Will someone tell me the controversy over same sex marriage?

I'm doing a high school report on it, will someone please simply explain the controversy over it and why people want it to be illegal? Try not to use gigantic words because I get confused easily, Thanks.Will someone tell me the controversy over same sex marriage?
marriage is suppose to be between a man and women. some people are ok with a civil agreement where you get all the benefits of a marriage just not the same name.Will someone tell me the controversy over same sex marriage?
Because the word marriage is a religious term meaning the joining of a man and a woman. So a man/man marriage defies the meaning of the word entirely. The government attempted at allowing ';unions';, which would be the exact same thing with the same benefits, but the gay rights folks turned it down. Seems the want the label over everything else.





And by the way, I'm pro-gay marriage, I'm just stating what the controversy is.





I totally agree MasterPy..., the logic is severely flawed.
For many Bible believers, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, Baha'i and on and on, there is no way they can tolerate same sex marriage within their faith. They go on to attempt to prohibit people outside of their faith, by using the democratic process. This means that because a very solid majority of people wanted laws that defined what marriage could and could not be, we got those laws on the books.





Just as an observation, while a majority may be willing to tolerate same sex marriage, we do not have a solid majority willing to endorse SSM. A clear majority has no interest in using permission for SSM. So, in absence of a clear majority in favor of abolishing laws prohibiting, the laws stay on the books.





Then we have legal challenges, based on a concept that freedom should not be withdrawn by legislation unless that legislation is necessary. Now such a challenge in and of itself suggests that most other laws relating ot marriage, bigamy, polygamy, perhaps marriage to a sister or other close relative might be thrown out if the courts throw out the rule of one man and one woman, exactly in both cases. There does not appear to be any absolute necessity for restricting the freedom of people for any of these laws any more than the rest. At least we see a whole deck of cards about to collapse if this principle is supported in this case.





Seeing this, not only religious people but a large contingent of others do not want to apply this legal principle to marriage. Many women do not want to leave the option of polygamy open to their spouses.





OK, we have a lot of opposition. We dare not even consider this. Yet court challenges are presented and we must be prepared to present in court. Some governments simply do not want to spend their time fighting this in court, particularly when courts have concluded that SSM should have the same legal footing as Hetero marriage. Canada for example had had clear statements from its government that they were going to firmly support the historic standing of traditional marriage, then the supreme court told the government that they would not be able to enforce the old law, they had to rewrite the law to conform to the charter of rights, or remove the restriction against SSM.





Despite vehement support for the existing laws, the old law collapsed..





Our Parliament debated but could not find a way to retain this restriction. So we still have permitted SSM.





Based on the principle, as distinct from the explicit wording, it would appear that mandatory monogamy within marriage would likewise be open to challenge.





Well, in principle already people can be polygamous if they do not go through the ritual of marriage, do not attempt to register subsequent marriages.





And this leads into the question of civil unions. Recognizing civil unions of gays within the mandatory monogamous rules is a compromise. Gays get to be married in principle but must be monogamous. Both sides won. But it leaves the more fundamental issue, whether the state has any place in the bedrooms of the nation, deciding who may and may not be there as much up in the air as ever.
It's hard to explain flawed logic. Some people think marriage has something to do with God even though the government keeps the records and Atheists are allowed to get married.
i assume most people think its morally wrong because the bible says that homosexuality is wrong.





and by the way i disagree.
One reason some people may want to keep it illegal, is that people who are NOT gay may marry just to reap the benefits, like tax breaks.
IT may not be good for your report but it is the truth... RELIGION