Poll: Support For Gay Marriage Dips

(CBS)

Support for same-sex marriage has declined slightly from two months ago, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds.

On other issues that have come before the Supreme Court -- namely, affirmative action and abortion -- Americans' opinions have remained relatively stable for years, according to the poll, conducted June 12 - 16.

Most Americans support some legal recognition of a same-sex couple's relationship. The poll found 33 percent favor marriage for same-sex couples, down somewhat from a high of 42 percent in April, and another 30 percent support civil unions. A third of Americans think there should be no legal recognition of a same-sex couple's relationship. Views in this poll are similar to those found back in March of this year.

On the issue of affirmative action, views have remained similar for more than a decade. Fifty percent of Americans favor affirmative action programs, while four in 10 are opposed to them. In 2008, 51 percent favored affirmative action, while that number rested at 59 percent in 2000 and 55 percent in 1997.

There is broader support -- from 80 percent of Americans -- for programs that make special efforts to help people get ahead who come from low-income backgrounds, regardless of gender or ethnicity.

Views on abortion also continue to hold steady. The poll found 36 percent of Americans think abortion should be generally available, while slightly more –- 41 percent -- say it should be available but under stricter limits. One in five thinks it should not be permitted.

When Americans are asked specifically about the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which established a Constitutional right for a woman to obtain a legal abortion, 62 percent say that decision was a good thing, while 32 percent say it was a bad thing. Opinions on this have been consistent over the years.

In addition, most Americans, 64 percent, do not think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

---

CBS News Polls
No Dent In Obama's Popularity
Support For Gay Marriage Dips
Support For Closing Guantanamo Grows
Sotomayor Still An Unknown

---

As could be expected, views on Roe v. Wade are strongly tied to political party, ideology and religion. Democrats (74 percent), liberals (85 percent) and moderates (68 percent) think the Supreme Court's decision was a good thing. Republicans (51 percent), conservatives (53 percent) and white evangelicals (66 percent) say it was a bad thing. Majorities of both men (65 percent) and women (59 percent) think the Roe v. Wade decision was a good thing.

---

Read The Complete Poll (PDF)

---

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 895 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone June 12-16, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Poll.

Watch more
CBSNews.com editor-in-chief Dan Farber speaks with Sarah Dutton, the director of surveys for CBS News, about the latest New York Times/CBS News poll on Pres. Obama and Sonia Sotomayor:

Watch CBS Videos Online

[bradkt1]

Interesting poll. The gay marriage issue is being pushed hard by some gay rights activists and the majority of Americans don't agree with them. I am a Democrat and I don't either. I agree with President Obama's position...civil unions that have the legal consequences that don't adversely affect issues like inheritance, health benefits and the like are fine with me...but I believe that state government legislatures that reflect the will of the people have the right to define what constitutes a marriage.

[Yeah-Me]

@black_howler...

EXCELLENT POSTS!!!

[black_howler]

The slippery slope argument fails on so many levels. Gay marriage has only been legal recently, as we been eliminating ignorance and realizing there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. However, polygamy, has been observed in many countries and times throughout the past, with a majority of the relationships being men with multiple woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

By your logic, this means heterosexual marriage has a tendency to lead to polygamy and polyandry, so we should eliminate heterosexual marriage then too. See why your "slippery" slope logic fails? Also, since gay marriage has a tendency to lead to heterosexual marriage, again, if you are using the slippery slope argument, we need to get rid of marriage altogether since heterosexual marriage leads to gay marriage. That is why the slippery slope argument fails.

Also, you're doing what everyone else does and you're comparing one social taboo with another while ignoring what makes them different. Attraction to the same sex does not equate to polygamy (or incest, as a matter of fact: for one thing I don't imagine a relative would somehow only be attracted to other relatives) remotely in any way outside of the fact that they are both socially stigmatized. Gay marriage does not equate to multiple partners. Apples and oranges are both fruits.

Also, it's significant to note that gay marriage has been legal in MA for 5 years now, i don't see anyone pushing for polygamy. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that's quickly becoming obsolete.

[black_howler]

Violence against a minority group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

Gays are being beaten, shot at, sent to the hospital, killed. In the Middle East, they are killing gays among other groups out of hatred. Is this what we want America to become? Do we want America to revert back to the 1960's when groups were killed and segregated against for simply no good reason? Do we want to follow the ways of the Middle East and Al Queda? Let's push forward, it's time to end bigotry, discrimination, hate, and ignorance. This is modern America, not the Dark Ages.

[black_howler]

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/romans_inter.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.

This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.

[black_howler]

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

[black_howler]

Reply to leftsocialist:

Let us examine the proper interpretations when you don't take those passages out of context. It is also significant that you quoted the Old Testament, when Jesus said to disregard the old law. But like most religious bigots, you only use the passages that benefit you while ignoring those that don't.

====================================
Let's start with Leviticus:
====================================
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

Also notice, that there is no condemnation of female homosexual relationships here. If they were talking about homosexuality, they would also talk about female homosexual relationships, which they don't. This is further proof that sexuality was not being talked about here, idolatry and fertility rituals are.

[black_howler]

Reply to leftsocialist:

Let us continue to examine the proper interpretations when you don't take those passages out of context. Homosexuality is NOT a sin in the Bible.

======================================
The Sodom Story
======================================
The Sodom Story - Genesis 19:1-29
Homophobic Viewpoint: "Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality."
Scriptural Viewpoint: Sodom was a lush beautiful region of land whose inhabitants had known the goodness of God. Despite their exposure to, experience with, and witness of the one true loving Creator, the people of Sodom had rejected a relationship with God, and turned to numerous types of idolatry. When God's messengers were sent to the city, the men of Sodom responded by threatening the ultimate act of violent abuse, murder, disrespect and humiliation. They were going to RAPE God's representatives.

All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God's messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY.

=====================================
Corinthians 6:9-11
=====================================
This is another commonly misinterpreted passage, and one that clearly proves people are changing God's words to condone their bigotry.

Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.


Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

[black_howler]

http://www.examiner.com/x-11620-Atlanta-Lesbian-Relationship-Examiner~y2009m6d18-75-of-teens-support-gay-marriage-in-online-poll

75% of teens support gay marriage.

Sorry, majority of the polls show a rise in support for gay marriage. Of course there will be a few that don't follow the trend, but that's expected. The real poll that matters is when the old people die out, the younger generation supports gay marriage. 60%+ of people aged 18-30 typically support gay marriage, in some areas as high as 80%. As you go into the teens 13-17, seems 75% support it. And the generation that comes after them, the number will be even higher.

It will be a matter of time bigots, before you disappear like the racists.

[black_howler]

Reply to leftsocialist:

"If homosexuality is not a lifestyle behavioral choice, are you saying that homosexuality is a mutational birth defect where one's biological animal instincts prevents one from making rational decisions causing them to suffer from a form of delusional psychosis of a mental illness neuroses? After all, don't gays discriminate between whom they will & won't sleep with (yes for this one & no for that one) which sounds like a lifestyle behavioral CHOICE to me?"

Obvious troll is obvious :)

Medical books and psychologists would have to disagree with the "mental illness" You're stuck in the time period when racism was still running strong, so it's not surprising you are anti-gay. Also, I wouldn't call it a birth defect, i would call it a natural biological/genetic difference between people, like like left-handed people, people who wear eyeglasses, etc. It's a normal part of life, and has always been.

And no, it's not discrimination, because if you use that logic, then heterosexuals are also discriminating against who they sleep with. See why your logic still fails, along with your trolling? =)

[black_howler]

The following people are trolls:

leftsocialist

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

[Questionews]

This new format is really starting to honk me off!

[Questionews]

TheMasses: Realities need to be dealt with? Like talking snakes, people being resurrected and spirits in the sky knocking up 13 year old virgins?

by AttentionDeficit June 18, 2009 11:24 AM PDT




I've never heard Alex Rodriguez being referred to as a spirit.



Pregnant??? Am I missing something here???

[TheMasses0003]

AttentionDeficit June 18, 2009 10:33 AM PDT
Yeah, I bet it was hard for Rock Hudson to get women
------------------------------
Is that how you want to end up?
Like Rock Hudson?

[Yeah-Me]

Don't even go there....