Please Validate Your Reason. Thanks.
2007-02-20 00:50:46 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The issue is why straight couples are allowed a state 'marriage'. Marriage is a religous ceremony, and as such, the churches should control who gets married. In Reform and Conservative Jewish congregations for example, gay marriage is allowed; in the Roman Catholic congregation, it isn't. Both are fine - religions have a faith system which is, by definition, separate from our constitutional rights and laws.
All couples, gay or straight, should be entitled to register their partnership with the state and the federal government. This allows the government to reward those couples for the mutual support and caring they give each other - which results in savings to the government on unemployment benefit, child rearing costs etc - thus reducing the cost to the government for those adults.
The same benefits apply if the couple are in their 20's or 60's, whether they plan to be childless, have children of their own, adopt or foster. Those who say marriage is for procreation would deny marriage to the infertile and those women over 50, in addition to gays and lesbians.
This is the problem; marriage should never have been included in any federal or state law. Now we must campaign to have all such laws changed, so that the legal term becomes 'civil union' for all couples, and the term 'marriage' stays in the churches.
2007-02-20 01:55:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Correct me if I'm wrong but in most states if not all gay people can have the benefits of a CIVIL union not a religious one. and in addition the government should have some control of whose allowed to marry who or you will have people saying "Well I'm forty but I'm in love with this FOUR year old and you can't keep us from getting married". or I'm gonna marry my dog. Or I'm gonna marry this corpse. I'm mean there has to be limits so its not just religion aside.
2007-02-20 01:05:27 · answer #2 · answered by jrtootsiepop 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My own moral objections to that lifestyle aside, I think they SHOULD have the benifit of a civil union. I merely object to redefining the term "marriage", thereby stripping more meaning from it than already has been by our culture.
My personal view? I couldn't care less what people do behind closed doors, so long as they don't try to force me to accept it as healthy, normal, or moral.
2007-02-20 00:55:57 · answer #3 · answered by Firestorm 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
civil unions are fine. My issue is when gays try to make it a union blessed by God. Their life style goes against all religious teaching and nature. That's just the way I feel.
2007-02-20 00:55:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
If you take religion out of the picture, the purpose of a marriage is for two people to come together and perpetuate the species by having children and providing a stable, nurturing environment for the children to grow and learn in. Homosexuals can't come together and have children, and those who do through adoption or artificial insemination or engaging in heterosexual sex (even though it is not their declared preference) are admitting by their actions that their sexual orientation is contrary to the laws of nature. So what you have, in reality, is NOT a situation where gays are asking for equality -- they're asking for special treatment. There is a HUGE difference between discriminating against someone because of race, gender, or natural origin (we have no control over those things) and discrimination against someone because of a choice they have made. The claims by scientists that certain people are predisposed to be homosexual are bunk -- for starters, as already mentioned homosexuals can't perpetuate themselves and would normally be doomed to extinction, and don't make the mistake of thinking homosexuals "can't help it" -- no one, NO ONE, is holding a gun to their heads and saying "Be gay or I'll blow your brains out." These people should not be rewarded special status for choosing a lifestyle that is contrary to nature -- and more importantly, in the eyes of those who believe in a higher power, contrary to the laws of God.
2007-02-20 01:05:02 · answer #5 · answered by sarge927 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think they can have there happy flings and stuff but there civil unions should not be recognized by the courts.Cause God doesn't back their civil unions.
2007-02-20 01:08:15 · answer #6 · answered by freak33881819 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
man and wife ring a bell here???
why should they be able to go against the laws of nature?
ever see a homosexual animal???
they must be smarter than the "gay" population
and where did the word "gay" originate from anyway?
gay as in happy to be messed up in your sexual choises
get a life
2007-02-20 01:01:49 · answer #7 · answered by CC Babydoll 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it is equal rights, remember all men are created equal, not just all straight men. To deny them this right is wrong and sets us back again. Whether you believe in it or not it is still equal rights.
2007-02-20 00:59:33 · answer #8 · answered by Chris 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To legitimize there life style
2007-02-20 00:55:41 · answer #9 · answered by Boston Mark 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They should have that right, any denying them of that right would be unconstitutional.
2007-02-20 00:55:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