I think a marriage license should be about like a fishing license: open to whoever wants it, gay or straight.
2007-01-17 12:21:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by STFU Dude 6
·
5⤊
2⤋
Just because one door is opened up doesn't mean all of them have to be. Wait a second, one door already IS opened up (man and woman marriage).
If Gay Marriage is gonna be banned based on the Christian faith, then shouldn't anything against that faith be banned? Shouldn't those who have sex before marriage, ever view porn, lust, or anything like that be jailed? Hey, if you're against Gay Marriage based on believing this is a Christian nation, why not take it more steps and ban other non-Christian stuff? Yeah, based on the "it's against God's law" argument, how come other stuff against God isn't banned then? Why not work toward banning that instead of stopping something that isn't legal except in one State?
If marriage is such a religious thing, then how about religions that isn't against homosexual? So based on the "religion" argument, if all don't consider homosexual bad, then why does one religion have a say over another? One more thing, if marriage is such a religious thing, then how come non-religion people get married? Thus, hasn't marriage ALREADY been changed from it's original meaning?
2007-01-17 20:51:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ievianty 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
>>Being gay has also been documented in alsmost evry species of animal which makes it natural.<<
That is a terrible argument. You know what else has been documented in animals? Adults having sex with juveniles. I guess because it is "natural", it should be legal for humans. This is a free country, right?
2007-01-17 20:26:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
4⤋
Simply change all references to marriage in the law books to civil unions, since that's the only area a government should be allowed in and let the participants call it whatever they want among themselves.
2007-01-17 20:49:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are several long-term gay and lesbian couples in my social circle. These people should be allowed to make their commitments legally recognized. How could it possibly hurt a strong, or even not so strong, heterosexual marriage .Not allowing gay marriage doesn't seem to have had much of a stabilizing effect on straight marriage.
2007-01-17 20:32:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dawn G 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Gay marriages only exist in the eyes of the state that grants it. As far as God is concerned, it is an abomination (Leviticus 20:13). God did not establish marriage for same sex participants, but for a man and a woman (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:21-24). Thanks to Satan and sin, this has been tainted and corrupted for thousands of years. Remember, Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis Chapter 18-Chapter 19:29)? God utterly destroyed these two cities because of their homosexual depravities. Now, the states have decided to give homosexuals the right to marry. No matter what the state allows, God does not sanction, endorse or condone such unions. I also fear that any state that grants such may well be setting themselves up to be the next Sodom and Gomorrah. God help us!!!
2007-01-17 20:49:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by aaronrbrundidge 2
·
0⤊
4⤋
I think it should be legal as well. Gay people will be together regardless if they aren't approved to get married. What ever happened to everyone being treat equal? These gays have no reason they can't live a normal life, and have a wonderful wedding, just as straight people.
2007-01-17 20:22:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dink 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
Everyone's entitled to the pursuit of happiness, and denying gay couples the right to marry infringes on that right, I believe.
2007-01-17 20:49:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by lotusmoon01 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
It's a matter of personal rights. They should be entitled to get married same as any other couple.
It's a shame this country thinks that the only people who have rights are those who think they, and they alone, are right.
One of these days everyone will have equal rights, regardless of religion, race, color, sexual preferences, or anything else that someone might decide is "different" from everyone else.
That is true freedom.
2007-01-17 20:26:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Boudica 4
·
5⤊
3⤋
For starters Animals cannot be Gay. Animals are creatures of Instinct. Do you ever see Dogs have Foreplay with one another? It's because sex to a dog is purely instinct and purely for reproduction.
Have you ever seen a dog hump a person's leg? Does that mean the Dog has a Human fetish? I've seen dogs hump furniture. Does that mean they have a furniture fetish? No they do that because they have the instinctual urge to hump thus they do it.
Now Marriage is defined as the union between a Man and a Woman. Marriage is a Religious Sacrament as well.
I'm not against Civil unions between Gays. It just isnt marriage.
Here's the deal...If you think we should change the definition of marriage to allow Gays to marry then why stop there. Why not allow Polygamy? Why not allow a Man to marry his daughter? Why not allow people to marry animals? You see what happens when you change the definition of marriage?
It's not about denying rights. It's about changing the definition. You're opening up a can of worms with that.
2007-01-17 20:26:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by Darktania 5
·
2⤊
6⤋
Doesn't bother me at all. I think everyone should be able to experience the joys and woes of marriage. Love is better than hate any day. Live and let live!
EDIT: Those who speak of God's will....not everyone is Christian and there is supposed to be separation of church and state.
Yes, animals CAN be homosexual, it is seen quite often in primates, bovines and dogs.
Homosexual marriage is between two CONSENTING, unrelated adults. Children, animals and inanimate objects cannot give informed consent. Inbreeding is outlawed because the children often have genetic problems. As far as polygamy, if it is between consenting adults, who cares?
2007-01-17 20:26:21
·
answer #11
·
answered by alessa_sunderland 5
·
6⤊
3⤋