Whats so bad about supporting gay marrige?

Question

My best freind is gay and he is in love with his partner. Why can't you just allow them to get married. Why must the government controll everything? If the tell you who you can love and who you cant then what else can they tell you when to brush your teeth or when to take a shower or even what your allowed to do when you get up in the morning. Letting them mess with gay marrige is just like letting them controll your life which some people dont seem to have a problem with sure let the government take over you life. I bet you dont care

Answer 1

I agree that your friend and his partner should be allowed to marry. If they aren't allowed to marry then the government should not give special legal and tax considerations to straight married couples. If there are legal benefits attached to marriage then they should be available to everyone regardless of gender preferences.

Answer 2

Not a thing wrong with supporting them.
Those who keep insisting their religion plays a part forget that religion is not a legal reason to deny a person rights.
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. There are absolutely no fertility tests beforehand, there is nothing that invalidates a marriage if a child is not born or adopted and last but certainly not least Gays and Lesbians do have access to the same type infertility options(artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, and adoption where available) that heterosexuals have(fun thing, if a Gay couple does adopt, those bigots denying marriage are denying rights to the CHILD as well).

Answer 3

Exactly!!! I don't understand what this fascination is with staying in the dark ages... for instance with Bush he says it doesn't constitute as a marriage with two people of the same sex; isn't that up to the religious establishment itself? lol not like I'm going to walk into a Catholic church and say "Hey Father marry me and my woman"... to me he's trying to let the church interfere in the government, something that is a reason why people left where they came from to come to America... he is completely defeating the purpose of what this country stands for.

**OK and after reading some of these comments I want to say that marriage should not be just between a man and a woman for PROCREATION reasons... there are STRAIGHT people everywhere that CANNOT have children and every gay person I know has a turkey baister if they so choose to use it**

Answer 4

1. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws.

2. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.

3. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, a great depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.

4. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.

Answer 5

To insist on calling the union a marriage is to do more than gain that right, it's to also poke your finger in the eye of the religious for not amending their scriptural admonishments relating to gay sex.

But I'd recommend gaining the right to civil unions between gays first, as it should confer the same rights legally as marriage would do, yet not be seen as an attempt to tell the religious where they are wrong - which would have no more success than they are having telling the gay population that they are sinners.

Answer 6

There are right and wrong ways of doing things. Mankind was not made to partner (have sex, marriage, to one of the same sex. As they say, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. How much respect can a person have knowing what two of the same sex do as intimate relations when no one is around. I have a problem respecting a man who will give another man sexual relief, sexual favors. That's sick and not natural. Take things a step farther. Alice and Ed are married and have Frank, a 20 year old son. Ed dies. Would you feel that it would be proper for Frank to marry Alice? Gay marriage isn't too far behind the correctness, and logic of this.

Answer 7

You really don't get it do you? Oh course I care. Question is will you listen? This has absolutely nothing to do with the government telling you what to do unless of course you let them. The government isn't the problem, but gay marriage is. First of all it isn’t natural. Don't try to tell me it is genetic because it isn't. That is what gay organizations try to tell you, but it is a lie. Two men can’t make a baby and neither can two women. The problem is that your best friend had trouble in his early years and no one to guide him in life. So he is looking for answers and he thinks he found it in another man. What that actually tells you is that he is looking for a father figure and he figures that will solve his problem. What it really is doing is giving him a false sense of security. It will eventually lead to even bigger problems because his relationship won’t last when he figures out that his relationship won’t work. Of course that isn’t the latest cool thing that Hollywood and your TV programs want you to know. They don’t want you to know that there is something better. Instead of taking my word for it, go to the links I provided.

Answer 8

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I support same sex unions 100%. I think the majority of people who are against it are religious people who want to make sure that their religious beliefs remain law. Sooner or later they are going to lose, and I say thank heaven!

Answer 9

Exactly why should the government control everything !
They don't have the right to rewrite the Bible !
A big Amen .!

Answer 10

Its your government. On Tuesday get out and vote in someone who will support the all the citizens of this country, not just the conservative christian right.