Gay marriage question?

Question

First off, what is your opinion in this topic – for, against, not sure?

Second, if the answer is “Against”, what you think about this argument: Christianity is OK with one man loving the other on platonic basis. In my understanding is the sex between two men what is forbidden. Is it OK for one man to marry the other based on platonic relationship??

Thank you in advance for remaining classy with your answers.

Mr. Smith, your points are priceless!!!

Answer 1

There are many reasons gay marriage is wrong:

13. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents.

11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.

7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.

5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

1. METEORS and VOLCANOES.

Answer 2

Even though I am definitely for gay marriage, I can argue your point.

A platonic relationship is basically a friendship. The church would see no need for 2 men to marry each other because they are good friends. Here you may argue that they may want the benefits of a civil union or marriage, but the church would not see that. They could argue that if you want a marriage just because of those benefits and you want it to be platonic, marry a woman.

Simply put, a marriage is still a marriage, platonic or not. The church will not see it for the kind of relationship within the marriage; it is just the actual uniting of two people under God.

Answer 3

Okay, I'm a straight male and I will give you my honest opinion. Being gay is not the natural course of things. And the gay agenda is not only to be accepted, but to be considered normal. It's just not the case. Marriage has been the glue that holds together the family. You will be quick to point out that that isn't always successful, and you would be right. But that is not the point. The traditional family is Dad, Mom, Children.
Tradition is not a bad word. For some it means stuck in the past. They don't get it. People like me get tagged with the word 'homophobes'.
It's used primarily as an insult to point out how unenlightened I must be to think the way I do. It actually means some one who fears homosexuals, or perhaps is frightened that he may be one. I don't fear homosexuals, and homosexuals have nothing to fear from me. But I will take umbrage when it gets thrown in my face, over and over. I take it as fact that throughout history atrocious and barbaric acts have been inflicted on homosexuals. I think it is right that laws have been passed to protect homosexuals from such things. I wish no harm of thought or deed to any homosexual. I think civil unions for legal purposes are a must for committed long term relationships. But the insistence of using the word 'marriage', why? . In the collective conscience of the human race, marriage has been a ceremony between a man and a woman. It's always just seemed right. And it still does.
As for you second question, I am a Christian, but I'm unaware of any argument about platonic relationships between two men. The whole underlying messege Christ brought is 'love thy fellow man'. Not have sex with him. And yes, the Bible does briefly mention sex between men early on, but it certainly doesn't beat you over the head with it. Everybody reads the same Bible, but depending upon who you talk to, you can go to hell for just about anything. That should be a comfort to you all.

Answer 4

I am against because to me it 'bastardizes' the very act of marriage ( for lack of a better term).I consider a marriage to be between 2 persons of the opposite sex. So leave the word, and original definition of marriage alone.....Think up a new way to describe commitment between two adults.Call it whatever you want, dual partnership, domestic relationship, 2 person cohabitation, cooperative arrangement. AND I don't think it should just apply to homosexuals. It should apply to ANY 2 people that want to have some type of 'live' together situation. If 2 'old maid' sisters want to , or 2 siblings, or a couple of elderly widow(er)s, or how about a sinlge person that lives with & cares for an elderly parent? And any one who does enter into this legal agreement would be afforded the same 'rights' as that of a married couple...taxes, inheritance, insurance, etc., and of course there would be rules regarding the dissolution too.

I think something like this would work to the benefit of all. just my thoughts.

Answer 5

I am supportive of Gay marriage from a legal standpoint. I'm not sure where I stand on it from a religious standpoint, I don't think I know enough of the text either way.

But that's irrelevent.

Based on your logic:

A man can (according to religious text) marry another man based on an entirely Platonic relationship.

But in the eyes of the Law, a marriage is not valid unless it is consimated.

In order for the marriage to become a legal and binding contract, according to both state and religion, there would have to be a physical relationship....so it would be impossible to justify marrying someone based on your logic.

Answer 6

There is nothing wrong with it. If two people want to commit to taking care of each other for the rest of their lives then who are we to deny them that. Anyone who says that the sanctity of marriage is at risk need to look at straight couples first. The divorce rate is up to 50%. They are doing more harm than the gay people could ever do. What people do in their private lives is their own business. It's funny how people won't fight to keep convicted rapists and child molesters from getting married, but a gay couple is too damaging to the fabric of this country and will protest night and day. It's not religion that does it. Their is too much hate going around, some just use religion as an excuse to project it, and it's sad cause not all religions are like that.

Answer 7

A platonic relationship is basically a friendship. The church would see no need for 2 men to marry each other because they are good friends. Here you may argue that they may want the benefits of a civil union or marriage, but the church would not see that. They could argue that if you want a marriage just because of those benefits and you want it to be platonic, marry a woman.

Answer 8

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Answer 9

I am not for or against gay marriages. I hold no opinion on what other people do. I am responsible for my life, my children, and my decisions. However, I am Catholic and the Bible does talk against homosexuality. I believe in the Bible. But, I also believe it is not my job to say whether your right or wrong. That isn't my job on this world. My job as a fellow human is to love, and except the choices that people make. The Catholic church has excepted gay people and recongnize the marriage. Here check this out: http://www.catholicchurchnh.org/index.cfm?content_id=500
http://www.catholicchurchnh.org/index.cfm?content_id=473
So my opinion doesn't matter as much as What God feels about this matter or any matter. I surrender myself God and to the fighting. Any and all right and wrongs in this world. And let God guide my words so I may not hurt any one hearing me. Peace!!

Answer 10

I don't believe in demographically oriented rights, rules, and regulations.
If people can get married, then people can get married.
Whether it's two men; two women; a man and a woman; 4 women, 3 men, and 5 transgendered.... whatever.
Who gets married down the road has no bearing on my marriage to my wife... therefor, why should I deny them the right to be as happy as we are?
Because they have a different sort of sex than we do?
Pffft.
That would be entirely too arrogant of me.

Answer 11

I think it's not only okay, but should be legal. Render unto Cesaer and all that.
Churches can define marriage any way they like, and refuse to marry people based on religion, sexuality, race, or because they have brown hair. The government can't make laws telling these churches what to do.
Anyone crying about the sanctity of marriage, the bible, or morals should remember that divorce and remarriage was once considered adultery. Everyone conveniently reinterprets the bible to justify divorce, when it's pretty clearly against it. Marriage doesn't seem so sanctified when people are divorcing at higher and higher rates. So let's give gay people the chance to show the rest of us how it's done. Maybe they won't make as big of mess out of it.