Should Same Sex Marriage be banned in America?

Question

My Opinion is no. But thats not the point. I want to know what you guys think. (I'm doing a persuasive essay about it and it would be nice to have a recent surrvey)

Also if you could tell me WHY you are on which side.
(I'm trying to prove in my essay thatmost people who are against it feel that way because of religion.) Even though there is a Law called Separation of Church and State...so any law cannot be based on religion. (I think this one is.)

Thank you so much!
Please be honest w/ answers!

♥

Julie
for example: Yes, it should be banned. Because of religion.

Answer 1

No it shouldn't be banned. Gays deserve the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married folks. Also it would help in taxes, the states they live in would get more money. And I think you are right, separation of Church and State...that was the whole point of our ancestors moving here. If a church doesn't want to marry gays then they should have that right. If the goverment doesn't want to marry gays they should have that right. But if a church or government does then it is their right. But they shouldn't be in cahoots with one another in big decision making like this. Each should have the right to decide what they want. And so should the people. But in reality this country elects politicians who selfserve and take religious views that don't reflect all people but the majority of people. And the truth is most of the population of the U.S.A. is religious. But there we go again with separation of church and state. How can you be an unbiased polititian unless you have no religious preferences and if you are, you wouldn't get elected. Instead the people vote and elect politicians who sleep with interns or underage women and men. Oh, gee, so do the churches, they have priests, cardinals and more who fondle their choir boys or have sex with each other. But gays can't possibly have upper status positions in churches as they are against man on man or woman on woman relationships. Get the picture? As long as we have religious people in control of the government that were elected by the religious majority of this (ahem) great nation it won't happen. Sorry to say it but that's the way it is. I mean how long did it take for women and blacks to get the same rights as white males? And it's still not where it should be even after what, 50, 60 years? This country is a mess and it takes a long time to get anything done unless you have the power to crush the minority. I could go on but this is long enough.

Answer 2

Years before this idea of Homosexual marriage hit the public eye, I knew a homosexual couple who were "married" by a retired judge. Even though the state did not recognize their marriage they did. Each of them had medical power of attorney over the other one. They were in each others wills, they named each other on there insurance policies. The only thing that they did not have that tradition marriage partners have was regulation by the government, and church.

Many people believe that government that governs least governs best. With that being said what possible reason would cause the Government to want to be involved in marriage?
It isn't their business whose sleeping with whom so that isn't the reason. I believe they are involved in marriage because the next generation is at stake. It has been proven time and time again that children do best when they have a mother and father at home. And when families fail the government has to do what it can to reduce the damage done to the children, and the next generation of that society. So the government has a big stake in helping families raise well adjusted, healthy, and well educated kids. So they regulate the types of relationships that can produce the next generation.

Since homosexual marriages can't produce the next generation what business is it of the government if two homosexuals get married? If marriage is strictly a matter of the heart as most gays who support marriage believe, what does it matter if the government endorses them or not? I can't stop them from getting married , but I won't stand behind forcing the government to waste money endorsing something that is none of their business.

Answer 3

It should be legal. I think that not allowing it definately has roots in religion. I believe that same sex marriages should be recognized by the state, churches can still decide whether they want to recognize it or not. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. If two people want to be together let them be together. Man/woman marriages get breaks by being recognized by the state, but same sex marriages don't. This is way unfair to their pursuit of happiness. Who cares what people do in their private lives? It's not affecting them. And as for preserving the sanctity of marriage, it has no sanctity anymore. People are divorced, cheated on, and unhappy with marriages all the time. Even if same sex marriages did some how hurt this sanctity, it has no affect on the sanctity of two straight peoples' marriage. If your marriage works for you and is loving, trusting, and all that, then it should mean the same to you as it always has. That's what's important. What it means to you and your partner.

Answer 4

I believe that global society might be better off if ALL marriage were banned, because 2/3 of all marriage ends in divorce like my parents, and because the divorces are often ugly battles including sufferring, anguish, anxiety and resentment.

Despite this belief, if people want to go through all that, then gays and lesbians should be given the same opportunity to screw their life up as everyone else. It is often said that it is better to have loved and lost then never to have loved at all, and that is true in an of itself, however when 2 people fall in love they are not only falling in love with the person. They also fall in love with the lifestyle, the habitual environment with (usually) more money, and when separation occurs all of this goes with it.

The same can be applied to your essay. Church and state are like 2 adults acting like children, fighting over who has the best toy or the most sweets. So laws were put in place to attempt to keep the kids at arms length from each other so their still able to trade with each other (the law [state] of marriage [religion]), but not close enough to get slogged when things turn bad.

