I do my best, in all parts of my life, to see both sides of issues. Generally I'm pretty good at hearing two sides of an argument and seeing legitamicy is both sides. This is one debate that, no matter how many times I roll it over in my head I cannot see the "anti gay marriage" stance. How, in any way, shape or form could anyone oppose this? These are the answers I have seen from that side and not a single one holds any water in my eyes- 1. The Bible says its wrong. I won't go into the real reason this was ever even added but that's not the point, the separation of church and state dictates that religious views should hold no merit in law making. So that's out. 2. Giving gays the right to marry gives them the same financial benefits as a married couple and people could start using this to steal from the government. Really? There are marriages entered into every single day for the wrong reasons or on a wim. Why should Britney Spears be allowed to get married for 10 hours and yet a couple that has been in love for 30 years not be allowed to share health benefits and visit each other in the hospital? I'm sure there's more but I don't want to write a book here. If anyone can enlighten me here with intelligent reasons as to why gays should not be able to marry please feel free, thank you in advance.
2012-07-29T19:59:15Z
Ok, I can't help but notice that almost every single answer is "because God says so"- that was exactly my point. Just because "God says so" doesn't mean that it should be a US law- that is actually one of the main constitutions that this country was founded on. If we made everything in the bible a law in this country it would be terrifying. I could never get myself to kill my children because they disobey, I would be upset if I was arrested for having a tattoo, I would feel bad owning slaves and I would hate for my husband to kill me if I cheated on him. Why is it that none of you are fighting to put these parts of the bible into law? I'm sorry, I just still can't see why one persons religious beliefs should dictate an entire countries laws. I see no difference there then if I were to tell you that you aren't allowed to have cake because I'm on a diet. Your not on a diet, you eating that cake isn't making me fat. Why should I care?
Anonymous2012-07-29T14:13:06Z
Favorite Answer
This is a great question, but most all get the answer wrong. It seems that anti religious beliefs and political correctness gets in the way of the right answer.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This type of union is sanctioned by the church under God's law. If you do not believe in God, this does not apply to you. Marriage is not the governments business, federal or state. I find it most repugnant that they have any say. Marriage is church business, not government business.
All the government can do is sanction a union between two people for tax purposes, or as a legal definition of partners in life. Yes, love may have a part in both sides of the isle, but the sides are different. One is under God, and the other is under government.
Summation: Marriage is none of the governments business and the tax laws is none of the churches. Churches have the right to call it marriage, the government only has the right to call it a union.
I hope this was the answers you are looking for. It's nice to see people looking for answers and not just taking sides due to emotions. God bless and take care.
Right here goes that devout time period "Marriage" that may be a sacrament to a few. You're fighting over a term. You can not get in someones pants and alter what they are going to do. They will feel and think as they do it doesn't matter what. All this is about is the suggestion of a civil contract for HIPPA laws and sharing of long run advantages etc. It's not perpetually satisfactory being married. You are normally responsible for the spouses charges and hospital treatment as good. Then you definitely could must pay alimony if something goes mistaken. What the truth of that is, is that some don't need these persons to share in the social safety constitution as it should take from them. Marriage is a time period. It has been used as a method to explain the relationship of wine and cheese or two ingredients in cooking. Recover from the devout connotation and let it's. You're going to not discontinue the habits anyway. Polygamy shouldn't be one partner. Incestuous relationships are abusive. Paul wrote the foundations of sexual disorders. Christ certainly not addressed it. He addressed the dilemma of marriage, not sex. Christ did save Mary Magdalene despite her past transgressions. You can also want to research different religious views.
Actually, there aren't any intelligent reasons against same gender marriage in the US. As a matter of fact, the 14th amendment makes the concept of civil unions with different rights and responsibilities as the only option based only on gender quite unconstitutional. It prohibits the creation of a "special class" governed under a separate set of laws with a separate set of rights and responsibilities. This is what will eventually hit SCOTUS, the constitutional issues. This is why I expect same gender couples to have the same rights the rest of us do within my lifetime, easily.
Also, a marriage between two consenting adults should not be a political or religious issue, so it's not just a constitutional "thing", it's a "mind your own business, live and let live" kind of thing. Besides, not everyone's religion teaches that same gender marriage is wrong at all, but many, if not most, teach that bigotry is very much wrong. That's the one that throws me. "Love everyone, just make sure they know their place and it's not equal with me and does not deserve the same rights as I do - but we LOVE them". YIKES! Those are some scary people that think like that.
. "I do my best, in all parts of my life, to see both sides of issues. Generally I'm pretty good at hearing two sides of an argument and seeing legitamicy is both sides. This is one debate that, no matter how many times I roll it over in my head I cannot see the "anti gay marriage" stance." "How, in any way, shape or form could anyone oppose this? "
Well I'll tell you - You forgot the most important thing !
The argument against homosexual marriage is rooted in natural law theory. This asserts that law is not merely a creation of the government, but is instead supposedly determined by nature, or "the way things are"; a natural law theorist would say that we can determine valid moral principles and norms upon which our civil laws ought to be based by examining this "nature".
So marriage, as a natural law institution, is purportedly based on the nature of humanity with regards to the existence of male and female. It is the government's duty to facilitate, uphold, and defend marriage. As such, the government's laws must reflect their natural counterparts; since marriage is supposedly a pre-existing natural law institution, it is beyond the purview of the government to alter.
So I think that would probably be the case someone against gay marriage would present; to alter the natural law institution of marriage is beyond the legitimate authority of the government. Bear in mind, of course, that if you're American you are supposed to be living in a regime where natural law is considered the basis of civil authority with self-evident natural law principles.
It's not that I necessarily support this argument, but I think this is what people mean when they say homosexuality is "unnatural"...