrange their marriages, and love probably doesn’t come first with that. Love and marriage is something we learn in America by the old song “first comes love, then comes marriage…” and that’s just the way it is. However, the Bible never guaranteed love with marriage. I get the feeling a lot of times people regard marriage as proving either “I’m allowed to love like this because I can marry” or “you must not think I’m capable of loving like this because I cannot marry.” In my own thoughts, neither of these would be an appropriate answer. From my own straight experience, I know that i cannot choose who I love, so why are the rules different for anyone else?

    I do believe in God, and I also don’t think God is ever wrong. With that said, people who use religion as a means to try to change the sexual orientation of a gay person, should know better. God doesn’t make mistakes, and this is something you should know by now if you really do believe in God. Everyone on this Earth has a purpose, and I believe God has created everyone perfectly to set out to do good in this world with this in mind. Let God into the driver’s seat of life, and try to refrain from thinking that you know what is best. No one knows God’s plan, that’s why it’s called faith.

    I also see a lot of comments about equality, but the realistic truth is NONE of us are equal. Not a single person on this Earth is equal. I think it’s fair to strive for equal treatment in humanity, but to constantly strive for being equal in every way….it just doesn’t work that way. At some point, this trying to force each other into different categories needs to end. At what point do we celebrate the differences in each other?

    I think a lot of people forget that marriage licenses were not required for most of America’s existence, until the government tried to prevent mixed race marriages. That is why marriage licenses were created, to segregate from the start. How terrible is that?
    I think the government needs to get out of the way with the whole marriage deal and let people be with who they want to, and let religions deal with marriage between partners the way that they chose to as well.

    Reply
    1. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

      I would disagree when you say that the rules of religion cannot be changed to fit ones lifestyle. There are two reasons for this 1. Denominations – Just in the Christian religion alone there are thousands of different denominations each with different views about abortion, caffeine consumption, contraception, death penalty, and of course the morality of gay relationships and marriages. 2. The definition of traditional biblical marriage is not legal in the U.S. (anymore) because it involves polygamy. David had around 14 wives, Solomon hundreds and these marriages were the norm.
      As for the ten commandments I would be surprised to find a majority of Christians who know even half of them off the top of their heads. There were also similar laws and rules that predate Christianity(such as Hammurabi s code) and existed without Christian influence (Vikings, Ancient Greeks, etc.).
      Me and my partner getting married doesn’t force churches to marry us (like we would get married in a church that didn’t want us there) or make heterosexuals get a divorce and be forced into a gay union, but from what the opponents say it seems like that is what they fear would happen.
      I wish that the most supportive groups of gay marriage and acceptance were on the side of religion and Christianity. Maybe then I would consider joining but from what I have seen and heard and experienced it doesn’t appear to be that way. I realize that religion can be used to oppress others (such as the KKK several decades back) but the greatest proof that religion is beneficial to humanity would be when I see those that call themselves Christians to stand for what is right with love, tolerance and acceptance.
      I enjoyed reading your post

