Public Acceptance Of Same-Sex Marriage At All-Time High

Two new polls reflect the extent to which public attitudes on same-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the past twenty years, and it's only a matter of time before that's reflected in the law.

In what is likely one of the most dramatic turnarounds in public cultural and social attitudes in quite sometime, we’re seeing yet more evidence that public acceptance of same-sex marriage is now at points where it’s the opponents of marriage equality who are soon likely to be in the minority.

First, a new Pew poll finds that public attitudes on same-sex marriage have moved consistently in favor of same-sex marriage:

The survey finds a continuing rise in support for same-sex marriage since 2009. Currently, 45% say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 46% are opposed. In Pew Research surveys conducted in 2010, 42% favored and 48% opposed gay marriage and in 2009, just 37% backed same-sex marriage while 54% were opposed.

Chart:

A different survey, the 2010 General Social Survey found similar dramatic shifts in public attitudes on same-sex marriage:

When you look at that graph, the shift is dramatic; in 1988, just 22 years ago, only 12% of Americans supported gay marriage. In 2010, it was 46%, with only 40% opposed. And it’s even a big shift from 2008 to 2010: support went up seven points, and opposition trended downward seven points.

That’s quite a dramatic shift over a period of 22 years, especially considering that during a portion of that time the gay rights movement had several major setbacks such as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the wave of state Constitutional Amendments barring same-sex marriage and civil unions that swept much of the nation during the early 2000’s. Even victories were met with setbacks, as the California Supreme Court’s decision permitting same-sex marriage was quickly followed by Proposition 8 which, despite polling early on showing that it would be defeated, ended up passing even in a Presidential election year when Democrats who might be sympathetic to the cause were more likely to vote

So, what accounts for the dramatic change in public attitudes over the past two decades? Partly, of course, is the fact that these numbers are reflecting the views of younger Americans, among whom issues like homosexuality have largely become a matter of everyday life. For many members of  this generation, the idea that two people who care about each other can’t form a legal relationship is likely a pretty foreign concept. In addition to that, though, I think the change in attitude reflects the fact that it’s very easy to have judgmental, or prejudicial, attitudes, about people when you really don’t know any of them It’s the reason, for example, that many northern whites in the 1960s and 70s seemed to reflect the same racial attitudes as whites in the South even though they didn’t live among large African-American populations. Over the past two decades, as public attitudes about homosexuality have become more accepting, people have come to realize that gays and lesbians don’t necessarily fit the stereotypes that they were taught to believe in, and that they’re no different than the rest of us. The implications of this are clear, thanks to these changing attitudes and demographic change, the social stigma against homosexuals has largely disappeared (except in relatively closed, religious populations) and the legal barriers to equality are quickly falling away.

Matthew Ygelasias looks at these numbers and posits:

Five years ago, if there were five Supreme Court justices who believed that marriage equality should be the law of the land, they’d still probably have shied away from saying so for fear of issuing a desperately unpopular decision on a hot-button subject. Today, not so much. And with the Obama administration now saying that DOMA should be subjected to “heightened scrutiny” it would seem to follow that all forms of marriage inequity also deserve said heightened scrutiny. Consequently, I think we may actually wind up having nationwide marriage equality sooner than people think as long as Justice Kennedy continues to be sympathetic to gay equity claims.

He may not be far off the mark. The Supreme Court may not be subject to electoral politics, but they clearly do pay attention to societal attitudes, and the fact that same-sex marriage in on the verge of being supported by a majority of Americans (if it isn’t there already) may just be enough to persuade a wavering Justice (or two) to cast their vote in favor of marriage equality.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Gender Issues, Law and the Courts, Public Opinion Polls, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. mantis says:

    So, what accounts for the dramatic change in public attitudes over the past two decades?

    All the old people who died during that time.

