It wouldnt.
They are close minded and fear what they dont know.
Yes they should be able to be married.
Its ridiculous that they can't, saying God doesnt approve doesnt hold water since God doesnt run this country.
2007-03-10 03:04:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Perplexed 7
·
9⤊
2⤋
You would think that this nation would represent the people and their varied sexual appetites as it does in regards to religion .
All men being equal should mean living under laws that allow the exercise of this freedom without penalty or reward for any given segment of that society .
That the opportunity to exercise ones own natural desires would be respected and the same rights and privileges would naturally follow with the commitment to a monogamous relationship .
So we can be fair about this matter and offer all people the opportunity to marry regardless of sexual orientation into a so called stable living arrangement .
The harm is a couple of older men hooking up and deciding that together they are better off and the survivor then living on to collect the others social security benefits and pensions offered to spouses .
This leaves women without the protection that marriage affords the weaker sex .
If we can not look at things in the proper light then we are only seeing the part of the equation that is made obvious to us . Naturally some older men would decide to hang out and get married because of the benefit to both .While women would also do this the level of pay and benefits women receive is substantially lower and therefore women become second class people automatically .
In need of more care from the state . This in turn prompts people to say why should we give women more then they have earned . Should you automatically be equal to everyone else .
This is not what capitalism is founded on .
Capitalism is based on making as much profit as possible in any manner required regardless of the human cost .
Robots would be the perfect solution for employers a cost that could not be hampered by the changing desires of the work force .
2007-03-10 03:42:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by trouble maker 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Gay marriage will not negatively effect this country.
This country was based on the freedom for all in the pursuit of happiness and justice for all.
Basically this farce comes from a puritan belief that it is a sin and that it is abnormal. But, only because it is different in comparison to a puritan lifestyle.
Puritan beliefs are the same belief system that provoked the witch hunts and burnings of thousands of (now we know) innocent people. Just as much as people used to be burned, when in reality they had a mental disease. This belief system has caused thousands of people to be murdered, yes, murdered because they were different.
Just like Jesus was persecuted and murdered for being different in his time.
History will show, years from now, that they, meaning the puritans, were also wrong about Gays.
Unfortunately, Gays will be persecuted and some may even be murdered for being different.
Basically what it comes down to for these people, the puritans, is that they just want to control everything and believe their way is the only way. And that they are somehow better, more holy, in God's eyes.
But, the bible also says that the meek shall inherit the earth.
So in the end, it will be the persecuted that God has already chosen that will be here long after the puritans have gone.
History tends to repeat itself. And it will again.
Nature has a way of balancing out things. And the strongest and meanest don't always prevail in the end.
Most often, the predators end up going extinct and the prey become king.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
2007-03-10 03:19:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Harley Girl 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Their concern has no longer something to do with the commonplace listed reason. they're scared that a team of boys and ladies might shack up jointly and have extra efficient relationships than them. on the instant with marriage disasters at an all time severe it does not be long formerly durable comparable intercourse marriages have been succeeding the place mixed had failed. Then with gay marriage taken care of out and occurring next we would undertake babies. are you able to no longer think of the kick in the face which would be for the non secular bigots in case you and your companions marriage and your observed kin grew to become into extra of a fulfillment that the mixed intercourse? that would coach that each and all of the failings reported grew to become right into a lie. that would coach which you're equivalent. Gays are actually not equivalent they're going to scream. nicely no longer jointly as non secular bigots are handy spreading concern.
2016-09-30 11:47:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Marriage is a religious institution. Same-sex Civil Unions would be secular, and would not be an issue.
That said, I should have the right to teach my children what I wish to teach them; if you want to teach them that homosexuality is okay, then that's fine for you to do in your own home. I may not agree, but it's not my job to break down your door and tell you what to do. Schools should not be teaching it as they currently do. If I want to teach my children that it is a part of spiritual warfare and is anathaema to leading a Christian life, then that's my choice. Of course, the schools don't need to be teaching that in particular either.
The biggest problem is the way that it's being brought about. The idea that it should be -called- marriage, that schools should undermine my religious beliefs and try to brainwash my children (More than they already do), and that everyone who is Gay should march around advertising it is wrong. I don't run around with my wife and scream "Hey! We engage in intercourse on a regular basis!". Nor should the proponents of so-called Gay Marriage.
2007-03-10 04:32:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tristan H 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
the divorce rate is 50% and homosexuals arent exempt from that statistic. give us a chance to contribute to your statistic i say. its a major issue in USA because currently same sex marriages arent recognized (except in mass.) and just like any minority denied thier freedom, this won't go away until equal rights means equal rights for EVERYONE.
same sex marriage wouldnt have near as many negative effects as predjudice and bigotry - which is going to be around regardless of the law.
2007-03-10 03:07:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
OK here is one. The courts are way too backed up and lawyers seem only to make money off of the everyday soooo. A man marries a woman. wants to leave says he is gay, marries a man. After 2 years decides he is hetero again. Who gets a divorce, Who gets annulled who gets the KIDS!!! How is property divided? It never ends. Now How about a Military wedding? Does the US ARMED services have to do gay nuptuals as well? Can 2 sailors get married On ship during combat? Does this allow one to leave the service to raise the freshly adopted kids?
2007-03-10 03:13:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
There is no valid non-religious argument against same-sex marriage. And religious arguments should not be valid grounds for making secular law.
I have never seem a valid argument that says how allowing two consenting adults to get married would hurt anyone else. And drawing the lines based purely on gender is as bigoted and pointless as drawing the lines based purely on race.
The only reason that so many people oppose same sex marriage is out of bigotry and prejudice and spite. They don't want two people whose choices they disapprove of to get any legal benefits. They want to punish those people for being different.
And what's tragic is that such childish hatred is often promulgated in the name of a religion founded on tolerance and unconditional love.
2007-03-10 03:08:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
7⤊
0⤋
it's just that the conservative side says that same sex marriage cannot be considered a marriage
to them..marriage is...man...woman...kids and a family
you can't have that in a same sex marriage unless you adopt children...but then there are other people who say that would affect these children
it's quite a controversial topic
2007-03-10 03:08:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by zorro 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Foe republicans, homosexual sex is for extramarital affairs like they have with boys (pages) or Christian priests. If they allow gay marriages, their gay lovers might demand the republicans leave their wives and children to marry their true loves.
Also, because Cheney the Dick(head) can't forgive himself for his parenting techniques (i.e., never meeting his family) and wants his lesbian daughter to be unhappy forever. Same with global warming - Dumbya the Bush wants his twins to live a horrible life on the decaying Earth when he's dead, because he hates them.
2007-03-10 03:12:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Marriage was set up to unite a MAN and a WOMAN in a contract,of sorts. I believe that it could hurt the country in this way
;;It's a stepping stone to more IMMORAL behavior. The next step may be 1 man and 3 woman or 1 man and his goat or his dog!!!!They could use the same arguments that the fags are using,to make a mochary out of something sacred,like marriage between a MAN AND WOMAN!!!!
2007-03-10 03:11:45
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