On what grounds do you deny same-sex marriage?
-Traditionally its always been a man and a woman?
-For religious reasons?
-Other?
Answers:
The only "valid" reasons are religious -- and while that's perfectly acceptable as far as their religious involvement in such activity, it's not valid grounds for secular laws.
There are no valid non-religious grounds to discriminate in granting legal benefits to two adults purely based on their gender. There is no slippery slope, because all current laws are based on two adults and are already gender neutral (except for who can be in the union) -- so changing the entry requirements doesn't require changing anything else, but making it anything other than two adult humans requires massive rewrites.
Since opposite-sex couples can get married even if they never have sex and never produce children, those arguments are irrational as grounds for deny legal benefits.
And no, traditionally it has NOT always been a man and a woman -- only in Judeo-Christian traditions has that been the case. In many other religions, tradition has allowed it.
And there are examples of same-sex (female) marriages in the Old Testament. See the story of the Covenant between Ruth and Naomi for just one such example.
So, when you're talking about religious marriage, that's up to each religion. But when you're talking about legal benefits of state-sanctioned monogamy, there are no valid secular grounds and religious grounds based on one particular set of religions are improper.
i'm against state-sanctioned marriage in the first place.
on the definition of the word...i could care less if people want to get same legal rights as married people...but stop changing the definitions of words every time you feel like it...a man and woman marriage...gay marriage civil unions with same rights as marriage...
I don't deny same-sex marriage. In fact, I think there should be both marriage and "civil unions" available to couples whether they're heterosexual lovers, homosexual lovers, or just good, platonic friends who want to give each other legal say over elements in their lives.
As for tradition, read your old testament. Bigamy used to be both traditional and legally/divinely sanctioned, and that changed. We're talking about legalities, as far as I'm concerned, not religion.
GOD created ADAMand EVE...not Adam and Joe..or Eve and Mary!
Whats the purpose of getting married?
Its love..not sex!
Sex is not a game to entertain yourself, it for procreation.
If you don't plan to procreate, then Rosy and her 5 sisters does just fine!
GOD is watching (not Santa Claus).
other reasons: I believe in the rights guaranteed in our Constitution. Special, separate rights should not be conferred on a person simply because of his or her sexual orientation or gender. Ultimately, granting separate rights to certain groups of people erodes one of our nation's core precepts, that all individuals are equal under the law.
while watching a program on "women of polygamy", one woman stated that as soon as homosexual were granted their rights to marriage, this would allow them to sue for their legal rights for their views of what constitutes 'marriage' to be sanctioned by society. it is a slipper slope when laws of the majority are changed to accommodate a small sector of society.
i am not opposed to civil unions.
For religious reasons, and because it's perverted, it shouldn't be accepted by society.
They can get civil unions, but marriage is one man, one woman.
I choose to believe what the Bible says about it.
Religious reasons only. I have no problem with a civil union for insurance, etc. purposes, but there is that bit in the bible about not lying with a man as you would with a woman.
It is wrong because it undermines what marriage truly is as ordained by the loving God who instituted it. It is unhealthy for a society to embrace homosexuality period, let alone elevating it and sanctioning it legally in ANY way. That means NO to -what is essentially giving them marriage rights- civil unions.
Has it ever occurred to them that say "live and let live" to homosexual behavior is helping people hurt themselves. Higher instances of suicide, domestic abuse, drug abuse, risky behavior, depression, venereal diseases are associated with the lifestyle. On average they die younger than the general population, both men and women. These people are suffering from a form of sexual addiction as is the pedophile, the porn addict, etc. You should really take a hard look at this before you defend their "right" to their perversion. Liberal support of homosexuality is killing the homosexual.
edit: Please do not fall for the "civil union" trick. They are playing a game of semantics. If their "civil union" gives them the same rights as your marriage, then guess what, it's marriage. Or as Obama alluded to, everyone will have a "civil union" and the churches will be responsible for some of them being ascribed the title "marriage".
Plain English: Their "civil union" will become your marriage, or else your "marriage" will become their civil union. Don't be fooled.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: