

Public opinion on gay marriage

Agnostic about gay marriage

Attitudes to gay marriage among religious groups in America

See article

Readers' comments




The second expression of modesty, in part, is a tolerance of others. The teachings of Jesus Christ also prescribed tolerance, compassion, goodwill towards men. Casting fear into the waters is either elitist paranoia, or a diversion to create fear in order to divide and conquer the masses for either empowerment or financial gain (one in the same, actually). I have read over and over again the lack of any intellectual basis for condemning homosexuality as anything other then what it is, which is a lifestyle choice that is no different than the choices made by heterosexuals. No one has ever proven that homosexuality diminishes the institution of (heterosexual) marriage, or that it has any negative impact on “the children.” These are all substitutes for bigotry, and nothing more. I believe in God, but I also know the bible is full of contradictions, and not because of God, but because of mankind's interpretations of God's word. The argument made that any Supreme Court decision would follow an outdated precedent from over a century ago about polygamy is a ridiculous comparison that has no parallels by which to form an intellectual and rationale argument upon to determine the marriage rights of two consenting human beings. This is yet another form of bigotry that is veiled in rhetoric and has no more validity than the Adam and Steve argument. It is sad that so many people have still not come to terms with their own sense of humanity and that people still espouse hatred, exclusion and intolerance as a form of civility. This is yet another example of why the inhabitants of this planet, "us" are still so far apart and why ignorance and selfish elitism is tearing our world apart.


I'm beginning to wonder how many % of the Economist's editors are gay. Judging from the # of articles on this subject, probably quite a few. After all, what does world economy have to do with homosexuality?

What is the argument behind why gay marriage should be legal? Because what harm could they possibly do to anyone else? By the same token, why not allow brothers to marry sisters, mothers to marry sons, grandfathers to marry granddaughters? As long as they don't produce any offsprings, what harm does it do to anyone else? If it then becomes a question of morality, then why doesn't the same moral argument apply to gays? Until someone can give me a satisfactory answer to that, I don't believe gay marriage should be legal. After all, there is a reason why it takes a male and a female to produce an offspring in every species. It's the way nature intended for us to live on.


If homosexual marriage is granted legal legitimacy, all manner of bigamists, polygamists, and polyandrists would demand that the freedom to wed be extended to them. There will be group marriages, combinations and permutations of spouses entwined with one another. Divorce and Family Courts would be mired in convoluted webs when some of these plural marriages were inevitably dissolved.

The purpose of matrimony is to lend structure to that basic family unit, which has been the building block of our civilization for millennia: One man. One woman. End of story.


"I Blame the Parents" I think you're dead on. At its core, marriage is a civil contract and government should just GTFO the business of marriage altogether and focus on negative outcomes - e.g. stopping abuse and protecting vulnerable people from getting into marriage. I'm with you on polygamy in principle. Why I would want > 1 spouse I'll never understand but if consenting adults are interested in it why do I care? Again it's the (sometimes) associated negative outcomes that are the problem - again abuse, lack of choice, marrying of very young people. The practice itself is of no interest to me.

AS for gay marriage, I feel there are only 2 people on Earth who can influence the vows my wife and I have made to each other - she and me. Personally I believe we have made a covenant with God and no external force can negatively impact our vows. Even polygamous gay marriage.



Please forgive me, I'm not seeing any "right to marry a partner of choice" defined anywhere in the Constitution or elsewhere.

And, to be consistent, I don't believe we should change the definition of "handicapped" so that a perfectly ambulatory person like myself can exercise his right to park closer to the building. Nor do I think we ought to change the definition of "minority" so that my business can qualify for my right to special consideration as minority-owned.

Since you're playing the race card, may I point out that mixed-race marriages do not change the legal one-man-one-woman definition of marriage. That is an actual equal-protection-under-the-law issue.

So why can't three people, regardless of gender, marry each other if they wish? Why can't two people, regardless of age, marry if they wish? Why can't two people, a brother and a sister, marry each other if they wish?



"If I can marry someone of the same sex then why can't I be married to a dog, sheep, goat or any other creature?"

