What is the argument for continuing to disallow legal marriage to adult gay couples?
959301
In the UK we have recently started to accept civil partnerships, which I hope is the first step towards a better gay marriage law.  The difficulty is that a lot of pople think that "marriage" can only be between a man and a woman and a lot of people think that gay people don't deserve the same human rights as straight people, I hope that these views fall out of favour because there is no real difference and surely two people in a happy, commited relationship are better off than two single people that are living alone and miserable!
1017685
to MISS POLY...you rub your marriage in my face. \nI have no idea why people are so against gay marriage...I am gay, and I do NOT want to get married. But, in fairness, the legal protections offered Straights are denied the same tax-paying gays...Gays have no rights of inheritance, Social Security Benefits, etc. I have known couples who spent a life together, both contributing equally to the assests, who, in stupidity, did not write iron-clad wills. The family of one who had died, came in, broke the will, and took everything that the couple had amassed in a lifetime, leaving the guy left behind with nothing! Things are pretty sad in this world, and this prejudice just makes things sadder. Oh, and by the way...your question wording is cute. I am gay and gray...well, what's left of it, anyway. :-)
1148080
Our government is doing it because there are a few people out there that don't want something to happen because its in their point of view that something is a "SIN" . So they are going to try to stop them from committing a sin, just because they don't like it. In my personal opinion I think that you should be able to be married if you are straight, gay, lesbian or what ever. I mean it's not like it is really any of anyone eles's business what you do with your life.
755186
I think civil unions are a step in the right direction.  But one of your points is not true.  Marriage is not a religious institution.  Marriage is a civil contract.  If a couple wishes to marry in their church, they do so.  But marriage is just as legal with no religious connotations applied to it.  Get married in a church without registering it with the government and you are not legally married.  Get married in your local government office and it's legal whether you are religious or not.  Religious organizations have the perfect right to reject it, though all do not.  Legalizing gay marriage will not force churches to perform ceremonies, that is up to the church.\n\nI think those people who "experiment" with their sexuality are exploring their bisexuality, many human beings are bisexual, not all act on it.  Most truly gay people know they are gay when puberty comes upon them.  Some try to go straight to please family, friends, churches and out of plain panic and fear.  If we ever learn to accept homosexuality as an innate sexual orientation people won't have that problem to contend with and we won't have gay people getting married to straights to try and please society.  Science has been exploring this for some time, and all nonbiased studies are pointing to homosexuality as being innate.  I believe they are on their way to proving scientifically what gay people already know, it is innate.  I'm cynical enough to believe when it is announced as a fait accompli that religious nuts and homophobes alike will ask as their first question "Is there a cure then?"  Some ignorance never dies.
246741
Homosexual marriages should be legal.  Marriage is a status.  It confers certain rights upon a couple - the right to inherit, to make medical decisions, to share in gains and losses and more.  Moreover, marriage creates a stable family unit that is more productive than any two single people.  When one member becomes disabled, marriage decreases the cost to society of that disability.\n\nRefusing to allow homosexuals to marry has a perverse effect.  It is uneconomical as two single people will earn less and one disabled person will cost society more than when a couple is married.  It will discourage personal responsibility among homosexuals.  It will decrease their respect for the law.\n\nIt is fundamentally unfair to treat black people differently because of their race.  It makes them feel bad and decreases their productivity.  The same is true for homosexuals.\n\nSome people argue that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman or that homosexual marriage devalues marriage in general.  This is not logical.  Each of us knows a married couple that should be divorced.  The wife may drink, the husband may cheat, they both may argue, the kids may be left uncared for or a hundred other things may be wrong.  Their marriage is a sham, a worthless shame.  But the fact that their marriage is without value does not make my marriage without value.  Any homosexual couple living next door will not magically devalue the relationship of their hereosexual neighbors.\n\nIt should also be mentioned that being exposed to homosexuals does not increase the chance of an individual becoming homosexual.  Being raised by homosexuals does not increase the chance of a child becoming homosexual.  And homosexuals are less likely to be pedophiles or sexual predators than heterosexuals.  Whatever arguments are made, these are absolute statistical facts.\n\nIt is also a statistical fact that jurisdictions that recognize homosexual marriage or civil unions have suffered no increase in any negative statistic as a result.\n\nThere is simply no reason homosexuals should not enjoy the same right to marry as any other person.  Society would do nothing but benefit.
