why shouldn't same-sex marriage be legalized?
I'm working on a research paper regarding why same-sex marriage should never be legalized.
So far i've got many predictions and personal opinion but my professor said these are not useful points.
Can anyone please give me some ideas and solid reasons why it shouldn't be legalized? ( just throw all ideas and evidence etc to me :P)
Besides, there're people comparing this with the 'seperate but equal' racial policy....and they think letting homosexual people get married is just as letting different races marry each other.........how can I respond to this chanllenge?
Thanks in advance!
Wow Thanks for answering guys! These're certainly really helpful points!
I think why people relate legalizing same-sex marriage to the 'seperate but equal' racial policy is that , years ago, people thought it was immoral / wrong to marry people of other races,
and there were many people strongly oppose to the idea of letting different races marry each other.
But now, everyone considers that a kind of 'racial seperation' which is totally wrong.
Besides, the U.S government used to carry out the 'seperate but equal' policy which states that white and black people are equal but should be seperated ( i.e. different schools, different restaurants ..etc)
And nowadays many opponents of same-sex marriage still think that they are not discriminating homosexuals because they are protected by domestic-partnership policy in some regions, granting them similar rights and obligations heterosexual couples have.
It's just that they should not be officially accepted as 'married' as 'marriage' has its special meaning inside.
The advocates would think it is just another 'seperate but equal' concept.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
First, I think the following link will help, however, is it in Chinese
Personally, I support legalizing homosexual marriage, but there are some controversial issues that we have to consider very carefully. I think you may examine the topic from the following perspectives,
1) IS HOMOSEXUALITY A KNID OF ABNORMAL MENTALITY?
There are a number of people relate homosexuality to abnormal mentality, which means they think the homosexuals are MENTALLY SICK, like those suffering from paedophilia or sadomasochism.
Psychologists and psychiatrists are not able to reach an absolute consensus up till now. Some think these people are simply inborn with different sexual orientation which cannot be changed even with the help of therapy. Hence, these professionals conclude that homosexuality is a part of human nature. Moreover, since their acts are harmless to the public (in the view of not causing any social disorder), we cannot declare that they are having mental sickness.
However, some other professionals think differently. They have done some experiments and research, declaring homosexuality can be treated like any other kinds of mental sickness (pls refer to the website). They think that the mind and the behaviour of homosexuals are influenced by their personal experiences and their way of living (i.e. how they are brought up). They may have DISTORTED MENTALITY AGAINST HUMAN'S INBORN RESPONSIBILITY, which is to reproduce offspring. To a very large extent, SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR AND MARRIAGE PLAY A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE TO ENSURE HUMAN REPRODUCTION. Therefore, they conclude that homosexuality IS IN FACT a mental disorder.
2008-05-18 17:17:00 補充：
Since homosexuality is such a controversy even to professional psychologists and psychiatrists, SUCH A MARRIAGE CANNOT BE LEGALIZED (at least for the time being)
2008-05-18 17:18:00 補充：
because THERE IS NO SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE ARE MENTALLY HEALTHY AND HAVE SUFFICIENT SANITY TO ENTER A LEGAL CONTRACT (of marriage).
2008-05-18 17:19:32 補充：
2) HOW RELIGIONS INFLUENCE A LAW SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY TOWARDS MARRIAGE? AND HOW DO THE RELIGIOUS VIEW HOMOSEXUALITY?
First, you must understand the relation between the religion (especially Christianity and Catholicism) and the law system.
2008-05-18 17:20:43 補充：
Take Britain for example, it is practising Common Law but at the same time, the whole country is greatly influenced by both Christianity and Catholicism. THE BIBLE states that marriage is HOLY and the couples involved must be of OPPOSITE SEX.
2008-05-18 17:22:01 補充：
According to such reasons, religious people believe that homosexuality is SINFUL (being against the God’s will), so they strongly oppose it.
As for LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE CONFORMS VERY LARGELY TO RELIGIOUS PRUPOSES.
