It's just another excuse to hate people, with no real valid reasoning behind it, IMO. I don't even believe in marriage anyway - about 20k upward for some person to ask you a few questions about the wed-to-be and vice versa before giving you permission to kiss the bride to get a silly piece of paper to 'officially certify' that the newly-weds love each other, even (Or whomever) though some people don't marry for love. Arranged marriages for example, or even sham-marriages.
I mean, marry someone to show them you love them? Fine. Have a special day to celebrate joining with your partner and splash out on the planning/event? That is fine too. But I personally don't want or need the approval of some religious traditional event that debatably has no bearing/influence on how the two people last together and has no solid proof of being anything other than one persons idea that spread like wild fire and so many people decided to believe it and teach of it like its Maths. It's no different to kids and the tooth fairy, or Father Christmas in my eyes.
I believe this is because the term "marriage" is originally a religious thing as the couple is married before God. Although gay marriage doesn't bother me one bit, I suppose I can understand how some might find that religiously offensive.
Perhaps we could just change the name of gay marriage, yet offer the same rights as any other marriage?
Marriage is a legal institution. God and religious issues really have nothing to do with the federal and state courts of law.
As for changing the name...no. There are "civil unions" available, but that, frankly, is offensive. Why shouldn't gay people have all the rights of heterosexual people, including the right to call their union a marriage? I saw a protest sign reading "I didn't ask her to civil union me" and I think that sums it up quite nicely.
There's some law that prevents us from doing that. Specifically the separate but equal clause made to end segregation. Just like you couldn't have a black fountain and a white fountain, you can't have gay marriage and straight marriage be two separate but equal things. Now you could get rid of the word marriage all together and call them all civil unions as they have in other countries. But I think that's unnecessary for two reasons. We already have civil unions which are something else entirely and there are both religions and non religious institutions that preform marriage, who want to preform gay marriages, and can't just because others don't like it. And that shouldn't be others call.
There are lots of people who see "marriage" as a religious term rather than a secular one. As such, they would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. If you take this point of view a union between two women doesn't make sense.
Amusingly, a lot of the people who take this view of "marriage" a perfectly fine with homosexual people having "civil unions" or something else that gives them the same or very similar rights with a different label.
A lot of people who take this view see marriage as institution created for the raising of children. While this is not historically accurate or universally agreed, it's not an absurd viewpoint either. At this point the debate shifts to whether homosexual or bisexual people would be fit parents. If you see homosexuality as immoral... well, at that point you'd have to take offense as a homosexual couple raising a child would result in the child being exposed to undesirable behavior.
If you reduce marriage down to what it really means in legal terms, tax benefits, regulating inheritance etc you'll find the number of people against "gay marriage" is suddenly a lot lower.
Huge part of this debate seems to be people not getting the separation of church and state into their head.
note: this is not my personal view. Just trying to explain.
1. They listen to this crappy old book written hundreds of years ago, translated countless times and blindly follow everything it says. It tells these people that 'a man cannot lay with another man' or something.
2. They may be repressing homosexual desires themselves. I learnt about it in psychology class: [link].
obviously, if you are homophobic, you would be against same sex marriages, so thta is a few reasons
2. It seems to ignore observations that shows that arousal is not always a indication of one's sexuality and it also ignores how emotions can alter one physiological erectile state. In many studies regarding arousal and sexual orientation, there are evidences of some degree of discordance with arousal patterns and yes even there is evidence that there is some degree of it in males.
So first of all the bible condems it but then again so much priests these days harras children so they should kinda shut the F up. Others just don't understand why they whould wanna. Some more others are just homophobic. And then the people like me that don't care and say let them do what they wanna we don't judge you for doing the things you wanna do.
gay marriage is homophobic, as you are pressing hetrosexual values upon them. "Oh a civil ceremony isnt enough, the only way to be properly married is in a church like a natural heterosexual couple" whats wrong with a civil ceremony anyway? Would gays prefer to get married under the house of god where it clearly states that they are unnatural? yeah nah, not good at all.
You're confusing roles within the relationship with roles in society here. If a partner is dominant/ submissive/ butch/ femme/ girly or whatever else that doesn't describe what the social function of the relationship is.
The opinions of bystanders, do not affect this function either. A marriage between a black and a white person is perceived differently in many countries than one between two people of the same skintone. This does not change the function.
One can define the social function in many ways: to raise children, to afford people with stability in their life, to lower the cost of living (as married people usually share accommodation), companionship, tax benefits, certain rights of inheritance.
All of these functions can as easily be attributed to gay relationships as they can to heterosexual ones.
You're argument is easily reversible too. Say we did create an institution that was equal to marriage in all but name. It looks like a marriage, smells like a marriage, for all purposes is a marriage: how exactly is calling it something different not discrimination at that point?
Now, I personally agree with you on not wanting to have anything to do with traditional gender roles and the values that some people attach to the word marriage, but that feels like a completely different debate to me.
If not being able to have a baby is the only grounds necessary to be against homosexual marriage, then one must also be against infertility, perhaps even against the decision a heterosexual couple may have to not have children though they are able.
Hey, I don't find it "normal" (our bodies are made in such a way that males match with females) but I support gay marriage. Everyone should be free to do what they like. That's liberty. It's not about what I think, it's about what YOU think.
And on another note I personally don't see the point in marriage at all. If people wanna do it though, it's their business.
I don't get it either. People like to bitch and complain and feel entitled though. What better way to do that than to deny Rights to a certain group of people and then create false arguments as to why you are right?
Hi! c: Prove It hard to say that was a 'prove' because many people still debate about it. It don't mean saying homosexual was 'right' or 'wrong', because I don't have right for saying that. Or saying 'bible are fake' I'm not atheist, I believe in GOD :] I have a gay friend and he is being discriminated by many of my male friends, and I feel so bad for him that he can just be 'Himself' I just want people to become more accept for different people. It same case about racist, even though science prove it that we all came from 1 ancestor and that is African.
Actually, as the Buddhists in Hawaii had to remind the morman church when they fought the proposed same-sex marriage laws there on behalf of "all religions", not all religions have a problem with same-sex weddings. There are plenty of religious groups that are fine with it, including many of the more progressive christian churches.