Is gay marriage really a problem?

Question

I'm a homosexual teen. However, I'm open to arguements against gay marriage. If I heard an arguement against gay marriage that makes sense, I'm certainly open to it. However the only arguements I've heard are Biblical which cannot constitutionaly be the reasoning for a law. I've also heard a few unreliable statistics. Does anyone have a reasonable arguement against gay marriage?


P.S. If you give one, you may want to check back to this question as I may give counterarguements.

Christians as well as other religions feel that they have a right to regulate marriage. And it's true, Christians have a claim to marriage. They DO NOT, however, claim to the idea of a life partnership. Marriage may be between a man and a woman, but a governmentally-recognized life partnership is between anyone. All it is is a different name. Marriage is ONE TYPE of life partnership, not the ONLY TYPE of life partnership.

In response to Jooker:

While marriage's origin is religious, it is now intertwined with government benefits. A religion doesn't have to recognize the partnership, but the government should.

In response to olympik dude:

You cannot disallow a law from being passed based on indirect consequences. Although a domino effect could result, that shouldn't result in the nullification of a partnership that should be allowed. We need to cross those bridges when we come to them. Not cut off necessary freedoms to prevent them.

In response to Tpride:
1. You don't need to have sex to know what you're attracted too.

2. The basis of our constitution was freedom for all religious practices and that the government would run itself without bias towards any particular religion. It's not constitutional to pass a law based soely on religion.

Yes, it is natural for a man to be together with a woman. And yes it is those partnerships that keep the human race thriving. But does that mean we should dissallow heterosexual infertile couples from getting married?

To RJ

1. A civil partnership with government benefits is not available.

2. I'M NOT A GAY ACTIVIST. The people that march in the Gay Pride parades are complete idiots. It's counterproductive. Nobody sees that obscene parade and thinks "wow, they deserve to be accepted"

In response to Syed H:
1) I completely agree
2) Tolerating and encouragment are not at all the same thing. It's just another poorly thoughtout cliche.
3) That arguement right there was a reasonable arguement. A very good one at that. Gays CAN love a woman for who she is, but love in the same way one loves a friend. Love has nothing to do with being gay or straight, it's about what you're sexually attracted to. You can love anyone, but your not sexually attracted to everyone. BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE. I've never heard of any gay who has said they've chosen to be gay. It's an arguement brought up by heterosexuals who don't quite understand. It's not so much the benefits that appeal to gay marriage activists, its the idea that their own government has rejected part of who they are.

4) What about infertile heterosexual couples? Were they "meant" to be infertile?

In response to Jack F:

Good arguement. But being straight is just as much about sex as being gay is. Being straight is also a sexual preference. So why are heterosexuals the only one's with rights to a partnership. They can be just as loving as a heterosexual couple without kids.

Answer 1

Yes it is. Gays want to infect an age old institution because they feel their rights are violated. Marraige is not all about sex, and being gay is. It's sexual preference only, nothing more. The family amounts to much more than that, and that is what the gay movement chooses to ignor.

Answer 2

1) There is no total "separation between church and state," therefore laws can be made based in part on religion, but there basis must go further than that
2) Like there is a big poster on the wall at where I work "What you tolerate you encourage". Thats where the religious argument comes from, by allowing gay marriage I am in a sense saying it is ok, and by that I am going against my own religion.
3) I don't know what you define as reasonable argument, but the whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. If you say that you love a man because of who he is, then can't you love a woman because of who she is? And then this whole genetic argument is new. Why do some people say if they want to be gay it is their choice and then some people say they can't help it, it's the way they were born? And then some gay people say it's important so they get the social security benefits, and then others say they don't care about the benefits. Can't seem to get it straight (no pun intended) between each other.
4) I think it's pretty obvious that people weren't mean't to be gay because you can't reproduce.

Answer 3

It might not be a problem, but the thing is if the government allows this, then people are going to want more. Once you allow something like this to happen, then the next thing you'll hear is people wanting to marry their dog or maybe 3 gay people want to marry eachother or some kind of tax breaks for gay marriage couples, etc. Not the best examples, but I'm for a loss of words. You get the idea. It's like a domino effect. It's all about special interest and people always want their views to work out.

Answer 4

I don't think it's a problem

I don't get the whole "it will ruin the sanctity of marriage" argument....i think it will only ruin it if you have those ignorant views and let it ruin your idea of marriage!

If 2 people love eachother, i don't see why not

Oh...and the whole "slippery slope" argument is a load of crap too. Especially when people start saying "what if someone wants to marry their cat" or something like that....first of all, how is a cat supposed to consent to marriage....second of all, get real!

I think in the future this "ban gay marriage" stuff will be hogwash. Just look back 50 years or so when people weren't even allowed to live together if they were'nt married...we find that ridiculous now.

I think in 50 years we'll look back on this time and think "they wanted to ban gay marriage?!?...that's ridiculous!" imho, years from now it won't even be called "gay marriage"...it will just be...marriage

Answer 5

First of all - how do you know you are homosexual? Have you had sex? Second, those Biblical arguments not being constitutional reasoning for law - well you are totally off base here because the constitution was formed based solely on Biblical context. You need to go back to your history classes to read this part again. I find it interesting that you use the word reasonable argument when the very nature of your question is not reasonable. It is not reasonable to consider a man with another man or vice versa. The natural (reasonable) conclusion is a man with a woman. There is no other way to be fruitful and multiply! Man's very existence depends on this natural order. Hope that answers your question.

Answer 6

No, I think the gay marriage debate is a red herring to keep the American Public's attention off the fact that we are in enormous debt for a war we shouldn't be in to find WMD's that aren't there.

If 2 people love each other and want to commit, I'm fine with it. Or if people want to have a marriage of convenience so they can get medical/tax benefits, fine too. Not my place to tell people who they can love and live with.

Answer 7

why is a religious ceremony needed for couples who obviously don't want any other religious obligations (didn't say it was BAD- just don't understand)

why isn't a "civil partnership" not acceptable? These are already available, legal and provide the same benefits.


It just seems this is part of a "radical" agenda to force more conservative people to "accept" homosexuality.

Answer 8

tpride has his head up his azz. The COTUS is NOT based on "Biblical context".

Gay marriage, flag burning, all of such issues are a smokescreen to distract the public from the war and other more sinister issues where the government has failed.

And the neocons eat it up like chitlins on Sunday.

Answer 9

The only argument I have have is that Marriage in and of itself is a religious act in its origin. And, as such, is subject to the "biblical" interpretation you so disdain.

Civil Unions, or Civil Contracts are not religious in nature, and therefore would not be subject to religious scrutiny.

Answer 10

I really dont see how it affects anyone in their personal lives...i also hate it when people say that the next thing people will want to do is marry their dog because its completely different from two poeple loving each other its just ...retarted.. when people say that