Do you oppose or support gay marriage? Why?

Answer 1

SUPPORT - It's simply not the government's place to decide who can and can't get married.

No matter what one thinks of homosexuality, the government should not be telling the people what they can and can't do as far as marriage is concerned.

Our country (if you're in the USA) was founded on the idea of freedom, and to apply that selectively is to ignore our constitution and the principals on which our country was founded.

Does homosexuality go against your religion? Fine, hopefully you're hetrosexual and don't have to worry about the conflict, but our country was also founded on the idea of separation of church and state - therefore your religious preferences have no business mingling with the laws of our country.

added later ---------------

Macaroni & Open Thoughts (answerers down below) since you're obviously strict Christians, you must believe that God created "everything" right? That would include homosexuals then. I have to give Open credit though for the great oxymoron name she's given herself.

If you're strictly quoting scripture where it says man shall not lie down with a man as a woman, remember that same section also mentions that disobeying your parents is punishable by death. It also forbids one to eat animals who have not been killed by hand, and it also gives a 6 year limit on owning slaves.

Do you follow ALL of the bible, or just the parts that make you feel superior?

Tired Trucker - there's so many contradictions in your (and I use the word lightly) logic, that I won't even address you.

open4one - The government has no business being the deciding factor in who gets ANYONE's pension, gay or straight. That what wills are for, it's simply not the government's business.

Answer 2

Neither.

Marriage was once the sole province of the church, but that isn't true anymore. Now the government gets involved. However, exactly what part of the government should make this decision is an important consideration. I don't think it's a federal question, and I don't think it's one for a court.

The reason it's a question for state legislature is the same basic reason that both sides of this question are so adamant about it. The fact is that there are some government benefits and privileges to being married. That's what gays think they have a right to. Maybe they should have them, or maybe they simply don't fit the reason for the benefits. The state legislature should decide this, not a judge.

Gay couples can already live together. So can a pair of retired teachers who happen to be twin sisters. The question is whether or not the government wants one of them to inherit the other ones lifetime pension payments.

Answer 3

Support. Because the argument that marriage is a "sacred" and "holy" arrangement is becoming banal. If law makers are going to throw around the "sacred" and "holy" cards and drag religion into the debate and use that as their only basis then I say it's only fair that lawmakers also make divorce illegal because that is considered a sacrilegious as well in the Bible.

I find it laughable that law makers ignore the seperation of church and state claus and time and time again bring it into the government when it suits them but leave it out when they want to divorce their aging wives because their marriage no longer suits them.

Allowing gay marriage would benefit the government in the form of taxes and revenue. Not allowing gay marriage isn't going to change anything. Gay partners will still live together and share income - by not allowing it just means the government is losing money.
~~~~~
Hey cajun - since it's now scientifically possible for two women to produce a child - where's your argument? And don't tell me that if medicine and science has to help it doesn't count - what about infertile heterosexual couples that go to fertility doctors? Oh - and the whole "In god we trust" concept. A united form of currency wasn't produced until after the civil war - loooong after our founding "fathers" died.

Answer 4

Oppose.

A couple of reasons.

1. Homosexuality is immoral and and abomination in the eyes of God...see Romans 1 among others.

2. No matter how much they deny it, this is the first step...plural marriage, etc. Not all gays want to take it a step further, but there are those who will push it, and this is a step in that direction.

3. Married gays want to adopt, etc. This is wrong. A child should have a mother and a father.

Answer 5

Oppose.

Present law already gives equal rights to people who want to hold property or be protected on the basis of law and order. Marriage is an institution established to provide an environment that protects physically and economically women and children and providing incentives and stability for men as well. It is a time honored institution going back to the beginning of time.

When we think we have a "better idea" than what has worked for centuries then we are in for some hard lessons from life.

Answer 6

oppose.

This country was founded on religious freedom. I have every right to teach my children that homosexuality is wrong, that's my religion. I don't want society telling them it's normal. In the last 10,000 years of human history, society has never considered it normal. Sure some cultures were more accepting, but it was never considered normal. I see no reason to change this.

If this sounds hateful, it's not. As far as gays go, I really don't care who people decide to lay down with at night. I just feel that the layer of shame on that behavior shouldn't be erased, and I think that's what this is all about, getting rid of that layer of shame. I think that shame is what keeps people who are sitting on the fence, who could be pulled either way, on the right side of things, which helps keep our species perpetuating and alive.

Answer 7

If that is the only option ...support.

However... I'm fine with making marriage a sacred institution before God.
Make marriage the sole domain of the Church

The government should only grant civil unions to any two adults citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities that we now associate to marriage
The right to file taxes jointly
the right to make medical decisions for the other in the event of incapacitation
The right to inherit in the case of an intestate estate
etc.

If, after that, anyone wants a sacred "marriage" ... let them take it up with their church.

Answer 8

I don't think the government should be involved in issuing marriage licenses at all. Marriage should be privatized, in other words. Churches (or other organizations, including secular ones) could each decide for themselves whom they will conduct marriage ceremonies for. The Roman Catholic Church (just to name one) isn't going to perform gay marriages, and shouldn't be forced to. The Unitarian Universalist Church (among others) might perform gay marriages, and shouldn't be stopped from doing so.

Getting government out of it solves the problem.

Answer 9

I support it coz I live next door to two of the most nicest lad`s I have had the pleasure to meet, we often go down the gay village, in Manchester, they would do anything to help any body, and they both have good jobs and are loved by all there work mates, they often are invited round. yes Defiantly
Regards
Ryan Dior.

Answer 10

As a non secular individual i do no longer help comparable-intercourse marriage through fact I see no objective to it. in spite of the shown fact that, secular countries, extremely the u . s ., can no longer base their regulations on faith, and otherwise have no surprising to forbid all people from marrying whomever they desire below their very own loose will (interior appropriate age limits, of direction), so i do no longer legally oppose it.