Yes, it should. And where I live, it is.

It 'is' ok, there just happens to be a few nasty people and a few outdated laws clogging up the works in a few places.

Yes. If two gay persons wish to marry it makes no difference to me or anyone else (barring the couple, their friends family etc.) It still amazes me that this is an issue. Who cares? Get married, stay single whichever I really am not bothered.

The word "Marriage" is what appears to upset people. We gay people wish, should we have a regular partner, to have exactly the same partner benefits that heterosexual people have. We want inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, pension rights, workplace benefit rights. If we choose to make a life commitment to a partner we believe that we deserve those rights, in the same way that black people deserve them, white people, etc. We just happen to be homosexual. We are not sub-human.

if it weren't for gay and lesbian people the world would be overpopulated so there should no problem with those marrigaes. The heart wants what the heart wants. You shouldnt interfear with what people want.

Depends on what you understand through the term "marriage". The traditional understanding necessarily implies a male and female united through a mutual feeling. Yet, if it were to apply the "mutual feeling" part to gay persons, it would still be real. As the feeling itself would still be genuine, and that feeling nobody would have the right to question or dispute. The general conception about marriage and what it involves has changed a lot in the last 20 years, and it can be difficult for generations to agree on this subject. In yesterday's world we focused more on the sex of the partners, while on today's we think more of the feeling itself. And while it can be hard to accept even for teenagers today, the concept that gay marriage is "OK" is slowly taking roots from what I have seen.

My simple answer is "yes, definitely", and it should always have been okay. My long answer is that the instition of marriage shouldn't exist, at least not as it is. Marriage is a religious and/or cultural thing, or at least it started off that way. I do see the value of an institution like marriage, at least given the current structure of society, so I would support civil unions - for both heterosexual and homosexual partners. Basically, the law should not recognize or call it "marriage", but it could have a concept of civil unions that isn't religiously or culturally loaded. As part of this, no priest should ever be able to create these legal unions; they're not governmental officials. Marriage would then become a religious question, not a legal or political one. It should be possible to have a civil union and not be married, and be religiously married but not legally in a civil union. If we separate the legal from the cultural/religious, we avoid this whole legal and political mess. We also open the door for legally useful civil union relationships between people who aren't and have no intention of being romantic or sexual partners, since the legal benefits of marriage can be very useful. For instance, I would "union" with my younger (but not a minor), mentally ill brother, so he could share my company health insurance. Now, oddly, I could marry a stranger in a drunken Vegas wedding and she could get on my plan in a heartbeat, whereas for my brother, my flesh and blood, who I care for and who is my life, it's impossible or next to impossible. That's stupid. And I'm sure I'm not the only one in a similar situation.

Yes. The majority of the population of the United States may be Christian but, to quote John Adams, the United States was originally created as, "thirteen governments [the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery." Objections to gay marriage arise primarily come from particular religious beliefs, partly, I believe, because of the false assumption that allowing legal marriage will oblige churches to perform gay marriages. This is a case of the majority forcing their religious beliefs on a minority and using it to exclude them from participation in a part of society. Of course, my solution to this is to do away with legal marriage altogether, have civil unions for everyone, and leave marriages to the church but somehow, I don't think it would pass. A more humorous rebuttal of anti-marriage arguments can be found here: http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/000402.php

Yes! They deserve the tax break just as much as we do.

Yes and let me say that I am not PRO homosexuality but I am not against gay people because of their personal preference. Some people want to control everything and it is about control.. not right and wrong. I read the Bible and yes I do see what the Bible says but I also know God and I believe no one.. not even believers should have the audacity to speak FOR Him. He is love and sex between anyone without love is not His way .. not just with gays.. with anyone so the finger can be pointed at us all! Not just gays. Right is right and wrong is wrong and love is never wrong so for two people to want to live in love together.. please do not tell me God is against that because I will laugh. I can woman-up and admit that I am kind of clueless about it because I have not wanted to be with someone of the same sex but then again.. I do not like wearing earrings much but have nothing against those that do. We are all different and that is our RIGHT. Our choice of life partner should be as well.. why DOES it bother people what others do??? You do not have to so move on along and tend your own business. I seriously think we the people should not have control over who marries who. Why do others have the right to dicate who you can have as your life partner? No one can tell me that my guy and I cannot marry so how would I have the right to try and control others' personal business???

It should have been okay a long time ago.