On what grounds do you deny same-sex marriage?

Question

-Traditionally its always been a man and a woman?

-For religious reasons?

-Other?

So Hangarrat, you would deny people something in a secular society based on your own religious beliefs? Everyone is free to practice all, one, or none religions here, how can you impede on anothers like this based on your own? It doesn't really effect you?

Wow, Christian fascism, could it be?

Why should a religious text dominate a secular society laws?

fruitypebbles, could all this depression be a result of the discrimination you show them?

Answer 1

The only "valid" reasons are religious -- and while that's perfectly acceptable as far as their religious involvement in such activity, it's not valid grounds for secular laws.

There are no valid non-religious grounds to discriminate in granting legal benefits to two adults purely based on their gender. There is no slippery slope, because all current laws are based on two adults and are already gender neutral (except for who can be in the union) -- so changing the entry requirements doesn't require changing anything else, but making it anything other than two adult humans requires massive rewrites.

Since opposite-sex couples can get married even if they never have sex and never produce children, those arguments are irrational as grounds for deny legal benefits.

And no, traditionally it has NOT always been a man and a woman -- only in Judeo-Christian traditions has that been the case. In many other religions, tradition has allowed it.

And there are examples of same-sex (female) marriages in the Old Testament. See the story of the Covenant between Ruth and Naomi for just one such example.

So, when you're talking about religious marriage, that's up to each religion. But when you're talking about legal benefits of state-sanctioned monogamy, there are no valid secular grounds and religious grounds based on one particular set of religions are improper.

Answer 2

It is wrong because it undermines what marriage truly is as ordained by the loving God who instituted it. It is unhealthy for a society to embrace homosexuality period, let alone elevating it and sanctioning it legally in ANY way. That means NO to -what is essentially giving them marriage rights- civil unions.
Has it ever occurred to them that say "live and let live" to homosexual behavior is helping people hurt themselves. Higher instances of suicide, domestic abuse, drug abuse, risky behavior, depression, venereal diseases are associated with the lifestyle. On average they die younger than the general population, both men and women. These people are suffering from a form of sexual addiction as is the pedophile, the porn addict, etc. You should really take a hard look at this before you defend their "right" to their perversion. Liberal support of homosexuality is killing the homosexual.

edit: Please do not fall for the "civil union" trick. They are playing a game of semantics. If their "civil union" gives them the same rights as your marriage, then guess what, it's marriage. Or as Obama alluded to, everyone will have a "civil union" and the churches will be responsible for some of them being ascribed the title "marriage".
Plain English: Their "civil union" will become your marriage, or else your "marriage" will become their civil union. Don't be fooled.

Answer 3

Religious reasons only. I have no problem with a civil union for insurance, etc. purposes, but there is that bit in the bible about not lying with a man as you would with a woman.

Answer 4

other reasons: I believe in the rights guaranteed in our Constitution. Special, separate rights should not be conferred on a person simply because of his or her sexual orientation or gender. Ultimately, granting separate rights to certain groups of people erodes one of our nation's core precepts, that all individuals are equal under the law.

while watching a program on "women of polygamy", one woman stated that as soon as homosexual were granted their rights to marriage, this would allow them to sue for their legal rights for their views of what constitutes 'marriage' to be sanctioned by society. it is a slipper slope when laws of the majority are changed to accommodate a small sector of society.

i am not opposed to civil unions.

Answer 5

i'm customarily adversarial to gay marriage via fact it incredibly is this variety of trivial concern it extremely is being inflated to create controversy the place none is mandatory. the subject is which you're making use of the observe "marriage" it extremely is traditionally defined as a heterosexual relationship. call it some thing else. the reason i come across this concern ridiculous is that homosexuals represent an incredibly tiny minority. I see no rationalization why their schedule ought to be on the forefront of politics aside from the certainty that it became into created to the two piss off non secular human beings, or placed homosexuals interior the spotlight (i'm guessing it incredibly is the extra advantageous reason). the subject with progressives is they constantly ought to discover some thing to "progression" on. the place their theory of progression is dismantling all of our previous values and traditions. I comprehend that it incredibly is the US, yet via fact the Civil warfare the US grew to alter into extra of a centralized united states of america. previously then it became right into a in truth a loose conglomeration of States and territories. If human beings had diverse existence or non secular ideals that have been unlike of their locality they relocated to a place that appropriate them. subsequently Utah and the flourishing of Mormonism there. it may be great if homosexuals ought to establish their own community someplace the place they could frolic in peace and cohesion and no one could subject them, yet regrettably, that dreaded 14th modification defeats that possibility. I abhor the certainty that the final public of people ought to bend over to soothe a tiny yet very vocal minority team. even though it incredibly is the united states and democracy is our meant government. So then if the final public disagrees with some thing for in spite of reason and places it to regulation, the minority ought to learn how to stay with it quite of with no lead to sight complaining approximately how their rights are being violated. you spot the choose of the individuals ought to be respected. If some decide comes to a decision to overrule the choose of the final public via certainty it incredibly is "unconstitutional" then we do no longer incredibly have a functioning democracy, yet a judicial dictatorship. for my area, those divisive subject concerns will purely bring about extra social issues. If adequate persons are displeased, the Union ought to be threatened lower back. I see secession of numerous States as a various possibility interior the destiny.

Answer 6

I don't deny same-sex marriage. In fact, I think there should be both marriage and "civil unions" available to couples whether they're heterosexual lovers, homosexual lovers, or just good, platonic friends who want to give each other legal say over elements in their lives.

As for tradition, read your old testament. Bigamy used to be both traditional and legally/divinely sanctioned, and that changed. We're talking about legalities, as far as I'm concerned, not religion.

Answer 7

on the definition of the word...i could care less if people want to get same legal rights as married people...but stop changing the definitions of words every time you feel like it...a man and woman marriage...gay marriage civil unions with same rights as marriage...

Answer 8

For religious reasons, and because it's perverted, it shouldn't be accepted by society.
They can get civil unions, but marriage is one man, one woman.
I choose to believe what the Bible says about it.

Answer 9

GOD created ADAMand EVE...not Adam and Joe.....or Eve and Mary!
Whats the purpose of getting married?
Its love..not sex!
Sex is not a game to entertain yourself, it for procreation.
If you don't plan to procreate, then Rosy and her 5 sisters does just fine!
GOD is watching (not Santa Claus).

Answer 10

i'm against state-sanctioned marriage in the first place.