How does gay marriage violate the sanctity of marriage?

Question

I'm asking for rational intelligent opinions, please no one-liners you're just wasting my time by doing that

Answer 1

Let's get one thing clear: the proponents of gay marriage are not after "equality".

Being married carries with it a number of legal benefits. Inheritability of Social Security, and the Laws of Intestacy, for examples.

If the proponents of gay marriage wanted equality, they would want those benefits available to spinster sisters who live their lives together, or two cranky old brothers that no one else can stand. I haven't heard them propose that, just marriage for gay couples.

No, the fact is that there IS an inequality, a favoritism under the law for married couples, and rather than end the inequality, they simply want a piece of it.

That's fine, some inequalities aren't fair, such as the ones ended in the Sixties with separate drinking fountains for blacks, and giving women the vote a century ago. But let's look at this one before opening it up, shall we?

The favoritism marriage gets is based on the idea of raising children in a family. The government wants to support and promote stable families for children to grow up in. The government wants to protect widows, who sometimes have children, by helping to ensure her house isn't taken away when a husband dies.

Are those important goals of the government with a heterosexual family?

Are those important goals of the government with a homosexual family?

I don't care what answer you come up with, but ask the right question.

Answer 2

Not surprisingly, the only answer they can give is "because a marriage is between a man and a woman and that's how it always has been."

So freakin' what? Our species used to be monkeys. Things evolve. I'm an atheist and I'm married. I've got a marriage certificate and everything.

The way I feel about it is that the churches should be able to do whatever they want. If they don't want to sanctify gay marriage, then don't sanctify it. But the government shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay couples with marriage licenses. There's simply no justification for it, because the government isn't in the business of religion. You know, that old seperation of church and state thing.

Answer 3

Here's a hypothetical: Suppose I am fired from a job and I claim sexual discrimination because I am homosexual (which I am not). I try to claim that since I love my father, my brother, etc., I am homosexual because I love men, ergo, my lawsuit should be allowed.

I'm fine with legally recognized domestic partnerships with rights to adopt, etc., but not gay "marriage." I don't like the idea of defining words more expansively. Abraham Lincoln once said, "If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Five? No, it's still four because calling a "tail" a "leg" doesn't make it a leg."

Another objection comes from the fact that we have all seen in our legalistic culture how incrementally defining a concept opens up floodgates which eventually distort it beyond all previous recognition. I think a lot of anti-gay-marriage advocates believe that if they don't stand their ground, then there is no way to predict where it will all end. Suppose gay marriage is allowed. Who is to say in 20 years that polygamists won't try to have their arrangements legalized? They would use gay marriage as their legal authority.

Answer 4

Marriage historically has been between a man and a woman. The less radical people out their might except a gay form of marriage with a different name. Call it something like a civil union and give them the same rights as a married couple, but the radical members of both sides of the debate reject this because they refuse to compromise. So though I personally think gay people should be given the same rights as anyone else, I don't see why it can't be called something different.

Answer 5

Although I have personally been married to the same person for almost 40 years, my general observations tell me that the sanctity of marriage is violated quite often - and without the controversy of gay marriage.
I think it has become an argument of semantics - most people don't have a problem with a "civil union" which is, for all practical purposes, the same thing - but when the word "marriage" is used, it becomes a concern.
Go figure.
Personally, I couldn't care less what other people do with their private lives - this country presently has enough concerns that need attention without tackling such trivial personal biases.

Answer 6

I am Republican,

I have no problem with gay-unions, partners, what-ever you want to call it.

I am not a big church goer, and I am pro-choice. However I think "marriage" is by nature a religious term, and it should be considered as such.

I think gay partners should have every benefit of heterosexual married couples, and I think there is a lot of common ground. But I think you cannot disregard some peoples feelings about marriage and just call it something else.

Answer 7

Within the Christian community, marriage is considered a holy commitment established at the creation of mankind by God. In Genesis it is the very reason given for the creation of woman. In the rest of scripture there are innumerable references to it which explain how men and women are naturally predisposed to fulfill their proper roles in it. So it is considered one of the most sacred, and directly sanctified establishments of any in all the world, in a society formed and developed by Christians. To call gay unions 'marriage' is a direct affrontal to what marriage was intended by God to be. This, I am sure, seems quite controversial to a non-Christian, but, to a Christian, to say this reasoning is erroneous surpasses controversy and becomes blasphemous.

Answer 8

The people against gay marriage believe that marriage, by definition is between a man and a woman. They are threatened by other entities having the same rights as them. I personally do not care what you are if you want to make a commitment to each other and have insurance and a mortgage and stuff.

Answer 9

I don't know how it does. Why, doesn't Newt Gingrich want the happiness he had with his first wife...or second wife...or third wife, for others? I don't know why others are concerned with other people's marriages... Half end in divorce, those who claim to be virtuous often aren't - who are we to judge and why are we so concerned with other people's sex lives? But then again, I've co-habitated with my bf for 4 years, so I'm violating the sanctity of marriage too... I just still like him and want to keep it that way :-)

Edit: Chainsaw, since it's been that way for thousands of years, then it must be right! I'm not saying you're incorrect, but you need to think of a better argument. Homosexuality was pretty common in the Greek and other eras.

Edit: allowing gay marriage to be called something else sounds a little "separate but equal" to me...

Answer 10

Very good question. To answer your question, same sex marriage does not violate the sanctity of marriage.