Then someone representing state, but believes in the church, stands up and says "let's put the kids together for a little while and see what happens," the same way a sadistic dictator puts a cobra and a meerkat in the ring together for gambling purposes. One will be destroyed if they are left to their own devices for long enough, and everyone knows that the church has accumulated the largest stockpile of financial and human resources over the centuries of any organisation in the world. Several TIMES more powerful than Bill Gates' Microsoft empire, and even more powerful than the World Trade Organisation, this "goliath" can wield the state to it's bidding at any time for any reason. But why bother having the church force the state to make a law when it is more than capable of influencing it's followers to make the law for it free of charge. Especially since its much cheaper to keep a law in place than it is to create and instate one. So the church did what it does best, AGAIN. It manipulated one of the most publicly powerful people in the world to get this law etched in stone quickly, after spending millions to get him into such a position. And any law that says there cannot be a law based on religion is now countered by several other laws that make this exception ok, the majority of which were instated along with the law in question. This makes any legal proceeding toward nullifying said law an uphill battle of "david" proportions!!

But we can hope this will be a biblically fairy tale ending, can't we? That's what the bible is anyway, just a FAIRY TALE that inspired, fascinated and motivated people around the world for millenia. The problems lie soley in its interpretation by fundamentalists: people who take the word literally and make assumptions of God's desire based on such interpretations. Sounds a lot like the mentality of Al Qaeda, interpreting the Quaran (Koran), or 100 other religions.

Answer 5

oddly enough this is the only issue that im not conservative on.

granted when you first legalize it you'll have the few bad apples that will do it just bc they can but then get divorced. but after its not the new fad anymore only the people that are truly in love will get married and will have a divorce rate no worse then straights.

I think if people really want to protect tradition they should let people who love each other get married but outlaw divorce. i'm kidding but outlawing divorce is just as unreasonable as not letting someone get married bc the person they fell in love with happens to be the same sex.


EDIT: i saw two things above that i want to comment on that to me are basically the same idea.
some one used the theory that god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and some one used the theory about reproduction to keep our country growing.

I know gay/les couples that would love to have children. As a conservative i would say outlaw abortion and tell the same sex partners to adopt... BUT we live in a scientific age where a woman can be given a child with out having sex w a man and men can adopt(in some places) children, or even ask a female to bare a child for them. Most of them want children just as much as we do, and will find ways of having them and enforce our population.

Answer 6

Yes, it should be banned because Holy Matrimony is a religious union between a man and a woman. Civil Unions satisfy the same sex unions and are equal in terms of government tax breaks, health care, community property, etc.

As far as I know, this country was founded based on religious principals by Freemasons, puritans, and protestants, seeking religious freedoms. I'd like to know exactly where it is written into law that church and state are legally separated. The term Separation of Church and State is a liberal philosophy value statement only. I have never seen it written into law anywhere, but is retorted by the left repeatedly. Once you find it, please share it. Thanks!

Answer 7

I am a hospice nurse in Southeast Florida. I have seen what happens to families that are deprived of the benefits of marriage. Take this case: Two men have lived as a married couple for twenty-five years and one of the men is now dying. The parent of the dying man has not spoken to his son, since he came out. Now his son is sick and weak and unable to make his own decisions. The parent takes his son out of his loving home and puts him in a nursing home. He then instructs the staff of the nursing home to deny visitation to his son's partner. The son dies. The partner is not permitted to be involved in any way in the funeral of the great love of his life. All of this is perfectly within the parent's rights because he is the next of kin and this poor son has not had the foresight to name a health care surrogate.
When people so self-righteously and piously say that they want to protect the "sanctity" of the family by depriving those that they don't understand of the benefits of being in a family, it makes me want to vomit. When the gay community asks for the right to marry, it is not a trivialization of marriage. It is a plea for basic human rights.

Answer 8

Marriage is a religious institution and so the government should not be in the business of telling churches, mosques, etc how to comduct their affairs. However, if a religion was to permit "marriage" in their religion, then like-wise, the government should not attempt to stop it either. Civil Unions before a Judge or Magistrate are a different matter, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed. More taxes to run the government that way.

Answer 9

Marriage is about love, not gender. If two people feel that they are so in love that they would like to promise themselves to each other, than why in the world would we ban it? Because of a book written hundreds of years ago? It should be allowed, and the fact that people are even questioning that shows that something is seriously wrong with our country.

Answer 10

No, because:
Religion must not interfere with civil rights;
Some religions allow same-sex marriage, and no religion has primacy in the USA;
Many homosexuals are parents and marriage provides stability and benefits for their children;
1/2 of marriages end in divorce and many of the divorced remarry so marriage apparently is not so holy after all (just holier-than-thou);
If marriage is a religious institution, then why are atheists, agnostics, and every combination of other religions allowed to marry?
As far as procreation goes, infertile couples and women over childbearing age are not prohibited from marriage.