Is it time to get Government out of the business of telling people who they can and can't marry?

Question

Yes, I'm talking about Gays. I don't think it's the place of Government to choose who can and who can't get married, especially when some religions (Presbyterians, Methodists) have Gay Marriage cermonies.
_I'm not a Presbyterian or a Methodist BTW, I just accept their right to be free of Government constraints. Freedom of Religion.

This question is built off a question I saw in Religion and Spirituality... I think it should be asked here.

Do you not believe in the freedom of Methodist and Presbyterian Churches to have the Gay Marriages they already have? If so, they're already "lessening" (to use your word) your marriage, because they have Gay Marriages. Just now, in secret to the Government and it's laws.

Answer 1

The goverments needs a good punch in the mouth from it's citizens and we need to take back control as a society.

Answer 2

The problem with marriage is that it is a religious institution that has been adopted by the government. Instead of taking a look at the institution and determining the role of government in the institution, government just adopted it wholesale from religion. Today we have tied all sorts of government programs, from tax deductions to medical decisions, to this religious tradition.

Those who oppose gay marriage point to that tradition and say that changing the government's rules regarding marriage will somehow destroy the sanctity of religious marriage. It would certainly be advantageous if we had different terms for religious ceremonies and secular ceremonies but I understand the aversion to the civil union compromise also. Perhaps all secular unions should be civil unions. Allowing government to recognize different unions certainly has no bearing on what a particular religion chooses to do or not to do. If you are Catholic and do not get married in the church, the church does not recognize your union. That doesn't matter if you are a man and a woman or a man and a man. There was a case that I read about in the past where a firefighter was engaged and he became paralyzed on the job. The Catholic church would not let them get married because he was incapable of consummating the marriage. As ludicrous as that sounds to me, that is their right as a religion to define who can get married. The state, however, should not have the right to deny certain citizens the right to a union based on arbitrary factors.

The real issue behind the opposition to gay marriage is opposition to homosexuality. Some people will actually admit that they are morally opposed homosexuality while others use the sanctity of marriage argument.

Answer 3

Once again, this question brings to mind, some comedian's quip, that Gay people have the same right to be miserable as Straight ones!

I think the Gay marriage thing, is much like the Abortion issue, in that the same citizens who claim to want smaller, less intrusive "Big Government", are the same hypocrites that want laws passed, making the government involved in people's personal lives and actions.

I think that the States need to take back all government functions, except for Foreign relations, maintaining a strong military, and establishing foreign trade agreements.

I also think that appointments to the Supreme Court, need to be made, and confirmed, in a different way. I don't think we ever need another Court deciding another Presidential Election, as they did by ruling in favor of Bush vs Gore, in that bogus dispute.

Answer 4

It's long past time.

Whenever you boil any marriage-restriction argument down to its basic essence, it's always the arguer's religious beliefs at the core. We decided back in 1776 that we wouldn't impose any one religion on the masses, and that's precisely what this is: One group's religious beliefs being presented as something other than that.

Any adult should be able to marry any other adult, and as many adults as are comfortable with the situation should be able to marry one another. Marriage is, legally, a contract and a contract only - it is not about having children, it is not a sacred institution, it is not anything other than a contract for behavior between consenting adults. There should be no restrictions placed on people getting married, as long as they are adults and capable of informed consent. That includes restrictions based on sexual preference and number of partners in the marriage.

Answer 5

No.

If so, one would have to allow any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult. Brothers would be able to marry their own sister or brother. Parents would have to be allowed to marry their adult offspring. Men and women would have to be allowed to marry multiple spouses.

One cannot simply make an exception for one group and exclude others. Some Mormons have been seeking the right to fully practice their religion of multiple spouses for decades. Where were all of these marriage rights activists when Mormons needed them? Why aren't the gay marriage activists accusing the government of discriminating against Mormons' freedom of religion?

edit: If Methodist and Presbyterian Churches decide to break the law, how does this somehow make Gay marriage OK? Even their bible states that Christians are to obey the laws of their government. Thus these churches sound like the ones described in the first chapter of Revelations.

Answer 6

Nope. The interesting this is that those who advocate for gay marriage get mad if you say that polygamy or some other nontraditional union could and should be legalized as well. What, they arent equal and deserving of protection too?
A man and a woman CAN procreate and that is the purpose of marriage, to have and raise children together in the best environment (mother and father). Yes a lot of people have decimated marriage but why undermine it more rather than try to fix it?

Interestingly, a heck of a lot of homosexual (probably a majority) dont even care about this issue at all it is just a small group of liberal activists.

Answer 7

I have no religious standpoint on this discussion, but I definitely don't think the government should be able to ban gay marriage. I don't personally believe in gay marriage, but I DO believe in equal rights to everyone, barring none. In response to other answers provided, I think any adult should be able to marry any other adult, even if I don't believe in it. And responding to another one, don't try and attack gay marriage based on stereotype. Just because a couple of gays got freaky in the street doesn't mean they'll all do it. Regardless, it should be viewed the same way straight. I still think marriage should be between a man and a woman, but if you saw them in the street banging, how would you feel?
You're an idiot. Try making good points next time.

Answer 8

Love is love and it is love between consenting adults.

While I personally find homosexual sex unfathomable, and many acts by heterosexuals just as unfathomable, I believe it is their right to be happy and to marry and to have all the rights hetero's have.

What I find very curious is those that say it is against Gods will, or something along those lines. Yet we have separation between church and state. Yet we do not allow homosexual marriage, in part, based on religious tenets. In some cases, it is based on what a person personally believes, that it is not natural. That is selfishness. Both reasons are wrong.

Let them marry and get full benefits.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 9

No, not when the people getting married want government handouts, like social security, tax breaks and free health care. These programs were designed by the models that showed where the population was headed with heterosexual marriages, they did not include homosexual marriages. They are going broke now, you add the homosexuals that want these same programs and all of them would fail, or you would need to tax people that oppose that behavior in the first place. They can live together, they can get married, but the Government does not have to recognize it. Has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with money and funding.

Answer 10

I know this question was posed by someone with an obvious gay bias...and agenda...
My question to you would be.. where do we draw the line?
Can I marry my couch? My dog? My sister? a young child? a horse?
Your headed down a slippery slope by insinuating that it is perfectly natural for people of the same sex to marry... and for us as a society in whole to accept that as normal...
Going against marriage laws created not by our country but by civilization every since the beggining of time because it fits into your politically correct "Pro-Gay" agenda... and calling anyone who opposes that agenda "Close-Minded, bigotted, redneck, homophobic...etc"....
is just as oppresive as the government or churches opposing gay marriage.
Ironic... isnt it?