Who can give me a good argument?

Question

A really good argument - I mean you really have to try here to cover all the bases.

How would banning the marriage of two like gendered individuals "save marriage" for the non-like gendered couples?

I want real answers now! I know Christians will point out what God said, but I'm looking for more than the Bible. I want you to also relate it to the non-Christians so that everyone can understand.

For brodie:
The two parties involved have to have the capacity to consent to marriage. Personally, I don't believe a 14 yr old has that capacity, though I'm torn as to where to put the cut off. I think 17 or older, though I realize that could be hugely controversial. This similarly eliminates lawn chairs and sheep from the marriage picture.

There are some really great answers here!

Answer 1

The only benefit garnered by banning gay marriage is less need for lawyers in our country (since they aren't married, there won't be any divorces ... if they could get married, there would at least be some and we'd need more lawyers ... and I hate lawyers).

As for saying gay marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage ... they made similar claims not too long ago when we began to move away from the traditional arranged marriages and instead adopt the concept of "marrying for love."

Answer 2

It's a good question. First, there are a lot of people who believe marriage is based on two different genders. I'm supposing this comes from a more biological view. Animals and many plants alike need the egg and the sperm to produce offspring. However, there are many people that don't want to produce offspring. If they do, they can adopt (if it adoption was legal for them).
There are those who say that homosexuality is unnatural and perverse. But, there are several species of animals (primates, even) that have homosexual encounters i.e. they are bisexual creatures. So that just throws that argument right out of the window for me. Those people are not open-minded enough to see sex and love for what they can be.
Another argument is love or the nature of love. There are those who think love cannot exist between two people of the same gender. That's bull, and they know it, and I know it, and you know it. People can love whatever and whoever their hearts desire. So, chuck that argument, too.
Of course, there's the Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea that God said a marriage is made of man and woman. In my opinion that has a lot to do with procreation. There are several religions where sexuality, gender, and copulation are seen very differently.
People are different and believe things that will help them survive and understand life. We make up rules for ourselves to have more control over ourselves, life, the universe, other people, sexuality...everything. I used to be Christian and now I'm not, mostly because I couldn't agree with a lot of things 'the good book' says. Marriage is a commitment of love, generosity, companionship, trust, etc. It is a bond that grows as the years grow. It is not to be entered lightly. This said, why shouldn't two people who have found love be given the chance to fuse it for eternity, or at least til death? Love is beautiful. We should honor it, not destroy it.

Answer 3

The sanctity of marriage between man and woman was meant to unite two individuals that could and would procreate and populate the earth. Two same-sex gendered people cannot procreate, therefore, the population would not increase and the world would soon die out, no children to carry on the multiplication of life and being fruitful. If you're thinking about test tube babies then why have marriages at all. The female would still have to carry the baby full term. Adoption? Where will the babies be coming from? Banning same-sex marriages would enhance the marriage of the different genders and continue the procreation, as God meant for it to be.

Answer 4

The answer really depends on your preconceived notions.

Do you believe that ANY marraige should be illegal? For example, should an adult be able to marry a 14 year old? Whether the answer is yes or no, on what basis have you made your decision.

If you answer that, I can better explain the answer to your original question.

Response:

I think that your response is valid enough. I think it's good that you see there is a bit of a problem with the cut off age, but that's reasonable enough. I'd like to ask one more question if you don't mind though. How do you feel about incestual marraige (ie. a brother and sister or cousins perhaps)?

Answer 5

Unfortunately the "Christian" argument against gay marriage is inherently flawed. They have intentionally changed the initial meaning of marriage. It was originally between a man and a woman but not for possession or as a sacriment in a male oriented society worshipping a male god. Originally the bloodline of descendence was traced through the woman and her mother and her mother's mother. Marriage was a way of protecting that bloodline and seen as a physical union between the god and the goddess in each and every being. If a man and a man assume the god and goddess role then they can consider themselves married. Despite what the church or the government say is appropriate. They are merely illusions in the game of life and in the end matter nothing.

Answer 6

There is no good argument. We are all HUMANS, and we all deserve the same rights. Heterosexual couples who are not religious (and even some that are religious) are married in courthouses every day and have the same legal rights as couples married in a church. The same should apply for homosexuals. It's really as simple as that.

And in response to the inevitable answers about gays adopting children... are kids *really* better off in a group home or bouncing between foster homes or with their meth-addicted parents than they would be with a gay couple???

Answer 7

Save marriage from what? The 50% divorce rate? The multiple remarriages that are rampant in society?

I think that if people are so concerned about "the sanctity of marriage" that they ought to pay more attention to the sanctity that's already been lost, instead of using their own bigotry as an excuse.

Answer 8

The answer is very simple - God hates homos and two homos getting married is so bad that God would hate them even more than just homos who are single even though God loves everybody. Therefore it is perfectly clear that God loves everybody and so does Jesus unless you are a homo in which case both God and Jesus hate you so bad that you can't even imagine. Even though Christians hate you they still pray for you but not too sincerely because they don't want any homos in heaven where everyone goes around naked and you wouldn't want to get too close to a homo if you were naked even in heaven because you know what THEY are like.

Answer 9

You may say I'm too hung up on semantics, but I don't really care what they do, so long as they use a different word than marriage, call it a civil union, call it whatever...I think what's important here is preserving the meaning of the word marriage, saving that definition is what's important to me.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but there's my two cents.

Answer 10

Save marriage... well, there's nothing wrong with mine that it needs saving. My marriage is between my husband and I. Not between my husband, myself and everyone else who is married.

This has proven to show, to me at least, just hypocritical people are. They claim they are saving marriage from the homosexuals, but continue to divorce and remarry (which is against the Bible as well). THe only way a person can remarry is if their spouse dies. The only way to divorce is due to adultery... Jesus' own words. And once divorced you can NOT marry again.

So, how is it they are upholding the Bible by being against homosexual unions, while they are still divorcing and re-marrying?