In the U.S., why gay marriage rejected by society?

Question

Even in states that voted for Democrats in the last two elections, the gay marraige issue to just totally rejected.

Answer 1

I think a major part of the problem lies in the fact that we treat all married heterosexual couples the same.
The advantages in taxes and estates that married couples enjoy were originally put into place to protect families with children and to keep them intact in the event that one in the couple dies or if one works and the other cares for the children.
There is no reason that a heterosexual couple without children nor a homosexual couple without children should benefit from these protections. Eliminating the various benefits such as laws that allow estates to pass between spouses without children untaxed will, in effect, level the playing field, and be far more fair for all concerned.

Answer 2

This by your wording is the problem, most democrats do not want gay marriage, and the democratic party is hurting itself pandering to the fringe groups of society,

By and large at least 3/4 of the US is Christain of some or at least some level of faith. And while they may turn the other cheek for the other person to have thier relationship, many would even allow for some level of civil union. But when the line is draw on marriage, most still fall back to thier sunday school days and adam and eve (not adam and adam)

As in GA, for example they are Democrat but southern Democrat which have more in comparison with the true republician view point now than the democrat, it is very possible they are nearing a new party to be created, one that will not hunt down the fringe groups for support ( which they never actually get out and vote for much) and go back to supporting the real majority of regular working people.

You can't support gays and lesibian, and a southern baptist and make both happy. And there are more moderates that feel betrayed.

Answer 3

Because Americans tend to be traditionalist. No matter how you slice it, marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and woman. Gay marriage has never been even considered until very recently. Even the more left-leaning democratic voters will agree on this.

I think that in America, we don't feel a overwhelming need to over turn the long standing tradition of marriage. And I agree with this.

Marriage is how we define it and if we choose to define it as a man and a woman - so be it. If a gay man wants to get married he can do so as long as his bride is a woman - it happens all the time. There is nothing inherently unfair about that.

We set up rules in society and somethimes they can be exclusive. For example: we define the catcher on a baseball team as the player that stands at home plate. Why can't the catcher stand on third? Because we defined it as such. We didn't say the catcher had to be straight or a certain race. Anybody can be a catcher but the catcher has only one defined role.

Sometimes society's rules will be exclusionary. As long as our rules are applied fairly to everybody than its okay.

Answer 4

Because it isn't appropriate.

Gay people pay attention. There is an easy way to easily get gay marriage accepted. Start living as married couples. If almost all gay people met a partner, settled down and lived in a manner very similar to that of married people, then the mores in the US would rapidly change to accept gay marriage. Very soon after that, it would be formally recognized and written into law.

That's what it is going to take. Almost nothing else will get you this. The choice is yours. Continue to have dysfunctional, in many cases depraved and unstable relationships or form high quality, long term, monogamous marriage like long-term unions, preferably with children (many fine options for gay people to have children these days). In other words. You want marriage? Fine. Make it legitimate and we'll give you marriage.

Answer 5

Because these same people saw how gay marriage was pushed on us in Canada ... at a time that the majority of people oppose the idea. It is not that people oppose homosexuals having equal rights to heterosexuals, but people tend to be traditionalist and view "marriage" as meaning "family and children". I think the majority will agree that gays and lesbians should have equal LEGAL rights as individuals, as they are all citizens too ... and if they relate to one another, then they should have equal rights with respect to willing one's property to the other, taking over as power of attorney to the other, etc. I think it just comes down to how people view marriage as being the institution that creates and protects children. This is why the compromise of allowing "civil unions" between gays and lesbians that carry the full legal rights of marriage, but do not necessarily attach to the tradition of marriage, would probably go well with most people.

Answer 6

The reason it's been rejected in the voting booths is for two reasons:

1) It's too soon. More people have to become aware of homosexuals -- to get to know them on a personal basis -- before they can accept this level of completely "equal rights."

2) It's being legalized via the wrong method -- litigation instead of legislation -- and the litigation was and is based on extremely dubious legal arguments. Most people intuitively understand that the courts (in Hawaii and Massachusetts) have been wrong about this.

Answer 7

A marriage is a joining of two people for the purpose of creating children and raising a family, (even where children do not result by choice or by accident.)

A joining of two people of the same sex is a joining for the purpose of satisfying sexual urges,..not for creating children.

The "marriages" of these couples are for DIFFERENT reasons...and should be treated differently.

Answer 8

because i is completely not so tolerant that I tolerate legal discrimination in a rustic in holding with freedom. No, I dont imagine that's possible to be antagonistic to gay marriage and not in any respect hate gay people. in case you didnt hate them, why are you so purpose on legally discriminating antagonistic to them? Now, you could in my opinion be antagonistic to homosexuality, and nonetheless help legal equality.

Answer 9

I think it is a red herring to distract from the *real* issues that we should be looking at.

Or perhaps hetrosexuals want a monopoly on misery?

Answer 10

Because it's not NORMAL! No matter how much people try to mainstream it, it's not NORMAL! NO! I don't want my kids reading so and so has two daddies either. Bring back Fun with Dick and Jane and Sally and Puff and Spot.