Same sex marrige - is it an issue of rights?

Question

A recent questioner asked: "Chrsitians: Do you believe gay people should be allowed to have civil unions?"

One reply was: "for me it's denying gay people civil rights"

This made me think: What if I want to marry my dog, can I? After all, is it hurting anybody? If you say NO, are you not imposing your morals on me?
What if I want to marry four women at once, can I? After all, is it hurting you if I do? If you say NO, are you not imposing your morals on me?

My conclusion is that this is not a matter of "denying gay people civil rights" as the answerer said. We legislate correctness and morality all the time, which is why you cannot marry your horse. What is really happening her is the denial that marrige is between a man and a woman, and homosexuals are not denied that right - they just choose not to. They are trying to invent a new right which does not exist.

Does anybody have an opinion on this?

To "gelfling" : Didn't that rich lady from New York leace millions of dollars to her dog in her will?

Answer 1

Your dog can't enter into a legally-binding contract. That's all a marriage is, to the government.

You SHOULD be able to marry four women OR four men, as long as everyone is an adult and consents.

Answer 2

People people say that we cannot tell another person what they can and cannot do with their bodies. However, actually, that is what we do. There are still sodomy laws in this country. Whether or not they are enforced is something totally different, however. My point is this -- we tell our people what they can and cannot do on a regular basis. We state that there are certain drugs that cannot be consumed by anyone. We state that some substances cannot be consumed before driving. We state age limits on things like driving, voting, drinking, smoking, and serving in the military. This country may be free, but we are not a "free for all" place when it comes to morals.

There is conclusion evidence that someone doesn't choose to be black, white, Hispanic, and so on. There is NO conclusive evidence that proves that is some 'gay gene' in our DNA. There have been tests done, but the tests have NO been repeated to show the same results. If a test is only done one time, then it really proves nothing at all. If it was proven that homosexuals had no choice in the matter of their sexuality, then and only then, would this be a matter of civil rights.

Answer 3

Cru, you're a bit off the mark with the dog and horse analogies, but regardless -- no, it is not an issue of "rights". Marriage is not a right. It is both a binding contractual relationship and (for the faithful) a sacrament. For the former, a society has the right to define the parameters of the relationship via legislation. I think it may eventually become legal as far as a civil marriage is concerned, but no religious body should be compelled to either perform or recognize it if it's contrary to their doctrine.

Same-sex partners are already recognized as eligible for health care and other employer-provided benefits, just as there are laws against discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation. Same-sex partners also can be designated as powers of attorney and insurance beneficiaries. Civil unions in various forms abound. Such couples can be parents. So it's not clear to me what remaining "benefits" of marriage are being denied -- except perhaps for filing joint income tax returns, which seems a rather shallow reason for seeking marriage whether one is straight, gay, or otherwise.

Answer 4

You seem to leave out the component of consent. Your dog can not consent and it is not a relationship of equals. A dog is considered property. It can not make health care decisions for you, or get on your group health insurance.

As far as pleural marriage, for the most, part as practiced, is also not a relationship of equals. Women are treated much like property. You never hear of a woman marrying multiple men. It is always the other way around.

Answer 5

Can the dog consent? The horse? The issue of gay marriage is that both participants are conscious and intelligent people which can make decisions on their own. I agree that the government TRIES to legislate correctness and morality but those two things are relative.

For example, you think that abortion under all circumstances is wrong (an assumption made on your previous posts). I think that it does have its place...I don't think that people should go around getting them all the time but the option should be there. This is just an example of the relativity of morality...I don't really want to get into the abortion debate right now.

My point is that such decisions (legislation) should not be made on basis of religious doctrine. They should be secular decisions weighing the affects on the well-being of society. As I see it, gay marriage doesn't do anything to hurt the well-being of society so why should we deny intelligent people the right to choose their partner.

Answer 6

It is offensive to compare a gay union with a relationship to an animal. The others post have made that fairly clear.
I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make is. As I understand it gays are looking for civil unions for protection of their commitments financially & medically. We are all adults if gay people have a loving and committed relationship and want to live their life that way well so be it. God made gay people and God does not make mistakes.

Answer 7

Keep putting your head in the sand. I don't know how you compare gay relationships with beastiality. But since you did that shows your just asking this question to incite not to understand gays point of view. I also bet you believe God would have gays and lesbians burn in hell too. No matter what a person tell you, you have already made your conclusions. So continue being your judgmental self as you do not know how to understand, but follow the christian moral mob. This is what Christ would have you do.

Answer 8

No
Couples of any sort who want equal contractual rights can obtain them through drawing up legally binding contracts stipulating what they want in the contractual agreement in which they can put basically whatever they want for protections.

Same sex marriage advocates seem to be demanding not equal rights but the complete redefinition of marriage and ,what sees to me,not only the separation of procreation and family,but an abolition of Natural Law Marriage as Western Society has known it for some 1600 years at least.

You are right: the right to same-sex marriage does not exist.

Answer 9

A better example than a dog is incest. Is it right for siblings to marry? No for religious, cultural, medical and social reasons it is not proper. If a few people wish to do so, society still has a right to restrict this no matter what 'rights' are involved. Will this practice still exist? Yes, but we do not indulge every misguided fanasty.

Answer 10

the intolerance of religion takes away the freedom of others. Why shouldn't 2 adults have the prospect to marry one yet another, purely because an arbitrary e book says its incorrect. there'll be no replace on your existence if/at the same time as same sex marriage guidelines are presented.

Answer 11

I really don't know any reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married or have civil unions. If you're straight, like me, why would you care enough to stand in their way? It's not like legalizing gay marriage would force straight people to turn homo. Homosexuality has always been present in humans and even happens in some animal species. We ought to accept it as a reality in our society and stop stigmatizing it. As for people entering into to plural marriages, I don't really see anything wrong with it. If those individuals choose that lifestyle, who am I to say its wrong? At least the polygamist's wives would know the other women their husband is sleeping with. And as for people marrying animals and objects, I say let them do it if they want, but they shouldn't get any tax breaks or anything.