Is there any other reason?

Question

Anyone with eyes and ears knows that there are many people in US that feel homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married. Can anyone give me a single decent reason that doesn't come from your religious beliefs, or is that the only reason for the way you feel?

Christian Lady: I'm sorry I should have been more detailed. The reason I ask is because the idea that the government should ban gay marriage would be passing a law based solely on the Christian belief system (if thats the only reason people have) which is against the 1st amendment no matter what side your on.

Gracefully Saved: Society breaking down? Cmon. Loss of definitions and boundaries, ok so we set the definition as a legal union between to loving PEOPLE. No unclear definition problem there. As for the stamp of approval issue, thats just nonsense. Allowing something and approving are totally different. The fact that the government doesn't stone homosexuals doesn't mean they put god's stamp of approval on homosexuality. Or does it? Sorry your superior logic confuses us heathens that think all people are equals.

Answer 1

Okay, well I'm gay and I'm a Hindu. My religion doesn't really have a problem, per se, with gay marriage (afterall it has about 15 types of marriage and 8 of which are somewhat common, and only about 4 are actually still very common in the world today).

So, that said, I really don't have a problem with marriage being extended to gay people. Afterall, gay people already have religious marriages in religious institutions/denominations/sects/subsects/etc that recognize and allow for it.

So while the usual argument is that marriage shouldn't be extended to gays because it's a religious thing. Well okay then, I guess I'll just agree with that. And if it's a religious thing than that means the government can't regulate it otherwise it's violating itself (that pesky 1st Amendment again). Of course government does regulate it and has taken all control over the subject (thus leaving the religious institutions with little more than to play a ceremonial role...if that, since the government allows for it to be excluded altogether...afterall Atheists get married, too).

So I figure that this debate isn't even really about gays getting married and having all the protections and benefits that the government affords to married couples (that's what's about for gay people, but I'm saying that nongay people the debate is about something completely different). It seems to be about a debate that has been brewing for some time (just no one really had the guts to point it out until gay people came along demanded to be treated as equals....darn gay people!) And that debate is over how much control the government should have over our lives and whether or not something that most people feel is sacred (even gay people I know who get married have the religious marriage and hold it as sacred and while they'd like to have the civil marriage aspect, they got what was more important....myself included), that people wonder if the government even should be regulating what is sacred and just how it can do this? The real debate is "what is marriage?" Suddenly the debate that has been heating up about who controls marriage has been brewing since modernity kicked in and governments started taking over more and more control (regulating marriage more and more and more). There are some great books on the subject and the history of marriage (mostly by heterosexuals, but there are a small few that also address homosexual marriage, too). Since the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century there has been an ever more and more increase in the control and regulation that government provides. Did you know that at one time local communities had control of marriage? That's right. You were considered "married" if your local community recognized you as such (which usually included, of course, the recognition of whatever religious institution you belonged to). Of course in those days the government didn't package marriage with all kinds of protections, benefits, and other things to place even more a need to have more control. It was a gradual process, but it happened and, if you do your research, you'll find that there were people even then who were "debating" the issue. Well now the pot has boiled over. Gay people want the government to recognize them (since government now controls marriage completely), the government has either been indecisive or just outright said that it doesn't want to (and looks for alternatives) and all of sudden all of those other debates that probably should have happened long before the gays came asking for the government to treat them as equals, is now finally happening. People are starting to wonder "just why is this the government's business to decide?" and "how can the government regulate the sacred? isn't it violating my freedom of religion?" There are those who just refuse to have the debate altogether and just cling to this "my religion says its wrong so no homosexuals shouldn't get married" and are ignoring the real issues (just as they have done in the past and thus allowed government to take control of marriage in the first place.....not civil unions, marriage. The government not only took over the institution, it took the language, too).

Personally, I'm happy with my sacred religious marriage to my beloved. I'd love to have the government benefits and protections, etc, that it provides, but like all legal aspects there are loopholes and gays have been using all the other legal aspects afforded to them to secure and protect their relationships legally. Realistically I realize that until the heterosexuals really sit down and talk this all out that homosexuals aren't really even in the picture yet. This isn't really even about homosexuals getting married at all. The debate can rage on and hopefully people will become more enlightened and ultimately people will decide whether they want marriage to just be a sacred thing regulated by religious institutions (thus meaning that the religious institutions would then have to provide those benefits the government provides) or if they want it to be regulated by government. And if it is regulated by government then government is obligated to ensure that all its citizens have equal access to the institution and not discriminate against any of its citizens.

So we'll see how that all goes. In the mean time, my husband and I are very happy. Our union was blessed and witnessed by God. We may not have a piece of paper with the name of a State and County and signed by a bunch of government employees and elected officials, but we got what was more important to us with our defination of the word marriage.

Peace be with you.

Answer 2

i know that you do not want to hear religious views, but you are going to.

I am a pagan minister.

i think that the government should be required to stay out of religion. as the first ammendment states , congress shall make no law regarding (could be respecting or representing) religion.

the gay marriage ban is a direct violation of the constitutional rights of more than just the gay couple. it is a violation of my religious right to preform a marriage (or handfasting) ceramony for them. it is a violation to their persuit of happiness. and is definately a violation of their right to liberty. the only human right that this does not violate is the right to life.

there is no good reason that they should not be able to get married. and have it be legal. if the christians want to say that marriage is a sole part of their religion. fine by me call it a handfasting or a binding of souls, or a civil union or a contract of faith,,whatever. just so long as all companies, health insurence and life insurence companies are required to recognise the legal union. and pay out due benifiets to the other party in the event of death etc.

and furthermore i have to ask

HOW DOES THIS HURT ANY OF YOU.

it does not. what 2 people do in their house is their business and their business alone. and weather or not they are married or not is none of your business either.

if you are a pastor and you have a problem with gay marriage,
DONT MARRY THEM. they can always come to me i will be glad to do it for them.

if you are a christian and you do not want to live in a community that had gay people in it,,,,GOOD LUCK. you are going to need it

you folks have NO right to tell me who i can and cannot marry by MY religious principals. you have NO right to tell someone else that they should not be able to be married.

put yourself in their shoes,,,,what if they were the majority nad not the vast minority,...and they wanted to make your beliefs and customs illegal.

What if pagans were the Majority and we all of a sudden decided that Christians were not allowed to use any pagan symbolism in their religion...you would have to tear down every pre rennassence church and re-vamp every holiday that you have...


WOW that would just be insane would'ent it.

what if the FDLS were the majority and they wanted to tell you that your 15 year old daughter would be married to one of Warren Jeffs 50 year old friends.

Christians you all eally should think about these things, after all you have only been the majority for about the last 1500 years of the history of the entire planet....be careful what you do on your way up the ladder because you will pass everyone that you met on your way up on your way down...do you want friends... or the other.

Answer 3

That is kind of like saying the Gay and Lesbian coalition that supports various politicians are not sexually based. When in reality there is no other unifiying element.
It is doubtful that from a worldly perspective you could get a reason, with the minor exception that the ability to procreate would be viable for both sexes if the two were supposed to mate male to male, and female to female.
As with puzzle pieces, they only go together one way...from a physical perspective. Mentally...well, your guess is as good as anyones.

Answer 4

Becouse it spreads bacteria deseases and virises.
If everyone did anything and everything they wanted and desired and becouse its a right then we would end up with the strong over powering the weak and the weak would be the ones with no rights.The poor the old and the handicap and disabled wouldnt be able to survive.The human race would distroy each other by force(rights) and deseases.Sounds like a bunch of animals-oh but they have rights to like they have a right to marry humans and have sexual relations with humans,no holds bar,anything goes?No consious,no rules and no boundries.
No guidelines and no selfcontrol.

Answer 5

They are human people also with the right to find happiness with someone of the same sex if that is their lifestyle of choose and they can accept the problems that arise from such a lifestyle.Why not let them have a civil ceremony that's legal and binding.I know most of the Churches won't let them. based on a misinterpretation of one verse in the Bible about not spilling your seed on infertile ground.

Answer 6

first of I probably shouldnt answer this because I am not against it. But that being said I would like to speak my opinion.I honestly do not see why they shouldnt marry.....Love knows no color creed etc....I think most people that feel that way feel so because it is based upon their religous convictions.Im not sure what other reasons they have but thats the only one that comes to mind to me.

Answer 7

societal breakdown, loss of boundaries and clear definitions. But it mostly centers around my religious beliefs that homosexuality is an abomination to God. And therefore to put a stamp of approval, and even God's stamp of approval on that type of marriage is blasphemy. I will have no part in that!

Answer 8

I am a stright woman who attends church every single Sunday and I see no good reason why Gays can not have ALL the rights stright people have.

Answer 9

I am agnostic and I can find no rational reason in my mind why they can't get married. It doesn't offend me one bit. It has got to be a religious thing.

Answer 10

Why is this question asked a million times? Bible believing Christians believe the bible. God created marriage for one man and one woman. I am baffled as to why this keeps coming up. Of course it's my opinion because it's GOD'S opinion first!