Are opponents of same-sex marriage prejudiced or discriminatory toward gay people?

Question

Some opponents say that the legalization of same-sex marriage would lead to people wanting recognition of their marriage or unions to animals (all other creatures besides humans - Humans are considered animals, too, you know.). Is it because of this that marriage should still remain a heterosexual privilege? Is this a way (legalized hetrosexual marriage) for some heterosexual people to feel more superior to homosexual people? What is the real reason and the real excuse behind banning gay marriage?

Answer 1

The problem started a long time ago, when the government started giving tax breaks to married couples.

The whole problem is one of language. When a straight couple gets married in a church, they also sign a marriage license, so they are also entering into what is called a "civil marriage."

If the government had used the phrase "civil union" instead, from the get-go, none of this mess would be happening today.

Straight people would get married in church, and sign papers forming a government-backed civil union.

Gay people (and straight people not interested in the church part) would get a government-backed civil union only.

I think you'll find that most people's biggest objection to "gay marriage" is the use of the word "marriage." Changing the term without changing the legal definition takes a lot of the emotional fire out of it for many people, and they are more likely to go along with it.

Of course, you have the REALLY religious people who are against ANY sort of ANYTHING for gay people, and so, since marriage is the issue of the day, they are against that. When some other aspect of gay rights comes up, these people will automatically be against that too, whatever it is.

They will make any argument they can think of to keep gay people from getting any rights at all, including the slippery slope of marrying my sister/my dog/the toaster, and the claim that gay marriage will hurt their marriage (though they can never explain how).

But these and many others have all been quickly and intelligently overcome from a legal perspective. All that is left are two "real" reasons why anti-gay people think gay people should not get married:

1. I think gay people are icky, and icky people don't deserve rights!
2. My Bible said gay people are icky, and even though we don't live in a theocracy, my Bible should trump the Constitution!

Those are the only two real reasons/excuses to ban gay marriage. Everything else they put forward is just a smokescreen to distract from these "real" reasons that they know will not hold up in a court of law.

Politicians are torn over the issue because, yes, some of them are very religious, but more to the point, some of them are more interested in staying in office than they are in making constitutional laws.... and there are more Christian voters than gay voters, if you know what I mean.

Answer 2

The real reason? Fear and religion. People don't like what they don't understand. It scares them. If they could see that gay and lesbian people are just that... people... and deserve the same rights to be happy as anyone else then half the opposing forces will be fine with the same-sex marriages... the other half (the religious side) will probably never be happy with it as it goes against everything they live for. The first step, I think, to getting it legalized in every state is more movies like brokeback mountain. More tv shows that involve gay and lesbians, more documentaries on how natural it really is and finally, a controversial move, calling their marriage by a different name. Giving then the same legal rights as a married couple but not calling it marriage. The reason. You have to start somewhere. You will get more support of this then you will if you call it marriage. If you can get enough people to accept this then sooner or later you will be married legally. So your answer... fear and religion.

Answer 3

It's a complex issue. People are generally afraid of anything that is different, out of the ordinary as far as their worldview is concerned. The typical reaction is to pull in some kind of ethical or religious justification for opposing a change, exemplified in this case by the contention that a marriage was instituted by divine doctrine. Needless to say one forgets (or chooses to) that marriage in some form or other has existed in human society well before the ascent of monotheistic religions. Historically, the marriage between two people of the same gender did occur even during the christian era, e.g. Florence in the XVth and XVIth century (to give but one example). This does nothing to throw clarification. In essence, marriage is a state or government controlled institution. That's why people get married in front of a judge, or city hall first, then go to their respective religious gathering place and seal the marriage a second time around. A government should not have the right to impose a discriminatory policy towards a particular group of citizens, period. This issue would clearly be resolved very easily if a government and/or judicial system would categorically enforce separation of church and state. For example, the European Union's charter prohibiting state-sponsored discrimination such as banning equal "marriage" or "co-habitiation" rights for same sex couples. People who oppose gay marriage may do this on the basis of their religious belief, which is fine, but it does not give them the right to prohibit it for their fellow citizens. However, suffice it to be said that some people will go further and let their fear or convictions turn into prejudice (i.e. "supporting" their argument with such statements as "what's next? a human marrying a dog is a silly argument, that would be an interspecies arrangement which is not what we are debating here), and in some case (not all) will do anything to validate or enforce that prejudice, i.e. write discrimination into legal statutes. In summum: all opponents of gay marriage should not be labeled prejudiced and/or discriminatory but a (vocal and activist) minority will let their opposition turn into prejudice and be discriminatory. Maybe they get a sense of being better in control of their surroundings, which again starts with an underlying fear for anything that changes the status quo.

