There is another passage that states that God would make a helper compatible for Adam, and that was how a woman came into being according to the Bible. But that is a little vague, because at first God was trying to find another animal other than a human, and when that didn't work out, he made a woman from Adam. In another part of the Bible, when Jesus was asked about marriage, he stated that it was between a male and a female, and should be life-long. Jesus doesn't say anything for or against same-sex marriage however.
The last example is this: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetours, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)). From all of this, which seems odd that it mentions homosexuality, means that apparently it's bad and you won't last long.
So, basically, the only back against same-sex marriage on the theological side comes from an old book, which people really shouldn't take literally because who even knows if it's the truth. It was written by people and has been changed a lot from the original. Some people even think that the word God should've been Gods. Times change, and you can't always follow what a book says.
Another factor of the same-sex controversy is about family. Some people think that if a child grows up with two parents of the same gender, that that child will be homosexual as well. This is not true. It is assumed that 90-95% of children raised by same-sex parents will be heterosexual, otherwise just like any other child raised by a family (stat. from ref.). In an article called “Being Raised in a Gay Family does not Harm Children” by April Martin (clinical psychologist), it states that there are five to six million gay parents in the U.S. So, this combined with the fact that the child will most likely end up heterosexual, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that type of lifestyle choice.
In the 1980s, same-sex couples were looking for domestic partnership. It kept on going through the 1990s and on into today. Couples have made big steps in becoming equally recognized as a real family. They should be allowed to do this, especially if they have children.
Bush says something that does support anti same-sex marriage. Bush states, “Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.” He also states, “Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges.”
A moment to argue from the pro side. Amazingly, President Bush seems to be saying something intelligent, even though he should really be more open-minded to try new things. What would be wrong with altering a definition? And that changing a policy would "undermine the family structure" instead of strengthen it. Uh, hello? It would strengthen family ties if same sex couples would be allowed to have the same privileges as a "traditional" family would. Anyways, back to the con of traditional families.
It is said that same-sex male couples are more likely to divorce within eight years, and female couples were one hundred sixty-seven times more likely than traditional couples to divorce. This shows that the marriages don't usually last. And even though same-sex marriage is allowed in Massachusetts, they still have to pay taxes separately. Other than children learning about same-sex marriage as well as homosexuals in school at some point, that's the end of the con-traditional/family issues argument.
I believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed, because the two biggest arguments only seem to be taxes, and the religious view of people, which isn't very much ground for an argument. It shouldn't matter what sex someone chooses, so long as they love that person and want to be with them. If that's how they feel let them marry each other, who cares. I am tired of hearing about this in the news and presidential campaigns, because again, shouldn't there be more important things to focus on? Do we really need to stick our noses in other people business? And that's all I have to say about that.
