Civil unions, first of all, are the same "separate but equal" malarkey that was tried in the 1900's for black people. Hey, anyone remember how great that was? I have yet to hear a single legitimate secular argument against gay marriage. Saying "It's God's will" holds no more weight for this country than forcing women to cover their faces because it's "Allah's will". If you tried to propose that, you'd be laughed out of congress. See how ridiculous it seems now? If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. I don't like Pepsi, does that give me the right to ban Pepsi for everyone? No, I'm just not going to drink Pepsi. If someone drinks some Pepsi at a party where all their friends are drinking Mr. Pibb, does that somehow make their Mr. Pibb lose its flavor? No, it doesn't.
Those stating that homosexuality isn't equal to heterosexuality is equal to those that have said blacks aren't equal to whites and women aren't equal to men. Times, they are a'changin! Eventually those still clinging to these bigoted views will be seen for what they are; wheels spinning out of control, throwing mud at everyone else who is moving past them on the road to progress. A person is a person no matter how small, strait, female or white they are.
People have the right to love who they want no group of people whether its the government or a religious group have the right to take that away from them. Everyone is born into the world with a right to live happy and the government and the religious groups agree so why take away an individual's happiness because of something you feel is wrong.?
A homosexual couple is no less deserving of marriage rights than a heterosexual couple. How is a homosexual couple who both have a job, a house together, pay their taxes, and contribute to society any different from a heterosexual one? Because they can't procreate? I dare say marriage is about more than encouraging people to procreate. People can procreate without marriage, and people can opt not to procreate even within a marriage. So it's a non-factor. Other than that, there's no difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual couple. So I see no reason why they shouldn't be treated as equal.
Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not a sin. It is love between two people, who don't care what the other is. It is true love, and God would support it. It is like being born, and hating the taste of ketchup and having the government say that you can never eat anything unless it has ketchup. You can't keep saying that it's a sin and that it can't be legalized, otherwise you're just being prejudice.
In section one the fourteenth amendment of the U.S Constitution it states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The second sentence clearly states. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." <---- That is why making it illegal for same sex couples to get married, or gain no benefits of a legal marriage, is unconstitutional.
We cannot judge how others want to live their lives. If someone is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, they did not have a choice in becoming that. It was biologically how they were born, just like if you were born straight. I don't think we have the right to tell people that they can't be together. I also think that a lot of the arguments against same-sex marriage is based on religion even though we have a secular government so that should not play that big of a role in this decision. We have to let everyone be equal.
All of these focus on irrelevant characteristics of marriage. They all seem to either:
a) Contain a religious bias. Or:
b) Have zero to do with marriage.
Currently, there are unnatural arguments. If you'd like me to refute them, please challenge me to a debate. Until then, I am for gay marriage as a society. Although I am against marriage altogether - all kinds of marriage, I know it's never going to go away. Therefore, I'm for in context.
To see people are arguing against the first amendment and the freedoms it offers to people they don't like while completely ignoring all the freedoms this same constitutional belief allows them to have. And based around what? A very vague, and abstract belief of what an invisible man believes over what an ancient book says. You people really have some nerve to expect anyone to follow your nonsense when there is absolutely no solid proof for the credibility of the bible.
In fact, allow me to teach you a lesson on tolerance:
Yeah, I know what you're thinking. Derp Derp. Liberals love to throw that word around! Well, here's a lesson on what it is. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to approve, accept, or agree with a certain behavior, it just means you have to tolerate it. Allow me to explain.
I'm a vegetarian. In fact, I'm not just a vegetarian but I'm extremely militant on the matter of animal rights. I disagree with eating meat, I absolutely loathe eating meat, andhonestly? I think it's absolutely disgusting all the lives of animals we demean and devalue based solely around the fact that we can't get enough of eating them.
But you know what? I tolerate it. Because while I make my stance on eating meat absolutely clear, I'm not going to tell someone that they can't eat a burger. And believe me, if I were to enforce some kind of government procedure against eating meat I'd be far more justified in doing so than you are in whining against gay marriage. An ancient book said that it was wrong. Big deal! What proof do you have that this book is credible? Even if god exists, what proof do you have that it conveys his beliefs? Even more so when this book made it quite clear where it stands on slavery. Meanwhile I have to deal with the suffering of living, breathing creatures which can clearly feel pain over nothing more than self - indulgent. You see that? Even if you disagree with my militant animal rights beliefs, I'm sure it becomes quite clear how little of anything your argument has based on the notion that it clearly causes suffering over such petty, and selfish reasons.
If you swallow meat that comes at the price of the horrible slaughter of animals over such immoral reasons, then you really aren't in any place to tell two men in a consensual relationship living in a nation with the first amendment that they can't get married because of the meat that they swallow when it's absolutely harmless.
If two men deserve to have to their freedoms taking away around such vague nonsense, then I'd really hate to think of what kind of prison you deserve to be thrown in for the crimes you've never even thought twice about which you've commited against nature.
Lets just say first off that if you believe in FREEDOM than you would allow homosexuality in the US. Not allowing it would just be making more people angry. I think that reason that we don't allow it is because of the fact that some people don't like homosexuals in general because of the fact that they are religious and this is a nation UNDER GOD.
We seem to follow the rules when it's convenient. Science, biology, the Natural law represent an objective standard that gives us objective (non-subjective) reasons to reject pedophilia and incest even between consenting adults. If we agree with reasons for rejecting pedophilia and incest as provided by the objective standard, then we should agree with the reasons the objective standard provide for also rejecting homosexual behavior. For example, the human biological makeup tells us that a child (i.E., a human being that is neither physically nor mentally developed for sex) is not a logical sexual target for an adult. Similarly, based on the human biological makeup, the objective standard indicates that homosexual behavior is illegitimate sexual behavior. Considering marriage equality (or any such related laws), we should certainly not pass laws that can serve to legitimize this or any other illegitimate form of sexual behavior which some wish to "legitimize" based on emotions and polls. With possibly over billions of years to work its magic, evolution has not allowed "truth to evolve" on these relevant and objective facts.
It is probably an unconscious choice, like the majority of the states of mind. Homosexuality as an orientation is a state of mind, although unlikely, all states of minds are subject to change.
Homosexuality as a behavior is a conscious choice unless rape is involved.
Desire is not by any means a justification for an action, otherwise all crimes can be justified. Society requires and expects people to suppress harmful desires even if they find it difficult.
Biologically, homosexuality is not different from countless other paraphillas like pedophilia or bestiality. We are heterosexuals by design, everyone except hermaphrodites are either males or females. There is no way to know someone's orientation except by behavior or claiming to engage in a behavior. Homosexuality is a behavior. For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals must have their own physiology that fits their sexual activities. By definition, it is unnatural, does not function as designed. Homosexuality and all these orientations are simply unchangebly heterosexual people who identify themselves by participating or the desire to participate in deviant sexual activities.
So no, they do no deserve extra rights for a state of mind or to be rewarded for engaging in a sexual behavior. Come on, homosexuals were the source for more than 80% of AIDS diagnoses in 2011 in the US.
It's against the Bible and Humanity, in the bible there is no mention of gay marriage, and it doesn't say Adam and Steve but Adam and Eve, and later in the bible it says that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. This Country was based on christian values but is now changing into an ungodly country and continent.
Homosexuality is the act of intercourse between people of the same sex. When the Bible speaks of homosexuality, its emphasis is on behavior, not condition. God loves sinners, but condemns sin. And the Bible's verdict on homosexual behavior, as with all sexual immorality, is that it is sinful. This extensive collection of Scriptures is provided as an aid for those who wish to study what the Bible says about homosexuality.
If you want to be a gay couple, move to a state that allows it such as California. Many parents don't want their young children exposed to anything too out of the ordinary. I fail to see how people will want to legalize this in states were violence will erupt such as in Mississippi. It would just be easier to offer gays to move to a state were they can live happily ever after.
I think people not being straight is caused by something that happened in their child, or that's all they have known or witnessed. Also, two people of the same sex can't have children, and that's the whole point of marriage.
Going to sex organism labs, destroys the beauty of sex.
Sure, it's a choice, and LGBT's deserve respect but marriage? Nope.
Marriage, historically and on the dictionary is:
"The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." -Dictionary.Com
Nobody can change that description. Marriage is based on the fact that all human beings from conception have, in every single cell of their bodies, XX chromosomes for females or XY chromosomes for males. Nobody can change that either, and these permanent distinctions make for a permanent definition of what it means to be married, and these are the legal, social, historical and theological definition of a marriage.
Same sex couples may look in some aspects like a heterosexual couple, but they are missing aspect of why people get married: They cannot have there OWN children. They may have children, but they can't have children; in other words, a orphanage has children. That doesn't make a full mariage.
"Only the union of a woman and a man, with immutable XX and XY chromosomes in every cell of their bodies, representing the two halves of the human race, can make a marriage and produce the next generation." -Ron Crews, President, Massachusetts Family Institute
The next generation needs both a mother and a father. Notable social science studies done to date have affirmed that children do best, by whatever measure is used, when they have a married mom and dad. Depriving a child of a mother or father is cruel and unfair.
Do LGBT's deserve respect and equality? Of course, but do we need to change the definition of marriage just to make them happy? Absolutely not!
1. Gay marriage is harmful to the family structure. Growing up with a mother and father has long been proven as beneficial to the development of children.
2. A species could not possibly sustain itself with this style of marriage since homo sapiens would inevitably become extinct.
3. Homosexuality is a choice, not an inherited trait. If it were inherited, it would have ceased to exist long ago since anyone who could pass on the gene would not procreate.
Men are meant to be with women the role is simple they procreate its the natural order of things, whereas Gay and Lesbian is completely unnatural and has no purpose at all, I also believe that a lot of these relationships stem from being abused by the same sex during childhood
It is true that our government allows freedom of religion, as it should. But our nation's moral code that we make laws from is still based on biblical principles. Therefore, it can not conceivably considered that gay marriage is acceptable. If you put religion aside, our nation still states that marriage belongs to those who are fit for it. Thus we do not allow those to marry who are dangerous, abusive, commit incest, and yes in some states, homosexual. Based on science, homosexuality and incest are not biologically correct, and are even dangerous.
If someone is going to hurt or kill them self, the police are still obligated to try to save them. In the same way, gay sex or marriage has such a high rate of STD's, that we as a voting body are obligated to attempt to prolong their life, even if they do not wish for us to do so.