2006-11-12 19:46:54 · 24 answers · asked by ed g 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
either/or. if heterosexuals have to suffer through divorce, marriage counseling, division of property, and custody battles, so should gay folks. i wish i could claim that as my own saying, but i stole it from a comedian i heard somewhere last year. let em marry already, it's long overdue.
i'll be very amused as i count all the thumbs down i'll be getting for this answer. maybe someday, yahoo will give out a prize for getting the most thumbs down!!
2006-11-12 21:17:54 · answer #1 · answered by pirate00girl 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Nope don't think that's it's a good idea, no problem with them living together or being given couples tax breaks because they live together.
But legalizing the union makes it easier to adopt children, and I consider this to be bad for the children, they will grow up in an environment where they think same sex relationships are the norm and will therefore experiment in this area even tho they have no homosexual tendencies, this could even lead to an inverse of the sexual confusion that many gay people go through after years of believing that they should be straight.
Which ever way you look at it (political correctness aside) there are only two sexes, male and female, any thing else is an aberration either due to hormones, genetic abnormalities or cultural mis-conditioning/confusion or some subtle combination of the lot.
What ever the issue, sexual preference, country of origin, race, language you should not get extra treatment just because you feel you are entitled to it.
2006-11-13 11:46:49 · answer #2 · answered by Dream Scourge 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I believe in a separation of church and state. If churches want to have a ceremony that they reserve for heterosexual couples, fine. I have no right to tell them they should change that, and they have no right to tell me that children should be made to pray in school. I do think that there should be some kind of legal status that gives the same rights to any couple, regardless of gender. I don't really care if it's called a civil union, a marriage, a domestic partnership, or an ice cream sundae. As long as the government to which I pay taxes affords me the same rights as any other couple, I don't care what churches do.
2006-11-13 09:34:26 · answer #3 · answered by Krista D 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not gay. But I think they should be aloud. Look at this, if a person is with another for the majority of their of there life and knows everything about them why not. There is insurance issues too. Mainly when comes to health insurance a partner may know as much if not even more than a nearset relative. Also look at beneficary issues in the case of death wouldn't you want the one you really love to have it all in the end. Think a little out box here. There is a lot to consider here.
2006-11-13 05:46:18 · answer #4 · answered by lhm1968 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I say we use the term "marriage" for a man and woman to please everyone opposed to "gay marriage". Then we have the term "civil union", which under the law would have the same legal benefits as "married" couples. This way non-religious couples and same-sex couples would have the same rights and the religious people could keep their "sanctity of marriage". In France, for example, "civil unions" are more popular even amongst straight couples than "marriage".
2006-11-13 05:57:14 · answer #5 · answered by DawnDavenport 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
both, but preferably marriage. with "civil unions" we're still separate but NOT equal. if 2 consenting, unrelated adults love each other and are committed to each other, it shouldn't matter what their gender, race, religion or culture is. they should be allowed to get married and enjoy all the legal benefits it entails.
2006-11-13 09:27:00 · answer #6 · answered by redcatt63 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, Marriage.
Even if a "Civil Union" is allowed and equal in every way to "marriage" you are creating segregation. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.
2006-11-13 06:51:19 · answer #7 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it's only right. If straights can marry, then we should be given the equal opportunity, like it states in the Constitution and the 14th amendment
2006-11-13 10:54:34 · answer #8 · answered by Phedre D 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If truly a commited couple, not someone trying to justify who they have sex with, I believe in civil unions due to death benefits, social security, health etc..
2006-11-13 05:36:27 · answer #9 · answered by <><><> 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, of course. I see no good reason why they shouldn't be. And religious beliefs don't count as a reason if we're talking about being married in a strictly legal sense.
2006-11-13 09:15:36 · answer #10 · answered by K H 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