answered question
0
Votes
Votes
12
Answers
Answers
M$0.00
Why are some people against Gay Marriage?
Shouldn't everyone have the same rights?
And religion should not be mixed with politics. Even if it is considered, polygamy is OK to the bible but it is against the law.
And religion should not be mixed with politics. Even if it is considered, polygamy is OK to the bible but it is against the law.
answers (12)
For the most part, arguments against gay marriage boil down to a misunderstanding of what homosexuality actually is.
A perfect example of the difference and the conclusions it leads to can be seen on a recent episode of the Daily Show. While the program is generally goofy and satirical, Jon Stewart had as a guest on his program 2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and spoke to him seriously about their disagreement on this issue. You can tell toward the end of their debate that the core difference is that Stewart sees that homosexuality is part of the human condition, a way that some people just are, and therefore feels that gay marriage is a natural extension of human rights. On the other hand, Huckabee perceives homosexuality as a lifestyle and a choice, rather than as something immutable and inextricable from one's sexual/romantic identity. Therefore, it should be no surprise that, in his mind, a homosexual wanting the right to marry is someone looking for validation for his/her choice, RATHER than someone who wants to have the same right as those who fall in love with members of the opposite sex.
So while it is of course abhorrent to deny homosexuals the right to the same legal status of marriage as heterosexuals have, it is in fact understandable how those conclusions are reached, even by people who aren't the fire-and-brimstone type, who I believe are the minority of the people against gay marriage (although probably the loudest). Once everyone else realizes that homosexuality is as much of a choice as eye color, they'll come around. The key is to inform.
A perfect example of the difference and the conclusions it leads to can be seen on a recent episode of the Daily Show. While the program is generally goofy and satirical, Jon Stewart had as a guest on his program 2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and spoke to him seriously about their disagreement on this issue. You can tell toward the end of their debate that the core difference is that Stewart sees that homosexuality is part of the human condition, a way that some people just are, and therefore feels that gay marriage is a natural extension of human rights. On the other hand, Huckabee perceives homosexuality as a lifestyle and a choice, rather than as something immutable and inextricable from one's sexual/romantic identity. Therefore, it should be no surprise that, in his mind, a homosexual wanting the right to marry is someone looking for validation for his/her choice, RATHER than someone who wants to have the same right as those who fall in love with members of the opposite sex.
So while it is of course abhorrent to deny homosexuals the right to the same legal status of marriage as heterosexuals have, it is in fact understandable how those conclusions are reached, even by people who aren't the fire-and-brimstone type, who I believe are the minority of the people against gay marriage (although probably the loudest). Once everyone else realizes that homosexuality is as much of a choice as eye color, they'll come around. The key is to inform.
source(s):
Watch the segment I referenced in its entirety here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=Mike...
Watch the segment I referenced in its entirety here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=Mike...
| Asker's rating: |
I'll let other people answer a lot of these... one of them is...
"Religious Freedom" - some people have made the argument that acknowledging gay marriage would mean that some religious organizations would be forced to practice in a way they do not see fit. Furthermore, there is the added fear that they would inch closer to "hate" group status should they choose to deny a gay couple to be married.
There are a SLEW of them... with that said... I still want NO ON PROP 8, and I'm embarrassed it went through.
"Religious Freedom" - some people have made the argument that acknowledging gay marriage would mean that some religious organizations would be forced to practice in a way they do not see fit. Furthermore, there is the added fear that they would inch closer to "hate" group status should they choose to deny a gay couple to be married.
There are a SLEW of them... with that said... I still want NO ON PROP 8, and I'm embarrassed it went through.
Religious indoctrination. Irrational fears instilled when they were young. Stupidity. Intolerance.
source(s):
common sense
common sense
It's not "traditional."
People are always evolving. It was only a short while ago, blacks and whites were separated in all of society. Right now, we're dealing with a different kind of segregation - gay and straight. Some people just aren't ready to accept it, and the reason it's all out in the media and being talked about now is because it was never talked about for and thanks to a few influential figures/shows in our time (Ellen, Rosie, Queer Eye, MTV Next, etc.) the gay lifestyle is becoming more and more exposed.
Personally, I think everyone should have the same rights, but some powerful leaders in the church and state are so rooted in "tradition," that they can't wrap their head around the root of gay marriage - love. It baffles me.
People are always evolving. It was only a short while ago, blacks and whites were separated in all of society. Right now, we're dealing with a different kind of segregation - gay and straight. Some people just aren't ready to accept it, and the reason it's all out in the media and being talked about now is because it was never talked about for and thanks to a few influential figures/shows in our time (Ellen, Rosie, Queer Eye, MTV Next, etc.) the gay lifestyle is becoming more and more exposed.
Personally, I think everyone should have the same rights, but some powerful leaders in the church and state are so rooted in "tradition," that they can't wrap their head around the root of gay marriage - love. It baffles me.
Religion and socialization.
Against Gay Marriage is how the majority of American's feel. It has been spoken, both in elections and writing. Now gays feel cornered and like everyone is against them.
Thats not the case at all. Most people feel the "loud and proud" response from the homosexual community are fighting words. It basically "pisses" them off after they have spoken.
The issue of socially endorsed homosexual marriage should not be one at all. If two people love each other, they take an unspoken oath of pairing when they move in together. Non-gays ask "Why should it go farther than that?" Straights are not fighting for the right to "live together" in common law marriage so why should gays feel they deserve more rights than straights?
In the beginning the rule was keep it in the closet. Then it came out of the closet. Ok, its out of the closet. Everyone knows you're gay now. We accept that, now move on.
No, you say, we want to continue our fight because we are proud of ourselves. Geez, give me a break.
Thats not the case at all. Most people feel the "loud and proud" response from the homosexual community are fighting words. It basically "pisses" them off after they have spoken.
The issue of socially endorsed homosexual marriage should not be one at all. If two people love each other, they take an unspoken oath of pairing when they move in together. Non-gays ask "Why should it go farther than that?" Straights are not fighting for the right to "live together" in common law marriage so why should gays feel they deserve more rights than straights?
In the beginning the rule was keep it in the closet. Then it came out of the closet. Ok, its out of the closet. Everyone knows you're gay now. We accept that, now move on.
No, you say, we want to continue our fight because we are proud of ourselves. Geez, give me a break.
People should learn how to accept things. if a fellow family member happens to be gay, are you against theyre will to be happy? if marriage makes them happy, and they got married... would you still be involved in theyre life?
I used to be openly homophobic. untill I accepted the fact that Gays arent going anywhere, and rather than making the situation worse, I had to accept that this is theyre lifestyle. this is how they choose to live, and as long as I dont take it in the butt... im content!
so I think most people are against gay marriage because they dont want them to be happy. They dont like seeing 2 guys/girls kiss in open public. They dont wanna walk past a couple of gays on the beach holding hands etc etc. since theyre uncomfortable and unhappy with what they see, they want them to be the same.
I used to be openly homophobic. untill I accepted the fact that Gays arent going anywhere, and rather than making the situation worse, I had to accept that this is theyre lifestyle. this is how they choose to live, and as long as I dont take it in the butt... im content!
so I think most people are against gay marriage because they dont want them to be happy. They dont like seeing 2 guys/girls kiss in open public. They dont wanna walk past a couple of gays on the beach holding hands etc etc. since theyre uncomfortable and unhappy with what they see, they want them to be the same.
source(s):
Experience / my own feelings
Experience / my own feelings
Because it is wrong, based on their interpretation of the Bible or Koran. Regardless of what you call it - marriage, civil union, etc - you must know that relationships within the same sex is not covered as something that God (Jehovah/ Yawah) considers valid. But that is just my opinion.
All religious, moral, and political arguments on this issue boil down to one thing, squeemishness about gay sex.
I think for the most part, people don't want to "encourage" it. They think that if they make life hard enough, people will not allow themselves to become that way. Then, you have those that consider marriage to be a religious union as much as a civil one...and thus have a problem with it for a variety of religious reasons..and finally you have those that want to protect the sanctity of marriage(yes, I find this funny since there is a HUGE divorce rate which has already destroyed any sanctity).
My opinion on the matter...why should it matter to me? There's enough pain in the world, who am I to stand in the way of two people that just want to be happy...If they want, let em do it.
As far as WHY they want marriage...well, I would guess for the same reasons you proposed to your wife. There's no reason to get married, in fact, with an estimated high of 70% divorce rate in the states, I'd say most UNMARRIED couples are happier...but still people WANT to do it. And it is important...if taken seriously...That little piece of paper can give you a small crutch to make it throuhg the hard times, if you let it. It also allows you access to your spouse/partner in the event tragedy strikes and you are at the hospital. It allows you to make choices for them, when they are unable. And most of all, it gives you reassurance that they are yours "forever".
My opinion on the matter...why should it matter to me? There's enough pain in the world, who am I to stand in the way of two people that just want to be happy...If they want, let em do it.
As far as WHY they want marriage...well, I would guess for the same reasons you proposed to your wife. There's no reason to get married, in fact, with an estimated high of 70% divorce rate in the states, I'd say most UNMARRIED couples are happier...but still people WANT to do it. And it is important...if taken seriously...That little piece of paper can give you a small crutch to make it throuhg the hard times, if you let it. It also allows you access to your spouse/partner in the event tragedy strikes and you are at the hospital. It allows you to make choices for them, when they are unable. And most of all, it gives you reassurance that they are yours "forever".
