If we truly live in a society that separates church and state, why is gay marriage frowned upon?

Question

I don't understand the "secular" reasoning behind it. Can anyone offer a convincing argument?

Answer 1

It cheapens marriage. Simple market economics. The more marriages there are, the cheaper the commodity becomes. That's why I propose that we restrict marriage to white Christians who weren't born on Tuesday. Think of how sacred it'll be then!

Answer 2

Secular marriage is not a religious issue.
I have known same-sex couples to get married in church (some churches will do this); but the marriage is not recognized by the state.
Throughout history, marriage has been associated with the production of children and family, and important for inheritance.
Greeks in the time of Plato often practiced homosexuality, and considered it a "higher" love than that of man and woman. Nevertheless, they never married their same-sex lovers.
The state has an interest in regulating marriage because of its importance in child-raising and protecting the rights of all parties.
It is recognized by most (not all) people that children do best with a mother and a father, other things being equal. There are some inherent differences between the sexes. Therefore the state has an interest in encouraging this kind of family.
(This is not to say that children can't do well in different situations, obviously.)
In the legal system, precedent is important. In all of history, I have never read or heard of same-sex marriage being practiced, until very recently.
I can't make the case rigorously, but these are some non-religious reasons for not having state-recognized same-sex marriage.

Answer 3

There are a few secular groups who stand to lose quite a chunk of money if gay marriage is allowed: Doctors and insurance companies (coincidentally, they also have 2 large gov't lobbying groups).

Consider this: Insurance companies stand to lose profits if 2 people of the same sex can claim the "married" status for recieving health insurance by their employers. Life insurance policies would have a better guarantee of having a beneficiary. Auto insurance companies would be required to give the "family discount" (in areas that allow for that).

Doctors stand to lose because more people would have access to health insurance (because those without could be covered). They wouldn't have as many people who pay cash (and yes, some doctors have a different fee for those covered and not covered by insurance).

Answer 4

The greeks did not have gay marriage because to them, marriage was a purchase of a breed mare, or a way to merge families, giving the man control of the woman's estates... Homosexual relationships were on a higher plane than marriage, and about love.. Today, marriage is supposedly on a higher plane, and about love, as well...... so that argument goes down the tubes...
Adam and Steve, you are now husband and husband..

Answer 5

The words separation of Church and State isn't interior the form or the bill of rights, as Larry King found out the different evening on his coach. The word replace into in a letter written via Thomas Jefferson to a church that replace into in contact that the State would positioned some style of obstacles on it. The church replace into in contact via fact it remembered the history of the government in England on the time. Jefferson assured them that this government would not dictate the corporation of the Church via fact the State replace into seperate from the Church and would not demonstrate authority over it. Jefferson by no potential meant to disallow the Church to be in contact with the State. in certainty, history shows that the Church replace into heavily in contact and that maximum of our founding fathers have been Christians and quoted the Bible oftentimes of their on a regular basis exercises.

Answer 6

for financial planning and insurance reasons, as it is not expected to purchase life insurance or family insurance and present some guy in the application as your wife. or may be if some one became president of the USA the public may not accept a man as first lady. So they may need to amend the constitution and many other statues to cater for the new situations. Other examples are adopting children, medical insurance, social security and retirement payments and so on.....

Answer 7

The idea is naturally repugnant to reason, unless you have been conditioned .
It is an attack on truth, reality, logic, reason,conceptualization, the foundations of knowledge built upon laws of non contradiction and identity. This is not about marraige but about deconstruction, opening doors to perversion by winning more social acceptance from weakminded people who can't say no.
It is about changing definitions and defaming sacred symbols, iconoclastism, for the purpose of loosening definitions so that society can be malleable and changed into another that accept perversity. It is really a fight , a hidden fight against religion, by infiltration, the way a virus kills its host by invading it and weakening it. So they have hijacked society's symbols, as a way of psychologically doing away with the shock of it all.
It doesn't take religion to see it, though religion acts as a defense agaisnt societal viruses, it can also be perceived by thoughtful people through reason alone, who understand human desires and treachery, which is the name of the game.

Consider it yourself.
What is equal about a man on man relations and man with women? They are not equal.They are totally different and one clearly is right and the other is wrong, one clearly should have priority and approval with nothing that can be said or thought against it, as the very basis of nature. The other, man on man relations, or women on women realtions is nonsensical and pure futility, disorder and confusion masquerading itself as equal,while there is nothing equal about them. Only a person who has so lost their ability to distinguish right from wrong that they can no longer see a difference can fall for that, and that is due to propoganda. This battle is also the reason for the irrational hate of religion prevalent today, because it is religion primarily which teaches people to distinguish between what is right and true and what is false and wrong, and these people want no disapproval of their actions to remain, they want to destroy religion which along with reason criticises their behavior. They have succeeded to a great extent in brainwashing many ignorant youth into becomg sex crazed perverts themselves so they can adopt them as tools to fight simple people who consider truth sacred, and to view Christian's as their enemies. They have become foot soldiers in the gay war and don't even know it, but even worse they have been so brainwashed they do not even have any judgement left.
Utimately it is not just an attack on religion but upon reason as well because reason discriminates things.

Answer 8

We do not live in a society that separates Church and State; this is a fallacy, and creates a false premise for your question. Gay marriage is frowned upon because it cannot be a true marriage. The laws of our country, and those of most of the western world, are based on Judeo-Christian belief, and thus based on the natural law. This is not a denial of privledge or a right. Rather, it is the only truly loving response that can be given.

Answer 9

there is not good arguement against it.

it is Christian homophobia, and insurence companies worrying about how many more people that they will have to cover if they allow the last 10 percent of the population to be recognized as first class citizens.

Answer 10

Because....ummmmm....God said so???
God, who is never seen, did NOT write the bible/Koran/Torah.
Nuts.