depending on their sexuality! Marriage is one of the joys of life that should not be denied to anyone just because of their sexual orientation.Denying the right to marry is like denying the right to vote, or the right to free speech or even the right to the pursuit of happiness.
2007-12-09 16:14:01 · 25 answers · asked by !rose!{loves life} 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
I completely agree with you! Same-sex marriage should be allowed in this country. The US was founded on freedom. And not allowing homosexuals to marry is conflicting with the so called "freedom" we do not have in the US right now.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON has the right to marry the one they love and care for deeply. NO MATTER what their gender.
MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE NOT GENDER!
2007-12-09 16:18:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do not think it should be legalized.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Anything else is not a marriage.
I think the gay/les community would have a much better chance at some sort of legal union if they did not call it marriage.
One of the largest problems is financial. Imagine a company that employs tens-of-thousands of people and offers insurance for the employee's spouse. If same-sex marriage is ever legalized, imagine the cost this company will have in added insurance. Most likely, the company would have to drop the spouse coverage for everyone that has it now.
Also, would the company then be obligated to keep sexual orientation a secret? My guess is that would be the next huge problem. People getting "outed" and suing over it.
Too many problems at this point.
Maybe someday, but right now is not the time.
By the way, I have no problem with gay or les people in general. Just so you know.
2007-12-09 17:14:13 · answer #2 · answered by Hubby . 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Supporting couples who want to be sanctioned as monogamous for life encourages social stability and monogamy. That's good policy.
There are two common arguments used here that cannot hold logically.
The first, that tradition dictates what marriage is or should be, is not a road we want to go down. Tradition would say that each man is allowed to marry multiple women, like many Biblical men did. Tradition would say that men and women of different races should not be allowed to marry. These concepts are ridiculous on their face. So you can't use tradition as an argument.
The other argument is that the marriage is, primarily, a religious institution and must be maintained in its Christian Biblical form. That argument fails to take into account the vast numbers of couples who are wed at courthouses or in other civil ceremonies across the United States. Marriage is, primarily, a civil legal institution for which many, myself included, include a deeply spiritual component. But others are not required to share my religious convictions.
And ultimately, that brings us back to the fact that we do not base our laws in this country on what the Christian Bible requires or prohibits. Otherwise, my Jewish friend at work would be in some trouble. And I would be one of many of us in trouble for occasionally working on a Sunday, or eating pork, or not selling everything I own and giving the money to the poor.
2007-12-09 16:21:03 · answer #3 · answered by olelefthander 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't particularily care if it is called marriage or a "union" or whatever, but they should get the same LEGAL status as anyone else in this country. There are thousands of laws and rules in this country that relate to what a husband and wife can/can't do in this country that effect finances, children, inheritence, etc. All of those LEGAL issues should be 100% identicle in this country.
I don't care if we call it marriage or not, I can see an arguement for why it is not the "same," in a religous sense for many religions. However, from a LEGAL sense I can't even fathom a reasonable arguement for a committed relationship to be given the same legal protections that every other committed relationship are given.
2007-12-09 16:27:49 · answer #4 · answered by JA in SC 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There's more to it than marriage.
My best man at my wedding is gay. He put it best. Currently without legal same sex marriage, should he become old or need emergency medical intervention, by default they'd have to ask his parents or his brother to make those decisions. Yes a power-of-attorney can also be used, but that's another step that would not be necessary if a marriage would be recognized.
Next assets, there's more tax vehicles and filing options available to married or recognized common-law couples. In most relationships one spouse is the spender and the other the saver, so should the relationship dissolve, there should be a way to split assets (divorce).
2007-12-09 16:24:45 · answer #5 · answered by CHARLES R 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is both a religious and a leagal institution. Wether or not your church accepts it is it's own problem. But the STATE provides certain legal benefits - and obligations - to couples which IMHO should be extended to gay couples.
As for "devalueing" heterosexual marriage, the only people that can lessen the value of MY marriage is ME and MY WIFE, through our own behavior. The value of my marriage depends not a bit on the behavior or opinions of others.
As for the arguement that marriage is for procreation, :
My wife and I are childless by choice. Does that make my marriage any less real or valuable than yours? I don't think so.
2007-12-09 17:30:13 · answer #6 · answered by flashmeon3 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
we now live in a differant world then those who wrote the marriage laws why should we deny the love of two people and a special moment like marriage because of there sex.
sex is very little to do with love and marriage.
so yesgay maffiage is ok.
2007-12-11 12:14:03 · answer #7 · answered by nebcowboy4love 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm no longer a "fundamentalist" in any experience, yet i'm against marriage of two gay adults. i might desire to be persuaded to assist the "civil union" thought, inspite of the undeniable fact that. the subject is i'm afraid the gay stream won't settle for that. And in the event that they do, it is going to in elementary terms be short-term earlier they make a push to call it "marriage". I understand the choose for legal rights for gay couples, and is no longer that what's incredibly the using element? won't be in a position to we come across a thank you to push for those undemanding civil rights devoid of bringing marriage into it? Why might desire to society understand a pair as husband and husband, or spouse and spouse, as a manner to permit coverage claims, existence determination, well-being facility visitation, etc? Such "marriages" in simple terms provides a faux experience of validity to what's an somewhat genuine dedication and genuine-love. meanwhile, those self same "marriages" further breakdown what became as quickly as a solid and sacred enterprise. Marriage already is taken too gently.
2016-11-14 06:43:08 · answer #8 · answered by slayden 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Legalize it.
i cannot see what the real harm is.
If you talk about "destroying the sanctity of marriage" remember this
Britney Spears 55-hour marriage
Between Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney, 16 marriages between them
Morganatic marriages
let 'em marry; they can't do any worse than what has happened now
2007-12-09 16:23:11 · answer #9 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think that the same sex marriages should be legal. It goes against what God wants. God wants Man and Woman to be together! Think about it! If it was OK to be gay then Gay people with out help could reproduce A-sexually!! It can't be done!! Sorry! I don't believe in that lifestyle choice!!
If you want to have the same rights!! Then be healthy and marry the right way and the only way! Man+Woman= Marriage
2007-12-09 16:39:29 · answer #10 · answered by Creative Memories 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