Probably, I just wish they would not call it "marriage".
2006-10-08 05:36:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bawney 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I think it is past time to make gay marriage legal. After all, let them have all the ups and all the downs of marriage.They are American citizens, why not? How so called straight people can set theirselves up as examples of what marriage is all about is pretty egotical. Le't take the divorce rate, the violence, lying, cheating, using the children as weapons.........is this the type marriage you want gays to emmulate? Let them get legally married, after all how could they do any worse? And to those of you who bring up the religious aspect, if in God's Law this is a sin, let Him be the judge., after all it will be them who will have to suffer the consquences, not you.
2006-10-08 06:02:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by firewomen 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think gay marriage is the issue now like women's lib was in the 70's, and I think they will find after all is said and done that they wind up getting more than they bargained for, and not all of it will be positive.
I do not have a problem with gay marriage, as a legal union. As a biblical union, however, it is not sanctioned, as marriage in the bible is defined as between a man and a woman. On the same lines, however, the "marriage ceremony" cannot be found anywhere in the bible, and is a civil ceremony.
I think that two people who want to live together as a "unit", should be given all the benefits, as well as all the pitfalls.
Anyone who is pushing so hard for gay marriage given any thought to gay divorce????
2006-10-08 05:44:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Well, as of the most recent polls taken on the subject something like 85% of the voting public nationwide is still against same-sex marriage so I wouldn't count on it happening any time soon.
I would personally support all legally recognized and protected unions but would have to say no on re-defining the definition of marriage. Once you start redefining institutions where does it stop?
If you're going to re-define the definition of marriage why not also include father-daughter marriages for those who 'love' each other that way, or brother-sister marriage for those who 'love' each other this way or a farmer and his favorite sheep marriage for those lonely farmers who 'love' their sheep?
2006-10-08 05:51:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Doc Watson 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think civil unions, legally equivalent to marriages, are inevitable.
Religious marriages may not come any time soon, if at all.
JudeoChristian religious history does not favor homosexual marriage, and as religious entities they do not have to accept or
condone such relationships.
Civil contracts are a different matter, and homosexuals deserve equal treatment to heterosexual couples, under the law.
2006-10-08 05:53:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by hls 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I just wonder why the heck people keep so concerned about the lives of others. In a world where so many other issues are more pressing, I don't give a rat's @$$ about who marries who.
So, yes, legalize gay unions
2006-10-08 05:51:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
i think of it is previous time to make gay marriage legal. after all, enable them to have each and every of the united statesand each and every of the downs of marriage.they are individuals, why no longer? How so referred to as on the instant human beings can set theirselves up as examples of what marriage is all approximately is tremendously egotical. Le't take the divorce fee, the violence, mendacity, cheating, making use of the little ones as weapons.........is this the variety marriage you decide on gays to emmulate? enable them to get legally married, after all how could they do any worse? And to those of you who raise the non secular component, if in God's regulation it quite is a sin, permit Him be the choose., after all it is going to likely be them who will could go through the consquences, no longer you.
2016-10-15 23:30:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
given that the state institution of marriage (not to be confused with the religious sacrament) is a product of the government and the law, our constitution says it should be available to everyone. the whole "equal protection of the laws" bit. as plessy v. freguson stated in regards to the race issue "separate institutions are inherently unequal". i don't see how gay marriage is any different.
2006-10-08 05:46:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by mediocrates 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
Really no,
lesbian bat woman is not something anyone wanted but is merley part of the over politically correct and really a gay movement lobby work to try and warp the thinking of our young.
But the pure fact is any and every time it has every went up to any vote, it fails badly. American public don't want it, they may have been forced to accept the behavior, but in the privicy of a voting booth they let thier real opinoin be known.
I would say that even where it is now allowed it will be voted out before too long if it is allowed on the ballot.
yes they may tell you one thing in public, since the gay and lesbian groups have put a shaddow over people being honest about thier feelings. If you say you are against it, someone starts calling you names, so people are scared to be honest about thier feelings in public
2006-10-08 05:41:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
Someday it will happen. It takes generations for people hatred and ignorance to dissipate. I doubt gay marriage will be legal in my lifetime, but maybe sometime soon after.
2006-10-08 12:53:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by donrull 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
i think that gay marriage is finally being brought up as an issue because more and more people are coming out and i think it also depends on how long it is until we get a president who is supportive
2006-10-11 15:10:12
·
answer #11
·
answered by Kiarajade 1
·
2⤊
0⤋