Can you give me one good reason why equal (gay) marriage is wrong?


And I don't want to hear a word about religion. That's why I'm posting it in politics.... Straight people don't hold to be married either, but why can't it be the GLBT person's choice like it is for the straight?
Best Answer:
If you don't want to hear a word about religion then don't use the religious word "marriage" which is a sacrement granted by the church. I believe here should be separation of church and state. Unfortunately the western world legal term marriage as a lawful state of an individual religious or not - I believe the governments around the world should remove marriage from legal command documents and return the word marriage back to the religious groups. I have no problem contained by government civil unions including gay civil unions.
Because marriage is favored beneath the law to encourage procreation. Gay marriage does not serve this interest. Another perfect reason is that gays have a hard plenty time in this society. Why would you want to inflict the horrors of marriage on them too? One of the best parts about individual gay is that you don't have to worry about marriage ceremony.
Because you live in America with stuck up, self centered, restarted, illiterate, assholes who HAVE TO HAVE THEIR WAY. Whether it's a corrupt judge or the corrupt political affairs itself or even some redneck asshole with a misspelled picket sign outside of a courthouse, someone is going to reign down on your gay pride parade. That's one of the 1000's of reasons I fucking abhorrence my country :]
its not the road this country was created to be. if they were having this issue when the United States be first being colonized, they would send all the gays final to Great Britian, or let them sail to South America and be killed. its newly not the American way.
because some people believe marriage already has a definition so gay "marriage" is highly weird because marrying is uniting a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and another woman
Because if we allow gay marriage, in turn we own to open the door to all other forms of marriages which are presently improper as well. How could we open the door to gay marriage but after continue to discriminate against other forms of marriage? People wanting to marry multiple partners for instance, to enjoy more than one wife or one husband at a time-polygamy i believe its called, they would be demanding the right to marriage. People wishing to marry a relative, the tenet would have to be open to allow them to marry as well. Any form of nuptials you can dream up would eventually be allowed, which in the end would destroy what matrimonial is all about. If you think im wrong, do some research. Gay conjugal was legalized in Canada, and now contained by Canada Polygamist groups are demanding the right to be allowed to marry multiple partners, and using the gay excuse as their reasoning. Their argument centers around the fact that Canada allows special interest groups such as gays to marry but not other special interest groups thus it is discrimination.
I don't have a basis why, I think that they should have all the right of a marriage ceremony. The only thing I can say is I don`t know it shouldn't be called marriage because that is not the definition of matrimonial. http://www.answers.com/marriage I think that whatever it be called, GLBT should enjoy the right of a "marriage" or "union", with ALL the rights or a standard marriage. I would like to comment on a few previous posts though. About the domestic marriages, those laws are in place to prevent inbreeding, which is a serious issue if it be to occur. Inbreeding will cause problems not just for a single relations, but countries if it were to continue. Polygamy could very in good health be illegal for the same reason. Same sex couples, however, cannot reproduce so inbreeding is not an issue. Therefor the two can't be compared. It "not man the way America is" is a terrible argument because America was founded on the beliefs of tolerance and espousal. Now to the person who said marriage isn't just a contract between two nation, but an entire society? Please, really? What involvement does an entire country have in a single couple's marriage? That's adjectives I have to say for the moment. Perhaps I'll think of more an bowdlerize later.
mormans are supporting prop 8 cause they belive that then they will own a valid argument when they start to fight for their sick love of polyigomy
no i can't, sissies should be as miserable as everyone else.
I'm a firm believer of the abolition of ALL forms of matrimonial. Marriage is a word that causes a lot of trouble these days, and so lots issues could be solved just by eliminating marriage and have civil unions in their place. They are the same entity, but the words "civil union" don't cause anywhere near as much uproar or problems as "marriage".
I was interested to see what "good" reason there were, but reading the responses so far, it doesn't appear to be any. The "procreation" argument: We allow infertile couple to get married. There is also abundant couples that never have children by choice. These people are still allowed to get married, as long they are a man and woman, but a gay couple is excluded. The "tradition" argument: Traditions come and go. It use to be traditional to marry withing your race, and there be laws in some states banning interracial marriage. The courts have ruled these rules are unconstitutional even though it was tradition. The "not what the country was created for" argument: I will make a clean breast this is a new one, but that doesn't make it a good argument. The country wasn't created to be a superpower and the world's police force, but it is anyway. The world be a different place when the country was created. The world has changed since, and to say we shouldn't vary with it is just ludicrous. The "allow other forms of marriages" argument: Two words - CONSENTING ADULTS. What is so wrong with polygamy? If adjectives persons have full knowledge and consent, why should the establishment say they can't? And, although I feel incest is wrong, if a brother and sister know the consequences, why should the government recount them what they can and cannot do. And, "consenting adults" does not include animals or children. Neither can legally give consent, and children are not adults. The "religion" argument: Even though you don't want to hear it, and not many relatives have mentioned it in their answer, I'll comment on it. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony that binds two people within the eyes of their God. But it is also a legal contractual union between two people. Atheists are allowed to gain married in non-religious ceremonies, and divorce is handled contained by the courts (and not all religions will recognize a divorce). If your church does not believe in gay wedding ceremony, they do not have to perform the ceremony.
Halfwords has the right story. It's not a matter of rights. The American those can reward whoever it wants to reward and that includes straight marriage, students, military veterans, farmers and others. The government is not contained by the business of certifying people's personal, private relationships. We couldn't care less who have a committed long term relationship. It's none of our business. The only reason we support classic bridal is because we thought that helping marriage aided in the raising of America's subsequent generation. It's either all just about children (as far as the government is concerned) or we have no interest in it at adjectives.
Ok, here's a polite reason. There are already laws against two people who are too closely related getting married. There are law against two people who are already married to other people getting married. There are laws against two ancestors who are too young getting married. There are laws against two people who aren't mentally competent getting married. And in that are probably other laws I'm unaware of. So the legality of restricting who can and can't go and get married is already proven. In the past, and even now, there hold been societies that allowed marriages of the types I just planned. So these marriages aren't banned because of some universal principle. They're prohibited because our society chooses to ban them. So, if our society chooses to ban gay marriage, we enjoy a right to do so, for any reason, or for no reason. Why shouldn't we? We already do it in other cases. If conjugal was just a contract between two people, I would influence I don't have any business telling people they can or can't win married. But marriage isn't a contract between two people. It's a contract between a couple, and the rest of society. And, as a part of that society, I own a right to chose what I do and don't recognize.
Gay marriage isn't wrong. It just doesn't exist. You'll need to mark out equal marriage for me. True, being straight, I don't have to be married. But if I required to marry another man I couldn't. Neither can Big Gay Al. Neither can Joe Sixpack, Perez Hilton, Carrot Top, or Barack Obama. So how is that discrimination? Marriage is defined as a union between one consenting man and one consenting woman. Therefore, gay/lesbian marriage doesn't exist, because it doesn't create any sense. If gays want to have unions with like peas in a pod rights as married couples, they should fight for those rights, not to be called "married." Two consenting homosexuals in a alliance isn't marriage because it's not one man and one woman. I'm all for the gay/lesbian groups to have their union with equal rights that married couples in the United States are entitled to. But why are they so hellbent on having it call marriage? Fight for rights and not a title. I can fight for my right to be called an emperor and may even obtain a law passed that calls me that. But since I don't have the power or rights of an emperor I'm still not one. It's not marriage ceremony and it never will be. It's not the same thing.