Skip navigation.

Non-religious arguments against gay marriage

I have read some comments on this site that would lead me to believe that people believe that there are no non-religious reasons to ban gay marriage. I say otherwise. I do not know what people’s specific arguments for it here are, so I will start by countering some of the main points that I have been hearing else where.

The most prevalent argument that I hear is that homosexual couples wish to have the rights of being considered family, especially where hospital emergencies and inheritance issues are concerned. I would argue that if they really love each other that much, then they would take the steps necessary to secure those rights, even if they cannot be officially married. The problem of not being able to see each other in the case of a medical emergency is solved by signing the proper papers ahead of time, which would designate the partners as each other’s next of kin. Legally I could make anyone I wanted my next of kin, thus given the same rights as a family member. If that is not enough to satisfy the inheritance issue also, then I would propose that the couple write a will. Heterosexual couples even generally also go through the process of making a will. I think that it should also be noted that even in the case of a traditional marriage one spouse can fill out a will that would prohibit everything from being left to the other. A husband can just as easily leave everything to his favorite pet as he can to his wife.

I have also heard that gay couples wish to have an official ceremony that friends and family may attend. There is no law against arranging such a gathering. People invite friends and family to second weddings all of the time. In the LDS culture many couples perform ring ceremonies. I do not see why they cannot participate in these activities already.

There is also the argument that scientifically we find that homosexuality is a natural response to overpopulation, and so we should not fight so hard against policies having to do with it. I will quickly agree that the studies are accurate, but also point out that we find that disease and cannibalism are at least equally common responses to the same problem. I am not trying to compare homosexuality to disease or cannibalism in any way. However, I would say that until we stop fighting disease and legalize cannibalism, I see this as an invalid argument to support the gay community.

I see gay marriage as a socially bad move. For instance there is the problem of employers being required to provide health insurance for both partners. In some cases this would seem like a good thing, but in reality it would be too large a stress on the institution of family coverage. I believe that suddenly non-traditional couples would pop up everywhere to reap the benefits of such a situation. Under this plan, though I am heterosexual, I could become bound to another female simply to supply or gain those benefits. I also believe that family coverage is largely to support children, which currently most homosexual couples do not have. For those who have left school and moved on to the world of a career, I would ask how hard it would be to provide health care for two people without plans of having young ones. Though a science major, I do not have to prove to anyone the physical limitations posed to homosexual couples trying to have children, so the idea of preparing for an accident would also be irrelevant to them.

That brings me to my next argument. Once allowed to be officially married, homosexual couples will more than likely be able to adopt. I do not doubt the pure love that these couples would show a child, and I do not doubt their pure intentions. I do believe in the natural drive toward wanting to have children. Yet, I also know that it has been shown that children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems. These issues will affect their entire life. In the situation of a homosexual couple, who is trying to prove their validity as able parents, I fear that the children may not be offered the help that they would desperately need. To be honest, I believe that if you look, that you will find that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves. A situation of either the lack of one parent or one parent was extremely domineering in the relationship.

I know that this may be called a religious argument, and I almost do not include it, but the family truly is the foundation of society. The ability of any species to procreate and raise young according the process that they can achieve maximum fitness is the goal that brings survival. In some species maximum fitness is reached through promiscuity and fast weaning of young. The human race thrives on monogamy and long-term parental care, which is found in healthy families. Any reasonably intelligent person knows that a child is better off when raised by a mother and father, who can be examples of love to them, and can offer the best that both genders have to give. I did not grow up in Utah surrounded by LDS people, and I saw that other people knew this. In high school we had a class project to create a Utopia. One group, composed of all non-LDS and not even necessarily strongly religious students, created a world with loving families. They went to the extreme of actually banning homosexuality, but that was not what was striking about their world. They wanted a place where a mother would be a homemaker and a father would work hard for the family, then return home at night. I do not wish to get into arguments involving women’s rights to work or Fathers being options for homemakers. I do wish to point out that gay marriage would rock the foundations of a world trying to support a more healthy family situation. Families are the foundation of society. All of the people in the world, great and small, man and woman, came from some kind of family, and that family has helped to shape who they are and what they have become.

