Why do conservatives use the most people oppose the right to gay marriage argument?

Question

Most people in America also used to oppose interracial marriage. Not suprisingly, most of this opposition came from the christian conservatives (like Jerry Falwell) of the time. They pointed to the story of Ham and the tower of Babel from the Bible to opposite.

I say let people make up their own minds. People should be free to do what they want unless it interferes with the rights of others. People of the same sex marrying does not interfere with the rights of heterosexuals to marry.

And why did it take Alabama until the year 2000 for it to finally eliminate it's racist laws against interracial marriage? Even then, a sizeable minority (40%) voted to keep them. Seems like they sure love their "traditional" values down there.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/

Mother,

Read about the women's right movement. Christian conservatives of the time believed nothing could be more "anti-biblical" then given women equal rights.

If people didn't "rock the boat" nothing in this country would have ever changed. We'd still have slavery and women and minorities would still be second class citizens.

Mother,

Bob Jones is a christian university. Up until 2000 they had rules banning interracial dating.

Scott,

I think the reason divorces skyrocketed is because laws on divorce were considerably weakened in several states. Suddenly, it was much easier to get divorces and people who put up with people they could not stand finally had an easy way out. Not saying that is right and wrong. Just saying that is what happened.

Suprisingly for cons, the state with the least divorces is Massachusetts. If you read up on this you will find that even christian conservative organizations found that atheist/agnostics had the least divorces, followed by mainline christians, and last with the most divorces were fundamentalist/evangelical christians.

Mike,

We have what is called a liberal democracy. The majority can't just outvote the minority and take their rights away. The constitution guarantees everybody basic rights.

Billy,

You are mistaken. Most people do approve of interracial marriage today and gay marraige is legal in Massachusetts.

Answer 1

Actually the people in every state have banned gay marriage.

Not just the red states, but the blue states too.

Yes, Mass and NJ now allow gay marriage, but only because the Courts made them, the people certainly didn't make it legal.

And in Mass, the state legislature has already had the first reading and vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

So it would seem, thats its not a conservative only issue after all.

So will your next post rant about those inbred red neck liberal's in Mass making gay marriage illegal ???

Answer 2

Perhaps some of the opposition is because homosexuality has already ruined the definition of the words gay, queer, fairy, f-a-g-g-o-t (even Yahoo doesn't recognize that there are other definitions of that word and bleeps it out!!! Goes to prove my point!) and so on? Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, it is simple and it is the definition of the word. What gives gays or the courts the right to redefine a tenet of the American family? Why not pick another word to corrupt, some of us would like to "conserve" what's left of the meaning of this one. Pick a name that fits the deviant nature of the union, it isn't main-stream and legislation will not make it so. Picking another name might just further the cause because some of us are fighting to protect the meaning of the word and traditional concept of marriage, not necessarily fighting solely against the concept of gay unions.
The primary purpose of marriage has traditionally been to create a wholesome "nuclear family" environment with normalcy and stability within which to raise children. If gays don't use unnatural means such as sperm donation, in-vitro fertilization, or adoption of the product of a heterosexual coupling to accomplish it, a real family is impossible, as nature desired it to be by design.
The word marriage just doesn't need to be stigmatized and further removed from use, like the other words listed above. It is suffering enough from other abberant, family destroying behaviors. I'd rather think of a Ward and June Cleaver when I think of how marriage "should" be than to think perhaps of Eddie getting some from Lumpy. I would like to marry again some day. When I tell people that, I shouldn't have to declare my heterosexuality just to keep someone from having an unanswered question in ther mind.

Answer 3

in view which you ask, i will enable you to in on my particularly convoluted opinion of gay marriage. First, i'm no longer Conservative as a results of fact of my non secular perspectives. If gay Marriage is legalized, it won't violate my faith or extremely wreck the employer of marriage. That being pronounced, there's a reason that the government is interior the marriage enterprise. it is to motivate couples to variety a good relatives unit, procreate, and then strengthen those teenagers to be good little voters. genuinely, that may not the case in each and every marriage. yet needless to say the potential is there. needless to say gay marriage would not in nice condition into that objective. The plumbing is all incorrect. basically positioned, it can not take place! So I oppose gay marriage as a results of fact I see no societal income to it. despite if it is no longer an argument i'm keen approximately. i do no longer combat for or against it. i do no longer help it, yet while happens, oh nicely. And certainly, i think of a polygamous marriage may be of greater societal income than gay marriage may be.

