I've seen plenty of posts asking why people are against gay marriages, the responses are always the same. So I figured I'd consolidate what I thought was all the responses into 1 post and the logical answers to those responses. Please critique and add as needed, I'll update the post. My point here is to find 1 reason that can't be answered and thus create a rational reason for having a gay marriage ban.
?Allowing gays to marry invalidates my beliefs?
Because gays are allowed to marry does not mean the marriage will be sanctioned and accepted at your church. Like wise, your church does not have to exercise every law (or lack thereof) in the books, nor should it. If a church does decide to sanctify the marriage of gays, then you can take that up with your priest and ask him if he can help you come to the understanding he has in regards to your religion and his stance. In other words, simply because something is allowed in this country, does not mean you or your religion have to partake in it. Nor should everything in this country that your religion does not partake in be outlawed for everyone else.
?The dictionary says marriage is between a man and a woman?
We dictate what is in a dictionary, the dictionary does not dictate us. It is a reflection on what we understood at any given moment and is updated whenever a better understanding or more clear definition is presented and agreed upon.
?The system cannot handle gay marriages?
If the system can handle 90% of marriage situations but not the other 10% then either someone is lying or the fix is rather trivial, lessen the privileges of the 90% and you can accommodate for the 10% easily. (I do not have a better way to argue this since the original response is more of a guess than a fact)
?What reason do gay people have for getting married??
It allows them the benefits of any regular marriage. It validates their lifestyle and expresses their commitment to the person they love, much like any straight marriage. It creates a stable parental atmosphere for adoption.
?Why can?t they just have civil unions? Why must they share the same word, ?marriage???
Easy, equality. Changing the term for gay people makes an unnecessary, known distinction between the two.
"Gay marriages inevitably allow more fraud marriages"
Ok, valid. They would, of course, be the exception and not the rule. If nothing major is done about male and female fraud marriages, I don't see why homosexual fraud marraiges would raise a red flag.
"The point of marriages is only to have kids, which gay people cannot possibly do"
If I look at common marriage vows, I don't see any having to do with giving birth. I see a union of 2 people, through better or worse, richer or poor, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do they part. People get married to prove their comitment to the one they love. You ignore all the marriages where the parents cannot have kids, choose not to have kids, or have kids and divorce.
"Gays are immoral and deviant, I do not want the government to acknowledge or validate their lifestyle"
Circle logic. Plain and simple. You just said, I do not want society to accept gays because society does not accept gays.
"There needs to be a dinstinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages because they are different"
There is no destinction between hetero marriages and gay marriages. There is a distinction between hetero sex and gay sex, but that does not pass onto the actual act of marriage which would differ in no way for homosexuals.
?Changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual unions denies the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law?
"Homosexual marriages remove discrimination thus allowing marriages with anything to exist"
I am interested whether it is possible to address all responses on an issue and come to a complete answer. This seemed to be a good subject to toy with. Although, if I get beat into the ground, you may never see me again in P&N .
?Allowing gays to marry invalidates my beliefs?
Because gays are allowed to marry does not mean the marriage will be sanctioned and accepted at your church. Like wise, your church does not have to exercise every law (or lack thereof) in the books, nor should it. If a church does decide to sanctify the marriage of gays, then you can take that up with your priest and ask him if he can help you come to the understanding he has in regards to your religion and his stance. In other words, simply because something is allowed in this country, does not mean you or your religion have to partake in it. Nor should everything in this country that your religion does not partake in be outlawed for everyone else.
?The dictionary says marriage is between a man and a woman?
We dictate what is in a dictionary, the dictionary does not dictate us. It is a reflection on what we understood at any given moment and is updated whenever a better understanding or more clear definition is presented and agreed upon.
?The system cannot handle gay marriages?
If the system can handle 90% of marriage situations but not the other 10% then either someone is lying or the fix is rather trivial, lessen the privileges of the 90% and you can accommodate for the 10% easily. (I do not have a better way to argue this since the original response is more of a guess than a fact)
?What reason do gay people have for getting married??
It allows them the benefits of any regular marriage. It validates their lifestyle and expresses their commitment to the person they love, much like any straight marriage. It creates a stable parental atmosphere for adoption.
?Why can?t they just have civil unions? Why must they share the same word, ?marriage???
Easy, equality. Changing the term for gay people makes an unnecessary, known distinction between the two.
"Gay marriages inevitably allow more fraud marriages"
Ok, valid. They would, of course, be the exception and not the rule. If nothing major is done about male and female fraud marriages, I don't see why homosexual fraud marraiges would raise a red flag.
"The point of marriages is only to have kids, which gay people cannot possibly do"
If I look at common marriage vows, I don't see any having to do with giving birth. I see a union of 2 people, through better or worse, richer or poor, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do they part. People get married to prove their comitment to the one they love. You ignore all the marriages where the parents cannot have kids, choose not to have kids, or have kids and divorce.
"Gays are immoral and deviant, I do not want the government to acknowledge or validate their lifestyle"
Circle logic. Plain and simple. You just said, I do not want society to accept gays because society does not accept gays.
"There needs to be a dinstinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages because they are different"
There is no destinction between hetero marriages and gay marriages. There is a distinction between hetero sex and gay sex, but that does not pass onto the actual act of marriage which would differ in no way for homosexuals.
?Changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual unions denies the moral and social foundations on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law?
"Homosexual marriages remove discrimination thus allowing marriages with anything to exist"
I am interested whether it is possible to address all responses on an issue and come to a complete answer. This seemed to be a good subject to toy with. Although, if I get beat into the ground, you may never see me again in P&N .