I do not claim that this is an all inclusive list of reasons to be opposed to gay marriage, but for those who did not think that there was one valid, non-religious thought against it, this is a start.

I really struggled to find

I really struggled to find sound arguments in this article. Concepts shortened for the sake of response.

1. "Gays want to be considered family; all they have to do is create x documents and y legal papers." So what does this mean, that you're not against the homosexual relationships, you just don't want them to use the term "married"?
2. "Gays want an official ceremony." Never heard this argument, but you're right, they can just as easily have a virtually meaningless ceremony just as easily as heterosexual couples can.
3. "Natural response to overpopulation." Never heard this argument either. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. But... I'm pretty sure that undercrowded populations have homosexuals in their crowd as well.
4. "Employers and health insurance." Employers and health insurance are independent of legal responsibility (except in a few cases). A lot of employers already offer health insurance to gay couples. I seriously doubt the passage of laws will change this substantially.
5. "Gays and children." Gays can, and do, already adopt. So much for health insurance problems.
6. Your words: I believe that if you look, that you will find that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves. A situation of either the lack of one parent or one parent was extremely domineering in the relationship. Okay, I have never heard that before, and it seems pretty ridiculous. You're trying to draw a connection between poor parenting and sexual orientation. What about the gay kids that come from great homes? Or the great kids that come from terrible homes? Please provide some sort of evidence for this.

This is why the "rights" on this issue frustrate me. Pull a bunch of crap out, label it as fact, and then say, "here is the scientific proof that gays should not marry." So imagine yourself in the currect reality, say you move to San Francisco where your gay neighbors, Adam and Steve, live with their adopted kids. They both have health insurance that covers each other and their kids, and they live as normally as a married heterosexual couples does. What, of the reasoning present in your article, does this do to harm society? Okay, now pretend that homosexual marriage is accepted mainstream... and Adam and Steve get married. What is the difference between that scenario and the first?

So what does this mean, that

So what does this mean, that you're not against the homosexual relationships, you just don't want them to use the term "married"?

So many arguments eeem to boil down to that, and to attempting to disallow the practices of other churches which do marry gays.

I've real problems with this, from a freedom of religion stance, and I'm struggling with the issues that are implied at this point.

I do not claim that this is

I do not claim that this is an all inclusive list of reasons to be opposed to gay marriage, but for those who did not think that there was one valid, non-religious thought against it, this is a start.

Sorry, but I'm still unconvinced that there are compelling, non-religious reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. Your article didn't do it for me.

To tell the truth, I'm also not yet convinced about many of the religious arguments made against SSM.

a flaw in this

Under this plan, though I am heterosexual, I could become bound to another female simply to supply or gain those benefits.

What stops heterosexuals from marrying the opposite sex to "simply...supply or gain those benefits" under the current laws? If this was really an issue, craigslist would be filled with people lining up to "exchange benefits" with the opposite sex.

What keeps people from doing this now? The fact that marriage is legally binding...that it has to be recognized by the state in both the creation and the dissolving of said contract. So along with all the potential benefits of such a union come the responsibilities (alimony, visitation, etc).

If we don't allow some people to marry just because they might not take the union seriously we might as well get rid of marriage all together. With 1 in 2 marriages ending in divorce we heterosexuals really can't tell homosexuals that we know what's best for the institution of marriage.

Hmm? Is Marriage The Feds Domain?

The issue:
This debate has thus far focused on whether the federal government should extend its legal definition of marriage to also recognize unions between two individuals of the same-sex, as it has traditionally between one man and one woman.

Duty of Responsible citizens and government: "Promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

The Common Belief:
There must be a law... We must insist that the government define a "legal" condition of marriage--after all, they have all the POWER, right?

Another Perspective on "How to promote the family":
Share the gospel--i.e. live the gospel; be good husbands, wives, sons and daughters; promote does not inherently imply legal restriction or definition. In a sense, we have relied on artificial constructs like government to define our own lives and associations for us, surrendering to the nameless, faceless, all-powerful, supreme being called "federal government" our individual freedom to associate or govern ourselves, according to our own will.

We do not need a government stamp on correct forms of God-like union (family & marriage) in order to exist in a relationship God has ordained for us. And, frankly, by asking government to define any interpersonal relationship--marriage, friendship, etc.--we might not only be cowardly surrendering what should be an "unalienable" right but also starting over the edge of a very slippery slope. Should the populace next take on to "define" religion, so as to limit what should be an "unalienable" right left to each individual? I can see my athiest friends cooking up new definitions already.

I believe that government has no right to define or endorse my associations or union for me, as far as they are not expressly granted by the US Consititution and as long as my associations and unions do not prevent another individual from choosing likewise.

Example: (The association between master and slave denies the slave of his/her unalienable rights of choice and freedom--ironically, slavery was one of the few associations expressed in the Constitution. From the very outset, noble principles were surrendered for powers and controls.)

We should be free to choose how we associate with one another, as long as we do not infringe on the "unalienable Rights" of others in doing so--"that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Let's remove our government that thinks it has the right to restrict and control and define our existence for us. As individuals, we might choose to let God define the patterns in our lives instead. Let us have Him for a supreme power in our lives, and not the wavering profiteers of Washington. And let us grant others the same priveledge--let them live how, where, and with whom they may--to their own success or failure. Then, if they meet failure, let us offer them a better way...

...through the example set by faithful saints, more will be done to promote the righteousness of faimly and marriage than by any other means. People will see the blessings we reap by living how God has ordained--they will desire this lifestyle and abandon sin faster.

The US Federal Government's stance or definition of what marriage is--regardless of how close to God's own position it is, how much buy-in among the public is achieved, or whether it is enforced at gun point--will never affect the mortal or eternal efficacy or nature of God's new and everlasting covenant of marriage. And quite frankly, it is by God's standards that I will FREELY CHOOSE to live, not by the will of whichever special interest group ends up buying the biggest number of political "decision makers" to have it their way.

But, maybe I'm wrong, or maybe, I'm just too idealistic.

What keeps people from doing

What keeps people from doing this now?

Nothing-- ever heard of Anna Nicole Smith?

Actually, there is something. The reason craigslist doesn't have people lining up for these benefits is because marriage is still somewhat of a sacred institution in our society. Marriage is more than just costs and benefits, which, incidentally, is why gays are so interested in it.

With 1 in 2 marriages ending in divorce we heterosexuals really can't tell homosexuals that we know what's best for the institution of marriage.

Ah yes, the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument. Since heterosexuals are running the institution of marriage into the ground, we may as well just give up and let gays take it the rest of the way.

That said, I kind of agree with you. Perhaps a solution to this issue is to get government out of the institution of marriage altogether. If some church wants to marry two gay people, let them. Then everyone can apply for benefits, etc. (which, as Cashew has pointed out, are already available to gay couples) under the current system and people will not forced to put a stamp of legitimacy on relationships that go against their religious beliefs.

Religious Freedom?

I do not see this as an issue of religious freedom. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that right now if any religious sect wishes to recognize a gay marriage they are allowed to. I am talking about federal and legal recognition.

Interesting points, Farker

In the interests of disclosure, I do not believe homosexuals are entitled to all of the benefits offered to married couples. However, I do believe that steps should be taken such that homosexuals who wish to legally bind themselves to each other may do so.

Marriage, at least as our forefathers envisioned it, was an institution primarily designed for child-rearing. Our tax code reflects this; we give parents with children more tax breaks than those without. The rules regarding child support and divorce settlements are geared primarily so that the caretaker of the children will have the financial wherewithal to raise them. So from a strictly etymological standpoint, I dont think gays CAN marry in the traditional sense of the word. And yes, Im aware that many heterosexual couples cannot have children, but we'll set that aside for the moment.

Gays, for the most part, do not have children. I do not believe they should be able to adopt them, either. While not much data has been collected on children of homosexual parents, we usually find that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to be homosexuals themselves, and thus have a higher likelihood of comorbidity of depression, suicidal ideation, and other mental health care problems. As far as point 6 goes, I've never heard that theory either. I can cite a source for the above statement, though I'll avoid indulging in armchair psychology and stick to what the sources indicate.

