Without quoting the Bible, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Question

Do religous tenets take precedence over "all men are created equal"?

The point is legal status - survivorship, health care, etc.

So, if the primary objective of marriage is procreation, should heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children not be allowed to get married, either? How about if one of them is unable to have children?

I am happily married and heterosexual.

Mark D - I am sure that our founding fathers would have looked upon homosexuality with disdain. But that is a moot point. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." Who would be "injured" by a couple committing themselves to a long-term monogomous relationship? The government is not in place to legislate morality.

Doesn't "equal protection under the law" apply to everyone? Can we (or should we) prohibit one group from doing something that we allow another group to do?

Answer 1

Maybe a fresh approach is what's called for -- articulating the reasons they should be permitted to marriy. You're precisely right on the issues at hand: health care, right to survivorship, etc. Why not allow any two people who care to bond together as a permanent partnership the same rights as any other couple be it husband and wife, a gay or lesbian couple, two brothers, two life long girl friends. We should foster this idea. Everybody needs a partner and defining it ought to be up to individuals involved.

Answer 2

With a 50% divorce rate and multiple marriages why should heterosexuals be allowed to get married? And why should they be allowed to decide whether or not homesexuals should or should not get married? Never was it so that anyone needed marriage to procreate. If god has decided that children are only for married couples than that's the way it Will be, there would be no such thing as out-of-wedlock pregnacies. And if hetros make such could parents why are there millions of children unwanted, abused, negleted, in orphanages and growing up burdens on society, (the skyrocketing crime). DON"T give me that crap about the cost government and private services! I would love to pick and choose what my tax dollars are spent on, lots less for military frivolity and more for national healthcare, mass transit and arts and culture. There are NO reasons why society should be deciding why any two people should be allowed to marry!! Not to0 long ago the argument was that homosexuals should be condemned because of promiscuity ( heteros are equally promiscuios!) and now they want to marry, bigots are still bitching and finding new ways to spread hate and misery!

Answer 3

I'd assume its the same reason NAMBLA and its equivalent Butterfly Kisses haven't won their cases yet. One could also ask why the courts take issue with a man or woman who cross dresses and takes on a persona of the opposite gender doing so in front of their children. Why would they be concerned about a parent appearing the same gender as their spouse in front of the children if homosexual couples present the same general front? Why is it in Florida counties with transgendered children as young as five that they say it is normal and acceptable to be such yet turn around and require the child go by a unisex name, wear only unisex clothing, etc, and essentially become adrogenous at school? Wouldn't that be damaging and confusing to all involved children's psyche including the transgendered child? If sexuality can be bent, gender bent, age limits bent, number of partners bent (as with the children of polygmists in Utah rally recently), where does it end? Why should there be any limits whatsover as long as no on in the relationship is complaining even if it were say an ape? Spain not long ago was considering (don't know the outcome) granting legal person status and rights to apes on the grounds of similiarity to humans. Although this was geared more toward further protection and respect of the species it raises the question of how much rights do they have? Why shouldn't legal rights be granted to this that or all species making us all equal under the law? If you can find an answer to all those issues you may be closer to your answer.

Answer 4

with out quoting the bible, the reasons are........
Marriage is a legal agreement between a man & a woman.
Structured for the monitarly flow of man/woman/child.
It has been sinse mankind has been known on this planet.
If a mother dies, there is a family to care for the child.
A couple of thousands of years ago, should a man die, his brother was legally and ethically to take care of the widow.

Adding Gay marriages would be like adding socialism to the constitution. It is an instutuion that has been around for a long time. If gays marry, then why not marry you dad or your cousin or your dog.

This is all part of erroding away the family structure of our country.

Gays can be commtted partners....but by defination marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Hey some old founding father said all men are created equal......thats a bit of a misnomer. And gosh..we are all such a variety. But the statement meant......equal as in freedom and country privlidges. It isn't about equal in math skills, or equal in appearence, or equal in hair color.........it is equal ...as opposed to the servent/master sort of human structure. Or the royality/peasant structure. Stuff like that. It isn't equal in who you marry equal.

Up until I was 9 I wanted to marry my dad. Geesh I had no concep[t.

Man & woman are the structure of procreation and family order of the universe. That isn't saying that Gays are wrong. It is just by defination that man + wife = married partners.

Answer 5

John S.,
In "answer" to your rhetorical question, I have several rhetorical questions of my own:

When our Founding Fathers referred to "All men are created equal," do you REALLY think that they meant homosexuals are created as the equal of heterosexuals? Does it occur to you that our Founding Fathers would have used the word "sodomites" to refer to homosexuals? Does it occur to you that our Founding Fathers would have had every bit as many moral objections to homosexuality as do the "Christian conservatives" of today?

