2007-04-27 01:50:57 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am 100% for it. The government exists to serve its citizens. If two people of the same sex want to enter a union, they should have that right.
2007-04-27 01:54:43 · answer #1 · answered by Silent Kninja 4 · 3⤊ 7⤋
Against. Because there are clear societal benefits from heterosexual marriage, thus the State's justification in providing marriage benefits (best interests of children) that are lacking with homosexuals.
Public policy analysis requires justification for the State's involvement in marriage. There isn't any such justification for gay marriage.
ADDED: Pro-gay marriage advocates like to compare their situation to the case of Loving v. Virginia, where the State's racist laws against black/white marriage were overturned as unConstitutional. Consider why the State had a legitimate interest in getting rid of miscegenation laws: those couples produced children who were illegitimate before the law changed.
2007-04-27 01:56:45 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Against. Homosexuality is an aberration. It ain't normal. The marriage issue is an attempt to get acceptance for unacceptable behavior. It is unfortunate that some people have unnatural desires. There is no law of man or nature that says people have to give in to these unnatural desires.
2007-04-27 01:58:09 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
There is no gay 'marriage' to be for or against. Every civilization, pagan or Christian has defined marriage as a man and a woman. There is no better foundation for child-rearing which is the future. Any culture which does not protect its future is doomed.
2007-04-27 02:15:38 · answer #4 · answered by mikey 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
There is no such thing as "gay marriage" -- you can be gay, or you can be married, but you can't be both.
I'm tired of minority groups trying to change our language.
Is it a chair? No, it's a table. No, it's only a chair. But it really wants to be a table. Don't care, it's a chair.
2007-04-27 01:58:51 · answer #5 · answered by Paul McDonald 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
The term marriage has spiritual meaning. To apply that to two homosexuals is complete hipocrasy. Marriage is the only place where man, women, religion, state, and spirituality come together. Every state has religious borders. I think that question rests upon the shoulders of the religion of choice. This country is freedom of religion and not freedom from religion therefore religion and the state can combine and since religion and the state can combine then the moral values of religion should be used to determine if homosexuals should marry and it should be a universally accepted religious vote.
2007-04-27 01:58:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Against gay marriage. Because it is weird. Let us keep it between a man and a woman. That's all I am asking...
2007-04-27 01:55:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋
Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman. Let them do their thing, but get their own name for it.
2007-04-27 01:57:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
for. i believe that all are equal. it is an issue that still puzzles me though. the conservatives seem to go against their beliefs on this issue. do they or don't they want the government controlling our lives. they claim libs seek to control through sea belt laws and smoking bans(which was was backed largely by cons here). it seems people are unsure that they are what they say. maybe we should drop the labels
2007-04-27 02:15:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Put it this way, i'm NOT against it.
2007-04-27 03:02:05 · answer #10 · answered by Bobbo 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't really think about it, and I don't know why it's subject to anyone's approval. I'm not a homosexual (I think "gay" is a stupid euphemism), and I don't care who is or isn't.
2007-04-27 01:57:52 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