Why ban gay marriage?( no religous answers)?

Question

Can anyone answer a good reason why we shouldn't allow homo-sexual people to be able to get married?( like i said, don't say about religon)

For everyone who says that isn't natural, yeah it is! My dog is gay. And drawing the line, simple draw the line at two humans can get married and thats it.

Answer 1

First off all, let's not forget "MARRIAGE" is a LEGAL TERM for a CONTRACT, a CIVIL STATUS. It was designed to grant special priviliges and rights for the people who enter into it, rights that protect things which derive naturally from companionship between two people (a relationship both sentimental and sexual in nature). There is no difference between a loving and caring gay relationship and a "conventional" one. So there are no valid reasons for banning gay marriage from a LEGAL perspective.

I mention this, because most people who have posted here, seemed to forget you were referring to "marriage" from a legal standpoint.

People in general lose sight of this fact too. Some straight couples seem to think that allowing two men to get married someone makes their marriage a joke, or something devalued. Others think gays just want to do it so they can get to wear a wedding dress, or have a minister take their vows or some crap like that. I've met people like this.


TRES. Here's a piece of advice: This is not the right place to post serious questions about gays. If you notice, the Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered Section, is very thin. Most answers you'll get are from 15 year olds being smart asses and crazed religious fanatics (not many serious bloggers here). I didn't really need to read something like what GRAND MACAW wrote down from someone as WORTHLESS as him.

I can send you some links to serious blogs if you'd like.

Answer 2

questionqueen20 and cub_john brought up some good points.

However, this is a country based on keeping freedoms. Everybody has views of things they don't agree with, whether for religion reasons or other reasons. My point is, if you throw out religious reasons which is why we have the first amendment then the only reason to ban gay marriage is opinion. I personally don't want public opinion dictating my life. I don't buy the slippery slope theory that seems to creep into any debate on freedoms. Bans on personal freedom should be only used when the general public is in harms risk. Whether or not Ace and Gary next door are legally married gays or just living together make no difference to me.

Don't spout statistics, they can be used to show anything. Don't tell me you want to marry your dog that is ridiculous. Your dog isn't a human and not a citizen. This is a government of the humans making laws for humans. The pedophile example is not realistic either because you must be 18 to enter a binding contract for anything even marriage. If you think this will make gay marriage acceptable to the general population then you haven't watched MTV lately. It already is. They have gay dating shows!! I think legalizing gay marriage would actually make being gay less trendy and stylish in pop culture.

I see many straight couples that make me sick too! So that's not a reason either.

Answer 3

There is absolutely no good reason where religion isn't involved. And for that matter the Constitution should never be used to limit any group of citizens freedoms. Even tho our gov't has rendered it almost pointless, the Constitution should only be used to protect our freedoms. Everyone's, not just groups of people that everyone likes.

The way I see it, being gay or not, anyone should be able to enter into a contract with anyone else to share expenses, responsibilities, benefits from jobs, give/receive estates and death benefits and get the same tax breaks given to couples under such an agreement as marriage.

And for the ppl asking what comes next... pedophilia comes before gay marriage in the church, lol. I'm sure a lot of priests would love to marry a 10yo boy.

Answer 4

Can you give me a good reason why they SHOULD be allowed to get married?

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. That is the TRADITIONAL definition of the word. When you start to obscure that meaning, where do you end up? What is acceptable then?

Allowing gay marriage, for me, is less about religion than about opening in a slippery slope for debate. What about polygamists? or beastialists? or pedophiles? Where does one draw the line?

And what is so awful about NOT being allowed to be married? Personally, I support a UNION (where all legal benies of marriage are allowed without the word "marriage") in order to protect any assets of the union.

As close kin of several gays who do NOT support the gay marriage thing, I find that I cannot find a good reason FOR gay marriage.

And that is all without bringing religion into the mix.

Answer 5

There is absolutely no good reason for gay marriage to be banned. It will not affect the lives of anyone else. It will not stop anyone else's marriage or change heterosexuals getting married. It will not harm children or family life or stop heterosexuality. Marriage is NOT about having kids and multiplying - it's about the bonds of LOVING each other. It's not about god, either. Many hetero couples don't have kids!

There is no "good" reason - not even religious or otherwise. People who live in fear of what they don't understand often try to put the kibosh on it.

Answer 6

I favor gay marriage but i heard a guy on the radio say that it destroys traditional marriage and since gay marriage has been legal in holland the "illegitimacy" rate which means births to single mothers who are not married has gone up astronomically. However i think it's bogus because births to non-married people are way up here, too and we don't have legal gay marriage. But it's a non-religious reason i heard. It's really better for babies to have 2 parents because it's so difficult to raise them and so much work and time. Better to split it between two people or more imho.

btw slaves were not allowed to get married.
interracial marriages were not allowed at one time in our country's history.
marriage changes. who can get married has expanded over time.

Answer 7

The only reason I see is one of fear.

For some reason, people simply fear homosexuality. As if exposure to it is something you catch, or one's children will instantly be attracted to. As if the very fact of gays and lesbians being given a legally equal standing in the culture at large will destroy the culture somehow.

There is no other reason I see that an entire part of the population should be denied the many benefits of marriage from tax breaks, to survivor benefits, to making legal decisions for an invalided partner -- benefits that would have to be specially granted, thus making them the "special rights" that opponents claim.

No reason, that is, other than fear. It's not a good reason, but it is a pervasive one.

Answer 8

There is no should they or shouldn't they I think every one deserves the right to get married and be happy and a civil union is not the same. It is not recognized in the state of Oklahoma. quit a sham if you ask me. And they god forbid there companion passes on they deserve the same death benefits as a straight couple. all men are created equal Remember that old saying??? What happened to that? I stand by the gay community and I support them 10000% Anyone who can find true love deserves to be married and shout it from the roof tops not be ashamed! so stand up and BE PROUD!

Answer 9

There is absolutely no logical reason to ban gay marriage.

Encouraging fidelitous relationships strengthens families (alot of gay people have kids you know) and reduces STDs, encourages people to make large ticket purchases (like houses and minivans) and so is good for the economy. So why not let them get married?

I'm personally a little annoyed that my employer lets people get benefits for their gay life partners but I can't get benefits for my straight life partner unless I get married. I don't want to get married. They should have to get married too!

I feel discriminated against.

Answer 10

If you take religon out of it you can't make a reason for banning a contract entered into by two adults, and since this constitution is based on seperation of church and state, I don't understand what basis the republicans are trying to use in their arguement.