127727
I think what two consenting adults do is no one else's business.  If they want to get married and be miserable just like straight people, more power to them!
784935
it will only be a matter of time, but we will eventually earn equal rights!  if 2 consenting, unrelated adults want to marry, they should have that right!  is shouldn't matter their gender, race, religion or culture.  my partner and I are registered domestic partners, and we've had a commitment ceremony....but we want the real thing!  along with the legal benefits of marriage!   I mean, seriously, it can't harm anyone!  and we can't do any worse than straight people do!  \nI challenge anyone to come up with a legitimate reason..WITHOUT stating any religious reason or the typical "because your sick pervs" or similar garbage!  \nthere have been plenty of other discriminatory laws that have been over-turned in this country...because they were wrong!...this one will be over-turned as well!
903786
I am against gay marriage.  Committment ceremonies are fine. But marriage- no.
641677
Your first misconception is that the burden is on people who want to keep marriage the same.  It is not.  The burden is on those who want to change it.\n\nI am not convinced more than a tiny fraction of homosexuals actually want to get married.  Aside from highly publicized stunts in which hundreds engaged in fake marriage ceremonies they knew to be non-binding, how many homosexual couples have actually gotten married in Vermont since it became legal?  Do you have any facts?  Not anecdotes, actual numbers from official sources.\n\nEvery reason I have ever heard offered in favor of homosexual marriage is disingenuous.  Gays have a right to pursue happiness.  Good, go, be happy.  But no one has a right to do just as he pleases to be happy.  I might find joy in robbing banks, but they won't let me anyway.  Gays want to live together.  Well, they live together now.  Gays want to express their eternal love and commitment.  Fine, do so.  Write poems to one another; exchange golden chains; get matching tattoos.  Gays want to own property in common.  Nothing could be simpler.  You merely have to both sign the car title or the deed.  Gays want to control each other's medical treatment.  Just give each other a medical power of attorney, or better yet, prepare a living will; you should do that anyway, its a lot cheaper than getting married and much more exact and likely to be honored than simply showing up in an emergency and saying you are married.\n\nYour second misconception is that the Constitution guarantees a right to marriage to all.  It does not.  It does not even guarantee equal rights to all.  Can a minor buy alcohol?  No.  Can just anyone practice medicine or law? No.  Can you carry a gun anywhere you choose?  No.  Can just anyone operate a motor vehicle?  No.  The \nConstitution permits, and even contemplates, the states to regulate all aspects of life in ways deemed reasonable by them.  Marriage is one of those aspects of life.  The states get to define it and they get to regulate who may participate.  In some states you can marry at 16, in others not until you are 18.  The 16-year-olds in the latter state are not thereby denied their constitutional rights.\n\nThere are perfectly valid, non-religious reasons to limit marriage to one adult man and one adult woman.  The principle public policy reason for marriage is the promotion of stable families.  When the institution of marriage breaks down, children tend to get inadequately supervised, poorly educated, badly acculturated, and insufficiently cared for.  A sad example of this in the US is in the black community where 2/3 of the babies are born out-of-wedlock and the crime and unemployment rates are horrible.  The state, therefore, has a vital interest unrelated to any religious stricture in regulating marriage in a manner calculated to strengthen rather than weaken the institution.\n\nCan you think of any principled reason to stop at homosexual marriage, once the monogamous, heterosexual line is broken?  If two men is OK, why not three men?  Three women?  Two men and one woman?  One man and 27 women.  Two men, a girl and a goat?  One man, three women and all their children (as sexual partners, not merely as a family)?  Don't they all have a right to be happy?  Should we permit our moral insecurities to interfere with that quest?\n\nYou want to open marriage to homosexual couples.  But what non-Biblical, non-religious argument would limit it to just couples?  There are, in fact, religious arguments for polygamy.  Mormons and Muslims both believe, for religious reasons, polygamy is a good thing.  Why not polyandry?  Why not pedophilia?  Why not bestiality?  What is your principled argument that would exclude these practices once gay marriage is allowed?\n\nThere is a wealth of sociological information demonstrating that children raised in a stable, heterosexual marriage are much more likely to be healthy, well-adjusted, well-educated, happy, productive adults.  Dr
393982
