Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I support it, as long as there are religious exemptions that do not force someone to compromise their 1st amendment rights. Both sides should be protected, not just one or the other.
Don't worry, no church is ever going to be forced to perform a same-sex marriage if it doesn't want to. The same way no church is ever forced to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage if it is against the tenets of that church.
Im against it. Im for the people in the states decide the definition of marriage based on their culture and traditions not by a minority in the federal courts.
So you are for tyranny of the majority over the minority? Are you for the states having control over interracial marriage? Many people, up to 60%, in some of the southern states are still adamently against same sex marriage and any rights for same sex people period. Should states have control over those marriages too? Or just same sex people? Are we to be the only people in the supposedly free for everyone USA that has our rights up to constriction by the majority? WHY? DANG IT! Why must you and others like you control others that have nothing, NOTHING, to do with you but for wanting equal treatment by the GOVERNMENT. I am sick of the church and religion using its force to control everyone through political clout and money. Have your friggin religous marriage, but keep your DANG church and belief system away from law.
I support it, as long as there are religious exemptions that do not force someone to compromise their 1st amendment rights. Both sides should be protected, not just one or the other.
Churches are already protected. No church has to allow a ceremony for anyone that they choose not to. Some churches don't do ceremonies for people that are not members. Some refuse to marry divorced people. Some even refuse to marry interracial couples. There was even one recently that refused to marry a black couple.
As a lifestyle choice, I don't care. Legally, however, no. I see no legal reason for same sex marriage. The only purpose for the government recognizing marriage at all is to insure that any children born into the union are cared for and even that is getting to be archaic.
Marriage addresses the innate disparity between earning potential of men and women due to the fact that women are the ones who give birth, take maternity leaves and often quit their careers to raise the children. The government is involved because the government has a vested interest in making sure women and children are cared for by the father of the children because that means they don't have to take care of them. I see no such issue for gays. Heterosexual unions can result in children being born who need to be cared for and men and women don't have the same earning potential even if they don't have kids. Gays have the same earning potential because they are the same gender and there aren't going to be any kids born to the union. I'm not seeing the need for gay marriage. I think we are fast approaching the point where we don't need the government to recognize heterosexual marriage either. DNA tests prove whose the daddy and women are closing the income gap.
If we allow gay marriage we need to ask ourselves what is the purpose in the government even acknowledging marriage. The government only needs to be involved here if marriage serves some purpose for the government or society. As it has been historically defined, marriage protects women and children. What's the purpose of gay marriage? Who needs protecting here to the point the government should be involved? Heterosexual marriage can produce children who need protecting and women, historically, take a bigger career/income hit when they have kids than men. In fact, women who have no kids take an income hit because of the assumption they will have kids. Heterosexual marriage is set up to make sure she's taken care of in either event and that any children they have are also taken care of. Tell me who gay marriage protects and I'll tell you whether the government should be involved in it.
YOU ARE WRONG, SO WRONG. Civil marriage has absolutey nothing at all to do with children, zero, zip, zilch, nada. None of the 1049 federal rights, nor any of the state rights afforded with a civil marriage license ever mentions one word about marriage and children. Having children is a totally different matter when it comes to law and the laws governing children apply to people who have kids and are not married. Civil marriage and its protections and benefits are to protect the assets and property of the couple, not the children, try that argument in court and it FAILS and always will. And keep ignoring that same sex unions and marriage have indeed happened historically, even many of the native Americans practiced it till church led moral objections forced them by government order to seize. Any marriage, same sex or man/woman, protects the property and assets of the marriage. Tell me why a straight couple with or without kids should get the 1049 federal rights and same sex couples should not? Tell me, because none of those rights pertain to kids. Why must straight couples get those SPECIAL RIGHTS?
So states should be allowed to ban interracial marriage? That was legalized by the supreme court. Were they wrong?
Rush and people like Harrier are too young to have seen what blacks and other minorities had to deal with before the civil rights movement. Many people also are ignorant of history and tend to ignore that all those bans against interracial marriage and the fight for equal rights was not just about black people, not to disparage their fight and battle for equal treatment, but marriage bans forbid any race from getting married. It made it difficult for a person of mixed race to begin with, who could that person marriage legally? In many states that person could not marry anyone at all. Keeping religion from deciding who gets rights is the most logic and sane way to govern all of the people. We are not a theocracy.
I am unaffiliated with any party and have not encountered any convincing arguments to oppose same-sex marriage.
Gays should have to go through divorce court and have their assets divided the same as everyone else. Shacking up and calling yourself married for the tax benefits comes with consequences.
so you are saying the states can't define the definition of marriage based on their culture and tradition?
should a minority force polygamy and the definition of marriage on the majority just because it has no negative effect or anyone else.
Should the people of the states define what is marriage in their society?
Honestly I never even give it any serious thought. To me it's a non-issue and a silly one for old fashioned types to be arguing over... and same sex marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage.... I suppose the feds should leave it up to the states, and people can move to the state that agrees with their philosophy. That's the proper way to do things and the way this country was designed to be set up. I wish they'd decriminalize all drugs and leave it up to the 'states' what to do about it.
In any case, one day "gay marriage" will be legal in all states and people won't give it a second thought, unless of course the couples are going around showing off and making a big deal of their gayness, but then again, nobody likes it when heterosexual couples go around and make a big deal of their relationship, for example, by what someone did when I was on vacation in the hotel pool area, proceeded to go into the hottub about 10-20 feet away from us and started to make out in the hot tub while we were right there, with the guy holding this woman for dear life with this 'she's mine!' expression on his face.
My political leanings... social libertarian, political compass -3, -3
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
