What are some arguments against gay marriage?

what are some reasons why gay marriage should not be approved by the government or why gay marriage is bad or something to that effect.What are some arguments against gay marriage?
It's not bs. Marriage is a religious binding. Throughout history these types of ceremonies were only allowed to be performed by clergy. Recently, historically speaking, the secular portion of society has begun performing what they call ';marriages'; but in reality are civil unions. I have no problem with anyone wanting a civil union, but a marriage implies connection to the Church or religion. Because a 'marriage' is a religious ceremony, each religion should be able to decide who can and cannot be married in their churches. This movement is an effort to undermine the Church and bring it under governmental control. If it is legal, then Churches refusing to perform the ceremonies are going to be seen as discriminatory and forced to close their doors.





EDIT: Eric, you really need to think before you post, the Church should not be controlled by the government. Ever hear of separation of Church and State?


btw, Thanks Darthjuku!


Edit 2: Then you may want to bring up the fact that the federal government does not have the right to make such a decree. Such decisions are best left to each individual state, most of which have consistently voted against it.What are some arguments against gay marriage?
Marriage exists as a legal and financial union created by the government and recognized by the IRS. It's chief function is to provide economic incentive for the formation of biologically productive unions.





If you need this for a debate, I recommend using something like the above. Avoid ever mentioning religion for any reason at any time.
As you can see, you get much opinion, and little based on any reasonable thinking skills.





There are good secular reasons to disallow homosexual marriage, I'll give you some.





There are also excellent reasons for those of faith not to consider this a valid behavior.





How does homosexual marriage effect heterosexuals?





- It attempts to redefine marriage.





If one special interest group (homosexuals) are allowed a special privilege, why would we not allow it to ALL special interest groups (polygamists, polyamory, (crazy? Look at Lawrence vs. Texas!) family members, lowering the age of consent as some homosexual groups actively are working for). Once marriage is redefined, there is no objective standard. If two can marry, why not four? Why not seven? What’s really different? This is a standard that even the homosexual activists aren’t willing to allow their fellow Americans.





- It attempts to redefine what’s known as marriage or its equivalent in all cultures.





All people groups have an understanding of marriage or its like as a relationship between one woman and one man. This isn’t Western or American prejudice.





- It’s damaging to children.





All studies that have involved this subject acknowledge it’s best to have a husband and wife raising children. In redefining marriage, what’s best for the children is secondary to the wants of the “adults”.





- The European models.





When we look at the European studies after marriage has been allowed in their countries, we can learn a lot of things. Less than 10% of eligible marriages take place. They are in a formal relationship for financial reasons. The average marriage lasts 18 months with each partner having an average of 9 extramarital affairs. Clearly, we can see that love have little to do with homosexual marriage as we’ve already been able to study it.





- The goal of radical homosexual activists isn’t to promote homosexual marriage, rather, to abolish marriage entirely, thus redefining the family.





Consider sociologist Gretchen Stiers's 1998 study ';From this Day Forward'; (Stiers favors gay marriage, and calls herself a lesbian ';queer theorist';). ';From this Day Forward'; reports that while exceedingly few of even the most committed gay and lesbian couples surveyed believe that marriage will strengthen and stabilize their personal relationships, nearly half of the surveyed couples who actually disdain traditional marriage (and even gay commitment ceremonies) will nonetheless get married. Why? For the financial and legal benefits of marriage. And Stiers's study suggests that many radical gays and lesbians who yearn to see marriage abolished (and multiple sexual unions legitimized) intend to marry, not only as a way of securing benefits but as part of a self-conscious attempt to subvert the institution of marriage. Stiers's study suggests that the ';subversive'; intentions of the radical legal theorists are shared by a significant portion of the gay community itself. Stiers's study was focused on the most committed gay couples. Yet even in a sample with a disproportionate number of male couples who had gone through a commitment ceremony (and Stiers had to go out of her research protocol just to find enough male couples to balance the committed lesbian couples) nearly 20 percent of the men questioned did not practice monogamy. In a representative sample of gay male couples, that number would be vastly higher. More significantly, a mere 10 percent of even this skewed sample of gay men mentioned monogamy as an important aspect of commitment (meaning that even many of those men who had undergone ';union ceremonies'; failed to identify fidelity with commitment). And these, the very most committed gay male couples, are the ones who will be trailblazing marital norms for their peers, and exemplifying gay marriage for the nation. So concerns about the effects of gay marriage on the social ideal of marital monogamy seem justified.