For point 5, several states do not permit single or homosexual parents to adopt. Utah and Florida are two that immediately come to mind. Many of the adoption agencies in states are run by religious groups (LDS family services, for example); it could possibly be considered violation of a variety of civil rights acts if these groups, whose moral code prohibits them from giving children to gay couples, did not do so. So gay marriage could help bring adoption to a halt in these states.

For point 4, employers and health insurers are not independent of legal responsibility. I'd suggest doing some research on the AIDS/ADA issue, which has a lot of relevance to the discussion at hand. Gays are more expensive to insure than their hetero counterparts on a per-capita basis. I think a company should be able to choose whether or not it will recognize gay significant others. You might be interested to know that San Fran will cover sex change operations for any city employee or his/her significant other. I don't think San Fran is a good example of where we want to be as a country.

Points 1-3 I see as semantics or non-sequiturs and somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I think homosexuals should be able to have a contract with each other that would provide for division of assets at divorce and inheritance at death, legal rights (such as visiting rights at hospitals) relevant to each other, and things like SS survivor benefits. I don't think they should be able to adopt in states that already prohibit such things, and I don't think they're entitled to tax breaks since, for the most part, they're not raising children nor do they have plans to do so.

Problem with that is, each state has its own patchwork of civil rights, marriage, and adoption laws. An unbrella federal law would certainly help straighten things out, but at the cost of compromise many states would be unhappy with.

Response

I think that the real problem was communication of ideas, perhaps I was not explicit enough for you.

So what does this mean, that you're not against the homosexual relationships, you just don't want them to use the term married ?

I thought that I was pretty clear in the title that I was arguing against gay marriage. I do not think that arguing against gay marriage and the homosexual way of life are the same thing. In one I am fighting what I see as legal sanction and support, and in the other I would be arguing against a belief and lifestyle choice. The first section is meant to more say that those who subscribe to such this belief or lifestyle are not currently at as much of a disadvantage to those who do not as the public opinion might have you believe.

I'm pretty sure that undercrowded populations have homosexuals in their crowd as well.

This is yet another argument that I agree with. As you may have noticed, I never said that overpopulated areas had a corner on the market of homosexuals. To be honest I do not even really believe that overpopulation is that much of a factor in the rise of the gay community. This is simply an argument that I have heard that I wished to immediately counter before it was given to me.

Employers and health insurance are independent of legal responsibility (except in a few cases)

Now here is where I will tell you that I believe that you are wrong. What is the reason that many people in the US are employed for 30 and not 40 hour work weeks? So that the employers, by law, will not have to offer them benefits for being full time employees. I am aware of the fact that many businesses currently offer benefits to homosexual couples, to interfere with their ability to offer such coverage to whom ever they please I would see as a violation of their rights. However, I believe that under the legal requirements, benefits must not only be extended to the individual, but to the employee’s immediate family, which would include spouse and children, if present. By allowing gay couples to be seen as legal spouses, then these rights to coverage would automatically be extended to them also. That is were I am saying that the added stress to the system would come from.

Gays can, and do, already adopt

Yes, I know, but it is very difficult. In many cases, the only way it is accomplished is by one partner adopting the child as a single parent. That process is also difficult. Not that adoptions are easy, but it is currently much easier for a legally married family to adopt children. Married people are also be more likely to be able to adopt multiple children. By offering legal marriage, one would open up far more doors for far more adoptions to homosexual couples.

You're trying to draw a connection between poor parenting and sexual orientation. What about the gay kids that come from great homes? Or the great kids that come from terrible homes? Please provide some sort of evidence for this.

I should have made it more clear that this was more an opinion and a result of personal study of gay men. But I believe that you are trying to draw an incorrect conclusion from my words. I never said that most kids raised in terrible homes become gay. I said that I believed that most gay men came from bad home situations. The logical difference is between saying that ‘everyone in the car crash died’ or that ‘everyone in a car crash dies.’ You are arguing against something that I did not mean to imply. Also, I never said that ALL homosexual men came from damaged homes.

As for your “Adam and Steve” argument...

they live as normally as a married heterosexual couples does

I would like to point out that a major point of debate in the gay marriage controversy is whither or not it is possible for Adam and Steve to live as normally as a heterosexual couple.

What, of the reasoning present in your article, does this do to harm society? Okay, now pretend that homosexual marriage is accepted mainstream... and Adam and Steve get married. What is the difference between that scenario and the first?