If you find a dog, sheep or goat that has told you of its dying love for you, expressed an interested in declaring I do and is willing to go to city hall to sign the marriage document with you, then I won't stand in your way.

@Yankee Kid

I'm saddened by your statements here because you seem to have faced something when you were younger that gives you this concept of gay people as predators out to turn you. I can promise you that I was gay long before I met any other gay people, just as there are many children who use their left hands to eat and play with toys long before they learn to write.

You state:
"Speaking of love, how do you think families feel if their child tells them that they are gay? Do you think they tell them, "great, you can now marry another man and be equal." If you love them would you tell them that they were born that way and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't that a bit like telling someone whom you love that is an alcoholic that you will furnish them with all that they can drink because it runs in the family"

That is exactly what I would hope someone would do if their child were gay. "Great! it doesn't make a difference to me because you are born that way! I worry about you though because there are many people who would compare you to someone diseased and would be ashamed to have you in their family. I'm glad our family is not that way."


The intent of the marriage is to offer some security to a female that will bear children; hence, marriage ties the father to his wife and their progenies.

Other than that, there is no sound justification for marriage - since a love relationship does not need government approval or tax benefits.


@Yankee kid

Since you and I are not gay, we have to accept it when gays say it is not a matter of choice, only they would know wouldn't they? How can you know?

Certainly back in the 1970's when being gay meant discrimination in the workforce and was socially unacceptable, what would make a person choose to be gay when it meant so much suffering?

Would you choose to be gay if it meant your parents disowned you? If it meant you would be socially ostracised? If it meant you would face discrimination in the workforce?

Homosexuality has been with mankind since bibical times and in eras when being gay resulted in mental anguish and suffering. Why do you think?


@hohan & reformedwhiteguy:

The function of science, which is to describe our natural world, can neither support nor refute the presence of a prime mover.


The group of homosexuality becomes larger and larger. The topic of gay marriage has been brought up and discussed for a long time. Personally I am opposed to gay marriage only in that I was educated against it and had no experience about it. But fairly speaking, gay deserves to pursue their happiness even though he/she share the same gender with him/her just I chase gorgeous girls. I understand gay in Physiological perspective but cannot accept it Psychologically. There is a saying:"No absolute freedom exists. Some people's freedom is always based on some other people's agony."


@Yankee Kid

I think you are misconstruing my remarks and perhaps I did not elaborate as much on my satisfaction with my love life. No, I am not married but I have been with my boyfriend now for just over two years. I love him and care deeply about him and have the best time in the world with him. I'm with him because he is probably one of the funniest people I know and while I'm definitely the smart one, he is way more organized and level-headed than I'll ever be. He completes me in a way that no woman ever could for the simple reason of attraction.

There are girls that I go traveling with, go out partying with and hang out and do nothing with that have been amazing friends to me and who I would do almost anything for but I am just simply not attracted to them physically, regardless of how in shape they are or whatever superior features they may have. Without going to deep into the homoerotic, my boyfriend is just plan hot. I was actually in awe when he said yes to our first date because he is plain out of my league.

When I said before that I'm not specifically proud to be gay, I mean it. I'm not proud to be gay. But I'm very happy with my life and am proud to be with someone that I love and who loves me.

And while marriage is not on the table for us for a while (I'm still just 25 and he's 27), I'm glad to be living in Canada and from Massachusetts, two places where I can marry if I so choose to do so.

The most interesting thing about the progression of the acceptance of gay people in society is not so much that we are affecting society and destabilizing it, destroying morals and corrupting youths but that the type of people who are out and gay are becoming more and more boring. In the 1970's, the only gay people you knew were the village people and now they are just boring Adam and Steve next door, the lawyer and the accountant who go to the movies every Thursday and garden at the weekend.

I just want to be boring like everybody else. Please just let me.

Kudo Shinichi

@netzach Your argument is completely invalid. That something is "(1)...non-standard, (2)...considered immoral by many, and (3) has been illegal for a long time." does not give just cause to stick with the status quo.

Interracial marriage was considered non-standard, immoral and was illegal for a long time, but if you believe it should be disallowed you're a bigot incapable of having a rational discussion.

