This is the simplest and one of the best arguments against gay marriage. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex can't get married, because they simply are not qualified to do so.

Sure, absolutely!  happy new year!!!!

To hell with tradition, leave the Amish Paradise your living in and get with the times. Gay is ok. All of this comes down to religion, religion breeds nothing but discrimination and dillusionment. Christianity being the main culprate. Love is unconditional. If two people love each other, who the hell is to say they cant make a legal promise, with witnesses (be they friends or family should they be un-religious) to spend the rest of their lives with each other? If you think you have the right to prevent people from marrying, be they hetro or homo - sexual, then I'm sorry, but you are the scum of this earth.

So most of what I'm reading is that marriage is meant for a man and a woman. However, marriage is a legal contract between two people. So why does it have to be religous? If it was religious than all you'd have to do is walk into a church, tell God you want to be with that person, and oh my gosh, it's done. But no, that's the optional part of it. If you want to add religion than go you. I'm proud of your faith. However, it's about going to a court. It's about signing a peice of paper. So why does religion have anything to do with it? Besides, ever heard of seperation of church and state?
If God didn't want two men or two women to be together than he wouldn't have made them gay.
What somebody does in the privacy of their own home affects nobody but them. So why would it bug some homophobic old woman who lives way across town?
If it's such a sin than why not allow them to get married. If it's becoming just as it was when Noah was around with sin everywhere than why don't we legalize gay marriage and let them marry. That's the only way to get rid of the sin.

Agreed with that statement, but they are people too! If the world was predominantly gay and straight people were minority, would you feel the same? Ask yourself that question?

Forget about tradition, and the common law, and all man made law. In the law of nature, this male-female union is the only union. Everything else is a perversion or aberration.

Traditions fall by the wayside all the time...get over it.

It has nothing to do with tradition but everything to do with the Word of God. I will go with God on this and every issue.

that's true

What an absolute crock of $hit. Traditionally in the sense of "was" rather than "has" yes, but now no. Come on poeple move with the times, roll with the punches and leap into the 21st century you've obviously been away from planet earth for far too long. There are some same sex partners who have long withstanded their civil union longer than two opposite sexes in their "traditonal" marriages - and what the heck is a "traditional marriage" in this day and age people think its a walk in the park hence the divorce rate - so please wheres the argument on this so called debate? I'm 100% heterosexual and comfortable with who I am, I love men with an absolute passion and why should I or anyone else have to validate their sexual preference. So for those of you who obviously squirm at the thought of two people of the same sex expressing something that the world truly needs "love" and lots of it, creating weblists that have little significance only to yourselves to proove how "normal" you are, gay bashing is getting truly old on this site and your not embaressing anyone else, but your sorry selves by showing your true colours in the form of homophobia. I don't think anyone has the right to question the rights and wrongs of someones sexual orientation as it really is no-one else's business, but that person's own.

As my first comment on this list, I'll start by dissecting this argument into two parts. First, the term "marriage" has historical religious connotations that should be respected. (I say this as someone who isn't particularly religious or even spiritual.) The secular law should use the term "union", allowing the church to recognize marriages with no legal effect and the state to recognize unions with legal effect. This would discourage the gay community and their supporters from attempting to force social acceptance by using the religious term. Forcing this secular usage makes this argument stronger. Second, as for tradition, while these arguments have little weight, I do believe that the existence of tradition does shift the burden of proof and persuasion to those who advocate a shift from same. In that light, there is at least some merit to the "tradition" line of reasoning. I will add that traditional rules of law and society often develop to keep people from repeating the mistakes of their predecessors even when the ramifications of same may be long forgotten (though I don't see that as the case here). The bottom line is that the use of the term "marriage" rather than "union" (at least as written above) provides ammo to gay marriage opponents and tradition does have some material though not definitive weight; however, there are many more substantial arguments against gay marriages/unions (notwithstanding what my personal opinion on the overall issue may be).

time change roll with the punches. anyway what difference does it make to you if gay people get married, shouldn't people be able to live as they see fit.

Almost always been that way, no matter what the reason for marriage is.

By law marriage is for males-females, not males-males, or females-females. A lot of gay couples adopt kids, you dudes know how mean kids are, so you can imagine going to a PTA meeting with two dads or two moms. I wouldn't want to go through that. Not cool dudes.

man and women,why would anyone want to change that.two man cannot reproduce naturally nor two women.God know what he was doing when he created both male and female.he wanted a family who can express love in a wise and pure way alway so their off-sping would continue the same way.i so agree with this topic.

Actually, American law is based on English civil law, which was passed down over many generations. What we know as the law today is actually the result of nearly a thousand years worth of developments. The law almost naturally progresses with history, bending with historical currents. Law is all about tradition, although not in the sense that MattCiv is thinking about. He's thinking about it in terms of quasi-religious law. Actually, since the late Middle Ages, we've been moving away from that.

Tradition is no basis for law. People in the Middle Ages based law upon tradition and little else; I think we can do a bit better.

Same sex unions are here to stay. Get used to it Mr and Mrs Conservative.

