Should same-sex marriage be legalized?

Posted by: emospongebob527

Note: the four options are just some of the more common stances and by no means are meant to be represented as the only positions on this issue.

Vote
381 Total Votes
1

Yes, marriage is about love, not gender.

245 votes
26 comments
2

No, marriage is between a man and a woman.

89 votes
16 comments
3

Yes, I believe in equal representation under law.

36 votes
8 comments
4

No, the state shouldn't be in charge of marriage.

11 votes
2 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
AeneasPhebe says2013-09-03T15:58:55.1254446-05:00
Marriage is between a man and woman!
RedMoonlight says2013-09-03T22:37:19.9444226-05:00
Why?
QueenVictoria says2013-09-04T00:51:33.1836407-05:00
To AmericanNationalist: Does that mean that atheist couples should not be able to get married, too? Because a marriage is a "sacred union," as you put it.
Mikal says2013-09-04T01:41:38.6279493-05:00
God did not create marriage, man created marriage. Marriage is also now found its way as part of the state, which religion has no control over, or should not have control over. If you want to argue anything, say marriage was intended to be a church institution.
Mikal says2013-09-04T01:54:56.3183765-05:00
Has * ffs captain typo
Summer2515 says2013-09-10T18:30:35.9328896-05:00
@lannan1 Not everybody is Christian though. @teddy2013 There are so many children that need to be adopted... Homosexuals are actually very helpful in that way. Not many straight people adopt and it's selfish, so who is gonna do it without homosexuals? @Naveedfb Then you are a very naïve person, my friend. What I am getting at is that everyone deserves equal rights and opportunities, you should judge people not by their sexuality, race, or religion but by the content of their character. That's all.
CenturySio says2013-09-23T17:43:04.3951216-05:00
Hello has anybody ever heard of something called EVOLUTION?!?!?! We are humans whether you believe in god or a higher power or not, its IN our DNA to change. A great example of that is why we are all commenting on this, everybody has an opinion and they are different. Fact Humans EVOLVE. We are never going to follow a certain set of rules...We will evolve.
jusfacts says2013-09-26T14:01:40.5178066-05:00
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. (Simply saying they are different things does not overcome the challenges provided by the objective standard) For example, the human biological makeup tells us that a child (i.E., a human being that is neither physically nor sexually 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.
retroman000 says2013-09-26T16:28:00.0377090-05:00
We don't reject pedophilia because it's "not natural", we reject it because it harms the child. Same thing with incest. Children born from incestuous relationships are much more susceptible to recessive genetic disorders. People into BDSM have an "unnatural" sexual preference, does that make it illegal? No, as it doesn't hurt anyone (well, technically it does, but that's BDSM for you). Homosexuality, while "unnatural", doesn't hurt anyone, therefore there is no legitimate secular reason to disallow it.
pensfan says2013-10-08T21:03:07.1435239-05:00
I don't care what the bible say. The bible has no say in who a person can love. If two people love each other then let them marry. To those who don't like it , build a bridge and get over it, because there life has NOTHING to do with you. You don't see others invading in your marriage right do you?
jared8844 says2013-10-15T03:34:04.4709223-05:00
A marriage is a very sacred and beautiful thing but when its between two man its gross and disgusting.
jared8844 says2013-10-15T03:34:13.3941795-05:00
A marriage is a very sacred and beautiful thing but when its between two man its gross and disgusting.
Jingram994 says2013-10-15T04:31:29.6198126-05:00
That's a bit of a double standard, don't you think? And whether or not you, personally, find it 'gross' or 'disgusting' is irrelevant.
ulagudie says2013-10-15T17:12:08.5490055-05:00
If I don't worship your god, why should I worry about sinning against him?
ulagudie says2013-10-15T17:12:11.2224456-05:00
If I don't worship your god, why should I worry about sinning against him?
ESocialBookworm says2013-10-25T17:07:28.2098043-05:00
Freedom till we're equal
michael90000 says2014-01-16T07:28:16.6272752-06:00
Why was marriage created in the first place? The difference between companionship and marriage? The fact is, marriage is much more than just love, much more. Marriage is there for the sustainability of children and their childhood. With that in mind, marriage is there for the welfare of the family. It has lately been weakened by a revisionist view that marriage is more about adults' desires than children's needs.
Jingram994 says2014-01-16T10:56:46.9695200-06:00