Answer 4

Most of the time probably. But why support a union that is unnatural? It's not so much an issue of being anti-gay as it's a situation where a change doesn't make sense. Their are no real benefits to extending the priviledge. Acceptance for acceptance sake IS stupid. And if gays are allowed to marry, other unions would want to be recognized. I know some see this as a ridiculous leap of logic, but if reality is subjective and only one of it's sources can voice how it feels, then a man can say a dog loves him and we would have to recognize it as true. Humberts would also pop up with their Lolita's, questioning the "unfair" use of adult as a qualifier for marriage. Polygamy would get out of hand as far as government benefits and such are concerned, so keeping the line where it is makes sense.
It's only fair, and likely self evident to say that I am against homosexuality, so ignore my opinion if you want.

Answer 5

The honest reason for not allowing gay marriage is simply religious. The bible is has about five or six passages that condemn homosexuality. By coaching the argument in religious terms and saying this is a Christian nation they hope to keep gays and lesbians from marrying.

The less honest reason is that children adopted by such couples would be injured by it. The problem is that there is no scientific basis for this. In fact, studies done on children who have been raised by homosexual couples have no distinct developmental difference. The only major difference is that by teh age of ten, about 80% have witnessed or been the victim of gay bashing.

The problem with any law saying that gays cannot be married, is that it violates the constitution. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" This is the text of the 14th amendment. It means that no governmental body(without amending the constitution) can pass laws which restrict the rights of any group of citizens of the United States. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Based on this contract, the government confers additional rights(like shared health care, inheritence, hospital visitation, etc...) based on that to both induviduals. By denying homosexuals the right to marry, you are denying them these rights. While I recognize the religous arguments, this is a nation based on secular law. We should not pass laws to restrict the rights of our citizens based on religious prejudices. While the government should not force the various churches and congregations of the U.S. to recognize gay marriage, as a matter of equality gay marriage should be legal in a secular setting.

Answer 6

Gay marriages are just legal constructs with no effect on society as long as technology cannot facilitate homosexual procreation. Judeo- Christian law forbids priests from holding gay weddings because offspring are expected. There is no good reason why courts can't conduct the ceremony. Opponents of that option have to be homophobic fools.

Answer 7

whether you are against gay marriage or for gay marriage is really a judgement on whether you see homsexuality as a fetish or a human condition. Those who oppose it such as the christian right believe that it is some sort of sick fetish that people have and can be "cured" of and therefore they don't want gays to be married. Those who agree with or maybe are indifferent to the issue see homosexuality as a human condition that will continue to exist. Eventually gays will be married just as eventually blacks and women were allowed to vote despite the closed minded people who told us the world would end it that happened. That is the real question for those who oppose gay marriage? Do you see homosexuality as a fetish?

Answer 8

That is one given reason, but it's absurd. Human beings of any orientation can consent to marriage, animals cannot. People who propose that homosexual marriages will lead to human-animal couplings are being intentionally stupid.

Others use the blinders of "my faith says so" or "it's always been this way" to deny gay marriage, neither of which is going to convince anyone. I truly hope that someday we look back on this conflict and say "how could we have been so stupid for so long?"

Answer 9

First off, there are gay animals--ones who want absolutely nothing to do with the opposite sex.

Probably the opponents of same-sex marriages are prejudice toward gay people--it is probably the homophobics and the re-born.

In this world of separation and divorce, anyone who wants to get married for love should be allowed to do so.

Answer 10

I do not think opponents to same sex marriage are discriminatory toward gay people. I think marriage is sacred and needs to be protected as a sacred and beautiful institution, set up by God for the benefit of His children. It is too important to mess with or to redefine. I have nothing against gay people, except for my belief that they are sinning in their choices. Being gay/lesbian is a choice, not a biological necessity. They have their right to choose, but everyone else has the right to protect marriage.