should gays/lesbians be allowed to get married?

Question

Well i could be the only gay person in the world to say this... but no gays and lesbians should not be allowed to get "married". Its so damn annoying when so many gay and lesbian movements around the world fight to use a word that does not define what they do. The term marriage stands for the "union" or coming together of a male and a female, nothing else.. not a male and a male, a female and a female, or a human and anything else. I do agree that gays and lesbians should have the right to be recognised as being united in the same way. however the use of the word marriage in this unity should be forbidden. For me as a gay, yes i would like to be recognised the same as straight couples are when they get married. the idea of a certificate, certifying that you and your partner have come together, to be allowed to have some sort of ceremony, sharing the same last name, wearing a ring, feeling together, etc. gays and lesbians should be allowed to have this. but the ceremony needs to be diff

Answer 1

I understand what you are saying and I dont disagree. Here is the problem...there are many states that do NOT recognize gay civil unions. Gays should be allowed the SAME rights as heterosexuals. Its a matter of civil rights. Equality under the law! I think the government should say either gays can be married or marriage doesnt exist under law, only civil unions (as long as the government demands that all states allow for gay unions) Leave "marriage" for the churches to worry about.

Answer 2

While I respect your opinion, you don't say why you came to this conclusion.

I am 53, grew up in the midwest. I'm middle class, own a house in the burbs, make a middle income, drive a mid size car, am divorced, have grown children now out of college, one married and in grad school and the other in grad school. I don't own any boots, flannel, a van, or any cats. I pay way too many taxes, income, real estate, personal property and sales. I'm the American Woman.

I also happened to fall in love with a woman very much like me. I know that this is my life partner, my soul mate.

My concern is not about a ceremony. My concern is how anything less than marriage, the sacred bonding of two souls as taught in every aspect of my life and experience as an American woman, with the legal right to make decisons about the well fare of my spouse in times of illness, with all the protections and rights that legal marriage brings, can be acceptable?

Marriage is not for procreation, if that was true only fertile couples who can reproduce would be allowed to be married. So where does that leave the couple who are beyond the age of reproduction or who cannot have children because of infertility or who simply do not want to reproduce?

Marriage is more than the ceremony and piece of paper, and in this country marriage allows you a respect and a power that unmarried people just don't have. If you have any observant powers at all, then you know this.

Marriage may not be for you, maybe it wasn't for your parents. However, like anything else in America, it must be a right and a CHOICE. We do not have that choice, and that's the problem. No matter what else we do in our lives as good American citizens, because of our sexual orientation we are not allowed the very same opportunities as heterosexuals or those who pretend to be heterosexuals. This kind of thinking led to the legal discrimination of an entire race in our country within my lifetime. Did we not learn anything?

Answer 3

Forgive me, but you are so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin, that said, I will try to keep the answer simple. First, marriage is NOT a union between a man and a woman exclusively, that is merely a Judeo-Christian interpretation. Many Pagan faiths have for thousands of years accepted the marriage of same sex people. Why only use the one definition? Secondly, marriage was NEVER a religious ceremony until the 5th century, before that, it was merely a propriatory agreement involving property and chattle rights. Third, the idea that seperate but equal works, it to live in a very selective state, consider that blacks were to be given rights of their own, but still couldn't sit a the front of the bus."y'all is equal, but don't be sittin' by my white wife", sound familiar? wasn't that long ago. Fourth, consider that if we make marraige only a civil contract, no religion is threatened and is in fact protected. Conversely, if marraige is to be solely religious, then what of those churches that recognize same sex marriage? or are only Judeo-Christians churches the only arbiters of this institution. Ironic given that marriage was a Pagan institution longer than the Judeo-Christian version. Theirs (Judeo-Christian) was called betrothel and had more to do with ownership of a woman and her fathers land than a spiritual joining. Pagan marriage (BTW Mariage is a Pagan word) was solely spiritual in nature and thus more of a legitimate institution where faith is concerned.

You ask if same sex marriage should be allowed. Consider this final point: 4 countries now have it, South Africa will by the new year, and guess what? The world did not end, cats and dogs are not fornicating in the streets, God seems to care less, and the only people truly upset are religious fanatics who see their power dwindling away.

I veritas et pax

Answer 4

You know, my wife and I did have a very different sort of ceremony. (What we had was a New Year's Eve party in which a Pagan handfasting broke out.) We have rings, we share a last name (hyphenated), we feel together. What we don't have are the same rights, protections, and responsibilities that we would if one of us was male.

My "apatheist" brother and SIL, who were married by a notary public in a state park, also had a non-traditional ceremony. They have full legal rights, however. They are automatically in charge of each others' lives and property, which is right because they trust each other most.

My wife and I feel we deserve the same.

Separate but equal hasn't worked in this society before; we don't need our own calling for it now.

Answer 5

Even you show how American Culture has "married" the word with an image that even you can't seperate.

We (The GLBT community) are not fighting to force any specific church or synagog to "marry" us. It's the LEGAL term which recognizes a union between two consenting adults which provides, assumes and allows certain rights, priveledges and protections to these "married" couples.

It's the LEGAL "MARRIAGE" we are fighting to obtain.

Anything less is no equal, anything given a different monacher is allowing our community and all those within it to be treated and defined as second class citizens.

What part of: "All men are created equal..." are you unclear on?
I'd be happy to clearify it for you.

Answer 6

Its not about marriage as such (and I disagree with your comments). The issue really is that there should be no discimination in the eyes of the law based on sexual orientation, and any law that does is inherently flawed. That's the real problem and in some sense the gay community has lost focus on that by focusing on marriage as an issue. Marriage is not about male/female and never was, that is what the church have made it about. Initially it was suppose to be about the two people, two souls committing to each other before me. And here is the ultimate truth...... the soul has no gender so how can it be wrong.

Answer 7

i agree..they can have a different kind of ceremony specially for those kind of relationships..they can and must be allowed to get married but in a different way or form just like you have said..i agree with you..im a lesbian and i do want to get married with my girlfriend but there are a lot of things to consider in "marriage" specially because marriages are only for the male and the female. not the male and the male or the female and the female..same sex relationships should have the oppurtunity and chance to get married because some really i mean really-really love each other..there are a lot of cases like these...so i agree..

Answer 8

The definition you gave of marriage is based on the Bible - which according to the doctrine of "separation of church and state" renders it unconstitutional. I believe that monogamous pairs of homosexuals should enjoy the same legal rights as monogamous pairs of heterosexuals and that there should be a legal way for those monogamous homosexuals to acquire those self-same rights. I DO NOT see this being an "attack" on the family unit nor do I see this as weakening the fabric of our society - as many others seem to believe.

Answer 9

Yes Yes Yes

Answer 10

A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants

You are mistaken in your definition. Whether or not your think it is appropriate is irrelevant to the rest of us. If you don't want the same civil rights as hetrosexuals, fine. Many of us do.