Leaving religion aside why do you think that marriage should be between one man and one woman?

Question

Please leave aside all religious arguments and tell me why, legally, you believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman? Why not two men or two women or two women and one man? Why must it be so specifically one of each?

I myself am happily married and believe that marriage is a way to show your undying committment to someone.

Answer 1

it shouldn't....... if 2 people love each other and want to get married, their sexual preference should have nothing to do with it.....

Answer 2

If society has an idea of what makes up marriage why do we have to alter it for a minority of people. Marriage is made up of a man and a woman. The man is the father he has a certain role within the family and the woman is the mother she has a certain role in the family. But seeing how there is a movement to make woman and men essentially the same I can see where gay marriage is becoming more popular. The people who want gay marriage don't see any difference between a man and a woman so of course what difference does it make if they get married.
Also since there is no difference between men and women why not have families that have two dads or two moms because again there is no difference in gender in the modern world.

Marriage should be between men and women

Answer 3

If two people of the same gender wish to live as a couple and share the responsibilites of running a home and shareing a mortage and other costs then in some way it should be legally binding, so in the event of a split they would be given the same rights as a married couple. However I do not believe they should be married according to the laws as laid out presently. There are too many people who believe that marrige is between a man and a woman and any interference with this flies in the face of God and tradition. And I agree with that concept. There are other ways to draw up a contract to obtain equal rights under the law of the land.

Answer 4

that's like saying "leaving out the rules of math, why should two plus two equal four instead of five"?

What you apparently don't understand is that that is what marriage IS!! It is by definition one man and one woman.

Trying to change what it is is a little like trying to change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. You can rename the sun and the earth so that the "sun" revolves around the "earth" if you want to, but all you've done is changed the names.

The little one still revolves around the big one. And marriage will always be one man and one woman, period.

Sure, in Massachuessetts, a very ignorant and blind court dictated that that could be changed, but they have just renamed something that isn't marriage and call it marriage.

Those "couples" who are married under their new law that aren't one man and one woman are not really married, even though the state their sees them that way.

You can't change an eternal truth simply by passing a law.

Actually, there are reasons besides from the Bible, but I'll leave those out (how marriage and society would both be destroyed if marriage were to be redefined).

No matter what you think of the source of marriage (God), you can't just redefine [in the most influential country on earth] the central institution of all cultures everywhere throughout all of history without reaping the consequences of a destroyed society and a totally destroyed world.

That part is coming, partly through the invasion from Mexico (which is now sure to continue now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress) and through the invasion and subversion of the West by Muslim militant terrorists.

This is only part of the judgement coming upon America from God for licensing abominably wicked behavior (homosexuality and murdering millions of babies every year through legalized abortion).

Answer 5

There's no reason why 2 people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry. People who say it's against nature or their god's law are trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of society.

And to those who say it debases or degrades traditional marriage, I ask them "How? How does the fact that 2 guys or 2 women who live across town or across the state and love each other make your marriage less than it was before?" I have not heard any answer other than personal bias or prejudice.

In the long run, I think this will turn into a non-issue. In 20 years, people will think that we were all strange for even questioning this issue. It will be like a mixed-race marriage now. Most people won't even question it.

Answer 6

Okay, now I get a chance to get everybody mad at me.
Any man who denies what I'm about to say is a liar. If intimate relations between a man and a woman didn't have the possibility of creating children, men would have never agreed to marriage laws. I mean, why on earth would they. Why would a man agree to equal ownership of his property, his success in life, just for sex. That's insane.
Any person in a same sex relationship is just flat out of their mind to even consider such a partnership. The fact is, if it weren't for babies there wouldn't be marriage. Denying gays the right to marry is saving them from an idiotic decision.

Answer 7

The idea of there being only one type of marriage is purely and totally religious in origin, it has no other basis. History gives us lots of examples of other kinds, the Druids had marriages that had to be periodically renewed, like a drivers license. There's both polygamy and polyandry, same sex, open and closed, just to name a few. The key thing should be, what works for the people involved?

Answer 8

I support gay marriage, but from a legal standpoint I think the argument against it is that marriage is designed to protect the children in the family. Therefore, in gay marriage since no children are biologically produced, there is no legal reason to have two people of the same sex wed.

Now if a gay couple were to adopt, would this change the issue from a legal standpoint?

Answer 9

WEll, marriage was designed (not necessarily religiously) to join together a man and a woman who love each other...then comes children to keep the human race alive.

Aside from that...I know you've probably heard this one before, but really...what's next? Can I say "I love my sister, so I should be able to marry her?" Or..I love 3 men, I should be able to marry all three of them...it goes on and on...and why stop there...I love my dog, so I think I should be able to marry him and cover him under my health insurance...You get the gist...

Answer 10

Good question - the only answer I can see to this is because of people's cultural and conceptual maps that have been honed courtesy of society.

I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution of marriage - not for religious or legal reasons - although I don't see why it should be constrained to one gender.

Our world has moved beyond that now.

In saying this, I am still "on the fence" as to whether it is naturally harmonic for same sex couples to raise children

Answer 11

Well, the reason people give as to why gays should not marry is that it goes against what is written in the Bible. So if you leave religion out of it, there is no reason why marriage should be between a man and a woman. People reject gay marriage based on religious principles.