Seriously what is the point of banning gay marriage?

Question

There is no reason other than the what the Christian Right says about homosexuality being evil in the eyes of God, when they don't really know what God really wants us to do, have they met with god recently, I doubt it.

Currently homosexuals don't get the marriage rights that we get on a legal level, so it's not just being cut off on a symbolical level.

Any other opinions would be nice, thanks : )

Answer 1

You are correct.

The only logical or consistent arguments against it are purely religious. And as far as the US goes, religious arguments are invalid as a reason for enacting laws.

For a full analysis of every argument, and which ones actually meet the logical burden to qualify as valid, see the essay below.

~~~~~~~~
EDIT: For those who argue that "homosexuality is not natural", two comments. First, they should spend some time reading books on animal behavior. Somewhere between 2% and 5% of most avian and mammalian species exhibit homosexual conduct on a regular basis. So, if it happens is nature, how is that not "natural"?

Second, according to "nature", once a female of the species enters estrus (for humans, once she starts menstruating), it is natural to mate with her. So, according to what is "natural", sex with any girl over the age of about 12 should be acceptable, because that's what nature intended.

90% of human behavior is not natural. It's based on choice. And religions should not be allowed to dictate who gets to make what choices for those who don't follow that religion.

Answer 2

1. It requires rewriting every dictionary which defines marriage between humans as the union of a man and woman.

2. It's just another case of seeing how far you can push the envelope. You redefine marriage to include marriage between two people of the same sex now. Where do you go later? Do you allow marriage between different species? If you really love your dog, why not marry it?

3. This isn't like different races marrying. It's condoning an act that the majority (no state has had gay marriage approved by voters yet).

4. If you really want homosexuals to have the same rights as hetrosexual couples come up with a NEW term and get it recognised by the legislature and approved by voters.

5. Why should the majority be FORCED to recognise something they don't agree with just because YOU don't think it's right.

Oh hell, lets just allow everything. Scrap all the laws because some minority doesn't see anything wrong with doing something. If nothing is illegal you can do what you want to and no one can say a thing about it.

And notice at no time did I even bring GOD into the picture.

Answer 3

What's worse -

Most people don't realize that legal marriage is actually one part of the ceremony (the officiant has to have legal standing within the state), the part that confers the legal rights to the partners (Vermont identified 247 or so 7 years ago). The visible part of the ceremony (the religious part, in a church wedding) isn't the legally important part - it's the pact the married people make with their tribe.

They get married in church to make their church happy. As long as the officiant is recognized by the state (priest, minister or judge) the state is happy.

When people talk about making gay marriage legal, that's the part they're talking about.

No state is mandating that any religious group be required to officiate at a gay marriage ceremony. That means that the religious people don't have to preform the ceremony if they are not supportive.

So why ban it at all? I have no idea. But every time I hear someone say that letting two men (or two women) marry is a threat to marriage, I feel sorry for them, because if a gay couple is that much of a threat to their marriage, they haven't got much of a marriage to begin with.


As to the poster with the long, professionally written argument...it's all based on the idea that homosexuals are choosing to be gay. This is simply untrue - they are wired that way. It isn't a misguided couple of guys here and there - it's 10% of the population.

Even the Vatican acknowledges that it isn't a choice. They want them to be celibate, but they know it isn't a choice. That's where your article falls down. People choose to be kinky, or choose to be different. They might choose to see a prostitute or choose to have sex outside of marriage.

Homosexuals do not choose to be that way. They are wired to sexually respond to the same gender, the same way you aren't.

I know one gay couple who have been together 15 years. Do you really think they're going to throw up their hands and go date women? I don't think so. All they are asking for is the same legal protections for hospital visits and property and the like. They don't want your Church (wouldn't have it as a gift, I suspect). So leave them alone.

Answer 4

The banning of gay rights marriages usually occurred in countries which are not christian or catholic in nature. Haven't you notice? Because the christian community that marriages with both sexes is immoral and religiously blashemous by nature.

Evil in the sense that the bible specified that homosexual and lesbianism is forbidden in the eyes of God. I pressume that you are not a christian or catholic. In fact, we do know what God really wants us to do, since I myself is a christian and definitely follows the teaching of the bible. We donot have to meet God face to face to know this things, since he already gave us the bible to reflect on it day and night, do we need to see him regarding all of this? I think there is a time and place for that also, in regards of seeing him face to face, all of us will do face him but in due time. Yours and mine will come so we have to wait for that, first come first serve.

Since the churches and religious group condemn the practice of gay marriages, obviously the law would not give you the right/privileges of enjoying this for legal purposes. What is illegal cannot be legal, through the eyes of men and God. Unless you buy your own country then I think everything would definitely be legal in your eyes.

Answer 5

Christ said that marriage is when one man and one woman become one flesh. This is somewhere in Mathew. I think around Mathew: 18.

Also, if we allowed "same-sex marriage" then would we also, allow polygamy and other new definitions of marriage outside of the definition that Jesus gave.

Also, saying that this interfares with separation of church and state is wrong. We make laws all the time about stuff that could be classifies as violating that. Should we allow arranged marriages or polygamy?

I think we should keep the definition that Christ gave.

Answer 6

Marriage is a civil institution and can be performed with or without the church. A justice can perform a marriage ceremony completely separate from any religion. Being married in the church is a choice one does not have to make.

Answer 7

Gay marriage is legal in the Netherlands, that is not to say that every one is in favor, and yes mostly 'religious' people are against it. Personally I think it's better two people who really care for eachother are living together than to keep up apperances of two sexes (man-wife). Being gay is NOT a dissease and you don't become one by looking at certain programms. Religion always devide people and still is.

Answer 8

I'm pagan. I can still practice my religion, openly. Ergo, there is no law establishing a religion. You may not like the argument behind banning it, (I don't) but as long as there is no law establishing a state religion the Freedom of Religion does not apply.

Answer 9

Right or wrong, It's a silly thing to ban, because subsequent generations are going to be more tolerant anyway.

In other words, the writing is on the wall with respect to Gay Marriage - it's jut a matter of whether this generation our our children's children will legalize it.

Answer 10

bible-thumpers can not stand being reminded about gay sex, it gets them crazy and I think that is very telling

anyone can marry anyone, or even anything, as long as they can find someone to perform the ceremony, but only one kind of marriage is recognized by most of the states (with the attending rights to benefits)

so it isn't the 'holy' aspect of the ritual that can ever be banned, it is only the secular recognition

most bible thumpers are not intelligent enough to see that ironic fact