ANSWERS: 68
  • I was thinking about that myself. First, let me say that I have no problem with same-sex marriage, however, if they had the same rights and priviledges, such as tax breaks and the like, what would stop straight roomates from getting married just to enjoy the breaks? That would cause a problem.. but then I thought that not many people would actually do that just for the benefits. Maybe just put them through the same questioning process that people marrying illegal immigrants go through and have the same punishments for fraudulent marriages. That would take care of the problem. So I guess my answer I guess is Yes, they should have the same rights and privileges, but there should be some sort of measure put in place to dissuade people from abusing it. --On a humorous sidenote-- Besides, as a comedian (I forget who) said, why should straight people be the only ones to suffer? Let the gay people get married too and maybe then they'll see why all us straight folks are so miserable. LOL -Rusted
  • Everything except for children. If they have a child which many gay people do, then the original parent has 100% say in this minor's affairs. I support it because it allows gay people some of the same dignity that the rest of us straight people get to take for granted. I suppose we would have to use the word union or since the church is angry that marriage is a sacrament and that it would be a sacrilege to call this civil union a marriage. Legally I don't see why they can't enjoy all the same rights as a marriage after all they are bonded soul mates. Gay marriage also cuts down on promiscuity which cuts down on venereal diseases. It's a positive thing to allow.
  • Absolutely. Homosexuals are not second class citizens, however sadly throughout history and even today they are treated with much disdain by other differing cultures which do not approve of the practice. Homosexuals have been around since the dawn of time, even Robert Rodriguez's film "300" is based on a Spartan culture that , historically speaking, actually promoted a homosexual culture. The general of the army that finally deafeated the 300 (I forgot his name) cited that when one of his adversary's fell, his comrades reaction was one of anger equal to that of losing a loved one. The historical 300 were most all homosexuals and were one of the greatest fighting people of all time. The "300" proves just how beneficial a tightly knit homosexual community can exist in a society. I refer to review their history, and lighten up a bit.
  • Yes. In every way.
  • Yes I do. I don't see any reason, other than religious objection, for same sex marriages to be illegal. Religious objections are clearly in violation of the constitution. Marriage is just as much a legal matter as it is a religious. If a couple wants to *legally* join their lives then they should be allowed to do so. As long as they aren't demanding religious recognition under the law there should be no problem with it.
  • It is in Canada. I pay the same taxes. I obey the laws. I should(and do) have the same rights.
  • Yes, I do. I don't see where or how they would be different.
  • Absolutely. Love is love.
  • Why the heck not? Seriously. Love is love. The only difference is they can't reproduce together. Big deal, not everyone who's married has children anyway. And on that topic, if they want to adopt, why not when so many children need good homes?
  • Yes, everyone has the right to be happy!!
  • It is, here in the UK. Same sex marriage was made legal in the last year.
  • It already is in many countries. (The UK, Netherlands, South Africa, Canada, Spain, Belgium...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage) My answer for the United States: Yes, absolutely. The objections are overwhelmingly religious ones, which are not a basis for public policy. In fact, it is unconstitutional. Legal marriage is a definition of the government passing the laws. Therefore, we cannot define legal marriage based upon any particular religion's definition. Indeed, we should not. If a religion/church/denomination does not wish to recognize a particular marriage, that is their business, and their job to enforce - not our government's. Selective granting of human rights is not support of human rights, it is discrimination.
  • Why shouldn't it be? I believe the church has the right to refuse the marriage, but the state does not. After all, we do live in a "free and equal society" do we not?
  • I think any "partners" who are committed and share their lives and homes should receive legal recognition of their partnership and benefit accordingly.
  • ...same legal rights like what?...
  • Marriage is a legal contract in most countries. If two men (or women) can enter into a contract for business, why can't two women (or men) enter into a contract based on love? I just don't see the problem people have with this issue!
  • Yes, I do. If we do not allow them the same legal rights we are practicing a form of descrimination based on sexual oritation and that's suppost to be illegal. It's also usally based on the relgious teaching of one relgion so it violates the separation of Church and State. If anything by keeping this illegal we are hurting socity as a whole. For one thing not being allowed to be married encourages promiscuty and that spreads desease and sexual psychosis leading to choas. This also jepordize everything a couple has worked for if one partner dies as well as taking away their right to be with their loved one and to make the nessary medical decissions when the time comes. That has never been right. We also jepourdize the mental, finacial, and emmotional health of the couples children if there are any. If they separate or one dies that child could very well lose one or even both parents since only one can have custody in most states. They could also lose finacial support. It's time for America to wise up and realize the grave mistake we are making on this one.
  • Yes, absolutely. Why not? We're not lepers or half people. We're human beings with feelings, and love is one of those feelings. We should have equal rights. Not special rights, EQUAL rights. Everything you can do, we want to too.
  • Yes , a marriage is a marriage
  • No, I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
  • of course! love is love. if 2 unrelated, consenting adults in a monogamous, committed relationship want to get married, it shouldn't matter what their gender, religion, race or culture happens to be. as I was born and raised in a country in which the constitution says we are all created equal, I don't get why I can't get married. is there fine print that says we are all created equal...as long as we are white, Christian, heterosexual, right-wing, Republican nut-jobs? No!! "We the People" means everybody!
  • Yes, I feel so strongly about that especially since gay & lesbian couples outlast hetero couples by so long. I think we could learn something from them if we could just give them their equal rights
  • Melanie, I'm getting confused about who the bigots are on here. If you're not angainst gays then I'm sorry
  • YES!!! legally-they pay the same taxes as everybody else. I think they should be allowed to marry in the church as well. For everyone who "hates" gays and says their an abomination and they'll go to hell or what not... if you hate them so much, why do you care? Why are you so worried with someone elses preferences?
  • Recent elections have shown that a large majority of voters in the United States are in favor of amending the constitution to make marriage a union between one man and one woman. Should this amendment to the constitution be allowed? Is it constitutional? Will making gay marriage available to those who want it harm society? What are the objections to same-sex marriage? Are these objections valid? The reasons for not allowing the marriage amendment are as follows: marriage is a state's right, allowing same-sex unions will not harm society, religious objections go against the separation of church and state. Gay marriage will only benefit the country because allowing homosexual couples to marry will strengthen families, take some of the financial burden off the state because gay couples will be able to share the financial burden of healthcare and retirement, and children of gay couples will have the same protection and benefits as those of traditional couples. The benefits to the country from allowing gay marriage far out-weigh any objections to it. Not only is it unconstitutional to disallow same-sex unions, it is detrimental to society as a whole. What is the purpose of marriage? Why is it even necessary to have state recognized marriages? What is the benefit to our society? Why shouldn’t gay marriage be included? Kay S. Hymowitz states in her article, “Gay Marriage vs. American Marriage,” "But beneath all the diversity, marriage has always had a fundamental, universal core that makes gay marriage a non sequitur: it has always governed property and inheritance rights; it has always been the means of establishing paternity, legitimacy, and the rights and responsibilities of parenthood; and because these goals involve bearing and raising children, it has always involved (at least one) man and woman. What's more, among the "startling diversity" of variations that different cultures have elaborated on this fundamental core, our own culture has produced a specifically American ideal of marriage that is inseparable from our vision of free citizenship and is deeply embedded in our history, politics, economics, and culture." (2004) If this is the case, then gay marriage has no purpose and cannot be considered a right by the state. However, if marriage is fundamentally about inheritance and child rearing, then what happens with infertile couples or couples who chose not to have children? Does this invalidate their marriage union? Marriage is not only about inheritance. Adam Kolasinksi notes in his article in The Tech, “States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men and women to marry women” (Vol. 124 No. 5). While it is true that there are restrictions other than same-sex unions these restrictions do not preclude homosexuals from marrying if they do not meet those restrictions. It should be a right of couples, no matter their gender, to join their lives together financially, physically, and spiritually. Marriage provides protection for children and should be available to all citizens who desire to have that protection. Our constitution divides the government into two parts, the rights and duties given to the federal government and the rights and duties that fall to the states and local government. Marriage falls under the rights and duties of the state's government. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to place any restrictions on the states to govern themselves except for the restrictions already set forth in the constitution. Edward Stein, associate professor of Law and Co-director of the Program in Family Law, Policy and Bioethics, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law states in the article “Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution Regarding Marriage,” "The Supreme Court has said that ‘domestic relations [is] an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.’ And that “’ the whole subject of he domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.’” The Court has justified this view in various ways. In particular, the Court has appealed to the Tenth Amendment by saying, ‘the power to make rules to establish, protect, and strengthen family life…is committed by the Constitution of the United States…to the legislature of [each] State. Absent a specific constitutional guarantee, it is for that legislature, not...this Court, to select from among possible laws.’”(Stein 619) The marriage amendment is, therefore, unconstitutional. No previous proposed amendments to the U. S. constitution have been approved because laws regarding family and marriage fall to the States, themselves. Allowing same-sex marriage or civil unions for gay couples takes some of the financial burden off the government because it allows for partners to share benefits, care for children, and care for each other should one or both partners become disabled. The state would not have to bear the burden of providing health insurance benefits, child care, or nursing home care to individuals because partners would be able share their benefits with each other. According to the American Anthropological Association, "The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationship, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies" (AAA). Providing a means for happy families is the best way for the country to benefit from marriage not limiting families to one narrow view of normal. Finally, the only objections to same-sex unions are essentially religious. In The Pew Research Center For the People and the Press an article entitled “Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality: Republicans Unified, Democrats Split on Gay Marriage” states, "Not surprisingly, the most religious Americans are the least likely to favor gay marriage. Nearly half of Americans with relatively low religious commitment approve of allowing homosexual couples the right to marry, compared with just 17% of those who are more religious. This gap along religious lines exists across all age groups." (The Pew) Since the constitution does not allow laws that force religious beliefs to dictate civil matters, not allowing gays the same rights as heterosexuals is unconstitutional. At the same time, the government cannot force religious institutions to accept gay marriages when their dogma doesn't allow same-sex unions. Separating religious ceremonies and civil ceremonies, as is done in many European countries, keeps religion out of the government and the government out of religion. The United States was founded on the premise that religion should not be a part of the government. Although the founding fathers were religious they did not want the government to be a religious institution. William Bradford in his History of Plymouth states, "May 12 was the first marriage in this place which, according to the laudable custom of the Low Countries, in which they had lived, was thought most requisite to be performed by the magistrate, as being a civil thing, upon which many questions about inheritances so depend, with other things most proper to their cognizance and most consonant to the Scriptures (Ruth iv) and nowhere found in the Gospel to be laid on the ministers as a part of their office." (Bradford) It was his contention that marriage was a civil matter and not a religious one. Marriage, as it is known today, has only been around for 200 years. Marriage, for the most part, has been a property arrangement based on kinships and alliances. Love or religion did not play much if any role in it until very recently. Our founding fathers did have ideas about how marriage should be arranged. They built upon traditional western ideas of one man and one woman marrying for religious purposes. They wanted to establish marriages based on love and choice rather than society or property. This new freedom was to be accompanied by moral responsibility. That morality would come from the Christian philosophy on which the country was based. In order to maintain freedom for the state, our founding fathers believed that morality must be practiced by its population. Robert Lancaster, a George Mason University anthropologist, states in his book The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture, "Leaders often make global pronouncements about 'marriage,' as though it were a self-evident institution. Depending on its cultural context, marital unions can involve a host of different persons in a number of possible combinations. People are inventive and creative about the way they create kinship networks" (Lancaster quoted in Brune). Marriage is a joining of two people who want to share their lives together. Any other definition invalidates mixed gender couples as well as same-sex couples. The people, as citizens, should all have equal rights. As long as the people seeking to marry are as Amy Ridenour states in her article “Equal Protection