Can you answer this question without using religion? Do you think the USA should ban same sex marriages?

Question

Please explain your answer without using religion as a reasoning tool.

Answer 1

Yes because Christ ...

Crap.

Okay, no.

Answer 2

Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It is a social contract which says that society recognizes a couple as a couple. The primary reason for marriage was a) to make sure an outsider didn't lay claim to one of the partners b) to make sure any children that this couple may have or raise get the social benefits and the social responsibility that the family gets.
In many other societies marriage is not strictly between A man and A woman. In many ancient societies marriage could be between a man and more than one woman, or a woman and more than one man and even more than one woman and more than one man. Islam supports polygamy and certain Tibetan societies support polyandry.
It is a social issue, to be decided by society not by clergymen or congressmen.

Given that background, should the US government ban same sex marriages? The government not only should not ban but should also not meddle with any other social issue.

Although this is a digression, but I can't help saying this: conservative citizens keep saying that they want a small government, how is it a small government when the government tries to dictate social issues which are not in the purview of governance?

Answer 3

Except for Massachusetts, there are no same sex marriages to ban. If it stays in MA or in other states that will choose to do so by the legislative process, there will be no real attempt to override these efforts. This last push was just to keep the debate alive. If a Federal judge tries to impose same sex marriage outside the legislative process, then it becomes an issue.

It is clear that a majority of people want to preserve marriage between a man and a woman. 45 states have constitutional amendments or laws defining marriage as such. Using non-religious and non-moralistic language, there is no basis for overturning the will of the majority of voters in the US.

It is also clear from polling that a majority of Americans would favor civil unions with the benefits of marriage if the traditional institution of marriage were guaranteed in the process.

Answer 4

You don't have to ban same sex marriages. You only need to restrict marriage to a couple composed of a man and a woman. If that is what the legal process allows then it is O.K. But, if the obsession is with religion, maybe somebody could make a case where religion can support same sex marriages.

Answer 5

If the people vote to ban it, then yes.

There is also a growing body of evidence from Europe that allowing homosexual marriages results in a serious reduction in heterosexual marriages, with the ensuing children born to unmarried parents, and the much higher incidence of unmarried people separating, thus more single parent homes. Which has been proven to be harmful to society.

So, empirical evidence supports a ban on homosexual marriage. And, since currently all people already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (with a few restrictions), then they already have exactly the same rights as everybody else.

Lastly, if there is to be homosexual marriage allowed, it should be because the people, or their elected representatives, chose to make it legal, not because of the judicial tyranny of 5 men in black dresses.

Answer 6

I believe in minding my own business, live and let live I say. I live in Massachusetts and have to say that if I didn't read the paper then I wouldn't even know that gay marriage existed. My straight marriage has not been hurt by the law change.

Putting something like this in the Constitution is sickening. I see this move as the GOP pandering to their right-wing Christian base. This latest crying and moralizing will die down after November and will be trotted out again in 2008.

What angers me is that the government is wasting time on this with all of the really important things going on that they should worry about.

Answer 7

All the laws in this country relating to marital property, inheritance, spousal benefits, etc work where the relationship is between two people.

Since a wife has the same spousal rights and benefits as a husband, and vice versa, it obviously doesn't matter what the gender of the spouse is for the current laws to work. By extension, it really doesn't matter what the gender of either spouse is for the laws to work. All of the existing laws regulating spousal benefits and obligations work just fine regardless of gender.

Thus, the only reason to deny the legal benefits of marriage based on gender is pure prejudice. And absent religion, the only reason people rely on prejudice is pure fear and hatred.

Answer 8

it's hard to not use religion, but...um..well...The way most of us were brought up was there is a mommy and a daddy, and so for us as adults to look at the situation, we remember how we always had a mom and dad, so it's hard for us to accept the 2 men or 2 women marriages. Plus the people that typically have a problem with it, are straight. I know if i was gay I'd be pissed that straight people banned me from marrying my love.

Answer 9

No. They are citizens of the country. I view it as no different than saying black people can not marry.

People that claim that same sex marriage is an insult to the "sanctity of marriage" should be more insulted and worried about the current hetero divorce rates.

Answer 10

Yes, it should be banned.

PS - the very concept of "marriage" is based in religious beliefs, so how can you debate gay marriage without discussing religion? And the constitution is based on judeo-christian mores...

Answer 11

I think the foundation of a great society are happy, well-adjusted people who get along well with, and respect each other. This includes happy, productive family units, but that does not necessarily mean heterosexual families only. I am stright, but I respect the rights of those who aren't, and I think the Govt has absolutley no business interfering with marital choices, abortion choices, or any other personal family matters.