If you take away all the religious/moral reasons, what other factors make same sex marriages so controversial?
by 
Bob Jones
ANSWERS: 10
-
.
-
There is absolutley NOTHING wrong with people who love each other regardless of legal+ age, nationality, race, or gender. Marriage is something that everyone should value as a union of people who really love and care about each other and divorce should be regarded as extremely evil except in the case of abuse(throw the bad person in jail) and unfaithfulness; Even then the people should try to work things out. There is not a thing wrong with bieng gay. It isn't a choice, there is actually a half-gene difference between those who are and those who aren't. Just because you aren't gay doesn't give you the right to discriminate against those who are. It isn't for you to decide what is right for someone else; quit judging people just because they are different! life is full of other people we are all different. Whatever diety put us here has made us that way. No person should be kept from marrying whom they fall in love with as long as they are old enough, 18 preferably, to understand the rammifications and commitments associated with marriage. I even believe in marrying more than one person.
-
There is a large body of evidence that traditional marriage is good for society. Statistical analyses repeatedly demonstrate that people in stable, traditional marriages live healthier lives, have better jobs, better educated and more stable children and provide a long list of other benefits to society (compared to people not in traditional marriages). The only reason for government to recognize marriages at all is because of the clear benefit to the state and the civilization in promoting the institution. There is no comparable body of evidence for other kinds of relationships. If two (or more) best friends, brothers, sisters, people... share a home and living expenses, the demonstrated benefit to society and government is just not the same regardless of how much they might like, love, take care of, gratify and/or lust after each other. Note that there are invariably exceptions. Some traditional marriages are grossly dysfunctional and some lifelong friendships between un-married people are profoundly beneficial to society. The question is: what should the government promote and recognize and on what criteria?
-
How these same sex marriages are to be recognized and treated by both state and federal government institutions. Much of this debate on the government's side is politcal: if a state (or states) recognize gay marriage, is the Fed forced to also? Does this mean that the tax benefits for straight married couples apply to married gays, too? Very hot debate because this affects tax revenues. This filters down, also. Do institutions such as insurance companies and health care companies then have to treat married straights and gays the same? Just as importantly, what about private business. Do private companies have to offer identical benefits? What about leave/absence for child adoption for married gays? Another very large part of this debate (other than the religious/moral aspects) is about money. Economically treating married gays the same as married straights would have a cost affect on state and the federal governments, as well as private businesses. Simply re-writing and amending laws and policies is a complicated task.
-
nothing! religious and moral shouldn't be issues either. I think its pretty ironic and a little crappy that the catholic church doesn't support gay rights, but each year they collect millions of dollars from tourists who flock to rome to see the sistine chapel which was painted by a gay man assigned by the pope. and what do moral issues have anything to do with it. is it morally wrong to see two people happily together in love? what should be considered morally wrong is discrimination against gays and depriving them of thier rights.
-
I have actually heard some rather well-thought, secular arguments against homosexual marriage. One is that the benefits awarded to married couples under law costs the government (such as tax credits, no inheritance tax, etc). The government has a valid, vested interest in maintaining the population, so gives these breaks to encourage procreation. Since homosexual couples cannot biologically procreate with each other, the government doesn't have the same legitimate interest in encouraging these relationships. I reject this argument; however, I have heard it.
-
The controversy is in the heads of those who are confused about their own sexuality. No really it is.
-
Fear. People are afraid of people who are different, people are afraid of the unknown. Often I hear people say "I'm not homophobic, because phobia means fear, and I'm not afraid of gays, I'm just against their agenda!" So I ask- why are you against their "agenda"? And they reply- because it will cause the downfall of marriage and the end of civilization! THAT'S FEAR. Thinking that letting Bob and Dave down the street sign a legal document will cause the collapse of the empire is an extreme irrational fear.
-
If you didn't have religion or God in marriage, you wouldn't have marriage. -In the Master's service. Thank you and God bless you!
-
yeah thats true if you got rid of all the other b.s there would be only one other reason ... what happens if same sex couples over take the heto couples in marriages ..would the human gene pool and birth rate( no artificial assisted ..eg ivf) start to decline and and if this trend continues ..the human race as we know it will become extinct? ..or will the human race owe its existance to us!..the bisexuals of the world to keep up the birth rate and gene pool? ...to have to carry both the hetro's and the gay/lesbian on our backs ....its a burdon..but someone has to do it... p.s. any one with one ounce of logic and common sense know's there is nothing wrong with same sex marriages at all..
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC