was the definition of marriage (as between a man and a woman) based on religion?

Question

isn't our country supposed to have a separation of church and state?

without using the Bible as a source, how is homosexuality "immoral"? please don't give me answers saying "it just is"

Answer 1

Yes it was and that's why it shouldn't be called marriage if it is not done within a religious institution. The creation of civil unions is the ideal solution. homosexuals get the protections they want without insulting people. Of course they love insulting and belittling people and institutions so that will never work........

I don't think you can claim it's immoral with citing religion but it is most certainly unnatural. Nature has set up a system for the reproduction of species and homosexuality would not accomplish this....

Answer 2

Without citing to a particular religion -- you cannot say something is immoral or not -- morality is based solely on the codes and rules of a particular religious culture.

The thing is -- only the New Testament treats homosexuality as evil -- and then, only male homosexuality. The Old Testament recognized the validity of covenant marriages between women -- as shown in the tale of Ruth and Naomi.

And different religions have different views on the subject -- many openly support homosexuality -- including some Christian denominations.

And yes -- regardless what any one religion says on the issue -- secular laws in the US should not be based on religion -- thus the religious debates about whether the practice is immoral should have absolutely nothing to do with determining whether people are allowed to get legal benefits based solely on the gender of those involved.

As for the "against nature" argument -- the people making it have obviously never bothered studying nature. Homosexual conduct is found in most bird and mammal species -- to about 1% of the population -- significantly less than in a species (human) that has conscious control over its mating practices, but far too common to be dismissed as non-existent.

But that's they way our country works -- people can impose their hatred and bigotry as a matter of law as long as they can find some excuse to do so.

Answer 3

This is a good question. Religion should never play a factor in politics unless it compensates ALL religions and not just Christianity. Many people have used the argument that homosexuality is against human nature and it stops reproduction. That is the most valid argument I have heard. Although its a valid argument it's flawed as well. Lesbian couples can still reproduce and gay men can adopt. I come from a Christian background however I am not religious. I support gay rights and I strongly believe that there is NO VALID reason why gays shouldn't get married. It actually angers me a little bit when I hear anti-gay comments. Also, marriage is nothing but a mockery these days. The divorce rate is over 50 percent. So, if to people who love each other want to get married, let him, gay or straight.

Answer 4

its not & marriage was never based on religion before the inception of religion. women were viewed as cattle, property & men needed women to have as many babies as possible to work the farm & men often wanted relief from having to care for their daughters into adulthood so a man would pay another man (dowery) to take his daughter off his hands (marry her) and the many receiving the dowery would either receive a monetary compensation or some land animals to supplement the responsibility he will be taking on (and off the father of the dauther) when taking a wife. It didn't become a religious thing until the inception of religion & even then the above still applied until sometime in the 20th century.

Answer 5

No, the USA does not follow a biblical definition of marriage.
http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

However, gay marriage goes way back: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/

Funny how no one wants to admit that. Homosexuals were around long before religion and government and we'll be around long after these two systems have been retired to the dust bin where at least, religon, belongs.

Answer 6

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Do you see separation of church and state any where in the first amendment?
Get your facts right.

Answer 7

That's where it comes from according to the Immoral Minority.

Yes - it does despite what the IM says.

It's just opinion - and an idiotic one at that.

Answer 8

yes