      Reply
  42. gerry hall1 year ago

    I AM 70YOA AND HAVE KNOWN LGBT PEOPLE SINCE I WAS IN MY 20’s….HAVING MET MOST OF THEM IN VARIOUS BARS OR AT WORKPLACES OR IN STRAIGHT FAMILIES THAT I AM FRIENDS WITH….I WAS NOT RAISED AROUND GAYS BUT WHEN I BEGAN WORKING I MET THEM, THEY WERE HYSTERICALLY FUNNY, GREAT OUTLOOKS ON LIFE AND TRUE TO THEIR BELIEFS…I, PERSONALLY, DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BIG DEAL IS FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE…THEY WERE GIVEN WHILE IN-UTERO A GENE THAT MAKES THEM FEEL DIFFERENT TOWARD SAME SEXES, BUT THEY WERE STILL BORN IN THE SAME WOMB AS ANY OTHER CHILD WAS BORN, THEIR GENES JUST GOT SWITCHED AROUND AND THAT SHOULDN’T CAUSE THEM ALL THE HEARTACHE THEY HAVE SUFFERED AT THE MOUTHS AND HANDS OF THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS WHO BELIEVE THEY WERE BORN WHOLE…HATE TO TELL YOU BUT THE GAYS WERE BORN WHOLE AS WELL, THE PROCESS JUST TOOK PLACE, AS I SAID ABOVE, WHILE LIVING IN THE SAME TYPE WOMB OF THEIR MOTHERS AS STRAIGHT PEOPLE, ALL PRIOR TO THEIR BIRTHS…I’M NOT A SCIENTIST BUT BELIEVE IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT THE MOTHER AND FATHER GENES MIXED TOGETHER AND SOME GENETIC PHENOMENON TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THEIR BIRTH THAT MADE THEM LOVE SAME SEX PEOPLE ..WE TREAT THEM LIKE THEY ARE PIRAHNAS AND CAN MAKE SOMEONE GAY IF THEY TOUCH A STRAIGHT PERSON…LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING STRAIGHT PEOPLE WHO HAVE A “HOLIER THAN THOU” ATTITUDE YOU ARE SUSEPTIBLE TO MANY KNOWN AILMENTS THAT MAY NOT EVEN AFFECT THE GAYS JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A MIND SET THAT GAYS ARE SOMEHOW GOING TO INFECT YOU OR YOUR KIDS…POSSIBLY, YOU S0-CALLED ‘BIBLE-THUMPING CHRISTIANS’ CANNOT RECALL THAT GAYS HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME AND IT IS ABOUT “TIME” YOU DROPPED YOUR BIBLE SPOUTING AND TURN YOUR MIND TOWARD RESPECT, ACCEPTANCE AND LOVE…THATS REALLY ALL THEY WANT! THEY WANT WHAT YOU WANTED GROWING UP AS STRAIGHT PEOPLE: A PARTNER, A MARRIAGE, A HONEYMOON, KIDS, JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS AND 2 CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY…OR ONE COULD RELATE THE HUMILIATION THAT GAYS RECEIVE ON A DAILY BASIS, THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN PEOPLE RECEIVED THEIR HUMILIATION OVER CENTURIES AS SLAVES AND, STILL TO THIS DAY, STILL ARE TREATED AS SUCH IN SOUTHERN STATES….SO, LET ME CLOSE BY SAYING “LIVE AND LET LIVE” BECAUSE NO ONE PERSON SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER ANOTHER PERSON WHO SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT THAN THEY MAY BE…………THANKS FOR LETTING ME COMMENT.

    Reply
  43. Leslie1 year ago

    Has Pew every done a survey on how the public feels about heterosexuality and different-sex marriage?

    I can’t view some of what is reported here as credible because you ask the public about “support,”, “favoring,” “allowing,” “permitting,” “accepting,” and “legalizing” things like human sexuality and marriage, yet do not ask the public anything about what they think of heterosexuality and different-sex marriage.

    As if that did not need discussion or examination. Strange way to investigate and report issues.

    Reply
    1. RS1 year ago

      I actually oppose marriage as an institution, but I figure that if we recognize it, we ought not to care the sex of the people involved. Personally, I think if we recognize it for two people, we should allow more than two people to a marriage, but provide a means to protect against abusive relationships like so many religious polygamist marriages where one man collects wives who compete with one another for status. Maybe we should provide each party an escape clause of some sort rather than require mutual agreement or drawn-out litigation.

      Reply
  44. SherrySellers1 year ago

    I don’t agree with people behaving in an intimate matter in public whether homo. or heterosexual. What people do in private is no ones business as long as participants are consenting adults, children are not involved and no one is harmed. Other than that if gay couples want to be married they should have to put up with the same discriminatory tax code that heterosexual couples have to put up with. I don’t agree with homosexuality being covered in school.

    Reply
    1. Leslie1 year ago

      See no evil (or difference, or sin, or whatever you want to call it), and Do no evil (etc.) has never serve as a basis of human morality, or human reality for long, Sherry.

      What do you want a teacher to “cover” in school? There are gay kids in schools. There are gay parents of kids in schools.

      I didn’t “decide” at 6 to be gay. I knew I was. And that was 57 years ago.

      Other than that, if you want to go on pretending gay people do not exist, that’s your business. Don’t make it mine, or what any gay kid has to face growing up today.

      I’d like to see more couples hold hands, and kiss and say “I love you” in public. That’s not “intimate.” That’s human.

      Reply
  45. Juliet Rosenthal1 year ago

    Kind of amazing how many of those arguments against marriage equality say “My religion forbids same-gender marriage”, implying that “my religious beliefs should be codified into law, everyone must obey my religion’s rules.”

    Reply
    1. FoxyMcGee1 year ago

      I don’t know, I can see where both sides are coming from on this subject I think, and a lot of times it seems when I see comments about this subject, there’s a lot of blame and misunderstanding, and assumptions going on that just aren’t the case, at least from my perspective.

      I have many gay friends that I care a lot about and I hope they receive as much joy and opportunity in this life that I would hope for myself. I don’t see why any benefits that are entitled to married couples cannot be given to gay partnerships as well, and it seems rather silly to me that this is such an issue.

      I do however understand the opposing side too, in that “marriage” is defined by the rules of the religion, and no man can change the rules just to fit with their lifestyle. If this were the case, the ten commandments wouldn’t be a big deal. I am not saying I would personally be upset, but I can see why others would be upset that the government is imposing itself onto the religion and trying to change those beliefs and rules. Maybe I’m really lucky, but I don’t have a single Christian friend that is opposed to the gay community or them seeking partnerships, or having the same benefits given to them. The thing is…it is the government that has given these benefits to the people, not the religion. The religion never said that married couples would receive such and such entitlement. Marriage in Christian religion is believed to be a union between man and woman, by God, and that isn’t a rule created by man. To impose this, would likely be just as bad as denying gays the benefits that government has provided to those of married status, because it’s impeding on a freedom either way. I think the government’s involvement with trying to impose its rules on religion is what is getting most people upset, not the idea of gay unions themselves, if that makes sense.

      I also think a lot of times people regard marriage as proof of loving someone, which is certainly not the case, although in an ideal world perhaps it would be. There are lots of cultures that arrange their marriages, and love probably doesn’t come first with that. Love and marriage is something we learn in America by the old song “first comes love, then comes marriage…” and that’s just the way it is. However, the Bible never guaranteed love with marriage. I get the feeling a lot of times people regard marriage as proving either “I’m allowed to love like this because I can marry” or “you must not think I’m capable of loving like this because I cannot marry.” In my own thoughts, neither of these would be an appropriate answer. From my own straight experience, I know that i cannot choose who I love, so why are the rules different for anyone else?

      I do believe in God, and I also don’t think God is ever wrong. With that said, people who use religion as a means to try to change the sexual orientation of a gay person, should know better. God doesn’t make mistakes, and this is something you should know by now if you really do believe in God. Everyone on this Earth has a purpose, and I believe God has created everyone perfectly to set out to do good in this world with this in mind. Let God into the driver’s seat of life, and try to refrain from thinking that you know what is best. No one knows God’s plan, that’s why it’s called faith.

      I also see a lot of comments about equality, but the realistic truth is NONE of us are equal. Not a single person on this Earth is equal. I think it’s fair to strive for equal treatment in humanity, but to constantly strive for being equal in every way….it just doesn’t work that way. At some point, this trying to force each other into different categories needs to end. At what point do we celebrate the differences in each other?

      I think a lot of people forget that marriage licenses were not required for most of America’s existence, until the government tried to prevent mixed race marriages. That is why marriage licenses were created, to segregate from the start. How terrible is that?
      I think the government needs to get out of the way with the whole marriage deal and let people be with who they want to, and let religions deal with marriage between partners the way that they chose to as well.

      Reply
    2. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

      Your absolutely right Juliet. Its like when Bill Maher compared himself to Rick Santorum when he said “I, like Rick, find the thought of two gay men having sex or kissing repulsive however I unlike him don’t try to make my opinion the law”.

      Reply
      1. Laura1 year ago

        Bill Maher is a first rate jerk, and what he says is not what he does; otherwise, he will not be supporting passing a “law” that affords homosexuals/lesbians preferential treatment over other folks that have “other types” of sexual behavior. Bill is a bitter man, because he was relegated to HBO. Who watches HBO? Essentially, NOBODY.

        Reply
        1. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

          I was simply saying that Bill Maher made a similar comment to what Juliet said. I never praised him or said something to the effect that whatever he says is correct no matter what. It’s almost like you are crucifying him with so much negativity. As for this law I have never heard of it and apparently not naming this so-called law means that you are either mistaken or making it up.

          Reply
  46. James1 year ago

    I was raised a Catholic and was taught that homosexuality is a serious sin. My wife and I had seven children, and one, a daughter, is gay. Since all of our children were raised in the same moral and ethical environment, I have come to conclude that those who say being gay or homosexual is not a choice. Rather, it is something in our makeup. I’m sure that our gay daughter would rather be straight, but she can no more be straight than I can be homosexual.
    Many of those who oppose same sex marriage maintain that marriage is between one man and one woman. With the divorce rate around 50 percent, they should say that marrieage is between one man and one woman serially. They say that same sex marriage threatens marriage in general. I don’t see how that is so. They say it is morally wrong, but gays and lesbians will continue to live with eah other, married or not.
    I am 84 years old and should be more conservative, but, as you see, I am not.

    Reply
    1. Laura1 year ago

      @ James –
      Until science proves that the brain of the homoxesuals/lesbians is different, something they have tried but have not been able to find, we should call it what it is: A Lifestyle mascarade as “equal rights.”

      Ancient Rome had rampant homoxesuality, which was followed by rampant pedofile activity – having a young child as a lover was seeing as high status.

      We did not have homoxesual marriage 50years ago; now is all the rage. How soon will we encounter a call for pedofile rights? After all, they also claim to be born this way.

      Reply
      1. Leslie1 year ago

        Learn to spell. And learn what words mean. And learn what actually happened in “Ancient Rome.”

        When science “proves that the brain of heterosexuals” are different, call what you are a “lifestyle” masquerading as an excuse to deny other people the same rights, equal rights.

        What do you claim to be born as? Bigotry is leaned. Not inherited.

        Reply
        1. Laura1 year ago

          Leslie, if you are going to give condescending lectures, at least provide reference information, not just your poorly presented opinion….and you know what it is said about opinions…. I do thank for pointing out my lack of spelling; however, in case you did not notice I used foreign words. Yes, dear, I speak several languages (5 to be precise) and sometimes we, polyglots, forget to switch them.
          Let me suggest that you illustrate yourself by reading The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by English historian Edward Gibbons. I also recommend that you read Tibullus, who chronicled the rampant pedophile activities of homosexuals in Ancient Rome. Are you familiar with Satyricon? Nero was notorious for castrating his young lovers, so they would remain youthful. Art from Ancient Rome also provides plenty of visual information, if you care to travel or learn something about it. Go to Pompeii or Ercolano – it is full of aberrations from the homosexual environment.
          My question to you is: If some men (women) are born homosexual, how about pedophiles? They also say are born this way, with clinical data establishing that correlation. Don’t they also deserve the same considerations and rights to have a consensual relationship/potential marriage with a young boy of, say, 13 or 14 years of age? I am sure you will agree that the rights of homosexuals should not be above everyone else’s.
          Biological Psychiatry is the first of its kind to use functional brain imaging to describe NEURAL CIRCUITS contributing to pedophilia. According to John H. Krystal, M.D., Editor of Biological Psychiatry and affiliated with both Yale University School of Medicine and the VA Connecticut Healthcare System, “the ability to intervene rationally in this DISORDER is limited by shortcomings in our understanding of its neurobiology. The findings provide clues to the complexity of this disorder….” “…whether this pattern of brain activation is a risk factor for the development of pedophilia OR A CONSECUENCE OF THEIR PEDOPHILIC SEXUAL EXPERIENCES, according to Dr. Krystal, future research will be needed.” One of the study’s authors, Georg Northoff, M.D., Ph.D., adds, “These findings may open the door for better understanding the neurobiology of this disorder which is of forensic, criminal and of public concern.”

          Interesting how they define pedophilia being “of public concern.” Not that long ago, homosexuality was also considered a “public concern.” I am certain that, in the not too distant future, a platform will come forward to defend/establish their rights and the “concern” will no longer be an issue. In permissive society, exceptions become the rule and the rules remain as mere exceptions.

          Why is homosexuality now at the forefront? Enter the Frankfurt School. I invite you to learn more about it, their goals, and the people behind it.

          One thing should be obvious to any casual observer, Western civilization, at the present day, is passing through a crisis that is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests. Our Civilization is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organization that is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory. To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution, the School recommended (among other things):
          1. The creation of racism offences.
          2. Continual change to create confusion
          3. The teaching of homosexuality to children
          4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
          5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
          6. Emptying of churches
          7. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
          8. Dependency on the state or state benefits
          9. Control and dumbing down of media
          10. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

          And all in the name of ±1% of the global population.

          Reply
          1. RS1 year ago

            The national age of consent in Japan is 13. Just saying.

      2. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

        Laura here is a link that you should read: time.com/time/health/article/0%2…
        It regards the comment about brain sizes of LGBT people.
        To compare gays to pedophiles is absolutely insulting or to suggest that one leads to the other mind-boggling incomprehensible. Maybe we should stop heterosexuals from procreating since they seem to be making all the gay people. What I do wish to know is what have I (as a gay man) done to you to deserve your hatred and lead to your mindset of superior lifestyle as opposed to mine?
        By the way we also didn’t have interracial marriage 50 years ago either (I should know living in the south) so does that make it a “rage” or “fad” that should have never happened?
        I feel very sorry for you and forgive you for what you say for you know not what you do.

        Reply
        1. Laura1 year ago

          @ C. Slaughter.
          Can I tell you that I don’t give a bloody care about what The New York Times prints? It used to be, but no longer, a reputable publication, now in the hands of Sulzberger, a dedicated enabler of the goals and teachings of the School of Frankfurt.

          Also, we don’t know if heterosexuals make all the gay people, or if gay people, like research says about pedophiles, are the potential consequence of their homosexual experience. More research is necessary. For sure, Nature is known to produce aberrations. What precipitates these aberrations is the million dollar (now that the $ is down the toilet, make that millions) question. If you know it, please tell us – it could be the prelude to find a cure for that other aberration that is cancer.

          BTW, I am Black and don’t believe in interracial marriage. The Spanish language has a great say: “Cada oveja con su pareja,” (to each its own)verstehst du? I don’t mind that you forgive me, as long as you don’t mind my pitying you.

          Cheers.

          Reply
          1. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

            Your black and don’t believe in interracial marriage!? I can’t believe what I just read. You surely must be joking, due to the fact that innumerable black people were murdered by the KKK for even suggesting that they were attracted to whites. Marriage is about love and proclaiming that love to the world. You will one day find yourself surrounded by people who look upon your ideas as racist and homophobic (alone and sad) and that is why I pity people like you.

      3. PerhapsLove11 months ago

        And yet no one has ever “proved” what makes people gay. Theories of over bearing mothers or molested as a child , etc have been put forth. No father figure to guide impressionable boys etc. Well I was raised in a loving two parent family, with an awesome incredible loving father. I have two heterosexual brothers. I was not molested. So while you may claim there is no proof that gay people are born gay, there is no proof that people “become” gay. I don’t need scientific proof. I am a Christian and gay, and know deep down in my soul that I was created the way I am by a loving caring grace filled God.

        Reply
    2. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

      And we thank you for not being as conservative as your fellow demographic is. Great post

      Reply
  47. Jesse Mayo1 year ago

    Homosexuality is dysfunctional abnormal behavior period!! Now it is not explained like that when it is the truth I don t understand!! Now with the truth out there it is clear is dysfunctional behavior profitable for society? An any ways shape or form and most of all will this type of behavior “create” great men and woman to run our country? dys•func•tion•al (dɪsˈfʌŋk ʃən əl) adj.
    1. unable to function normally.
    2. characterized by abnormal or impaired functioning
    2. dysfunctional – (of a trait or condition) failing to serve an adjustive purpose; “dysfunctional behavior”

    Reply
    1. Ray Knitterman Whiting1 year ago

      Jesse: Virtually EVERY science-based, evidence-based study available would disagree with your amateur assessment. American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Pediatrics Association, and on and on and on. Homosexuality is a normal part of the broad spectrum of human sexuality and sexual expression. Just because it isn’t the majority doesn’t mean it isn’t “normal”. Blue eyes or left-handedness aren’t the majority, either, but they are normal and everyone today knows this, even though a few generations ago people thought left-handedness was abnormal, immoral, and wrong, and tried to force children away from their native handedness orientation.