A recent survey of gay couples in civil unions by University of Vermont psychologists Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon confirms what Stiers's study suggests--that married gay male couples will be far less likely than married heterosexual couples to identify marriage with monogamy. Rothblum and Solomon contacted all 2,300 couples who entered civil unions in Vermont between June 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. More than 300 civil union couples residing in and out of the state responded. Rothblum and Solomon then compared the gay couples in civil unions with heterosexual couples and gay couples outside of civil unions. Among married heterosexual men, 79 percent felt that marriage demanded monogamy, 50 percent of men in gay civil unions insisted on monogamy, while only 34 percent of gay men outside of civil unions affirmed monogamy.


- Marriages of Convenience


Ironically, the form of gay matrimony that may pose the greatest threat to the institution of marriage involves heterosex
Though there are a lot of interesting agruements posted thus far, I think that Samworld and mcshughes are the best thought out and reasonable.





Eric K is so wrong it is rediculas. Biblicaly speaking, Moses remaried after his first wife pased away, his second wife was black. Race didn't become an issue until the protestant ';reformation';. And over the last hundred years at ';churches'; founded by racists. Eric, you fail.





As for me, I take a much broader stance in this arguement. Samworld is correct in that marriage has always been a religious institution. That being said, ALL unions performed outside the Church should be civil unions.





When my wife and I were married, we were required to attend classes, not to mention the 6 month minimum waiting period from the time we spoke to the priest about our deaire to wed. We were married with the full understanding that our union is for the rest of our lives, not just until we found something else to do. We entered a covenant with eachother bound by Christ and what the Lord has put together, let no man seperate.





Today's ';maraiges'; are nothing more than a tax wright off, or what two people do when their too drunk to think straight in Las Vegas. It is a shamefull act. Years ago, when you would tell someone that you were married, it was expected that you would grow old together and live the rest of your lives as huaband and wife. Today's marraige has no more expectation of lasting than a fart in a dust storm. It's a discrace that deminishes the value of all marriage.





I believe that if two people decide to have a civil union they should be aforded the same rights as a married couple but there should be a distinction between the two.
Samworld, you're talking about the exact same churches that didn't recognize inter-racial marriages. Obviously they grew up about that, I think its time they grow up about this. =\





I mean seriously, how many years of our lives are you going to waste in us throwing up petitions and marches in your face just to make it happen in the end anyways? Just, Grow, Up.
Society is scared of change to the way they believe what is right and what is wrong. They get set in their thinking and don't want any changes in what society as a whole wants society to be like.


Issues of gay marriages will be long in its processes until people accept the change.
look i'm not gay but who the hell is the american govt. to tell anyone why they should or should not get married. we're not commies....what the hell! people should be standing up for their rights more...there are some issues that govt. should NEVER be involved in %26amp; this is def. one of them. before you know we'll have lost so many of our priviliges because the government deemed it so...if you have a voice, grow some balls %26amp; SPEAK UP!
This is a silly place to ask that.


Pretty much anyone here won't like them.


Some arguments are:


God told us not to be, it's evil, it's the devils place, people with 2 vaginas can't make kids, so it's not right... But they're all pathetic arguments.
the biggest one is


'; god made adam and eve, not adam and steve. ';





what a load of BS !





these christian folk are hypocrites,





Love thy neighbour, only if he's straight.


hypocrites.
All the arguments pretty much fail, and when you scratch below the surface, the arguments all rely on religious bs.
Marriage=woman %26amp; man=children


Marriage=man %26amp; man=promiscuous anal sex=nothing
See the religion section, they have reasons by the boatload over there :(





none of which are actually reasonable.
wrong section..





try the catholic section, bud..
There should be no argument over this
There should be no argument over this. It's right and it's love.