If you're against g*y marriages, can I ask you why?

Question

Please don't give your religious beliefs as an answer because we're talking about laws (secularism, remember?)

I can't understand why someone's love life would bother someone else.

Answer 1

To the genius who answered first,

If you put all straight men on an island they too wouldn't last.

Someone's love life bothers others because some people just don't realize they are being busybodies and they should but the h**l out or get a love life of their own.

Answer 2

I am all for civil unions, equal rights, equal protection, etc. etc. for g*y couples.    Just don't call it marriage because it is not.     Never has been.   Marriage= one man, one woman.  It's not that hard.   You can have it, call it anything you want to, but it's not marriage.

But that's just it.   A few people want the definition of marriage changed to include g*y unions.   Most of America does not agree.

Answer 3

Simply because since the dawn of history marriage has been between a man and a woman. To allow two members of the same s*x to marry makes no sense what so ever. A g*y's love life doesn't bother me in the slightest, love who you want just don't presume to have a right to marry.

Answer 4

Because I want polygamy and Democrats won't support it.

If Paris Hilton wants to marry me and 10 other guys, she should be allowed.  Right?

Why will Dems say "grown adults should be free to do what they want" but the same Dems refuse to support polygamy?

Answer 5

Simple

When you have two opposing and diverse cosmic forces such as a man and a woman in which they only them can produce life...is extremely unique and therefore

should be celebrated as unique.

Thats my philosophical answer

(btw...be g*y all you want. I don't dispute g*y people in love with each other. Be g*y all you want. But I think the union between a Man and Woman DESERVE THEIR OWN SPECIAL PLACE)

Answer 6

All the people posting above me are g*y. That's why they're so scared. I personally think these idiots above me should be shot and/or ousted from society. There is no room for their ignorance and hate. I say, good riddance to those n**i's.

Answer 7

Why can't people s***w dogs?  

"I can't understand why someone's love life would bother someone else"

It's called right and wrong.

Answer 8

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because they are closeted themselves.  Also, wouldn't g*y marriages raise property values?  I mean most g**s are well educated, kinda artsy, clean, etc.  They usually own cute little dogs too.  Sounds like a ritzy neighborhood.

Answer 9

The simple reality is that in America we consider taxation without representation wrong.  g**s pay taxes. They have the right to protect their relationships and assets just like everyone else.  It's that simple.  There are records of g*y marriages as far back as ancient Egypt and it likely precedes recorded history.  Just because something is new to you doesn't make it wrong.

Answer 10

It doesn't.  What people do romantically and behind their bedroom doors is their business.  

I'm against g*y marriage because marriage is DEFINED as the union between a man and woman.  g**s want to REDEFINE it.  That's like me saying, hey I want to be a doctor!  And instead of going to medical school and earning a degree, I just force everybody to redefine what a doctor is so I can be one with say, nothing but a high school education.  

If g**s want a formal union, and one that receives the tax benefits of a marriage, they should have come up with a new type of union and legislated tax benefits for it.  

Answer 11

The only correct answer to this question is :"That while i personally may feel that g*y marriage is wrong [or right] I understand that under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment  g*y marriage will have to become legal and that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV Section 1 that the marriages of g*y people will have to recognized in all states.

I believe in all parts of the US Constitution both in letter and intent and I am not now nor ever have been a Cafeteria Constitutionalists.

I wish them well"

>>

Update :

Two more things:

1) I find it humorously  ironic that some of these people who I know complain against  what they call the nanny state of Liberals now seem to want to force the conditition of procreation on heterosexual marriages.

If as they say the real purpose of marrage is preocreation then heterosexual couples have to procreate in order to married /

Which means that the State just took away their freedom not to have children.

2) The real issue at the bottom of all of this is the State issued marriage license  without which no marriage performed anywhere would be legal

It's an unconditional license that is in all probability one of the easiest licenses that anybody in America could  possibly get

Look at what the license doesn't require of a couple

No predetermined education levels

No proof of means of support

No proof of a place to live

No proof of liking /loving each other

No proof of understanding anything about financial matters

No proof of understanding anything about child raising

No proof about an absence of substance abuse issues

The list goes on and feel free to add to it However  once that license issued and the couple are wed  then as we all know that license confers a vast amount of rights , responsibilities and benefits on the couple in question including the right to make life and death decisions about their spouses and their children even though neither person may actually be qualified to make such decisions.

Back to g*y marriage

Since the license is unconditional, for the State to arbirarily set sexual orientation as a condition for getting a marriage license is every bit as much as a civil rights violation as the State setting procreation as a condition of heterosexual marriage would be

Answer 12

Ok, you state you cant use religious reason so that also states you cant use just the love of someone to say the state should recognize the marriage.  Both sides have to use the legal side of marriage.

So the legal reason homosexual couples want to be recognized by the state is to obtain the financial benefits of being married.

The states recognition of a marriage was for one simple reason. the ability to have kids grows the populace which helps grow the economy therefore they offer monetary incentives to have kids and being this was in the beginning when religion still had a place in this country it was believed that you should only do that under wedlock. So yes the state recognition of marriage was for the explicit reason of having kids.

Now g*y couples want to be recognized by the state as a sanctioned marriage for the sole purpose of getting the benefits offered by the state for being married.

Like it or not that was the reason the states began to recognize marriage.

So the question is what does a g*y marriage recognized by the state to allow the benefits they are then entitled to received give to the community as a whole?

yea, I know thumbs down because that's not sensitive but please tell me another reason why the financial benefits of marriage was created if my definition is not the reality.

edit:

"understand that under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment g*y marriage will have to become legal "

really then under the 14th amendment I want to qualify for the lowest level of taxation no matter how much money I make.  

the problem with both yours and my statement is there are standards to what you do and dont qualify for when it comes to handouts by the government and if anyone can apply and receive anything that is offered by the state then there should actually be nothing that is offered by the state.

I dont seem to see anywhere that I said it should be REQUIRED to procreate.  Giving things from the government coffers shouldnt be in the condition that you will use them for one specific purpose it is to give you the ability to better yourself which in turn society as a whole.  Just as some people that are on welfare still use their money for drugs or alcohol that is their choice but hopefully most of them will in turn better society, some people who are given tax incentives to procreate that doesnt say it should be forced on you but in an overwhelming majority of the cases they will.  1.2 kids per family to be exact.  its funny the party of handouts dont even understand their own programs

to the second part marriage was first just a religious commentment to which the state then decided to recognize "a lawful" marriage.  why would they do that without their being a reason, remember no mixing of church and state.  So the reason they decided to recognize the marriage was to allow benefits to people they believed would use those benefits to better society.  which means growing the population.  If their is no basis to give a handout to someone and everyone is able to get it why make it anything special remove marriage benefits all together and let everyone keep their own tax dollars that would be lost on the benefits.  There are some libertarians that refuse to have a "legal" marriage due to the fact they DONT want mixing of church and state to which they believe the government has no right to decide what a "legal" marriage is.  So my question still stands why should anyone be eligable for tax benefits if they are not going to be used to better the society as a whole.

Answer 13

I'm for equal rights so see nothing wrong with allowing g**s to marry. Same s*x couples should be able to receive the same marriage benefits and tax breaks that heterosexual couples are granted. Most of those that oppose same s*x marriage believe homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuality is immoral.........Fear seems to be the most common reason people oppose g*y marriage. Fear of the so called "homosexual agenda". Fear of open public displays of affection by homosexual couples. Fear that their children will come to accept a homosexual lifestyle. Fear that homosexuality is like a contagious disease or something.  It can all be summed up by one word "homophobia".

To captainobvious (oblivious) below: Homosexuals are not sterile and produce, nurture and provide for their children; probably much better than the average hetrosexual parent does.

Answer 14

Traditional, centuries old definition.

I am not against civil unions - I am against same s*x MARRIAGE.

Why do the people involved insist on the word "marriage?" I suspect that's where most of their opposition originates.

Answer 15

I don't know either. People are afraid.

10% of the American population is g*y- and that's only the 10% that choose to admit it. Doesn't seem so unnatural to me.

LSUballs-

"Why can't people s***w dogs?"

^ Have you ever seen someone fall in love with and have a strong sexual attraction to a dog?

People do fall in love with members of the same s*x. When it happens to you, it doesn't seem so unnatural.

Answer 16

Because marriage is for man and woman, if 2 g**s want to  live together and they love each other, then good for them but I think it should be call it a different name "gayrage" maybe?

With the due respect what would you expect from a society where theres no rules?, where you dont need a man or a woman to procreate?, what would would you expect of a generation of babys raised by 2 men or 2 woman? More g**s , eventually a country of g**s with no values and morals.

It has to be an order, thats what the law is, to protect the people, the rights and the future of a nation, just beacuse you are not normal and you want to be happy your way doesnt mean that society has to change to make you happy.

Not everyone is g*y, it is just a group of people and ironically this number of people is growing so fast specially in this country but thats a different story that you can find out doing your own research on the net,

Hope my answer satisfice you

Answer 17

Because there are some things that have been basic laws since humans have existed...and being straight is naturally one of them.