We are in the 21st century and people still care about how other people have sex. And the opposing arguments are very illogical. There has always been gay and lesbian people since the dawn of time. The world still reproduced. But again it is also illogical to force your own way of having sex onto another. Gay people arnt sick. The people who force their sexual behavior upon someone else are the sick ones.
They aren't going to make you watch them get married or have sex so just stay in your little bubble if you're so sensitive that you can't let other people do what they want. Will not letting people get married because of their gender help you sleep better at night? Nope. We're all going to die at some point so get over it and start doing something beneficial in your life.
Not everyone is gay so reproduction isn't a huge issue. Marriage is the formalisation of love so wouldn't change anything other than giving the couple similar opportunities to everyone else. Religion shouldn't curtail other people's freedoms and also, it would be the religious leader's job to judge those who had sinned.
I believe as long as someone is doing right by others then it doesn't matter what they do in their sexual lives. Who cares if someone likes other men or women, what does it matter to you? If it's against your beliefs that is fine, but who are you to tell them what they are doing is wrong, even if it is for their benefit?
For one thing, I do not see very legitimate arguments on the other side. Just saying. Marriage seems to me to be more of a business contract than a religious one, so it should, I guess fall under the Department of Commerce in this country. The Biology/ Reproduction argument is out the window - we will still reproduce, we don't need the "sanctity" of marriage to do so, or at the same time choose not to reproduce. Is it preferred that gay men and women get married to the opposite sex as a mere performance? Or would we rather have people be honest about heir feelings and attraction. To whichever sex. I am a heterosexual, but it seems to me, being honest about one's sexuality is much better than "acting" out of social mores. As such, I believe it is up to the particular couple (or more) to decide how they should proceed and is not a matter of legislation.
The government should not decide who can marry who (within reason). That should be a personal choice. If two adults want to marry, they should be able too without the government butting in and making the choice for them. Places should as churches should be able to not allow it though.
What reason is there not to, those in the no category don't even mean anything, they just spam words, anyone can do that, for example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marriage shouldn't be a government issue, as the government has no authority in telling someone who they should or should not marry. That is legislating someone's religious views which is absolutely infringement on their individual rights, regardless whatever what any religious text says, as not everyone reads that same religious text. There has to be a separation between the church and state, or else laws and regulations would only positively a small amount of individuals
No one has the right to say what you do with your life, and who you love! Marry who you love. If who yoh love is of the same sex, why does it matter? Is it better to be with someone you don't love? NO! LGBT+ rights matter! LOVE WINS!
Many backwards conservatives and bible-lovers tend to hate homosexuality, crying "It's against my religion!" or "It's disgusting and perverted," or even "Then the homosexuals will get extra rights." Same-sex marriage does not impede upon anyone's rights, and should not be struck down because of these conservative religious folk. Heterosexual couples and religious people are not going to be attacked for not being gay, homosexuals will just acquire the basic right to marry who they love.
Additionally, I would like to say that, for the record, the argument that "homosexuals will get extra privileges!" is quite ironic being that the Christians who spout such boondoggle typically have more advantages in society than others, since this is a Christian-dominated society. Admittedly, however, I don't believe that Christians are given so many rights, but I do believe that the Christian community as a whole does have more influence than other groups and religions.
When we as a society start to redefine marriage, when do we as a society decide enough is enough. If two consenting males or two consenting females can marry, who are we to say that a consenting mom and son can't get married? Or three consenting adults? Or a consenting adult and his or her dog? Or a consenting adult and a bridge? What is within reason, and every pro-homosexual argument can be extended to each of these groups, it's their decision, who am I to judge, you're just a homophobe, etc. Already we have seen a decline in the sanctity of marriage and love as a whole. Pretty soon marriage won't mean a thing.
How would they have babies ? The generations will stop forever . NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
This all stems from the disbelief of God. This is why evil can be normalized. So I don't need to have a reason against it. As long as it is against God and his will, it is against me. Call it blind faith or dogmatism or whatever fancy term you would prefer, but it is only the truth
NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no NO no no no no no no
The reason is simple, every animal replicates either heterosexually or asexually, the first one is obvious, but the second is because there is no gender in a species. Humans have 2 biological genders no matter what happens. Humans are heterosexual so we can replicate. The myth about world being overpopulated is wrong. Certain countries are overpopulated, and most of them forbid gay marriage even with death. The fact they are overpopulated is not because of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an incorrect mind state.
I think homosexuals (or anyone else) should be allowed to sleep together without the government's approval. I also believe they should have the freedom to have marriage ceremonies and call each other married. Anyone should be able to do this. The question is: should this "marriage" be legally recognized by the government? I say it should not for several reasons.
First, the government started getting into the marriage business because it realized that traditional marriage is the greatest predictor of the success of a society. They got into the business to promote marriage and promote the success of our society. Since the government got involved, divorce rates have skyrocketed, so it seems the government wasn't very effective. We ought to sever the connection between government and marriage and make marriage a private institution as it was originally. The more we can get the government's greedy paws off of our lives, the better. Gay "marriage" and Traditional marriage will then be equal legally: neither one recognized.
Secondly, even if government still recognized traditional marriage, gay "marriage" still should not be recognized. The government can do three things about a behavior: outlaw it, allow it, or promote it. Many advocates of gay "marriage" act as if we want to outlaw the practice when really want it to be allowed and not promoted. People should be allowed to unite and call each other married, but this practice should not always be promoted. It should be promoted if it actually helps society and is morally good. Gay "marriage" does not help society flourish, nor is it morally okay, so it should not be promoted. It is an inherently negative institution, so it should be allowed and not promoted or recognized by the state.
Also, regarding this issue, the role of the church and the state is an important topic to explore. It is obviously not the role of the state to make people join a religion, make people participate in a religious activity, or even promote one religion over another. On the other hand, the term "separation of church and state" means the government cannot influence or outlaw a religious activity unless it physically harms someone else who is unwilling. With this in mind, separation of church and state does not mean the separation of God and state. Both the church and state were meant to be equal institutions, each ruled by God. This is why our entire legal system basically assumes the existence of God to provide a moral foundation. In fact, the founders understood that our republic itself could not last without the existence of a deeply religious people.
With that in mind, I would not like to force anyone to join my religion or participate in a religious activity. I am not advocating a practice be outlawed because it goes against my religion, so the issue of separation of church and state does not apply here. I simply don't want the practice promoted for moral reasons.