• It's not that it's illegal, it's just that the state doesn't recognize it. The state isn't forced to recognize any type of union, so nothing forces the state to recognize a homosexual union. If you're looking for secular reasons to support a ban on gay marriage, some consider it morals legislation and equate it with outlawing incest. Others believe that the essential purpose of marriage is to preserve the nuclear family, and since homosexuals can't have children in the traditional manner, supporting their marriage doesn't support the nuclear family. As a caveat, I don't personally agree with these reasons, but they're the most common secular reasons that are advances.
  • Yes, it most certainly is. If marriage is good enough for one segment of the population, it should be good enough for all of them.
  • You can't procreate plugging another guy in the @ss. And two women can't make a baby by themselves.
  • Ya' got me there, ImNotAnon?! I can't think of a single reason except religious. Once again, some folks foisting their worldview upon others who never asked for it! Sanctimony (usually in a religious context) has been a direct cause of millennia of unnecessary suffering.
  • Because homosexuality is immoral and wrong, and anyone who partakes i such evil belong in Hell.........or at least that's what the prejudice a$$holes who go against gay marriage believe. (I'm gay btw, just so ya know)
  • Okay, I think gay marriage should be legal. To clarify the issue though, at least in the US, it is NOT illegal at the federal level - that would require a constitutional amendment, because it is beyond the power of the federal government to make such laws. It is only recognized or not recognized depending on the state. However, I will play devil's advocate, since I've heard other people's arguments against it. A (fellow) atheist friend of mine disagrees with me, and believes that gay marriage should be abolished. Her concern is largely about what it means to recognize gay marriages - it means accepting everything that comes with them, including the raising of children by the gay couple together as any other married couple. This would also involve more beneficial treatment in the eyes of adoption law. She believes (unlike me) that it is not healthy for children to be raised by either two men or two women alone. She also believes that it hurts the fabric of our society, which she believes is the traditional nuclear family. Note that none of these are religious views. So, again, I disagree with her. There is no evidence (for or against) the idea that gay couples can't raise children just as well as straight couples (because no one has conducted any studies), and plenty of evidence that the nuclear family, far from being crucial to society, is a strange, more-or-less modern invention that has probably caused more harm than good. So on both counts, I don't think her grounds are justified. But neither are they religious.
  • I have heard that more people would get tax benefits, so the goverment wants to save it's money, but I'm not sure. I agree that banning gay marriage is a violation of church and state.
  • You have it backwards, for the government to change the definition of marriage from a man and woman to "Two Consenting Adults" is actually the violation in which you refer. Marriage is a religious "RITE", a religious "TERM", a religious "PRACTICE". Marriage existed before this country or this government. It’s origin is in-fact religious. "Gay marriage" is nothing more than an attempt to secularize religion and force it under public/government control. The whole debate of "Gay Marriage", hinges on the one argument, and that is equality . However, EVERY state in the Union provides this equity (under the law) with Civil Unions. So the answer to your question is “No!”. This should not even be debated by politicians since it is in-fact a religious rite we are talking about in the first place and as such puts it out of the jurisdiction of the courts or politicians.
  • Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal 01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children. 07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America. 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
  • its a violation of someones life liberty and pursuit of happiness
  • Same thing with polygamy, which has been practiced since the dawn of civilization. The only reason not to legalize both are based on religious reasons. If you legalized homosexual marriage, polygamy must also be legalized.
  • ANY so called "legal" marriage where government "INVITES" themselves into YOUR PRIVATE marriage as the "DOMINANT" 3rd party is Constitutionally illegal, weather hetero or homo. Read the below link... ...for the grizzly truth! Play it smart & keep government OUT of YOUR PRIVATE relationship/marriage! Enjoy, till next time!
  • I have one answer to illustrate that it does not violate the separation of church and state. (not that I want it to be that way). In case you haven't realized the state agrees on many things that the Christian church agrees on such as not murdering, thieving, lying, cheating, raping, vandalism, destruction without cause and many other things. One cannot say that the American government is violating their want to separate from the church simply because they agree with one extra issue of life that the church agrees with because there are loads of issues that the state agrees with the church, equally the American government agreeing with various moral rules of the church does not mean to say they are reuniting in any way. The separation of church and state is based on the beliefs of Gods existence and the afterlife rather than the morality of what is right and wrong (and in fact that it what they emphasize the most, the difference of believing in God) because all governments should try their hardest to determine right and wrong irrespective of citizen's beliefs of God that live in the nation. If you are saying that for the government to become anti homosexual is going against their separation rule of church and state, then you are also saying that the government is violating their separation rule of church and state by becoming anti theft, murdering, lying, cheating, vandalising becuase both church and state agree on these issues. Governments from all atheistic countries have established laws not because of religion, but because that is what they firmly believe that that is the right thing.
  • I don't know about gross, but it is a violation of said separation. Regardless, here is your reason that is not based on religion: It would allow even more people to file jointly across the nation thus bringing in less tax revenue.
  • One reason, according to some people, is that people of the same sex will get married just for tax purposes. It's a stupid reason but some people use it.
  • The separation of church and state just means that the State can not establish an official religion. It does not mean that certain general values can not form the basis for laws. Equal Protection is a better way to attack the anti-gay-marriage laws.
  • People argue that raising children by gay parents (be it biological or not) will cause more issues in the future of a child. I highly disagree with that view as we seem to be doing a perfect job at screwing up kids now - in a predominant heterosexual society. Sheer disinterest of parents in their children has nothing to do with being gay or straight. Not saying this couldn't happen to gay parents either. Love is love, and you either love your kids or you don't. Nothing should be in the way of gay marriage. But I guess years ago no one would have thought what excellent workers women would make!
  • It is the use of the word marriage. There is nothing wrong with gay people having a socially and legally approved committment. But a favorite tool of the anti enlightenement left, is to use words where they do not apply, such as German Democratic Republic for East Germany in the cold war. The word marriage is in use. It has a conventional meaning which involves heterosexual relationships. I guarantee that if gays would establish by convention a different word, the debate would pretty much be over.
  • maybe Some people just view it as strange/weird/odd. meh. But the main reasons are religious. But no I don't think it is. Or know, I have never even been to America. Or care to be honest. Church and state are nowhere near each other in the UK. In fact gay marriage is legal, but it is called Civil Unions. I'm OK with that but I'm never going to get one.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy