Why are people so against gay marriage?

Question

I'm from MA, and even though gay marriage is legal, Gov. Romney and religious groups (especially catholic priests) are trying to get it banned again. I'm not gay, but I am all for gay marriage. It doesn't do anything to undermine religion, other than make some people uncomfortable. Is it really worth toying with and ruining peoples' lives just to ease some of your discomfort? And marriage can't be made sacred by some higher force, marriage is made sacred by the mutual love of two people.
Note: I know that not all religious folks are against gay marriage.

Good points by scorp and elmoishiding.

Answer 1

This should answer your question. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing. I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. It is possible to argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, almost perfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female. Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society. Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will increase the problem, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

-Adam Allen

Answer 2

This society is a patriotic society based on Christianity, that is why. I am not against gay marriages, I believe the world needs love, not more hate and intolerance. There are too many children in this world that need a good home - we don't need more, so the argument about man and woman are natural for procreation is a moot point to me! LoL We have filled the earth and can't take care of what we have for pity's sake. Does God really abolish those who love each other? That is not the God I believe in. I love the point you made about marriage being a sacred covenant between two people, I agree with you. Excellent question, excellent points you made.

P.S Way to go X-Man!!

Answer 3

Everything you said is right on the money. The two reasons used most often are religon and children. Let's examine them for a minute.

Religon- first does the bible specifically oppose homosexuality as we know it today. That's a matter of interpretation. I have found nothing opposing homosexuality when not acompanied with promiscuity, rape, infidelty or prostituion. Things our society does not support regardless of sexuality. Many arguements are also made that the bible refers only to male homosexuality, not lesbianism(which unfair to say about my gay male friends). I will provide a link for a site referring to what the bible does and doesnt say about homosexuality. Read it with an open mnd. if this were true, there would be no religous based arguement opposing gay marriage. But let-s pretend the bible DOES say that.

Our country guarantees freedom of religon correct? A person may choose to believe in none or any religon. That IS a consitutionally protected right. So if a person chooses no religon or a religon that does NOT oppose homosexuality, how is fair to deny the right to marry to those epople based on beliefs that they don't practice. The bible does not dictate societies laws either...yes some laws are in congruence with biblical laws, but not all. Many things are opposed in the bible, but legal in our society and vice versa. This removes religon from the debate ENTIRELY. Religon has no bearing on what the laws whould do. There is no victim in gay marriage, noone is harmed in any way like they are from murder, rape, molestation, theft, assualt and battery, extortion etc etc.

Children- there has been no evidence to support that being raised in a gay household will cause any harm to the child. There are theories and studies done, but nothing concrete on either side. But I think we can all agree that being raised by a child molestor or wife/child abuser can be harmful...yet these people are free to marry and reproduce. What harms children is domestic violence, adultery, poverty, drugs, violence, etc etc. This is proven, oppose these things and do something about them before you seek to protect children from something noone can rightfully claim they need protection from.

And the arguement that children can only be produced by a man and a woman, blah blah. So infertile individuals have no right to marry? Am i missing some legal guideline that dictates the number of children a couple can have? Are fertility tests required to get a marriage license? Do you have to sign a contract promising to procreate? Ummm the answer is NO. Furthermore, can anyone deny that the world is overpopulated? So if two people choose not to have children is it really going to end civilization as we know it? Answer again is no.

All arguements for opposing gay marriage are simply made out of a lack of understanding or desire to change. If it doesn't affect them, then why are they so opposed to it? Because change is hard. Anyone allive in the 50's knows that, when interracial marriages were banned. They used the same and similar arguements. It would harm traditional marriage, it;s not a racist ban because we treat blacks and white the same, they can each marry "their own kind". It would harm the children. and my fave "If God had wanted the races to mix he wouldn;t have put them on seperate continents" lol. Sounds alot like the same arguements today opposing gay marriage. Change is hard, it takes a long time but it will come.

If anyone opposed to gay marriage can widen their tunnel vision enough to browse the following websites, please do. An open mind absorbs much more knowledge than a closed one. I am currently reading the bible, in it's enitrety because I feel I can not say I believe, disbelieve, support or oppose anything I have not studied, read thoroughly and explored extensively. I seek only to better understand myself and the world around me.

Answer 4

People are against gay marriage because they are narrow minded and hateful. Not one person on this planet is more superior than the other. We are all part of the big ONE, all living things in this world are connected. Love should conquer all above all else. If someone can look me in the eye and tell me that because I married a man, I am better than two men getting married, I'd like to see how. I read earlier in one of the other questions that someone said Lesbians shouldn't marry because they can't have children. Well, neither can I and I am married to a man, does that make me blasphemous in the eyes of her "God" too? Marriage is about love, people should not be tryng to stop such an act of pure beauty, just because they can't see past they're own bigoted view.

Answer 5

Because people don't understand that marriage is a civil union between two people. You can get married anywhere, not just in a church. It's not official until the government gets your document. All marriages should be considered civil unions, both for straight and gay couples. Let the couple decide if they want to make it a religious ceremony. And to those who say that gay couples can't have kids, so why get married.....have you seen how many kids are in foster care and are in orphanages? Why not let a gay couple raise a child? It's not like all straight couples raise all straight kids....so who says that a gay couple will automatically raise a gay kid. Let the people be and worry about other things....Lord knows we have much bigger fish to fry.

Answer 6

While i'm not really sure if I belive that being gay is a sin, I do believe that ppl should be allowed to make there own choices. I do support gay marriage.

I don't really get the point of it though. Well I understand why you'd want to get married. And I guess if ppl are fighting for it to be able to get joint healthcare and all that, then that makes sense. But having gay marriage for the sake of gay marriage serves no purpose to me.

Answer 7

Firstly, I'd like to quote someones earlier statement.

"All fascist regimes have been against gay people. The Nazis, for example, murdered tens of thousands of them in the concentration camps."

...so therefore all people who oppose gay marriage are fascist. That's genetic fallacy.

I oppose gay marriage. I'm not a bigot. I don't have any problem with people loving each other if they are from the same sex, but I think it should be kept private.

You may think this is bigoted, but to most heterosexual men gay practises are disgusting. That's as in they make you want to be sick. We can't help that, I'm sorry. I have no objection to homosexuality as long as it's kept private, and that includes kissing.

Also, you must remember that children are always bigoted themselves. A child with gay foster parents would have no end to social stigma while at school. 'Gay', is one of the most used insults on the playground, you'd be naive to think the other children wouldn't care. For that reason, I don't think it's fair to the child.

Would you consider it safe placing a young girl with two heterosexual men? I'm talking puberty and beyond. I wouldn't, and for the same reason I wouldn't consider it safe putting a young boy with two gay men.

Answer 8

The more important question should be: if marriage is so sacred, why aren't heterosexuals treating marriage as such. Why the high level of infidelity, unwed live-ins, bastardized kids, mamma's babies, unfaithfullness and the list goes on..... Stand up and show the world what marriage should be; or shut up and get out the way!

Answer 9

All fascist regimes have been against gay people. The Nazis, for example, murdered tens of thousands of them in the concentration camps.

The nations which allowed or embraced gay or bisexual relationships were the most openminded and socially or technologically advanced. Even Feudal Japan permitted it.

Additional:

"AndyB" proved my point. He deliberately and falsely insinated that "homosexuals are pedophiles", hence why I reported him for it.


"You may think this is bigoted, but to most heterosexual men gay practises are disgusting."

Then why is he looking at it? Masochism? You don't see gay sex unless you're seeking it out.


"Also, you must remember that children are always bigoted themselves. A child with gay foster parents would have no end to social stigma while at school. 'Gay', is one of the most used insults on the playground, you'd be naive to think the other children wouldn't care. For that reason, I don't think it's fair to the child."

I wonder what "AndyB" would say if a child used a different insult on the playground - let's say a kid says "n----r" to a black kid. Would "AndyB" blame the child for having black parents? Based on his own words, yes.


"Would you consider it safe placing a young girl with two heterosexual men? I'm talking puberty and beyond. I wouldn't, and for the same reason I wouldn't consider it safe putting a young boy with two gay men."

Anyone not raised in ignorance and who reads widely knows the research of the American Psychological Association on pedophilia. The profile of a pedophile includes some or all of these traits:
- male (99% of pedophiles are)
- moralizing
- socially conservative
- incapable of functional adult relationships (remember, gay people want to get married)

In other words, multiply divorced rightwingers such as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, or "AndyB" are thousands of times more likely to be pedophiles than any gay man (never mind Gingrich's sister). I'm not insinuating in any way that "AndyB" is a pedophile, not in the least (and certainly less than he insinuates about gay men), but he does fit several of the traits of pedophiles, far more than any gay man.

I wouldn't worry at all about a gay man babysitting a kid. I would worry, though, about someone like "AndyB" being in the vicinity, never mind actually getting near the child.

Answer 10

Because religious people seem to only like being all up in everyone elses lives but there own, they make such a huge fuss over it but why do they really care, they dont know the worlds hole entire gay population so they have no reason to judge, for people that read the bible they sure dont get it through there heads that god is the only one who can judge, they make think being gay is a sin but so is them judging people because of there sexual orrientation, my step sister is gay and her mother prayers her *** off for her not 2 be a lesbian, its rediculous really, love is love and god blesses you will the people you have in your life weather your gay or straight, im all for gay marriage! surport gay pride!

Answer 11

people are against gay marrige beacuse the bible says that male or female should not marry the same sex. and everytime the gay folks get married there is more bad things in the world i personally think that people should start reading the bible and start praying to god. every gay person should change there ways and learn was is good and what is bad. i am 100% against gay marrige