Funny how you only want to hear the opinions of the people that agree with you or sort of agree with you.
2006-06-25 02:44:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by pottersclay70 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is no reason not to allow homosexuals in a committed relationship to share the benefits of marriage.
Nobody should be in anybody else's bedroom or private life for that matter, dictating how others should live. If indeed, God has a problem with it, which I highly doubt, then they will have to face it when the time comes. However, I don't know how loving another person, same or opposite sex, can be wrong. AND, I feel that if they have more love to give to a child that needs it, that's great. The more love there is to be given in the world, the better. Many loving gays would make much better parents than some hateful heteros.
Look at how many heterosexual marriages are a joke. They degrade each other, beat each other, compete with each other, lie to each other, cheat on each other. And right in front of their kids so they pass it all on down to the next generation. And these people represent the holy sanctity of marriage? Please...
Bottom line is, mind your own beeswax, live and let live and love your neighbour. If you're really interested in following Christ's teaching...love your neighbour as yourself.
Sorry, I guess I'm not really on the fence at all.
By the way, I am hetero (not that it matters) in a committed long-term relationship.
2006-06-25 03:05:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by LindaLou 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal". I do not believe that this text has ever been changed to, "all HETEROSEXUAL men are created equal". For this reason, and this reason alone, every person in this country should be allowed the same rights, including the right to marry.
Conservatives often say that gay marriage does not adhere to "traditional values". This is a dangerous phrase. There was a time in this nation's history when people of color were not allowed to own property or to marry, simply because it was "traditional values" at the time. There was a time when in this nation's history when women were not allowed to vote, again in the name of "traditional values". Now, we are at a time in our nation's history where homosexual people are being discriminated against in the same manner, still under the blanket of "traditional values".
In retrospect, we realize that those who suffered this kind of discrimination in the past did so unjustly. We now have the unique opportunity to show future generations that we know that all people ARE created equally, and all people in this nation should be afforded the same rights, regardless of sex, race, religion or sexuality.
I have often heard the argument made that the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. While this may be true, it is not a valid argument as to why homosexual people should not be given the right to legally marry, and be given the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This nation was founded on the basic and deep concept of separation of church and state, and therefore we cannot let the way one religion's views of marriage define how our laws are written.
2006-06-25 02:58:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by pceej 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
My opinion: This is a very hard topic. Both sides have awesome points. I say, why do we even have to get married. Fine, you straight run society, let the gays not get married. Why should the gays care? What is marrige but paper? Love is Love. I know plenty of gays and straights that aren't married, and rights have nothing to do with it. The End.
PS: Marrige is sacred, and I know; I'm Christian! But, it sure is easy to tell the gays and everyone else that disagrees with you "Change now! You are wrong! I am right! My way is the only way!" Guess what, it aint that easy. We are not in the '50s anymore. We listen to rock and roll, and all the other abominations. Open your mind to new thoughts and ideas. We wont advance anymore if we don't. People will do what they want. I believe thought that this republic allows voting to take place. They've voted. They will continue to. The politicians make the decisions. That's all! If you ask me, turn the issue to us; the people of the United States of America! Let us choose! Let us put our opinions to use please!
2006-06-28 17:56:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Brandon Gagne 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think they should be able to have a civil union. If two people are in love and of legal age, not related, then why should there be a problem? I have several friends who are gay, and as far as parenting, I know that most of them would make better parents that so many straight parents.
Based on your questions I have read, I would assume that you are a member of or involved with the ACLU. While I do not support the ACLU, I do agree with you on this point.
Your questions are wonderful, by the way. Intelligent if not a little paranoid at times, but very thought provoking.
2006-06-25 20:25:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Doodlebug 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe marriage should be between two PEOPLE who are completely devoted to each other, regardless of sexual orientation. I accept that homosexuality is found in every species on the planet - even in insects - and therefore must be part of Nature's plan. Gay men and women are no different from everyone else, except that they are gay. Straight people are no different from them, except that they are straight. Why then shouldn't gay marriages be allowed? Why shouldn't they receive the same benefits that hetero-marriages enjoy? I really don't see what the big issue is.
My husband, on the other hand, believes in "civil unions" like you do. He believes that gay couples should receive the same benefits that straight couples do, but they shouldn't be able to call their unions a marriage, because a marriage is between one man and one woman. He can't explain why he feels this way, he just does. But he doesn, try to sway my opinion, or anyone else's. He firmly believes in the saying "Live and let live."
So, there's two opinions for you. Hope that helps! :o)
2006-06-25 02:49:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe the reason is that marriage was originally a religious thing... Despite equal rights, etc... the bible does say that it is wrong Romans Ch.2... The gov. has extended many tax benifits to the gay population. I know you don't want to hear from "bible bangers" but the reason seriously is that marriage is something they feel strongly about and is considered a holy union. I think a better option would be to call it something else and continue the tax benifits of a married couple.
2006-06-25 02:42:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by dudeabides 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
actually im not sure why they cant have the benefits that straight marraiges do. They are still two people who are madly in love and want to marry. First they are going to be shunned by most of the predjudice community, and then they cant have any of the benefits? That is simply proposturous. They should be able to get the benefits despite the Bible, they all know what is written there, so people should just accept them as a sociatal norm and allow them to have the benefits!
2006-06-25 02:43:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by cul8rhote 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good question, same tired assinine answers. Why do they want it? Because the Declaration of Independence guaranteed it "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution grants everyone equality already. I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about insurance benefits, tax credits, etc... As for Christians, the same book that tells you homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus) tells you to take your child out to the city limits and stone them for being rebellious. The same apostle (Paul) that tells you it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as a woman also tells you that women are to keep silent in church, that they cannot be Pastors, and that they are to be in total submission to their husbands. CAN WE SAY HYPOCRITES.
Tired, sorry, sad people the lot of you bigots.
2006-06-28 09:32:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by deLaParre 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I guess the problem is getting married in a church.
That is what I'm opposed to.
They clearly don't believe in the bible or the koran, so religion shouldn't be needed in the ceremony.
Civil cermony should be enough, as long as they get all the same rights as the straight couples.
I'm still undecided on my opinion about the right to adopt though.
2006-06-25 02:45:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by nomar 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pure ignorance can be the only answer!!! Whatever your personal preference, no one has the right to define themselves as more worthy than others!!! Here's an idea...instead of people putting so much energy in topics as these that should be no brainers of pure decency to others...how about we put the energy into the children you mentioned who will be part of a perpetual cycle of pain!!! Great question. I was not your target audience, but I couldn't help myself and I hope you get some intelligent responses!!!
2006-06-25 04:47:11
·
answer #11
·
answered by anonymous12 3
·
0⤊
0⤋