Gay Persons Against Gay Marriage

[James]

After France's first same-sex marriage, and a vote in the UK Parliament which puts England and Wales on course for gay weddings next summer, two US Supreme Court rulings expected soon could hasten the advance of same-sex marriage across the Atlantic. But some gay people remain opposed. Why?

"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."

Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.

But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.

"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434

i think they actually make a lot of good points; traditional marriage was meant with heterosexuality and procreation in mind, both of which being gay doesn't really entail. i think if there was a viable option where homosexuals can still have a spiritual and federal link, it'd work out better. right now the option is without a lot of key benefits people need in a union, benefits only marriage has.
though i still think **** should have the right to marry if they choose, having something different would be really neat.

what do you guys think?

 

[xxemobladexx]

hes a hypocrite when he is gay himself and he is saying gay marriage shouldnt be allowed
i think its cause hes afraid of being judged

 

[Rebecca Chambers]

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434

i think they actually make a lot of good points; traditional marriage was meant with heterosexuality and procreation in mind, both of which being gay doesn't really entail. i think if there was a viable option where homosexuals can still have a spiritual and federal link, it'd work out better. right now the option is without a lot of key benefits people need in a union, benefits only marriage has.
though i still think **** should have the right to marry if they choose, having something different would be really neat.

what do you guys think?

"Traditional" marriage was also full of disgusting acts, at least according to religious texts. Muhammad and his child bride Aisha, whom he married when she was six years of age and had sex with her at the age of nine, for example. Or the whole section of the bible (I forget exactly which) that says that if a virgin girl is raped, her rapist must marry her and look after her, etc. I find it laughable that anyone could try to argue over the sanctity of marriage and how the **** will ruin it, what with the shady past, present, and future marriage holds. I am not too bothered about marriage, but the choice to marry my partner regardless of their gender should be there.

However, I am also of the opinion that marriage itself is, for the most part, a religious ceremony. As such, I fail to understand why people who do not subscribe to those religions partake in it. Civil partnerships should be available to all people, not just homosexuals. If you are not religious, you should not really partake in religious activities, imo.

With that said, overall I feel the same way for it as I do the abortion debate. If it does not directly affect you, why should you care? The person in that article obviously doesn't want to marry, and that's perfectly fine. But there are people who do. Why should he have any say in what they want? Would he not be displeased if he were told he couldn't do something other people can, simply because he's gay? I bet it'd piss him off.

I should also add that in the 50s, interracial marriage was illegal. Because "no **** ****'s touchin' my daughter". This, obviously, is no longer the case because we as a society have moved past racism for the most part. I anticipate it is only a matter of time before the same can be said for homophobia.

 

[Slightly]

Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a civil institution. Despite same-sex marriage not yet being legal in Australia, most marriages here are carried out by a civil celebrant as opposed to a religious one. This is obviously going to vary depending on your country. I'm sure this guy will be able to abstain from marriage when it becomes legal for him to wed his partner, and no harm will be done if he happens to change his mind.

 

[lauren]

I think it should be legal for all and then they have the choice. The argument really gets old for me because there's so much ignorance and hate in people.

 

[Rebecca Chambers]

Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a civil institution. Despite same-sex marriage not yet being legal in Australia, most marriages here are carried out by a civil celebrant as opposed to a religious one. This is obviously going to vary depending on your country. I'm sure this guy will be able to abstain from marriage when it becomes legal for him to wed his partner, and no harm will be done if he happens to change his mind.

Not any more it isn't. But it used to be. As such, I disagree entirely with those who are against the change/evolution of it, considering alterations to society have led to countless modifications to traditional marriage.