Is homosexual marriage really wrong?

Question

First off, I am a christian but I also advocate for homosexuals to marry. I believe that if some woman in Florida can marry a dolphin than this is a stupid question to begin with. I don't believe the government should have the authority to tell people who they can marry, although I agree with Elton John when he said we should draw the line at goats. If a certain branch of church does not want to permit it, than I believe that the church should have say. But the government? I mean, if we're not careful it's going to turn into Orwell's 1984 here. I thought this was the land of oppritunity and equality?

I didn't mean to rant - I guess I want to know what you all think.

Answer 1

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals getting married. Who are we to say that the love a man has for another man is no better than the love a man has for a woman? I say give America a couple of more years to become a little more secularize and then, hopefully, homosexuals can be legally married.
As for some of the arguments people have made against gay marriage, they're are pretty pointless. You can't argue that gay marriage isn't allowed based on religious grounds (mainly the bible) because there's is a separation of church and state, and as for the argument that only opposite-sex couples can successfully raised family, it's absurd. Same-sex couples have the same chance of raising f*cked kids just like any other opposite-sex couple (but I think children whose parents are homosexual would grow up in a more loving environment than children with heterosexual parents solely on the fact that gay parents know about the kind of prejudice they and their kids face). Lastly, the argument "if we allow homosexuals to get married, the next thing would be letting humans marry animals" is like comparing apples and oranges. A human is different from an animal. Animals don't have our kind of thinking. To make a parallel like that is silly.So yeah, that's what I think. ~young one~

Answer 2

First, Homosexual behavior-
I don't think we will get anywhere with the argument until society is willing to acknowledge homosexual behavior as a "disordered condition". I know what the APA said in 1973, and I'm not sure it is necessarily a "mental" disorder, either, but it is a disorder, as the doctor who headed up that research is NOW saying. Human sex organs are designed for heterosexual sex. If a person is inclined to use those organs in a way that goes against the way they were designed, that is a disorder.

Second, Marriage -
The purpose of marriage is three-fold: To have children, to provide a stable family structure, and to stabilize society as a whole. That is why the old "Why are old people or infertile couples allowed to stay married?" argument doesn't hold water.Also, regardless of the exceptional stories, it is well documented that the vast majority of homosexual unions do not last more than a few years (2 - 3 years to be exact). That is why the American College of Pediatricians is against homosexual adoptions. Homosexual unions of any kind have proven statistically unstable, and that is not good for children. Studies have also shown that homosexual behavior is extremely dangerous and unhealthy for both the homosexual partners themselves as well as their children. Again, statistics show that those who engage in homosexual behavior are at greater risk for mental illness,substance abuse,suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. These statistics also hold up in countries that are far more favorable to gay unions, like Norway. Homosexuals are the most likely group to acquire AIDS and other secondary illnesses that come with it, like TB (Gay men still being the highest percentage of those with AIDS in the US) This does not stabilize society, when society is spending the highest amount of all tax money (some $21 billion per year) on AIDS treatment and research that could have been spent on far less preventable diseases. Lastly, look at the precedents being set in other countries that HAVE allowed homosexual unions - like Canada where the homosexual lobby is currently fighting to ensure that "infidelity" cannot be grounds for divorce, due to the generally promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle, and where the number of homosexuals getting married in Canada has dropped significantly now that they have proven that they have the "right" to do it, too.

Third - Precedent
Have a look at what is happening in the countries where homosexual unions have been legalized. You agreed with Elton John that we should draw the line at "goats". Check out the success that Norway has had in drawing the line once they opened the door to marriage other than the traditional "man and woman" scenario. Polygamy is now legal there, and a key political group is now fighting for pedophilia and beastiality to be made legal as well. In our OWN country, we have the FLDS Church (a banned offshoot of the Mormons) saying that as soon as we legalize gay marriage, they will immediately take up the fight for polygamy with underaged girls.

In any case, I don't think that if we are even seriously debating homosexual unions or marriages, that we are anywhere near a 1984 scenario, and "equality" does not mean that everyone can do what everyone else can do. Women cannot fight in combat and men cannot have babies. Does that make us unequal?

Answer 3

Probably. Most homosexual marriage can be considered wrong.

WHY: Because the institution of marriage was typically born within religions that frowned on homosexuality and have had a clear understanding if not indeed a clear definition of marriage being between a man and a woman.

BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR: What is not fair is that law co-opted the institution of marriage for its own civil ends that had nothing to do with religion or spirituality.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? The law should enact a new definition of legal union between two people that isn't marriage but carries all the benefits such as tax breaks etc that marriage carries but without the historical religious baggage.

Existing marriages should be automatically commuted to being legally recognized as being such unions and certification issued accordingly. Those couples will then be married within whichever religion they adhere to but also recognized legally as being a union and receiving all the civil trappings that go with that.

Relationships between same sex couples should likewise be recognized as such a union through their own ceremony or registration or whatever.