Under the Law: Is Andrew Sullivan Right About Gay Marriage?” "Every American of legal age, excluding some deemed mentally incompetent to fulfill a contract, is treated the same by our marriage laws. We can only marry if we are unmarried, and if the person we wish to marry is eligible to marry. We can only marry a person if that person wants to marry us back. We can't marry a close relative. And, yes, we must marry someone of the opposite sex. Equal rules. Equal protection. Anyone who wants to follow the rules of marriage can marry. Anyone who doesn't, doesn't have to." (Feb 2004) Although she includes same-sex couples in her list of restrictions, there are no valid reasons why same-gender couples shouldn’t marry. Marriage is a right and therefore should be available to any two consenting adults of sound mind who want it. Limits such as the ability to bear children or any religious objections cannot be allowed because that puts all marriages in jeopardy. Works Cited American Anthropological Association. “Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association.” 11 Nov. 2007. 11 Nov. 2007 <http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm>. Bradford , William. “New Governor, First Marriage (1612).” Modern History Source Book: William Bradford: History of Plymouth. 11 Nov. 2007. 11 Nov. 2007 <http://www.fordham.edu/hatsall/mod/165bradford.html>. Bruen, Adrian. “Anthropologist debunk ‘traditional marriage’ claim.” Washingtonblade.com. 16 April 2004. 11 Nov. 2007 <http://washingtonblakde.com.html> Hymowitz, Kay S. “Gay Marriage vs. American Marriage.” City Journal. Summer 2004. 26 Nov. 2007 <http://www.city-journal.org>. Kolasinksi , Adam. “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage.” The Tech . volume 124 number 5. 17 Feb. 2004. 26 Nov. 2007 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts> Kuper , Adam. “Genetic prison population .” The Times Literary Supplement. 16 Nov. 2003. 11 Nov. 2007 <http://www.powells.com/review/2003_11_16.html>. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. “Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality: Republicans Unified, Democrats Split on Gay Marriage.” Part 2. 3 Dec 2007 <http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=765>. Ridenour , Amy. “Equal Protection Under the Law: Is Andrew Sullivan Right About Gay Marriage?” National Policy Analysis. Feb. 2004. 29 Nov. 2007 <http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA504.html>. Stein, Edward. “Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution Regarding Marriage.” Washington University Law Quarterly. Volume 82 Number 3 2004.
  • Of course it eventually will and so it should. The US is always talking about human rights...maybe it should start in its own backyard. I am amazed that the US has not allowed it...the US likes to be on the cutting edge of the future..but is falling far behind here.
  • It should be allowed world wide.
  • Yes. The only arguments I've heard against it so far are based on ethical principles, and it's not the government's right or responsibility to govern people's ethics to that extent. If religious institutions want to reject same-sex marriage, the government has no right to force them to recognise it. But people have the right to live their lives how they want to, just so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else(Which, despite all the talk about "Harming Society", gay marriage does not)
  • Yes, it should be allowed. Regardless of someone's protests to it, the fact of the matter is that if you are not gay, then it doesn't apply to you. No one is going to force you into a gay marriage so relax and stop trying to prevent two people who love each other from officially sharing that love. The arguement I've heard against it that wasn't religious was that this person didn't want gay couples getting social security benefits and lowering the amount of money that he would get. So it was easy to write off this greedy objection.
  • i do. i am not gay but i try to make this world free and fair
  • I think it should be legalized...
  • I live in Canada where it is already legal. All humans should have an equal right to life and love.
  • I do. At this moment, that's 4 out of 4.
  • I DO!!
  • ii think it should be 2 i want to see my aunt get married 2 her gf withoout having 2 go out of state thanks u guys
  • I think it's long overdue. more and more countries are waking up to the fact that it's just the right thing. however, it won't happen until we get the current bigoted administration out of office. everyone make sure you're registered to vote and get out there and exercise your right next year!
  • I do, I do. That is what should happen ASAP, I could help plan so many weddings
  • Marriage laws are generally made at the state level so it'll probably be a long time before action is taken at the national level. Off the top of my head inter-racial and multiple (poligamy) marrages are the only times I can think of the Feds getting involved. That situation notwithstanding, I can't think of a reason why homosexuals shouldn't have the opportunity to be as miserable as everyone else.
  • I seriously think they should.
  • I do. I don't understand why it isn't legal. I think it would help in many ways.
  • Absolutely, we should. Everyone deserves the right to happiness. Besides, if we want to be married that bad, we should all have the right to be just as miserable as everyone else! (:P)
  • it's so serious i dont really give a shit. seriously though
  • I believe marriage should be legal between 2 consenting adults despite their genders.
  • yes, I mean we follow the rules, and such as everyone else, we are citizens arnt we?
