Why is this part of a candidates platform for consideration .
It does seem like the ultimate slight not to recognize that some people are born who love those of their own gender .
How would you feel if people suddenly decided it was no longer ones right to get married in your 50's .
After all marriage is to bring forth children in Christian religions and to raise them properly .
No more marriages for folks who are going to remain childless or do not adopt .
2007-09-04 02:37:11 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why do we allow government involvement in "marriage"?
2007-09-04 02:48:53 · answer #1 · answered by edubya 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
For the same reason the gay community wants to be accepted as okay by everyone else. If Gay sexual activity in thier mind is okay, why whould they care if anyone else thinks it is or isn't? As for marriage, I have said this before, they are hung up on the word marriage. Any kind of union that delivers the securities of marriage, survivor benefits, being included in insurance coverage, the right to divorce with settlements and so on is what they should be looking for. Let the hetero comunity have the word marriage exclusively and call your union something else. No more marriages for those who are going to remain childless? I'll go with that, will the gay community? As for adoptions no one knows who will or can legally adopt until after the fact of marriage so it should not be a consideration. Stop fighting the naysayers or trying to convert them to your way of thinking and handle your problems from a "we can do this" approach rather than a "'We can make them accept our ways" because you can't succeed at the latter. Stop worrying about the straight worlds opinion. Some could care less either way and others will always be opposed and vocal about it. That one thing will never change.
2007-09-04 02:59:33 · answer #2 · answered by Robert P 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have no trouble with same sex relations and/or marriages. I do have a problem with providing the public benefits of tax policy, etc. to those unions. A committed relationship and a public acknowledgement of that relationship is wonderful. I don't see, however, why such a relationship needs my support through the government. In such a relationship, without the burden of raising children the requirement for some sort of public support (we all benefit from the next generation so we provide support for the raising of children) is not there.
As to your other points I think we could quibble over the age limit to remove the benefits (I'm 50 and have a 12 year old and a 14 year old), but I do think that if we removed the benefits question and focused instead on the marriage we would have far less of a problem. Give the benefits to people who have families (or at least have gotten married with that intention or possibility), let people who are committed to each other go ahead and have a ceremony and call themselves married. It does not bother me in the least as long as I'm not paying for them.
Let's strip away the financial aspects of marriage and see if there is still the clamor over the issue. Chances are far fewer couples would be looking for such unions and far fewer people would be looking to block them.
2007-09-04 02:53:45 · answer #3 · answered by Matt W 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To everything there is a cause and effect. You are in error.
People ARE NOT genetically born to love the same gender. Factors create a same sex adoration.
If people decided it's no longer a right for a hetero couple of 50 years old to be married, then the government has become a dictatorial system governed to create a same sex environment; but 50 year olds don't have to marry, they co-habitate and your comment of this has no bearing to your question.
Your third comment is a statement of acknowledgment.
As for the fourth, well tell that to the married couples who make this decision.
2007-09-04 02:58:43 · answer #4 · answered by My Final Answer 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The purpose of the INSTITUTION is to PROMOTE having children. The individual marriage has no purpose. Any form of proposed marriage that interferes with that essential purpose cannot be permitted. When you allow the marriage of people who by definition cannot procreate you remove the procreative core from marriage. Even the stated reason for wanting gay marriage reveals this. They want gays to marry because "they love". Thus this measure attempts to replace the child invested traditional function of marriage with a narcissistic adult invested function (it is supposed to give me good feelings about my romantic relationship).
2007-09-06 21:19:18 · answer #5 · answered by Perceiver 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You bring up two good points. The first is the issue of whether same sex marriages should be allowed, and the other is why it is such a high priority on the presidential candidates' platforms.
America is simply behind the times, in my opinion, with the gay marriage issue. They cling to Christian beliefs, rather than deal with the issue as a human rights one. It will change, in time.
The second issue, however, is far more interesting to me. With the state of the economy and the country embroiled in a horrific and costly war...I find it professionally and morally reprehensible that the gay marriage issue be given any kind of 'air time' at all. I certainly mean no disrespect to the gay community in saying this...I am truly a supporter of the right to marriage. But I also think that there are far greater issues on the table, and they should be spending their time and energy explaining how they would 'fix' the country and the state it is in...
2007-09-04 02:56:14 · answer #6 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
In the beginning God made man and saw that a man cannot live on breads alone therefore he took out one rib from man and out of this he made a woman as a helper of man why didnt he make males or females alone why did he just decide to make both sexes.
People can like the opinion but it cannot work because ask youreself one question that if my grand grand parents were married and gave birth to my grandparents, my grandparents also gave birth to my parents same way my parents also gave birth to me so why do I want it in my own style.
Last but not least your parents will provide you with everything in life but you will not get satisfied with one thing that is giving birth which is best stated in the Bible that give birth and fill the universe and if youre against it who will feel the earth moreso there is death after old ones have died who will remain there will be no human beings.
2007-09-04 02:51:29 · answer #7 · answered by OCHIENG B 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because it says in the bible that homosexual relationships are wrong! If marriage is about bringing forth children in Christian religions, then people in a marriage can't be in the same sex because it says so in the bible! It doesn't say anything in the bible about having to have children or not being over 50.
2007-09-04 02:55:28 · answer #8 · answered by Joie 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm just astonished by the continuing ignorant answers that try to equate same-sex marriage with polygamy, incest, bestaility, pedophelia, etc. Same-sex marriage would be a marriage between two consenting unrelated adults, just as two-sex marriages are. To say that would allow for marriages between more than two people makes no sense, as it would still be an equal partnership of two people. To say that it would allow for incestuous marriages makes no sense, as the laws against those are for legitimate public health reasons. To say they would allow for human-animal marriages makes no sense, as animals cannot consent to such activity. To say that it would allow for adult-child marriages makes no sense as a child likewise cannot consent to that.
The other primary argument seems to be that marriage is a religious institution. Even if this were so, that would not be a good reason to deny American citizens rights, as this nation is not governed by religious doctrine. In addition, marriage today is also a civil and legal institution. In fact, marriage was orginally a financial or political union, with no religion involved. Marriage today is very different than it was traditionally. It was barely over a hundred years ago in this nation that wives were basically the property of their husbands. It was less than fifty years ago that marriage was only between people of the same race. To now say that marriage has always been between people of different genders is disingenuous, as the very concept of homosexuals being treated as human beings in this country is barely forty years old.
Since the government has seen fit to grant benefits to those who marry, regardless of if they can or will have children, it is unfair and immoral to deny those benefits to members of society who wish to marry. In the end, none of the arguments against same-sex marriage stand up to any scrutiny.
2007-09-04 03:02:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think the biggest problem a lot of people have with it , is that marriage is a religious institution which is sanctioned by the state. Most religions I know of are against homosexuality, so there in is the rub. What the state should do is legalize civil unions to enable these types of relationships to get the same treatment in the tax and legal system as marriages.
2007-09-04 02:43:05 · answer #10 · answered by booman17 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Most of he arguments to ban gay marriage are the same that were being used at that time to ban interracial marriage.They were wrong then and they are wrong today.
Then you have the marriage is for making kids argument.Apart from the obvious disrespect for women who are reduced to baby making machines by people who spout these idea's it's also very rude to straight people who are married and can't have or don't want children.
Last they have the sanctity of marriage but if that was their concern they should better do something about the divorce rate.
Truth is gay marriage is a civil rights issue.Equal protection under the law.Gay people can't marry today and that's discrimination.
2007-09-04 02:44:07 · answer #11 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