2006-10-25 15:05:35 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Might just as well support it. You will find in time that it will become socially acceptable.
2006-10-25 15:14:30 · answer #1 · answered by Beau R 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not crazy about it, but worse than gay people having a legal civil union is better than a government that tells me what I can and can't do with fellow citizens - I mean, is anyone getting hurt? The government has no place today telling me what is right and wrong when they can't set an example - Foley chasing underage boys, the Iraq war started by lies and deception, the Supreme Court deciding who is President, stem cell research being called an attack on family values - those are the trespasses against American citizens that should be against the law.
2006-10-25 22:16:23 · answer #2 · answered by commonsense 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I support the union of two, or more, people who can coexist. If NJ requires a union to be binding in law for tax, or other reason, then they should recognize said union. I am unsure what the big deal is but my understanding is the corruption of a youths mind who will see to people of the same sex in "love." Like they can see a marriage certificate and it is not against the law for members of the same sex to hold hands or kiss.
2006-10-25 22:19:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I oppose gay marriages for two reasons. Firstly, there can evolve costly financial and legal problems for the couple and for corporations because many legal standards and insurance regulations are based on man/woman marriages. Legal marriages, en mass, would require an overhaul of all that. Secondly, the idea of marriage was originally devised to bond the couple, therefore providing security for children until maturity.
2006-10-25 22:19:48 · answer #4 · answered by Apex 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was no ruling, what the court said was that they do not have the right to make law.
They said that the state congress needs to inact a law, they can pass a law that says they can't marry just as easy.
Or they can put it up for a vote of the citizens
2006-10-25 22:18:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
why oppose it? It isnt hurting anyone and frankly how can a bunch of heterosexuals complain about gay marrige when our own divorce rate is so high. maybe we should hold off complaining until we can get it right. opposing gay marrige is pretty much based on religion. If christianity wasnt the main religion would you want the laws to depict how you should live your life?
2006-10-25 22:14:36 · answer #6 · answered by eric s 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, the word 'queers' shows that you're a bigot.
But I really don't understand this whole 'defend marriage' thing. If anything two homosexuals do with their lives affects your marriage, then your marriage was in trouble to begin with.
2006-10-25 22:19:23 · answer #7 · answered by MathGuy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. It is time to extend civil rights further. There is no effect on heteros.
2006-10-25 22:10:49 · answer #8 · answered by C J 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
support! the government has no right to tell people of legal age who they can and cannot be with. laws are to protect us from harm, not instill other people's morality upon us.
2006-10-25 22:19:02 · answer #9 · answered by jumpoutjane 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not against it. Gay folks are entitled to be just as miserable as everyone else.
2006-10-25 22:45:36 · answer #10 · answered by paganvegan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