Simple – I want a no-bias answer as to why two consenting adults shouldn’t be able to marry, in a country that is intended to be religiously neutral.
Please be mature. Don’t go on about sinning & moralty, I just want a real reason why we should label them as second-class citizens.
States define marriage, not the federal government. Marriage is not a right, and it is not a religious institution. It is a contractual agreement.
Many states do not recognize common law and covenant marriages, but do you see people trying to make a federal issue out of it? No. If the majority of voters in a state don’t want to legalize gay marriage, why should they be forced to recognize it? I don’t care if gay people want to be married. It’s their life, not mine. But they cannot bully the voters of a state to accept something the majority does not want. People are forgetting about a little thing called states’ rights, and they are trying to say marriage is something that it is not. If it was a right, it would be in the Constitution as such.
EDIT: I don’t mean to sound like a know-it-all here, but the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration is a historical document of our independence, but it does not set the standard for our laws.
Marriage was brought into the church door in or around the 15th century — I am not sure how I feel about that decision
I like the way the Romans handled it —
“marriage” is a civil contract — The role of the courts is therefore to determine wrongs and money owed when that contract is broken — Other than that the State has no role whatsoever
So if you never divorce the State can kiss your rear end because the contracts you enter voluntarily are your business
I am male married to a female and I fail to see how that is any business of the State — I made my contract(s) with my wife — If I want to leave her my Canada Pension I should be able to — It is MINE to give away I paid for it — If it can be willed it should be willed to her —
Well if that is what I want — freedom from both the church and State to enter contracts as I see fit and leave my possessions to those I choose
Then just -fu–k right off How am I going to honestly say — Oh my contract is good and your contract doesn’t count ?
That doesn’t mean I have to like the contracts you enter — the relationships you get into etc — Nor does it mean I have to approve and I am free to think of you what I will
But —– I do not have the right to force you into anything –
Over the set age — entered voluntarily — end of story
Jesus — I am not sure straight/gay people should be allowed to marry until they are 35 but the law says 18 and that is that
I am so tierd of this stupid debate — If god objects let him come down in person at the church when the Minister says does anyone object —
Then let god object then — or forever shut up about it
Um…i don’t really know how to answer you’re question “maturely” but i mean come on marriage is supposed to be man and woman and ONLY man and women. anything beyond that is freakishly unnatural. I always thought it was so perfect how men and women fit together like two puzzle pieces but the whole concept of being gay sorta kills that perception. A negetive and a negitive never attract. Do you sort of get me? Oh and by the way, how would you know that gay animals exist? are you like a horse whisperer or something? and even if they do, by “occurence in the brain” wouldnt that mean that there simply mental? I dont think there’s any exuse for being gay.
I think the main problem people have is the term “marriage” which, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman and is also a religious sacrament. Sorry, but that’s what marriage is. Plus, the country is not supposed to be religiously neutral but rather protect the rights of all Americans and their religious beliefs — therefore, Churches cannot be forced to grant “gay marriages”.
On the other hand, no one I know is opposed to gay civil unions which can be carried out in marriage-like ceremonies and grant gays the same rights as those who are married. Even my gay friends have no problem with the compromise and I think that if everyone was open to it, it would make everyone happy.
I understand both sides but I also think we have to appease both instead of just drowning out the voices of one or the other.
It goes against nature and religion. You look at everything from the nut and bolt system that holds your cars, and buildings together to the socket and plug method used by of household appliances. Let see you try to put two plugs or 2 sockets together and see how it works out . Humans feel if it feels right it must be ok. If that was so they would be no such thing as mental defect. Just because a person’s brain says ..this is what i like it should be legal to do. Yet we house millions of people in prisons that feel smoking drugs , steeling , not paying taxes and many other violations of laws set by the government as wrong. Some like the drug like chemicals and hormones there brain produce that give them a pleasurable sensation when they do these things.
I just think it is funny we used to hose down the dogs for gay humping when i was a child .Now everything is ok. I believe it is wrong ..just like they believe it is ok. we all and the right to say what is right for ourselves however it don’t make it so. Just don’t try to force it on others or make them believe it is ok. If suddenly everybody turned gay the human race would die out. If humans don’t use science to reproduce . Male and female interaction is the corner stone to human life. Anything that goes against that to me is wrong. however that is just my opinion. If gay people want to have equal legal rights .. call it something else besides marriage. If it was that important they would be willing to call it something else as long as it carried the same legal requirements and previsions as set by the laws of married male /female couples . where do we draw the line ..gay today.. tomorrow like a 100 years a human can marry they sheep, dog, chicken.. just where do we draw the line ? Those people may say they love there animal .Why can’t i marry it as it as close to me as any human friend /person as i have ever known. No church should be forced to change there religion or belief. that goes against there legal right . when has what the church says have any affect on where or not you insurance covers you gay partner. just as no person should be force to go against there belief in gay is wrong or right. If you/anyone don’t like that the United states don’t condone gay marriage ..move. There is a airplane, that leaves the united states every 5 minutes or so heading for a country that condones gay marriage. Nobody is forced to live in the united States..A person can leave anytime a person likes. If at any point there something about this country i can no longer live with,I will leave it .If you/anyone would look around the world. There are worse things that a person could be dealing with that the government don’t condone there gay partner. In some part of the world gay people are killed . that sounds a little worse that you gay partners insurance company is not legally forces cover a person because their in a gay relationship.
To be honest I cannot come up with any legitimate reason, especially considering the high divorce rate and the increasing number of ‘broken’ families and family tension.
Any opposition to gay marriage is founded on individual worldviews (religious particularly) and misinformation from the right. The fact that gay marriages are considered to ruin family values is a good example of this. Where the divorce rate is about equal to the marriage rate the number of broken homes and thus broken families/family values has never been higher. But two consenting adults, who could offer a stable and loving home and improve real ‘values’ are considered to be ‘ruining’ America.
Good question. There aren’t any good reasons to keep it illegal.
First, let me address the “what’s next?” argument. The entire thing is flawed because marriage as it stands now isn’t illegal because it’s consensual, while bestiality, pedophilia and marrying non-living objects are because animals, children and non-living things cannot consent.
Second, you also have the case of Incest which should remain illegal-because of the adverse health effects on any offspring that are born as a result-so in the case of the child-it’s a dangerous situation like if you chose to feed him cyanide. Illegality remains because a child is endangered.
Third, I have no problem with polygamy being legal long as all those involved are consenting adults. Myself, I don’t think I’d want to be in a Polygamous marriage, but I also see no reason why those that do should be banned from being in one.
Overall, I think that unless a dangerous and non-consensual situation arises, government should stay out of marriage.
I don’t agree with homosexuality, however, I don’t think that the government has a right to dictate that part of their life. I am 100% any government control over it’s citizens. Same reason I’m against heathcare. I also don’t agree with abortion but I don’t believe the government should tell women they can’t abort past a certain phase in the pregnancy. (When the fetus can fight back, I’m sorry – that’s just murder)
I don’t believe a church should be forced to perform a gay wedding ceremony, but if they go to the JP then I don’t have a problem with it.
-Right winger / Libertarian
Many people uphold the definition that it is a religious/social ceremony, which goes against biblical teachings. The religious implications in the ceremony thus make it a separate issue from civil union. Therefore, it becomes less a political issue, and perhaps more of one for the person’s faith.
Forcing the issue into the realm of faith & religion would be degrading to the original tenants of that faith.
Full faith and credit clause.
Basically says that any marriage that is legal in one state is legal in all states… SO! If a state bans the practice (by virtue of POPULAR vote), but a couple from a state that allows it moves to said BANNED state… In effect, the first state has lost its 10th amendment right to ban it.
Clinton tried to fix this through DOMA… but erasing parts of the Constitution simply CAN’T be the answer…
The only real answer is a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage… take the states out of it. Because right now, it the whole situation is a violation of the 10th amendment.