Isn't marriage historiclly a commitment between a man and woman that is defined by history. I think that if ypu call homosexual relationships marriage you are belittling the isnstitution of marriage and redefining history.... has perversion no definition????
2007-08-28 19:13:28 · 13 answers · asked by Born in the USA 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
From a legal standpoint the state grants a man and a woman a marriage license that allows them to produce legitimate offspring and places the burden and responsibility for those offspring on the parents. Just where does a homosexual union fit into that picture?
I know that "the family" is continually downgraded by the government but it is one institution that is worth fighting for and saving.
2007-08-28 20:26:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
While I agree that the term marriage should be reserved for that special union between and man and a woman, and I understand how you can be upset with people who feel otherwise, I must take exception with your use of the word perversion. I think gay people should have every right, privilege, responsibility and liability as anyone else, I just want terms like marriage, holy matrimony, etc, to be held as religious institutions first, and legal ones as a corollary. Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament in my Church. For the state to allow gay people to "Marry" is a violation of the separation between Church and State
2007-08-29 09:09:04 · answer #2 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually the government definition is just as a legally binding contract. Perhaps you would feel better with calling it a civil union. I just really do believe that homosexuals should have the same legal rights as all of us straight people do for reasons of taxes, adoption, and inheritance. I don't get How it really effects your or anyone elses marriage? I also find those slippery slope arguments that some offer farcical in nature, because it is a logical fallacy.
2007-08-29 02:23:42 · answer #3 · answered by UriK 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh for crying out loud. History changes in case you haven't noticed, all the time. I've yet to meet a straight couple in love who won't get married because homosexuals are allowed to marry in Massachusetts. Do you really think a straight couple planning a wedding talks about how they just don't feel that marriage is as dignified as it used to be because homosexuals are doing it now? No, they get married, start their families (IF they want kids) and get on with life.
None of the slippery slope arguments the anti gay marriage contingent has put forth have come to fruition in MA. No polygamists or bestiality enthusiasts are demanding equal treatment. God hasn't smote MA in His holy wrath. The children are doing just fine thank you. MA is the perfect example of just how ridiculous the arguments are against gay marriage. Somehow, life goes on as usual in MA. Apparently the people in that state have learned how to mind their own business and let others live their lives with the same rights as they have. Funny how well that's working out there.
2007-08-29 02:38:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God and is good for society. Children have a right to both a mother and a father joined in Holy Matrimony who will teach and train them how to live.
2007-08-29 05:28:10 · answer #5 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, actually historically the concept of a monogamous male-female marriage is fairly rare -- it's just become common in most of the world in the past couple of centuries.
But the concept of same sex marriage has existed for centuries in many cultures -- and goes back as far as the Biblical covenant between Ruth and Naomi in the Old Testament.
And the difference between legal benefits of a partnership and religious marriage are very significant -- what religion can justify, and what secular laws can justify -- very different.
If religions want to limit marriage, that's fine. But states should not be allowed to determine who gets legal benefits based solely on the gender of the participants. That's gender based discrimination, and it has no valid purpose.
2007-08-29 02:18:35 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
It sounds as though you are just looking for affirmation from us. I find gay marriages wrong for me, since I'm straight, but maybe right for gays. It won't change my life. My own marriage to a man ended in divorce, after 20 years, so that is not a great record. I try to limit my worries to the big stuff, like when Bush threatens Iran with whatever, as he did today. So, don't sweat the small stuff. Be tolerant and selective about what concerns you.
2007-08-29 02:31:07 · answer #7 · answered by ArRo 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Naomi and Ruth did not enter into a marriage. Just a daughter-in-law and mother-in-law friendship. Ruth married Boaz so are you saying she was a swinger?
2007-08-29 03:52:42 · answer #8 · answered by Jeff E 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i honestly don't give a damn , isn't it hard enough for anyone to find anyone that they feel that they can live with for the rest of there life
although i think the term civil union works just as good as marrage , but thats just my 2 pts worth
2007-08-29 04:11:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hath ignorance a definition
2007-08-29 02:17:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