How come gay rights have been supported from more women then men?

[Vermin Supreme]

I've done some searching on this topic and from what I could get my hands of this topic and found out of all the polls I've found that discuss the gender issues, more women supported gay marriage then men do.

From this article:

http://chronicle.com/article/College-Freshmen-Approve-of/64685/


The Higher Education Research Institute also broke down freshmen's support for same-sex marriage by sex, race, and religious affiliation. Women were 72 percent supportive and men 57 percent supportive, compared with national rates of 43 percent for women and 34 percent for men, according to the Pew survey.

[© Tweed the Younger]

male homosexuality is way more stigmatized

[dead0man]

I'm a bit more shocked that Hispanics are more favorable to it than crackers what with the heavy Catholic influence in the Hispanic community.  I don't think anybody will be shocked that black males aren't all that favorable to it at all.  It's also strange that only 88% of self identified "liberal" college freshmen support gay marriage.  Who are the 12% on the other side?

If you had asked me before reading this to guess the numbers, I would have guessed slightly higher across the board.

[Progressive Realist]

One word: solidarity.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

[Comrade Shmoo]

IN DEFENSE OF MANLINESS!

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

1. Men aren't very comfortable around things relating to gay-ness.

2. All women are bisexual.

[HST1948]

1. Men aren't very comfortable around this relating to gay-ness.

2. All women are bisexual.

I wouldn't go as far to say all women are bisexual, but studies show that a woman's sexuality is more flexible than a mans. 

[Frodo]

Interesting that men are more comfortable with premarital sex (and abortion) than women -I would have thought it would be the other way around.  

[oakvale]

Interesting that men are more comfortable with premarital sex (and abortion) than women -I would have thought it would be the other way around. 

I'd imagine a lot of people might be conflating "acceptable" with "desirable", leading to surprisingly low figures on a lot of things.

[greenforest32]

They should have polled marijuana and prostitution too.

[Big Wiggly Style]

Because dudes like it when chicks bang each other, but not when dudes bang each other.

[milhouse24]

Because women view marriage as a safety net and the be all and end all of the purpose of their life. 
This is somewhat true because most women view their main function in life is to have children and raise children and this career lasts for at least 20 years. 
Most men view marriage as a prison, and as the government dictates marriage is a prison for men to maintain financial and social support for his wife and his biological children. 
Most single women will NOT have biological children out of wedlock, or before marriage if it was up to them.  Because single women know that the only way to ensure that a man sticks around to pay for and care for a biological child is with the full legal enforcement of the government. 
That is why the marriage contract is seen as so essential to the lives of women. 

But the idea that the marriage safety net should apply to gay people is illogical for a few reasons.  First, there are significant financial government benefits that have been given to unemployed stay at home moms, that would be given to gay couples - this could create scarcity and increased demand for these limited government resources.  This would in effect mean that unemployed mother would be competing with gay men/women for limited government benefits. 

In addition, if gay men/women want to create a legal contract sharing property, they can ALREADY do this as private citizens.  I think the gay marriage debate is less about legality, and more about a social statement by liberals to win political influence away from christian conservatives, and to increase gay acceptance in society, instead of the actual legal merits of marriage. 

Marriage is not a necessity or a right serviced by the government if 2 private citizens can just create a legal contract sharing property. 
Marriage was and is created by government as a method to protect single women from men who impregnate them and leave them alone to raise the child afterwards. 
There is no need or necessity for the government to intervene in the private legal affairs of gay couples who do not want to be legally enforced to share property.

[Torie]

Males gayness threatens many males' sense of their own sexuality, and what manhood is all about. Gays are "traitors" to their gender, and "demean" it, as it were.  Female homosexuality does not, so it is not that much of an issue.

[Former Moderate]

Because women view marriage as a safety net and the be all and end all of the purpose of their life. 

Good job starting your comment by putting your most terrible, mysogenistic thought first. And then top notch following it up with the idea that most guys think "marriage is a prison."

You're a real catch. If this is what you think marriage is, then damn right it's time for someone to redefine it!

But the idea that the marriage safety net should apply to gay people is illogical for a few reasons.  First, there are significant financial government benefits that have been given to unemployed stay at home moms, that would be given to gay couples - this could create scarcity and increased demand for these limited government resources.  This would in effect mean that unemployed mother would be competing with gay men/women for limited government benefits.

You literally have no idea how the government and tax structure works, do you? Real government benefits don't kick in until you start getting kids involved. An unemployed non-mother gets very little in terms of governmental benefits as compared to an unemployed mother, gay or otherwise.

In addition, if gay men/women want to create a legal contract sharing property, they can ALREADY do this as private citizens.  I think the gay marriage debate is less about legality, and more about a social statement by liberals to win political influence away from christian conservatives, and to increase gay acceptance in society, instead of the actual legal merits of marriage. 

Marriage is not a necessity or a right serviced by the government if 2 private citizens can just create a legal contract sharing property. 
Marriage was and is created by government as a method to protect single women from men who impregnate them and leave them alone to raise the child afterwards. 
There is no need or necessity for the government to intervene in the private legal affairs of gay couples who do not want to be legally enforced to share property.

