That's an argument I have heard and I think it is nonesense. Letting two adults enter into a stable, loving and monogomous relationship can only strengthen our society. Marriage is a civil contract blessed by religion. In a free society we should not let any one religion dictate who can and can not enjoy that legal status. I believe every state should permit same sex marriage as the only civilized thing to do.
2006-09-08 06:30:13 · 60 answers · asked by Isis 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
no i am all for same sex marriages. i know many couples that have been together for many years and are very happy. it should be allowed because they are human beings and deserve the right to be happy with whomever they choose.
2006-09-08 06:34:46 · answer #1 · answered by RocKsTaR 6 · 8⤊ 1⤋
To put some things in perspective first:
>Letting two adults enter into a stable, loving and monogomous (sic!) relationship can only strengthen our society
Same sex marriage is not letting them enter a stable relationship, it's only recognising the existing one for legal matters.
Same sex marriage is only a formality. Same sex relationships have exists throughout centuries and they're only started being accepted (not by everyone I must sadly add). I can't see how formalising existing same sex relationship can lead to destruction of civilization.
Civilization begun a few centuries BC from countries such as Greece who were not particularly fussed about homosexuality.
The conclusions are yours.
-----------------------------
Also I'd like to make a point regarding the angle_of_deat's answer above:
>Imagine a hypothetical society where everyone was homosexual
>1. no children will be born
Children do not require a heterosexual marriage to be born. Similarly to today's homosexual couples having children (using sperm and egg banks) children would indeed be born even if everyone was homosexual.
>2. the society will age with no one to care for them
See above. Also is your motive to have kids so then can look after you when you're old? I'd rather have children because I want to make this place a better world by taking personal care of the education of the new generation.
>3. society will become exitinct with no children.
See above. And to add all your supposedly 3 arguments are just one; weak one too.
>Imagine a society where 50% were homosexual and 50% had families
Homosexual do have families. Unless you define a family as a heterosexual couple with 2.2 children.
>1. the homosexuals will be richer than the heterosexuals as they have no dependents
If this were true all the rich people today would be homosexual and all the heterosexuals poor. This is a very weak argument as wealth is mostly based on circumstances and hard work.
>2. half of the children born to heterosexuals must support the homosexuals, even though no monetary input has come from them.
According to your definition half of the children would be homosexual, which in turn will have the next generation children support them.
>3. Heterosexuals who have invested their life raising their children will lose half of their efforts on those who have given nothing.
This again pressumes that homosexual families will not have children and half of the children (homosexual or not) will have to support the homosexual families (which is flawed in it's definition ie. Having children to support the older generation)
>This is a simple perspective I agree, but there will be further issues in a homosexual society.
It's a naive perspective.
Please people do not try to come up with flawed arguments to express your bias against homosexuality. I wonder how would you feel if your own children are homosexual. REMEMBER: Homosexuality is NOT a choice! Why would one choose to be homosexual with all the difficulties involved?
2006-09-08 06:39:31 · answer #2 · answered by Laras Big Brother 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. Divorce will. Look at your arguement. It's absolutely true. No society ever survived without an institution of union. Divorce are essential the separation of one of the greatest institutions, an institution that is supposed to nurture future generations. Without that or some kind of acceptable replacement other than the real thing, we're going to raise generations who, quite frankly, don't give a damn about each other and themselves. Those generations will raise a lot of noise about being strong independent people but their actions speak otherwise. Want a classic indicator? How many people aged 18 - 34 vote? My point exactly. Something in their lives caused them to stop caring. Many, many are products of divorced families. 50% of the marriages today end in divorce, many multiple times. Barely 30 years ago, it was 10%. Look back in history and what's happened in the last 30 years and you will see how it's related to the demise of the society and the nuclear family. Sad. But that's why I think same sex marriage will not destroy civilization, divorces will.
2006-09-08 06:46:09 · answer #3 · answered by ntoriano 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I jumped in at 33 answers. I see that the only problem is the legal aspect. If the system allows same sex marriage how does the divorce work? the alimony? child support? division of property? family inheritance? financial responsibility? We all know what a mess can be made in straight marriages. End civilization that's a little extreme.
2006-09-08 06:51:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
IF marriage of any kind could destroy a civilization, it was hanging on by a thread...what a silly concept. In fact, I am beginning to think civilzation would be better off without any kind of marriage...the old OPEN DOOR policy works better every time. When there is an open door, each in the relationship has to work on the relationship every day, or the other may be gone tomorrow. And please don't tell me it is for the children's sake. Societies that are very successful raise children as a unit.
2006-09-08 06:34:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It depends on what your definition of civilization is and what is civilized. Let me say this, distorting truth (like they are doing by calling it marriage) destroys justice. There is a huge difference between being civilized and having a civilization. A barbaric civilization can be very uncivilized and you are confusing the two words. Communist regimes have a civilization but historicly are very barbaric. So, you need to re-think how you use the word like "marriage".
When you speak of a "marriage" you refer to the legal definition and concept. The problem with that is it would make the concept of the role of religion in marriage (the traditional concept and institution that has existed for thousands of years) in which marriage is, in essence, God's blessing upon a man and woman to have sex because they have met certain criteria. The most important piece of criteria is to have children which is not naturally possible in a homosexual relationship.
Having said that, you have to ask yourself if you want to play God and defy what religion tells us is wrong? Do you want to follow God's will or man's will? Do you want to defy thousands of years of teaching and change it to fit the (corrupt) times by altering the basic definition of marriage. One thing is for sure, the majority of the people in this country are against you or anyone else changing the definition of marriage.
2006-09-08 06:52:25 · answer #6 · answered by Search4truth 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Think about it !! If everyone married a person of their own sex, then in many years to come, the human race would die out. If there was not reproduction, human species, would be gone. Being married to another person of the same sex is not the normal thing to do. But in order to keep the two civil, and fair, then if they want to marry, it should be their business. I think it should be legal. Why would our judicial system, want to make two people live illegally ? Some law needs to be set aside for the two of the same sex to be legal. But I do not agree with same sex marriages. I can't judge. Live and let live and when you can't guide this group of people as they want to do what they want. Then keep them legal.
2006-09-08 07:13:39 · answer #7 · answered by Norskeyenta 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You might want to observe oposite-sex marriages a little before you start rallying for same-sex marriages. For example, divorce and its financial consequences might be something to take a peak at before you leap. If you have acquired wealth and your spouse hasn't, are you prepared to give half of everything you've acquired to her if your marriage experiences infidelity or other problems that cause you to want a divorce?
Many heterosexuals prefer to just live together rather than get married, and possibly make divorce lawyers rich later. My guess is that as soon as divorce lawyers realize that same-sex marriage is a money cow just waiting for them to tap, they'll push to legalize it. You won't have to demostrate or fight for it. It will be provided to you with a big smile.
And then, after you've had a little experience with marriage, chances are great that you'll wish you'd kept a low profile and opted to just quietly and happily live together. It's much less complicated. If you doubt what I'm telling you, survey oposite-sex married couples and oposite-sex couples who chose to just live together. You'll also get some valuable insignt from oposite-sex couples who lived together happlily for numerous years, and then decided to get married. You would think that if you can live happily together as singles, living together happily as marrieds would be a piece of cake. Not so, many have discovered. It's different. I think (don't know for sure) that not being legally tied together (as in marriage) makes the link stronger. Possibly it is so because you understand that your partner is with you, not because of legal chains, but because he/she wants to be with you. Once you are married, you no longer can say that. You are now in a different state of being. And for some, this is the beginning of the end of a previously happy relationship.
Marriage is a big step. Find out everything you can about it before you jump in.
2006-09-08 07:15:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, of course not.
Everyone has a different idea of what marriage is and what it should be. Legalizing two people of the same sex to marry should not change anything for anyone other than the two individuals involved.
I really don't see a problem with same sex marriage.
2006-09-08 06:45:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Seeing as stupid Christians are going to reply that same sex marriage will lead to people marrying goats, 10 year olds and inanimate objects, allow me to get this out of the way first - MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. A child, a goat and an inanimate object cannot give consent. Got it yet??????
With that out of the way, I can only say this: Divorce rates amongst Christians is higher (47%) than that of atheists (40%) and that of same sex marraiges/partnerships (37%).
Seeing as all sin is viewed the same in the eyes of their God, then I ask why so many engage in divorce and premarital sex - which are both sins just as bad as gay sex..... When are Christians going to start making laws against divorce and premarital sex????
2006-09-08 06:34:59 · answer #10 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There are quite a few things more likely to destroy civilization than same sex marriage. It is about number 190823.
2006-09-08 06:33:12 · answer #11 · answered by Gallivanting Galactic Gadfly 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