What's wrong with the morals of this country,and why do we have to accept same sex marriages?

Question

very intelligent question,choose your answer wisely

Answer 1

Dude... Ok not that i agree with your "morals" (you see, you seem 2 hint that anyone who doesnt agree with your set of morals doesnt have any.... anyway) what ever you believe do something about it... i highly doubt asking it over yahoo answers will take the nation by storm.

Answer 2

the morals of this country are becoming more situational ... gray instead of black & white. Everyone thinks it's a good idea to let each person decide for themselves what is right & what is wrong ... and they don't realize that what this leads to is anarchy.

We DON'T have to accept same sex marriages. I think that plenty of people around the country showed in the last election with all of the referendums on the ballots that they don't approve of this. So I guess there is still some hope for our country.

And by the way, I'm assuming that you are talking about the United States ... if you're talking about any other country then I am not qualified to make an assessment.

Answer 3

Nothing is wrong with the morals of this country. The problem is, not everyone agrees with what is moral and what is not. That's because most morality is based on religion, and the Constitution of this country prohibits enacting religious doctrine as law.

It's not the government's place to dictate what consenting adults can and cannot get married. There is no valid non-religious reason against same-sex marriage (see link below). And religious reasons are not valid grounds for secular laws.

Marriage, as a legal (not religious) concept carries specific legal benefits and obligations. Those benefits are being denied to certain couples based solely on gender. It's pure gender-based discrimination. And for those who argue differently, look at the laws.

Two homosexual people, a gay man and a lesbian woman, can get married for the legal benefits. Even if they never have sex and never raise children. Why? Because it's a man marrying a woman. The fact that both are homosexual doesn't stop them from marrying someone of the opposite sex and getting all the legal benefits of marriage.

Two straight women, who both plan on having sex only with males, want to get married for the legal benefits of marriage. They cannot, because of their gender. It has nothing to do with the sexual orientation, because they're both straight.

Morality is about doing what's good for people and good for society. It's not about enforcing prejudice as a matter of law. Those opposed to same-sex marriage are merely trying to enforce bigotry and hatred of those they don't like, and get the law to approve such discrimination. And that attempt is doomed to failure in the long, just like every other legally-enacted expression of hatred and discrimination that was eventually overturned.

So, do you personally have to accept something that you don't approve of? No. And whether I agree with your beliefs or not, I'll fight tooth and claw to ensure that you have the personal right to believe what your morality teaches.

But I'll fight just as hard to make sure the that the government doesn't get in the business of legislating religious morality, because everyone else has the same rights. And those rights include being able to choose who you love, and to having the same right to marry that person regardless of their race or gender. Mixed-race couples were eventually accepted by the law, when the law finally realized that racial prejudice had no place on the marriage paperwork. Eventually, the law will realize that gender prejudice also has no place on the marriage paperwork.

The only question is how long it's going to take people to realize that prejudice, hatred and bigotry are always going to be inherently worse than any expression of love ever could be.

Answer 4

At one time, the morals of this country said it was OK to keep Blacks as slaves, kill Chinese without fear of retribution, deny women the right to vote and break every treaty made with the Native Americans in regards to their lands.

What is basically wrong with gay marriage?

If you say that it violates the sanctity of marriage, then what does Britney Spears 55-hour marriage do? Why is it OK that Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney have been married at total of 16 times? Are you so convinced that Anna Nicole Smith married that old man for love and not his money?

And if you bring up that "no children will come of it" argument, what about Hetero couples who choose not to have kids?

Marriage is about committment and a morally binding contract between two people. Just because a person is gay, that means their committment to one another is less valid than that between a man and a woman?

You, personally, do not have to accept gay marriage. 50 years ago there were laws on the books preventing interracial marriages, but those were wrong.

This no different of a proposal.

Answer 5

The problem with the morals of the country is that everyone thinks that their own morals should be translated into law that applies to everyone. That's not how it works or how it should work.

I don't think anyone does have to accept same sex marriages, just as you don't really have to accept marriages at all. They don't affect you in any way, shape, or form. The government must accept same sex marriages, however, because it is the only reasonable way to apply the law fairly to all people.

Answer 6

Well since law has NO bearing on morality, or vice versa you're question is meaningless.
The fact is, marriage is a LEGAL contract between two people. Religion can be there in the background but it has no effect on the contract itself.
That is why same-sex marriage is a civil-right.
And most countries in the world have already afforded the right, or are in the process of legalizing it. Except for the backwards countries that is...

Answer 7

Once again coragryph gets it wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits government from endorsing religious doctrine in law. Separating church from state is one thing. Separating law from morality is another.

Coragryph, please look at the following written in 1961 by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan on the topic of whether or not married couples have a constitutional right to use contraceptives.

" ... The right of privacy most manifestly is not absolute. Thus, I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication, and incest are immune from criminal enquiry, however privately practiced. So much has been explicitly recognized in acknowledging the State's rightful concern for its people's moral welfare. But not to discriminate between what is involved in this case and either the traditional offenses against good morals or crimes which, though they may be committed anywhere, happen to have been committed or concealed in the home, would entirely misconceive the argument that is being made.
Adultery, homosexuality, and the like are sexual intimacies which the State forbids altogether, but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected. It is one thing when the State exerts its power either to forbid extra-marital sexuality altogether, or to say who may marry, but it is quite another when, having acknowledged a marriage and the intimacies inherent in it, it undertakes to regulate by means of the criminal law the details of that intimacy. ..." (Poe v. Ullman, 1961, dissenting opinion by Harlan)

Four years later, in 1965 Griswold v. Conn., Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote an opinion, joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan, repeating what Justice Harlan had said (beginning at "Adultery, homosexuality, and the like ...")

Answer 8

We have to accept same-sex marriages because they ARE a civil-right of two people who are in love. Bringing morals into law is good, but not RELIGION. The majority of negative feedback made against gay marriage is purely religiously based - America is not a Christian nation, it is one based upon diversity and acceptance. And if that sounds like BS to you, then you should consider living in a police state like North Korea.

(also I know you're not going to pick this as the best answer, b/c you're going to choose someone that agrees with your close-minded belief system that was probably instilled into your mind by your similarly close-minded parents...)

Answer 9

it seems that people in this country thnk that if you let homosexuals get married then everyone will eventually be gay. wich is impossible. more and more evidence is comming aout that it is genetic. in turn, homosexuals can not reproduce, so how can they produce a gay child. just because they RAISE a child doesnt mean they will be gay! people are arrogant in thinking it will.

think about it. would you marry someone you did not love, soley because they wer ethe opposite sex?

doubt it

but if you trueley loved someone who happened to be of the same sex, and you had the oppertunity to marruy them, would you?

probabl.

Marraige is about love, not gender.

if your talking about violating the norm of marraige why not focus on the fact that more and more STRAIGHT couples are getting divorces!?


You don' have to accept it, you can choose weather to accept it or not, just like I can choose weather or not to accept the fact that my parents got divorced when i was young, or to accept the fact that we are at war...or accept the fact that the world has gone to hell...doenst mean I have.

Homosexuality has been around as long as humans. do you think that they figured out immeadiatley that only the opposite sex would produce offspring. trial and error which resulted in a possibly involuntary attraction to the other soley because they produced offspring.

stop being iggnorant and start being a little more accepting.

Answer 10

Why does the government have to regulat marriage at all? It sounds like a privacy issue to me. What right does the government have to issue a "marriage license" to anyone, straight or gay.

The answer should be if people want to be married they get married, if joe doesn't want to recognize Walter and Steve's marriage he doesn't have to. The only people that really matter in the recognization of that marriage are walter and steve. Who cares what the government thinks? Why is that even a concern to us?

Marriage is not an institution of society and the government does not need to define or regulate private bonds between two people in any way.

Answer 11

Ok, well, first of all, you DON"T have to accept it. BUT you do have to realize that it's going to happen one way or another. People are people. They can't change that.

Second, who are we to judge? Who are we to tell someone they can't get married just because they are of the same gender?

I then ask you a question: How is it effecting you? Are you hurting? physically? emotionally? Is anyone in your family being harmed because two men or two women married? I really dont' think so. Therefore, there shouldn't be this HUGE stink about it.

Ok, so if you're a religious person, all into the biblical ways of homosexuality being a sin, then I beg you to read further. Read to the part of love thy neighbor! Then read on to learn that WE are not here to judge, GOD will judge when it comes our time.

That's all. There ya go. Have a good one!