This way same sex couples can enjoy the same benefits as married couples currently do, but, they will not incur the wrath of those who do not want their religious institution of marriage defiled, because those couples won't be married.

THERE ALREADY ARE CIVIL UNIONS. Some places do have a legal defintion of union between two same sex couples which are given equal or similar legal status to marriage. The problem is that whilst there remains a legal distinction between the two types they can be evolved along different paths leading to the discrimination of that between same sex couples.

It can also be argued that married couples could be similarly discriminated against, eg. not receiving certain advantages available to same sex couples, but this argument only fortifies the argument for a separate all-ecompassing legal union to be created.

THIS DOESN'T SOLVE EVERYTHING. No, there are some same sex couples who subscribe to certain religious doctrines and would like to be married within a religion that actively discriminates against them. These people are suffering from a mental disorder, and psychiatric help should be provided by the state.

WHAT ABOUT THE BIGOTS? Yes, they will still protest, but they will not have a leg to stand on. Whilst law recognizes only "marriage" that has a religious historical context then there is some albeit tenuous merit to their arguments.

Religions should be free to determine the make-up of their congregations. If you don't fit that bill, then it hardly seems fair on the rest of the congregation that they should be forced to accept you into their midst.

States, unlike religions however, must account for all its citizenry and treat each with fairness and equanimity. In particular, state laws, beneath which a populace should be subject and equal.

It is time to put marriage back where it belongs, in the province of the religions from whence it spawned and create a new legal definition of civil union between couples that reflects and accomodates the diversity of modern societies.

Answer 4

actually it is the government, not the church or not gay right groups, and certainly not activist judges.

The people are the government, and they have the right to make and pass laws.

Marriage as done in america has nothing to do with religion, is is merley a civil contract ( that a minister may witness as the official) but is also done by a judge, a notory public or merley a witness in some areas)

so each state has always held the right to decide who to give marriage licence to. And to not to, first cousins, brothers and sisters, groups of three people, and people of the same sex.
( and not to forget goats and dogs)

What Christians should really be upset about is the fact that homosexual activity itself has become acceptable, this is the Chrsitain problem, since it is the act of homosexality that is the real problem, They are already living together, marriage or not marriage does not change this.

so Christains need to work and lobby at changing that back to morality.

And before you start most laws are morality laws, do not steal is theif laws, thou shall not kill, murder laws, and we have laws against prostititution, gambling and more. so the nation from its beginning has had morlity in all of its laws.

And it is equality, they are not restricted now because of age, sex, race, religion or any constititional right, Sexual perversion is not a protected right.

Answer 5

The prohibition against same-sex marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality. They are pure gender-based discrimination.

If a gay man and a lesbian woman want to get married, the law cannot stop them. So, the laws banning same-sex marriage don't stop homosexuals from getting married at all.

And if two straight women, both of whom plan to have sex only with men, want to get married for the legal benefits and to provide a more secure home for their children, they are prevented. So, it's not about acting in the best interests of the children. If one single woman (straight or gay) can raise her own child, then I can't imagine how two good mothers (both straight in our example) are somehow worse than one parent.

So, it's pure gender based discrimination. And even if it wasn't there is no valid non-religious reason to discriminate against same-sex couples (see link below). And even though various religions may consider homosexuality to be wrong, the constitution of this country prohibits enacting secular laws based solely on religious grounds.

Answer 6

I am a gay 22 year old guy. I am not ready to marry, I know that. But I do beleive that other gay couples that have been together as long as heterosexual couples have been, then I beleive that they should be allowed. I was against it at frist, even though I am gay. I didnt think America was ready. Now! I know that its not Americas descion whether or not there ready, It should be the decsion of the couple. Im also Christian, have been ALL my life. I have struggled with this for awhile. But again, its up to the churches and the couples. Thanks for careing about us!

Answer 7

EXACTLY!!!!!
You can't help who you love! If someone who is homosexual wants to marry someone else who is also homosexual--IT'S NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS!!!! Why not let them be as miserable as the rest of us! I think that if they are willing to take on that challenge, they should be granted the same rights and duties as every heterosexual couple! The government has too much influence on our "home lives" as it is--we need to keep them out of our bedrooms. This is the perfect example of a situation requiring complete separation of "church and state".

Answer 8

I've been in a same sex marriage for almost 13 years. Every-time my wife and I have sex, it's the same. If two men or two women want to enter into a union, more power to them. And if they were my children, I would not want the government telling them they don't have the same opportunity to be as happy as my wife and I do.

Answer 9

Not at all, if you listen to what Christian's have to say then infertile couples should not be allowed to marry either. It is right, it is the future and it is a question of love and acceptance.

Answer 10

I guess there will be as many opinions as there are responses, but in MY eyes, it is wrong. The Bible says "Go ye forth and multiply" and that's hard to do with someone of the same sex.