2007-01-20 06:56:53 · 18 answers · asked by Jewel 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Some religious denominations marry same-sex couples, so by denying governmental protections the government is giving preferential treatment to those religious denominations that do not marry same-sex couples.
Gay couples are ineligible for family memberships at businesses/attractions/etc. since they are not related.
Gay couples cannot file joint tax returns, and usually pay higher taxes than they would if they were able to marry.
If two gay people are in a committed relationship and one becomes ill, the other partner can be denied hospital visitation since they are not related.
If a gay partner dies, the surviving partner can inherit their estate but are taxed at the highest rate since they are not a spouse (and oftentimes lose their home due to the tax burden).
If a gay partner dies the surviving partner cannot receive pension or social security benefits, and if the surviving partner inherits a retirement plan it is also taxed because the surviving partner is not related.
So yes, I think there should be same sex marriages.
2007-01-20 09:33:37 · answer #1 · answered by χριστοφορος ▽ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Marriage has been around for centuaries... it isn't just a religious thing... it is a binding thing that insures that one person does not take advantage of another in the case of a break up. Marriage is sacred... to everyone in a different way... if someone believes that marriage should be kept sacred... they should realize that people enter into marriage in order to make a sacred commitment... and that marriage is a union between two people who love each other, which is sacred to everyone. I'm for equal rights to everyone... which is what our country the US did promise us, but never kept their promise... because so many things were screwed up back then about people being equal, but now that we know that all people are equal... shouldn't they all have equal rights... and no it is not your right to restrict someone else's rights... for those of you who are against same sex marriage. If one person is allowed to get married, everyone should be allowed to get married. Peace!
2007-01-20 15:09:57 · answer #2 · answered by Bedam 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course they should be allowed.
Procreation is not a requirement.
Marriage is a Legal arrangement, not one marriage is legal without a license issued by a Local, State, or Federal Government(in America that is), while religious institutions are allowed to perform a ceremony, not one of them is legally recognized without a license.
No other Legal contract may be refused any person or group on the basis of the gender(s) of those wishing to partake of such a contract.
Forming a Separate but Equal type of contract is Unconstitutional according to Brown VS Board of Education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
2007-01-20 15:11:55 · answer #3 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that this is a basic civil rights question. If an adult wants to be married and enjoy the benefits of that union with another consenting adult - who does that hurt?
Marriage is a contract that states two individuals choose to be together. Religious zealots confuse it as a sacrament.
For the nut cases out there Leviticus 11:10-12. states that Clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp are abominations. The book of Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork (a swine is a pig). Leviticus also states that mediums who consult the spirits of the dead must be put to death by stoning. Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling my daughter into slavery. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Leviticus 15:19-24 allows no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness. Exodus 35:2 prohibits working on the Sabbath and clearly states offenders should be put to death. Leviticus 19:27 prohibits men from getting their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples. Leviticus 19:19 prohibits planting two different crops in the same field, or wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (e.g., cotton/polyester blend). Finally, Leviticus 24: 10-16 obliges the community to gather together and stone to death those who blaspheme the name of God with curse words.
Some of you may say gay marriage is different. I do not agree.
2007-01-20 15:38:03 · answer #4 · answered by Nancy S. 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There are now and will always be gay weddings and gay marriages in churches.
The problem now is that the government refuses to recognize them as they do breeder marriages conducted in the same way.
This is a clear violation of the religious establishment clause and must be changed.
Either that or I want a HUGE tax discount. I pay more in taxes and get less back in benefits.
2007-01-20 16:27:05 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not sure why, but this question seems to have a different intention.
However, same gender marriage should be allowed because marriage is a civil right, and our laws guarantee equal treatment under the law. Heterosexuals, including elderly, sterile couples, and folks who don't want kids, are all allowed to marry, if they choose.
Gays should be allowed this equal right -- it's ALL about equal rights, nothing else -- all the other arguments are based upon religious ideas of marriage, which gays are not seeking to change. Chruches who advocate hatred of gays will not be compelled to marry gays -- these are civil marriages we are demanding.
And please understand, We want our equal rights MORE than you are motivated to oppress us or deny us our rights, so . . .
One day, We Shall Overcome!
2007-01-20 15:29:04 · answer #6 · answered by Kedar 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Government should recognize no marriages because to do so violates the seperation between culture and state.
But if it is going to recognize them, it must recognize same sex marriages simply because same sex relationships exist. Duh. To not do so would be prejudicial against same gender bias individuals.
Marriage is a cultural concept, it doesn't require protection. That's the same thing as trying to pass laws to protect the greeting of "hello" or tap dancing.
Massachusettes has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Mississippi- the state that first amended it's constitution to make same sex marriage illegal- has the highest. What does that tell you about protecting marriage?
2007-01-20 15:07:01 · answer #7 · answered by Benji Duncan 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is not a question of if there should be gay marriages -- they already exist -- the question is, how long will religious fanatics and bigots contintue to get away with perscuting gays and denying them their equal rights?
But most religious fanatics would like to burn all the gays at the stake, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Evangelicals and friends to offer social justice to anyone.
Our Consitution guarantees equal rights for minorities, and the majority will never vote to give equal rights to people they hate.
If the blacks had to wait for church folk to give them equal rights, they would still be riding in the back of the bus.
2007-01-20 15:35:04 · answer #8 · answered by Marc Miami 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Christian; all people need to be treated fair and equally.
There are plenty of married gay couples; there are plenty of gay couples who were married in churches; the government is required to treat all people equally, and also to grant religious freedom, so the Constitution requires it.
And so on and so forth... I could be here all day.
2007-01-20 16:35:01 · answer #9 · answered by enaronia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Should. The government should not have a say in relationships between two consenting adults who love each other, and want to make a lifetime commitment.
It's also for benefits, as well.
2007-01-20 15:01:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