Why do homosexuals really press to get marital rights?

Question

You know, I'm not homophobic and I can tolerate the behavior but the thing that drives me crazy is why homos advocate and press for marital rights. This is quite paradoxical and hypocritical. I mean in every single society marriage is a religious institution and from the last time I heard, not even the most archaic of all religious socities advocate homosexuality. Could anyone shed some light? I can't of get confused and I think that they usually push it when they ask to be recognised by religious bodies

I don't think all yea gay people understood me. Marriage has its roots in religion. Western civilizations which I am a part of have totally distorted the perception of marriage and ruined its meaning.

Answer 1

Well, I know of 5 different churches in my area that would readily give me and my girlfriend of four years a ceremony. Also, it's not religious. After all, why can atheists and agnostics get married? And why are there inter-religious marriages?

The reason I want to get married is so that my girlfriend and I would have all the rights of a married couple. Did you know that if I was grievously injured and (god forbid) my parents barred her from the hospital to see me, there is nothing she can do about it because she is not "family", despite having been with me and supporting me for four years?

Or, if she should have children or adopt and I were to die, the children would automatically default to her parents unless we paid thousands of dollars in legal fees to set up an arrangement otherwise? Even though I had helped raised the child and loved for years.

That's why I want to get married.

Answer 2

Gay people can have a wedding ceremony regardless of whether marriage is *legal*. What I'm so sick to death of is the religious right trying to act like a marriage "in the eyes of God" and a marriage in the eyes of the state are the SAME THING!! They are NOT! Gay people want rights to a legally binding marriage for other reasons than it's fun to be married. Say you have a lesbian couple that are raising a little boy and the boy is one of the women's biological child. The other woman, though having vested heavily in the child's upbringing, education, etc would not even be allowed into the child's hospital room to see him if he were admitted and very sick. She is effectively blocked from many rights to the child. The couple is blocked from the tax breaks married people are given. These are the rights (among others) they are after. If Christians don't want gay people getting married in the eyes of God, fine, but it's far from their right to insist that gay people are denied access to many of the legal rights that straight people are allowed. In short, legal marriage is nothing more than a legal document. It's the ceremony and all the intangible things invested into the marriage that make it one in the eyes of God or whomever.

Answer 3

When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.

Let's preserve that sanctity shall we. Marriage has no roots in religion, even the bible doesn't state that a pastor or priest had to be present. Let's examine the facts, not ficticious ideas designed to mislead and promote discrimination and hate.

As we can learn from the Bible, the ancient Israelites had a patriarchal family structure. The status of women was low—they were regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent. The main purpose of marriage was procreation and the perpetuation of a man's name. Every healthy person was expected to marry. Single men and women were despised. A man could have several wives and concubines. (Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.) Divorce was not encouraged, but permitted if a man found some "uncleanness" in his wife. In such a case, he simply wrote her a bill of divorce and sent her out of his house (Deuteronomy 24:1). However, it was virtually impossible for a wife to divorce her husband.

The rise of Christianity produced a profound change in European marriage laws and customs, although this change came about only gradually. The first Christian emperors were more or less content with the traditional Roman law. However, under varying political and religious pressures, they alternately broadened and restricted the divorce regulations. They also repealed older laws which had penalized the unmarried and childless, since the new Christian asceticism favored virginity and sexual abstinence over marriage. In most other respects they resisted change. Marriage and divorce continued to be civil and private matters.


In the following centuries, however, marriage came more and more under the influence of the church. Compared to Rome, the newly Christianized countries of Northern Europe had rather barbaric marriage customs and treated women little better than domestic slaves. In Germanic law, for example, marriage was essentially a business deal between the bridegroom and the bride's father ("sale marriage"). The symbol of a successful "bride sale" was the ring (a form of down payment) which was given to the bride herself. Acceptance of the ring constituted betrothal. The full payment of the "bride price" was made on delivery, i.e., when the actual wedding took place. (Since then, the ring has acquired many other symbolic meanings and, indeed, is still used in our modern marriage ceremonies.) The civilizing influence of the church soon refined these primitive customs. According to Roman law and Christian belief, marriage could be built only on the free consent of both partners, and this doctrine was bound to raise the status of women. Furthermore, theologians increasingly found a religious significance in marriage and eventually even included it among the sacraments. This also endowed a formerly rather prosaic arrangement with a new dignity.

Please give me a better objection to same sex marriage than telling the fairy tale that it is a religious institution with roots in religion.

By the way, there are many religions here in the USA and around the world that accept homosexuals and perform marriages. Look up these religions and doctrines to find out how wrong you really are: Unitarian Universalist, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Church of England, The United Church of Christ became the largest Christian denomination in the United States to endorse gay marriage in July 2005, Quakers have been welcoming same-sex unions for almost two decades.
The Methodist Church may become the first big Christian denomination to officially bless same-sex couples. Please explain your reasoning as I am confused as to where you got your intelligence, the same place George Bush got the Iraq Intelligence that led us to war I assume.

Answer 4

Personally I don't care if you or anyone "tolerates my behavior" I'm not asking for permission to be what I am and to lead a productive life within the community.
My partner and I recently had a Civil Ceremony held in the UK at a Registry Office, followed by a blessing in a non denomination church.The Civil Ceremony has allowed us to enjoy the same civil and legal rights afforded to heterosexuals.
Concerning "marriage is a religious institution" I have no quarrel with that and I certainly would not campaign to be recognized by religious bodies.

Answer 5

Marriage is not a religious institution.
Religious marriages are unrecognized as being legal without a license sold to them by the State.
What we as Gays and Lesbians seek are the legal protections and all other things associated with marriage as provided by the Government.
There are many religions that do not stigmatize homosexuality, The Unitarian Universalists among others will indeed perform a same-sex marriage, but that is not the point at all.
There is no movement to attempt to force any church or religious body to perform marriages against their "will".

Answer 6

Homosexuals are pushing for marriage rights not just to gain approval but to gain the equal legal statutus that two opposite-sex people are afforded by signing a marriage document. Most could care less about being recognized by a church, and that is not what the gay marriage debate is about; Nobody is asking for a church to regonize same-sex marriage, and in fact some denominations perform same-sex marriages!

There are a slew of benefits that come with marriage that same-sex couples are not afforded, such as health care, social security, child visitation, parter visitation in hospital/hospice, power of attorney, and even something as simple as a gym membership. These are benefits that are being denied to a group of people based on their ability to obtain a legal marriage license, and that can be considered a violation of equal protection.

Answer 7

In the US and many other countries, married couples have rights that are not given to non-married couples. I am covered by my husband's health insurance through his employer. If I am injured, he can sign papers for me, see me in the ICU and get my belongings should I die. We have tax benefits. There are many other benefits, both legal and social, that are given to those who are married. Marriage is also, at least in the modern world, a way of expressing love and commitment.

Asking for the right to marry is asking for a basic civil right that should be afforded to all citizens. The only objections are religious. This is absurd, since the church has historically been happy to marry couples who were forced together in arranged marriages or who are getting married for reasons other than love.

Answer 8

I don't think its hypocritical at all. I'm full lesbian, never been with a man in my life but God still blesses and helps me. So why should I be denied my right to marry someone I love all because some people don't think its right. People are so quick to bring up sexuality when it comes to God and the church. But what about, smoking, drinking, lying, cheating and backbiting? How many of those do you do on a daily basis? We (gays and lesbians) are not out there trying to strip you of your right to be bonded in love with the person you feel is your soul mate!

Answer 9

Your atrocious spelling aside you are totally confused on this issue.

Religious marriage is already available to gay people everywhere in the US...and I assume most other countries as well. I could get married in my church tomorrow. Not all mainline denominations support gay marriage, but several do, including United Church of Christ, where I worship.

It is civil marriage that is the struggle. As taxpayers we should have every right and responsibility that heterosexuals do. The fact that the government chooses to support one narrow interpretation of Christianity in legislation is a clear violation of the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

Answer 10

Marriage is not a solely religious institution, otherwise no judge would be able to perform any ceremonies, nor would the people in fake chapels in Vegas. We want to be treated equally.