English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-06-07 11:25:33 · 29 answers · asked by Deronta S 2 in News & Events Current Events

29 answers

Yes I do.
I think until we can cast stones at ourselves, we shouldn't be allowed to cast stones at someone else. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they will love each other less. It doesn't mean they will be bad parents.
And it surely doesn't mean that heterosexual marriages will work. With the high divorce rate, how can we complain when people want to make a go of it.
Are we really more worried that homosexual marriages might prove to make longer lasting marriages?

2006-06-07 11:29:53 · answer #1 · answered by aslongasitrocks 5 · 3 5

Sure. Marriage is a legal contract. Don't believe me? Think it is something about churches? Try getting a divorce! Who do you have to see? Lawyers and judges!

I think the best thing might be is to have legal partnerships instead of marriages anyway. Recognize them for what they truly are. Then if you and your partner want to go find some priest, pastor, or Grand Poobah to say some sacred words over you, well bless your hearts and go to it!

Marriage is not about having children, folks. If it were, no one over the age of 40 would be allowed to get married. No one who was not fertile would be. Right?

Those who get all upset about gay marriage are not upset about marriage, they are just about bashing gays. Especially about the very thought of gay sex.

This is a big strawman argument in a time when we have huge unemployment and no health insurance. Please, America, wake up! Look at real issues.

Just my two cents' worth.

2006-06-07 18:27:27 · answer #2 · answered by NeoArt 6 · 0 0

Yes. Being gay isn't a choice. You can choose to deny that you are, but you can't choose who you are attracted to. But I think that people who are gay should have the choice to the legal benefits and recognition that accompanies being married. And I think that the argument of protecting the state of marriage is bogus. After all, Britney Spears has gotten married twice now... had a baby, pregnant with another, and is having seriiiiiious issues with it. And if she's an example of a heterosexual marriage that we're "protecting," God help us all.

2006-06-07 18:29:57 · answer #3 · answered by writingnerd 3 · 0 0

Yes
1) It's discriminating against homosexuals. A long time ago, we thought multiracial marriages were wrong, but now we accept them. To me, this follows those same lines. Christians thought multiracial relations were morally incorrect, and now they think gay marriage is morally wrong.
2) Not all religions say gay marriage is wrong. By passing an amendment against it is promoting the viewpoint of a large christian majority, which goes against separation of church and state

I'm not a legal expert, so these arguments may be flawed, but this is what I think.

2006-06-07 18:29:45 · answer #4 · answered by ME! 3 · 0 0

Absolutely not. Throughout mankind history, marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.
Some people argue that marriage between heterosexual couples often ends up in divorce. Do they think gay marriage is somehow immune from that ?

2006-06-07 20:09:41 · answer #5 · answered by Saigon Giap 3 · 0 0

.....i dont even know why you people are saying..that it -----should----- be legalize. Think about what your saying. Its freakin nasty and i dont think kids need to be growing up in a world of gay marriage. If it does become legalize, if it hasnt already become legalize, next thing you know; they will beginning to legalize murder,abortion, and god knows what else. All i got to say about this subject is the world needs to wake up...whenever govnerment has to decide to legalize gay marriage and it takes a while to do it...then something is wrong. THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS HECK NO its nasty i dont care if you are gay and you are reading this, your freaking nasty for being gay and want to get married with a gay. I know it sounds harsh..but think about what it is.

2006-06-07 18:39:46 · answer #6 · answered by POR-FRY-CHICKEN 3 · 0 0

Yes I do, b/c I have gay friends and relatives and they are no different then any straight couple I know. They are actually better people then most straight couples I know too. They are great, fun, and loving people who I enjoy having the honor to have Gay friends. They should be allowed to unionize their love for each other under the eye of God, the creator of human kind. So my vote is with Yes.

2006-06-07 18:32:49 · answer #7 · answered by mk17044 1 · 0 0

Yes, because the constitution says that we were all created equal. ALL means all of the human race, not just men and women who are attracted to the opposite sex.
Which means if a man and woman have the right to choose to marry, then so shouldn't gay men and women.

2006-06-07 18:32:56 · answer #8 · answered by sweetgurl13069 6 · 0 0

Absolutely not! A marrige is between a man and a women, especially if children are involved. If two gay men adopt a little girl, which one's the mother. Same with two lesbian women. Which one's the father?

2006-06-07 18:28:42 · answer #9 · answered by HOT STUFF 2 · 0 0

No. It undermines the value of family and goes against the Bible. A man was meant to leave his mother to be with his wedded wife - not another man. What are they gonna ask for next? to adopt? What kind of screwed up kids batling with identity issues,being mocked and bullied by thier peers at school. We already have a problem with absent fathers - ~i personally dont think having 2 of them and no mother is the solution.

2006-06-07 18:30:35 · answer #10 · answered by Matrix 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers