I am doing a research paper on Same Sex Marriage.... what is your opinion....?

Question

Why not man and man or woman and woman marriages, what is the difference, isn't love, love??
-Is the main issue that homosexuality is considered 'unchristian'??
-Do you think it is an example of the governments inability to separate church and state?

I would love to just hear any opinions on the matter, and if you have read anything on the topic recently that you could tell me about, I would love to read it also.

Thank you!!

No thumbs up or down from me... I am just curious about what people think about the topic, helps to get the creative juices flowing. Everyone is different, and you never know who may offer a different perspective that you had not considered and may want to research furthur. I thank you all for your time!!

Answer 1

One big difference: Little girls and boys who are born gay grow up hearing that they are sinful monsters at every turn. Homophobia is in the very air we breathe. Bible thumpers everywhere love to make gay people the scapegoats for anything and everything from hurricane Katrina to AIDS.

The difference is: after all that sh1t that is heaped upon them from day one, it is nothing short of a miracle of God's grace that any 2 gay people ever come out healthy enough to love another person, then find each other in addition to that.

Heterosexuals have it so easy compared to gay people.

I know lots of gay couples that should be married before some of the neurotic and abusive heterosexuals who get marriage licenses like they were toilet paper.

Answer 2

The original purpose of marriage was so that the FATHER of the child would be identified and he could be held responsible to support the child. (There was no issue as to who is the mother for obvious reasons.)

It was all about the kids. Who the father was, who will support the child, who is responsible for the child until he/she is old enough to be on their own, who pays for damages done by the child, etc. It was all about responsibility.

In recent years, we have made marriage a thing unto itself. It is no longer about kids. It is about shared property, tax breaks and benefits. It has less to do about love than it does about getting the "goodies" and advantages of being married.

Since the original purpose of marriage is not applicable to gays as they can not have kids, they move onto the more recent purpose of marriage.

While some states allow gay unions, the gays do not want that. They want the word "marriage" because it is all the benefits that come with marriage that they are after. They want all of the 1000 benefits the federal government gives to married couples. (What is ironic is many of those benefits do not apply to gays for obvious reasons.)

As far as it being a "christian issue" it is more a monotheistic religion issue. The ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem with gay sex nor with promiscuity or orgies. Pretty much anything was acceptable. However, with the monotheistic faiths of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, in a very clear attempt to distance themselves from the pagans, they all condemned the sexual life styles of the Greeks and Romans.

The Roman Catholic Church went so far as to say sex was only for making babies and even said the "missionary position" is the only position allowed.
The Jews and Muslims also have some rules of sexual conduct quite a bit different than the pagans.

My opinion is you can not on one hand claim to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim and on the other say you are gay. The beliefs of the religions go contrary to the life style. (Perhaps the gays should go back to being pagans so their hypocrisy will not exist.)

As far as gay marriage, I think if they allow gay unions with the same benefits as marriage, they should be satisfied with that. Marriage is between a man and a woman and a gay marriage is a oxymoron.

Answer 3

people that say its "yucky" is rude. and against their religion? i think if none of that exsisted or if people said it was ok. then no one would have a problem with homosexuality. im straight, but i'm all for same sex marriage.i think that God made them that way and he still loves them the same. it may say in the bible that it is sin. but doesnt it also say that he forgives? every sin is equal. whether you cursed, murder or you're gay. i think people need to just accept it. because God obviously does. so why cant people that believe accept it too. and if two people love each other. then thats it. thats what a big part of marriage is. so who cares if its with the same sex right? and i dont think its an example of the governments inability to separate church and state. why should it separate anyway? this is one world and everyone should just learn to accept one another and resepct each others beliefs. instead of looking at each other like freaks. especially towards homosexuals.

