Why don't some people support same-sex marriage?

Answer 1

Such individuals do not think of their behavior as being discriminatory. They rationalize that they are enforcing their religious beliefs. Same-sex couples affected by those sudden outbursts of ostensible piety are likely to say that they are motivated by prejudice, hatred and bigotry.

Answer 2

Opinion

The common answer is "Marriage is between a man and a woman," although marriage is an archaic institution originally used to define women as property and to ensure breeding and mating to continue family bloodlines. Historically, a man and wife were considered one person and that person was the man. Currently, marriage is statistically more of a harbinger of a future divorce than a guarantee of ever-lasting love. 55% of marriages end in divorce. 67% of second marriages and 74% of third marriages also end in divorce.

People who oppose same-sex marriage generally make three arguments:

(1) Marriage is ultimately a religious act, and the Bible considers homosexuality a sin. Therefore, two people of the same sex cannot be married in the eyes of God. (Of course, they dismiss the reality that in the modern world marriage is a civil legal contract and not a religious sacrament. They also ignore people in the religious community who do not agree with their interpretation of The Bible.)

(2) Same-sex marriage will somehow damage the institution of marriage. (They don't explain exactly how this is supposed to happen.)

(3) "Marriage" has generally meant the union of one man and one woman (although there are records of same sex life partners and religious ceremonies that joined them in the ancient world). Including same-sex couples would substantially change the modern concept. (Actually, the meaning of "marriage" has been constantly changing. American laws used to prohibit marriage between people of different races and required married women to get their husband's permission to sign contracts.)

Some people are also just homophobic. Others truly believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. It is different from the majority "norm" and people are not used to it since the gay community is a minority.

Most of the hatred comes from fundamentalist religion, but people are also scared of change.

Most opposition in the world to gay marriage is religious-based prejudice, mainly from Christianity and Islam. Others are just afraid of the unknown.

Opinion

The answer is because the term 'marriage' is used, rather than 'civil union,' and Christians--we are, nominally at least, considered a 'Christian' society, in the US anyway--are taught that 'marriage' can only be used in a union of a man and a woman, that progeny may be produced. God is not interested in our concepts of 'fairness,' (or marriage, for that matter) and the Bible is quite clear on this point.

Opinion

The opponents are mostly religionists who honestly believe that their view of marriage is universal. They have always refused to accept the fact that we live in a secular society in the United Stated and not a "Christian" one. They hold fast to the fiction that marriage is:

• to be judged only according to their particular customs
• the way it always was
• the way it should be
• an invention of the Christian god

What they fail to realize is that their view on marriage may be a relatively recently defined notion in human history, may not reflect the multitude of human relationships in the past and are not accepted by every other group or culture or denomination. There exists an abundance of historical evidence of same sex relationships in tomb paintings and other ancient art, pictorial pottery, ancient scriptures that contain blessings for same sex male relationships, and well known historical figures, same sex couples, whose stories are still told. There were ancient Roman and Greek marriage rites for male unions (later vehemently opposed by Christians).

Another important factor is that many religious traditions have a negative view of sexual relations. They are uncomfortable with sex and have relegated the sex act to being solely for the purpose of procreation. Human history is rich with all kinds of intimate relationships that have been celebrated, promoted, prohibited, reviled and sought after in every age. Every age has had its own promoters and detractors of same sex relationships. The people who presently think they wrote the rules are relatively late comers to the table and their rules do not apply to everyone.

The most obviously flawed argument is that the purpose of marriage is for procreation and yet they allow people who can't procreate and who choose not to procreate to still enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage.

Answer 3

In the bible, one or two sections refer to homosexuality as wrong. These sections are also the ones that say you shouldn't wear more than one type of cloth at once and that stoning your wife to death for displeasing you is acceptable.

Answer 4

They all seem to cite some variation of one of these three reasons: (1) Marriage has always been limited to opposite-sex couples in the past; (2) God does not want same-sex couples to marry; and, (3) The only purpose of marriage is procreation and two persons of the same-sex cannot procreate.