    The further we get from the days when homosexuals were outcast, shamed, and tortured by the medical establishment, and the fewer people that are alive who remember those days when it was “normal” to think all homosexuals were insane, deranged, satanists, or drug addicts, the more the public as a whole accepts them as normal people. Younger people today, for the most part, have no issues with homosexuality. it’s the olds that still have a problem. They die out.

  2. michael reynolds says:

    We’re just 5-10 years away from conservatives angrily denying they ever opposed gay marriage. It’ll be like trying to find anyone who admits opposing interracial marriage.

    Thus always for conservatives. Find a minority to sh*t on until forced to stop. Then say, “Who, me?”

  3. mantis says:

    Thus always for conservatives. Find a minority to sh*t on until forced to stop. Then say, “Who, me?”

    Not to mention trying to co-opt the leaders of the movement for equality after the fact, like how they’ve tried to claim MLK Jr. as one of their own in recent years.

  4. G.A.Phillips says:

    Hot jolt for everyone:)

  5. An Interested Party says:

    Won’t it be something if one day conservatives try to claim Harvey Milk as one of their own…

  6. Gustopher says:

    I’m pretty sure Harvey Milk cared deeply about the Flat Tax. It was his #2 issue.

  7. wr says:

    What are you talking about, Mantis? Everyone knows Barry Goldwater led the Stonewall riot.

  8. Steve Verdon says:

    All the old people who died during that time.

    This.

    I can’t recall exactly, but I think it was Robert Lucas who said, “Advances in economics are made one death at a time.” Probably true in general.

    Younger people today, for the most part, have no issues with homosexuality.

    I think this is true too. I know my son and his friends don’t seem to have any issues with their friends who are homosexual.

    I don’t understand the conservative mindset on this issue. How is expanding the institution of marriage to cover a larger portion of the population destroying the institution? And does state sanctioning of a homosexual relationship really mean that previously heterosexual men are suddenly going to get teh ghey? So two guys or two girls want to get married…I should care why? Good luck with your marriage, I have problems of my own so I’ll be focusing on those.

  9. Wiley Stoner says:

    In your dreams Mataconis. You will just have to be satified with a civil union. I am curious. Which parts connect to make it a union? I would ask what are the chances of the expectation of offspring from such a union then I look at Reyolds picture and suddenly I know.

  10. Trumwill says:

    Mantis hits on part of it, but I don’t think that’s the whole story. I think that it’s simply become less respectable in a lot of circles to hold the anti-equality view. Those folks I know that still oppose gay marriage do so a lot more quietly than they used to.

  11. michael reynolds says:

    Damn, Verdon and I agreeing again. That makes . . . oh, twice, I think.

    I agree: kids just don’t give a damn. In my books I have an openly lesbian character. Total number of complaints after thousands of emails, Facebook messages, tweets etc? One. From someone’s mother. In fact she’s a fan favorite.

    I also agree that a true conservative would favor gay marriage. Marriage builds structure into society. The notion that conservatives have withdrawn their objection to gays hooking up at clubs and doubled down on their objection to marriage, simply boggles the mind.

  12. mantis says:

    Those folks I know that still oppose gay marriage do so a lot more quietly than they used to.

    That’s what’s called the Spiral of Silence. It’s sort of a double-edged sword.

  13. tom p says:

    I don’t understand the conservative mindset on this issue. How is expanding the institution of marriage to cover a larger portion of the population destroying the institution?

    A buddy of mine (69 y/o) asked of a Republican some 4 or 5 yrs ago: “If you are so “pro-family” why won’t you let these people form a family?”

    The Repub had no answer and I could think of no question or answer that better phrased the issue.

  14. Janis Gore says:

    The Second Circuit Windsor case will be the call out.

    Do you think 81-year-old Ms. Windsor should be effectively fined $350,000 for being a “carpet-muncher, ” Mr. Stoner? Because DOMA overrides state law?

  15. anjin-san says:

    Don’t mind Wiley, Janis. Ever village needs an idiot.

    Living in the SF bay area for 50+ years, I have learned something. Scratch a homophobe and you will find:

    A. Latency
    B. A guy who is very, very insecure about his own manhood
    C. Both

  16. Bleev K says:

    B. A guy who is very, very insecure about his own manhood

    Pretty obvious indeed.

  17. Ashton says:

    An interesting dimension to all this is the growing influence of Islam with its traditional call for the death penalty for homosexuality: will those screaming “homophobe” end up being “Islamaphobes”?

  18. THS says:

    but I think it was Robert Lucas who said, “Advances in economics are made one death at a time.”

    Not Lucas, Samuelson. And the quote is “Funeral by funeral, theory advances.”

  19. william says:

    I don’t think anybody has woondered about the progressiveness of the times has been a GOOD, thing???

    Fact: there is MUCH more violence that goes on today then there was many years ago, (not location specific, just generally) I am a young person, ANd I DO not like what this counrty is doing, we are redefining words to suit our own desires, what we want, not what IS.

    Examples of words that have lost their meaning:
    Marriage: no longer love between a man& woman, but “love” SO that means I can marry by mother right?? that is ridiculous. Marriage has to be defined by something, If all marriage means is “love, then polygamists, animal-relations are all ok.

    Murder:It no longer means the taking of life: ot mean the taking of life that is VISIBLE,

    Stealing: it no longer means “taking what does not belong to you” it means “its okay as long as you dont get caught” With all the piracy of movies and music today, that has not been caught.

    I wonder what would happen if we took “murder” and redefined it more, such as “only when stabbing someone” poisoning them is not murder, becasue they ate it. SEE how ridiculous that is?

    I would like to say one thing WE are not discriminating against gays. Discrimination would be if we did not let them come into bars And we labeled places like “only for straight people.” or “no gays allowed” THAT is the definition of discrimination. we dont have to change the defintion of marriage to get gays the same rights as straight couple do. in living

    But there is a benefit that REAL marriage has that gay civil unions NEVER will. It is the ability to have children of the gened of both parents. gays can try all they want to get that, but NATURE wont. You cant make yourself ablt to have children if you are a guy, or you can mae yourself have male reprodcutive organs if ou are a girl, it just is not that way!

    But remember, being able to bear children of your OWN BLOOD, is a benefit of real “straight” marriage, not a requirement.

  20. william says:

    or, should be NOR, is my previous comment

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brU2kEkUFZA

    Words have lost their MEANING. no more webster’s ditctionary, its become what I want dictionary.

    It’s is time to ask the question:WHAT DOES THAT WORD MEAN

  21. william says:

    ONe FINAL example of words losing teir meaning:

    SEX, what does tha mean??? does it mean NATURAL? the way nature intended, or the twisted, gross way that we have perverted it, putting parts of our bodies in places they were NEVER suppodes to be!

  22. william says:

    I’m sorry to be commenting so much, but I just had to say this, IF we had HELOD to the ORIGINAL defintion of SEX, I belive the STD and AIds rates would not be HALF of they are today. SEX was defined to keep us healthy, and away from dangerous thuings such as STD’s such things can result in DEATH.

  23. william says:

    Ideas have consequences, We need to realize that.

    the idea that i can murder someone and not have a consequence is BAD

    The consequence of being GAY in a relationship, is not being able to anatomically able to have children, WE CANNOT, deny that. You argue with reality, when you try to

    Everyone has the right to believe and accept what he or she wants, but reality doesn’t discriminate. Reality is not different for different people. Not once has reality excused anyone for good intentions, ignorance, or stubbornness. Reality shows no mercy, accepts no excuses, and issues no pardons. Reality does not “turn the other cheek.” This does not mean that reality is cruel, it just means that reality is~ Gary ryan bliar

    Adoption agencies were originally proposed so tha Parents, in REAL marriage who could not have children because of complications, (infertile, barren?) could have children

    Please note: anatomically unable is NOT on that list.
    The biggest sign for people that Gay relationships are not natural is ANATOMY.

