Should gay marriage be legal or not?

Question

Should gay marriage be legal or not?
do you think they shold have the same rights as normal marrige?

Answer 1

yes it should be legal, the people that are afriad i twill affect their relationshiops don't have strong relations and fear losing their loved one. RIGHT TO PRESUE HAPPYNESS. Marriage is about love not religon creed or sexual orentition, if you really wanan look at it religously I'd guess that jesus would have hung out wiht the gay guy or girl or the bisexual just like he hung out with the prostitute and blind guy and the guy with lepracy, if theres anyone who he wouldnt hang with its the guy saying no these arnt people and that they cant live happily and love who they want to. I'm not even religous I just like to give what i think even catholics and cristians can think cuse I used to be one till I decide I was bisexual ... and I think the only thing needed for marriage is LOVE.

Answer 2

no because this which mean yes it should be

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more childre

Answer 3

Either way it's not an issue for congress or the president. The whole issue comes down to states rights versus federal supramacy versus individual freedom. In the first place all government (federal, state, and local) should stay out of the bedroom. If they start telling us who we can and can't marry what is next? Will they start dictating what jobs we can have, who gets to go to school, what kind of car should be bought, where our kids grow up, wheither we can have kids, even who we should vote for? All of this sound very much like a dictatoral regiem and not the good old U. S. of A.. People have fought and did for hunders and hundreds of years to gain, protect, and perseve these freedoms and now we are on the verge of just giving them all away. Where do you draw the line? Allowing government to infreng on personal freedoms is a slippery slop that should be avoided at all cost. No matter how you feel about the issue at hand, the larger issue is and will always be about individual rights, freedom, and the core democratic principles.

Answer 4

No,

The very nature of marriage as we have always known it is discriminatory. Marriage is open to all adults, subject to age and blood relation limitations.
If marriage was not so important for what it actually is, we would not be debating about it's legal status.
Binding the sexes together in a unique and complementary union is what marriage is about.
The attempt to eject an entire sex from the equation and then call it "equal", is not just dishonest but also dangerous. It imposes a lie on people who know better. The term "marriage" refers specially to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, "marriage" becomes meaningless.
You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it "marriage" than you can leave chocolate out of chocolate ice cream. It becomes something else.
The gay community likes to claim that they need legal status so they can visit their partners in hospitals, etc. Hospitals leave visitation up to the patient except in very rare instances. This "issue" is just a smokescreen to cover the fact that, using legal instruments such as power of attorney, drafting a will, etc., homosexuals can share property, designate heirs, dictate hospital visitors and give authority for medical decisions.
Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't just extend an old institution to a new group of people. It changes the definition of marriage, reducing it to an affectionate sexual relationship accompanied by a declaration of commitment.
What they should not obtain is identical recognition and support for a relationship that is not equally essential to society's survival.
The Constitution is not made of clay, to be twisted, molded and torn apart depending on national mood.

(If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything)

Answer 5

Absolutely! Imagine the boost to the economy!

But seriously, marriage as defined by history, was a purely legal contract to make it possible for any children the couple had to inherit property and if one of the couple were to die, the other would inherit the dead partner's property (two become one flesh and all that). It was not meant to be some sort of magical, romantic ceremony.

Things have shifted over the centuries and the meaning of marriage has shifted as well, from contract to loving commitment and a legal way to get health insurance if one is not employed. I think it's great if gay couples want to marry each other as an expression of their love for each other. I also think it's good for couples if one partner is not working and needs affordable healthcare. And it's also good to make sure that if one dies, the other has the rights to the property.

I'm all for it. Gay people are humans and they deserve to make a public pledge of their lifelong commitment to each other, to have access to their partner's healthcare and to inherit their partner's property.

Answer 6

Of course it should be. As far as my husband and I are concerned, we have been "married" in our hearts for six years. We are also in the process of adopting our two boys. We resent the fact that we are expected to pay taxes to a government in order to support the "hetero lifestyle" (For example, social security, where one breeder can collect benefits after the other breeder kicks off), yet when we demand the same thing, we are accused of "promoting an agenda". As far as we are concerned, this is taxation without representation. If the government wants to deny our families full legal protection, we say exempt us from paying taxes to support the "hetero lifestyle". Perhaps the government should change the legal definition of marriage to read something along the lines of "marriage: a federally funded hetero rewards program".

Answer 7

I think it should be legal. why should the government care what people do as far as marriage. gay people are going to be gay and live together anyways. religion plays a huge part in this never ending hot topic. church and state was supposed to be seperate. I think the main issue is gay people want to be treated like people and not like prisioners in soceity. we are already treating every gay person different because we won't let them get married. there was a time in history when black people couldn't vote or go to the same schools as white people, or eat at restauraunts drink from drinking fountains and ride the bus. but now black people are accepted as they should be , after all they are people just like gay people are people and should have the same rights as everyone else. gay people accept what straight people do in the bedroom, why can't straight people just accept gay people and what they do in the privacy of their own home. but that only applies to straight people when their rights are infringed upon. the problem with our soceity is we say one thing and do another. we want equal rights for all yet fail to supply the rights to people just because their lifestyle is different. but that's just my take.

Answer 8

In 1986 all the right wing-nuts were crowing about how gays were just out there having their gay sex with everyone and anyone.

Now in 2006 all the right wing-nuts are crowing about how gays want to be monogamous and get married; thus causing damage to the so-called sanctity of marriage.

You can't have it both ways.

WIth the divorce rate the way it is in this country there is no such thing as the "sanctity" of marriage.

One should be allowed to marry whomever he or she wants.

Answer 9

Don't you find the variety of answers to this question amazing. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people jump straight to the Bible as the basis of their opinion. I also see alot of the word "normal" flare up. Heres my take on it. It appears to me that those responses that use the Bible as a guiding force should actually read it. They will probably have no clue what its suppose to mean. In my opinion the Bible is a tool. To keep it brief and simple, I believe the Bibles purpose is to teach all of us how to strive be a loving people. Unfortunately, people cause more harm and breed so much hatred because of their own lack of knowledge, their own insecurities, and their fear of each...or....their desire to capitalize from other peoples lack of knowledge(ignorance) or insecurities, and the fears that accompany by twisting bits and pieces from the Bible to accomplish their own agenda. How can anyone be so bold as to use God's name in any way and associate it with unloving, uncaring. Why shouldn't anyone who is a consenting adult be given the same blessing as another. Yes, Straight folks should marry who they want, and Gay/Lesbian folks should marry who they want. One person's answer on here made reference to Gay folks being the same as Incest folks. WOW.... I might as well say that Incest folks are the same as Straight folks. It makes about as much sense. See what I meant about ignorance and insecurities. Oh yeah.. and "Normal"...don't even get me started...

Answer 10

Yes. Homosexuals can not ruin the sanctity of marriage cause look a people like Elizabeth Taylor and or swingers/bisexuals and so on. I have a monogamous relationship and have for years, I just want the same rights to protect myself and my family.