I want to understand all the reasons people are against same sex marriage. Feel free to go into as much detail as you like to explain your reason(s). I've created a poll and it's the first poll I've ever created so it's probably not a very good one, but if you think one of the reasons applies most to you then please vote
Along with destruction of families, and helping lead society to further pushing boundaries of acceptable behaviors.
If you don't mind, could you explain what you mean by the destruction of families? This might be a seperate reason from any of the poll options I gave, and I'd like to know further what it means. Also, a general question to everyone: I'm still new to this site. Is it possible for me to edit the options on my poll or is it too late to do so? I want to give all the best options possible.
More anti-gay babble from you again. Gays have been raising children just fine, they just aren't raising gay-hating children as you want.
There isn't any such thing, nor will there ever be. My problem with legally countenancing the pretense of "SSM" is that it constitutes an attack on the sanity of every American under color of law, and that such societal approbation tends to confer a sense of legitimacy on the rearing of children within such "marriages", which are most charitably described as fundamentally deficient, as child-rearing environments, by comparison to traditional marriage.
Actually you did better than most people in poll options. One thing I would change is that this should be a poll where they can select multiple options rather than a single choice. Probably can't add it now, but it seems like some people just think it's "unnatural" or "disgusting" and think that's a good enough reason to ban something. I'm not against SSM.
There is no reason to celebrate the union of two biologically aberrant folks. I think we should have civil unions for same sex couples (and heterosexual couples), but it shouldn't be called marriage.
do you really think gays marrying will make your family less committed to being a family? was Kim Davis's marrying many many times good for the family .
Yep the only real way to change the nature of marriage is to change the nature of divorce or number of participants. The rest is just wrapping paper on the outside. SSM is insignificant to marriage.
Why? are you scared families will have to have gay marriage? Do you therefore think that families that are not married are somehow wrong? Or is it all because of the invisible thing in the sky?
I am against same sex "marriage" since that type of union is not a marriage, by definition. It defeats the whole purpose of marriage. Marriage is the sacred union between a man and a woman, joining two physical bodies into a single body (in spirit). The institution of marriage models the relationship between Jesus Christ (the "husband") and The Church (his "bride"). In other words, without the religious context, marriage requires that procreation is possible in principle. Only in a marriage can life be sustained and multiplied.
Everyone should have the same rights, including marriage. Enlightening countries like America should realise that. The land of the free, right? That includes everyone, not just straight people.
Without disrespect, people got married in one way or another, long before Jesus Christ was on the earth. What was it based on back then? Mutual love and respect, or for some, continuation of familial lines. It doesn't make the marriage any less, if Jesus Christ is involved or not. The union of two consenting adults does not increase, or decrease the value of your own relationship, regardless if it is heterosexual or not. To refuse to acknowledge the joining of two adults is your perogative, but IMO, it is an incomplete view of human nature.
Im against marriage in its current context: a contract between you, your partner and the state. Wed whomever you like (consenting adults) without inviting the state to the relationship.
I've been married to the same woman for 28 years, and on the day gay marriage was legalized, my marriage changed forever. Oh wait. No it didn't. Didn't change in the slightest.
And elderly people who get married have zero interest in procreation. What a disgrace to think that love and relationships center around having babies, what a joke.
Correct. The same thing as it is now. Correct. Regardless of one's belief in Christianity, marriage is the sacred union of a man and a woman joining their two separate physical bodies into a singular spiritual body. This is the only type of union in which procreation is possible in principle. Correct. Never said it did. But that union is not in any way a marriage. They can have a close bond with each other and everything, but it is not a marriage. And IMO, you are defiling the institution of marriage by redefining what IS a marriage.
So? The point is that procreation IS possible IN PRINCIPLE. That's what defines a marriage. Never said that they had to. Many married couples decide not to have children. But the point being, in marriages, procreation IS possible IN PRINCIPLE. If that requirement is not met, then the union being referenced is not and cannot be a marriage.