Arguments for Gay Marriage - Opn Front

Contents:

• PUBLIC OPN ON GAY MARRIAGE: OPPONENTS CONSISTENTLY OUTNUMBER SUPPORTERS
• SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
• THE POPE’S ‘SHOCKG’ STATEMENT ON GAY MARRIAGE IS G AN UPROAR AMONG CATHOLICS
• ARGUMENTS FOR GAY MARRIAGE
• TEN REASONS TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE: PROS, CONS, AND WHERE BOTH PARTI STAND

PUBLIC OPN ON GAY MARRIAGE: OPPONENTS CONSISTENTLY OUTNUMBER SUPPORTERS

For stance, 2004, jt months after Massachetts beme the first state to allow gay marriage, a jot survey by the Pew Rearch Center’s Fom on Relign & Public Life and the Pew Rearch Center for the People & the Prs found that about twice as many Amerins opposed legalizg same-sex marriage (60%) as supported (29%).

More recently, an April 2009 survey by the Pew Rearch Center for the People & the Prs found that opposn to legalizg same-sex marriage stood at 54%, wh 35% supportg the right of gays and lbians to wed. The April 2009 Pew Rearch Center survey also found that opponents of same-sex marriage outnumber supporters by the wist marg among olr people, wh those over age 65 opposg gay marriage by a marg of 64% to 24%.

SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?

While about eight--ten whe evangelil Prottants (81%) oppose gay marriage, opposn among whe male Prottants (55%) and Ain-Amerin Prottants (56%) is more le wh the populatn as a whole (54%). While a majory of Amerins oppose same-sex marriage, a slight majory supports allowg gay and lbian upl to enter to legal agreements that give them many of the same rights as married upl, a stat monly known as civil unns. As recently as 2004, nearly twice as many Amerins opposed than favored allowg gay and lbian people to marry legally; by 2019, public opn had reversed, wh 61% favor and 31% opposed.

Put simply, a number of natns have wnsed “sea chang” public opn about gay other strikg feature is the wi variatn across natns public opn about gay rights and gay marriage, as well as related attus about gay men, lbians, and homosexualy (see Table 1).

THE POPE’S ‘SHOCKG’ STATEMENT ON GAY MARRIAGE IS G AN UPROAR AMONG CATHOLICS

Lookg at the natnal level, a 2013 survey of 16 “veloped” natns found that support for full regnn of gay marriage was >75% Swen, Norway, and Spa but <30% South Korea, Japan, and Poland (Ipsos, 2013).

A 2013 survey of 39 natns found “broad acceptance of homosexualy North Ameri, the European Unn, and much of Lat Ameri, but equally wispread rejectn predomantly Mlim natns and Ai, as well as parts of Asia and Rsia” (Pew Rearch Global Attus Project, 2013). Table 1Public opn about gay marriage and homosexualy selected natns NatnSame-sex upl should be allowed to legally marry (%) (Ipsos, 2013)Society should accept homosexualy (%) (Pew Rearch, 2013)Swena 81 – Norwaya 78 – Spaa 76 88 Belgiuma 67 – Germany 67 87 Canadaa 63 80 Atralia 54 79 Francea 51 77 Braa 55 76 Italy 48 74 Argentaa 48 74 Philipp – 73 Mexib – 61 Brazila – 60 Uned Statb 42 60 Hungary 30 – Japan 24 54 Venezuela – 51 Poland 21 42 South Korea 26 39 South Aia – 32 Cha – 21 Rsia – 16 Turkey – 9 Malaysia – 9 Kenya – 8 Indonia – 3 Egypt – 3 Pakistan – 2 Nigeria – 1 NatnSame-sex upl should be allowed to legally marry (%) (Ipsos, 2013)Society should accept homosexualy (%) (Pew Rearch, 2013)Swena 81 – Norwaya 78 – Spaa 76 88 Belgiuma 67 – Germany 67 87 Canadaa 63 80 Atralia 54 79 Francea 51 77 Braa 55 76 Italy 48 74 Argentaa 48 74 Philipp – 73 Mexib – 61 Brazila – 60 Uned Statb 42 60 Hungary 30 – Japan 24 54 Venezuela – 51 Poland 21 42 South Korea 26 39 South Aia – 32 Cha – 21 Rsia – 16 Turkey – 9 Malaysia – 9 Kenya – 8 Indonia – 3 Egypt – 3 Pakistan – 2 Nigeria – 1 Not.