Answer 4

Homosexuals wanting to marry makes a mockery of the institution of marriage itself. It isn't love -- it's lust. That homosexuality is "un-Christian IS the main (the only) issue. It's an affront to God -- disrespect from His unruly children. The church wants separation from the "state" so that their doctrines can be free from governmental limitations. The "state" wants separation from the church to ignore the fact that this country was founded as "...one nation UNDER GOD"! I think the separation should exist simply because God gave us free will to obey Him, or not, & the government shouldn't place itself above God. It should make no laws that deny the rights of individuals where religious beliefs are concerned, & marriage is an institution of the Judeo-Christian religions. Since our beliefs don't condone homosexuality, it shouldn't be allowed in marriage!

Answer 5

Yes love is love. But there is man's way and there is God's way. Jesus said that in the beginning God made humans male and female. And that a man would leave his father and mother and join his wife.

It is unchristian because it does not comply to the way God looks at a family. It does not comply biologically if you want children because you need a man and a woman to create a child.

The government has no role to play in this except to uphold the long standing tradition of what constitutes a family and that is a husband and wife who love each other. It is not in the business to reinterpret that definition to allow sinful man to pick and choose his own sense of morality and justice. For sinful man will only chose corrupt laws that enable him to continue living in a sin state that is separate from the way God wants man to live.

Answer 6

Each state should decide this issue for themselves. But you are wrong to think this issue shows the government's "inability to separate church and state". You misunderstand separation of church and state. We are free to set up laws based on our religious convictions. The law is still secular, but morality derived from ones religion can be enacted into law if enough votes are gathered. You cannot say, "Oh you are a Christian so your vote to ban gay marriage doesn't count". It counts just as much as an atheist who votes to ban creationism from the schools. But the law itself cannot be religious. It cannot say, "Gay marriage is banned because the Bible says so" the law can only say, "Gay marriage is banned because the people say so". Nor can the government reverse religious doctrines and say, "Since the government endorses gay marriage, Christians must endorse it too".

If the issue came up to endorse gay marriage, I wouldn't vote because I do not want to deny them any kind of civil rights, but nor do I want to support them. If the issue came up to ban gay marriage, I would either not vote or I would vote no because I do not want gays to be persecuted in any extent, but I do not endorse their activities. They have endured plenty of hardships throughout history and I do not want to add to their suffering, but nor do I want to endorse what they do because I think it is immoral.

Yet I think the states should decide this so that each state is ruled according to the will of the people. Massachusetts can endorse gay marriage and Texas could ban it. That is a Republican way. A Democratic way would be we all vote, and 50% + 1 vote means those 49% do not get their way. At least by a Republican system though each state decides its own laws and civil rights. If a civil right is not listed in the Bill of Rights it is up to the states to decide.

Answer 7

Yes, the main issue is that it's considered "unchristian". Once I talked to a Christian about it, and his main argument was that "god said it's wrong". But, here's the thing; that does not give the government the right to ban it. If two people love each other, it's wrong to prevent them from being able to show that love. We have separation of church and state for a reason.

The bible has a lot of rules, but we don't follow all of them. We don't stone adulterers, disobedient children, or people who work on the Sabbath any more. So why should we ban same sex marriage? Anyway, not everyone in this country is Christian, why should we have to follow Christian rules?

Answer 8

Love is love, and two adults who love each other have every right to marry.

unchristian... I think it is an issue mainly with Christianity. I mean that's not the only source of discrimination of course (gays are still put to death in some places in the mid east), but in America it is the biggest issue.

Yes it is an example of poor separation of church and state. Most people are fine with gays, and yet... here we still are. Fighting a losing battle trying to give gays their rights.

Answer 9

why not man and woman getting together making a child under the same god,for the perfect straight of body,soul and spirit , for growing towards positive goodness energy .Is that wrong? you are putting too much energy on Gay's and you forget about the real thing,well maybe you have to go through that,NOT ME,I AM ABOVE THAT LESSON,I AM JUST TELLING YOU ABOUT MY ANSWERS,your paper is from the state not your own.

Answer 10

I think that anyone willing to can enter into a covenant relationship I do not know if that relationship will have God's blessing if the foundation of the union is considered to be sin I am not sure my opinon will be desireable on either side but there you have it