I am currently debating with some classmates about same sex marriages. I believe its okay because not allowing such a union is discrimination. Not only does it take away that individual's natural right (pursuit of happiness) it also differenciates citizens of the United States. When one says that it is wrong i would like to know under what basis other than that of religion. If that is the argument than it is not a valid one because of seperation of church and state. Secondly, some say it shouldnt be allowed because this country was formed under Christianity. I say "that is fine", since marriage is a christian ceremony let there be a second type of union in which same sex couples can participate. However, under the newly proposed amendment (that is to be voted on in a few days) it states that NO union/partnership will be allowed between two individuals of the same sex. This appals me; how can we as a nation be so insensitive to our individuals?
2006-11-01 05:44:36 · 16 answers · asked by catnip89 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
There are two nonreligious reasons to prohibit gay marriage. One is such a union cannot produce children. In former times, every child was needed to support society and infant mortality was high so they absolutely forbade such unions. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. They were often disguised.
That reason can go out the window. There are plenty of children now and plenty of adults who choose, for one reason or another, not to have any. A childless household is no longer anything to be remarked on.
The second reason is monetary. If the federal government, insurance companies and pension plans had to recognize a gay partner as being a spouse, they would have to pay benefits just as they would for a religious spouse. They are fighting this. If you think social security is in trouble now, wait until that finally gets accepted and thousands of long term gay spouses are able to draw survivor benefits.
How do I feel about it? LET THEM HAVE THE BENEFITS.
2006-11-01 06:08:55 · answer #1 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well if we are to be in a free country not run by religion but by personal beliefs then we should allow gay marriage. We are not suppose to discriminate against people who believe in different ways as long as it does not hurt someone else.
If you look at the Amish they do not have to be in the military for it is against there religion, if you go to a job we can not stop the hiring process for your religion, race, or gender or if you prefer to sleep with the same sex.
The government will not allow it because of the church , but they will not say it for we are not suppose to have a church run government for that is why people started this country over 200 years ago.
Personal i think it is not right and believe i should not infringe on others rights to choose a different path then i. I do go to church and was taght to forgive those for what they do not to treat them poorly for i do not want to be treated poorly.
we are an insensitive nation for most are selfish and want everything their own way.
2006-11-01 05:59:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is and always has been a matter of civil law! Whilst churches are allowed to carry out the service it must be in complete compliance with that law and any deviation or omission would make the marriage null and void and probably involve criminal offenses! HOMOPHOBIA: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. Please note this is a psychiatric definition! Primitive religion has always lagged behind the improvement in moral attitudes and that is what these people are doing to Christianity – making it primitive! There were people who opposed the abolition of slavery, emancipation for women, the banning of discrimination of women, the attempts to eradicate racism and now the need to eradicate homophobia! Anglican leaders from around the world have clearly stated their opposition to the "victimization or diminishment" of gays and lesbians, saying demonizing and persecuting them was "totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care". "We say that no one should have to live in fear because of the bigotry of others." The Mormons poured millions into forcing through prop 8 in CA: to ban gay marriage. In August 2010 the court held that to be unconstitutional. On 15 June 2011 the San Francisco court upheld that decision because it violates the constitutional rights of citizens. On 7 February 2012 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the California law again finding that the California state constitution banning same-sex marriage violated principles of due process and equal protection under the law. The court found that the ban violates equality laws to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California. The constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort. It is now awaiting the Supreme Court verdict which is expected to uphold the early court decision. If that happens then gay marriage will become legal everywhere and that will be marriage and not civil partnership! In the UK The intolerance, bigotry and homophobia from Christians resulted in it being classed as a hate crime with severe sentences. It has led to the government framing legislation which if enacted will replace "Civil Partnership" with full marriage. New Zealand, France, Spain and ten other countries have legalized gay marriage and others have commenced legislating to do so! The loving god works in mysterious ways.
2016-05-23 03:41:57 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is about union. Union is the fused bond which fastens, stregnthens, and secures a Marriage for future growth and prosperity. Same sex marriages do not contribute a legacy to society that will be carried on into the future, generation after generation. The rewards for contributing to future existance and stability can only be harvested within the safety barrier created by Mom and Dad to essentually protect and prepare the young and innocent of future generations until they are ready and able to contribute another generation of life. It is unfair and a direct assault upon those who will contribute and carry on and contribute and carry on again, when their harvests are shared by those who contribute only to the legacy of their own time. What you put in, is what you should get out. To each, is his own. What exactly is there to recognize and pride, if there is nothing to represent a contribution to society for future stability earned by civil manner and participation. No one should cry for the right to harvest the benefits of a null contribution. Only those who create the future, will be the future. Anything other should be noted only by face value.
2006-11-01 06:48:35 · answer #4 · answered by pooldawg73 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Many studies have shown that, all things being equal, a child is better off with its natiural parents - a mother and a father.
Men and women are different. Equal, but not identical. It's not an issue of straight and gay - it's man and woman. Biology 101.
Why support a union that's not healthy?
PS Why the limitation about religion? Many of the abolitionists and civil rights leaders based their views on their religious beliefs and morals. think about that on the third Monday in January.
2006-11-01 05:57:46 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You may not prefer religious references, but God's word clearly states" 1 Corinthians 6:9....Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God". You can't speak on the truth of homosexuality and it's wrongness without speaking on the truth of Christ. God designed marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Devil has put his nasty little spin on it by making it seem as though we are being unfair to homosexuals, when in actuality I would rather have people dislike me for me telling the truth, then you adoring me for speaking a lie just because it's what you want to hear. Homosexuality is wrong no matter how it's sliced. God bless you.
2006-11-01 06:02:44 · answer #6 · answered by softlyinspired 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In response to ChemEng's answer....YES, gay animals HAVE been observed in nature. Dolphins, penguins, and hummingbirds are three of the *many* animal species known to engage in homosexual behavior. Here is a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
I'm sorry, I can't answer this question, because I don't have any reasons why same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed.
2006-11-01 06:05:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In my mind its a matter of anatomy. Two men can't make a baby, therefore its obvious to say they weren't meant to be in union with one another. marriage is something not thought of by our generation, it has been around virtually since the beginning of time. If same sex couples want to be together that's fine, but allowing them to marry is to disrespect our ancestors and ourselves in the process.
2006-11-01 06:00:04 · answer #8 · answered by matthew P 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First thing that comes to mind is the history of marriage is to raise a family. Same sex couples cannot have children together as history deems necessary, you know intercourse to create the child, without interference of science. Which brings in Christianty seems no way around it!
2006-11-01 05:56:37 · answer #9 · answered by HereweGO 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yep...no reason why gay marriage should be against the law. Plenty of gay animals doing what comes natural for them. In fact, what consenting adults do with each other shouldn't be legislated. We've taken away so many freedoms that the US shouldn't be called the land of the free.
2006-11-01 05:55:49 · answer #10 · answered by darthbouncy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