    Again the definition of sex applies, you are saying Gay’s should have the right to adopt and raise a child, what they can’t anatomically produce? I agree that gays CAN and should be allowed anywehere, in stations, restaurants, and they should be RESPECTED. but respecting someone does not mean you have to agree with them. or let them have something which nature says they can’t. (note i am primarily speaking of adoption, not marriage)

    But there are Consequences, if gays are going to reject reality, and sustitute their own: Natural sex, and having children.

    The consequences of unnatural sex has been THROUGHTOUT history, like you say,

    Ask youself this question, how long have STD’s and AIDS been predominant? the answer( i know this is generalizing). Tey have always been, but not as active as it is today
    since the predominace of accepting that which is unnatural to the human body. (smoking, is also unatural, and it can lead to death)

    We do not want to take away your rights, we want to preserve childrens rights.

    Every child has the RIGHT to grow up with A FATHER, and A MOTHER.: MAMA,, DADA
    EQUAL rights for all children. Please dont take away the right of a child to live with two parents of opposite sex. Never having a father is QUITE different that losing one in a death or a divorce. With a sprem donor, you have NO idea at all who you father is, At least if a father dies, a person can at least know who they were, and that they LOVED you, becasue they were a part of YOU.

    People need father’s and mothers in being raised, A BOY needs someone he can RELATE to, FATHER. and a GIRL, needs someone she can relate to. MOTHER.

    If gays were meant to have cildren, some marriages would only produce GIRLS. why is it that mother pregancies produce BOYS and GIRLS? becaus their DNA comes from 2 DIFFERENT SEXES.

  24. mantis says:

    Please note: anatomically unable is NOT on that list.

    Who cares? You just made up that list.

    The biggest sign for people that Gay relationships are not natural is ANATOMY.

    Define natural. Homosexual activity is present throughout the animal kingdom.

    but respecting someone does not mean you have to agree with them. or let them have something which nature says they can’t.

    Nature makes people infertile too. D’oh, there goes your argument!

    Every child has the RIGHT to grow up with A FATHER, and A MOTHER

    Says who? No such right exists.

    With a sprem donor, you have NO idea at all who you father is

    So you’re against sperm donation for infertile heterosexual couples too? What an asshole you are.

    If gays were meant to have cildren, some marriages would only produce GIRLS.

    Some marriages do only produce girls. My first girlfriend had six sisters and no brothers. Hmm. I guess gays are meant to have children then! QED, dumbass.

  25. sam says:

    “SEX, what does tha mean??? does it mean NATURAL? the way nature intended, or the twisted, gross way that we have perverted it, putting parts of our bodies in places they were NEVER suppodes to be!”

    I dunno. Where they “suppodes” to be?

    More seriously — William, buddy, have a nice lie down. You’re headed for an aneurysm. And for Christ’s sake, stay the hell away from the caps key. You’re just making yourself look silly.

  26. william says:

    Mantis,
    I knew I would get this response, and for your, information, I do not appreciate words being taken out of my mouth, I did not say I was against sperm donation at all. Sperm donation was created again, like adoption was, for couples that couldn’t have children based on physical
    imperfections, diseases that would inhibit the natural organs from working like they are supposed to. You cannot deny that heterosexual marriages don’t find out they can’t have children until they have sex, and try, they don’t know until after they want to have children, Homosexuals know, and have known throughout the centuries, There is no way anyone can deny this truth, and gays that wnat the same abilities, are trying to circumvent reality, by using adoption and sperm donations that were originally created or heterosexual couples.
    As for the ***hole, comment, It takes one to know one.
    You cannot deny this simple fact: Never having a mother/father is quite different that losing one.
    I noticed you did not try and prove this argument false (partially because its true):
    Children need a father and mothers in being raised in a home or in any sort of family. a boy, is passed along the knowledge of being a man from his father, someone he can relate to, and a Girl, needs someone she can relate to, A mother, to tell her how to be a woman, an example of how to live! Something a man cannot tell her, I hope you will agree that the current people in the media are not the best examples for being women(Lindsay Lohan). or that the current examples for being a man (Charlie Sheen) are the best either. Reality says children need a father and mother. Just like no one says murder is wrong, it is assumed.

