How does a ban on homosexual marriage "defend" heterosexual marriage?

Question

During the recent "debate" in Congress any number of Republicans stated that they were "defending" marriage. I don't see how preventing homosexuals from having the same rights given heterosexuals "defends" or "protects" marriage. Are current rights and obligations of married people towards each other going to change if gays get married? Are the current benefits married couples received going to be reduced if gays get married?

One justification given is that marriage is the best way of raising children and that "procreation" needs to be protected. Both of these seem to be non-sequiters. If marriage is best for children, then it should be expanded so that the hundreds of thousands of children being raised by their gay or lesbian parents can have a two-parent household. "Procreation" seem to be way off the mark, first no state has ever limited marriage to persons who intended to or even were capable of procreation. Its the one procreating without marriage that are the problem.

Please do not cite the Bible as the source of your answer. I've read it -- in several translations and in the original Hebrew. The prohibition against two males using one specific sexual position appears to apply only to Jews, and not to non-Jews, who are only required to follow the eight laws proscribed to Noah.
Also, there is no prohibition against women engaging in homosexual acts, and therefore there should be no Bible-based objection to lesbians getting married.

1. Incest taboos: The issue is same sex marriage not incest taboos. If that is a real problem in the future, the future can deal with it.
2. Sex with animals. See above.

Answer 1

Be careful. If you keep making sense, they'll start listening to your phone calls and reading your e-mail. Oops...too late.

Frankly, if they really wanted to "defend marriage", they should repeal all divorce laws and make adultery a felony. That would "defend marriage" - except half of Congress would be sitting in jail. [probably not a bad idea]

Answer 2

Good question. It's a shame so many responses are so narrow-minded. My favorite poor response was that marriage has been defined for thousands of years as being between a man and a woman, so why change it now? Slavery existed for several thousands of years. I'm glad they changed that. Another response I enjoyed was that homosexuality is a behavior, one that we choose. Of course it isn't! Why would I CHOOSE a lifestyle which would doubtlessly cause my parents, my family, my friends, and me needless heartache and stress? My dad didn't choose it, and neither did I. And the sanctity of marriage? Please, half of marriages today end in divorce. Perhaps we should consider banning heterosexual marriage, since they seem to abuse the privilege (isn't that what it is--a privilege, not a right, since some of us are legally excluded from it?).

The ban on homosexual marriage is 1. a diversion tactic the Republicans are using to distract from real issues, 2. an effort to impose the ethics of the Christian faith on America as a whole, and 3. the attempt to perpete a close-minded, hateful view of homosexuality.

Answer 3

Congress approved the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in 1993 during the Clinton administration.
Homosexuals in Military don't like this "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy because they are unable to talk openly about their homosexual partners & family in the same way as heterosexuals.
Of course Hilary Clinton didn't want to address this issue in the resent debate. The issue of debate was to stop the States from making these same sex marriage laws & bring the matter to a Federal level. If the Gay community thinks Hilary is on their side as she may plan to run for Presidency in 2008 think again. She has the law just as she wants it at present. She wants the matter to stay as stands, on a State level.
Gays use the U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to claim they don't have equal rights. Reality is homosexuals already have those rights under that amendment.
Gay rights aren’t like racial rights, because it’s behavior.
If we are going to say that sexual orientation is to be treated like race, then we’re saying that sexual orientation is like race, a condition beyond the individual’s control.
If we’re going to have special legal protections for homosexuals, shouldn’t everybody else’s uncontrollable sexual orientations be protected?

Answer 4

Why change the definition of marriage, its been between a man and a woman for thousands of years?

Should we let people marry their brothers and sisters also?


I disagree with you. I think if we let the Homosexual couples marry, we will eventually have to let people marry whatever and whoever they choose to. That will most certainly take away from what the true meaning of marriage is. What if a person 15 years from now has an animal that they really love (a donkey for example),and want to marry it? should they get the benefits also?

Where do we draw the line?

Answer 5

Fundementally religious people tend to get shaken by the idea that something they've interpreted from the Bible as wrong is being celebrated. Theres a passage that states a man that lies with another is damned. It's all about interpretation and they want to ban it because of it.

Answer 6

Yea, let's allow homos to be married too. Then we can start letting brothers and sisters get married. Then we can start letting people marry animals. Then we can start letting people marry anybody and anything and have as many husbands or wives as they want!

That's why homos shouldn't be allowed to get married. it degrades the whole institution of marriage. Nothing is more stupid than two men or two women getting married to each other.

Answer 7

It maintains the holy sanctimony of marriage, which according to the Bible, is between a man and a woman.

Answer 8

Ellen DeGeneres:

They say that then we'll have to let people marry animals. They always go right to that. and they say we're weird.

Then she went into this bit about bring a goat home to meet the family.

I don't care what consenting adult homos do, as long as they don't make me watch, or tell me about it.

Answer 9

I doubt that it "defends" heterosexual marriage as much as it pisses off gays.

Answer 10

Are you gay or a promoter of gays . It is unnatural, period. What marriage?