  • Marriage is only a tax and a way to keep track of those who went through the process. I see no reason for the government not to know as much about you as is possible. It also is another way to "Cubby hole" everyone Gay, Black, Handicapped, Married , single, divorced, felon, blind, democrat, Republican and the list never ends. It will get you calls from salespeople because you will be put on a list and it will be sold.
  • The long and short of my answer is yes...I think it should be allowed. I am a straight woman with a lesbian sister, and have had many g/l friends. I know the people at my church would disagree, but to that I say, I'm not God, therefore am not here to judge. I have seen so many people who have been together for years, who can't make medical decisions for their sick s/o's, or who stand no right to inherit anything, even though they've been with their s/o for decades, or who can't get insurance because they aren't legally married. That's crap. The only downside I believe is that I don't think the divorce rate would be any less than the statistics are now, and that the courts would have a heavier burden of divorces to handle...of course, that's also why I think there should be a $10,000 fee to get married and a 6 month waiting period. Then more people would take it seriously and not jump into some quickie marriage.
  • I feel that it's discrimination for same sex couple to not be able to receive the same legal rights and privileges as a heterosexual couple can receive. I mean, if you don't want to call it marriage, fine, I'll concede on that matter, but I just don't know how we can say in America that one couple can have all these rights, and another can't, because of something silly like genitalia.
  • YESSSSSSSS WE GAYS WORK PAY TAX AND SHOP LOL AND VOTE AND NO RIGHTS THANKS TO THE GOV.. AND SOME BACKWORDS PEOPLE .. WHO DONT CARE ABOUT LIFE ..........
  • A marriage of any kind is a contract between and come with rights and privileges. Why should there be a difference. A marriage is a marriage
  • Well I agree same sex marriages should be allowed, and have all rights as a man and woman marriage. Though because of the state I live in the chances are this will have a hard time being accepted, or ever. Missouri is known for still being racial and bias towards others. The main social group being white and straight with this in mind you start to wonder, how did this come about. The racial issue, I have no clue, though the resentment of gay individuals is expressed clearly. 1. Religion: We all know it, some follow it, some live by it. No matter what you think of it, states like Missouri are firm believers, not just in the Bible itself, but in the Priest. Now the Bible has good basic morals in it, don't kill anyone, don't steal, etc. Though the Priests are sometimes, not always though, are corrupt. They preach that God will condemn all gay beings to hell. Though when you think of it, if you've ever read the Bible, that it never once mentions that. Most likely Priests are just trying to spread their own ideals by using God to do it. Also the argument of an all merciful being condemning someone to the abyss because of their sexual orientation seems silly. 2. Parenting: Aw yes, the so overused excuse. Though for once it is actually acceptable to blame it on. Not only do most Missouri people (Northern and Southern towns) become rather racial, they also become hateful to gays. Reasons? Their parents fill their minds with lies such as ideals of gay men or women raping others of the same gender for no reason whatsoever. Even though I am straight, I do after all have a gay brother and since we unfortunately moved here the taunts and chortles of others are making him pretty depressed. (we're supposed to move soon.) But yeah anyway, why shouldn't something like gay marriage be acceptable, it's not like the Government or anyone else can stop it, they will just act like their married, give each other rings, have a real ceremony, maybe not from a Priest but hell who really cares?
  • and polygamous marriage too.
  • Yes, absolutely!!
  • No. I've never understood why gays even want to get married, they want to take part in a religious ceremony, even though that religion doesn't approve of their lifestyle, it's very odd. There are rules in place, you don't get to alter or cherry pick the parts of religion that you like, and ignore the parts you don't, it's a full package deal, you either take the full package or you don't take it at all. I speak as an Atheist, and I too would not take part in a religious ceremony since I'm not religious. Personally, I think the gays are a lot like blacks and women, they actively seek out possible discrimination so they can claim they are victims, so that's why they want to get married, not because they want to be married, but because they want to highlight the fact that they're victims (in their own head of course).
  • No, they shouldn't be legal anywhere. Scream all you want, and I'm not saying I'm one bit better than any homosexual person, I'm only saying what the Bible says, and that is that it's an abomination before the Lord. I don't think we should endorse it just because it's PC at this time.
  • Yes, it should be allowed
  • Yes, of course. It is already so here where I live.
  • y not, hell yes!!!
  • yes I do agree, totally

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy