Should gay marriage be passed throughout the U.S?

Asked by: 66Piez
  • Yes, of course.

    Married couples are given certain legal benefits. Discriminating against one type of couple by not giving them these rights is wrong.

    "But it's religious!"
    But the separation of church and state, clearly defined in the Constitution, totally negates that argument.

    "But if we legalize gay marriage, who's to say people can't marry animals or inanimate objects?"
    What a slippery, fallacious slope that is.

    "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."
    The Bible also clearly advocates against inter-religion marriage and divorce, but no one has ever said those shouldn't happen.

    "Marriage is a Christian thing."
    Lots of Christians are for gay marriage. Also, marriage was not a Christian invention. Stop saying it is.

    "We are a Christian nation, and we need to uphold the Bible!"
    Benjamin Franklin. James Madison. George Washington. Thomas Jefferson. What do they all have in common? They weren't Christian!

    And the list goes on.

  • Why the hell not?

    Marriage should be between two adults who love each other. Now the government should not force a certain religion to practice marrying same-sex couples. But a same-sex couple should absolutely be given the same legal rights as a man and woman. In this country the sanctity of marriage does not exist. We have news headlines for weeks about how celebrities divorce after weeks of marriage. We have straight parents splitting families apart. Perhaps homosexuality is not promoted by your religion however not everyone is a believer of your God. Or they are and believe that love is love and they will live their lives loving one another and all those around them. In a country where freedom of religion is a right why are so many bound to decisions based solely on religion? It is very hypocritical.

  • Yes it is wrong if they don't

    I believe it will take there rights if the U.S. don't allow it. This is very serious about the U.S. wanti to ban it. I mean there was a time when blacks and whites couldn't get married. And that slowly made progress. Just like what's going on with same-sex marriage. I am a gay 15 year old by the way.

  • Another form of unfair control that stems from religion.

    Marriage is a union between two people that love each that. It is meant for a government to keep track of who lives together so they can financially keep a tab on the incomes, taxes, etc. This has been hijacked by religions who claim it is something from "god" and is only meant for certain people. Whether these religions are putting down blacks, homosexuals, or the disabled, it is wrong and ultimately not their place to decide. Not only is this a weak attempt at control, it is also pointless. There is little difference between marriage and dating. In both cases, the two people will love each other and do what they want sexually and physically. Not allowing them to marry is just blocking them from being together as one family under the law. It is also unconstitutional per the 14th amendment. Biggest non-issue that the world faces today.

  • It's just love grow up

    Alright, I'm honestly sick and tired of all these morons who think it's absolutely fine and dandy to deprive two lovers of their marriage simply because they are against it. I'd like to know how in the hell it affects them, please. I'm genuinely curious. Because all I see is love, why can't others see that as well and accept it for what it is?

  • Legal argument and not a spiritual one.

    At this point, what's the difference?
    Marriage is word. It means one thing in church and another thing to the Census Bureau and the Justice Department. Protection of the Christian/Islamic view of marriage within those places of worship (i.E. Priest won't be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies) is upheld under the Bill of Rights. A legal marriage simply treats the relationship as equal to one between two straight people as the same under the eyes of the law.
    Social issues have been driving a wedge through this country for a decade now - let's just get it done with and move on to governing.

  • There's No Difference

    Is there really a reason to think that society is going to fall through and nature is going to unravel if we allow ALL of our citizens join in a civil union rather than picking and choosing from the population who is eligible for this common right? I've yet to see it. Manson and Bundy were allowed to marry but perfectly decent, law-abiding individuals in a loving, consenting relationship cannot because it's a threat to the sex lives of others? Why? Are they jealous?

  • Yes it absolutely should!

    Why would you not let gays marry? It isn't going to affect straight marriages and it certainly won't damage society. I know many Christians who fully support gay marriage so the claim that homosexuality goes against god is not a reason. Lastly marriage is constantly changing, the marriage we have today is anything but traditional.

  • Gay union is not marriage

    If gays want to be recognized and have the gov't benefits of married people than the gov't should create a new classification. Call it a Gay Union or whatever you want but leave marriage out of it. Why should those of us who believe marriage is a covenant between husband and wife be forced to accept gay union as marriage.

  • No It Is Against The Bible

    Same Sex Marriage is anti-Christian and anti-biblical therefore. It is also not what the founders would have wanted. The founding fathers for the most part believed in God, and our nation was based on the Holy Bible. The Bible clearly prohibits gay marriage and therefore, it should not be legalized.

  • No No NO

    I am sick and tired of people making these questions! No it should not be passed along. It is unnatural, and we were never created to be homo's. I have seen poll after poll, opinion after opinion, debate after debate, about the same topic. And the answer is still NO.

  • No, it should not be passed.

    I just copied and pasted my reply under the first one under "NO".

    Gay is NOT a religion, it is a lifestyle, so it is not supported by the Constitution, Declaration of independence, or the Bill of rights.

    Just so there is no confusion, the definitions of "lifestyle" and "religion" will follow this statement.

    "Lifestyle: the way in which a person or group lives"
    SYNONYMS: way of life, way of living, life, situation, fate, lot; conduct, behavior, customs, culture, habits, ways.

    "Religion: 1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2. A particular system of faith and worship. 3.

    Well, before you say "When you are religious, you act a certain way, so religion is a lifestyle too," you act a certain way when you have faith in God because that is how you are called to act.

    You are not called to act to be gay, simple as that.

  • My Own Opinion

    I agree with Tinman46, to me marriage isn't just a simple word and it should be taken more seriously than that, I feel that's already the cause of quite a few problems. I think it would be great if the two sides could meet in the middle on this and think about how to provide the same benefits without using marriage itself, as this should meet the requirements of both sides. I would like to see a conclusion to this where everyone can be somewhat content without anyone having to sacrifice their beliefs in favor of the opposing side's. However this is idealistic and likely to be dismissed by many on both sides since both sides tend to vehemently reject the other....

  • Basis of marriage

    The marriage ceremonies that we practice are Christian based. The marriage we think of is based off of christianity. In christianity, marriage is symbolized as the man as Jesus(supporting and doing anything[giving up his life included]) and the woman as the church(supporting and accepting the man). Passing gay marriage is against a core religion of the US.

  • Changing marriage devalues it

    Things retain value if they are constant, for example, a political party will be more respected if they stick to what they stand for and not suck up to public opinion. If marriage is changed from a man and a woman to just two people, why should it stop there? Even if the definition of marriage is changed once it becomes a malleable concept that can be seen to be distorted to fit people's interpretation of it.

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