Answer 4

Because the conservatives are all Nazis in disguise. They need an unpopular minority to persecute for votes, and they can't use the Jews this time because of all the existing laws against racial discrimination.

Personally I don't see any reason not to allow them to get married (or at least have something like marriage with a different name, lol)

When it comes down to it regardless of what the law says, a gay person is still gonna be gay, married or otherwise.

- Added response to comments on moral decline -
Homosexually is not a modern invention, there have always been gay people in America. The only new twist is people are making it public knowledge, where previously they have "shacked up" privately with public lives as "brothers" or "sisters" in the community.

As to bible references against homosexuality, any sexual act that "wasted" sperm was considered an abomination based on the belief that men only had a limited amount. So in fact God considers masturbation to be as big a sin as being gay. Don't believe me? Break out the Bibles folks.... and read the whole books involved, not just a verse or two.

Answer 5

Most people in America STILL do oppose interracial marriage as well as Gay marriage or unions. By definition, Gays cannot get married. Only a male and a female can get married. But Gays can have civil unions or agreements.

Regarding Jerry Falwell's comments on homosexuality. The bible is loaded with references to homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of God so it's not just the opinions of Jerry Falwell as all he really did was quote the passages of the bible. Take your issue up with God, not the late Jerry Falwell.

People do make up their own minds. The institution of marriage is on the decline because so many choose to just "shack up" anymore with no commitment. Gays can do the same but they can never be "married" as like I said, by definition, it cannot happen. But I see the day coming when a civil union be recognized that bears the same or very similar rights as marriage.

Just another data point as evidence of the moral decline of America.

Answer 6

They only think the government belongs in the bedroom not the boardroom.

I find it amazing that anybody would have the slightest care what people they have never met, and don't even know who they are, might be doing in their bedroom.

That these same people are, at the same time, not concerned about the morality of things that affect them directly, what chemicals are in the food they eat, or air they breathe, who might buy the company they work for and what they might do with it, or their pension fund (assuming there ever was one) is flabbergasting.

There is however research in Psychology that shows that there is a Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) pathology found in perhaps 20% of Americans that accounts for this.

RWA’s are more likely to:

* Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty, such as the Bill of Rights.
* Punish severely ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
* Admit they get personal pleasure from punishing such people.
* But go easy on authorities who commit crimes and people who attack minorities.
* Be prejudiced against many racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
* Insist on traditional sex roles.
* Support ‘gay-bashing.’
* Be hostile toward feminists.
* Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
* Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.
* Be ‘fundamentalists’ and the most prejudiced members of whatever religion they belong to.
* Accept unfair and illegal abuses of power by government authorities.
* Trust leaders (such as Bush) who are untrustworthy.
* Be fearful of a dangerous world.
* Be bullies when they have power over others.
* Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
* Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
* Sometimes join left-wing movements, where their hostility distinguishes them.
* But much more typically endorse right-wing political parties.

It is only in this context that such thinking can be understood

Answer 7

I totally agree. People can be so ignorant sometimes. I shudder to think of a country ruled by the masses and that is not what THIS country was founded on. The men who declared independence from Britain and those who wrote the Constitution knew what it was like to be in the minority and they tried their best to stress that this government was designed to protect the minority from the whim of the masses.
The thing is, I have a funny feeling that gay marriage, like interracial marriage and women's rights, will be 'no big deal' at some point in the future. Well, at least I can hope.

Answer 8

both such be against the law we had it up to vote on in 04 and you lost everywhere i think interracial marriage should be up for a vote to why cant libs accept what the people want but the libs just use liberal judges to get what they want

gay marriage is not a right

Answer 9

First, gay marriage isn't a right, and second most people in America still oppose interracial marriage. We are not a nasty country.

Answer 10

I suppose for the same reason the left wingers use the argument that a majority of the American people oppose the war in Iraq.