Why not legalize gay marriage? PLEASE READ THE REST OF THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU ANSWER.?

Question

All religious reasons aside, can anyone give me any actual reasons why legalizing gay marriage is such a point of contention? Who does it really hurt? I'm heterosexual and I can not see why it should bother me that someone with a different orientation forms an officially recognised union with the adult of their choice. Again........Not looking for religious doctrine here.

The first answerer has made it clear that I must amend this question. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE GENERAL STATEMENTS. PLEASE BACK THEM UP WITH SOME SORT OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND. Merely saying that they "corrupt society" does not provide enough detail to validate even your opinion, let alone to confuse your answer with a fact.

Too bad there is not a "choose as most IDIOTIC answer" button. If so, then farkas419 would win it hands down. Come on, can you really be suggesting that to legalise gay marriage would be a possible catalyst for civil war? I am laughing out loud as I write this. How do you find your way home at the end of the day?

Answer 1

Well, all religious answers aside, I can think of a HUGE reason.
If it reverted to the states to decide, some states (California, New York, Oregon, Washington State to name a few) would legalize it, while others (Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Ohio, Florida) would not.
This would mean that a same-sex couple could get married in New York, but not in Tennessee. It also means that if they had to MOVE to Tennessee, their marriage would be invalid.
This, my friend, is what happened with slavery. Some states allowed it, some didn't.
It would not be fair to a same-sex couple to have to tolerate this. Not only that, it IS the government's job to attempt to serve everyone, which means that the Christians and anti-homosexuals would HAVE to be listened to as well.
Which is why if a COMPROMISE was proposed, I'm sure nearly everyone would go along with that, albeit grudgingly.
The fact is, the repercussions that could potentially occur in the event same-sex marriage is legalized could be disastrous. Would you like to see the country erupt in another civil war?

Answer 2

Let me delve in a little deeper than others have. The reasons to avoid homosexuality found in the Bible have founding in sanitary practices and in making sure the Israelites would be able to build up their population (constant wars in the Bible indicate the Hebrew race would have needed more of a population for defense and conquering other lands). Other reasons include preservation and strengthening of the bond between a man and a woman, which is different from that between two women or two men. Now, with religious doctrines aside, I will answer the questions in a secular manner.
Same-sex union and marriage is the destruction of our society as we have known it for the last several thousand years because homosexuality impedes the union of a man and woman, which is the central foundation of a family. Any family's strength is directly related to the strength of union between the man and woman at the head of the household. When their bond is strong, the family will be collectively strong and healthy.
NO FAMILY has ever been created by the sexual union of two same-sex individuals. Should we allow homosexual marriages in our human society (this is regardless of whether or not you believe marriage to be a religious or purely legal status), we will further destroy the family entity on a societal scale. The family has suffered enough in the last hundred years; now well over half of all marriages end in divorce. Homosexual marriage will be the final strike on the family.
Many will say, "what is the difference? One should be allowed to marry whom one chooses." While this is true, a society must also determine its guidelines for acceptable behavior. When the family unit is destroyed completely, the individual will have no immediate individuals with whom the individual feels a close bond of loyalty. This leaves the individual fully capable of being loyal only to the welfare state, which in absence of a strong and loyal family, assumes an ever-increasing role in the so-called "protection," social development, and overall societal well-being of the citizen.
In short, same-sex marriage destroys the family and promotes the state. Homosexual marriage will most likely become a fact of law within the next decade or two. The western populations are being desensitised to the idea through a constant rehashing of the debate and the incessant public patronization in the media of those against it.
So this is the problem with same-sex marriage: it destroys families.

