Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Six out of 10 Americans Say Homosexual Relations Should Be Recognized as Legal
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE ^ | May 15, 2003 | Frank Newport

Posted on 05/15/2003 12:16:22 PM PDT by Remedy

But Americans are evenly divided on issue of legal civil unions between homosexuals giving them the legal rights of married couples

PRINCETON, NJ -- Attitudes toward homosexuality and homosexual relations continue to be one of the more complex areas of public opinion that Gallup measures. The issue is not only one of significant concern because of its traditional moral and religious overtones, but in recent years it has been at the center of state and federal legislative battles, highly publicized court challenges, and political debate.

Gallup's recent Values and Beliefs survey shows that a majority of Americans accept the idea that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal and that homosexuality is an acceptable way of life. The acceptance of homosexuality as legal is now at the 60% level, up from 52% last year and 43% when Gallup first began asking about it in 1977. The recent survey also finds that almost 9 out of 10 Americans agree that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities, although opinions on allowing homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples, are evenly divided.

A plurality of Americans believe that homosexuality is something that is a result of one's upbringing or environment, rather than being a genetic trait with which a person is born, although opinion on this has been somewhat inconsistent over time.

Should Homosexuality Be Legal?

Gallup first asked about the legality of homosexuality in 1977, with a basic question worded as follows: "Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?" At that point, Americans were evenly divided on the issue, as 43% said yes, 43% said no, and 14% were not sure. In Gallup's recent Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 5-7, the public has clearly become more moderate toward homosexuality than was the case two decades earlier: 60% of Americans now say that homosexual relations should be legal, 35% not legal, with 5% unsure. During the mid-1980s, the percentage saying that homosexual relations should be legal dropped to as low as 32%, perhaps resulting from either the conservative environment ushered in by the Reagan administration, or the beginning of widespread publicity surrounding AIDS and its prevalence in the homosexual community.

Equal Job Opportunities

Over the same time period, there has also been significant change in attitudes about employment rights for homosexuals. The specific Gallup question asks: "As you may know, there has been considerable discussion in the news regarding the rights of homosexual men and women. In general, do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities?" The percentage saying yes is now 88%, similar to recent years, but significantly higher than the 56% when first recorded in 1977. As recently as 1992, fewer than four in five Americans felt homosexuals should be given equal treatment in hiring.

Thus, there is a gap between the 60% of the public saying that homosexual relations should be legal, and the 88% saying that homosexuals should have equal rights in the workplace. These two questions may play to different norms that exist in contemporary America. The legality question may tap into a general sense of morality, and a reluctance of a more conservative segment of society to sanction what they consider to be deviant behavior. The question about equal opportunity, on the other hand, may invoke the public's attitudes about discrimination, fair play, and equal treatment.

Homosexuality as an Acceptable Lifestyle

Indeed, a sizable percentage of Americans continue to frown on the homosexual lifestyle. In 1982, Gallup distinguished between Americans' personal feelings about homosexuality from their opinions about its legality by asking this question: "Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?" At that time, just 34% said yes. Public acceptance on this measure has increased incrementally since that point, and our latest poll shows that a small majority, 54%, now agrees that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle. Still, that leaves a substantial minority of 43% who disagree.

There are significant differences in willingness to accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle within subgroups of the American population. In general, the following groups are most likely to agree that such relationships are acceptable:

Nature or Nurture?

Part of the argument about homosexuality through the years has focused on the issue of how much control an individual has over his or her sexual orientation. Many gay and lesbian leaders stress the fact that homosexuality is an inborn trait, and -- similar to gender or race -- is not a decision over which an individual has direct control. The classic Gallup Poll question designed to get at this issue -- first used in 1977 -- asks if homosexuality is "something a person is born with or is homosexuality due to other factors such as upbringing or environment?"

In 1977, the public was more likely to agree with the argument that homosexuality is due to factors such as one's upbringing and environment, rather than the argument that homosexuality is something with which a person is born -- by a margin of 56% to 13%. Twenty-six years later, in 2003, the percentage of Americans accepting the genetic argument has more than doubled to 38%, while the percentage agreeing that homosexuality is environmentally caused has dropped to 44%. Thus, a slight plurality of Americans now agrees with the "nurture" argument over the "nature" argument. Still, unlike other trend questions that have moved to a more liberal orientation in this year's survey, the "upbringing/environment" alternative in response to this question is more prevalent now than it was in either 2001 or 2002.

Should Homosexual Couples Be Given the Same Legal Rights as Married Couples?

The answer to this question is a clear "yes" if the issue is simply whether gay or lesbian partners should be able to share healthcare and Social Security survivor benefits. Americans are less supportive if providing legal rights is done in the context of establishing a right of civil unions for gays and lesbians, akin to marriage.

Polling in recent years has consistently shown that at least 6 out of 10 Americans are opposed to the recognition of marriages between homosexuals as legally valid unions, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

If the question is re-phrased to emphasize giving "some of the legal rights of married couples," but without the assumption that they would in some ways be "married," public opinion breaks even. In May 2002, 46% favored a law that would "allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples," while 51% opposed. This year, opinion is exactly divided, with 49% in favor and 49% opposed.

At the same time, a question that asks about giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples "regarding healthcare benefits and Social Security survivor benefits" finds 62% agreement.

Survey Methods

These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 5-7, 2003. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; homosexualagenda; liewithstatistics; medaibias
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 next last
To: Lizavetta
"... because it's just as unlikely and ridiculous as the 6 out of 10 bullsh*t."

So you have examined Gallup's polling methodology and found it wanting. Could you please give a statistical analysis showing why their conclusions are invalid?

"equating traditional marriages with deviant marriages..."

OK, let's go for *real* traditional marriages, as when women were the men's property. That's a tradition of literally centuries, rather than this recent "women are equal partners in a marriage". Yeah, right. [Yes, that was sarcasm.]

"demand legal recognition and protection is swinging, then bestiality,..."

Already happened. Who needs consenting adults? Bestiality in private is 100% legal in the Great State of Texas. No, that's not a misprint. That's Texas. As in Texas, United States of America.
101 posted on 05/15/2003 6:30:08 PM PDT by jde1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: xJones
Exactly!
102 posted on 05/15/2003 6:32:18 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.

BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law.... During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed.... Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." W. Blackstone, Commentaries . The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

Thomas Jefferson on Sodomy Sect. XIV. Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy* with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least. Peterson, Merrill D. "Crimes and Punishments" Thomas Jefferson: Writings Public Papers (Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. 1984) pp. 355, 356.

Hundreds rally for '10 Commandments judge' Moore wrote a separate concurring opinion, repudiating homosexuality on religious grounds, calling it "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."

103 posted on 05/15/2003 7:34:14 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Remedy, please don't take this as a personal attack, I am attacking the absolutly assinine statement from the court you quoted...

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.

The above quote continues to show the absolute ignorance of our judiciary and most Citizens... The Constitution does not confer rights to anyone or anything except to the State or Federal government. These entities don't exist without the Constitution (though they are operating as if there is none right now, but that's a different conversation).

Even still, I guess I am changing the subject. To be clear again...Sodomy is wrong, evil, against God, etc.... and the family and the church need to get back to basics...but...

You have just as much right "in reference to the Constitution" to stick your tounge on an electric socket, (excuse the crudity, but I'm trying to get a point across) to put your nuts in a vise, or to perform the (disturbing)act of sodomy.

They are all stupid and wrong, but if I as an individual don't have the "jurisdiction" to enter your property and stop you from doing these things, I can not (in the form of a "government") confer that right to others...





104 posted on 05/15/2003 7:56:13 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: caisson71
There is no proof or argument that would satisfy those bent on promoting acceptance of their decadent lifestyle. It would be "childish and silly" to try. It is only through deceit, subterfuge and a very dishonest and willing press that you've gotten this far.

