2006-09-30 01:20:59 · 37 answers · asked by wacoco_puccamae 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
YES ! As long as both the people are consenting adults and nobody is being harmed, i dont see any reason why two people who want to spend their lives together must be stopped.
Lawmakers should leave matters of the heart to the individuals concerned and come up with laws that tackle more serious issues facing the world such as child trafficking, drugs etc.
2006-09-30 01:34:08 · answer #1 · answered by Sweety 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
One view of marriage has the meaning of making your relationship socially accepted. Gays cannot enjoy the social benefits of being married by just being "married" as a normal couple. People in their society will always disagree and it will be one and the same as if the wouldn't have. From the other side, nobody should deny gay people the social benefits that a marriage offers, such as social security, bank loans, etc. I don't know If they should be allowed to get "married", but they should be granted by the authorities the social benefits a normal couple has
2006-09-30 01:40:13 · answer #2 · answered by Ringo 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The biggest argument I have heard against it is that " Everyone" has certain rights, no matter who you are. The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals, is sexual preference.
SO, if we allow gay marriage now, how long will it be before the animal " Lovers" want to have it legal to marry their sheep? What about those that like young kids??
You can say those are " perversions" but hey, the only difference between homosexuals and pedophiles, is their sexual preference.
See, I passed on an argument and didn't even mention the Bible.
If you look around, we as a society are loosing many of our rights because we don't stand up for them. 5% of the population admits they are gay, so, why should we let a small minority tell us how and what we should believe and allow.
Just something to think about and no, I am not a homophobes. I work with people who, keep it low key, are not " flaming" and would rather the hoopla die down. He has never said or done anything towards me and I consider him a friend. One of the nurses is gay and doesn't flaunt it around and again, would prefer to keep it low key.
2006-09-30 01:28:40 · answer #3 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Our Declaration of Independence claims that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. It does not then go on to split hairs relative to who is more equal than whom. Across the board, all Americans are entitled to equal treatment and benefits. When heterosexual people get married, they take on certain rights and privileges such as the determination of medical care for a spouse, the right to inherit jointly owned properties, etc. Without some form of state sanctioned "marriage", homosexuals are denied these basic human rights. If your sister was gay, would you want her girlfriends parents to strip her of a house she had worked hard to buy and co-own? Under current law, she has no inheritance rights - in that she is not recognized as next-of-kin nor spouse. Do you believe that homosexuals are SO beneath you that they should be denied the same rights as you and your neighbors?
Homosexuals are not looking for extra rights, only EQUAL rights.
2006-09-30 01:35:35 · answer #4 · answered by Clarkie 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am sorry, but your grammar is so bad I won't even post a humorous statement. If you are asking, "What do you think? Should gay men and lesbians be allowed to marry?" you need to write it correctly. I know the text messaging spelling is all about brevity but you cannot get around bad grammar to the point that one has to struggle to understand the question. You will fail in life if you can't read, write (including spelling and grammar) and compute very well. So, I cannot give you my opinion on this question.
2006-09-30 01:28:09 · answer #5 · answered by ALWAYS GOTTA KNOW 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They can have a "marriage" but the marriage will not be recognized by the government in this country. They won't get arrested or anything for having a ceremony or wearing rings though so I'm not sure you can say it's not allowed.
2006-09-30 01:24:35 · answer #6 · answered by Kuji 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Me thinks that maybe they need to develop their own word.
Since government, and other people do not want to hurt the " marriage vows" by tainting them, why not just come up with a new word for the union, and create their own?
Then they can run their own insurance companies, so that they can put their partners on.
2006-09-30 01:25:31 · answer #7 · answered by leftturnclyde152521 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No..
Not the same as male/female traditional marriages..
Some sort of civil union with the legal equivalency of marriage
would be appropriate...
2006-09-30 01:29:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They should be, but they aren't in my state (state constitutional ban). After reading soooo many postings on Y!A saying "my bf and I are trying to get preg.." or "I've been living with this guy and we have a 3 year old kid together, etc..."
How can you deny two people that truly love one another the right to be committed legally to each other for the rest of their life, when there are so many hetero couples taking the easy way.
2006-09-30 01:25:40 · answer #9 · answered by just browsin 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I definitely believe that they should be allowed to get married. After all, why should straight men be the only ones who suffer?
2006-09-30 01:28:57 · answer #10 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