What gives 'religious' people, or anyone, the right to tell me I cant marry another man?

Answer 1

I am sure you already know all the reasons why religiously two men should not be married but speaking as a person who believes in the right to choose i believe everyone should have the right to marry who they want to. Who are we to pass judgment on others when 51% of marriages end in divorce it seems as if the true definition of marriage is lost anyway.

Answer 2

because with religious people if there are true christians and firmly believe in the bible its in there that two of the same sex should not unite however true christians are taught not to judge ao with some religious people youre damnd if you do and damned if you dont only you can make oyur own decisions if we sat around worrying what people constantly said or thought the world would be miserable alot of christians are crazy anyway theyll judge you and after church they become the biggest heathians

Answer 3

It's not about rights, it's about what marriage is. The definition of marriage states that it is between a man and a woman. You can't change that by substituting a man for a woman. It wouldn't be a marriage then.

Answer 4

There are several answers to this question. Let me start before I begin by saying I'm undecided on the whole Gay-marriage issue, and I can argue both sides really well, so don't take this as bashing.

First of all, one has to ask, what is marriage? What is its purpose? Traditionally, marriage has had two purposes: the protection and care of women, and providing clear inheritance lines for property. With the advent of "women's liberation" one could argue that one of these reasons was now void, and with the advent of paternaty tests the other could be argued to be void as well. I disagree, but that's not the point. The point is the major emphasis of this day and age on marriage is about shared insurance. What is the theory of shared insurance? The theory is one party won't be working, so they need to get insurance from somewhere. If both parties are working, then they can each provide their own insurance. Why would one party be not working? One of two reasons: they're lazy, or they're taking care of the home/children. In the majority of gay households, those aren't happening. So, under either the old or the new economic models of marriage, gay marriage is something entirely different from traditional marriage.

That much said, I've always wondered why, since it's my money being taken out of my paycheck to pay for my insurance, I can't decide who I want to cover. But enough ranting.

In an answering/opposing question, one might ask why you have the right to tell religious people what they have to accept as a legal marriage, since marriage has historically been a religious institution. The state didn't really get involved in marriage until Henry VIII, and that was to allow people to terminate it. If anything, I would say that the fact we have always been in control of marriage gives us the rights to descide what it is and isn't.

Now, another major difference between Gay marriage and Traditional marriage is that Gay marriages (on average, not a case by case basis) tend to be short lived (less than a year) and Traditional marriages tend to last longer (four or five years.) If the idea of marriage is that it is going to represent something perminant, shouldn't we support the kind that lasts longer? Religious cerimony weddings last even longer. Personally, I would like to see divorce become harder to get and more expensive, because of the damage it does to our society. I think if that happens, many fewer gay couples will be looking to get married. But then, many fewer "religious" couples will as well.

Then there is the fact that Gay marriage tends to attract the bizair circumstance. A lesbian couple is never going to have a child, so if one of them gets pregnant, you know there's a man there somewhere. So, who gets the kid of the man wants to raise his own son? Especially in cases where the girls descide to stay together. And if the man descides he doesn't want to raise the boy, and the couple keeps it up, when everyone dies, who does the kid inherit from? And what about the man's other kids at inheritance time, do they have to share with this other kid who also gets to inherit from two others? But then again, when it comes to inheritance, a lot of times it comes down to saying "Them's the breaks, kid."

Of course, there's also problems when it comes to figuring out how much Gay marriage and Traditional marriage are to be treated the same. Obviously, you can't require a church to allow gay couples on their married couple trips: you're whole question is about not forcing beliefs on people, why would you force your beliefs on people then? But some rules are decided because of very practical things: married couples are prefered for adopting children in part because it is then a given that the children will learn to interact with both men and women, but that is not so in a gay household. Also (again, not on a case by case, but on the average) a married couple is less likely to abuse a child, but a gay couple is more likely to have one abusive parent. A lesbian couple is even less likely than a straight couple. Do we give preference to lesbian couples, second to straight married couples, and least to gay couples, because it's lowest possibility of abuse to highest? Or do we prefer straight because the need to learn how to interact with both genders is important?

Then there's the whole matter of, "If this, why not that?" If we allow Gay marriage, why not polygamy? That has at least some historical prescident. Why can't I mary more women? And how about brothers marying? Or brother and sister? If the only criteria for marriage is love and willing to consumate, I'm sure I could find some other girl I could learn to love and be willing to consumate the marriage with. And again, the really strange: marying animals, vegitables, inanimate objetcs, dead people, children: what exactly is your criteria for marriage? How does that criteria prevent these things? Are these things really all that bad?

Answer 5

Marriage is a Religous institution. Thats what gives them the "right".

Save yourself - don't get married; and ignore religion - its full of phoneys, crooks and liars anyway.

Answer 6

Personally, I think the religious right is wrong. If you love him, then cling unto him and no other.

Promiscuity is not good for a person. Find your love, and then cleave unto them as one flesh.

Answer 7

People are probably just trying to tell you what the word of God says but yYou do what you want.

Answer 8

No person has the right ,but if you are gay you need to get help from some one,because you are sick!!

Answer 9

Gourd Head my friend. Gourd Head!

Answer 10

It is God who said that, and He has every right ! He made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve !