Why should two men whom love each other be denied marriage vows and its associated benefits by the state?

Answer 1

All of the arguments against same sex marriage are illogical poo.

Let's examine the point of view that same sex marriage shouldn't be permitted due to marriage being a religious institution and a union between one man and one woman:
Well, why is the government involved in religious practices? Shouldn't the decision of what constitutes a marriage be left to the various religions, denominations, churches, etc...?

Anyone understanding my point?

The fact of the matter is that marriage is not only a religious institution; it's also a legal institution. It's a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman that changes the legal status of both parties and gives them new rights and obligations. Nothing religious about THAT. This is the problem- "between a man and a woman". Same sex advocates don't wish to interfere with anyone's beliefs or religions. They don't want to change any religious definition of marriage. They simply want the LEGAL definition to change.

Either legally permit consenting adults to marry whomever they want (and however many they want) or take the government completely out of marriage altogether. (Thereby ending the legal institution of marriage.) That's MY opinion.


Let's see.... What about the issue of reproduction? Sorry, but this is one of the most nonsensical arguments against same sex marriage that I've ever heard. How in hell does same sex marriage discourage procreation? Homosexuals aren't going to "turn straight" and make a bunch of babies simply because they're denied the right to marry. Additionally, with regards to the family unit, homosexuals consist of two types of people:
1) Those who have resolved themselves to never having children and 2) Those who will, at some point in time, attempt to have children by alternative means (such as adoption or surrogacy). This isn't going to change whether or not homosexuals are permitted to marry. Furthermore, there are many heterosexuals who have no desire to have children. What's the difference?

And, of course, there's the BS claim that homosexuality increases the spread of STDs. Ummm, WHAT?!?! Firstly, prejudiced jack a*ses have been trying to prove this for years with absolutely no luck. Secondly, contrary to the fact that infidelity is a problem in many marriages, promiscuity is more prevalent among the unmarried than the married. There's no evidence to suggest that the same wouldn't/doesn't apply to homosexuals.

And as for morality- Morality is highly subjective. What John sees as immoral may not be seen as immoral by Jane. Morality has no place in the law. "Mixing" the two is no better than allowing religion to dictate or influence the law. After all, to do as such is to encroach upon the rights of others to live according to their own beliefs and ideals.

Many people argue that same sex marriage has a negative impact on children. HOW? PROVE IT! Oh, that's right, YOU CAN'T PROVE IT! There isn't a shred of proof to show that children are harmed in any way by same sex marriage. I've heard some people claim that exposure to homosexuals can influence children to become homosexuals. Alright, for the sake of debate, let's assume that this is a valid point... Logic dictates that if children can be influenced to the point of becoming homosexual then children can also be influenced to become heterosexual. Aren't BOTH equally "bad"? If influencing the sexualities of impressionable little children is a negative thing then the ideal family unit consists of a single parent household in which the children are given absolutely no indications as to the sexuality of the parent. So, until society is prepared to encourage single parenting, homosexuals having children should be a non-issue.

In my opinion, unless people are against marriage (or rather against government involvement in marriage, i.e. legally sanctioned marriage), opposing same sex marriage is totally asinine.

Answer 2

You ask a very complicated question. The marriage ceremony can be done in any way by anyone. You can "marry" your vibrator if all you want is to alleviate guilt about having sex outside marriage. Marriage, traditionally, is a contract not only between a husband and wife, but is also a contract with society and in some cultures, with God. It is a contract made to assure that the parties take responsibility for the fruits of their relationship and don't leave society holding the bag, so to speak. Marriage was never intended to make anyone love someone else more or signify love for one another. It is a legal committment to a relationship. We have to consider what benefits being married have over not being married. Since marriage has historically and traditionally been a contract between a man and a woman, Why not have a special contract between two people of the same sex and call it something besides marriage so that the two, which are different in many ways, do not become confused. Judgements relative to one could set legal presidents that would not be appropriate for the other. Any time we attempt to change cultural institutions we are inviting opposition of great proportions. So why mess with someone else's institutions? Why not start a new one? Call it what it is. If it is honorable it wont need to be attached to or called by the same name as one that is already accepted and revered. Old Pablo

Answer 3

I, personally, have no problem with them getting married.. If I were a preacher, I would allow it at my church. I also believe in the separation of church and state though... and believe that the two should never have been intertwined (church and state) in marriage in the first place. That being said... I believe NO ONE should be getting benefits for being married... only those who undergo civil unions by the state, and EVERYONE must be able to have a civil union.. or it would be unconstitutional.... and churches should be able to regulate their religious practice of marriage as they see fit... meaning some may allow gay marriages.. and some may not... either way it's none of the state's business.

In the end, I think this is LEGALLY what has to happen.

Answer 4

Marriage is sanctified as being between people of different genders. For those of the same gender I have no problem with them entering into a domestic partnership with a full contract signed by both. That would be a binding contract and there would be fees attached just like with a marriage licesnse. If they want to celebrate their union with a ceremony of some sort and a party that is none of my business. Without specific contract, they should not automatically have spousal rights or privelages.

Answer 5

The government needs to get out of the "marriage" business. It should provide a certification of a union. That would provide the administrative benefits that a "couple" needs to protect their rights. At this point, it is NOT a marriage...simply a civil union. It then falls to the respective churches to decide whether they are willing to "marry" the couple in the eyes of their belief system.

Answer 6

They should not be denied being civilly joined!
I am a Christian and believe that morally it is wrong BUT I do not agree with making laws that promote only Christianity, nor do I believe in judging when I am a sinner, myself. Our country is based on freedom of religion. I know that our framers really meant that the government should not run the church and the vice versa but, to me, separation of church and state also means to allow other ideas to be legal, so long as they do not infringe on another person's rights.

Answer 7

Given the current state of marriages in this country, why would two men who loved each other WANT to get married?

Answer 8

Because "marriage" is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I think a more effective strategy would be to lobby that "marriage" be replaced with "civil union" in all of the law books. Then two men can get "civilly united" and still have all the same rights as being "married." Marriage would become a special case of civil union. I would also define "civil union" as between two consenting adults, so as to eliminate pedophilia and bestiality for those who are afraid "civil unions" will become a slippery slope.

Answer 9

Well....since this country has a separation of Church and State...let's just rephrase your question as such....

Two men cannot have 'marriage vows'. The word marriage comes from the Sacrament of Marriage (i.e. the Church). Go look up the Sacrament of Marriage for the full definition of it.

So...you can have Civil Union and benefits of such from the State.....but you CANNOT use the term Marriage!

There ya go....try that approach. You might get somewhere!

EDIT - Hey Pip....I was married in the Church...and as such...I have TWO marriage licenses....One from the Church (which is useless in proving anything within government offices) and one from the State. Can't get married in a church without a license from the State as well!

Answer 10

No reason. They are grown adults and we should not discriminate.

We need to move beyond bigotry.

There used to be a time when most Americans were against interracial marriage. They used many of the same arguments as are used against gay marriage today. The slippery slope argument, religious arguments, etc, etc.

I say live and let live.