All individuals should have the same state benefits and responsibilities. In the sense that legal marriage awards those, they should be provided to anyone regardless of the purpose of their "union". In the sense that marriage can be a religious thing, that should be up to the religion and not controlled by the state. The problem is we want it both ways. We want a religious control marriage with state controls also. There in lies the rub. I don’t believe in marriage because it’s an artificial situation created by religion to add legal status to the owner ship of women (check the history). It has become a legal “contract” controlled by the state and moved out of the realm of religious control. And it has benefits as well as responsibilities and is similar to a contract but not subject to tort law. To the extent that one can enter into these quasi contracts and have both protection and benefits controlled by the state, such things should be extended to all such partnerships with no exceptions. So what is the issue here? Religious, or State? The solution is simple: marriage should be strictly a religious thing, with not state controls, regulations, etc. A legal union should be a state control thing. Of course this will never happen. There’s too little logic and there is too much emotion on this subject.
2007-07-11 07:08:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
No I don't. I am not sure what civil union is all about, but what I have heard of it, just sounds like a marriage, with another name.
Men and women were created a certain way. It does not matter how science does it, it always take a man and a woman to make a baby- that is just nature. We can't change how nature works.
Homosexual relationships are not natural. Also it is not genetics , it is a choice.
The research that was done to prove that there is a gay gene- has been taken out of context. The research showed that men who have more feminine qualities, Got an extraordinary amount of Estrogen while in the womb, which is why they have more feminine behavior. That is what the research found. That does not mean that they have to be gay. People with that agenda who were trying to excuse the deviant behavior took the research, put their spin on it and ran with it, and everyone just accepted it without questioning it at all- just have we have accepted the whole human caused global warming thing without question.
If they choose to behave that way, then that is their choice. Nobody should tell them that they cannot. But they need to accept that they are not going to get all the benefits out of life that others not making that choice get. It is called taking responsibility for our behavior and choices, something that has become foreign to so many people.
2007-07-11 07:27:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
The most important fact on this subject is that marriage is religious. Each religion has a different view of marriage. That is fine. However, those views should not stray into law.
Marriage should not be in the realm of the state. It is a religious issue. Civil unions should be the realm of the state, and the rights that they grant should indeed be available to same-sex couples. Anybody who wants to as well have a ceremony based on their religion may do so, but it should not be legal. Those religions can allow or refuse gay marriage if they wish, but in this manner it will not affect the legal rights of couples.
Nobody has the right to define 'marriage' or to tell others what they should or should not do in that regard, and everybody deserves equal rights. You have the right to your religious beliefs, but you do not have the right to force them upon others in the way of laws. You may reject gay marriage within your religion if you wish, but you cannot deprive others of their lifestyles and right to equal rights simply because you religiously disagree with it. If you want a nation in which you can do so, move to a fundamentalist country.
Utterly no reason exists for the state to involve itself with a religious institution. I do not know why people in the USA do not see otherwise. In this way, we are backwards when compared to the rest of the western world. Attempting to legally deny others equal rights on the basis of religious disagreement is intolerance on the highest degree. Wake up and look around, and consider how you would feel if people denied you equal rights BECAUSE of your religion, and you'll see clearly how unjust any attempt to deny gays equal rights is.
For those who find it necessary to attempt to define marriage for everyone, know this: there is no universal definition of marriage. That is a fact. Those who flatly state in discussion on this subject that "marriage is between a man and a woman" are only stating their religious opinion, and nothing else. That is no basis for law.
That nobody can say anything against gay marriage besides "it's against the Bible" or "it's disgusting," or "just because" speaks volumes. Those are 'whats,' not 'whys,' and they are not arguments; they are comments without any sort of support. When one says something and can think of no reason but "I just don't like it," then you're dealing with intolerance. "It's wrong"? Why? One may ask that question forever, but the opponents of gay marriage will give you no viable answer. By and large, it seems they believe that their opinion is correct and needs no justification. They do not stop to think WHY they have that opinion. It's mind-boggling to me.
2007-07-11 07:11:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mike 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
I know there are a few kids out there who'd rather be raised by two parents who happen to be gay then one parent because the other one abandoned them.
Just becasue youre gay doesnt mean you cant raise a healthly and responsible child.... sheesh.
I also think its funny how people who arent gay need to inform people that they arent when they touch on any related subject....like me (im not gay)
I also want to add that marriage does not need be religous! You can goto city hall and get married in front of a judge!!! No God as a witness needed!
2007-07-11 07:38:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mergler 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
So long as it isn't mandatory lol.
Everyone deserves equal benefits and protection under the law. Government "of the people, by the people and for the people" should include all people. However; government cannot be allowed to force religious institutions to recognize same sex marriage as that violates church and state seperation.
2007-07-11 14:42:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by cynical 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
civil union, marriage is a religious institution and as far as i know no religion condones the gay life style,
my personal problem is that the reason for this seams to be tax incentives and property rights, the words love and commitment hardly if ever show up when you hear the pundits debate the issue
but to clear up a myth, gays have the same rights as straights, we can all mary the opposite sex, none us us can marry the same sex, i know it sounds like knit picking of the words but its crucial to know when one side is skewing the truth towards their argument
2007-07-11 07:21:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by eyesinthedrk 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I believe that if two people (no matter what sex) feel that they can love, support, and care for another in a long term relationship that the option of marriage should be available to everyone.
2007-07-11 07:46:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I believe that it is not our right to judge them. Who are we to say what you can or cannot do. I am a christian and I know in the bible it says it is a sin, BUT so is judging others. I don't think that God would love these people any less so why should we treat them like they are so different from us. Shouldn't they have the same rights? None of us are perfect that's for sure and people have different preferences. So I guess I can't really say if a I am for it or against it. But I do know that it's really none of my business.
2007-07-11 07:55:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by faith 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I believe that legal (state governed) marriage should be open to any two individuals of legal age regardless of gender. Otherwise, I believe the concept of legal marriage should be eliminated altogether.
That being said, individual religious groups certainly have the right to define marriage in any way they choose.
2007-07-11 08:17:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ken 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe that if two people are willing to make the commitment of marriage and take on the responsibilities of marriage, they should be entitled to the privileges of marriage. Gays should not be discriminated against if they want to marry.
2007-07-11 07:09:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by la buena bruja 7
·
2⤊
2⤋