Do you support gay marriage?

Question

Explain, don't whine or be a bigot.

Answer 1

Yes, I do.

Remember that "married" is a LEGAL status, not a religious or moral one (yes, churches perform marriage ceremonies--but it is the state-issued legal document that actually confers the married status--the church actually has no say in the matter at all). Since the state cannot establish a religion, the marriage agreement is, in effect, a legal contract, which confers certain privileges and responsibilities on the married parties. Why it should be that a gay couple cannot be allowed that binding contract of their relationship is beyond me.

Answer 2

as a Christian and a libertarian who hates control and fascism and inequality, I can surely see both sides.

religion and government should not mix. Political scenes are turning my faith into a hotbed or power-hungry debates and hatred, instead of love and forgiveness, and unconditional positive regard for others. So here is the best solution I've ever heard: abolish marriage completely, for everybody. Remove it's legal standing. It's a religious institution anyway. Allow every citizen the same rights under a Civil Union, straight and gay alike. The rights and priviledges for marriage now could be transfered to the Civil Union and that should be the document in the US. Those who want to get "married" can acquire a certificate at a church ceremony that is not legally recognized. This way, Christians and Muslims will not see their sacred ceremony as defiled and all will be equal in this country. Pleases everybody! There are churches that will marry gay people. And the majority of churches will declare them married by a false church, and the marriage invalid. The church should also be happy to see atheist couples quit acting like they need a pastor to be joined. But the point is that it ceases to be America's problem. It becomes the church's. And the church has been disagreeing on this anyway, why not leave it all to it? I don't want Christians to be known for winning this battle in the political world. We have others to fight that are more important, like loving people and ending poverty and stuff.
It may be possible that the powers that be are trying to keep us distracted with this issue that so polarizes, while when we are not looking, they steal our money, start wars, and do other stuff behind our backs. It's time to focus on our huge bullying government, rather than constantly blather on about abortion and gay marriage. Sure, they are important, but there is little we can do about them.

Answer 3

confident gay Marriage is okay while you're gay solutions on your checklist a million. it somewhat is while you're gay 2. on condition that they are gay interior the 1st place 2.putting around tall people will make you tall.-- So why are there dwarfs to tall mom and dad etc 3.loopy habit isn't merely for gay persons--loopy is ever the place 4. So have gays, women are merely belongings in the event that they desire to be, Black and whites marry in maximum places ,divorce is criminal in maximum places 5.on condition that they marry a similar intercourse significant different additionally 6.Many right this moment marriages don`t end with babies ,and all and sundry has the wonderful to marry every person they want regardless of the reason. 7. So why are there gay young babies to right this moment mom and dad, if right this moment mom and dad merely strengthen right this moment babies then there are no gays around. Or are gays from gay mom and dad whom you're saying can`t produce young babies. 8. No by way of fact the church homes spend plenty time overlaying up the gay relationships the preists are having. 9. there are 1000's of youngsters from one verify familes that do all right for them selves ,and why then do extra gays seem to have bigger paying jobs and extra money than loads of right this moment persons 10.Gays have been around an extremely long term ans society foundations are nevertheless stable what is going to substitute the society foundations would be bigots, racists, And the un cautioned like your self. and that i think of sometime get out of your ego and circulate out area and notice that the international is replaced alot on the grounds which you comprehend little or no of the international and the popular chages that have passed off while you have been so busy looking the thank you to rubbish others that stay their lives in yet in a diverse way

Answer 4

No, I don't support gay marriage.

Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, in a ceremony before God.
Even if you're not jewish or christian, every other religion and culture in the world has a similar perspective.

But I do think gay "civil union" is an acceptable alternative, that takes religion out of the equation, and allows gays who want to bond together for life a legal way to do it, without intruding on the religiously defined term of marriage.
The problem is that gays will not be content with civil union, and will simply use it as legal leverage to force recognition of gay marriage on the 98% or so of americans who are not gay.
And after that, gays will legally push to make public reading of Bible verses condemning homosexuality a hate-crime, punishable by fines or imprisonment. Which intrudes on religious freedom to teach the Bible as it is written. Such hate-crime laws already exist in Canada.


Although I don't really see why gays need to unite in marriage, under any name or term.
If they're gay and they know how the Bible and every other religion feels about gay marriage, why would they want a religious ceremony for their "marriage", except to deliberately distort the Judao-Christian Biblical definition of marriage ("the man and woman shall join and become one flesh..."), and deliberately offend those with religious beliefs?

If you use a Bible that has a concordance reference, you can look up all the biblical verses that relate to the words "homosexuality" and "marriage", starting with Sodom and Gommorrah in GENESIS, on down.
The Bible and homosexuality are clearly **not** compatible.

Civil union offers gays spousal rights within a secular framework, for insurance benefits and inheritance, without intruding on religious beliefs and freedoms.
And I wish it could end there, but civil union is just a legal stepping-stone for gay activists.