This is me. Just throwing up my hands in futility: \o/

This is me walking away from you, dismayed:  -_-

This is me, praying that you are indeed a dying breed, and that one day all people will have equal rights despite your bigoted nonsense:   O>

[Lief]

I think a significant part of it, along with other things mentioned in this thread, is that it's just a lot more likely that women are going to have gay (male) friends than straight men are. When you regularly interact with a minority group, you're more likely to feel sympathetic towards their plight and support increased rights for that group.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Likely. I mean, I supported gay rights before, but it wasn't until I started interacting primarily with lesbians and trans people and addressing some of my own latent issues that I really started to care.

[milhouse24]

I think a significant part of it, along with other things mentioned in this thread, is that it's just a lot more likely that women are going to have gay (male) friends than straight men are. When you regularly interact with a minority group, you're more likely to feel sympathetic towards their plight and support increased rights for that group.

Its also interesting that most women won't support polygamy, perhaps because they fear that their husband will just leave them for a second wife, and also the emotional jealousy that would ensue.
But most men would likely support or be indifferent towards polygamy if it were done by consenting adults and not tied to religious cults. 

Men think they can be strong and independent and free from government doctrine and laws regarding marriage or anything else.  For men, less rules, laws, and regulation is a good thing.  So men don't view marriage as a very important structure or even a necessity in life, especially if a man is have intimate relations with a woman without a government certificate. 

But women are concerned about feeling safe and secure, and need the government to take care of them and protect them in their sexual life.  Women want a marriage certificate to protect them from the creepy vagrants that want to rape them or give them fatherless bastard children. 

If you want to tie Polygamy and Gay Marriage together as reasons for changing marital laws, then you will get more male support.

[asexual trans victimologist]

ITT gender-essentialist bull. Brand-name Milhouse24 Gender-Essentialist Bull. The generic stuff is a pale imitation.

[milhouse24]

Because women view marriage as a safety net and the be all and end all of the purpose of their life. 

Good job starting your comment by putting your most terrible, mysogenistic thought first. And then top notch following it up with the idea that most guys think "marriage is a prison."

You're a real catch. If this is what you think marriage is, then damn right it's time for someone to redefine it!

But the idea that the marriage safety net should apply to gay people is illogical for a few reasons.  First, there are significant financial government benefits that have been given to unemployed stay at home moms, that would be given to gay couples - this could create scarcity and increased demand for these limited government resources.  This would in effect mean that unemployed mother would be competing with gay men/women for limited government benefits.

You literally have no idea how the government and tax structure works, do you? Real government benefits don't kick in until you start getting kids involved. An unemployed non-mother gets very little in terms of governmental benefits as compared to an unemployed mother, gay or otherwise.

In addition, if gay men/women want to create a legal contract sharing property, they can ALREADY do this as private citizens.  I think the gay marriage debate is less about legality, and more about a social statement by liberals to win political influence away from christian conservatives, and to increase gay acceptance in society, instead of the actual legal merits of marriage. 

Marriage is not a necessity or a right serviced by the government if 2 private citizens can just create a legal contract sharing property. 
Marriage was and is created by government as a method to protect single women from men who impregnate them and leave them alone to raise the child afterwards. 
There is no need or necessity for the government to intervene in the private legal affairs of gay couples who do not want to be legally enforced to share property.

This is me. Just throwing up my hands in futility: \o/

This is me walking away from you, dismayed:  -_-

This is me, praying that you are indeed a dying breed, and that one day all people will have equal rights despite your bigoted nonsense:   O>

Two of the benefits that I've mentioned are Health Care insurance and Green Card fraud. 

With health care, why can only married people share health insurance.  Why can't a single adult man share health insurance with a family member like a sister, brother, mother, or father.  At least you are sharing health insurance with someone who is blood-related and not someone out to fraudulently get health benefits.  Why can't a single mother marry her brother to get free health insurance?  Shouldn't single mother deserve free health insurance too?  At least with family members, the govt knows that you are likely to stick around and live with that person. 

As for green card fraud, someone posted a story about a Lesbian who married a mexican male to commit green card fraud against the Government.  This is the definition of a fraudulent marriage for government benefits.  Perhaps you don't agree with the Federal Immigration policies and think every non-citizen should automatically qualify for permanent residency. 

But there are many cases of marriage fraud for green cards amongst straight couples.  Do you think that gay marriage will increase, or decrease, the number of fraudulent gay couples for green card benefits.  You may condone immigration fraud.  I'm sure many women or lesbians will help out another woman and create a fraudulent green card marriage to help a female friend establish citizenship.  I'm also sure many men will fraudulently marry another man or perhaps pretend to be a gay boy toy to obtain a green card. 

Needless to say, if you think America has an immigration problem, the passing of federal gay marriage, will also increase immigration via green card marriage.  There is too much immigration demand to think that people will use any means necessary to acquire a green card. 

[greenforest32]

Sit down milhouse24 and kobidobidog together for a debate about human-animal marriage and now you have a real discussion.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Sit down milhouse24 and kobidobidog together for a debate about human-animal marriage and now you have a real discussion.

I heartily endorse this event or product.