2007-03-27 06:27:04 · 34 answers · asked by socmum16 ♪ 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
dojoman ... please, educate me on how to correctly phrase a question.
How does this sound?
What is the worst thing that would happen were gay marriage not legalized?
Does that do it for ya?
2007-03-27 06:58:28 · update #1
Civil Unions for committed couples, but that's not "a worst thing".
2007-03-27 06:30:50 · answer #1 · answered by <><><> 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I can see it now gay men and women rioting in the streets with pastel colors and glitter grenades. Their battle outfits of *** less chaps and floppy rubber things being flung everywhere. Pushing over shoes and yelling about how they want to do your hair and change your "look". It would be total anarchy. Ahhhh, my neighbors are gay they might stop inviting me over for brunch and a drink ahhhhhhhhhhhhh what will i do for my lunch break from now on. Where will i get such yummy food.
Besides the joking, the real reason would be because it is a choice that doesn't hurt anyone. If there is no negative side effect then i don't believe it should be against the law. Now for those of you that think making choices other than the ones you did is a negative effect then go back in time you Nazis to where you belong...
2007-03-27 06:39:23 · answer #2 · answered by voidlesshope 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you will have a lot of problems in the areas of divorce and family law relating to custody issues.
Alimony, child support, etc. Some of that is not a bad thing, alimony IMO is an archaic and draconian concept that should be dropped. The days of Ma cleaver having to have a value set on her "house keeping" are long gone (I seriously contest that value when maid/nanny can do it for less than a tenth of the cost to have a spouse do it). Even housewives today simply are bieng lazy, they call maids and don't actually do anything except sit on thier own *** and watch soap operas.
There will be estate law issues regarding children of gay parents who did not do proper estate planning.
2007-03-27 06:36:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Thousands of loving couples would be denied the right to be married. More people would be sick because they can't afford two separate health care plans. Couples might be split up because one is from another country and can't get a visa into the other's. When one partner dies the other wouldn't be guaranteed the insurance or any rights to the property if the deceased didn't write a will.
2007-03-27 06:32:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
besides being unfair for being judge who you should and should not love, it is also mixing religion and politics. i have many gay friends and most of them say that it's not marriage they are looking for it's more of a commitment ceremony that they want. of those friends, most have been in loving relationships for more years then most marriages last. i say, if people have a problem with the whole "marriage" thing, call it something different. everyone is equal, it is a God given right.
2007-03-27 06:45:05 · answer #5 · answered by rokprincess 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You would not worship the beast, ----- Why would you want to be married, so you can save on your taxes (money), and be able to take oaths that could not be broken.
Marriage is an oath, it can not be broken it can only be fulfilled. Jesus warned us against marriage, ----- They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away.
Adultery and fornication have nothing to do with sex, they are meant to refer to the breaking of the oath (Covenant) made between God and us.
2007-03-27 06:39:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Marriage helps them with taxes and the community sees a married couple as a union. I think it's every ones right to consensually marry whether it be by a church or by government.
2007-03-27 06:32:30 · answer #7 · answered by Lover of earth 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Denying a humasn a human right. Legal issues dealing with insurance, alimony, child support, inheritance.
What on earth do you think would happen if they were?
2007-03-27 06:45:16 · answer #8 · answered by strpenta 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We'd be denying people their right to live with whom they choose based on their private lifestyle. Next we'll deny people the right to have children based on their ability to afford them, or find some other way to isolate a group and tell them what to do.
2007-03-27 06:37:10 · answer #9 · answered by nursesr4evr 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Two people who want to share a lasting commitment could not share insurance benefits, etc. as a married man and woman can.
2007-03-27 06:38:35 · answer #10 · answered by milomax 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