Six out of 10 Americans Say Homosexual Relations Should Be Recognized as Legal

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

The Poisoned Stream "Gay" Influence in Human History. Volume One. Germany 1890-1945. View as HTML

Igra's primary value to us today is that he was an eyewitness to the changes that occurred in Germany; an eyewitness with a uniquely prophetic sense of the danger of "gay" influence in society. I consider it a great privilege to be able to review his work for the modern reader.
Igra's Thesis: Homosexuality Was at the Root of Nazi Evil

"I had finished the writing of [Germany's National Vice]," writes Samuel Igra, "when my attention was called to a British White Paper, 'Concerning the treatment of German Nationals (including the Jews) in Germany,' in which the following statement is made: 'The explanation for this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and, in particular, homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany. It seems to me that mass sexual perversion may offer an explanation of this otherwise inexplicable outbreak.' [Page 20. His Majesty's Stationary Office, 1939].
"The author of that statement is Mr. R. T. Smallbones, who was British Consul-General at Frankfort-on-Main from 1932 until the outbreak of the war in 1939. Previous to 1932 he had been stationed in other German cities. His opinion therefore rests on firsthand experience of the German people for a long period of years. I am convinced that his explanation is the correct one. For, as a matter of fact, the widespread existence of sexual perversion in Germany, not only at the time the Hitler movement rose to power but also under the Kaiser's regime, is notorious... And authorities on criminal sociology are agreed that there is a causal connection between mass sexual perversion and the kind of mass atrocities committed by the Germans (ibid:7).

The Roehm Purge, then, was not a "moral cleansing" of the Nazi ranks, but a re-alignment of power behind the German government which was primarily forced upon Hitler by powerful political elements whose support he needed to maintain control. Igra goes on to point out that not only did the majority of the SA homosexuals survive the purge, but that the massacre was largely implemented by homosexuals.

There is no question that homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust. As we have noted, the ideas for disposing of the Jews originated with Lanz von Leibenfels. The first years of terrorism against the Jews were carried out by the homosexuals of the SA. The first concentration camp, as well as the system for training its brutal guards, was the work of Ernst Roehm. The first pogrom, Kristallnacht, was orchestrated in 1938 by the homosexual Reinhard Heydrich. And it was the transvestite Goering who started the "evolution of the Final Solution...[with an] order to Heydrich (Jan. 24, 1939) concerning the solution of the Jewish question by 'emigration' and 'evacuation'" (Robinson:25).

Homosexuality and the Nazi PartyOne of the keys to understanding both the rise of Nazism and the later persecution of some homosexuals by the Nazis is found in this early history of the German "gay rights" movement. For it was the CS which created and shaped what would become the Nazi persona, and it was the loathing which these "Butches" held for effeminate homosexuals ("Femmes") which led to the internment of some of the latter in slave labor camps in the Third Reich.

More significantly, many of the guards and administrators responsible for the infamous concentration camp atrocities were homosexuals themselves, which negates the proposition that homosexuals in general were being persecuted and interned.

The enduring "Butch/Femme" conflict among German homosexuals clearly had a substantial bearing on the treatment of pink-triangle prisoners.

...While the neo-pagans were busy attacking from without, liberal theologians undermined Biblical authority from within the Christian church. The school of so-called "higher criticism," which began in Germany in the late 1800s, portrayed the miracles of God as myths; by implication making true believers (Jew and Christian alike) into fools. And since the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. As Grunberger asserts, Nazism itself was a "pseudo-religion" (ibid.:79) that competed, in a sense, with Christianity and Judaism.

From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo- Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades by powerful social forces. By the time the Nazis came to power, German culture was spiritually bankrupt. Too often, historians have largely ignored the spiritual element of Nazi history; but if we look closely at Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews, it becomes clear that his ostensive racial motive obscures a deeper and more primal hatred of the Jews as the "People of God."

The probable reason for Hitler's attack on Christianity was his perception that it alone had the moral authority to stop the Nazi movement. But Christians stumbled before the flood of evil. As Poliakov notes, "[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments" (Poliakov:300).

"The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution Of The Christian Churches"

The Donovan Nuremberg Trials collection

Gay Nazis: the Role of Homosexuality in Nazism & Hitler's Rise to ... Thus butch hypermasculinity, visibility for homosexuals, and organization were the three necessary ingredients in the mix which allowed the SA leaders to make their unique and essential contribution to the rise of Nazism. Another important consideration is that visibility is enabled when homosexuality assumes a political voice. In this way, the politicization of homosexuality, which supported gays in the process of socially identifying themselves as such, was a necessary condition for Hitler's success.

Was Hitler's Homosexuality Nazism's Best-Kept Secret?

Sadomasochism That sadomasochism and homoeroticism often occur together with Nazism in the Holocaust film is a fact that has long been recognized and is frequently observed. Ilan Avisar, in Screening the Holocaust, traces what he calls the connection of Nazism and "sexual deviance" to Rossellini's Open City.[1] Gerd Gemünden suggests that in 1942, "the association of male homosexuality with sadism and perversion [as in the effeminate portrayal of Heydrich in Hangmen Also Die] ... anticipates postwar films such as The Damned (Visconti 1969) and Night Porter (Cavani 1974)."[2]

[1] Ilan Avisar, Screening the Holocaust: Cinema's Images of the Unimaginable (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 134-48

[2] Gerd Gemünden, "Brecht in Hollywood: Hangmen Also Die and the Anti-Nazi Film," TDR 43 (4) (Winter 1999): 65-7; The earliest book in English to conflate Nazism with sexual perversion was Samuel Igra's Germany's National Vice (London: Quality Press, Ltd., 1945).

Hermeneutical Issues In The Use Of The Bible To Justify The ... sin of the two groups of men in Sodom and Gibeah is, in both instances, the desire to engage in homosexual rape. This practice occurred in the Ancient Middle East when armies were defeated, and it occurs today in certain all-male settings, such as prisons.[11] The conclusion, more clearly for Sodom than for Gibeah[12], is that the goal of homosexual rape is the male inhabitants' desire to express their dominance over the strangers.

Violence and Homosexuality

The Sexual Rage Behind Islamic Terror ALL SERIAL KILLERS, almost without exception, are severely sexually abused as children.

In this culture, males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity. An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do. As the scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.

...It is also the silence that forces victimized Arab boys into invisibility. Even though the society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humiliation is a given. Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back.

Violating the masculinity of the enemy necessitates the dishing out of severe violence against him. In the recent terrorist strikes, therefore, violence against Americans served as a much-needed release of the terrorists' bottled-up sexual rage. Moreover, it served as a desperate and pathological testament of the re-masculinization of their emasculated selves.

Conclusion to the Psychological Effects of Combat - Dave Grossman, Author It is often said that "All's fair in love and war," and this expression provides a valuable insight into the human psyche, since these twin, taboo fields of sexuality and aggression represent the two realms in which most individuals will consistently deceive both themselves and others.

In the field of developmental psychology, a mature adult is sometimes defined as someone who has attained a degree of insight and self-control in the two areas of sexuality and aggression. This is also a useful definition of maturity in civilizations.

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.