All bibles aside...?

Question

if you didnt have the bible to thump, could you find any good reason why gays shouldnt have the right to get married? "its not natural" doesnt count either, its only not natural because your bible says it isnt. gays and lesbians dont turn adopted or artificially inseminated children gay, their kids grow up just fine and completely well-adjusted, i have yet to find a gay-raised child who becomes an axemurderer, so what the deuce is the big deal?

Answer 1

You seem to have your answers already stuck in your mind. You would not accept anything I have to say so why bother but hey thanks for the points and give my regards to rosie o'donald

Answer 2

You are both right and wrong.

There is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to get married and have all the benefits that marriage entitles them.

Homosexuality is not natural in the sense that it is not something that exist in nature by design (not the ID nonsense, but the design of evolutionary forces). Homosexuality comes about in the following manner:
After the ovum is fertilized during the second and third weeks of pregnancy if the zygote is to become a male the mother's brain produces testosterone that develops the testes in the embryo, from there on the testes on the embryo produce the testosterone that turns the female embryo (we all start as females) into a male. If the mother produces too much testosterone during this time (second and third weeks of pregnancy) and the embryo is to be a female the developing brain will develop resembling that of a male, with the male connections and responses even though the embryo/fetus/baby is really a female. This 'male like' construction in effect has a "man trapped inside a woman's body" hence the homosexuality of lesbians. For gays the exact opposite scenario would be true, the mother fails to produce testosterone when it is needed for the development of the male brain, and although the body ends up developing into that of a male, the brain is that of a female producing a male that is attracted to other males, since it has the brain we all start with, that of a female.

So you see, you are both right and wrong.

Answer 3

Actually, it is not natural. You can not find any other creature in nature that chooses a mate of the same sex to form a permanent bond with. Why? Because all creatures try to survive, and homosexuality is contrary to survival (lack of procreation). And no, homosexuality is not genetic, as that would be impossible (again, lack of procreation).

What is the purpose of marriage? If it is nothing more than a way to get government benefits, then sure, why not let gays marry. If it is a way to forge a bond between mother and father to provide a proper environment for children, then gay marriage is impossible by definition. Children raised out of wed-lock (either by single mothers, gays, or whatever) do have far more problems than children raised by a traditional family.

Answer 4

Social mores.

It isn't, and hasn't been accepted in western society since before the fall of the romans. You cannot put the bibles aside they are so ingrained in society that even the Left is based on christian ideologies. There are even Churches that openly accept homosexuals, and other traditionaly un-savory people.

However my personal (and often viewed as evil) View of society is that of a Functionalist.

Each neccecary part of society has a function and without that function the society would cease to work fluidly. And the function of sexual interaction is dual fold, Recreation, and Procreation.

In personal sexual interaction... whatever is concensual is acceptable.

HOWEVER, the purpose of marriage is single. Its basicaly a contract between the persons and the society. Only for procreation.

This means that the parents will supply more people to the society, and do their best to raise the people to be productive members of society, while the society gives them in return advantages in the form of tax relief, public education etc.

I also believe that there are differences between the sexes. Males and Females are fundamentaly different, and MUST NOT be confused during their pubecent years to who, and what they are. And a same sex marriage would do just that, they would produce persons who are confused about their purpose in life and will feel alienated from society throughout their life.

Which brings be back to my original point.

Because society wont accept them they can't be accepted.

Answer 5

It is a common myth that marriage exists for 1) religious reasons, 2) for love, 3) for unlimited sex for the guy. None of these are true.

The institution of marriage exists for the protection of the wife and, more importantly, to protect the children. Gays for the most part do not have children or wives. So the institution was not designed for them.

To extend marriage to include gays and lesbians potentially could weaken the protection that exists for children, the main reason why marriage exists.

Homosexuals need a parallel institution such as a civil union. If their religion approves of their union, it could officiate over such a union.

But in extending marriage to homosexuals it could unwisely, potentially weaken the protections we have for children. To give you an example of one possible harm, marriage laws extended to homosexual couples with children could not easily deal with custody issues. And it is well documented that homosexual couples have a higher separation rate than heterosexual couples. Making homosexual more acceptable would not change that behavior because it is a characteristic of male homosexual behavior to have a high number of extra sexual episodes.

The legal institution of marriage for 97% of the population should not be changed to accomodate the desires by 3% of the population just because some homosexuals might think it would help them to be more accepted because of the potential risk of even a slight loss of protection for the children.

Answer 6

How about the dictionary then? It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we're going to rewrite it for one special-interest group, why not others? But I offer a compromise solution. I'm not going to type it all out again, but look for my answer to this question:

Answer 7

It depends.For some its what they are comfortable with,not logic.

For most of them though,yeah,its hateful.Someone to feel superior to.Never met a sexy homophobe.That tells you something.

Eventually the anti-gay crowd will become an archaic embarrasment.Oh wait,it already is!

And they wont illeagalize divorce.It's sicker than a "gay" could ever be.

Answer 8

The Bible is reason enough. It's so sad that these people will one day stand before God and have to give an account for the choices they made....and that goes for you, as well.