2008-05-18 17:24:02 補充：
In other words, when it comes to defining the purpose or even the SPIRIT of a marriage, the legal and the religious perspectives CANNOT be considered separately. It is because marriage involves high moral standards (that’s what holy means),
2008-05-18 17:24:59 補充：
when the Court is considering whether some issues are morally acceptable or not, it has to refer to religious rules (which are the only source for references of moral standards).
2008-05-18 17:25:43 補充：
Take pre-marriage agreement (婚前協議書) for example, it is not recognized in Britain (in HK as well), because it is against the spirit of marriage as a lifelong commitment (of course the spirit is defined by the religion, not by the law itself).
2008-05-18 17:26:16 補充：
Hence, homosexual marriage SHOULD NOT be legalized unless it is accepted by the religions (this is quite impossible as it severely violates their rules).
2008-05-18 17:27:23 補充：
3) DOES HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE CONFORM WITH SOCIAL VALUES?
Obviously not. People in general only recognize a family, providing the couples are of opposite sex and they can reproduce offspring. (sterile is excluded from our discussion)
2008-05-18 17:28:01 補充：
Legalizing homosexual marriage may do more harm than good to the society. First, it is against social values and general perceptions, causing serious disputes and conflicts among people. Besides, the role of families has to be re-defined.
2008-05-18 17:29:21 補充：
If one of the criteria for complete family is having children, then legalizing homosexual marriage may result in more ‘incomplete families’. The price can be too painful to bear.
2008-05-18 17:29:42 補充：
Some people think legalizing homosexual marriage is an indication of moral / value deterioration and the law should take whatever means to maintain high moral standard.
2008-05-18 17:40:21 補充：
i think adopting the right approach towards the topic is very important because it is quite easy to go off track. stay focused on how the law should respond to the arguments among the science, the religion and the public. more, the evaluation of the consequences has to be taken into account.
2008-05-18 17:49:33 補充：
because whether it should be legalized or not has to be based on PUBLIC INTERESTS (公眾利益第一). what the religion thinks is not important, what the public and scientists think is not important either (their opinion are just some supportings).
2008-05-18 17:52:59 補充：
How the law should evaluate their different opinions and make a fair, reasonable decision accordingly is the whole point of the issue.
2008-05-18 18:23:44 補充：
for example, legal decision should not be made when there is still controversy. it should only be made until doubts are clarified. verification is one of the most fundamental yet essential step in a law system.
2008-05-18 18:31:37 補充：
more, the consequences of the decision are crucial too. if homo marriage is legally approved now, and maybe after 50 years, with the advance of technology, the science prove sthat the homos are mentally ill, then what should we do with their marriage?
2008-05-18 18:37:08 補充：
should the marriages be void or remain valid? by the time, the consequences can be unbearable and cause adverse impact on the society. that is why it cannot be legalized.
2008-05-18 22:34:04 補充：
as for morals wise, the law system can afford to be challenged at all, otherwise it may break down as the moral standards it maintains are not in favour of public interests. you can imagine how chaotic the consequences will be.
2008-05-18 22:36:34 補充：
as for morals wise, the law system canNOT afford to be challenged at all, otherwise....
2008-05-18 22:52:07 補充：
for this aspect, you may relate your case to human cloning, which should not be legalized because it is against public interests. we must consider how the public would react to it if it is legal.
2008-05-18 23:09:25 補充：
maybe i have gone too far and of course, these are my personal opinion and i am not an expert in this field, but i wish they help (hopefully i did not mislead you). anyway, you have raised a very challenging issue and i do enjoy giving response to your question.
2008-05-18 23:25:31 補充：
it is my pleasure to have further discussion with you.
for your second question, i do not quite understand that how can people relate legalizing homo marriage to racial policy? why do they think they are similar to each other? what are the reasons they think the 2 cases are similar? pls specify.
2008-05-24 00:54:32 補充：
my knowledge to the 2nd issue you have raised is based on my understanding of the infomation that you have provided. it may not be professional enough and i am going to play the same old tricks to tackle it. still, i hope it will be somewhat inspiring for you.
2008-05-24 01:10:33 補充：
i do NOT think the 'seperate but equal' racial policy can be compared in any way with disallowing the legalization of homo marriage. in other words, i think they are 2 totally different issues because of the different groundings (or reasons).
