Why Oppose Gay Marriage?

Pre-College Issues High School Life
1

<p>I've begun to take some interest in the whole gay marriage debate and whether it should be allowed or not. Personally, I am for it. But most people that oppose it say that either the Bible/God forbids gay marriage, or that it just feels wrong. </p>

<p>Now, I want to hear some opinions. If you are opposed to same sex marriage, why are you? Give your reasoning. I am not doing this to judge others, but simply to understand the arguments of the opposing side. And if your reason is either of the two mentioned above, then please don't bother posting, as I find those reasons absolutely irrational/ignorant. I'm not lashing out at religious/traditional people, but lets just keep religion and the like out of the discussion to keep it a bit more tame. I'd like to hear more reasonable arguments. =)</p>

2

<p>coz gay mareij is gay</p>

3

<p>Not to be mean to anyone, but i dont really see anything wrong with two dudes getting married if thats their thing, but… what if there were two gay dudes that wanted to adopt kids? What would you say in public, "Hi, i’d like you to meet my dads. Dad1 and Dad2. Ummmm. I dont think that would work out. And you know they would try to do things like that.</p>

4

<p>Not that I at all agree with this, but this was the Republican platform last November to repeal Maine’s gay rights bill, and it was successful:</p>

<ol>
<li> Teachers will teach children to be gay</li>
<li> Gay marriage will tarnish “real” marriage</li>
<li> Children can only be properly raised in a traditional household</li>
</ol>

5

<p>^smh, smh SMH.</p>

<p>I knew politics was screwed up, but really? Good lord.</p>

6

<p>Well, I’m divided in my mind on this issue. Persolnally, I believe homosexual relations to be perverted and wrong, but I also believe that the government should keep its hands off of these kind of things. After all, there are a lot of people out their who would like to outlaw my beliefs, and I don’t want to give them any foothold.</p>

<p>Trying to be as impartial as possible:</p>

<p>What is marriage? As traditionally understood:</p>

<p>Marriage is a social institution which pairs a man with a women. The married partners pool their resources to support their common household, have sexual relations exclusively with each other, and take responsibility for raising any children produced by their union.</p>

<p>Marriage is useful because:</p>

<p>1) It allows two individuals to indentify themselves as one household, which affects many legal matters.</p>

<p>2) It prevents the spread of STDs.</p>

<p>3) It ensures (in theory) that all children are born into a stable enviroment that is able to care for them.</p>

<p>4) It serves a sacred role in many religions.</p>

<p>In theory, there’s no reason why homosexual unions wouldn’t benefit from the first two points. The third point is irrelevant in a union that can’t produce children, and the fourth is only an issue because the government has been allowed to co-opt the religious institution of marriage.</p>

<p>I tend to think the legal “union” should be broken off of the religious “marriage”, as it already has, to some extent. By the understanding of my religion, marriage is only between one man and one woman, but I don’t really see much reason why two men or two women shouldn’t be able to establish a permanent legal union between themselves such that they could be treated as one entity for tax and other such purposes.</p>

7

<p>@kollegekid1
I know several kids who are the children of two moms or two dads. They’re fine. People, especially today with so many divorces, remarriages, or deaths (okay, that one isn’t specific to today), have complicated families. The people I know talk about their parents in the same way anyone else would. It’s pretty normal.</p>

8

<p>Because they’re bigots…</p>

9

<p>I appreciate a civil discussion on this issue.
If marriage is a social institution, then it would seem that society defines what will constitute marriage. Which in turn means we as a society must come to terms with a shift in what term should apply to those couples who are of the same sex and seek the opportunity to marry. For the fact is we are holding public discussions on this topic, which means a shift is occurring.
If marriage is a religious institution, then the religious body would choose what constitutes a marriage.
With the question of children being born into a family, and therefore a stable environment. The latter does not always go hand in hand with being born into a family. Every child has a Mother and a Father. Not every Mother and Father wish to be a part of that child’s life. Now-as a society-do we believe that child should be in an orphanage (if neither parent wish to be involved in the child’s life)?, or do we believe the child deserves to be in a family that cares for them. Ah…then the question becomes-what constitutes a family???
Is it limited to only the original Mother and Father? Or can it be the Mother with a different Father? Or can it be the Father with a different Mother? Or can it be the Mother with a different Mother? or can it be the Father with a different Father?
IF we work from the premise that LOVE should dictate the definition of a family, then everyone is included. As LOVE is unconditional, right?</p>

