Marriage or legal union for homosexuals?

Question

This is an issue that I find very interesting. I am not a religious individual, however, I can on the one hand, understand the side which argues that marriage has always been between a man and a woman and should not change. If it changes to allow for two people of the same sex to marry, what's to stop it from changing to allow more than two people to marry... after all, how can we say that it is fine for a man and a woman to marry, a man and a man to marry, but not three women? Discrimination!
Basically, do you think the argument can be taken too far?

On the other hand, if we allow two people of the same sex to form a legal union which allows for all the same rights as marriage, will their unions ever really be viewed as equal to marriage?
If not, and my guess is that 'not' would most likely be the case, this is a problem as well.

These things considered, I personally, would have to say I am for homosexual marriage. As a society progresses, so should its laws.

After all, allowing women to vote a hundred years ago would have seemed pretty far fetched. Today, it's something most women take for granted.

Answer 1

Marriage marriage MARRIAGE. Anything less is "separate yet equal" and we know how well THAT worked out in the past.

Answer 2

The slippery slope thing is crap. We already have sex discrimination laws; same-sex marriage would really just be an extension of those. If you've got a problem with it, maybe you should have cried "slippery slope" when we were giving women rights, eh? Polygamous marriages don't work SIMPLY because marriage is a simple institution: all rights and responsibilities default to ONE person. That's kind of the point. And the day a sheep can hold a pen to sign a marriage license, I'll give up asking for equal marriage rights. The "slope" really isn't all that slippery. Furthermore, it's really not an excuse: if someone deserves equal legal rights (which gay couples do by extension of the principles in the constitution), it's unfair and frankly stupid to deny them because it will upset other people. Furthermore, no one is fighting the age of consent (which is a NEW development in the ancient, unchanged institution of marriage). The gay rights movement in general is as disgusted by NAMBLA as everyone else is.


The other option, of course, is that marriage get relegated completely to the realm of religion, and EVERYONE is allowed for civil unions. Legal "marriage" no longer exists. Problem here is that this MIGHT piss off the straight people more than allowing gay marriage; I'm not really sure. Either way, equality under an equal name. Anything else is not truly equality.


Truth is, gay couples ARE raising families, either children of divorce or else through adoption. And these children should be entitled to the legal protections that come from marriage.

Answer 3

While I say by all means give homosexuals what they want, they deserve to get all the rights and privlages that come with being with the person you love the most, I honestly think that calling a bond between two homosexuals marriage is a bit of a long ways off.

while it's true we've come a long way, and women can vote, there are still gaps and inequality everywhere.

Take equal wages for men and women as an example. Women are paid less for doing the EXACT job a man does. Now I don't think theres alot of controversy about giving women more? But it still hasn't happened.

There is ALOT of controversy about calling the bond marriage, so its going to take a while.

Love in any form is wonderful, and its sad they're not given that right. untill then, I will keep on supporting moves toward it..

Answer 4

Just one short note as it is late. When you define something you also define what it is NOT. That is innate the the nature of language. If we start changing everything because of whims then words mean nothing at all.

Secondly, one of the major purposes of marriages is to raise a family. It is not possible for a same sex couple to parent children (within the relationship).

Also, what argument are you going to use that that won't also work for group marriage or even bestiality? I've even heard similar arguments from MANBLA (the MAN Boy Love Association) saying that it should be legal for men to have sex with boys. It is a slippery slope people.

You all decide what you will do, but as for me and my household we will follow the LORD. I choose to rely on the definition that was given by the One who made people and sex. Surely He knows the proper boundaries.

Finally, just so there is no confusion, I don't hate gays. I used to have a gay room-mate and he can attest to this fact. We were friends and I can tell you that he was tormented by his life-style. God loves us all where we are, but He loves us too much to leave us there.

Answer 5

If one is arguing religion as the definition of marriage - and that religion happens to be Christianity - no. There shouldn't be marriage of gay/lesbian people.

HOWEVER

With our government involved in the definition of marriage and the benefits that being married provides - they absolutely should be afforded the same rights, unless we want to take the government out of marriage and make it a strictly religious institution.

To me, civil union/marriage is the same thing regardless of straight or gay because it allows you to have certain rights. If your spouse dies, you can get money to help you or your family carry on. How is it that a gay person who lives with someone else shouldn't be allowed to do the same? We should let him/her go homeless because we can't tolerate the idea of how they have sex? Should we then deny them the ability to get welfare too? Deny them the ability to get a decent job as well? Deny them the ability to live within city limits? Deny them the ability to be citizens of the US? It doesn't stop!

Since I'm positive that married people who are religious wouldn't like it if the government said that they weren't going to honor such a thing and were going to take away all the rights given by the state/nation - I'm positive that marriage should be allowed for everyone, as well as the rights it confers.

(As an aside, the people that say, 'Oh, they should just be happy committing to one another', why then have marriage at all?)

Answer 6

Funny thing... the bible has examples of polygamy, even among those favoured by god. There is evidence of the Catholic church itself performing same-sex marriage up until about the 16th century. And that's not even leaving western european culture yet... so the idea that marriage has *always* been between a man and a woman is a fallacy from the start.

Still, my opinion is that marriage should be a social issue - not a legal one. The government should recognize both same-sex and 'traditional' marriages as civil unions, and leave the definition of marriage entirely up to the people who it matters to: the family and community of the couple.

Answer 7

I'm too tired and my brain isn't quite working anymore. But I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Marriage isn't really a religious instituion anymore. Honestly, you have to have a legal license to do it and it's not the church who divorces you. And if you get "married" by a judge, you are still considered married. No one is hurt by this. Gay couples getting married doesn't make my marriage any less valid or good. Grow up people!

Answer 8

Many religions and cultures world wide already allow what is known as polygamy, (married to more than one person) So, in my opinion, JUST my opinion mind you, I think same sex marriage is a moot point that should be allowed. While women are allowed to vote now, if you'll look around, it's still a man's world and all minorities, including Gays and women are still fighting to be accepted and to belong.

Answer 9

I really liked how you ended your question and I totally agree. We started as a country with little rights for all people... Native Americans, African Americans, Women and basically any minority weren't given equal rights. It has taken a while and we've come a long way, so I think it's time we give people attracted to the same sex equal rights as well.

Answer 10

Personally, I am satisfied with a legal union of the relationship or marriage, either one. It's about having the rights that's important, more than what they call it. We should have the same rights to insurance as a couple, and property and family rights as well.

Answer 11

I don't understand why we, as a society, have to argue about whether or not two consenting adults can marry. To me, it's irrational that we even consider it to be an issue, and I think it speaks ill of us and how small-minded many people can be. Like you, I can see how it might go too far, but - what IS too far? If three women want to marry, why not let them? Is too far wanting to marry inanimate objects, then? Sigh...I'd want to think we wouldn't be that silly, but something tells me that, oh, yes, someone Out There would be standing in line to marry his or her Saturn.......