Answer 5

The US Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and that marriage is a basic civil right. The majority opinion of the US Supreme Court (in Windsor) attributed such opposition to sheer animus.

Answer 6

The majority of people oppose same sex marriage based on two main reasons:

1. Their religion prohibits homosexuality and, therefore, they feel it goes against what God teaches in the Bible, and

2. Some people, even those who are not religious, oppose it simply because they think it's "nasty and unnatural", and because they simply don't understand it. They mistakenly believe it's all about sex, but it's far from that; it's just as much about emotions as it is about sex.

But as a Christian myself, I'll elaborate on it from my own Christian point of view:

I do my best to live my life according to God's commands, one of which is "judge not lest ye be judged." I equate the biased and bigoted attitudes towards gays the same as those of racism - and those attitudes are wrong. Who gives anyone the right to look down on, or judge one, simply because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation? Not God, that's for sure.

I realize that, as a Christian, my views on this surprises a lot of people, but I don't think "sin" comes in degrees. Yes, God says a man shall not lie with a man, but he also says to love thy neighbor. I take that to mean we are to love and accept all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, etc. So for anyone to not love and accept their gay neighbor, that's not adhering to the tenets of true Christianity, is it? I'm pretty sure the Bible does not say to "love only those whose values you share".

The Bible teaches us not to murder, yet murderers get married every day. It also teaches us not to steal, yet thieves get married every day. So, based on the argument against gay marriages being against Christian beliefs, there would be very few, if any, marriages if we allowed only those who never broke one of God's laws to marry.

Yes, the bible clearly states that adultery is a sin, it's even one of the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not commit adultery - yet people cheat on their spouses every day, and even leave their spouse to marry their lover. So, based on the premise that they broke God's law, they shouldn't be allowed to be married, either. Otherwise, that's just a double standard, using, but not following, all of the Bible to support our own biased opinions. I think being opposed to gay marriages based on religion is cherry picking which parts of the Bible one chooses to adhere to, which is a double standard.

In most marriage ceremonies the ministers says "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder", but how do we know God joined the adulterous couple together in holy matrimony? We don't, but we accept it anyway because they aren't homosexual. Again, a double standard.

Gays and lesbians vote, go to college, serve in the military, put their lives on the line as police, firefighters, etc., to protect us, and they pay taxes, just as the rest of us do. So why shouldn't they be afforded the same civil rights the rest of us have?

The next time you are in line at the grocery store and see the person ahead of you paying for their groceries with food stamps, you need to realize that a lot of gay people worked and paid taxes so that less fortunate people could buy food, too, and have medical care through our Welfare system. They are good enough to help support, defend, and fight for our country, yet not good enough to be allowed to marry? That is wrong on so many levels.

Another thing to consider on this matter is the fact that the country is doing all it can to remove God from all public places, functions, etc. So to ban gay marriages based on the belief that it's a sin to be gay goes right back to the double standard as mentioned above.

This country has been so successful at banning prayer from public places and functions, that it's only fair and equal that we back down, get out of their personal lives, and let them get married.

Answer 7

There is clearly no consensus on same-sex marriage amongst Christians. Although those who oppose the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry sometimes point to religious conviction as the cause, these highly pious individuals are usually shown to have no compunctions against committing acts that ARE specifically prohibited by Christian scripture, which leads many to believe that they are simply homophobes who use Christianity as justification for their prejudice, fear and hatred.

Answer 8

In light of the June 26, 2015 US Supreme Court ruling which made same-sex marriage the law of the land, the purpose of continued arguing against the constitutional rights of minorities is questionable. Those who continue to engage in this pointless and bigoted rhetoric are fighting really hard for the dubious honor of being remembered in history as belonging to the same class as segregationists, Holocaust denyers, confederate flag wavers and male chauvinists.

Answer 9

They are trying to obstruct other people's civil rights in order to advance their religious views.

Answer 10

Bigotry and/or pandering to bigoted constituencies.