Based purely on legal terms of course the government can allow what ever they want, and of course they could write limitations on it now, but of course over time, that limit would and could be challenged, just as gays are challenging the man/women standard now.
I would not even be as upset, if the issue went to voters, or was even passed by the state law makers, it is when the few places it is being ruled on and forced by one man ( a judge)
And of course the government can make legal man/boy ( which already has a lobby group) or poligimy ( and I don't know why there is not a lobby for that) And yes siblings ( even studies of late showing there is not as much birth defect concern as once thought ( and why are we even studying this)
2006-06-25 14:22:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Man, I think everyone should be allowed to marry. I mean, is it not gross for people of the same sex to live together and have sex? Getting married is no more gross than that. Face it, it is discrimination to not allow them to get married. Gay's kids actually tend to turn out better than many non-gay parents' kids. Also, it is not a proven fact that gay parents produce gay kids, so any comparison between incest and gay should be squashed. Multiple partner marriage, I don't understand why that isn't legal either. Soudns like a playa hayta to me. If you can have a domestic partner by law, you should be able to marry as long as they are of age.
2006-06-25 21:32:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have a slightly different perspective on it: Why should the government have any say in such private matters at all? It all started with various special laws that give benefits and advantages to married couples, like tax advantages and mutual responsibility for debts and for their children. But that has gotten so out of hand anyway that it seems we might completely restructure the laws, and have something like "family corporations," which would be any number of adults of whatever genders who are committed to being mutually responsible for one another and the offspring of their group. Then it would be up to them, and no one else, who slept with whom. They could get insurance as a family, adopt children (although a larger group would rarely find it necessary, but they might find it desirable), and share in the whole next-of-kin decisions that become important if you are in a hospital or when you die.
Why not just admit that the government is effectively legislating personal decisions in a way that is ineffective and inappropriate in the modern age?
2006-06-25 21:25:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by auntb93again 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I use to be aginst it. But you know what? If you wish to be gay, that is your choice. And if marrying someone like you makes you happy. Kudos. I am Wikan. I get persecuted for my beliefs everyday. So I know what it feels like. I have nothing aginst gay people anymore and I wish them the best. In fact most of my TRUE friends are gay. But the way I see it is like this. The govenrment that was made for the people by the people got us nothing. If we cant live happy, why live. It seems that the christans are the ones who have a huge problem with anything anymore. They are the ones going aginst the Homosexuals and they are the ones causeing most of the wars. Apparently it is ok to do anything you want as long as you dont marry the same sex or you do something bad in the name of god.
2006-06-25 21:25:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by fixxxer101 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
to not allow gay marriage is discrimination
to say it is sick is discrimination
the reason that siblings cant marry eachother is beacuase the child often has birth defefts, the only reason why gays arent allowed to marry is bigottry.
the goverment can simply and incredibly easily allow gay marriage . It will first come state by state. Eventually, like blacks voting, women voting, or black men dating white women, the Constitution will be amended to accept it, or the courts will declare the discrimination unconstitutional.
To change it , simply chage Husband: Wife: to Parter #1: Partner#2:
2006-06-25 21:45:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by qwerty q 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because in the end, it's love. It is EXTREMELY different from sibling marrage (because of the health risks of inbreeding) and mulitple partner marrage (because marrage is strictly a union between two people).
Just think: people years and years ago thought the same thing about interracial marrages...now people of all races have the right to marry eachother.
Soon people will see that just because you are homosexual does not mean you can be denied the right to marry...in the end, ti's just discriminatory.
2006-06-25 21:29:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree that marriage should not be sanctioned by the government. No one can tell people how to love or who to love and who's to say you need a piece of paper to say you are going to be together forever. You can enter into a legal agreement, with a lawyer presenting the information, to divide assets upon dissolution of relationship.
2006-06-25 21:24:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by shadow_lion 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
All Bull, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone. You don't see them complaining about interracial marriages so why bother the Gays !!
2006-06-25 22:32:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by ₦âħí»€G 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
why not if two homosexual love each other why not the only reson the goverment is trying to stop it because they think it could became a epdemic that what i think then again they love each other why not
2006-06-25 21:21:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by reymannba 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why should YOU be allowed to marry?
2006-06-25 21:29:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