It really depends in how and where you look. When people are asked should there be a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, I've seen polls 2:1 opposed to the amendment. When you ask people "SHOULD GAYS GET MARRIED?" the water gets a little more murky, because you've completely charged the question. \nThe issue legally is whether two consenting adults can enter into a legal contract. That being fully realized for marriage totally freaks out some legal scholars, lawyers, and politicians.... why? Because the legal tactic being used primarily to push for marriage equality is that people have freedom to contract with whomever they choose. This legal precedent gets even trickier because the basis for that constitutional protection goes back to the Lochner case where the courts decided workers and employers should be able to make any kind of working arrangements they decide. This meant employers could work you to the bone and you'd not have that fancy overtime thing over their heads. \n\nFor liberal minded people this causes a rift becuase your basis for marriage equality is a thorn in the side of economic and work related principles... do you want gay marriage enough to invoke a precent that says your boss can contract you however he feels fit?\n\nThe other "ghost" of Lochner which looms over this push for marriage equality is the second part of that decision... Consenting adults can enter into as many contracts as they want. What does this mean when coupled with this push for same sex marriage? Polygamous (marrying multiple partners) would not be very far from being legitimated. This isn't just hypothetical... since Lawrence v Texas there has been a spike in challenges to polygamy laws at the same time as the more popular push for marriage equality cases started popping up. \n\nIf same sex marriage is validated, you gotta take all that comes with its historical approach. Are you ready to figure out how child custody, insurance, pension, or hospital visitation rights will be dealt with when people have multiple legal multi-sex partners? How many people can they marry into the country through immigration law? How will DIVORCE WORK?\n\nThe point is that this will open a pandora's box, so people aren't that crazy for saying same-sex marriage may destroy the institution... in reality it's gonna make it so widely available that eventually you wont have any meaning or legal protection.\n\nChoices:\n1. Keep marriage as is and deny the right to same-sex couples.\n2. Allow ONLY gay marriage and repeat the cycle of prejudice against a new group (polygamists).\n3. Allow people to enter into marriage with whomever and however many people they want, then run duck and cover.
392945
I have nothing against same-sex marriages. I think it's really stupid how the government is not allowing it in the US. We have the freedom of religion. Wouldn't that mean that we have the freedom to choose what sex our marriage partner is? This topic is purely religious, and what happened to "seperation of church and state"? For the land of the free, there are a lot of useless things restricting our freedom.
911046
I agree. I think it was Conservatives that switched Civil Unions to GAY MARRIAGE to freak out church goers to vote. Someday America will look back and regret their decisions just like they did with slavery, women and civil rights. This is clearly a violation of church and state. But I think that a grandmother and her caretaking granddaughter should be able to enter into a civil union to if they life together to enjoy the same rights. Family is more complicated these days then a man and a woman and the divorce rate will tell you that.\n\nI DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE!!!\nYou straight people can have it, sit on it, spin, and repeat three times.\n\nAND the fact the conservatives deny gay people marriage only further helps us to "corrupt your children" into polyamourous life styles, cause gay people are so "much cooler" role models. LIKE SEX IN THE CITY!!! and the whole metrosexual trend amoung straight huys so that they can get more punany and justify being players.\n\nOf course, some gays, but especially lesbians would benefit: Adoption, Inheiritance, Medical Insurance and Patient Rights, etc. So I do want Gay Marriage for them (Just not for me---at least at this point in my life).\n\nBut actually, here is a nifty solution:\nAbolish governement recognized marriages alltogether.\nYou get a CIVIL UNION at the Court House.\nYou get the Sacrement of Marriage at a Church.\n\nThen Priests and Ministers could be more selective and curb the divorce rate...But wait, that is how they make money by leaching off social needs. So why don't they let all those rich, over-embellishing, excessive-spending gay people get married and take their money???\n\nWell I am just as happy to keep my $ and my freedom!
343100
I support gay marriage, and here's why.\n\n1. Gay marriage would in no way threaten traditional marriage any more than it is already. Straight couples do a good enough job of that themselves.\n\n2. Sure gay couples can't have biological children of their own. But if it's gonna be illegal for that reason, then straight couples who can't have kids shouldn't be able to get married either.\n\n3. While some religions prohibit gay marriage, this should have no bearing on US government policy. Separation of church and state, remember?\n\n4. To those who say homosexuality isn't natural: how many animals have you watched lately? There's plenty of gay cats and dogs and whatever else.\n\n5. Kids aren't any more likely to turn out gay with gay parents than they are with straight parents. Considering that most gay people today came from straight families, I don't see a correlation between sexuality of the parents and sexuality of the kids.
868828
That is an interesting question.  If marriage had never been banned between gay couples, I beleive we would see more households raising healthy children, paying taxes as afforded to them under that right, spousal health benefits (lowering the number of uninsured citizens), more "out" activity in our neighborhoods.  And by out activity, I am NOT referring to anything of a sexual nature.  Gays without children have a great deal more disposable income, therefore they could bost their local economy.\n\nWouldn't it be interesting to ban marriage for straight people, letting only gay people get married?  Imagine the ruckus that would cause!
1032651
The conservative standpoint on the protection of marriage:\n\nWe do not want the government to give gay couples all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples, because this involves all the rights to adoption. Marriage is primarily about raising children together, because anybody can already live with whomever they want, and sleep with whatever they want.\n\nWe cannot allow children to be raised in same-sex households. Before you start labeling me a hatemonger, perhaps you should think of the child instead of yourself. Growing up in a divorced household is bad for obvious reasons, the child's interaction with thier mother or thier father is limited. It is always a tragedy when a child loses a mother or a father. Gay marriage effectively takes away a child's right to a mother and a father.\n\nLike it or not, children need both male and female parents, to have as positive role models, and to be so selfish as to deny a child a mother and a father is to be too immature to be a parent to begin with.\n\nBecause gay couples in most states already get all the same legal protections and tax benefits of marriage, and because they can "get married" whenever they want by a private ceremony with friends and family, they have all the same rights as married couples do.\n\nThe only issue is child adoption.\n\nYou can argue, well, having two fathers is better than no one.\n\nThat is true, but even heterosexual couples cannot adopt children unless they are married and have a stable household, and single people cannot adopt. There is no double standard here. The fact is, children grow up healthier and more well adjusted in a household with a mother and a father.\n\nFinally, homosexuality is a choice adults are free to make. But it is psychologically harmful for a child to be raised by gay couples. If you do not believe me, research it yourself. Too many children raised by same sex couples end up in therapy and way too many of them turn out sexually confused.\n\nWho cares? Any loving parent would care. Allowing a child to develop naturally in a family with a mother or a father allows them to choose for themselves which gender role they want to have later on in life. Growing up in a same sex household denies them the experience of having either a mom or a dad.\n\nMost conservatives do not care what people do with other consenting adults, nor to they "fear" or "hate" gay people. We simply do not want to introduce impressionable children to alternative lifestyles until they are really old enough to make choices for themselves, thats all. This position is based upon unselfish caring and love, not hatred or bigotry.\n\nBy the way, if I am such a hateful person, why does the majority of the gay community support me on this? Less than half of all gays support the redefinition of traditional marriage.\n\nIf you cannot reason without attacking me personally, then don't bother commenting on my response, because it shows your intolerance and prejudice towards people you disagree with, and reveals your hatred. We should be able to have a civilized discussion on these issues without labeling each other bigots.\nDon't treat me with contempt.
850864
Congrats on coming out!!...Although I totally agree with gay people being allowed to marry, we have to examine the political climate of what we're dealing with.  Anytime another group is pushed into a corner they are gonna be on the defensive.  This is what's happening with gay marriage.  Christians (being riled up by the Republicans) feel it's an attack on the "sanctity" of marriage.  I won't even try to get into all the ironies of that statement, but it is in fact how they feel.  The gay community feels that a fundamental right is being taken away and so the push for legalized marriage intensifies.  \n\nThe only solution for this situation is for the gay community to back off for "marriage" and to push for civil unions.  Having all the same legal rights, benefits, and legal consequences (divorce) as marriage..but not calling it marriage.  This would be a true separation of church and state, it would ease the Christians minds of marriage being on the attack and essentially take away any arguing points on the issue. It would allow the gay community to benefit form what straight people have been enjoying for centuries.\n\nUnfortunately we live in such a political charged atmosphere that such compromises have to made to get a solution.  It isn't necessarily right...but it's the best way for us to realistically achieve our goal of legal rights.  If the marriage push continues by the gay community it's only going to cause increased tensions  and our ability to enjoy equal rights will be a long time away.
953253
You can't make decisions based on if you know someone involved or not.  You have to be empathetic or not to gay marriage regardless.  If one of your family members is gay, that doesn't change whether it is right or not for gays to be married.