Why do people refer to a marriage between two homosexuals "same sex marriage?" I've never heard of a marriage between two heterosexuals a "straight marriage" or an "opposite sex marriage." Why can't it just be an all inclusive thing called "marriage?"
2007-02-01 11:28:59 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Btw, religious fantics.. Do you know how many homosexuals there were in bibical times? Almost every man was either having sex with other men or having sex with sheep until their assigned bride was of age. I didn't ask for your ignorant closeminded answers. Start living in modern times.
2007-02-01 11:44:09 · update #1
I, personally, have been calling same sex marriages just plain marriage since for as long as I can remember. To me it's the exact same thing and should be afforded the same rights. Ignorant people just want another label for something that they don't like or accept. Calling it same sex marriages to me is just disrespectful and belittling.
@Jesus loves you, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There have been numerous studies showing homosexual behavior and mating in animals.
Learn before you speak.
@Sweetie pie17, you're absolutely right. Unlike heterosexuals, two people of the same sex cannot have a child. They also can't have them out of wedlock, give birth in an alley and leave the baby in a dumpster for death or drop them off for a orphanage to take care. Good point.
2007-02-01 11:57:55 · answer #1 · answered by Ash 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
There are legal and social concerns that must be addressed above and beyond making people feel warm and fuzzy inside with egalitatianism. For example, there are plenty of laws that apply specifically to people within the institution of Marriage. For example, tax breaks and insurance coverage issues. The question is, why does society provide perks to those who are married? The answer is fairly simple, societies want to continue to exist, and marriages (at least those between men and women) provide the mechanism for that continued existence. (Children) So society rewards them for their efforts to provide us with new generations. Unfortunatly, barring breakthrough technologies, no two men or women will produce living heirs through same sex liasons (no matter how hard they try); so they can't continue our society, they become a genetic dead-end. (No insults intended) Furthermore, children cost a lot of money. Ever notice how homosexuals can afford luxuries that people with 5 kids can't? This is only one aspect of the entire problem, but if we opened up defining those unions as marriage, we would undermine some of the other institutions that apply to the legal concept of Marriage.
It's not that they don't deserve exactly the same rates as hetero-sexuals, its just that they both serve different social roles, with different responsibilities, and neither the perks nor the flaws should be the same.
2007-02-01 13:25:12 · answer #2 · answered by rwalker5037 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
this is likely the neatest, maximum measured element Glenn Beck has ever reported. no longer a lot very virtually approving of marriage equality, this is welcome information for sure. yet is diagnosis of why he desires to opposite face: Him and all the different conservative pundits look as if raging, hypocritical bigots on the prompt. exceptionally even as they have the gall to babble on about freedom even as collectively assisting tighter and more effective repressive regulation of who's allowed to marry who. in the adventure that they are going to have any destiny relevance, they basically opt to recuperate from their homophobia (like they once did with their anti-semitism, and prefer they're nevertheless interior the technique of doing for his or her racism antagonistic to different minorities) and hit upon a fashion to charm to a more effective liberally minded us of a. Its no longer the Nineteen Fifties anymore and the guy they hate basically received yet another time period of authorities. What about Rush Limbaugh... it is going to likely be interesting to work out if that lardball can swallow his grossly inflated delight.
2016-10-17 04:39:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, I suppose if it WAS an all inclusive thing, it would be called that. Good question though!!! It SHOULD all just be called "marriage" and anybody should get to do it!! I mean if you're into that. (personally not me, I can't stand the thought of being legally tied to anybody.)
Hey, adiahudo, the flavors in my stew "married" last night in my fridge. It wasn't ordained by anybody. It's just a word. Get over it.
2007-02-01 11:32:49 · answer #4 · answered by Alias400 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I am guessing it is to distinguish between the two. Most people automatically think of marriage between a man and a woman. So gay marriage is taboo.
And the reason it can't be all inclusive "marriage" is because GOD created the idea of marriage in the first place, made them male and female and guess what, that is the way it is no matter if you agree or not... You are not God, God is God and He made it this way for a reason, Spanky. Last time I checked, two women can't get pregnant and have a baby without HELP from a man and two men most certainly can't have a baby.... Hmmmmm, seems to me people are a little stupid not to figure out that same sex anything wasn't God's design.... Just takes a bit of common sense.
2007-02-01 11:41:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 8⤋
Go to the head of the class. That's exactly what gay activists are fighting for -- the right to do the same thing as everybody else.
2007-02-01 11:32:47 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 10⤊ 1⤋
Good question. We're all equal, why should this be any different? I am gay and I completely agree with you. It is nice to know someone who has a very open mind.
2007-02-01 13:41:40 · answer #7 · answered by Hmmm... 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because the argument AGAINST it has no real valid arguments so they keep pointing out GAY in any way possible and while most people say they don't care if people are gay or not it is only if the "gays" stay in their place like we expected blacks to do when they were 1st freed.
2007-02-01 11:36:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
I think its because what most consider a marriage is just between man and women, (Not saying I do though)
2007-02-01 12:27:50 · answer #9 · answered by sweet_treat101 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
oh trust me, they don't want to hear that. they have their minds made up and nothing is going to change it.
i'm wondering why they have so much time on their hands that they have to spend so much time worrying about what others do, what they should be getting etc.
in the end, hell with em things will change weather they like it or not
2007-02-01 11:47:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