Marriage should continue to mean one man and one woman, and shouldn't be perverted into something other than what it's meant in 6,000 years of human civilization.

Answer 5

NO !, It would be easier on them and for straight people if same sex partners to wed as a Civil Union, with all the rights and benefits as a traditional Marriage. Seperating Gay ceremonies from religious lables could be a win win for both sides. A person against civil unions would be a true bigot.

Answer 6

So long as marriage is defined as a legally binding contract sanctioned by the government then yes, I support gay marriage. I don't think our government has the right to discriminate against anybody, and the thought of amending our Constitution to RESTRICT freedom from a certain group makes me want to vomit. However, if we removed government entirely from marriage and let each individual religion decide for itself how it wanted to proceed then I would neither support nor oppose gay marriage. It would be simply a matter of religious freedom. Basically gay marriage doesn't cost me money, does me no physical harm, and is hence absolutely none of my business.

Answer 7

I support civil unions for all straight and gay couples. "Marriage" to me is a union between two people under the eyes of God. If your religion allows 2 people of the same sex to be married, I personally don't have a problem with it. I just don't want to force any religion to accept gay marriage. (I am agnostic and straight if you are wondering).

Answer 8

I would like to start with a simple YES. I am fully supportive of gay marriage.
It was said by a person before me that gay marriages do not benefit society, and therefore do not deserve the privilege of marriage; Citing that it is proven that children raised by a mother and father are :happier". But there are soo many more children raised by a loving mother and father than by gay loving parents, that any proof you may have is skewed. Also, marriage is not based on benefits of the union. The mentally ratarded, whom may have sex and most likely birth a mentally retarded child. These mentally retarded are not socially productive, and are arguably a burden on sociaety as a whole. But we allow the mentally retarded to marry one another and procreate. This, to the person who argues that marriages must "benefit" society, must be an equal travesty to gay marriage.
Also, laws of nature are not yours to decide. Those who think that gay love and sex go against marriage have no proof what is natural and what is not. Just because it has been more socially acceptible to marry someone of the same sex for centuries, does not make it any more natural. It is more likely that a person be born right handed, than left, does this make right-handedness more natural, and therefore make them more worthy of priviliges such as driving?
The argument of procreation is also invalid. Marriage is not based on procreation. Sex is one thing, marriage is another. Marriage is about having the right to call another your legal spouse, because you love and respect them. It is about having the right to certain legal benefits of being a spouse. It is about equality. Sex is about 1) procreation, and 2) enjoyment. Do we punish those who have not had children. but choose to get a visectamy? no, we do not. They are still allowed to marry.
I challenge someone to answer and argue that interracial marriage is not the same as gay marriage. Because they are, and we allow one but not the other. Interracial marriage was believed to be wrong, or unnatural, because before people used to marry into their own genders only. Same-gender marriage was more widley accepted. But now we accept interracial marriage because it is "racist" not to. It is not "sexist" to deny gay marriage?
This is a very simple argument. Do you beleive that marriage is legally based? Or do you believe that marriage is religiosly based?
Because the questions of beneficience, practicality and mental state (i.e., the argument that gays have a "compulsion") are not brought up when a man and woman marry. Why do they come up when two men or two women marry? Because our society's religion-based morals have made us bigots toward homosexuals.
If you arguing legality, two homosexuals have just as much right as anyone else to marry one another.

Answer 9

Society gives "benefits" to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Therefore, when those who are not married, such as people in homosexual or cohabiting relationships, seek to receive such public benefits, they bear the burden of proof. They must show that such relationships benefit society (not just themselves) in the same way and to the same degree that authentic marriage between a man and a woman does.
This is a burden they cannot meet. Only the union of a man and a woman can result in the natural reproduction that is essential literally to continue the human race. And research clearly demonstrates that married men and women — and children raised by their married, biological mother and father — are happier, healthier and more prosperous than people in any other living situation. These are the true benefits of marriage.
The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement for every citizen regardless of lifestyle. They give an incentive to enter into the socially beneficial relationship of authentic marriage and give protection to the social institution of marriage.
Awarding such benefits to the unmarried makes no more sense than giving veterans' benefits to people who never served in the military.

Answer 10

I find it very strange that conservatives, who so fervantly support economic freedom and the right of individuals to enter into contracts, disapprove of gay marriage. From a practical perspective, not allowing gays to marry deprives them of the right to contract. There is no economic or social benefit for depriving them of that right. As to the "pro family" people who suggest that marrige between heterosexuals confers upon society the benefit of children, well then, we should test all marriage licenses applicants for fertility (and/or sterility) and bar marrige for those who are incapable of procreation....god forbid two people would want to assume all of the responsibilies of marriage (and there are a lot more responsibilities than "rights" -- just ask anyone who's had to get a divorce) wouldn't be permitted to unless they promised to pop out a kid or two..