Now we return to the first point. I believe that there is a very big difference between what the government allows people to do, what beliefs and lifestyles they are allowed to be a part of, and what the government sanctions. As I said in the original article, I believe that the gay family undermines what healthy family life should be. Currently, what you prescribe that Adam and Steve have is not what the common homosexual couple has, or may even currently have much access to. If they are allowed to be lawfully married, then society as a whole must accept that as a legitimate alternative to normal heterosexual marriage and family. The natural restrictions posed by their not being officially married would cease.

That depends...

It's hard to comment on your review of the original story, I guess you are entitled to your opinion. And I should think that the religious arguments would depend on your religion. If you were more specific, then there would probably be a better reply out there for you.

Where did you get this?

Yet, I also know that it has been shown that children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems. These issues will affect their entire life. In the situation of a homosexual couple, who is trying to prove their validity as able parents, I fear that the children may not be offered the help that they would desperately need. To be honest, I believe that if you look, that you will find that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves. A situation of either the lack of one parent or one parent was extremely domineering in the relationship.

Where is this coming from? Could you back it up with some kind of case study, or an article or something? Or did you just pull it out of your...

Son of a....! I just wrote

Son of a....! I just wrote this huge reply and it was swallowed up in the intrawebs somehow. I will reply later. Dang it!

Marriage, at least as our

Marriage, at least as our forefathers envisioned it, was an institution primarily designed for child-rearing. Our tax code reflects this; we give parents with children more tax breaks than those without.

Which forefathers would those be? Yes, the tax code is structured in such a way to encourage families, but these tax breaks help everyone. A family that pays less in taxes pays more into the economy.

While not much data has been collected on children of homosexual parents, we usually find that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to be homosexuals themselves, and thus have a higher likelihood of comorbidity of depression, suicidal ideation, and other mental health care problems.

This is in complete opposition to the studies I have read, which said that there was no statistical difference in the sexual orientation of kids growing up with gay parents compared to the kids growing up with straight parents. Meaning, having gay parents does not make one gay. That should be obvious enough. In any case, why do gays suffer depression, suicidal ideation, and other mental health care problems? Is it because of their sexuality? Or is it because of the stigma in our society against gays? Not to point fingers or anything, but for a Christian culture we sure seem to have a hard time loving the sinner and hating the sin.

employers and health insurers are not independent of legal responsibility

If you're suggesting that employers have any obligation to provide health insurance at all (aside from government entities), I'd love to see the laws on that. Last I checked, employers gave benefits as a benefit: the same way they decided how much to pay employees. My mom's company started extending benefits to gay couples, not because of any legal obligation, but to attract good PR and potential employees.

I think a company should be able to choose whether or not it will recognize gay significant others.

Sure, so do I... just like companies choose whether or not to insure employees in the first place, or which employees they will, etc.

I'm not playing devil's advocate here, or standing up for the gay community. At all. I question the methods being used to enforce what I see as a largely homophobic crowd. And it bothers me to no end to see lies used as facts. I would venture to say that 75% of all anti-gay literature I've seen has blatantly false information in it, designed to sensationalize the issue.

I really don't think we disagree with each other here.

/I'd rather live in hell than San Francisco

I don't think it would take

I don't think it would take a scientific study to figure out that children do best with a mother and a father. I think this story is telling:

In an interview on ABC’s "Primetime Live" a few years ago, Diane Sawyer asked Rosie O'Donnell, "Would it break your heart if he [Rosie’s 6-year-old son Parker] said, 'I want a mommy and a daddy'?" Rosie said, "No. And he has said that." Diane said, “He has?” Rosie answered, "Of course he has. But as I said to my son, Parker, 'If you were to have a daddy, you wouldn’t have me as a mommy because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy'" source

Now, I'm not going to suggest that we disallow gay couples to adopt. When it comes to bad parenting, the government takes the cake. But gay couples do not make an ideal family situation.

