This is for a debate in my english class. I want to know your personal opinion and why you think that. Also any facts you have to back up your reasoning. please do not put any PERSONAL ATTACKS in ypur answer that might offend anybody.
2007-02-23 11:32:58 · 46 answers · asked by sophisticated.b_11 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Yes I am for same-sex marriage
2007-02-23 11:35:34 · answer #1 · answered by Kedar 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, for it. I have been with my lover for 17 years and we are SO lucky. We have also had the grace to be blessed for the company we both work for(we are pilots at Delta Airlines) and they give same-sex benefits. However, the Government, the ones that put all this NO DESCRIMINATION crap in our ears, THEY are the worst! No gays in the military, no gay filing on taxes, what is that all about? Gay marriage is only fair to all, what does it hurt the others? NOTHING. We pay our taxes, spend PLENTY(too much sometimes, tee hee) to support the Arts, Colleges, Tourism, the mom-pop diners, Goodwill, everywhere, we do good things too, but we get crapped on from the Government. Sorry if I went off a little strong, just a touchy subject for me. Have a great debate, and study! School is awesome!
Best to you,
Guy and Rick
2007-02-23 11:46:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am for them. I think the debating point should stem from the fact that it should not be a political hot button. There is no legal reason to object to it so why not make it legal? The only reason it has not been legalised across the board is that the political parties do not want to offend their religious voters. It should still be up to any individual church weather or not they will perform the ceremonies but any couple should be able to get a justice of the peace to do it.
If it is religious people that are holding it back then we have not separated church and state.
2007-02-23 11:41:26 · answer #3 · answered by nvr10pts 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am against same sex marriage. Heterosexual marriage has shown that it benefits the health of both partners as they live longer. It creates order and structure in the family unit. Homosexuality suffers from higher rates of death, STD's (especially AIDS), alcoholism, drugs, sexual child abuse, and depression than heterosexuals. What people do in their bedroom may be private, but the goverrnment should not put their stamp of approval on this social experiment.
When two gays of the same sex can sleep together and naturally have a child, then they can have equal rights. Until then, we aren't comparing like situations.
2007-02-23 17:19:20 · answer #4 · answered by ace 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes im for same sex marriages the reason is it really is a simple thing to grant a minority and its not hurting anyone so why perscute them buy constanly dening them something that really isnt going to affect you or i very much i guess i dont know why its so hard to make it apart of the defintin of marriage its an issue that clearly has been over complicated if your debating againest the opposite side you should say its time to accept it has love and stop living in the stoneages homosexuality isnt going anywhere and soceity as a hole has to accept it for a better tommrow
2007-03-03 11:13:31 · answer #5 · answered by whomp a doodle doodle do 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I am for same-sex marriages. I believe that people have the right to love and be with anyone that they choose whether that person be the same sex or not. Society today is to preoccupied with imposing their 'morals' on everyone, believing that if a group of people do not live they way that they do, then it must be wrong. If two people are in love, then they should be allowed the same freedoms to be happy as everyone else.
Also, I would love to see a study conducted on the ratio of divorce among 'straight' couples as opposed to same-sex couples (in states where it is already legal). I would be willing to bet that the divorce rate is higher among the 'straight' couples.
So to sum it up, yes, same-sex marriage should be legal in all states and yes, I'm all for it. No one is harming anyone, so let people be happy.
2007-02-23 15:39:11 · answer #6 · answered by Jen 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You may not know this, but the U.S. Supreme Court already decided this issue with their ruling in the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, in which they decisively shot down the "separate but equal" doctrine by opining that SEPARATE IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL.
This means that "civil unions" are not equal to marriage. Civil unions are the matrimonial equivalent of a "coloreds only" water fountain. Equality requires same-sex couples to have the same access to marriage as opposite-sex couples.
You may not know this, either, but marriage has taken a variety of forms throughout human history. It has not, as many claimed, "remained unchanged for thousands of years." For example, Blacks and Whites can now get married in the United States! Isn't that nice?
Contrary to what else you may have heard, there is no "slippery slope" here. You do not have to worry that two men or two women getting married will somehow legitimize incest or bestiality. To compare such things to our relationships is as unflattering as it is preposterous.
I could go on, but instead I've included some links for you to investigate for your debate.
2007-02-23 12:00:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can see no harm in allowing Same Sex Marriages.
When I was a kid, gay people who lived together had to pretend that they were cousins, sisters, etc. The persecution was awful for them, and why?
Why do Americans care so much about this topic?
Most of the people I know do not even have one openly Gay friend. This whole topic is mostly a way for the Republican Right to get our attention off the War and its consequences.
Good luck.
2007-03-03 05:16:36 · answer #8 · answered by Croa 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because gays and lesbians pay taxes to be represented like any other tax payer would expect to be. The U.S. Constitution makes it clear that any rights or privileges extended to one group of citizens must be extended to all citizens. If marriage is a religious institution then the state has no business either endorsing or rejecting any marriage performed in a religious ceremony. If the government wants an interest then it's interest should only be the contractual parts of marriage, or in other words, the state should not recognize anyone's marriage, only civil unions.
2007-02-23 11:53:59 · answer #9 · answered by Wisdom in Faith 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Why not? If they want to have sex once a month and be miserable like the rest of us, why should I care? It doesn't hurt anybody. You will hear the argument that it is a slippery slope and that people will start turning gay, not having kids and parading around in pink skirts. This is ridiculous. I will still like women (and so will most guys) if gay marriage is allowed and so will you. The anti-gay marriage people are narrow minded and ignorant.
Also, Saying a gay couple can't have kids so they shouldn't be married is absurd. Should we require all straight married couples to have kids? If so, I am getting a divorce because neither my wife or I WANT KIDS.
2007-02-23 11:45:01 · answer #10 · answered by Jason D 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is one of the hundreds of subjects I see that raises the question, What does this have to do with the government? Why are they trying to control every aspect of our lives, they are so adamant about the moral issue, screw that, when they haven`t any moral issues, then they can judge the actions of others, let them get married, whats the big deal? anybody that has to think of why this might be wrong, needs to find a hobby or get a life.
2007-03-03 01:00:21 · answer #11 · answered by Heather 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