Many opponents to same-sex marriage cite "sanctity of marriage" as their main reason justification of their position

Though, some people think that when you consider certain things, there is nothing sanctified about marriage in today's society. These include high divorce rates, marriages for immigration purposes (to gain citizenship into a country), marriage for financial reasons, the forced marriages in some societies, and the list goes on.

So my question to you is this... if marriage isn't exactly as pure, and well prized and some people make it out to be, why do many same-sex couples and their supporters seek the right to do so? Is it for legal reasons (i.e. hospital visits, adoption, etc.), or do they feel that marriage validates a relationship to a high degree?

Note that some laws regarding hospital visits, adoption, co-habitation, etc themselves could be adjusted as it does not only restrict same-sex couples but the current laws and procedures could be seen as cumbersome in quite a few situations.

What do you think?

Peoples' arguments against gay marriage are flawed and have no real reasoning - they need to hide their ignorance and lack of human morals behind something.

Even if a gay person does not want to get married, they want the option. Not having that option basically says "You are not equal. You are less then straight people. You are oppressed." And nobody wants to be treated like that. They want equal rights in every aspect even if they don't end up taking advantage of them. They want the law to say they are the same as everyone else. Also, the legal issue is a big thing, particularly with hospital visits and having access to medical records. I mean, if there is a gay couple and one gets severely injured and is in the hospital dying, if they're not married their partner may not get to come visit them. That would obviously upset a lot of people.

I can definitely understand how feelings of inequity could lead to the desire to get it legalized.
As for the hospital visits, I understand that point completely. What I was saying, though, was that same-sex couples aren't the only ones that are restricted by those rules. Which is why I think those rules have to be revised regardless.

I really am curious to see the stats on current countries/states that have it legalized. Like divorces rates, etc.

Well, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country and legalized gay marriage in 2004. I don't know exactly how low it is now, but in 2009 the rate was at pre-WWII levels.

There are states that give these rights to citizens, they just refuse to recognize a legal marriage. I personally don't care about getting married, but some gay people do. They should have the right to get married in a church and have it sanctified if they want.

Regarding getting married in a church, I would prefer if it was at the church's discretion with them having the right to deny. I personally am not religious, but I would not want to see churches being forced to carry out ceremonies that they are against for the sake of all parties.

In the UK that's the current situation. I think....

However, the bible does condemn gay sex which marriage being consummated leads to. SOOOO. the church would be against the teachings of the bible if they allowed it outright. Mixing law, rights and morals is a dangerous cocktail. However just because marriages aren't perfect, doesn't give us the right to use that as an excuse to ignore its purpose. Many marriages work well. It all depends on the strength and dedication of those within it. I'm bi and I'm not sure if I'd want to marry a man in a church.

Honestly, it's all of those reasons. If straight couples can abuse the concept of marriage, why can't two people who happen to be the same sex be allowed to marry if they love each other? It's just stupid.

If you disregard that, rights are pretty annoying when you think of how civil partnerships may be regarded compared to marriage. Also, if marriage can make someone feel secure in their relationship, why can't same-sex couples have that security too?

It doesn't have to be in a church but I do think marriage should be allowed legally since we're supposed to keep religion and state apart, anywayyy.

There is no sanctity of marriage, they just want straight marriage to seem morally superior. That is all.

The idea that marriage has "sanctity" is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Don't even get me started on """tradition"""

Thing is, the word marriage is key. A lot who are religious see marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. That's the issue. Church and state can't be apart in this issue because it directly involves the church. In the US they should allow civil partnerships at LEAST in all states. But then again, y'all have idiots and dare I say bigots in power. First step first, is civil partnerships in all states. Don't wanna scare people now. Same legal rights first.

Both.

To certain people moreso one than the other but still both.

There is. A partnership between people imo is sacred. It ought to be valued, protected and respected. It's no absurd. Just respectful, for me. But it's not the sanctity that's the issue.

Actually it doesn't involve the church. You can easily get a marriage license from the state. In fact, you're supposed to get that around the same time as the wedding, but technically there are couples who have different dates for license versus wedding date.

Oh, I'm thinking in UK mode for equal marriage in church. Y'all are on about marriage in the legal sense. I forget you're all americans, mostly. We've got civil marriages for all (i think).

I agree that a partnership between two people should be valued. However, can't it be all of those things without marriage being involved? This goes not only for same-sex couples, but also for heterosexual partnerships.

I don't feel like looking up every state's regulations but at least in Virginia, all you need is someone who is "a minister of any religious denomination" and if not that, "the court in each city and county has appointed persons who are eligible to perform civil marriage ceremonies." So basically, it is not connected to the church. Traditionally, people involve the church BUT there have been marriages outside of the church.

Still, if we were to assume church is required, it's still highly irritating that just because the word is traditionally used to mean one thing, we have to stick with that when it's not even kept. If you think of marriage as something between a man and a woman, that already is likely to be broken when viewing divorce statistics... so logically there is no reason to not allow same-sex couples to marry. It's not like 100% of heterosexual couples actually stay together. It ends up more like marriage between a woman and a man who ends up being married to another woman a few years later.

I do think partnerships should still have value without having the requirement of marriage BUT the whole idea is that same-sex should have the option that heterosexual couples have... to consider if they do or do not want to get married. I know this has already been mentioned. If someone who is attracted to the same sex does feel like they want to be married, for whatever emotional or logical reasoning, they should be allowed.

Oh yes, certainly. I want anyone to have a relationship certified by law in the form of a long term commitment. I'd love it to be called marriage, but it's a sticky road (I know it as I have religious family members). We all look at it as marriage due to putting a ring on it=marriage.

I agree with you orange! I think that people forget that at the end of the day, marriage was created and defined by us humans. It's not absolute, tactile, or fixed therefore the fear of "redefining marriage" is an irrational one indeed.