The Tradition of Procreation
- Traditionally, the institution of marriage as a social institution has been for the purpose of procreation, to produce heirs for the passing of inheritance (money, property, title, etc). Marriage for love is a relatively new concept. Hence marriage between two individuals who have no chance of procreating (ie, same sex couples) violates the tradition of marriage for procreation.
The Edict of Religion
- Most religions touts procreation as a gift from god(s) and encourage followers to conform to a traditional family construct: mother, father, and children, as a basic social group. Pragmatically, more children, more followers, bigger congregation, more influence, more power. So again, the joining of two individuals who have no chance of procreating renders God's gift of being "fruitful and multiple" useless. And because most religious interpretations of holy books define partnered relationships to be between opposite sexes, relations between same sex couples are considered a violation of God's law.
Fear
- Many are afraid of what they do not understand and appear foreign to them. Rather than attempt an understanding and consider how it really impacts them ('cause really, what does it matter to you if a couple of strangers on the other side of town decides to get married? and how would that change if they are homosexual rather than heterosexual?), it is easier to reject the foreign concept than to understand it.
Exploitation
- Marriage as a civil institution translates to legal rights and benefits exclusive to married couples (depending on state law). On the federal level, this includes benefits extended to married partners in areas of immigration, taxes, and others. On the state level, it will vary from state to state covering areas such as adoption, healthcare, property, power of attorney, etc. Having a broader definition of marriage means being more open to chances of fraud and exploitation of the system.
---------------------------
Bottomline:
- No matter how progressive and tolerant the metropolitian areas of this country is towards people who are considered "alternative" or "different" by mainstream standards, most Americans live in communities deeply rooted in religious foundations and observe the concept of gay marriage with fear and distain.
- Despite the opinion of the majority (as seen in the passing of Prop 8 in CA), just because the majority believes it's right, doesn't automatically make it so. Consider validity of slavery, segregation, Japanese interment, all of which had the support of the majority. The law is there not only to speak for the majority, but also protect the rights of the minority when the majority attempts to violate them.
- The fact of the matter is, if "marriage" and "civil union" was exactly the same from state to state, people won't care because it's just a superficial label. Having this separate but equal stance clearly violates the civil rights of
homosexual couples and they are within their rights to speak out against it. Just as racial minorities, women, and other minorities have before them.
- Traditionally, the institution of marriage as a social institution has been for the purpose of procreation, to produce heirs for the passing of inheritance (money, property, title, etc). Marriage for love is a relatively new concept. Hence marriage between two individuals who have no chance of procreating (ie, same sex couples) violates the tradition of marriage for procreation.
The Edict of Religion
- Most religions touts procreation as a gift from god(s) and encourage followers to conform to a traditional family construct: mother, father, and children, as a basic social group. Pragmatically, more children, more followers, bigger congregation, more influence, more power. So again, the joining of two individuals who have no chance of procreating renders God's gift of being "fruitful and multiple" useless. And because most religious interpretations of holy books define partnered relationships to be between opposite sexes, relations between same sex couples are considered a violation of God's law.
Fear
- Many are afraid of what they do not understand and appear foreign to them. Rather than attempt an understanding and consider how it really impacts them ('cause really, what does it matter to you if a couple of strangers on the other side of town decides to get married? and how would that change if they are homosexual rather than heterosexual?), it is easier to reject the foreign concept than to understand it.
Exploitation
- Marriage as a civil institution translates to legal rights and benefits exclusive to married couples (depending on state law). On the federal level, this includes benefits extended to married partners in areas of immigration, taxes, and others. On the state level, it will vary from state to state covering areas such as adoption, healthcare, property, power of attorney, etc. Having a broader definition of marriage means being more open to chances of fraud and exploitation of the system.
---------------------------
Bottomline:
- No matter how progressive and tolerant the metropolitian areas of this country is towards people who are considered "alternative" or "different" by mainstream standards, most Americans live in communities deeply rooted in religious foundations and observe the concept of gay marriage with fear and distain.
- Despite the opinion of the majority (as seen in the passing of Prop 8 in CA), just because the majority believes it's right, doesn't automatically make it so. Consider validity of slavery, segregation, Japanese interment, all of which had the support of the majority. The law is there not only to speak for the majority, but also protect the rights of the minority when the majority attempts to violate them.
- The fact of the matter is, if "marriage" and "civil union" was exactly the same from state to state, people won't care because it's just a superficial label. Having this separate but equal stance clearly violates the civil rights of
homosexual couples and they are within their rights to speak out against it. Just as racial minorities, women, and other minorities have before them.
Religion. Also, many of these people have never met a gay person.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