I'm just replying to your reply to me - I've been away for a couple of hours and haven't read the whole thread... But it sounds as though you are replying to the wrong person. I don't think you could find someone more adamantly opposed to the homo-Nazi agenda than me.

105 posted on 05/15/2003 8:18:10 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Belial
Logically fallacious? Perhaps.

Empirically fallacious? I don't think so.
106 posted on 05/15/2003 8:25:25 PM PDT by TradicalRC (Fides quaerens intellectum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.

The above quote continues to show the absolute ignorance of our judiciary and most Citizens... The Constitution does not confer rights to anyone or anything except to the State or Federal government. These entities don't exist without the Constitution (though they are operating as if there is none right now, but that's a different conversation).


107 posted on 05/15/2003 8:34:27 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Like the subject of many polls, human rights are not subject to the will of the majority. What's the point of polling on this stuff?
108 posted on 05/15/2003 8:36:51 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
I think your meter is a little on the low side.
109 posted on 05/15/2003 8:38:37 PM PDT by Duckdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: breakem

What's the point of polling on this stuff?

Politics, Politics, Politics. Cite the poll and ram the homo agenda down the throats of everyone.

110 posted on 05/15/2003 8:46:26 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
If the question is having sex with other adults, they already have that right, unless you don't believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happeness.

I'm am concerned about some of you freepers who are constantly having beliefs shoved down you throat. Be careful.

111 posted on 05/15/2003 8:51:52 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: breakem
You are morally and mentally confused. Read the LINKS in POST#1!
112 posted on 05/15/2003 8:55:27 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Here is how confused I am. I believe adults have the right to have sex with other adults as they please and you believe the government can outlaw it.

I am talking about what I believe is a human right, not what I think is moral. Can you comprehend the distinction?

It is you who are confused and mentally challenged. And I might ask, what kind of belief is it that the government can outlaw this human activity? Certainly not the belief of someone who believes in freedom.

113 posted on 05/15/2003 9:00:15 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Notice how they asked the question. It wouldn't surprise me if they asked:

Should homosexuals be allowed to love, or be tortured and killed?

A better question would be: Should same-sex relationships be considered the moral equivalent of marriage?

Or: Is anal sex the moral equivalent of intercourse?

What do you think the numbers would look like in surveys like that?
114 posted on 05/15/2003 9:05:41 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Raise your hand if you don't believe this poll!
I am not buying this, not at all. This is more propaganda brought to us by the Gay Lobby IMHO.
115 posted on 05/15/2003 9:08:11 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
Wow! Hitler had almost the same idea!

Comparison to Hitler, ffusco. 15-yards and loss of down.
116 posted on 05/15/2003 9:11:25 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
I know you can't call the entire field, but you missed a call on 105. Those nazis references get thrown around a lot huh?
117 posted on 05/15/2003 9:25:31 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred; pram
One of my favorite propaganda techniques is calling people nazis. Usually found at the ole FR on the homo threads. Indicative of intellectual bankruptcy.
118 posted on 05/15/2003 9:27:47 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Last one out turn out the lights.
119 posted on 05/15/2003 9:55:15 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: breakem
The reason I call homo activists Nazis is for a very specific reason. One of the founders of ACT-UP (Larry something or other) read Mein Kampf for pointers on how to convert society to his liking (i.e. homo-friendly). I have read a list of the original homo activists' methods and plans and they eerily resemble the Nazis in Germany in their methods, terminology, and oddly enough, in their sexual habits. Many of the Nazi heirarchy in Germany were pederasts, and their philosophy was to a large part based on mystic, utopian, hate filled Neitzche-esque homo-erotic garbage. So I use the word because of the connections between the Nazis of Hitler's Germany and the homo activists of today, not because I am slinging names around.
120 posted on 05/15/2003 10:51:49 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson