What is everyones problem with same sex marriage?

26 Responses to What is everyones problem with same sex marriage?

1. curious_mind says:

   January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

   disadvantage–not accepted by others. esp the religious peolple
   because they (and I) believe that God created
   only two types of gender; men and women.
   Advantge— there would be no problem in over population.
2. Richard says:

   January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

   First off any couple can get married. There is many a church that would perform a same sex marriage, So that in the eyes of the church (and God) they are married. The government can not recognize this or any other religious marriage because of the establishment clause. (Yes I know the government licensed many a religious person to perform governmental “marriages” but anyone can get that license and the government can’t discriminate just because the person leads a church.) So really you have two type of marriage one for the church and one for the government.

   What people really want is a governmental “marriage” and they want the benefits that come with a "marriage". (Note I’m uses “” to just to indicate the difference. I know there is this HUGE debate on the “” around the word marriage. So when you see me using “marriage” I’m talking about the governmental recognized “marriage” and not a religious one. I really don’t want to type governmental marriage over and over again.)

   The term “marriage” has been historically defined as a union between a man and a woman. (At least in this country and yes the term marriage has change, but it has always included at least one man and one woman.) The reason for a marriage has been to produce and raise children. That is producing new citizens for the country. Something the government has an interest in. It is also something that two people of the same sex can not do. Now “marriage” has also become a contract between two people. There are benefits that come with that contract; property rights, that ability to bind another person in a contract, to direct medical care for the other person, the right of inherit, just to name a few. Most of which can granted to any person with some legal paper work.

   Businesses also use “marriage” to define benefits they give to specific employees and their spouses. So to change the definition would impact their costs. It could change some legal precedents on marriage; it could also mean the ending of benefits for many a married couple. So it could easily affect a lot of people. Also businesses could easily say they would only recognize a marriage from a particular church or religion, and that would open up a whole new can of worms. Or more likely they could just end the benefit all together, and save the cost of the benefit.

   So yes it can hurt me, it could make my life worse and yes it could affect me.

   Personally I don’t care who you are sleep with or what you are doing to each other. What happens between two people who agree to do something is between them. But, we need to be careful when we play with a legal definition of a word.

   Just my opinion.
3. teyana23 says:

   January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

   I am SO sick of the bible, and religion, being used as an excuse to devalue life, love, and humanity. When are you fundamentalists going to realize that you’re way isn’t necessarily the only way? Instead, you choose to pick apart passages, misinterpret them, and throw the remnants at anyone around that doesn’t fit into your utopian fantasies.

   I’m a heterosexual that FULLY supports gay and lesbian marriage. I don’t believe love can be measured, has a color, or a sexual orientation. To deny them rights as a committed couple, to which everyone else is entitled to, is just as wrong as segregation was.

   I have two very dear friends that have been together for 35 years! How many heterosexual relationships have you seen last as long in the current state of the country? Why shouldn’t he be allowed to have life insurance with his life partner as a beneficiary, whom will give him a proper burial and attempt to carry on without the one he loved the most? I also don’t understand how anyone in their right mind could deny any couple, who could provide financially and emotionally for, a child to adopt. There are so many children lost in the system these days, that need loving homes, but instead are denied a good life based on church being too involved with the state.

   Most of all, I don’t understand how this affects any of us directly. Why must people be concerned with everything else around them, rather than their own lives. Live and let live.
4. lou says:

   January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

   It is the most unnatural thing to do. Even natures says it is morally corrupt and unethical.
5. Erik B says:

   January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

   Like many things, I haven’t heard a good argument to oppose same sex marriage. Politicians call opposition to same sex marriage "protecting marriage." What is there to protect it from? Gays and Lesbians aren’t going to enter a heterosexual marriage just because the some relgious groups think they should. And heterosexuals are going to marry less, because Gays and Lesbians are getting married. Also, heterosexual marriage isn’t going to mean less because Gay and Lesbian marriage exists or flourishes. So what is it?

   I’m no liberal and I am heterosexual and I’m not some sort of gay rights supporter, but I can’t think of a good practical reason unless it is to stamp out gay rights and keep it out of the mainstream. I think that many heterosexuals "feel" homosexuality is wrong. It’s icky or something like that. Perhaps they even feel it is a degenerate lifestyle and shouldn’t be rewarded. They feel it is wrong. They feel it is an attack on heterosexuality and is certainly an attack on old fashioned values and the time they are trying to get back to (when homosexuality, they think, did not exist). Some think that homosexuality is something that can be erradicated if the Gays and Lesbians would just follow the rules or get religion or just be disciplined. But most just feel it is wrong to change the rules regarding marriage. It is a feeling and nothing else.

   The trouble here is that homosexuality is different than being a racial minority. One can’t help one’s skin color. But one’s actions are a different thing. It is what someone does that identifies him or her as a homosexual (but not necessarily what makes him or her one). And most heterosexuals just don’t get it. It’s so foreign, a heterosexual can never, ever understand. A heterosexual will never "feel" what it’s like to be a homosexual. But one can "see" someone’s skin color and more easily understand that it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of color. As such, one can feel it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of color but not on the basis of sexual orientation.
6. 2D says:

   January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

   People shouldn’t impose their personal beliefs on others. Marriage should be and is for consenting adults. Who are we to tell another adult whom he/she can marry. And yes it should be called "marriage" and they should have all the same rights and benefits a hetrosexual marriages whether we agree or like it or not. If you don’t believe in same sex marriage, then don’t marry another person of your sex, but don’t tell another American what he/she can do. I’m a woman married to a man, a same sex marriage affects me in no way, it doesn’t hurt me. And I don’t see any reason why a same sex couple shouldn’t adopt, as long as they’re decent people. Why should there be so many orphans without loving parents because "society" or the "ignorant" think they shouldn’t adopt. There are many, many unfit heterosexual couples and singles that have children or keep having them. If you don’t agree with gays, stay away from them. But keep your nose in your own business and don’t tell them how they should live their lives.
7. Among Others says:

   January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

   Ok, religion says man and woman are here to multiply.
   If you’re not religious, darwin says that the species evolve through the selection of the fittest specimens. I guess that says what kind of specimens are homosexuals huh lol.
   How can it be right? I mean come on, does anyone know a homosexual thats comfortable? Really comfortable with it, no problems in his/her life? And don’t give me bull that society gives them problems. Homosexuals are mentally weak people that chose the easy way out i.e not mingling with the other sex. If they want to be togetther why not let them.
   But letting them enjoy the same privileges as married people (I’m not married yet lol) would be a mistake, because it would encoourage those who are on the brink of not mingling to stay with their "friends", thus augmenting the number of "weak" individuals, and encouraging more people to be "like them".
   And the fact that not all gays (I dont know about lesbians…) aren’t content to stay with people their age, they like young meat. They act like predators, anybody who crosses their road is fair game. And that’s sick.
8. bookworm113 says:

   January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

   I think opposition to same sex marriage is discriminatory, similar to the fight for women’s or African American’s rights. Years from now, when everyone is allowed to marry whom ever they please (because it IS everyone’s right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be able to marry and have a family), these ideas being enforced now will be incredible for their lack of understanding.
   I think people may feel offended because their beliefs state these things should not happen. However, this shouldn’t mean everyone else should have to follow their rules.
   What happened to separation of church and state, anyways?
   There shouldn’t be any problem with same sex marriage.
9. snvffy says:

   January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

   I am against the use of marriage to describe same-sex arrangements. Marriage is defined in the Bible as being between a man and a woman, and this definition has worked well for 2000 years. Therefore, an arrangement other than that of a man and a woman, cannot be marriage. How much easier could it become to denegrate and defile the word marriage than to sanction those man/man, woman/woman arrangements that the Bible describes as "an abomination"?

   My marriage license says "Holy Matrimony".

   The Gay & Lesbians want you to believe they are victims because people don’t want their arrangement to be called marriage. But the fact is, whatever legal rights they want can be done by any competent lawyer.

   It probably doesn’t help their cause either that they continue to march and flaunt their gayness at every opportunity. Most of us just don’t care about using sexual preference to define who we are.
10. bfriedemanns says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    I have no problem with it However the term marriage should not have been used.
    The only reason they got "married" is because tax laws are written, with benefits for "married" couples.

    And that is what they were complaining about – they are together……just like a man and a woman, so why should they not enjoy the same benefits and tax savings.?