”aAs of June 1, 2014, provid legal regnn for gay marriage all of June 1, 2014, provid legal regnn for gay marriage some 1Public opn about gay marriage and homosexualy selected natns NatnSame-sex upl should be allowed to legally marry (%) (Ipsos, 2013)Society should accept homosexualy (%) (Pew Rearch, 2013)Swena 81 – Norwaya 78 – Spaa 76 88 Belgiuma 67 – Germany 67 87 Canadaa 63 80 Atralia 54 79 Francea 51 77 Braa 55 76 Italy 48 74 Argentaa 48 74 Philipp – 73 Mexib – 61 Brazila – 60 Uned Statb 42 60 Hungary 30 – Japan 24 54 Venezuela – 51 Poland 21 42 South Korea 26 39 South Aia – 32 Cha – 21 Rsia – 16 Turkey – 9 Malaysia – 9 Kenya – 8 Indonia – 3 Egypt – 3 Pakistan – 2 Nigeria – 1 NatnSame-sex upl should be allowed to legally marry (%) (Ipsos, 2013)Society should accept homosexualy (%) (Pew Rearch, 2013)Swena 81 – Norwaya 78 – Spaa 76 88 Belgiuma 67 – Germany 67 87 Canadaa 63 80 Atralia 54 79 Francea 51 77 Braa 55 76 Italy 48 74 Argentaa 48 74 Philipp – 73 Mexib – 61 Brazila – 60 Uned Statb 42 60 Hungary 30 – Japan 24 54 Venezuela – 51 Poland 21 42 South Korea 26 39 South Aia – 32 Cha – 21 Rsia – 16 Turkey – 9 Malaysia – 9 Kenya – 8 Indonia – 3 Egypt – 3 Pakistan – 2 Nigeria – 1 Not. At the dividual level, public opn about gay rights not only reflects broad human, polil, and relig valu (Brewer, 2008; Fzgerald, Wstone, & Prtage, this issue) but may also shape other polil attus and behavrs, cludg voter turnout and vote choice, unr some circumstanc (Campbell & Monson, 2008; Lewis, 2005). One of the aforementned featur of public opn about gay rights—namely, the rapid transformatns support that have unfold some natns—provis opportuni for examg the dynamics of policy opns.

ARGUMENTS FOR GAY MARRIAGE

Fzgerald, Wstone, and Prtage extend rearch on such differenc by ttg whether the attus that migrants om Eastern Europe to Wtern Europe hold toward gay men and lbians reflect an acculturatn studi the special issue ntribute to our knowledge about how mography, social ntact, and media n shape public opn about gay rights along wh related attus. L, L, and Loper tt the effects of both terpersonal and imaged ntact on public opn about gay men, lbians, and an antidiscrimatn law Hong Kong (where the visibily of gay men and lbians public life has creased dramatilly), while Panchapakan, Li, and Ho analyze how levels of attentn to tradnal news and Inter news are related to public opn Sgapore (where gay and lbian ntent is censored tradnal media). 1The followg acunt the terms “gay rights” and “gay marriage, ” but is worth observg that the e of language scribg the issu at hand may, and of self, rry implitns for opn.

Proponents of legal gay marriage ntend that gay marriage bans are discrimatory and unnstutnal, and that same-sex upl should have accs to all the benefs enjoyed by different-sex upl. On July 25, 2014 Miami-Da County Circu Court Judge Sarah Zabel led Florida’s gay marriage ban unnstutnal and stated that the ban “serv only to hurt, to discrimate, to prive same-sex upl and their fai of equal digny, to label and treat them as send-class cizens, and to em them unworthy of participatn one of the fundamental stutns of our society. The Amerin Psychologil Associatn, Amerin Psychiatric Associatn, and others nclud that legal gay marriage giv upl “accs to the social support that already facilat and strengthens heterosexual marriag, wh all of the psychologil and physil health benefs associated wh that support.

TEN REASONS TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

A 2010 analysis found that after their stat had banned gay marriage, gay, lbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% crease mood disorrs, a 42% crease alhol-e disorrs, and a 248% crease generalized anxiety disorrs. In July 2012 New York Cy Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that gay marriage had ntributed $259 ln to the cy’s enomy jt a year sce the practice beme legal there July 2011.

In 2012, the Williams Instute at the Universy of California at Los Angel (UCLA) found that the first five years after Massachetts legalized gay marriage 2004, same-sex weddg expendur (such as venue rental, weddg k, etc.

GAY MARRIAGE: PROS, CONS, AND WHERE BOTH PARTI STAND

2016 printial ndidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fra stated that civil unns are aquate as an equivalent to marriage: “Benefs are beg btowed to gay upl [ civil unns]… I believe we need to rpect those who believe that the word marriage has a spirual foundatn… Why n’t we rpect and tolerate that while at the same time sayg ernment nnot btow benefs unequally. Court papers filed July 2014 by attorneys fendg Arizona’s gay marriage ban stated that “the State regulat marriage for the primary purpose of channelg potentially procreative sexual relatnships to endurg unns for the sake of jog children to both their mother and their father… Same-sex upl n never provi a child wh both her blogil mother and her blogil father.