should gay marrige be legal?

Answer 1

I'm kind of on the fence about it myself. As a warm and fuzzy rationalist, atheist, humanist, I suppose I really belong in the liberal pro-gay marriage camp, but, well, I just don't know.

I'm in favour of affording all people the same rights and privileges, irrespective of race, creed, religion, gender or sexual orientation; I really am!

Gay people *should* have all the same legal protections afforded to straight couples. But marriage? There's something there that just doesn't quite strike me as right.

Marriage, as the gold standard for relationships, is in a pretty poor shape at the moment. I'm unsure why gay people want to jump onto what seems to be a sinking ship. I'm not convinced that extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is the way to save it.

Perhaps gay people should be looking out for something of their own, something better than marriage. Bolting their love onto an institution which seems to exist primarily for procreation and the nurturing of children seems to fundamentally miss the point.

Answer 2

Sure it should.. why not.. It effects no one else any more than a standard marriage does. If the parties involved want to get married, what difference does the sexual orientation make? Thats thier problem not mine. Whos business is it to decide who gets married and who dosent? Besides denying marriage certainly isnt going to turn anyone straight now is it?

A gay marriage dosent threaten your hetro one.. it isnt going to turn you gay is it?

Now I have no objections to churchs refusing to marry gays based upon religious reasons thats fair enough.. theres always civil ceremonies by a judge or Justice of the peace etc.

Marriage being for procreation is a lame claim as well.. Plenty of unmarried people procreate, and plenty of marrieds dont even want and never have children. Besides being a gay means you arent going to procreate anyway without outside help.. so that arguement is out the window no matter how you look at it.

What is the big deal? And why should Gays be denied the experience of being miserable like the rest of married folks?

Answer 3

First of all, gays ARE allowed to marry by law; just not to each other. It must be with someone with whom they might produce children (male/female).

Marriage laws were established for the benefit of the family. Thus, every child has a mother and a father and their role as caregiver is more easily identifiable and accountable. If there were no children. If they just grew on trees, who would care about marriage? Sex would mean no more than a handshake. There would likely be no "families." We would just be a village of farmers, raising kids like cattle, with no one to love and nurture them into the great people we all respect and admire.

This is abhorrent to me and to most people that know what a family is and is intended to be. Unfortunately, many of us have lost that. Some think that it doesn't matter if a child has a mom and dad or if he has two daddies and no mom. I say it does. Nature dictates that all children have a mother and a father. I say no child should be left without one or the other. I say allowing such a dramatic change in the fundamental nurturing and raising of a child is frivolous experimentation that will only make it MORE difficult for future generations. We haven't yet learned to be the parents we should be as husband and wife. Why start experimenting with something as bizzare as gay marriage and invite them to adopt children? I don't see a need for it.

Answer 4

Yes, it should be. Marriage is both a legal and religious institution. If it were purely religious, then I would leave the decision up to individual religions and say the government should keep out of it. But in our society, married people are treated differently under than law than unmarried people in any number of ways, including taxation, property rights (as between two people), medical-related rights and privileges. So the question becomes whether the government should be able to discriminate in these areas on the basis of sexual orientation. I do not think they should. There is no good reason why they should be able to.

Civil unions sound OK, but remember that civil unions are basically "separate but equal." We're going to call it something different, make it a separate institution, and now say people are equal. That idea was dealt with in the civil rights era and led to the conclusion that separate by its very nature remains unequal.

So civil unions are OK, but you're still discriminating by not allowing full marriage under the law between two individuals of the same sex. The religious aspects of it will remain in the purview of the various religions, and if they choose not to recognize certain marriages among their followers, then that's fine. But as far as the government is concerned, it needs to recognize both in my view.

Answer 5

The government needs to catch up with the reality of society - that there are healthy, loving couples who have made a lifelong commitment to each other and deserve the same kind of economic and social security that is given to other couples. Either marriage or civil unions would be a great way to fix that problem.

Many churches already recognize and bless same-sex relationships. It's time for the state to start catching up.

Answer 6

I don't think it's a matter of what "should" be.

The issue is one for the courts to sort out. From my reading of the constitution, I believe that marriage between same sex partners is constitutional - mostly on equal protection grounds (14th amendment) - in other words, rights recognized in one state cannot be denied in another. Fo course, that's in a GENERAL sense. There are court precedents hich provide for exceptions to this, but I think that if gay marriage is going to be recognized, equal protection is the best argument.

love Jack

Answer 7

Yes. It is a civil rights issue and religious morals DO NOT belong in politics.

For people that disagree, and therefore lack empathy, imagine if the country were to suddenly declare that you couldn't marry your loved one because it offended their morals? Who is anyone to judge another human being in this way?

Gay people not only want to marry for romantic reasons, but for practical ones as well. Financially it is easier to obtain health insurance, property settlements between them and their partner, divorce settlements etc.

Should gay marriage be legal? Wrong question. The right one is why shouldn't it be legal? There is no real argument.

Answer 8

Of course it should. If America can accept interracial marriages among others than we should accept same-sex marriages. Civil unions are not the same as marriage and needs to not be equated as such. If we are truly a country of equality and the American then we need to allow everyone to pursue their own happiness. Freedom cannot have limitations, at least not on the subject. Marriage is not religious but a government institution. By law, its discrimination not to allow same-sex couples to marry

Answer 9

No civil union : Ok.
Like Bush said marrige should be one MAN one WOMAN .

Answer 10

Marriage is a religious institution and not relevant to the law.

I support civil unions. I don't think marriage of any kind should be recognised by the law.