The Audacious Epigone (“Validating stereotypes since 2005″) found an interesting correlation using data from the General Social Survey between rejection of extramarital sex and rejection of gender-indifferent marriage:
The GSS queried 4,146 people on their support for same sex marriage and level of moral acceptance of extramarital sex. Since marriage vows don’t allow much room for that, the belief that extramarital sex is anything other than always wrong can reasonably be seen as an ‘attack’ on the institution itself.The percentage of people who feel extramarital sex is always wrong, by level of support for same sex marriage:
Homosexuals should marry Extramarital sex always wrong Strongly agree 70.7% Agree 75.1% Neutral 79.2% Disagree 83.3% Strongly disagree 91.1% Whether or not expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couples will materially effect the institution’s success rate, those who support expanding its definition are less likely to see a problem with married people running around on one another.
Previous posts: “Marriage Indifference Revisited” and “Most and Least Marriage-Indifferent States“
It’s not clear to me if “extramarital sex” includes “premarital sex.” Many people believe it’s wrong to cheat on your wife, but fine to have sex with your girlfriend if you’re single. Maybe those are some of the people that support gay marriage.
Wondering, that is not a bad thought.
I’d like to see a lot more of this sort of analysis, it could well teach us something.
The survey question was “What is your opinion about a married person having sexual relations with someone other than the marriage partner–is it always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at all?” Definitely asking for opinions regarding adultery and not pre-marital fornication. This was question 218. Question 217 asked for opinions of pre-marital sex. (Of course, the “pre” part of “pre-marital sex” is mostly a lie; most of what gets called that is amarital sex.)
Stephen M, I’m considering going through the GSS myself to see what other things correlate with opinions regarding gender-indifferent marriage. Are there any that come to mind that you are curious about?
“6ender-indifferent marriage.” That is new term for me.
The age or generational variable is the most interesting on this and related issues. Younger people are significantly more supportive of gay rights in general and same-sex marriage in particular. The social scientist in me thinks this will be an interesting issue to watch develop in the coming years and decades.
A thing to keep in mind about younger people is that they inevitably become older people.
Regarding “gender-indifferent marriage,” in Massachusetts only one kind of marriage is recognized, not separate same-sex marriages and combined-sex marriages. Also, Colby Cosh embedded this thought in my language consciousness a few years ago:
It is not your biological age, but the times you live in. Older generations that are less supportive of gay rights were also less supportive when they were younger. This is why some are so anxious to ban it now: the tide of public support for gay rights will only increase with time.
It may be as you say, but my hunch is that the 35-year-olds of 2008 were less supportive than the 25-year-olds of 1998. Also, I think the push for bans comes at this time more because advocates for the other side keep bringing cases to court.
This is the best argument I have heard against gay marriage.
Gay marriage doesn’t satisfy life’s purpose
It is amazing to me the extent that people will go to in order to achieve their personal goals. Take, for example, Prop. 8 that was on the ballot . This is the second time the California voters have passed this law, and yet those who fought against Prop. 8 continue to fight against the will of the people.
They keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.”
Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature’s laws.
If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet.
Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race.
Society is based on the family of husband wife and children. This is how the next generation rises. I can just see states or countries legalizing gay marriage and then losing population.
Jon M, you are pasting the exact same comment on every blog in every thread that has even a remote connection to gay marriage, even if it has no real relevance to the main point or question of the thread.
Serious question:
Why?
#9 I agree with you mostly. I do not agree with ” I can just see states or countries legalizing gay marriage and then losing population”
I just cannot see a sizable portion of any population turning gay just cause gay marriage becomes legal. Most of us are just not that confused. We know if we are gay or straight.
As to the topic at hand. I think that opinions do change as one ages. Some people become more conservative; others more liberal. Very few of us stay stagnant our entire lives.
Ray:
You blog an awful lot yourself. It seems like you can’t turn around with RAY being there with his own wit and opinions. Why do you do what you do?
JA Benson:
Losing population would be a logical consequence of governments promoting and/or endorsing gay marriage, not because people would turn gay. There are so many children now being born to unwed mothers and marriage with an intact family is scorned by society today. Though not perfect, the model of husband, wife, and children is what perpetuates society and to tamper with this will bring society grave consequences. So we learn in the Proclamation on the Family.
Ray:
No disrespect intended but surely owners of these websites must realize that there are unlimited opinions and various ways of expressing them
#6: “Not that anything wrong with Urg.” is one of the funnier things I have read in a while.
It is because of this scripture that solidified my support the Prophet and the 12 on defining Gay Marriage:
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. Mosiah 29:26–27
Consider the situation in Italy:
“Notwithstanding a long history of legislative proposals for civil unions in Italy, neither civil unions nor same-sex marriage are recognized under Italian law.” (Wikapedia)
Italy has a low birth rate of about 1 child per woman. In 40-50 years from now there will not be enough workers to sustain the old age populations. SOme of the reasons given for this are high taxes, over-indulged men who are mama’s boys who will not support a family, and women who have to work and cannot afford child-care.
My take on this is if Italy cut back on their taxes more men would feel like earning a wage and then they could support a a wife who is a SAHM. So I believe that it is high taxes and lax heterosexual morals has created the mess in Italy. THis would also apply in the USA. Lower the taxes, fewer social programs will equal more responsibility on the populous.
#16 Sorry, it is early, I meant defining marriage. Take out the gay part.
Amen, JA Benson! If only more people thought as you do. (Take out the gay part).
Geoff, if more thought as I do they would be operating with half a brain a few hours every day!
You’re right, Jon. I still wonder about the question, but I shouldn’t have asked it. I apologize.