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
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Same sex marriage should be legal because we live in a free country.

    I think the United States' federal government needs to pass legislation to accept the validity of gay marriage because not allowing it goes against our fourteenth amendment. The marriage of two gay people does not infringe upon the rights of others, and letting the gay community marry decreases segregation between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

  • Yes, I believe that marriage between two people of the same sex should be legal.

    I believe that because everybody has the right to love someone. It is not fair for only 1 kind of person to have the right to love someone. There should be equality. This goes back to how blacks couldn't be around whites. It is the same way with homosexuals. Just set things right!

  • The only argument against gay marriage comes from some quotes in the bible.

    Yet in the New Testament, Jesus urges us to be loving and tolerant, and not judge others. Judging others is exactly what opponents of gay marriage are doing - that homosexuality and those who practice it are evil, destined for hell. A lot of people in this country don't believe that, including me. I don't want someone to force their religious beliefs on me through the rule of law. We should not confuse spirituality and politics. Or as Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

  • I simply want to call it "Marriage."

    WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE? It is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to two persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary, and some of these allow polygynous marriage. Since 2000, several countries and some other jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity (wiki).....LOVE KNOWS NO GENDER, marriage is about two people...ITS NOT ABOUT RELIGION! The religious arguments against recognizing marriage between same-sex couples are not just bad arguments, they’re not our arguments, and they aren’t even worth our time. We should stop saying “gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage” and call it what it really is: marriage.

  • Of course not! If two people love eachother, they should be allowed to marry, whatever sex they are.

    No disrespect intended, but I don't think the religion arguments are fair. Not everyone has the same beliefs as you, it is not a way if deciding things because there are so many religions and they all have different beliefs. Aside from that view, if two people are in love, and want to marry, they should be allowed to. It's a no brainer really. It is not their choice, it is natural for people to love same sex or opposite sex. Some argue that it is not natural because man and woman reproduce. This is wrong because although man and woman do obviously create children, there is so much new science now to help people who want children and are same sex. And, who says they want children? It is an unvalid argument because not everyone wants the same thing. At the end of the day, who can't help who you fall in love with, any one trying to come between you and your loved one (unless there is a serious reason involved) is cruel and uncaring. What happened to human rights? Were all people and we all need to learn to get along and respect one another.

  • Marriage is not strictly for a man and a woman

    Marriage is for two people that love each other regardless of their gender. And anyhow who said we could stuff our noses into other peoples business ? People are allowed to love who they want and nobody else as anything to say about it . I read other peoples comment about how its sick. Well , it's not . They're just two people of the same gender that love each other . And if you have a problem with that , well then SUCK IT UP. It's not your place to tell them who to love.

    Think of it as if people where telling you , you weren't allowed to love the person you love. See ?

    It's not they're business and neither is it yours.

  • 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.