Why oppose gay marriage?

  • Follow Letters

This is in response to several articles I’ve read lately on the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage.

OK, I get that there is a general consensus on the fact that homosexuality is against the ideals set forth by God and nature and all that jazz. What I don’t understand is how letting gay people get married has any negative effect on me, or anyone else for that matter.

I don’t understand why I need to make it my business, socially speaking, to oppose it. I understand opposing it morally, but I’m also morally opposed to polygamy. However, I personally don’t make it my business to be concerned with the state of other people’s relationships in general.

If I had it my way, the government wouldn’t recognize marriage at all. Marriage is about a personal commitment between two people. Why the government needs to get involved in that in any way, shape or form, I’m not sure. That being said, if a gay person gets married, it doesn’t harm anybody, so I can’t find any reason to put forth energy in stopping them (legally speaking). I simply say live and let live.

No one can take away your right to your moral opinion, and if you personally believe gay marriage is wrong, then don’t marry someone of the same sex! The rest doesn’t affect you, and God will be the source of any further moral judgement.

This seems pretty sensible to me, and I just don’t get why a lot of people don’t see this perspective.

Dallas Duff


Comments (116) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
InChristLove 03/11/13 - 09:26 pm
"all "men" and "Christian

"all "men" and "Christian denominations" decide which bible is theirs, and which verses to believe in"

This is a false statement. There is but ONE BIBLE. There are many translations which different denominations use and although the exact choice of words or sentence structure is different in each translation, the meaning is identical.

Christians, Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox all have the same 27 books in the New Testament and the same 39 books in the Old Testament. The only difference is the apocrypha, a collection of uninspired writings written during the "silent centuries" (400 BC - 27 AD)

As for your statement concerning not thinking Episcopalians are Christians....boggles my mind how you came to that conclusion.

So your opinion that there are different Bibles is false.

WalterBradfordCannon 03/12/13 - 06:26 am
You can find a breakdown of

You can find a breakdown of the biblical canon by the major divisions of Judaism and Christianity at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

InChristLove 03/12/13 - 06:57 am
As I said, there is only one

As I said, there is only one HOLY BIBLE. Other religions or denominations of the Christian sect may use additional religious books and material but there is only one Word of God. And since we have once again managed as always to get off the original subject of this article, this discussion (for me) is concluded. It is apparent that you have your beliefs and likewise, I have mind. Further discussion seems pointless.

duffstuff 03/12/13 - 10:59 am
Rape, Murder, and Robbery all

Rape, Murder, and Robbery all involve a direct victim. A gay relationship, in whatever capacity, does not. I can't believe some of y'all are still comparing these things directly! It blows my mind!!!

Y'all apparently have no ability to separate personal faith from social law because none of you seem to be willing to acknowledge there is, and should be, a clear difference. Y'all don't seem to believe in a free society. From what I can gather, you believe in a society where Christians should rule and the bible should determine how we govern. This is not exactly believing in freedom of religion. We're suppose to be a nation that believes in freedom of religion. Most of the founding fathers believed in god but they also had a strong emphasis on letting people do what they want, so long as it doesn't hurt others. You subscribe to "I believe therefore everyone else should follow that which I believe." To say things like "We have no idea what the social outcome will be if we allow gay marriage" is such a fear response. It says the future outcome is unknown therefore, we should probably keep things the way it is. If people thought like that then we'd still be trading black people like they're baseball cards. It may be a different issue, and I don't think as big an issue as slavery, but it's the same "lets make excuses and scare people" mentality.

"I personally believe gays shouldn't get married therefore everyone else must believe and subscribe to the same mentality."....I have a real problem with this kind of social philosophy.

Apparently some people want a free society but only if Christianity is the driving force of legislation. Why can't you believe gay marriage is wrong but allow someone else the freedom to have an opposing view on the matter? I personally don't believe in polygamy but some people do. I don't try and stop them because I believe it's wrong...Why is that so hard to understand?

PassingOnBy 03/15/13 - 09:53 pm
It isn't about a tax break

LL, marriage isn't just about a tax break. In every state in this country, simple things like bank accounts, mortgages, and the like are predicated on holding a legal document that gives a couple the ability to take care of each other's best interests.

Ever see what happens when a gay person ends up in the hospital and needs someone to make decisions for them? Even with a power of attorney, a FAMILY member (who likely never gave a fig before) can step in and block the partner from even visiting, let alone use that legal PoA. And upon death, since it is still very hard to put both partners' names on a house deed or whatever, anything that belongs to both partners can be seized as an "asset" of the deceased. Period.

Way back in the 1980s, the owners of this newspaper chose to vilify a Savannah murder victim because he was gay. Somehow it didn't matter that the man had been killed by two much younger thugs with long criminal records--they were the obvious victims because they knew the man previously and he must have done something to provoke them. As a result, the man's family scooted in after not being around for 40+ years and took every bit of property his name was on, even jointly with his life partner. Then, thanks to the publicity, the partner lost his job and had ZERO property/assets/money left because of the family.

THIS is why marriage should be open to all. BTW, God never demanded a ceremony at first. That came later as secular influences demanded legalities to protect property--including wives and children--in order to know what and who to tax.

Someone along the way made the obnoxious point that the #1 reason for marriage is to have children. "Be fruitful and multiply" only worked when there were allegedly two people around to do so (but we still don't know who the first children ended marrying from Nod, do we?). Now being fruitful is a bad thing if one is poor. But people fight so hard to make the poor have children in the name of Jesus.

But, wait! If marriage is to have kids, then what about all those people who are barren, but marry for things like love? And now we are back to the very real fact that everyone loves someone, even if it isn't someone you would choose for yourself. Then, truth be told, I have seen some couples (in many manifestations) that scare the bejeebers out of me. It's still love.

Back to Top
Search Augusta jobs