2008-05-24 01:40:26 補充：
first, homo marriage cannot be legalized until scientists can find out solid evidence and answer to this question - Are these people literally out of their mind?
2008-05-24 01:57:55 補充：
since there is no definite conclusion to it and even professional opinions vary considerably, how to establish the fair, justifiable and indisputable criteria, whose principles will be agreed by every legal official and the public? how to make sure these criteria can be applied in every court case?
2008-05-24 02:06:11 補充：
however, a marriage between 2 different races obviously does Not involve INSANITY. it is ridiculous to believe that a white man wants to marry a black woman because he is crazy. (if possible, try to quote some solid examples to prove that insanity does not apply in this case)
2008-05-24 02:21:03 補充：
secondly, people oppose homo marriage because of morality. as i said, only the moral standards determined by the religion and the culture are generally acceptable and highly recgonized. since homosexuality seriously violate the religious and cultural rules, it is regarded as immoral.
2008-05-24 02:41:38 補充：
in contrast, people oppose marriage between different races not because they think it is immoral (at least it is not forbidden by God, if i am not wrong, better check it out), rather, it is because people with the same race are protective towards their PURITY OF BLOOD.
2008-05-24 02:45:47 補充：
in the past, there were different social classes. the ones in the upper classes discriminate on those in the lower classes, and usually, people who are in the bottom class (e.g. slaves) have different race from the ones in the upper class.
2008-05-24 02:57:10 補充：
a social structure like this (e.g. white men on top and black men below) caused severe class conflicts. even after the abolishment of such a structure, it turned out to be racism (e.g. the white discriminate the black and think they themselves are much more superior).
2008-05-24 03:03:53 補充：
but racism is actually against many of the religious principles, which promote HUMAN EQUALITY. Prohibiting marriage among different races is regarded as IMMORAL because it is a discrimination, which causes conflicts and even wars.
2008-05-24 03:10:32 補充：
for example, the white think the black would CONTAMINATE the purity of their blood, such a thinking is simply a reflection of their ARROGANCE.
2008-05-24 03:17:42 補充：
therefore, such a law can be changed over time as we are now practising higher moral standard (assuming with the application of religious rules). but homo marriage is completely THE OTHER WAY ROUND. (immorality, it should still be banned)
2008-05-24 03:21:39 補充：
remember, from the legal perspective, the law cannot define what morality is, on the contrary, it has to follow what the public think it is. (e.g. according to religious documents and cultural practices)
2008-05-24 03:34:49 補充：
e.g. the failure of imposing Article 23 in HK not because it is wrong or something (in fact it islawfully right), because it is against our common morality - HUMAN RIGHTS.
2008-05-24 21:30:55 補充：
finally, the purpose of a law system is to maintain social order. legally granting homo marriage will trigger social conflicts. in comparison, abolishment of seperate but equal racial policy is to bring peace to people with different races as adopting such a policy used to cause social disorder.
- 1 decade ago
Just a random cruise but found ur topic is very interesting.
Upon the issue of same-sex marriage, I reckon some basic religion view could be supportive against homosexual marriage. Countries with Catholic or Christian as their national religion are less likely to legimate homosexual marriage. Been so long, heterosexual and single pair is a model maritual status in the view of bible. Perhaps from the onset of Adams and Eve.
Also, based on an evolutionary view, all human-beings obilgate to reproduce next generation on a continous basis against extinction. Same-sex marriage theoritically cannot give birth (unless by adopting child) therefore should never be legalized.
In concern of ethical issue, "race" and "sex" are totally different concepts and it is totally inappropriate to compare two. "Race" and "Sex" and innated, unchangable (unless by surgery), the only arguement is "Gender" since gender is socially constructed. One might say it's acceptable for a man who possesses woman traits to be treated as a gay but can never overthrow the fact that biologically he is a man.
Well, that's my point of view, n I hope it gives u some inspiration =)
(btw, juz a quick response, hvnt done proof read actually, dun blame for spelling..lol)
Good luck, brother =)