Slavery was considered standard, moral, and legal for a long time, yet that doesn't make it any less abhorrent.

To make a fair judgment we need to consider the purpose of marriage not its history. The purpose is to give two people who love each other an institution which is a binding agreement to love and care for one another in an equal partnership. It is also an institution that provides a basis for raising a family. Both of these can be fulfilled through a same-sex union as well as through a opposite-sex union.

I can't understand why anyone would want to deny someone this right when it has absolutely no effect on his or herself personally.



176 previous comments, many of them remarkably silly, a fair number sadly hateful, some thought provoking in perhaps unintended ways, yet not one technical comment amongst them.

Well, I liked the study of statistics, so I have some technical queries:

First: the chart shows bars of equal width for the indicated groups, which would suggest a default assumption that the populations of the groups are of equal size. Clearly that is not the case. Perhaps the chart might have been more informative if the relative numbers of the groups, either in millions of as a percentage of total US population had been given. Could that information perhaps be provided?

Second: the chart splits the population into groups, but leaves out certain groups. For example, why are believers in Islam left out? Hindus? They may be small minorities in America, but so too are Jews. Further, while whites and blacks are identified, how about Hispanics, East Asians, South Asians, etc.,? Could this information not also have been provided?

Third: the stat I would like to see is a break-down on the basis of responses by people who are already married as opposed to people who are not married, and perhaps as a function of the number of years they have been married, whether they have raised kids, and so on.



It's actually 30% for identical twins. That's more than 11% for all twins, which would suggest that there is a genetic role that would explain less than half of the variance between the groups.

Fooli Cat


"By those standards, is gay marriage real or counterfeit?"

Key words being "by those standards". The problem with your long-winded logic is that those aren't the only "standards" and based "on that logic" gay marriage is quite real.


Gay marriage is a bit odd in the beginning but later one gets used to it and becomes normal . Marriage means friendship. Marriage does not mean that two people should marry and automatically should have
children. Most Governments and religions are responsable for the present overpopulation, causing starvation. Thousands of years old
religious habits should make way for modern conceptions in favor of
humanity. Johnny Van der Laan (82)


Robert Newson:

I didn't concede any of my paragraphs were irrelevant. I only said the fact thatpolygamy was been accepted before modern times is irrelevant to my argument. I explained what i meant by "traditionally", but if you don't like the idea, just omit to read that word, and the argument still stands on its own. So even if you point is valid (and it's not) it is irrelevant to my argument. BTW you still don't explain why it "belies" it.
I don't feel compelled to answer your speech about fallacies, because i didn't commit any. I only demand good reasons to change the statu quo in marriage regulations. Gay couples can aspire to regulation of inheritance and many other aspects outside the context of marriage, so why would you erase a traditional institution (valued by many as such) wich has it's own roots, origin and purpose (that essentially doesn't apply to same sex couples) just to get what you can get without doing it. Just the fanatism of equaling what is not equal (that's despite reality itself). I don't think that the need for that -void of content- "social recognition" is a good reason to change a public/social order institution designed to formalize and give stability to the reproduction of the community.
About adoption i don't have an informed opinion yet. I would like to find studies that are not influenced by some irrational hipersensitivity towards equality over all (even reality), nor metaphysical based arguments.



This argument about Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve, has become innocuous at best. Fact is that God created all three. I know people three people with each name, and all three are well-adjusted, productive citizens of this country; and yes all three are LGBT and have partner. One couple even have children.

All three are the most altruistic people I know. They work for non profits, which serve the poor, volunteer for local community services, and they all worship the same God you do. I have yet to see an fire and brimstone burn their houses down, not any visitation from demonic beings. They are all happy and loving people and offer their love to anyone that wants it.

I may have a skewed opinion of them, I love them all dearly. But I can't see how a loving God would punish any of these people. They bring no harm to anyone.

Now other than thumping your bible and incriminating people of the sin of love. How do you contribute to the community of humans? What do you so to stop suffering? There is suffering, our job as fellow human beings is to find ways to relieve it, and nothing else.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43
Bits and mortar: Babbage visits Ada's
Babbage March 15th, 10:22
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55


Products & events