i know some of my friends n stuff think marriage is a sacrament between a man and awoman , etc. i think its total bullshit. marriage is nothing more than a legal document giving you rights and special privileges concerning your loved one. none of that christian **** either. but i want your opinions anyway so..here we go...
2006-12-11 15:00:05 · 12 answers · asked by Gone, Gone, Gone. 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I believe that people against gay marriage feel threatened by gays. Maybe if gays called it a legal union with all the rights and benefits of a marriage, the public would buy into it.
It's a fact that many people are gay. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Why shouldn't they have equal rights? They pay equal taxes, don't they?
2006-12-11 15:36:49 · answer #1 · answered by The Hell With This Constitution 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well are you asking as a gay person or a religious person???. Marriage is a SACRAMENT between men and women in the eyes of some religions. Sorry if that offends you. But that's the way it is and that's the way it's written in the scriptures. That's what MARRIAGE IS SUPPOSE TO BE.
But if you choose it another way, like 80% of people do these days then yes it is simply just a piece of paper uniting a couple for special rights and privileges. So if a gay man wants to get married HE SHOULDN'T CALL IT A MARRIAGE he should just say what it is he wants, I want the special rights and privileges that all these other people get for living under the same roof....but aren't they already doing that??? as well as other people who aren't gay? Every one has rights after a long period of shacking up with someone and fornicating! So again why do they want to get MARRIED? if it's not for religious reasons?
2006-12-11 15:20:00 · answer #2 · answered by SecretFriend 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
gay marriage isn't presently unlawful everywhere. there is not any sexual orientation attempt for marriage. All marriage demands (beside a blood attempt) is a criminal marriage significant different, able to mating, with the flair to beget or undertake babies. That regulations out married persons, babies, close kinfolk, people who do not consent, and anybody who's the same intercourse. Marriage is a mating relationship, like cohabitation. we've an pastime in encouraging marriage because of the fact babies choose the two a mom and a father. we haven't any pastime in encouraging gay touch, or polygamous communities, or incestuous unions, or maybe friendship by using falsely calling any of those relationships marriage. None ought to grant for skill babies by using procreation or adoption. CDF
2016-10-18 03:41:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree completely. The civil marriage is a legal recognition of a social and religious institution. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples must, therefore, alter the definition of marriage for the traditional couples as well.
On the other hand, I'm entirely in favor of a "separate but equal" civil union for gays,and don't see how this would cause the same problems as the racially "separate but equal"school segregation of the past. I would also support legislation to allow/require employers/insurers to extend many of those privileges to still others. This third category would, for instance, allow such extensions as siblings being able to put a custodial sibling on employer-supplied insurance, for instance, or parents to continue coverage to children past their age of majority.
2006-12-11 21:09:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You make the distinction that (literally) millions of people don't know or refuse to make: the distinction between civil and religious marriage. Because of the separation of church and state, the U.S. government cannot force any religious institution to marry (or recognize the marriage of) anyone that the institution objects to marrying (such as the Catholic church and divorced people). Similarly, they cannot stop a religious institution from declaring a holy union between people that the government would not recognize.
Your marriage certificate is proof of your civil marriage. A priest, rabbi, minister, etc. declaring that God sanctions your marriage is the proof of your religious marriage. Although the priest is allowed to perform both, they are still legally separate. Even if you believe that marriage is sacrosanct, that argument is irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriage, because it's regarding civil marriage only.
::hops down off soapbox::
2006-12-11 15:09:09 · answer #5 · answered by Patrick 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because allowing gays to marry would forever redefine the concept. Marriage is a union to have children. Gay unions cannot produce children. We must protect the family structure of 1 dad and 1 mom.
If you really want to learn something, look at how gay marriage has affected marriage in the countries it has been legalized.
2006-12-11 15:04:19 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
it's not just a legal document... its more than that, if it was just about rights and privelages i don't gay people would care as much, (they'd still care) but its more about love and making it known to the world that your going to spend the rest of your life with that one person. And as for why people are against it, its' just their views and opinions. Its like how some Caucasian people were so racist towards African Americans in the 1900's.... its just a way of life that their used to and they don't want to see change or they don't know anything else besides what they grew up with.
2006-12-11 15:07:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Many gay couples have kids. They want the same things everyone does. Someone to love, a home, and kids to cherish. I don't see why the term marriage can't apply to them as well as heterosexuals. It's a union between two who pledge their life together.
2006-12-11 15:11:20 · answer #8 · answered by Bluebear 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i actually am totally for gay marriage, you live your life the way you do. I have much respect for all gay people. I don't understand why people vote against it, in a way they are totally discriminating, but whatever. However, i think it's the fact that everybody wants to live in the traditional way to this day, but seriously we are in 2006, people need to open their eyes and come to terms with reality.
2006-12-11 15:08:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
marriage is a union to have children? That's rich. What about the couple who for medical reasons can't have kids. What about the man and woman who chose not to have children. What about the couple to old to have children? What about the man who is impotent. By all means let deny them the right to marry because they can't procreate.
2006-12-11 15:15:40 · answer #10 · answered by firewomen 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