Answer 3

Personallly, I don't much care one way or the other. I don't see any real negatives but I also don't see any good reason for it. The main reason for legal marriages is to protect the woman, because it used to be that an unmarried woman, or an unmarried mother, had no legal rights at all, especially as against the man she had sex with; and socially she was ostracized. Legal recognition of marriage evolved to protect those women and distinguish them from prostitutes. In addition, and as a result, it was illegal to live or have sex with someone you weren't married to. And bastard children did not inherit from the father, so the legalization of children provided by marriage was important for them, too. Sad, but true. (Most of that has since changed.) There is no such reason to protect gay couples the way that it was necessary to protect women, especially mothers, from exploitation by men. Nowadays the law has evolved to the point where gay couples can make enforceable contracts for property division, inheritances from each other, etc. Legal marriages for gay couples is simply a formality, purely symbolic, that gives no additional legal rights that they can't give each other by contract. On the other hand, legally-married gay couples cannot simply split up, they way they can now, they will have to obtain legal divorces, and they may also wind up being held liable for alimony and other obligations that they do not have now if they do divorce.

So to summarize, if gay couples want to have legal marriages, they should be allowed to, but it's not a important issue because it's a purely symbolic right, it doesn't really add anything to their legal rights.

Answer 4

Tax purposes play a roll in this debate as well. Married couple's receive many tax cuts and benefits for raising a family that a gay couple would never be able to use properly. Granted there are gay couple's that adopt (sick as it may be) but I would say 99 percent will never support a true family and should not be aloud to abuse these privileges. The better question her is why is it so important for homosexuals to have the right to marriage? What are they wanting to gain with it? Just the piece of paper from the state? I think there's more to it than that.

Answer 5

Hi,

There is no reasonable answer other than it take on mind off of thing much more important, such as Global Warming, Immigration, National Debt, Balance of Trade, Two Wars, Social Security, Health Care and Education just to name a few.

Keep your eye on the prize, don't be distracted by these non issues.

Regards

Answer 6

There are no real negatives to legalizing marriage between homosexuals. The only thing that might be a negative is they would receive the same financial "help" that married couples get. I am extremely glad you've brought this up. Not many people can look past the religion (which IS NOT supposed to factor in, i.e. separation of Church and State) and see the truth behind it.

Answer 7

Marriage has so many legal implications and assumptions which make it very difficult to dissolve [the marriage] easily with little repercussion.
That said, all the "rights" of marriage; albeit there aren't many that aren't first claimed by the government in some way; (child guardianship, estate rights of heirs, naturalization by marraige, etc.) would be difficult to abuse or misuse by people feigning homosexuality, because of the difficulty in dissolving the legal state of marriage.
Thus, aside from cultural or society preferences, there is no legal standpoint I can come up with. In addition, there is nothing immoral or malicious in regards to two people "becoming one" -so to speak. As it affects/effects no one other than themselves, I say, it should be allowed.

Answer 8

I'm not gay, but I support legalisation of gay marriages precisely because it doesn't hurt anyone. I don't think that one person's sexual orientation is any other person's business. I can think of a lot of heterosexual couples who should have never been allowed to marry, let alone reproduce. Visit a neonatal ward with drug addicted or AIDS infected babies to get the idea. Just MO.

Answer 9

It's such a point of contention because the government wants everyone to watch that "show" rather than other things that are going on.

Look at the silly monkey! It's all a matter of sleight of hand.

Answer 10

Look to the past, - un-intended consequences !!

ADA - American with disabilities Act.

Let's help the cripples keep and hold a job. We're all for that.. right??

But now, after 15 plus years.. drunks, lawsuits, cost to business, hand rails, more lawsuits, paying lawyers, transvestite teachers to first graders, $30k ramps and elevators going to nowhere, intimidating business. Ouch!!, there should have been a normal way of doing this, without the oppression of laws regulations and turning almost everyone into a semi-handicap looking for 'their share'.

Look it up.. you wear glasses?? have an allergy?? If you get 'fired' for showing up late, use one of these ADA cards, - you might get your job back.

So what's the "un-intended consequences" of changing the definiton of marriage?? The bed-rock of society as we know it??

Answer 11

I agree We have it in Canada and the sky has not fallen down, nor have heterosexual marriages undergone a massive surge in divorce rates.
It's one of a number of wedge issues in the U.S. that the Republican Party raises to distract Americans from the G.O.P.'s track record of only benefitting a few wealthy people, (mostly millionaire business owners). It's a great distraction that has helped them to win re-election time and again.