10

<p>Generally-speaking (emphasis on the generally), people who oppose gay marriage value tradition. If it’s not what’s been going on and accepted for the last x number of centuries in their particular culture, it’s bizarre and backwards.</p>

<p>It’s gay marriage today, but, once that becomes commonplace, it’ll be something else tomorrow that everyone is debating and yammering about.</p>

11

<p>I don’t even see how this is a debate, to be honest. America was founded on equality for all, correct? How is it equal to disallow marriage to those who want it? How is it American to say that two people cannot be married because they are of the same gender? </p>

<p>Someone brought up gay adoption. What’s the difference between a child who has two loving fathers and a child in an orphanage? Oh. The one with the fathers is happy, loved, and well taken care of. Who wouldn’t choose two fathers over misery in an orphanage? What about this senario: a child with two fathers happily in love and a child with a mother and a father who constantly fight? Which child is happier?</p>

<p>On the note of tradition, as society changes, we must change. In the past, the woman of the household would stay home and be a housemother, the female children would stay home and learn from the mother, the male children would go off to school, and the father would work. I don’t exactly see similarities with that in society today. :wink: And as more and more people come out, the presence of gay people will be more and more prominent. Did you know that ten percent of America is said to be gay?</p>

<p>Oh, and those people who say that the bible opposes gay people: The bible also states that we are all God’s creations, correct? So don’t you think that there’s a reason why people are gay and that God made it that way? ;)</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>This is true. There are a vast number of failures in the modern concept of “family”, and same-sex parents are only one of them, IMHO.</p>

<p>The question then is to what degree should the government be involved in fixing these failures.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If homosexuality is indeed an inborn trait, rather than a choice, then God must have reasons for allowing it to continue. However there are two other possibilities:</p>

<p>1: Homosexuality is a choice. If this is true, then it exists because God allows humans free will, which includes the freedom to chose wrongly.</p>

<p>2: Homosexuality is not inborn, but results from the conditions of a person’s upbringing. In this case, because God allows free will, the poor choices of one person can lead to negative effects in the lives of others.</p>

<p>As best as I can tell, homosexuality is caused by a combination of all three of these causes: inborn traits, upbringing, and personal choice all play a role.</p>

<p>But regardless of any of these things, the Bible never condemns anyone for what they are. Only for what they choose to do. And all people have the choice to abstain from homosexual acts, just as all people have the choice to abstain from heterosexual acts.</p>

<p>That’s my take on the Bible and homosexuality.</p>

13

<p>Isn’t marriage generally praised, especially in Protestantism, as a sort of duty to society?</p>

14

<p>It’s natural and they should have the right, whether through marriage, or through a civil union through government (so to not offend religions). </p>

<p>However, I will say that I <em>hate</em> the stigma over the word “gay” and I will not stand for this:

</p>

<p>I want homosexuality to be seen as something unfortunate in this world but treated fairly, not as an alternate rout that anyone can take, or anyone other than homosexuals should embrace. I do not want my kids to grow up thinking “I can marry a man or women” but rather “homosexuals can marry their own gender” simply because it is fair. </p>

<p>My 2 cents…</p>

15

<p>^Because if you believe it’s a right, then you shouldn’t have to compromise it because this is America. Separate but equal is a no go…Brown v. Board, anyone? I agree that something is better than nothing, but I don’t think it’s extreme to demand full equality.</p>

<p>@Mosby
Why do you think choice is involved?</p>

16

<p>Homosexuality is caused by changes in the brain due to abnormal prenatal conditions. Except for lesbians…every girl has some level of attraction toward other women. That, my friends, is why God is great.</p>

17

<p>I agree with NervusBreakdown. Gay people already have civil unions, why not just expand the legal and economic rights associated with them? Marriage, to many people, is and always will be between a man and a woman.</p>

18

<p>@NervousBreakdown, if name doesn’t mean anything, why NOT call it marriage? Calling it something different is, well, regarding it as something different. Kinda like that whole separate but equal thing, it’s inherently wrong. And you’d still technically be denying them what they want which is marriage - rights, legalities, title, and all.</p>

19

<p>Because it’s just not how it’s meant to be.</p>

<p>I mean, God made the world so that Man+Woman=Baby, whereas Man+Man=?? AIDS???</p>

<p>Those who say it’s a choice should also realise that child rape is a choice, as is sodomy etc, but these are outlawed. Next thing you know human-animal sex and even marriage will be legalised.</p>

<p>So there.</p>

20

<p>^ Uhm, a man can give a woman aids just as easily as he can give it to another man.
And human-animal sex should be legal as long as the animal is consenting…</p>