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

18 answers

I believe in gay marriages, because even without their ability to reproduce, these human beings have the right to rightfully and legally consider themselves engaged with another human being regardless of race, physical disabilities, or SEX.

2006-06-12 21:39:28 · answer #1 · answered by phatrick34 2 · 0 0

I live in America, a country that is supposed to be about accepting and integrating diversity of peoples, cultures and lifestyles.

Why is it then, that here in America, we are debating wholesale discrimination of between seven and fifteen percent of the population, depending on who is counting?

The "sanctity" of marriage crap is just that, crap. Sanctity essentially means "sanctioned by religious authority." Why then should public policy have any reign over what is a personal spiritual matter.

Gay marriage doesn't threaten anyone. It has been legal in the United States for over a year now in Massachusetts. I don't see the state going to hell in a handbasked just because a couple of lovey dovey gay guys (or gals) tied the knot.

The argument that we should allow marriage only between heterosexual couples "because that is the way it has always been" is equally bogus. If all laws were made by precedent, slavery would still be legal.

I find it ironic that people are striving to define marriage as between one man and one woman because they believe that is what the bible tells them is right. If that is the case, why did Solomon have over seven hundred wives?

Who cares if gays can have kids? There are lots of kids out there that have no parents and adoption should be an answer for gay couples that wish to have children. The argument that marriages exist for procreation is again a reference to the Bible. The same bible that says you go to hell for wearing polyestre blends (mixed fabrics) or eating hooved animals, or even touching your husbands genitals (which they cut your hand off for, btw).

Gay relationships are no less stable than comparative heterosexual ones. Many marriages end in divorce. If they really want to protect the sanctity of marriage they would make divorce illegal.

2006-06-12 22:47:58 · answer #2 · answered by Swanhart 2 · 0 0

A field day if there ever was one...

Jack F -
1.) Marriage was originally white/white, black/black, "traditionally."
2.) As quoted before, ever heard of infertile? Lots of heterosexuals get fertility treatments using "artificial means."
3.) Theology is based on belief of its followers. There are gay priests with successful careers.
4.) Activism does not equal homosexualism. Homosexuals do not picket against gay pride parades.
5.) I have been in a relationship for 4 years. The only instability is my frustration at being considered less worthy than a heterosexual.
6.) Heterosexuals get AIDS/HIV, without homosexuals involved.
7.) My heterosexual friends go clubbing, go tanning, take care of themselves (also referred to as metrosexuals), and I love sitting at home and reading a book. They are married and I will be one day, too.

Your point is you know little about gays and lesbians and should get a few gay friends and learn. I'm not against you marrying, just being ignorant.

"Me"- Sounds like homophobia. Did you know most men who are homophobic actually have homosexual thoughts or tendencies they are afraid of and push too hard against?

And I don't see Massachusetts blowing up or burning in hell under the wrath of god. I see people who are happy and haven't destroyed "American society."

2006-06-13 00:16:33 · answer #3 · answered by BA6793 2 · 1 0

Legal. Why should the world be ruled by heterosexual people? Gay people have every right to become a legally recognised couple through marriage.

2006-06-12 21:45:34 · answer #4 · answered by smurfette_au2000 5 · 0 0

I think same sex marriage should be legal. As for the person who answered that marriage is to give birth to new life---what a crock---there are people having kids out of wedlock everyday. What about heterosexual couples who are infertile, should they not be allowed to marry because one of them or both of them cannot have children? What about those people who don;t want kids should they not be allowed to get married?

2006-06-12 22:11:46 · answer #5 · answered by mjfluffypuff 4 · 0 0

Marriage have a purpose. The purpose is to give birth to a new life. If this can be achieved with gay marriages, there is no problem legalising this. However, if this is just for the sake of - it should be turned off.

2006-06-12 21:39:07 · answer #6 · answered by pardeep77_sharma 2 · 0 0

Interesting debate...Gays married...
spoils the purpose of holy matrimoney doesn't it?

Nothing in, my eyes, "wrong" with a homosexual lifestyle.
However, there's no gay gene (or is there)...that would implicate a cure wouldn't it?
Therefore it's a choice...a preferance.

So to me, it doesn't deserve minority status, special votes or considerations, a special parade, or even a special day.
It deserves tolerance, as equally as we tolerate S&M lifestyle or any other sexual preferance.

HOWEVER, if it comes to "partner rights" like hospital visitation, inheritance, parental adoption, powers of attorney: I most definately believe there should be some legal recognition of that partner status so that gays and lesbians feel they have a special recognition of unity and can feel "legally married".

2006-06-12 21:53:29 · answer #7 · answered by Warrior 7 · 0 0

Gays should not be allowed to get married because marriage is already a joke to most people in this country. Gays have enough rights in this country without shoving that crap in our face. they have too many rights already if you ask me Let them do what they want, but keep it in the closet. the morals in this country are already a joke, and I'm tired of homo's pushing their lifestyle as "normal"

2006-06-12 23:11:01 · answer #8 · answered by me 2 · 0 0

I had 2 very close friends die from AIDS because one boyfriend cheated on the other, and then, we had to bury them both within weeks a part, they might as well have put a gun to their heads and pulled the trigger. I don't judge people about their lifestyle, but I personally don't feel it is right, for a man to lay with a man as a husband would lay with his wife, but it is not up to me to judge others, there is a much higher judge, and he will do what he feels is best.

2006-06-12 22:06:23 · answer #9 · answered by tennessee_cherokee 3 · 0 0

I dont, for the typical conservative right-wing conspiracy theorist reasons. I am sure you've heard them all before.

1. Marraige has always been traditionally man/woman
2. Family is basic foundation of society, with basic purpose of pro-creation
--homosexuals cannot procreate without artificial means
3. Obvious theological/ethical reasons
4. Personal reason: I detest activism
5. Gay relationships tend to be extremely unstable
6. AIDs/HIV
7. Gay lifestyle is usually (but not always) incompatible with married life

I could continue, but I think you get my point.

2006-06-12 22:07:30 · answer #10 · answered by jack f 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers