For or against gay marriage?

Question

I'm just asking out of curiousity, and slight boredom. Are you for or against gay marriage and why or why not?

and please, i know this can be a touchy subject, so please try and be respectful in your answer and respect others opinions. thanks!

just a side note: i find it very interesting that when some people say they are for it, they feel the need to point out that they are straight.

i just find it interesting. that's all.

Answer 1

against....totally against.






.

Answer 2

I get so angry about this subject. The argument about procreation? Well, there are people who cannot have children and people who choose to not have children. I guess they can't get married, right? And if marriage is a religious institution, then why are athiests allowed to marry?

Then there's the "choose to be gay" line. If someone is truly straight, would they choose to be gay? Why in the hell would someone want to do that? You're attracted to who you're attracted to. The point about "what's next" - marrying children, animals, dead people, etc...give me a break! What consenting adult humans do IS NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS!

Bringing religion into it is ridiculous. I don't believe what these fanatics do. There are so many different beliefs in this country. Laws in the United States should not be based on religion.

I'm straight, by the way. I just happen to have an open mind. If I had to label myself, I guess I would say I'm an athiest. And guess what? I'm a good person. Can you imagine??

Answer 3

In a secular democracy, I cannot find a good reason why people should not be allowed to assign what are considered "marital rights" upon whomever they wish.

If you wish to name a spouse, or spouses, there is no legal justification within our Constitution or Bill of Rights that would prevent it from a Federal point of view.

Therefore, I say that we have to leave it up to the individual States to decide.

That being said, I don't believe that the term "marriage," which is a religious term at it's root, should be used for the civil unions that these contracts represent. A marriage is, after all, in the eyes of the state nothing more than a contract between spouses.

I would be much happier if the term "marriage" were returned to the domain of the religious establishment, so that each religion decided who could get "married," while the STATE recognized Civil Unions, and had no regulations regarding marriage.

Answer 4

Let's clarify what we're talking about. Right now it is perfectly legal for two gay people to live together, have sex with each other, and even raise children if they take advantage of the more limited means they have of procuring them. They can own property jointly. They can, in other words, perform just about everything anyone would consider to be things that normally happen in a normal family.

And not only CAN they do this, they DO. And they HAVE BEEN. For thousands of years. There is no doubt of this.

Yet the world hasn't slid into the sun because of this.

So the only thing gay people cannot do right now is legally call their relationship a marriage, legally call each other spouses, and recieve the sundry bag full of various legal protections and rights that being married provides.

The question, therefore, is NOT should gay people be allowed to form families. They already do. They question is whether the legal framework wants to stick its collective head in the sand and PRETEND that it's not happening, or whether it wants to treat them the same as it does other families.

In case you haven't already figured out what side I'm on, let me just add that historically speaking, discrimination and pretense of the kind we're talking about never lasts. Those that support them eventually are swept under the rug and marginalized and become laughingstocks or embarassments. The only question really is whether we wish our children to be proud or ashamed of us.

Answer 5

For. It's completely ridiculous that so many people are against it, do they think that by saying "no" to gay marriage, gays will cease to exist? Of course not, they still exist. Besides, marriage these days is only a legal document that, most importantly, grants married people specific financial benefits.

It is NOT religious, and everyone in the government who protests gay marriage because it's "not in the Bible" should be removed from their position because of the separation of church and state. Not only that, but Christians, have you EVER considered for a moment that not everyone thinks like you? There are plenty of other religions.

Most importantly, why is this such a big issue? There are far bigger concerns that we should focus our time, money, and energy on. Keeping child predators off of MySpace, prosecuting rapists, abusive mothers and fathers, drug dealers, keeping kids off of drugs. If Adam and Steve want to get married, who gives a damn, but if I were you I'd watch for chester molester coming after your children.

Answer 6

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? To paraphrase Dolly Parton, why shouldn’t they be as miserable as the rest of us? ;-)

There is nothing about the modern view of marriage that lends itself to excluding same-sex couples. In absence of any real arguments against it, the default position is to allow gays and lesbians full access to marriage and all the rights that come with it.

In the many years I’ve been following this debate closely, I have not yet seen a single compelling argument against same-sex marriage. It’s a very rare issue that only one side really has compelling arguments. Most of the arguments against same-sex marriage are based in religious tradition, which is not a matter of state interest and bigotry, which the state is only interested in stomping out because all citizens should be equal.

Most of the arguments I read or hear against same-sex marriage are completely illogical, such as the argument that marriage is about having children. If that’s so, then same-sex couples should be waved in with no more fuss, because so many of them already have children.

Most of the other arguments I see are about how gays and lesbians are supposedly less stable and more promiscious than straight people, which I see little evidence for, and even if it is true, I have yet to see any reason why promiscuity would have anything to do with your right to marry. Hugh Hefner is allowed to get married if he wants to.

On top of that, the state has an interest in extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, if the state should be in the business of marriage at all.

From what I understand, the reasons the state licenses marriage is because it encourages social stability, it’s good for children, and it’s good for the welfare of the people in marriage since they get the benefits of partnering up. All of these things that are true of straight marriage are also true of same-sex marriages.

If the state will not license same-sex marriages to get the same benefits out of them, it casts a shadow on the supposed reasons for licensing marriage to begin with.

The state should not be in the business of promoting bigotry by giving benefits to people simply because of their sexual orientation.

Answer 7

i'm a lesbian female who's firmly antagonistic to comparable-intercourse marriage. comparable-intercourse marriage isn't a 'marriage' in any respect. Marriage is a God-given present it rather is meant to hyperlink the two sexes, guy and female, mom and father. I do think of that comparable-intercourse couples, (I.E me and my better half) might desire to settle for finished criminal rights and advantages. I do think of that's unfair that interior the state I stay in (Florida) technically speaking, my better half Christine is a stranger to me. yet we'd desire to consistently not be married. i'm fascinated with civil unions for comparable-intercourse companions, nevertheless.

Answer 8

There is no reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. The argument about preserving the "sanctity of marriage" is ridiculous. There is no sanctity in marriage. Divorce is far more common than long lasting marriages. And second marriages have an even higher divorce rate than the first failed attempt. The idea of keeping the population going is extinct. First of all, we need less of a population. Over population means more poverty, rampant disease, starvation, overcrowding, homelessness, unemployment. If there were no unplanned pregnancies, all of these things would decrease, and there would be no crack babies or fetal alcohol syndrome babies. Secondly, gay people are able to have children and raise them to be healthy, happy adults. Let's have the same rights to raise them in a marriage that straights do.

Answer 9

ok it's like this they shouldnt be allowed to get married for it's a christan word and already has a defination i really beleive though
they should have equal rights they should allowed to form an union and have that union respected by all state federal and private parties meaning they should have the same benifets as being married but call it something elese beacuase i see that as being the whole problem is the usage of the word married now if the ga people want to be petty and turn down equal rights then screw them they really dont care about being treated as equals then it's give and take i think straight people should back off treat them like normal people give them the same rights as a married couple and companies where they work should treat them the same as well but if the word marriage is so important to them that they'd give up being treated as equals then again i have to say respectivly (of course) screw 'em , seriously if they could get the rights the rest will follow i mean how did it work out for the blacks they got the rights frist then delt with the terminaology that pluaged them but you know what they were free and could eat and drink and do what they wanted they truley know what it means to be persucted if the gays had the sense they'd go for the equal rights first then quivel over the wordage

Answer 10

I completely support gay marriage. I am getting married in a few short months and fail to see how prohibiting gay adults from marrying is protecting my marriage. I've heard the argument that marriage implies family and children but we are not having children so is our marriage somehow less legitimate? I also think the argument that gay marriage opens the doors for sex between animals and sex with children is completely idiotic. Any reasonable society imposes reasonable limits on individual behavior and their are numerous reasons why sex with children and animals is unlawful and it is called a "inability to consent".

Answer 11

I have several gay friends and I support them...but when it comes to gay marriage, I really don't care one way or another. I think they should have the rights, but it seems like most of the argument is over the name of it.