Why should same sex marriage not be legal in the USA?...................
Back to the question as it is framed: Why should gay marriage not be legal? These are the arguments I have heard expressed by various people who oppose gay marriage. They are all rooted in religious belief and/or anti-gay sentiment.
Those who say it should not be legalized most often view marriage as more than a legal contract; they believe marriage is a spiritual union between a man and a woman established and blessed by God. This is how they define marriage. The idea of gay marriage, then, is unacceptable on religious grounds. They see it as a threat to the very definition of marriage.
Other opponents of gay marriage simply reject homosexual relationships. They cannot accept the idea that two men or two women could love each other as partners and mates. To accept gay marriage would require that they accept loving homosexual relationships. They see this acceptance as a threat to the social fabric because they believe homosexuality is "unnatural."
So it seems the main arguments made against legalizing gay marriage are these: It violates God's will, it redefines the concept of marriage, it threatens the structure of society, and it goes against nature. I am not endorsing these arguments--just trying to summarize them.
This one will be a passionate topic. A primary reason as to why people give a reason why same sex marriage should not be deemed as legal would be because of the Constitutional Framers never envisioned such a notion. This argument suggests that if it is not presented in the Constitution, it cannot be directly inferred. This restraint approach to the interpretation of the Constitution is a reason why same/ sex marriage is considered unconstitutional. Having said this, the counter response to this would be that much of what we now consider as absolute were discarded by the Framers. Women, people of color, as well as the poor were not acknowledged by the framers. We now know they were either "wrong" in these cases or simply lacked the vision that we now have. Perhaps, it is argued, the rights of homosexual partners can be seen in the same light.
I agree. We are a nation of growth and change. The framers of the constitution never envisioned "Brown v. Board", "Tinker v. Iowa," "Roe v. Wade." and etc. That does not mean that our country should not have considered and passed legislation that deals with these issues.
What was conceived as our forefathers laid the foundation for the governing of this great country has been eclipsed by the country's growth and change. What we conceive of now will be eclipsed by more growth and change. The point being, homosexual unions were not recognized by the framers, but they exist now, and perhaps they should be recognized within the law.
The provisions of the Constitution, indeed, the intent of the document itself was to restrain the power of government. The government has no place in how individuals decide to bind themselves to each other. Their purpose is to safeguard rights. If consenting adults decide what is correct for them, and no one else's rights are threatened by that decision, why is government even involved in this issue? If anything, same sex marriage is of religious, not secular concern.
hi civilized people even animals cant do this . wake up
Some questions have been put to me directly in post #6.
Question 1: How are Gay people 'different'
Answer: Most of the people are heterosexual. So, homosexuals are different. By the way why this sensitivity to being labeled "different". Would you mind if I called Einstein? Or, you think he was common?
Question 2: Why is their desire to get married a 'degrading sham'
Answer: Please note that the words "degrading" and "sham" have been used by me at different places. Putting these two word together as a single phrase creates meaning not intended. The questioner will be in a better position to explain if this was a deliberate attempt to discredit some valid statements by attaching some invalid meanings to it, or a plain mistake. Anyhow I will explain my thinking behind using these two words.
Same sex relationship need not be bad in themselves to degrade something else. Salt is a very useful and essential ingredient used in our food. But it will definitely degrade the sugar I use in the kitchen if mixed with it. The relationship between same sex couple is different, except perhaps for the sexual pleasure part, from the relationship between husband and wife. If there are other significanr similarities, I would be happy to know what these are.
Regarding the word sham, my exact words are:
... sham for fulfilling desire of same sex couple to obtain certificates that they are no different from husband and wife couple.
Is the questioner claiming that same sex couple are no different from husband and wife couple. If so, I disagree with her. If not, I will ask her to kindly explain what is the purpose served by legalizing their marriage.
argument why it should not be legal?
[Gay Marriage] is a misuse of a highly valued and useful institution of our society. Let us not degrade it. I see no justification in debasing the age old custom of marriage by converting it into a sham for fulfilling desire of same sex couple to obtain certificates that they are no different from husband and wife couple... they are definitely different, and will remain different even if same sex marriages are legalized. - Krishna Agrawala
Misuse??? Sham??? Degrade???
How are Gay people 'different', Agrawala?
Why is their desire to get married a 'degrading sham'?
You post is outrageous homophobia and contains no rational explanation for your prejudice, only assertive presumptions. Kindly explain why Gay couples have no right to be considered equal to a straight married couple and why you think they should be excluded for being 'different'?
Marriage is an important institution common to all cultures around the world. It serves a very useful purpose in our social system. As per the established culture marriage is not a licence for man and a women to become a husband and wife. Rather it is an instrument to encourage and bind them to maintain that relationship "till death do them part".
Unfortunately, the supporters of same sex marriage, are trying to use marriage as a licence that will grant some degree of respectability to same sex marriage couples. That is a misuse of a highly valued and useful institution of our society. Let us not degrade it.
If the intention of same sex couple desire to remain loyal to each other for lifetime, I am sure no one is objecting to that. They can do so even without being certified as married to each other. I see no justification in debasing the age old custom of marriage by converting it into a sham for fulfilling desire of same sex couple to obtain certificates that they are no different from husband and wife couple. I am making no claim to one kind of couple being as inferior or superior to the other kind in their capacities as individuals. But they are definitely different, and will remain different even if same sex marriages are legalized.