As far as the forefathers

As far as the forefathers go, I'm inclined to believe that they wanted people to marry and reproduce based on the tax code and the fact that they needed a rapidly reproducing population in order to survive, at least in the early days of the colonies. I'm sure there's plenty of room for ambiguity on the matter, though I'm not sure it matters too much-- the marriage institution benefits those with children the most, which to me, at least, means that that was most likely its primary purpose-- benefitting the raising of children.

Children raised by homosexuals are more likely to become homosexuals themselves. A couple that I was able to pull off the shelf quickly; both also are heavily footnoted, from which you can draw more evidence. I don't think this should be surprising to anyone, though I will confess that it does bring up an interesting moral dilemma, to be discussed below:

Judith Stacey, Timothy J. Biblarz; American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2. (Apr., 2001), pp. 159-183.

Alan Booth, Paul R. Amato; Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 56, No. 4. (Nov., 1994), pp. 865-877.

If it is possible for homosexuality to be socially (as opposed to biologically) constructed, then it is possible to influence a child's sexual identity. If that's the case, then the argument that people are born homosexual is largely moot. In any case, it is certainly something that deserves more scrutiny-- for about every fifty articles on AIDS and homosexual unacceptance, there was one on the influence of homosexuality on children's sexual outcomes. I was troubled by the blatant political pandering-- on both sides-- in a large number of the articles I looked up. If there's some sociology/psychology/Marriage & human development folks on the board, it'd be a great thing to research.

If you search my previous posts, you'll find one where I cite several articles linking homosexuality to greater suicideal ideation, even in accepting places like San Fran. The same studies also indicate a number of other factors that might also be correlates, including drug use (homosexuals who have committed suicide also used more drugs than their hetero counterparts) and race (whites have greater likelihood of committing suicide and also to be openly gay). The idea that social stigmatization is an important variable in homosexual suicide is, unfortunately, wrong, as homosexual suicide rates as a portion of the background population remain constant regardless of the sociological context.

Employers are under no obligation to pay health benefits. But, if they offer beni's to married couples, if gay couples could marry, they could be legally obligated to offer the same beni's to homosexual married couples under ERA or EEOC. And homosexuals are more expensive to insure. I think a company should be entitled to discriminate however they'd like when it comes to sexuality-- the free market will punish those that discriminate unjustly-- but lawsuits would fly if gay marriages were instituted and companies insuring hetero couples did not insure homosexual couples as well.

I don't take you as playing devil's advocate. Intelligent people ask questions, research, and draw their own conclusions, which I see you've done.

So that's my take on the matter. I'd rather go back to the swampy jungles of Okeechobee, Florida, before I get within twenty miles of San Fran.

Sorry... just this part.

I should have made myself more clear mephi, I also agree that children do better with both parents. i quoted too much from the original post.

This is the part i had a problem with.

To be honest, I believe that if you look, that you will find that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves.

I just don't know how that statement can really be backed up.

Ive seen wonderful parenting situations that still end up with gay offspring. I just don't feel that being a good or bad parent determines who your son or daughter will be attreacted to. I do recognize that children who grow up in a SSM might view that lifestyle as more acceptable then those who do not.

You missed something

I noticed that you skipped over a couple arguments to your benefit. Firstly, the fact "that children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems." Take a Psychology course and you'll know this is true. Secondly, although the author didn't specifically state evolution I know they were going towards it. From an evolutionary perspective bisexuals/gays/lesbians/transgenders/whateverelseyoumightcallthem are a detriment to society. The ability of any species to procreate and raise young according the process that they can achieve maximum fitness is the goal that brings survival. If we allow it then we will have a problem on our hands. Thirdly, people don't get married to have tax breaks, they get married to love one another... therefore this idea that gays are "revolting" because they don't have tax breaks in their partnerships isn't right. Now, I do see this as unequal and also agree that it shouldn't stay that way but the fact that this is the main reason people want gay marriage legalized is something I don't agree with.
And just one of my own...
I know most people don't like to use the "slippery slope" idea it definitely pertains. If we can legalize gay marriage what is wrong with polygamy? or fraternal marriage? or, God forbid, marrying pets? You can't dismiss this because it is an obvious problem. You would be the one discriminating then...

"And quite frankly, it is by

"And quite frankly, it is by God's standards that I will FREELY CHOOSE to live, not by the will of whichever special interest group ends up buying the biggest number of political "decision makers" to have it their way"

Amen. I grew up in the church, and i am a Christian...but they way i see it, God gave us free will. That means we have to figure out for ourselves what we want to do and what is right or wrong. God gave us the choice. Not to mention, when it boils down to it..God is the only judge. We have no right to judge others, its not our place, it even says that in the Bible SEVERAL times. So why can't we let people FREELY CHOOSE how to live their life and leave the judgement to God? I, for one, am not about to stand in the way of someone else's happiness.

It makes sense

I just thought that your article made a lot of sense. And to the others that commented on it saying how stupid it was and how the only thing she said was that they simply couldn't have the title, I think that it is weird that gay rights has moved faster than racial equalty or feminism. We have given legal rights to homosexuals and have generally accepted them into our commuinities (since apparently they are going to be our neighbors in every situation), so there must be a reason why people who support gay rights do not vote yes on gay marriage. It is more than religious reasons to vote no. And even if everyone who voted no believed it went against their moral code, it is their right to. I have a hard time believing that any gay activist is going to change the morals and beliefs of people. Just like gay people have the rights to hold jobs and have relationships, we have the right to practice religion and vote according to what we believe is right. Isn't that how everyone votes? So obviously a majority of people do not agree with legalizing gay marriage, otherwise I believe it would have passed a while ago.

Okay Let's Look at the Actual Facts Here

I am a Libertarian, therefore I believe heavily in limited to no government involvement in our lives. If it were up to me I would say the government has no right or authority to recognize my marriage to begin with. I only care that my religion recognizes it. If government would like to count my marriage in a census poll, well that's just fine, but instead they want to deem legal or illegal. I don't like that. In fact until 100 years ago, the government only took count of married couples from religious records. If they would have just stuck to that practice, then we wouldn't have the gay marriage issue to begin with, unless they could find a religion that would marry them, which are far and few in between.

But now let's have a reality check, the government is involved in the legality of marriage. The way I see it, the reason why the LDS church gets involved is because of the following: Let's say the government decides to legalize marriage. Well now if the church decides to still deny gay marriage in their temples and the homosexual community wants to fuss about it, which they almost certainly will, then it's a political issue, and if a religion takes an official political stance then the government no longer recognizes them as a religion thus losing their tax haven and many abilities to use finances for the building of the church. In the governments eyes the church is taking a "bigoted" stance against homosexuals. So what now? The government steps in and says "wait a minute Mormons, if you are going to perform legal marriages in your temple then you must allow the same privilage to all who wish to get married therein, otherwise you are taking a political stance so we are taking away your religion status." Or the church will relent on performing legal marriages, and they will no longer perform legal marriages in temples, only spiritual ones. The legal ones will have to be done at the courthouse. This causes quite a ripple effect of problems for the church so they have a very big stake in this.

the church has no interest in forcing people to not sin, that would go against everything they teach. They have interest in their ability to move freely as a religion. Religion from a constitutional stand point is the only thing that makes anti-gay marriage a viable argument.

That is just simply untrue;

That is just simply untrue; churches will never, and should never, be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that don't want to. Just like the Bishop at my parents' church can refuse to marry any straight couple, he will be allowed to refuse any gay couple. Also, I very seriously doubt that any gay couple would actively campaign to get married in the temple.

haha

until we stop fighting disease and legalize cannibalism, I see this as an invalid argument to support the gay community.

Ha Ha this just made my day :)

you have made no valid

you have made no valid argument. what about all the heterosexuals that grew up in seperated or "broken" families? A lot of them turned out just fine. In a gay family, each person will assume either a masculine or feminine role and so there is no deprivation of that energy for a child raised in that environment. Instead of coming off like an ignoramus next time,might I suggest that you research a bit more?

"Same sex attraction is a

"Same sex attraction is a dysfunctional form of idolatry."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n078cvLw8I&feature=player_detailpage#t=132s

The two points he puts forth beforehand have to do with the bible but his third idea is actually rather poignant. Homosexuality is a love of yourself. You think your body type is so great that you want to have sex with it but seeing as that is somewhat difficult you have sex with the same gender. Yeah, I know most people are going to hate on this, but I can't think of a better way to put it.