Gay marriage opponents

[Anonymous]

Help me differentiate between those that oppose legalizing gay marriage for religious reasons (even when the law is of course clear that no church would be forced to marry a gay couple) and & Muslim fundamentalists in places like Pakistan that are hell-bent on enforcing anti-blasphemy laws on everyone even if they are not Muslim and so don't perceive what they are saying to be anti-God at all.

If we were forcing people to marry someone of the opposite sex or forcing churches to do these marriages, then I would understand the outrage over violating people's religious rights. But how does it violate someone's religious rights/convications for another person to get married? If your religion tells you it's wrong then don't marry someone of your own sex, make sure your church doesn't perform the weddings, and possibly even boycott going to any you might be invited to. But why do those people think they have the right to force their religious views on OTHER people who don't share those views at all? Isn't that what we're supposed to be against in this country and are condemning in many Muslim countries?

[Anonymous]

it really comes down to benefits not a religious thing. they want to be treated the same way as a traditional couple, call it a union or soemthing liek that but look at the first arguments about this years ago, they wanted to be able to get benefits with their partner not marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it really comes down to benefits not a religious thing. they want to be treated the same way as a traditional couple, call it a union or soemthing liek that but look at the first arguments about this years ago, they wanted to be able to get benefits with their partner not marriage.

I think there was definitely a change in what the gay community wanted (and of course they are not monolithic). A few years ago, I think the majority felt that getting benefits was all they could hope for and trying for marriage might kill their chances for even the lesser goal. As time passed, I think there was a realization that marriage has so many benefits that it would be hard to match it with anything short of marriage, and that in any case, anything short of marriage leaves them as second class citizens.

I have not surveyed gays on this, but have gleaned this from my gay son, so it is one person's opinions filtered through a sympathetic, but straight, interpreter.

[Anonymous]

OP, I also can't understand why people are against polygamy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I also can't understand why people are against polygamy.

It's in the bible right? So I agree with you - why not? It provides a safety net in societies where women outnumber men or where there are many widows.

[Anonymous]

OP, I also can't understand why people are against polygamy.

I'm OP and while I don't think it's a great idea, I personally don't believe polygamy should be outlawed - again, I see no reason for the government to be interjecting itself into that decision as it's made between consenting adults provided surrounding regulations dealt equitably w/ division of assets and care of the children. But it's much further removed from our concept of marriage to suggest multiple people should be allowed to marry than to suggest 2 people of the same sex should be allowed to marry.