New traditions are created daily.

I have my own hesitations about gay marriage but this isn't one of them. Just because something's happened over and over through generations and has become "tradition" does not necessarily make it right. It was tradition for white men to have slaves, but after better judgement we put a stop to that one.

Then somebody needs to tell them to make reservations. Anybody that wants to get married, more power to them.

In order to hold an anti-gay-marriage stance (or any intolerant stance for that matter), one would have to be completely ignorant of history, anthropology, sociology, human sexuality, religious studies, etc, etc, etc. Gay relationships predate both Christianity and homophobia. Gay marriage has indeed been documented in numerous cultures, including China, Egypt, Classical Greece and Rome, pre-colonial Africa and Native American cultures, and pre-modern Christian Europe. And while some people here feel important enough to declare homosexuality as a "perversion", gays and lesbians have always existed, in every culture across the earth, regardless of what laws were put in place to punish us for our "deviance". It is quite obvious that nature or God or whatever you wish to call it has a very good reason for creating a world that is diverse instead of simplistically black-and-white. Those who would speak for God or nature, and question the reality that gay relationships have already existed for thousands of years, are the most arrogant type of people imaginable. They question God and insult Him. Furthermore, opponents of gay equality are making a fundamental moral mistake by declaring gays and lesbians are inherently inferior or immoral. There are countless deranged and abusive straight people who get married and start broken families. When people equate heterosexuality with virtue and homosexuality with sin, with no regards to the characters of the individuals, right and wrong fly right out the window. In addition, those who build their sense of superiority and self worth solely on the fact that they were born heterosexual are in for a huge let down when life truly tests their honor and integrity. In general, opponents of gay equality rely on an ignorant, white-washed, uninformed rewrite of history that never happened. The idea that "one man and one woman = marriage" is a wholly modern concept. For the greater part of western history marriage has meant a legal contract in which a man literally owned one or more wives. These wives are treated as property. Opponents of gay equality ironically quote the Bible to exhalt straight marriage, when the Bible itself contains numerous references to polygamy being the socially acceptable norm (as were prostitution, slavery, and animal sacrifice). The idea that a loving man-woman marriage is timeless is an utter fraud. In fact it was not until the 1970's that it was made illegal for a man to rape his wife in the U.S. Loving gay relationships already exist. Gay people already have families and children. The only thing banning gay marriage does is make it difficult for those families to get access to health care, sick leave, tax rights and obligations, custody rights, and over a thousand other legal rights and responsibilities immediately granted to heterosexual couples (and I might add that those straight couples are NEVER asked or required to have children, and NEVER required to prove that they would be capable and loving parents were they to decide to have children). In order to protect their families, gay couples will have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees just to approximate the same rights that straight people get - and even then, some rights come with AND ONLY WITH marriage. Naturally, working class gay couples who can't afford the legal fees will be up the proverbial creek without a paddle should something bad happen to them. So why does putting gay and lesbian families at a needless disadvantage help the opponents of gay equality sleep at night? My guess is that these people are so morally and spiritually empty that they need to bully others in order to feel superior. Unfortunately for them, sexual diversity is a biological fact. Gay people and relationships will continue to exist long after this debate has blown over and become another embarassing historical example of bigotry. Until then, all some silly ban on equality will do will be to prolong the suffering and sense of division currently ravaging our world.

And at the same time; it used to be "tradition" that, upon marriage, women became sole property to their husbands, blacks couldn't marry whites, and divorce was illegal. If all of that can change, so can this one.

. . .it used to be traditional to think the sun was the center of the universe. . .

Marriage was also traditionally the union of a man and a woman of the same race, the man owned the woman and they couldn't get divorced. Tradition is irreleevant

Slavery was also a "traditional" relationship. That it's always been done that way is a lazy argument.

First of all, this is simply untrue. There are ample examples of same-sex marriage in numerous historical and current cultures to reject this argument on it's face alone. The best and most easily researched example is the Native American "berdache," who's existance is very well documented in the anthropological literature. But, as for the specific "traditions" of our own country and culture, I think the Supreme Court of the United States has said it best... "Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from con-stitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to pro-duce offspring, are a form of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons." Lawrence v. Texas, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf percivale ---------- In response to Gentle Jude's comments... "And it was God who created nature. And the way God created and ordained things was that it is between man and woman that a true marriage is established." The problem with this is that, quite frankly, not all of us are christians, and the Law specifically forbids religious establishments for a reason. You belief in "god" is well and good, if that belief serves you, but it is not a belief that I share, and my citizenship entitles me to all the same rights that you enjoy, whether or not I share your religious faith.

There are some very good arguments here. The point is well made when people say that if we were to be bound by tradition, then women would be lower class citizens (which was not right at all), children would be seen and not heard and we would still have some of our barbaric, Klingong like traditions in force. So I am not much on doing something just because it is tradition. But a man and woman marriage was not a tradition in the first place, neither was the fact that pigs can't fly. Neither was it tradition that we breathe in oxygen mixed with other gasses (air). Neither is it tradition that because of the laws of gravity, when we jump, we will come back down. That is not tradition, that is just nature. And it was God who created nature. And the way God created and ordained things was that it is between man and woman that a true marriage is established. Because in a marriage, both must have the freedom to be able to have their own kids, but you can't do that in a gay marriage without adopting. Plus things like sexual intercourse were only designed for the opposite gender and once you start mucking around with that, well the pleasure won't feel nearly as good. Also, I would hardly call God's commandments a 'tradition.' Because God did command that only a man and woman should marry. In fact, esp in the New Testament, homosexuality was condemned because it is just not the way God created things. BTW, I don't have anything against gays either so I don't hate or even dislike them. I will treat them the same way I would treat anyone caught up in bondage ie with love and patience and if I do warn them, it is only to save them.

This argument is impossible to support. It should never be the case that something should be continued based on tradition. Please think of all the horrifying things that would still be in practice if tradition were to be the only basis of our deciding what is impermissible. Why couldn't we have been wrong to begin with? Like we were wrong about slavery. Like we were wrong to belive that women had no right to vote. I'm sure that during their protests, the people on the side of women not obtaining the right to vote pointed out that they have never been allowed to vote, so why now? And those in opposition to this view replied: An appeal to tradition is unreasonable and illogical, we have good reasons why women should be able to vote. They did. The question now should be: what are the good arguments for allowing gay marriage? Just about any argument in support of gay marriage that follows simple logic would be better than this one. The only reason I point this out is because this was the highest rated argument on the list when I wrote this comment.

And peeing standing up has been an activity traditionally engaged in by men. Should we enact extensive federal laws that prevent women from doing so? You know, each one of the entries on this list is worse than the last. Who came up with this intellectually bankrupt garbage?

Do you really want all tradition to be legislated? (Brain storm about past traditions)

Traditonional? In some cultures slavery is traditional, yet that certainly is not right. And Genghis, if we look at everything in terms of the laws of nature, than perhaps we should begin stealing from and eating those who are weaker or less intelligent than ourselves. The state of nature and ethics in our society have no relation and should have no relation.

Whoever said that the values of a society changes is exactly right. Fifty years ago, it was said that marriage was "traditionally" a white-white and black-black affair. That doesn't make it right.

Traditions are just a reflection of the values of a society and they evolve constantly. Refraining from change for the sake of tradition itself is resisting a natural process, which never works out well. If resisted, the forces behind a change will almost always manifest themself in some other way. Traditions and legal issues aside, what's important in a marriage is the loving relationship between two people. If that is why two people are married, the rules of church and state are relatively irrelevant.

Using "tradition" as an argument is as weak as saying "Because I said so." There are other, stronger arguments, but this one is one of the weakest of the lot.

Couldn't agree more ...

ORIGUPDATE: Just one quick point on this: people who argue against changing the Common Law in each state constitution to accommodate the desire of a very, very few homosexuals to marry someone of their own sex/gender are not necessarily homophobic or homophobes. This is a legitimate legal argument and the name-calling doesn't further the intellectual validity of your side, any more than my calling you a queer or a lesbian or a fag, simply because you want this law changed in the US. Does it? ORIGINAL COMMENT 4/15/05: This is the wrong verbiage and implies some arbitrary choice that was made (recently)to identify who could marry whom. The common law is the basis for this and it isn't reserved for relationships between a man and a woman. The only characters it covers are one man and one woman. The legal definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. Homosexual long-term relationships were not considered until very recently. You want to change a law and you're dreaming. You'll have to change thousands of laws. One by one. There is no federal ban on gay marriage to be overturned. You'll change this one state at a time, one municipality at a time, one person at a time. Harry Blackmun can't help this effort. It's gonna take literally thousands of Harry Blackmuns, and even then fewer than 15% of the general population will enthusiastically agree. It isn't a matter of terminological semantics. You want to change a fundamental precept of western society. Call a spade a spade and try not to oversimplify what your objective is. There's lots of sympathetic liberals out there, but it's a pretty big country.

Tradition is an awful argument for anything. I see no difference between this argument and cars should be banned because travel has been traditionally performed via horse. A stronger arguement against cars might be: they pollute and damage the environment. Similarly, there has to be a stronger argument against gay marriage.

Traditions change when new information and thinking comes to light. You may traditionally put butter on a burn...doesn't mean it's the best thing to do.

Tradition doesn't have a thing to do with it. People protesting in the name of tradition are homophobic and can't handle that people are different than they are. Allowing some-sex marraige isn't botching tradition, and it isn't granting special rights. It's accepting the differences of others and the fact that not everyone is straight.

Tradition also forbade blacks and whites from marrying, and also permitted slavery. Sorry, but I don't think tradition should have any bearing on the laws of our nation. Louie, as for your contention that the fact that people overwhelmingly voted for a gay marriage amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman is a great argument, I would submit to you that southern states in the 1860s probably would've voted against freedom for the slaves, or in the 1960s would've voted against allowing people of different races to marry. Sometimes, the will of the public must be defied to ensure basic human rights. That's why we have a judiciary.