same-sex marriage question?

Question

What would 2 reasons be for ALLOWING same-sex marriages to be legal and sacramental? This is for a religious ethics class. I need pro's. Thank you. No bashing homosexuality as an abomination or anything of that sort because it isn't.

Answer 1

=) eeeep. i did a paper on this too.

Laws are supposed to be made to protect and better society; outlawing same sex marriage on the biased opinion that it is immoral and wrong does neither of these things.

1) The bible is out dated. Hundreds of years ago it wasn't being intimate with someone of the same sex that was viewed as sin....it was the actions they had to take in intercourse...one of the men had to act as a woman (and being a woman was a veerrrry low position back then).
I mean come on? eating fish was a sin. The bible should never be used to argue that its immoral or sin full.

2) Some children are born with undeveloped genitals...doctors almost always go with making these children into girls because its easier. If they felt like they should be with someone of the same sex why should it be outlawed even though their sex was decided after birth?

hope it helps<3

Answer 2

There are no "Pro's" for your suggestion.

While it is morally wrong to deny a gay couple the benefits and privileges that married couples have when they are a man and a woman, it is equally wrong to try to force a religion to accept that which it feels is wrong based on it's teachings.

Whether you agree of dis-agree with the teachings of a religion, you do not have the right, both for moral reasons and legal reasons to try to force that religion to sanction a homosexual couples joining as a sacrament.

The correct thing to do ethically and under US law would be to create the Civil Union. This could be defined as the legal coupling of two adult individuals of any sex, for the purpose of forming a family unit. It would be a sanctioning of the Civil Government, like being 'married' by the Justice of the Peace. The couple, once joined, could enjoy all the rights and benefits that are currently accorded to male/female unions, be they civil or religious.

The word 'marriage' could be reserved for the description of the result of the sacramental joining of a man and a woman as proscribed by a religion, and sanctioned and recognized by the State.

At the same time, the religious community needs to ask what Jesus would do and stop getting so hung up on the word marriage. IF your faith is so shaky that having two women say they are married, or having two men say they are married, would cause you to loose your way with GOD; then you have a whole lot bigger problem than a gay couple wanting to be together.

Answer 3

The first thing that must be said is that religion does not neccesarily equate to ethics. You can be a religious person or practice religions yet be an unethical person. Even religion itself doesn't have to be ethical. Religion means different things to different people therefore it takes many form. Some ethical and some not. Further more it is not a requirement to have religion to discuss ethics. However, it is usually religious role to deal with ethics.

The second thing is to separate legal from sacramental. A legality of something does not have anything to do with spirituality or the sacrament or the church. At least not in the U.S. This is a good thing because if it was then we would never agree on anything. All things we do would be both legal and illegal based on whos church you ask. Further more, it allows all religions to practice their belief and doctrines. If the law was solely based on religion then only one religion would be the one to make the rules while all the other ones would just have to put up with it. In the end it will be a crusade where the religion in power dictates what is the law and how you should practice your belief and if you disagree then is jail time or death. By this argument then the legality of gay marriage has nothing to do with the sacrament. The law doesn't have to be right, you don't have to agree with it. It doesn't even have to be fair It is the law and thats it. So, if the church or a church disagrees with gay marriage then that is their prerogative. However, it should have nothing to do with the law. In the end the gay people could just make up a new church like the other thousands of churches with their doctrines, beliefs and interpretation of the bible.

What I'm saying here is what the church says its really not important because in the long run it is a mute point. 10% of the population will be gay regardless because thats just the way it is. If that 10% makes their own church then they will be accepted. At least by that particular church. Then it would not be any different than any other church because most churches disagree with one another anyways. That is why there are so many different denominations. Because of disagreements on X or Y things. You can take a Baptist church with all its doctrines and doctrine styles, separate from it, call it the gay baptist church and a new religion is born. Same s hit different name, just add gay acceptance. Any argument against it would also be mute because none religion can prove they have the correct path. If they did then only that religion would exist yet there are many religions each with many denominations. The fact that a gay church would exist would not make it less valid or more valid than any other church.

Now to the legal matter. Like I said before, what the church belief should be different from what the law says. Again this separation allows for freedom of religion. So, if they allow gay people to marry then this does not forces any churches to accept it. A church is pretty much a private club. You can join but you can get booted out too. You do not have to accept anybody into your church. Well, maybe there is some law somewhere that imposes some rules in order for a church to maintain its tax exempt status. I really don't know.

There is only one reason a person would like to make a certain type of marriage legal. This is so that when bad things happen like if the marriage ends for whatever reason or if there is a death or other event, the party involve gets certain protections under the law. For example, the right to property and the laws that define it. If you think about it marriage is really a mental state. It doesn't matter if the law aproves or the church aprove or if Joe Schmoe from the conner store approves because you had made a vow to another person and you live by those vows. The lagality of it is to make it more official. The sad truth is that many people break their vows and yes this includes all religions and even ministers and even people in high positions. Some people stick to their word others don't. If a person wanted to cheat on you then you are S.O.L. they will and thats the end of it. No religion or law is going to stop them. Even the treat of death would not stop them as you have heard of people being stoned to death for adultery. Plus what would you prefer. Would you prefer that someone sticks with you because they love you or because they are under the treat of the law? It is very sad to be in that situation where your other half is just there because he/she can't find a way out.

Now that I said that then there is no real reason why not give gay folks the right to marriage at least under the law. I truly believe that they should for various reasons. One, it will put everybody on the same level. That is everybody gets the benefit of being married but also the penalties of it. That is if you commit adultery, abuse your spouse, decide to get divorce etc etc. Another reason is to control the spread of diseases. For the most part married people are monogamous. If you are married it will give you an incentive to stay loyal. Not that there is anything really there to stop you but it might be a deterant. So, if gay people are married then they will also be monogamous. Now, I'm not saying that gay people spread disease by the fact that they are gay. What I'm saying that people who sleep around spread diseases because that is how diseases work. Married people are less likely to spread VDs because they sleep with only one person. So, you can reduce the spread of aids and other such things by reducing the number of partners and risky behaviour.

Anyways, the legal issue is just to gain some basic rights that married people have. That is all. They can still leave together and do the same thing married people do and really be married in their spirit and heart even if the law does not allows it or the church frown on it. Is just for protection really. Another point is what makes a gay person so different that they should be exempt from certain laws? Nothing really. Both gay and non gays still have to eat, sleep, work, pay their bill. Both love, cry, have faith or don't, they feel fear, they feel all type of emotions. The only difference is that at the end of the day we heterosexual folk go home to our wives whole the gay folks go home to their what ever you call it.

Answer 4

There aren't two reasons for allowing same sex marriages. I can't even think of one. I'm in favor of equal treatment under the law but not in the name of "marriage". Marriage is for one man and one woman. This is just another in an effort to diminish the sanctity of marriage.

Answer 5

Marriage allows the partners legal rights to each other estates if one dies. It also allows them to make decisions for the other if one becomes incapacitated (like in a coma). Another thing is that it allows them to be on each other's health insurance.

Answer 6

1.)Its their f*ing life let them live it
how ever the hell they want.
2.)You have no right to tell anyone how 2 live. If u did, it would be like promoting slavery and control.
3.)You are not god and you can't pass judgement on other people you don't know.

Answer 7

think about the ppl.
1. they r happy together.
2. maybe part of religen.