      Reply
    2. Leslie1 year ago

      Your writing certainly illustrates the definition you give.

      Reply
    3. Charles Slaughter1 year ago

      How do you explain the 1,200 + mammals that engage in homosexual relations as being dysfunctional? News flash: we humans are mammals (highly evolved apes to be precise) and there is no such evidence that homosexual relationships or marriages lead to more physical, emotional or psychological damage when compared to heterosexual people. Being LGBT is not a dysfunction, disorder or disease; it is a form of natural diversity.
      As for great people of the U.S. being LGBT did you know that Eleanor Roosevelt had a girlfriend or that Abraham Lincoln slept with several men throughout his lifetime. There are many great leaders from U.S. history that were different in more ways then you could imagine and if you choose not to accept this fact (and remain in ignorance) then it is your dilemma not mine.

      Reply
      1. simon1 year ago

        Sorry there old Chucky me boy….Humans are not apes! According to genetic studies, primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago. Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists[16] although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.

        Humans are humnas….apes are apes! Stop watching those Discovery Channel programs dude!

        Reply
    4. PerhapsLove11 months ago

      Jesse you are misguided. I am gay and function normally. Also there have been numerous gay men and women who have contributed greatly to the benefit of society. Our world would be a much worse place without these contributions. Michelangelo, Socrates, Leonardo Di Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Tchaikovsky, and the list goes on and on.

      Reply
  48. AZErnie1 year ago

    I am not homosexual, now or ever. But, I do not consider homosexual behavior (among consenting adults) a legal issue, nor is marriage. Marriage is primarily a religious ritual and as such, there is no public or governmental issue. Property and income issues should be handled under civil law. Children are quite another matter. All children have innate rights which are obligations of their parents, regardless of any marriage issues.
    Laws regarding marriage should be stricken from the books, divorce courts abolished, and any tax benefits or obligations related to marriage, stricken from the books. There is no public interest.

    Reply
    1. Leslie1 year ago

      You would have to make heterosexual sex resulting in reproduction a regulated activity – on the books. So many men, and some women, feel no obligation to be parents, married, or not.

      How do you want property and inheritance handled when one or both parents die? Separate? Divorce? Don’t own up to the obligations of the children they create?

      No church or religion has ever handled these obligations. The public, through government, has. There is every public interest in promoting and upholding families and marriage, for straights and gays and any couple who make adult commitments.

      No church or child can serve as an excuse for growing up. Try it.

      Reply
    2. EasttoAK1 year ago

      AZErnie: Just because people keep telling you it is a religious ritual doesn’t make that true. Read some history – do you really think there was no marriage before religion? Do people have to get married in a church or religious organization? Are you suggesting that the MILLIONS of Americans who are legally married without any actions on the part of a religious leader are not really married?

      Reply
      1. Shirelle1 year ago

        Actually marriage was created by God and the first people to get married was Adam and Eve. Before Adam and Eve sinned everything was perfect but when the devil tempted them man fell. There for God’s original perfect world became contaminated with sin and confusion. God gives us free will to choose him or reject Him. He loves us all more than we will ever know . However, He is Holy, Just and perfect. Our sin has separated us from Him. So He came down as Jesus and paid our debt on the cross. He died in our place so that we can be free from condemnation and be with Him forever in Heaven. Heaven is with out pain, hurt, sadness or sickness. It is out of the this world amazing!! You are made perfect and live in a mansion and live in a beautiful Kingdom. Everyone is beautiful and loves unconditionally. You can read this in the Bible. Everything in the Bible is History and proven and things are happening just as it said because its the only prophetic book around. Satan likes to deceive us and cause utter caious because he hates all man kind.

        Reply