    So basically they had to get "married".
11. beach_man_45 says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    I agree with what one other person already wrote. They should call it something other than a marrage. I think they should define marrage as being between people of the opposite sex. I have nothing wrong with two people of the same sex living together but when you call it a marriage, then they can adopt children, get insurance for partners etc. I don’t think that is ok unless we change lots of things. Kids have enough bad role models out there as it is.
12. Zelda says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    The answer is that no it does not hurt or affect me. We have a gay couple in the immediate neighborhood and though I don’t know them, they seem like reasonablly nice people. Also, you can depend on them to keep their property in good condition, so I’m not complaining about them at all.
    The problem seems to be that everyone wants to tell everyone else what to do these days. It’s not just a problem restricted to the question of gay marriage. Just about everyone seems to think they are an expert on about every aspect of everyone else’s life. We are missing out on so much. I am very sad about this.
13. simpli_cute says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    it doesn’t hurt us its just wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    God did not create men and women to date someone of the same sex otherwise you would be able to reproduce. If same sex marriage was ok God would of just created Adam he didn’t need Eve!!!!!
14. millerkjzoo48750 says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Read the Bible. and that was not a political statement.
15. Fletch says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    There is one way. Persoanlly I couldn’t care less what two consenting adults choose to do with each other and I have no problem with two individuals, regardless of sex, making a commitment to one another. I believe that people should be free to do as they wish so long as the rights of others are not infringed upon.

    Nevertheless, the term "marriage" has a specific meaning in English, society and in law. Legal precedent on the meaning of marriage abounds – particularly in insurance law. Changing the definition of marriage would have the impact of forcing third parties – businesses, individuals, insurers, etc. – to accept something that their (Constitutionally protected) religious beliefs may find repugnant.

    If the government chooses to allow "civil unions" and grant them legal recognition that is not binding on anyone else, more power to them.

    But you cannot serve the freedoms of one set of individuals by taking freedoms away from someone else.
16. Words of Wisdom says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    To me it´s not my religion that makes me not like it´s just not natural….
17. Teddy Bear says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    You are defying nature- that’s what is wrong with it. God made males and females of every species intending them to match up and multiply.
18. gamias says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    no
19. John S says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    People think that giving homosexuals the rights that heterosexuals enjoy will ruin heterosexual marriage. They ignore the fact that Denmark, which has allowing gay marriage since 1989, has the highest marriage rate it has had since the 1970′s. Go figure, no apocalypse.
20. annoying_girl13 says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    i really have no problem with a same sex marriage. i also have alot of freinds who are gay. what i think about the whole thing is that people need to stop worrying so much about what goes on in other peoples lives, especially if it doesn’t affect them. if you were gay and wanted to marry someone, you wouldnt want to have to travel to a different country or state just to get married would you?
21. MC Rom says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    For people who are (to put it politely) old-fashioned, it just makes the world a little bit weirder and harder to understand. They are used to applying their moral and religious standards to everyone around them, and are disturbed by the concept of the government sanctioning behavior they see as evil, or just different.
22. G M says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    That’s fine. It should be allowed. It just when gay couples want to start adopting kids. That should not be allowed.
23. Thomas J says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    you know, i don’t really have an issue with it. on the other side of the coin, why can’t it be called something other than ‘marriage’ if it is same-sex? what harm would that do?
24. mullen12121212 says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    i dont think it hurts people. i think people that dont agree with it just want to be stubborn and tell everyone else that they dont agree.
25. xxlboxers says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    People make the huge mistake of mixing religion with politics.
26. charles says:

    January 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    For thousands of years, marriage has been between a man and woman. The golden standard that society strives toward is marriage between and man and woman with a family. Children do best in this environment and so do the parents. Homosexual relationships are not natural and should never be compared to marriage. There are other ways to deal with homosexual relationships such as civil unions. Governments and Companies can choose to give similar benefits as married men and women. When you open marriage to homosexual relationships, you are diluting the value of families and redefining what a family is. There was a recent case that custody was given to two moms and a dad for a child. This redefinition is causing confusion, complexities and unnecessary litigations that are harming families and children. Why do we want to add more challenges to marriage and families than the current societal pressures?

    There is a whole agenda associated with the homosexual movement. At first, the movement was that people should not be concerned about what other people do in their bedrooms. This was palatable by most people and the movement grew. Also, radical homosexuals aggressively protested against the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and were able to get the APA to change their policy that homosexuality was Not a disorder. The homosexual movement continued to push for homosexual marriage being equal to marriage between and man and woman A major obstacle standing between the homosexual movement and attaining full rights as married couples and promoting other homosexual rights are Christians.
    Most Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong because it is clearly stated in the Bible that homosexuality is an immoral behavior. That’s why homosexuals attack Christians and want to lessen or completely eliminate them politically. Its interesting to note that whenever homosexual marriage is voted on state by state, that it always loses. So most people are against homosexual marriage being legalized. However, activist judges have legalized homosexual marriage. Most of the time these ruling are overturned by higher courts. The ACLU is a major contributor to the homosexual movement and activist judges.