Amazon.com Widgets

Should government stay out of the whole matter of marriage?

Asked by: jtightlips24
  • It just gives the Homophobes more reason to think that Gays are trying to push an agenda

    In reality, Marriage should not even be a Government thing. Its a social or cultural institution that should be handled by the organizations in question. If one church wants to call a gay union a wedding, and another church doesnt, fine by me. In reality by worrying so much about a word, this has put both sides at a disadvantage, as both are just trying to collectivize an individuals decision. Legally, a marriage is nothing more than a union, and if two consenting adults want a union, they have a right to. But keep marriage to the cultural institutions, please, and you do your thing, and the other does theirs. If the Homophobes rebel against people outside their institution, they will be exposed as nose sticking bigots.

  • Yes They Should

    I couldn't agree more. Had government not gotten involved, homosexual "marriage" would've never been legalized.
    But to some extent the government must get involved. After all, marriage is a kind of contract, legally binding. Somebody has to enforce the terms of this contract.
    Perhaps the Federal government shouldn't get involved and the state governments should.

  • For ONLY two illegal exceptions: Arranged marriages and under-aged marriages

    Arranged marriages, and under-aged marriages must remain illegal in Western nations. If the government doesn't interfere, using laws to safeguard then those will become common place again.

    That having said, I agree it should have LESS interference with marriage as a whole. If it were not for the government, same-sex marriages wouldn't even need to be legalized. Polygamy should be allowed. It's ridiculous to ban them. They would already be a thing. Also it's wrong that married couples get tax perks that non-married couples get. That's unfair. We should all be treated fairly.

    Let marriages become just a ceremonial affair again, with little political bothering and interference from Government. You shouldn't need money, a ring, and paper to be recognised as a couple in love. Treat us all the same.

  • Damn straight it should!

    I think the Government has way to much power as it is. I thin we would all be better served if things of that nature were left up to individuals. Yes, as a christian I believe homosexuality is a sin. But it is not something that should be left up to the government to fool with. The marriage thing is a personal matter. Let's get rid of big government! Sic semper tyrannis!

  • The government is stupid

    Marriage was not originally between one man and one woman, so why is it now? Why should a government decide what is right and wrong for a person or group of people? Most people argue that gays should not marry, but what about interracial couples? That used to be illegal as well. Homosexuals are still people, science has more evidence that they are born gay than any evidence that says it is a choice. If they are born that way than who has the right to say they can't have equal rights? Even if it is a choice (which it most likely is not) than there is still no reason to limit their rights.

    Posted by: SNP1
  • If the government truly is made of the people, by the people for the people...

    Then a social/moral issue like is most definitely the government's business!
    I believe as well that people should understand that personal and private issues such as sexual orientation is not their business to decide. I also believe that a homosexual civil union is in reality the same as a heterosexual marriage, so I believe that those unions should actually be legally considered "marriages" and the same as a heterosexual marriage out of respect and cultural dignity.
    I'll admit that many congressmen, politicians, governors, even presidents may try to force an anti-gay marriage policy on the people, and it should not be their business, but in a true democratic state, a direct-democracy state, the civilian people of the nation would be the legislators, and instead of a minority ruling over the country, the vast majority will prevail each time. The abolishing of the legislative branch and it's replacement with American votes is just another way our governmental system can improve. LGBT rights is a majority movement now.
    I believe LGBT culture should be taught in high schools, seeing as their history and people has existed since the creation (or evolution) of mankind.

  • Marriage is a contract

    Contracts need to have legal backing. Legal means laws. Laws mean government. This "new found" conservative position of leaving the government "out of it" is just an evolution of the older "let the states decide" mantra. They are the last throes of a backwards opinion and it's backers realizing that they are on the losing side of history.

  • For ONLY two illegal exceptions: Arranged marriages and under-aged marriages

    Arranged marriages, and under-aged marriages must remain illegal in Western nations. If the government doesn't interfere, using laws to safeguard then those will become common place again.

    That having said, I agree it should have LESS interference with marriage as a whole. If it were not for the government, same-sex marriages wouldn't even need to be legalized. Polygamy should be allowed. It's ridiculous to ban them. They would already be a thing. Also it's wrong that married couples get tax perks that non-married couples get. That's unfair. We should all be treated fairly.

    Let marriages become just a ceremonial affair again, with little political bothering and interference from Government. You shouldn't need money, a ring, and paper to be recognised as a couple in love. Treat us all the same.

  • Marriage is the legal union between two individuals.

    The government is always somewhat involved in all marriages. It is the government's duty to protect gay and lesbian rights and to conduct the legality of the marriage. Yes, marriages are religious, but they are governmental as well. I am not an expert and I am only 14 years old, but from my knowledge, this is the way it is.

  • Tax and legal benefits, mostly.

    When we think marriage, we think love, intimacy, and a personal bond, but in the eyes of the law, that's not why the institution is in place. An incident regarding a gay acquaintance (whom I'll call Joe Pseudonym) called this to light--he and his partner broke up after seven years and he had to move out. And if they were married, he could've gotten the down payment more easily, but in the law, they were just two guys living together. And man, was Joe financially destroyed. This incident made me realize that hey, marriage isn't just about smoochy stuff. People with such a close bond deserve some sort of recognition for financial/legal benefits.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
sodoff says2014-02-07T21:19:11.967
I don't know how I keep doing this, by my posts keep replicating on each side of the argument.