I won't have to quote the Bible to say that all of the voters in each of the states that have voted on gay marriage so far have some kind of moral objection to the idea of equating homosexuality with heterosexuality. Moral objection. You don't need to quote the Bible to have a moral objection.
~~~~~
Congratulations on a circular argument. You concede that our Founding Fathers held homosexuality in disdain, but then you insist that their views are "a moot point." And then you continue to insist that T. Jefferson's generalized views on how government should treat all people would be relevant to this discussion. Would Jefferson have wanted to give gay couples the equal right to get married?

We can't legislate morality? Is that in the Constitution? How did one line of dialogue by Burt Reynolds in the movie "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" come to be a rule for what legislatures, or voters, can or cannot do?

Lastly, as to whether or not "equal protection under the law" applies to "everyone," I would say that, yes, it does apply to everyone. Everyone has a racial identity -- everyone belongs to some race, a small percentage are multi-racial which is to say that they do belong to at least one race -- and everyone is entitled to racial equality. That was the only thing which was meant by the words of the 14th amendment. That amendment does not guarantee equality in all circumstances for all characteristics.

Answer 6

There is no reason why they should not be allowed.

Marriage was created a very long time ago as a way of distributing a persons wealth when they died.(short version)

If they live and act as a married couple they should have the same rights.

Not to mention allot of families of homosexuals and lesbians do not have the best interest of the individual in heart. They may not respect the wishes of the "gay" individual out of spite. If "gay" marriage were legal, then the spouse of the individual could respect the wishes of the one they love

Answer 7

Because it violates the basic tenets of family. A family consists of a husband and wife, legally and lawfully married--not living together, not shacking up, not pursuing an "alternate lifestyle." Some families have children but they don't need to. When a couple has children they need a mother and a father because women contribute something that men cannot contribute, and men contribute something that women cannot contribute. Often you hear gay couples say that they can love their children as much as straight couples can. But that's not the point is it? It is not just love that parents provide for their children. They learn those innate characteristics that a man brings into the relationship and the innate characteristics that women bring into a relationship. Therefore families should consist of one husband and one wife legally, lawfully, and respectfully married to the same person throughout their life (whenever possible.)

Answer 8

Let us look at his picture with a very normal and unbiased mind.

To do this let me start by asking you this....have you ever had really involved sex with a girl? The thing is that even though this girl and you maybe as clean as clean can be, still you have to admit that sex is somewhat messy. There are physical odors that are strong, there are aspects of sex that one has to take with pinch of salt. In Western Culture where wiping of *** is common this is still messy. Think of chocolate syrup in you hair and if you wipe that with a whole bunch of tissue, does that clean it in totality? So now that we have established that sex can be quite messy even when it is normal and natural, lets look at un-natural sex. Imagine yourself (if you are a male) having intercourse with a male. We know that a male genitalia has stronger odor then female genitalia and knowing this will you consciously want to do that? Then there is Anal sex. Human Anus is not entirely suited for sexual purposes. It is not elastic enough and it does not have any lubrication as such. There are various kinds of bacteria, ecoli etc that exists in anus. Imagine putting your penis into that stink. You can counter by saying that you are going to do it with a condom (or two) and that maybe you will have this person have an enema beforehand. That’s a good idea, but think of all the issues you have to face just to have sex with a male. All this when female sex is there and it is natural and fun as well? Then there are other issue like, would you like to behave like a girl with your male lover? This too when you are a man. Is this not equivalent to changing your psyche altogether? Would you like to be made up and a girl and all that stuff? Even if this does not happen all the time…would you like to behave like a girl or would you like to be with someone, a male that behaved like a girl?
Then comes the option of reproduction. Man and another man cant have sex and reproduce. Under this aspect there absolutely the involvement of a female becomes necessary. So now we are talking about a triad, thereby making things more complicated.

Considering all this, it is a total hassle altogether to be interested in being a homo or being with a homo. Man is a social animal but that does not mean that he has the right to be a homosexual or have sex with another man. I do not see animals do it. So due to such reason it is not normal and natural for a maleto have sex with another male

Answer 9

I so like your points made and wonder why so many people are paranoid about this issue.

As for the bible thing - My God does not punish for loving ! If you love someone you love someone and it ain't no one's damn business what you do in your own bedroom.
Grow up people ! Mind your own business and stop trying to punish a life style you do not understand.

I am heterosexual and have done my best to teach my children that to be accepting of all without exceptions.

Answer 10

see the Supreme Court decisions Bowers v Hardwick and the superceding Lawrence v Texas for legal answers on the status of homosexual relationships.