Should marriage between two people of the same sex be legal?

  • Same sex marriage should be respected as a human right.

    The Constitution supports the rights of all people, including gays; if the American Constitution is not respected then the whole government system should be deemed corrupt.

    Posted by: JamesonF
  • Marriage is not about politics, it's about love.

    Love is a concept and a feeling that is very scattered and cannot be seen as black and white. There are many different qualities of a person that attract others, and in many cases gender is irrelevant to love. You fall in love with a person, not a gender. You simply are not attracted to somebody just because they happen to be a woman or a man. You are attracted to someone because of their personality, their values, their interests, and a multitude of other things. It just so happens that some men find men attractive and some women find women attractive.

  • I support same sex marriage; it is immoral to deny an individual's right to honor his or her commitment in love.

    I find the argument against same-sex marriage despicable for several reasons. The opposing side always attempts to exploit arguments concerning the notion that marriage should stick to its traditional origins; between man and woman. In ancient cultures, rarely were man and woman bound together through marriage. A powerful man would have many mistresses that were openly sharing his bed. Not allowing gay couples to marry means the government is stripping them of their benefits and fundamental rights marriage provides. Politicians today constantly speak of equality between minorities, but ignore the discriminatory effects that gays experience daily.

    Posted by: WoodenWilly
  • Its like choosing your favorite color

    People say that when someone is gay its because they were born that way. That isn't necessarily true. When you choose your favorite color, you choose it because you like it. You like that color, you want everything to be that color, and you think that color is pleasing. As men or women grow up, choosing their gender is the same way. When someone chooses to be gay, lesbian, or straight, its because that's what they like. That is what is pleasing to them. You shouldn't judge someone because their favorite color is pink and yours is blue, so therefore you shouldn't judge someone because they are gay and you are straight. It wouldn't be fair to them or anyone else like them. Same sex marriage should be legal everywhere. It does no harm, it's like choosing your favorite color.

  • Why do you choose to be straight?

    Who decided that marriage had to be limited between men and women? Civilization has evolved tremendously during the last few decades. Not long ago, homosexuality was considered the biggest social crime that could warrant excommunication, and even death. For instance, in Russia, the people there are not allowed to speak about the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender by the anti-gay propaganda law. Societies such as Russia could not understand that it is no one’s fault to be different. Being attracted to the same sex is a circumstance of nature, but the society then contemplated otherwise. Parents offered a cultural orientation from childhood about being a decent person who should develop, get educated, and marry to start a good family. In this way, one would live up to the prospects of the family, and society. Knowledge that one is even attracted to the same sex would lead to discrimination. However, the society has evolved, and the rules of civilization have changed. In order for LGBTQ members of the community to be accepted and allowed equal rights, the government in many countries should recognize same sex marriage as a civil right and decision of the state legislation. This debate has caused a lot of controversy and alienation within the LGBTQ community, one that can end when attitudes toward homosexuality change for the better.

  • Yes on gay marriage

    I find the argument between same sex marriages ridiculous for these reasons.. People should love who they want to love regardless what gender they are. It's not our say on who we think somebody should love. It's their own preference. Not any body else's. It should be their choice who they want to spend their lives with, not the governments or ours of that matter.

  • Love is Love

    People don't choose to be gay. They are who they are. This life is already hard enough for people, so why would people make it even more difficult by "choosing to be gay." It's not a choice. And why bring religion into legal decisions. Your beliefs are between you and your religious community. People who are gay are not any different then anyone else. Whatever your race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc, we are all people and deserve to be treated equally and have equal rights.

  • I am for same sex marriage

    The way I see it is that bible says that a lot of things are evil, that we should not do them, but look at the people in their everyday life. People do not realize this, but we all sin. If you read into The Bible and go The Book of Proverbs it goes over the Seven Deadly Sins. Even before the deadly sins, God says other things that could be sinning and evil, yet we still do them. Let us compare the past to today. In the past African Americans couldn't even get married, until in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled it as being Unconstitutional for not allowing the Lovings to wed.

  • Yes, gay marriage should be legal because love is a human right.

    Love is a human right. Whoever says that in the bible it says this and that, well that was a long time ago and things change. Some parts of the bible is outdated, just like fashion and other things, things go out of date same thing with the bible. Imagine if your whole life you could not say that you were married but had a girlfriend or boyfriend. Yes saying that is "fine" as some people say but you can break up with someone with 1 word. Some people want a stringer bond then a relationship. They want a marriage.

  • It's time to end this dumb "moral debate".

    There are no proper arguments against opposite sex marriage besides moral conflict of either or all: 1(Religious/Biblical grounds 2("defiance" of traditional marriage 3(and people calling it "unnatural" or "offensive".
    While the gay and lesbians have there Right of pursuit of happiness being infringed just because of selfish people putting themselves before others. I'm sorry walk in other people shoes for once people what would happen if you were them how would you feel. The whole "idea" of it being unnatural is a load, there are animals out in all corners of the world having gay tendencies and actions.
    Geese people times change grow up and realise that you aren't the only ones in the world that wish to be happy, I am a high school student so to me telling a bunch of grown individuals to grow up is pretty pathetic.

  • Because god made the woman for the use of a man, and not Adam with Steve.

    God made the woman for the man, and not Adam with Steve. No man who are in their right mind should be sleeping with another man, because they both have the same thing hanging between their legs, woman are very sweet and that's the reason why god made Adam with Eve and not Adam and Steve.

  • Marriage between two people of the same sex should not be legal because the Bible says that marriage is to be between a man and woman.

    Marriage between two people of the same sex should not be legal because the Bible says that marriage is to be between a man and woman. Marriage between two people of the same sex is unnatural and undermines the role of the family in our society. The fact that people decide that marriage between people of the same sex is okay doesn't make it right. God is the authority that determines if something is right or wrong and this issue is clearly addressed in the Bible.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • Duh, hell no.

    It is a negative impact and should be abolished. First off it's a sin so ya going to hell. Second, kids will always be seeing men kissing men and girls kissing girls in the park and public. It is disgusting and the work of the devil. No offense to gay people, but ya need to fix ya lives. So I say no.

  • 14th Amendment wrong way to go when arguing the case for same-sex marriage

    The 14th Amendment to the Constitution Was Ratified July 28, 1868. The idea that it applies to gays is ridiculous. Gays are mentioned nowhere in all the thousands of pages of transcripts of the 39th Congress’s congressional records in 1866. It was mainly about blacks being given protection under the Bill of Rights, the 1st Ten Amendments in the Constitution, because many states were denying blacks those rights.
    You need to look at the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. And, you need to read what was said in 39th Congress 1st Session, Pages 1088-1095 – February 28, 1866
    John Bingham’s Speech of February 28, 1966 introducing initial draft of Section 1 of the 14th, with the intention to amend the Constitution in order to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states: “Shall South Carolina be thus restored, for example, nine tenths of her people who vote having been rebels in arms or directly engaged in rebellion against the country, and her Governor having been an active member of the rebel senate at Richmond during the four years' trial, now acting Governor over the loyal men of the State? Is that State to be restored without the power in Congress to protect the few loyal white men there against State statutes of confiscation and statutes of banishment? And for the emancipated slaves of South Carolina … under the Constitution of the United States, as it now stands, to protect the loyal white minority or the loyal but disfranchised colored majority in that State against banishment?”
    Jacob Howard’s speech of May 23, 1866: “This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man.”
    In the Congressional record of the 39th Congress, there is no mention of gays? The idea of a non-heterosexual marriage was not even considered in 1868. All the members of Congress were heterosexual and married to someone of the opposite sex, most believed in God and in the Bible, which considers gays an abomination.
    Gays are not a caste or separate class or race; they are given all the rights and protection under the laws. You are not married under Federal Law. You can’t force the Church to accept Gay marriage because that goes against the beliefs of the Church, which are protected in the Constitution.
    Marriage is a sacred agreement between a man and a woman as it has been since the dawn of civilization thousands of years ago. You homosexuals and lesbians can’t stand it that society thinks you are not normal; at least most Americans that have morals and believe in God.

  • Marriage is between a man and a woman

    I have nothing against homosexual people and their desire to be together, they should be given the same respect and rights as heterosexuals. However, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to also be 'married', it should just be called something else eg. a union. That is not undermining their relationship or degrading it in any way. Rather, it is simply a different entity to that of a man and woman unifying together in what happens to be called, 'marriage'. I am in full support of gay people and they should be allowed to do whatever they want as they are equal to every other human being in this world. So, even though I voted no to them being together in the way of marriage, they should be allowed to be together in what can be titled something else.

  • Why is it two?

    Why is marriage a contract between two and not three or more?
    Because it is meant to be one of each.

    If it is NOT one of each, then marriage could be any group of people.

    Individuals must have equal rights, regardless gender, sex, etc. But contracts, associations, groups are not. It depends on the purpose, function, expectations.
    Marriage is not, a corporation, a company, a LLC.

  • No, marriage began with a man and a woman, and is defined as such. Anything else is a different contract altogether.

    Beginning with Adam and Eve, marriage has been defined as the beginning of the family unit instituted by God. This union consists of a man and a woman bound together in a life long committed, loving relationship. Just because some people can not live up to their vows, and others want to add unnatural changes to this social contract, does not mean the definition of marriage should change. There are other ways of establishing rights in relationships, such as civil unions.

    Posted by: NettN355
  • If 2 people, why not three?

    If marriage is defined as two people of opposite gender, we have a stable definition. If marriage shall be expanded to include two people of the same gender, how can we refuse polygamy? After all, polygamy has a greater historical basis than same-gender two-somes. And unlike same sex marriage, that has never been a norm or given equivalent social acceptance to a two couple marriage, polygamy is legal in many other nations (mostly Arab and Muslim). If we make two homosexuals equal in marriage with a husband and wife, there are millions of Muslims and some Mormons who would seek immigration of second wives from abroad or seek such acceptance of new spouses immediately. Thus changing marriage to two men or two women would immediately bring broader challenges with stronger legal and social basis to include three or more people.

    Posted by: Pir4And
  • Different because they are not interchangeable

    They are not interchangeable so they are not the same. If a black man and a white woman marry then divorce, they can then marry again to another man or woman, but if they then marry someone of the same sex it is no longer a marriage like the first. Irrespective of whether it is right or wrong, it would simply not be the same.

  • Becoming “one flesh”

    Arriage is unique because the commitment it calls for is better described as communion, where “the two become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Only a man and a woman in marriage can become a “one flesh” communion. The unity of husband and wife is so intimate that from it can come a “third,” the child – a new life to be welcomed and raised in love. No other relationship, no matter how loving or committed, can have this unique form of commitment – communion – that exists in marriage, between a husband and a wife.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.