    I know you are going to respond with “there are single parents and their kids turn out fine”
    The fact is, you don’t know that. Things aren’t always what they seem, people can put on a front, a “poker face” to hide how they feel we are very good at doing that. Kids miss something by not having a mother/father. They always do, it might not be evident, but they do.
    You did not try and disprove this argument either:
    Things have not improved in lifestyles of american public over the years, We have just become lazier, people have no life, and are online all the time, no wonder people long for close relationships with each other, we’ve lost true friendship wothe each other, and its been miscontrued as “love”
    You are correct, gays have always been around, but so has marriage, why abolish marriage?
    Why do gays want to change what has been an institution for many many years?

    You say marriage is a right, becasue you “need” it. Do you really? Simply changing the name of something is not going to make it acceptable. Try and get the rights, of living, buying a home, as a ligitimate couple. Instead of changing the name, it seems you are taking the “easy” way out. If I change the name of “polygamy” to “multi-marriage” will that make it more acceptable? Polygamy is frowned upon. In any form.
    I say children deserve a father/mother because they need them, I know this because there are so many times I was glad to have a father, someone who knew what I was going through, in issues of women, and life in general. Boys with lesbian parents, and girls with gay parents, don’t have this necessity at all. They are not like their parents in the least. The boy has the Y chromosome, girls don’t.(genetics) It makes males act and feel quite differently than females do. This is the point I was trying to make about adoption, at least with heterosexual adoption, and infertilization, and sperm donation, the child can relate to one of the parents, guaranteed.
    More and more people are coming out as “gay”, so people accept it more, that is why this poll is rising, people model themselves and change their opinions after popular people, so if they accept gay marriage, I should accept gay marriage, (such as Obama) But like my first quote said “reality does not discriminate”. Gay marriage probably will be legalized, But like I said we can fool with definition of marraige all we want. But we cannot change reality.

  27. Janis Gore says:

    Sure you can. You’re saying that a responsible married couple who can’t have children should be able to use infertility techniques. You are trying to change reality. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t .

    What I particularly don’t like about this worldview is that you also think infertile couples should have a vast array choices for adoption and rearing your adorable baby because you outlawed abortion. What luck, a fertility farm!

  28. Janis Gore says:

    Hell, I can’t do it, so I’ll every cell except the map out of your body, girl.

  29. Janis Gore says:

    “take”

  30. william says:

    Yes, I do agree that adoption is the best way to have a child if you can’t have children, but I would like to distiguish the difference: gays know that they cannot physically have children, before they attempt to do what nature will not let them, heterosexual couples find out after, they try for children, in sex. The point I’m trying to make here is, they are the only ones that can “try” legitimately.

    But the main point of my discussion on here is, That there is nothing like a real family, naturally made, and created. The people is old times did it without any medicine, or hospitals and those infertile couples just accepted it as part of reality, or adopted. And because they held to the defintions of sex and marriage, there were hardly any STD’s!

    There should be a distiction for such a beautiful image as the original, and still the best, family.

    I apologize for my use of caps in my first comment. I made a real fool of myself, but I’m sure you all can see the point I am making here.

  31. Janis Gore says:

    But should that distinction extend to confiscating $363,000 dollars and change from Ms. Windsor’s inheritance because DOMA overrides New York’s recognition of her Canadian marriage?

  32. Janis Gore says:

    Let’s be clear, the government recognizes or has recognized all eight of Larrry King’s marriages, but not the Windsor-Spyer.

  33. anjin-san says:

    > And because they held to the defintions of sex and marriage, there were hardly any STD’s!

    Not a history major, are you?

  34. william says:

    Interesting point, I think that DOMA is a very good law,
    To say it was not, is to say that The presidents of past itmes, were nuts, or completely lost their minds, or “dont know” Others say that there were gays throughout the years of america, (this is directed to others) yet why did they pass this law, DOMA, if gays were prominent in that time, What Changed? What changed: popular opinion.
    And the many role models of today are so different than they were 20 or 30 years ago. More celebs today support gay marriage than ever, so more people who are fans of the celebs, support it, ergo, the “popular opinion”, but as the old attage says, “If everyone were to jump off a cliff, does that mean you would?”

    If canada legalized gay marriage, as I’m assuming they did, and she is from canada, then no, monetary amounts of inheritance should not be affectected, It is possible to recognize it as a civil union, and the money be rewarded, I know it is hard, if one country recignizes a union, another state should. Like I said, you don’t have to remove the DOMA law to get gays the same living, and monetary rights as straight marriages do in inheritances. But there should and can be a distinction between what can be done naturally, (creating a family) and what can’t. While respecting gay relationships that want to be taken seriously, they are different.

  35. william says:

    To anjin-san:

    THere are differnt types of STD’s and AIDS specifically, That are trasmitted based on hereditary and sexul relationships, I understand that. I’m sure that there were sexually trasmitted diseases. But I should have been more specific:

    I’m talking about colonial times, where people had no hosptals, or operations, or adoption agencies. They used nature, to procreate they did not need anything at all to “improve”their sexual experience. or “make” them able to have children”. We can learn a lot from history.

    Are we somehow “smarter” than the founders of our nation?

    Those times produced people like, George washington, Albert Eistein, you say that they knew nothing?

    A clear example of “gay” meaning something entirely different back then:

    It’s the most wonderful time of the year
    With the kids jingle belling
    And everyone telling you “Be of good cheer”
    It’s the most wonderful time of the year
    It’s the hap-happiest season of all
    With those holiday greetings and gay happy meetings
    When friends come to call
    It’s the hap- happiest season of all

    The people of older days were not very different then us, the times of today have drastically affected our thinking much more than we realize, the times of old effected them much less, (no tv, tech, media to disract, and tell them lies) and I think they were able to see things much clearer.

    Now there is no mention of marraige in the constitutiion, I think It is because it was assumed, and people thought “no way they will change that”
    We know that murder is wrong, who says? no one, it is assumed

  36. Janis Gore says:

    Let’s close here. We won’t agree.

  37. Janis Gore says:

    Sorry, William and I will disagree.

  38. william says:

    You are mistaken, I do agree that DOMA should not be taken that far,I did not know about that case, Like I said, I only care abour A distinction, that union was fine, I thought, as she was her “companion” As different to a “family” I people want to live together in a union, That none of my business, I am more concerened with the family issue.

    DOMA doen’t have to be taken that far, Defining words don’t have to take away money from people who rightly were already recognized, and legalized, like that case did.
    While we disagree on things. we will end here, I am glad you can see my point,

    Just because every state is legalizing gay marriage, does not mean its right.

  39. william says:

    If*

  40. william says:

    You are missing the Fundamental issue here. Nothing has ever changed the issue of marriage being between a Man and a Woman. There may have been changes has to who what man can marry what woman, but the fundamental rule has not changed! We are right, Marriage is a lasting institutution, provide marriage be defined as this love between a Man and a Woman.
    The rules have been if a man can marry a specific race of woman, or the other way around!

    Now all of the “sudden”, gays want to to have what we have, I agree that gays should get the same living rights as normal couples, but nature says they can’t naturally produce children of their own blood, anatomy says “no” realityy says “no”. reality does not dicriminate! If no one created “adoption’ agencies. or there wasn’t such a thing as “fertilization,” heterosexual couples can still have children. they are not dependent on “advances in society” and gays are. Does that not show you anything?

    If I change the definiton of murder, and every state begins to define it as “only shooting someone” does that mean its okay if i poison someone? defintions of Love matter here. Love is not the requirement for marriage, marriage is defined, and we cannot change it. no more language.

    My “common sense” argument means that a child has EQUAL rights to a home where he/she can see how to live. Children have the right to grow up and have a different role model than charlie sheen or lindsay lohan to grow up as, Which I’m sure you will agree to.

    Think about this: if a child misses a role model, a Mom/Dad in a with homosexual “parters” will he/she say anything at all? of course not! the child puts on a “front” or “poker face” to hide how they really feel, so they appear “normal”!

    This is why we don’t see children complaining about living with homosexual “parents” It is not because they turn out “fine” it is because the child does not want to hurt the feelings of the people he is living with!

  41. william says:
  42. wr says:

    So William now believes that gays are bad, and proof is that George Washington and Albert Einstein were both products of the Colonial period.

    I think it’s safe to say that William can’t come out against marriage between cousins, because that would be criticizing his parents…

  43. william says:

    dear wr,

    What I said may not have been clear, Incest is the best argument agaisnt gay marraige!
    if gay marriage is allowed, then what stops incest?

    Gays are not bad, But there are consequences to wanting something that nature does not provide. George Washington & Eistien were products of an older and simpler time period, that is what I meant, Just take a look at the Amish. I’m sorry to confuse you. please do not insult me just think about his for a minute, the proof, and you nor can anyone else argue with this.

    Heterosexual couples have something that Gays will never have, the ability to procreate without the aid of science, or outside intervention! Obama can twist the defintion of marriage around all he wants to, This is not about equal rights again, it is about gays wanting something that just is not possible. you cannot take 2 female eggs and create a Baby ! you need a male sperm, same reversed.

    The primary reason gays want marriage is children. They need to realize, marriage does not = children, An egg and a sperm do. Everyone on the face of this earth has “biological” parents Is that not a sign? of what realy is supposed to be?
    I can guarantee science will never be able to make an sperm and a sperm create a child.

    Everyone has the right to believe and accept what he or she wants,
    but reality doesn’t discriminate. Reality is not different for
    different people. Not once has reality excused anyone for good
    intentions ignorance or stubbornness. Reality shows no mercy, accepts
    no excuses, and issues no pardons. Reality does not “turn the other
    cheek.” This does not mean that reality is cruel, it just means that
    reality is.~ Gary Ryan Blair.

  44. anjin-san says:

    William… sorry, I don’t see much potential for a conversation here. You are right on the border of gibberish…

  45. william says:

    What , On the border of gibberish, Did what I say not make sense?

    The reality IS, and alway will be, That everyone on this earth has a Biological parent. THe key term is “parent”. see what I mean? The fact that gays want what is biologically impossible shows that something is wrong with it. Could I be more clear? TImes have changed, but it is clear in the news that it has NOT changed for the better. People are far less educated in matters of life, and believe anything the TV tells them. How can you not agree with this?

    Every child has a right, I will say this again, becasue you cannot argue with it, To live with parents to show them how to live properly, so they dont have exampes in the warped media. Every child wants a “mama” and “papa”
    Its engrained into humanity, so much so that even gay partners take on the roles, and personalities of men and women! do you not notice this? One person who brings in the money, and one takes care of the baby, they even ACT like man and women.

    It is how the family is supposed to be!

    take a look at this:

    http://chloe1732.weebly.com/1/post/2009/03/why-i-believe-marriage-is-between-one-man-and-one-woman.html

    We are not judging, we are simply trying to uphold a defintion of marraige as being between a bond between a man and a woman, It is the central theme of marriage, It has always existed.

  46. Paul says:

    @william:
    Jared Lee Loughner was obsessed with the true meaning of words too. Just saying…

  47. Al says:

    I stopped reading what William wrote right here: “Fact: there is MUCH more violence that goes on today then there was many years ago”. That “fact” is somewhere between disingenuous to outright wrong depending on how you want to abuse the statistics.