Many people believe that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and that homosexual marriage should be banned because gay people cannot have children. If you feel this way, then would you also be willing to support a ban on the marriage of heterosexual people who don't want to have kids, are too old to have kids, or are incapable of having kids? If not, why not?
Thanks in advance.
2007-03-07 08:55:42 · 21 answers · asked by . 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Sweetpea: I'm a 100% supporter of homosexual marriage. Where you're getting the idea that I'm not, I have no idea. Relax.
2007-03-07 09:03:00 · update #1
The purpose of marriage is love and companionship- when God gave Eve to Adam He called her a "compliment" because she had what Adam lacked, and could make him better. Men and women are a perfect balance for each other because we were created that way.
That being said, no I do not agree with homosexuality. I harbor no ill will, hatred or resentment toward them- they are imperfect people just like you and me who are trying to live their lives. So when it comes to the marriage debate, I plead the fifth :)
God created marriage for man and woman, whether or not they choose to have children. Abraham and Sarah were married for a good 60 years or more before she ever concieved a child!
As a true Christian, I follow the example of Jesus and stay out of the political and national affairs of the World. And for any of you who cry "unpatriotic" anytime someone says that just remember that I pay all my taxes, do my part to support the economy and am a law abiding citizen. So there! (I don't protest either, btw)
I say let the lawmakers do what they will. But I don't think anyone has the right to discriminate or oppose the fundamental human rights of ANY person, regardless of color, sex, race, nationality or sexual orientation.
OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now! :D
Thanx
2007-03-07 09:08:40 · answer #1 · answered by danni_d21 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Considering there are plenty of children in the world unwanted by the parents who created them...I dint see why they cant be adopted by those willing to adopt them without all the red tape and personal judgments. Having kids is not the one and only reason people get married and it shouldn't be the criteria set that determines if a marriage is valid or not. Plenty of heteros are married that have kids and treat them like ****...but that's better then gays marrying and adopting.
I think marriage between two consenting adults should always be allowed whether they want children, cant have children, or hate children.
2007-03-14 07:49:26 · answer #2 · answered by coolred38 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
THANK YOU!
God, you don't know how many times I've fought with people over this.
Is it not stated in the Constitution that all (wo)men are entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? I say if it makes the people next to me happy, they're entitled.
Many people cannot have children, and we sympathize. We don't automatically assume just because they aren't going to be able to have biological children, they they aren't fit to be together.
Would they rather they ban marriages and encourage all males to be with all females and vice versa? B/c if so, then some will be very unlucky when they draw their husband/wife's name out of a hat and end up with a gay (wo)man.
Life and happiness has NEVER been defined by the terms of always having kids. If you want kids- great, if you have 'em-better, and if you aren't gonna have them and you're fine with that- more power to ya. Besides, just because a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't have (biological) children, there is no reason why they can't adopt (if they wanted to).
I know that this country WAS based strongly on the Church, but in this country we have Freedom of Religion, or at least we're SUPPOSED to, so if the idea of banning same sex marriages is based on any religious book, then the claims that it is "not right" are "not legitimate".
2007-03-07 17:13:58 · answer #3 · answered by Sara 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Marriage as a sanctification of love between a man and a woman has been a stronghold for generations. To sanctify an act that is abhorrent to nature and God, is perverse in and of itself. I do not question the couple's love and devotion to one another. It just doesn't make sense that an institution whose teachings condemn this act and call it a perversion, will now make an about turn and say its not only "OK" but also, holy in the sight of God. When obviously it isn't. Talk about hypocrisy. Doesn't that twist your mind, even just a little to think about it?
2007-03-07 23:27:18 · answer #4 · answered by Shinigami 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for doing away with the institution of Marriage completely. It causes far too many problems.
I Marriage is only for procreation, shouldn't we ban it until the kids are born initially.
Marriage should be a forced institution that occurs when you have children. If you want children, or are not smart enough to use a condom, you must marry the person and stay with them till the kids are self sufficient.
2007-03-07 17:01:03 · answer #5 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
How about the effect that all of the xenoestrogens are having on male fertility? (Xenoestrogens are synthetic chemicals that mimic estrogen in the body. They're commonly found in things like plastics.) It's getting harder and harder for het couples to reproduce without intervention.
Should everyone be forced to take fertility tests before they get married. Or perhaps marriage should be banned until the bride is preggers, just to be sure.
2007-03-07 17:02:57 · answer #6 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe that homosexuals should marry, but it has nothing to do with the fact that they can't have children (as if they were allowed to marry then they could do like others and just adopt). But I also believe that having children is important because if people don't replicate, then the human race ceases to exist. Marriage has always been man and woman. It was meant to be that way or why else was a woman given a vagina and man given a penis. They fit together. You asked this in the religion section, so you will probably get alot of the answers saying that the bible says that men should not have sex with men as they would a woman, which is why most people are against homosexuality. I agree that religiously it is wrong, but you can't put religion in with law. There is no gene in the human genome that is a "gay gene." Being gay is a choice that is made (humans are given free will from God). If a guy is sticking his penis into another man's anus and it pleasures him, would it not pleasure him to stick his penis into a woman's? And lesbian women that use sex toys? They are not homosexual, just confused. And to all those that are pro-gay, I know you want to thumbs down me, so feel free...
EDIT: I thought this question was for people against gay marriage...why are so many people that approve of it answering?
2007-03-07 17:04:50 · answer #7 · answered by mrb1017 4 · 4⤊ 5⤋
If the current birth and death rate trends continue, the planet will soon be facing an overpopulation crisis, so maybe more people should be in gay marriages. It would keep the numbers down.
2007-03-07 16:59:49 · answer #8 · answered by Subconsciousless 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
i think if people are against gay marriage then they dont know what it is truely like to love someone with all your heart... u cant help who u love... and if someone is gay then they are gay... just because they cant get married doesnt mean they are automatically going to turn straight... and isnt this world crowded as it is so y does it matter if one less child is born...
2007-03-07 17:01:09 · answer #9 · answered by Missy 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
People do not marry just to have children they marry to form a bound with their LOVE
Many people have children and are not married
Marriage is just something the church made up to control people
I know many Gay & Lesbian couple that have children and they are not married.
It is all about the POWER to CONTROL
Love & Blessings
Milly
2007-03-07 17:06:04 · answer #10 · answered by milly_1963 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