Cons
* To many religion, homosexual is considered a sin
* It would weaken the meaning of marriage
* It would weaken the meaning of the traditional family values.
* It would cause confusion in the legal aspect of marriage. It may bring many other legal questions about marriage: multiple wives, no age limit, etc.
2006-12-15 02:51:44 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Yeah, so what. What about the very high rate of divorces amongst born-again heterosexual Christians? Check this out and tell me how any of this glorifies the "sanctity" of marriage:
2006-12-15 05:58:30 · answer #1 · answered by SB 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually only THREE Abrahimic religions condemn homosexuality and even there one can interprete the texts either way. Weaken the meaning of marriage? Like it hasn't happened already? I think it would strenghten the institute of marriage because under a marriage a family is legally established, with all the protections of the law. So if a marriage is an effort for people to legally establish a family then why not include homosexuals into that and let them form families?
It won't bring any legal issues of marriage up. Because it is not an inherent quality of people to want to get laid by multiple people. But being it is inherent for a minority of human adults to seek members of their own sex for love.
As far as age limit go, the government has to decide what a legal age for consent is, which it has already done. That age limit is not just applicable for marriage but also for other things such as joining the military, voting and make other decisions that most teenagers are not capable of making.
And if you think all those things would happen, then think again because no such thing has happened in Sweden or Denmark.
2006-12-15 11:04:42 · answer #2 · answered by Sui Generis 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'll take your arguments point by point.
To many religions, homosexuality is a sin -- Yes, that is correct. But Canada is not a religious state, and I believe that they have freedom of religion as the US does, along with a similar principle of the government being separate from religion. Therefore the issue should not be settled IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM on a religious argument.
It would weaken the meaning of marriage -- HOW? I have never understood this concept. How would a marriage in Calgary, Alberta be weakened by a same-sex marriage in Toronto, Ontario? No one's marriage would be weakened in any way, their marriage would be the exact same.
It would weaken the meaning of traditional family values -- I guess this is pretty much the same point as the previous one. It would CHANGE the traditional definition of a family, I suppose, but traditional family values would not be weakened in any way. In fact, I believe that the value of families would INCREASE due to the fact that it would be acceptable for same-sex couples to get married. Less people would feel the need to get married for societal reasons, and therefore families would have less problems staying together, because one of them is actually gay.
It would cause confusion in the legal aspect of marriage -- Well, not really, if marriage is simply defined as 2 consenting adults instead of a man and a woman, there will be NO problem with confusion in any way. Yes, there would probably be discussion of the other issues, but in no way would that be a result of same-sex marriages. Those issues can and will be discussed regardless of whether same-sex marriages are legal.
As for me, the ONLY argument that I can see for not allowing same-sex marriages is a religious one. I certainly agree that many religions are against this. But in a country like Canada, religious arguments should not be the basis to decide the issue, unless you are willing to let there be different laws for different religious groups. My religious beliefs should not be enforced on you, and vice versa. As we say here in the US, "If you want to live in a religous state, move to Iran!"
2006-12-15 11:36:20 · answer #3 · answered by Tikhacoffee/MisterMoo 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh please!!
*Do we really want nations governed by passing laws written based on the predominant religion at the time? If your answer is yes then you must not approve of the current constitutions of Canada or the US.
*I have been married for over 27 years. I am straight. Please explain to me ho allowing same sex marriage in any way weakens my marriage or the meaning of my marriage.
*If family values means living together and raising kids in a loving, nurturing environment then what difference does it make what gender the parents are?
*The only people I see that are confused are those who believe your first three "con" points. Do you actually propose denying these people their rights as citizens and as human beings because some idiot might want to marry a 12 year old? Or because there are still people who wish to have multiple wives (you rarely see women wanting multiple husbands)?
It is time to recognize that when two people love each other it is a gift and a blessing. We should celebrate that love and not excoriate it. That kind of love between two people is what marriage means. That kind of love is what good family values are.
2006-12-15 11:02:48 · answer #4 · answered by toff 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
arguments against your views.
* separation of church and state. not every one in the country is the same religion so it should have no factor in making laws
* how can it weaken something that already has a 50% failure rate
* aren't family values to provide a loving and caring environment for all members of the family
* how does age limit and multiple wives figure into two peopele of legal age of consent being joined ina union ,
2006-12-15 11:25:03 · answer #5 · answered by Ron N 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Too late, it is a reality and there's nothing you can do about it.
Religion doesn't own the term marriage.
It does not weaken the term marriage.
It does not weaken any kind of values(BTW Hate toward others is NOT a family value).
Strawman arguments are not a valid legal point.
2006-12-15 11:55:56 · answer #6 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Civil unions only. Gays and lesbians say they just want to be like everyone else, but by their lifestyle, they are not like everyone else. They want access to each others pensions, end of life hospital visits, children, well they have ALL that now. Why can't they be happy with the term Civil Unions and MOVE ON?
2006-12-17 20:54:06 · answer #7 · answered by Califlowerears 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To all your statements: ********, What a load of crap. Look at your statement(s) they all have nothing to do with people or peoples feelings, do they? They are statements with out substance. They are nothing statements said because you certainly dont want to offend anybody do you? I guess you will always be a middle of the road person then, hey? Why dont you get out there and make something of yourself be different? And I always thought Canadians were good people not bigots, well I guess I was wrong.
2006-12-15 11:04:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Why not - Marriage is an institution created to tax and recognize family units and to create a separation of "legitimate children" and "illegitimate" protecting wealth and privilege from their indiscretion. It is not a "Holy union" (that was a phrase created to further the cause of monogamy) it is an operation of possession so one party can inherit the other parties stuff. If parties of the same sex want all the benefits of marriage they have to take the baggage too - the cost of divorce, child support and the anguish of financial ruin due to a "legalized" commitment.
2006-12-15 10:59:42 · answer #9 · answered by Walking on Sunshine 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Oh same sex marriges weaken the meaning of marriage but the high rate of divorce, infidelity, marrying for money and sex do not??????
Two people loving each other enough to make a commit weakens marriage??
REALLY!!!! You really believe that???
2006-12-15 10:59:45 · answer #10 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