2006-07-03 08:57:15 · 20 answers · asked by ruby 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No... what is the point in banning same sex marriage. Who cares if two men marry or two women? All this marriage is between a man and a women and sacred stuff is not a ligitamate arguement. I'm married and if 2 guys wanted to get married it would not make me feel that my marriage was any less sacred.
And "Adam" so you say marriage is a bond then you bring up some economic benefit... so you're saying that God concieved marriage so that people could get better health benefits. Which is it a bond or a benefit? Either way why can't you accept that 2 men are just as worthy of such a thing as you and your wife.
And "actaug" there are plenty of animals that are gay... just visit a zoo for 10 min. Or better yet, get two male cats and keep them inside for a few years, you'll see what I mean.
I hate to say it but this issue is the least of our worries... the fact that he'd talk about it is offensive. Please Mr. President do your job and lead our country!
2006-07-03 09:03:45 · answer #1 · answered by bigred1612 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would prefer to have the term "marriage" reserved for a relation between a man and a woman. Not because I have any problems with homosexual relationships, but simply to keep the language reasonably free from confusion. I don't much like the idea of a federal constitutional amendment to define it so, but I like even less that the Massachusetts supreme court has usurped what should have been a legislative function.
2006-07-03 21:59:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To have a legally binding contract that grants them the same rights as heterosexuals is the ultimate issue. I am undecided. Maybe it is a matter for the individual states to decide. California and Rhode Island would undoubtedly pass pro-gay marriage laws while Texas and other ultra-conservative states would ban it. As for the relationship itself, I believe that as long as the two persons involved are mature and serious about it, then I do not object. It is their business.
*Note to Atcaug85: You are incorrect on the animal issue. Studies suggest that there are homsexual mammals in the animal kingdom. It is currently an ongoing debate in the scientific community.
2006-07-03 09:06:28 · answer #3 · answered by NordicNemesis 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I must disagree.
To make a law or an amendment baning same-sex marriage based upon the christian belief that homosexuals are an abomination is a violation of the first amendment protections of freedom of religion for anyone who does not follow Christianity.
Not to mention the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause preventing the abridging of the rights or privileges of any person.
2006-07-03 09:11:53 · answer #4 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't agree with Bush. I feel that there is nothing wrong with a marriage between 2 people that love one another. They can't get it any more wrong than the straight people--look at our divorce rate.
2006-07-03 09:02:11 · answer #5 · answered by Bitsy Fairview 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's be honest, if it wasn't for male and female relationships there wouldn't be this debate.
How can gay marriage produce more debaters?
On the other hand, what you do in your bedroom is your business. If people think it goes against God, then let the "sinners" deal with it and stay out of their bedroom.
You should do what feels good so long as no harm comes to others.
THE HERB SEX GUY
2006-07-03 09:06:28 · answer #6 · answered by artistontheedge 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Marriage is a bond that should be held by a man and a woman. What would keep two straight room mates from getting married just to get the benefits of maried couples.
2006-07-03 09:01:58 · answer #7 · answered by adamtosman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that there is no reason for two people to bond together, but redefining marraige is unnecessary, as well as ignores the basic meaning of the word and it's religious connotations.
In terms of rights, I would like to see them receive those.
BUT NOT NOW! Suddenly changing marraige to mean gay and lesbians as well would throw the U.S.A. into a total tailspin as all the benefits REQUIRED by law to married couples suddenly applied to them. The lawsuits alone would bankrupt a small state. Business would drop as many benefits as they could, close their doors and go out of business, or charge an arm and a leg for their services as prices rise EVERYWHERE to compensate for the sudden increase in cost to business.
It always amazes me that people attacking business never quite connect the higher prices or closing businesses with the lawsuits and regulations people always seem to think are need to "punish big business". What idiocy! We all pay for it.
Will these benefits be given? Yes, eventually, and they should proceed with the attempt to get them, but WE are not wrong in slowing them down, and President Bush represents more than just this one minority. He also represents all of us that would suffer by sudden change, and he is being pressured to MAKE sudden change.
That doesn't mean it isn't "right" or whatever, or wrong. I am simply pointing out that we'd be hamstringing ourselves for decades to give them benefits immediately.
And that is what this issue is really about, in my opinion.
2006-07-03 09:17:22 · answer #8 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree with Bush. Simply stated, how do two possitive magnets attract each other. Answer? They can't. Next, look at the animals, have you ever seen gay animals? No you haven't. I'm not saying that human are animals, but if they aren't doing it, neither should we.
2006-07-03 09:04:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have 2 open borders and Bush is only concerned with gay marriage and flag burning. The man should be impeached for being so damn incompetent.
2006-07-03 09:07:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