And yes, I’m asking this of people in the R&:S section in order to be enlightened to any reasons for objection which are separate from their religious perspective.
And yes, this applies only to those who actually oppose same sex marriage. Those of you who support it or have no opinion on the matter can feel free to respond, of course, but this question isn’t actually directed at you.
There isn’t anything logical about it
Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.
Promiscuity is common – contrary to what the Gay rights activists would have us beleive
It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians.
Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.
These statistics conclusively agree that the gay lifestyle is about lust and confusion.
And I haven’t even touched on the health risks.
To argue that all of the above information could equally apply to the straight community is illogical.
I’m mostly opposed to gay marriage because it is such a trivial issue that is being inflated to create controversy where none is needed. The problem is that you are using the word ":marriage": which is traditionally defined as a heterosexual relationship. Call it something else. The reason I find this issue ridiculous is that homosexuals represent a very tiny minority. I see no reason why their agenda has to be on the forefront of politics except for the fact that it was created to either piss off religious people, or put homosexuals in the spotlight (I’m guessing this is the major reason). The problem with progressives is that they always have to find something to ":progress": on. Where their idea of progress is dismantling all of our previous values and traditions. I understand that this is the US, but since the Civil War the US became more of a centralized nation. Before then it was a essentially a loose conglomeration of States and territories. If people had different lifestyles or religious beliefs that were not like in their locality they relocated to a place that suited them. Hence Utah and the flourishing of Mormonism there. It would be great if homosexuals could establish their own community somewhere where they could frolic in peace and harmony and nobody would bother them, but alas, that dreaded 14th Amendment defeats that possibility. I abhor the fact that the majority of people have to bend over to appease a tiny but very vocal minority group. However this is the United States and democracy is our supposed government. So then if the majority disagrees with something for whatever reason and puts it to law, the minority should learn to live with it instead of endlessly complaining about how their rights are being violated. You see the will of the people should be respected. If some judge decides to overrule the will of the majority on the grounds that it is ":unconstitutional": then we don’t really have a functioning democracy, but a judicial dictatorship. In my opinion, these divisive issues will just lead to more social problems. If enough people are displeased, the Union could be threatened again. I see secession of several States as a distinct possibility in the future.
Just to clear up some things:
1. Homosexuality has been around since ancient Greece. It is not a recent developement.
2. Marriage is not Christian, it has been around since ancient Sumeria.
3. Homosexuality does not destroy nations and marriage has not always been between a man and a woman, Ancient Greece legalized homosexuality, and their civilization brought us Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Hippocrates, and many other geniuses. The Greek culture flourished for hundreds of years, and was te cradle of democracy and the birthplace of western civilization as we know it.
4. The inability to have children argument woud mean that post-menopausal women and sterile people shouldn’t be able to marry either…
5. Homosexuality is natural, many animals do it.
6. And that one twisted idea about evolution: homosexuality simply changes an organism’s fitness to 0, effectively removing it from the gene pool. This means that homosexuality is a neutral trait, not malevolent…
7. The claim that homosexuality is based on lust is pretty ridiculous. I ask you all this: would you still love your wife/husband if their soul and mind were in a body that was the same sex as yours? If the answer is no, then your heterosexual relationship is based on a physical attraction, and is lustful…
8. Causes male cancer and diseases: WTF? … Not true…
9. Homosexuals are the product of abusive families: Again, not true…
I believe that there are a lot of people who dislike gay people on a SEPERATE idealogy from religion. It is because MANY of those people have never met a majority of the homosexual community. Coming from a person who has met MANY gay people they are not any different then us with the exception of one thing. They cannot naturually make babies. Is that a terrible thing? no. why not? because there are so many adoption agencies that would kill if a straight couple wanted to adopt a baby. What does a child need. Love, care, guidance… many people say gays should not adopt because they will give terrible guidance. A gay couple i know has had a child for 14 years now. They DO NOT push homosexuality on the child.
once again people just dont understand
I support same sex marriage. However, I do have one concern – and that is the issue of children not having both a male and female parent-figure. I’m not sure we have enough research to indicate how healthy or unhealthy it is for children to not have both role models. Of course, this also applies to single-parent homes, and even moreso to them, because at least in the same-sex marriage, you have 2 parents.
Personally – I do not believe it is natural. I do not believe it is caused by some gene mutation. I believe it is more society caused then anything. It is not even supported by evolution – proponents say that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, why wouldn’t it have stopped if evolution was true? It is a mutation that does not benefit the furthering of the species.
I really don’t want to hear about people’s sex lives, regardless of their love interests. But I keep having homosexuality thrust in my face everywhere I turned. Honestly, if people kept quite and just lived their lives there would be a lot less strife and opposition.
In fact when I was in Catholic school, there was a lesiban couple that sent their daughter through. They remained quiet about their life style and their daughter was educated all the way through the school. Not everyone is hateful and closeminded as we are lead to believe.
I object on political grounds that homosexuals are trying to ride the coattails of the Civil Rights Act by declaring that they are a ":minority":. Any other time, though, they claim to make-up 20% of American population. They’re a minority when it suits them, and not a minority when it comes to their claims that since a large section of the population alledgedly supports their lifestyle, they have majority opinion to justify special interpretation of the Constitution by the court system. These backdoor (no pun intended) strategies to posture for legal remedy of their so-called ":plight": under the guise of Civil Rights Act violations should be a loud and clear warning bell to any MC with a thinking brain.
What non-religious grounds are there for ":marriage": in the first place?
Seriously, why get married?
Two people can live together, can choose to commit to a lifetime together, can enjoy the tax deductions of joint filing, can have kids or not, etc. etc.
That’s all a civil union. Why get married?
The only basis of the whole concept of marriage is a verse in the Bible — ":Therefore shall man leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife and they shall be as one flesh.": It’s the only good argument for ":marriage": per se, as opposed to just people hanging out and doing whatever they want to be doing.
And if the insttution of marriage is inherently a religious one in the first place, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the context and definiteion of said marriage would come from that same religious source?
Non-religious grounds for banning same-sex marriage? Are there any that aren’t influenced by religious muck? Does anyone really believe that 1 million gay families are polluting the freedom of heterosexual families to screw up as they want?
Or are they just grossed out by the idea of homosexuals having relationships? On that logic government might ban elderly folks from marrying, because most people find that gross, as well.
If opposition to same-sex marriage was really about procreation or what feels ":natural": to heterosexuals (seeing as homosexuality is equally intrinsic), they we’d also ban the marriages of infertile men and women, cross dressers, and those who engage in any strange sexual behavior with their partner. I don’t see those bans as likely to succeed, do you?
Here’s my view:
Personally, I’d prefer all marriages as a social contract outside of government. That way every individual could define what they believe is a marriage (including poly-amorous unions) and the government couldn’t stick it’s hands in unnecessarily gooey issues like divorce or child custody. People could determine these issues through contract beforehand.
I think marriage would be saner this way.
But seeing as that’s not going to happen, I support state recognition of same-sex marriages because I oppose the religious bigotry professed by those who want it banned.
Plus the inability of gays to marry is a hindrance to equal treatment (kids, adoption, taxation, medical emergencies, etc).
Again, it comes down to past bigotry.
All religious arguments fall to pieces aside from emotional and logical fallacies.
To the later poster: It’s not natural because they don’t ":fit": together? Are you kidding? Have you ever read Biological Exuberance or studied the hundreds of mammalian species known to engage in homosexual behavior?
It is against nature. Coming together of two different persons of opposite sex is called marriage in which one fulfils with the help of the other. Marriage helps in mutual fulfilment.