You don't need to have children to get married, and you don't need to be married to have children. Reproductive capability, or even simply sustaining 'the family unit' has nothing to do with being married, which is a legal extension of additional benefits and rights to an existing romantic couple who wish to become married, as a social contract. Heterosexual people who have absolutely zero desire to have children, whether their own or adopted, are still allowed to become married, and families involving dysfunctional married couples that are more a detriment than a benefit to the children in them are still 'legitimate' marriages, so it's quite clear that marriage isn't *actually* about the children. Being in a marriage and being a parent are entirely different things, and neither requires or implies the other.
michael90000 says2014-01-17T09:07:04.2834090-06:00
@Jingram994; Then can you answer the difference between companionship and marriage? And why was marriage ever created? Marriage is much more than just love, that's what I and many people trying to emphasize greatly about.
Jingram994 says2014-01-17T23:22:00.4111634-06:00
@michael90000: I get that. But this is the thing; marriage is an extension of additional legal rights and benefits, in the form of a social contract, to a pre-existing couple. The only difference between marriage and any other kind of romantic relationship is the decision to enter into this contract. Marriages *can* exist solely for the purposes of rearing children, but this sort of relationship is only established *after* children have been born, and the original, love-based relationship has soured or at best taken a 'back-seat'. Most marriages involving children are still love-based interpersonal relationships, that happen to have been given a fancy title and additional legal rights and benefits due to the social contract that the two jointly entered into. Marriage for love is the only good reason to get married. "And why was marriage ever created?" Depends on the exact context of that statement. When did people in relationships start getting social recognition that their relationships were 'legitimate' and 'good'? When did governments start giving people in such relationships 'extra' legal rights and benefits, if they chose to take them on, and to go through a ceremony to get that title and it's benefits? Which culture's 'version'/'tradition' of marriage are you specifically discussing? Technically, marriage's 'origin' was simply a way to hand over women and their belongings into the possession of a male, and consent was not required on the woman's part for this to happen, which is almost certainly not what you are talking about when you use the word 'marriage'.
michael90000 says2014-02-02T16:29:56.8587084-06:00
@jingram994; Well I love my siblings and relatives. After all, we are family, but I won't marry them. I have many friends that I like, and we're companions that stick up for one another. We didn't need marriage to establish that. When I have kids, for their well-being and to keep our family together, I would do what is called marriage. Additionally, if you really want to stick on to the love-only part, then put it this way; having kids would help you keep your love stronger for the sake of your children, and your family. Eventually, someone would bring up same-sex adoptions, which would only dramatize and psychologically effect the child when they grow up, which wouldn't help children's needs at all. The problem is that marriage has recently been weakened by a revisionist's view that marriage is more for adults' desires than children's needs.
Jingram994 says2014-02-03T05:03:16.7530526-06:00
@michael90000: "Well I love my siblings and relatives. After all, we are family, but I won't marry them." Right; you love them. As siblings. You are not romantically *IN LOVE* with them. There is a difference. This point doesn't actually have any relevance here. "I have many friends that I like, and we're companions that stick up for one another. We didn't need marriage to establish that." This is because you are not in romantic relationships with your friends. There is a difference between friendship and a romantic relationship. Again, this doesn't actually have any relevance here. "When I have kids, for their well-being and to keep our family together, I would do what is called marriage." Reproduction and marriage, or even necessarily any kind of romantic relationship, aren't actually connected. Reproduction is not a part of marriage, and marriage doesn't have anything to do with reproduction. If you are stating that there is a legitimate, 'necessary' relationship between these two entirely separate things, then you are incorrect. You don't need to be in a marriage, or even a non-marriage romantic relationship, to be able to 'properly' have or raise children, and you do not need to have children to be in a marriage, or any other kind of romantic relationship. "Additionally, if you really want to stick on to the love-only part, then put it this way; having kids would help you keep your love stronger for the sake of your children, and your family." Not necessarily; sometimes the addition of children completely destroys what were previously good, healthy relationships. Children are not 'bandaids' for relationships. The relationship people have with sexual/romantic partners has nothing at all to do with the relationship that parents have with children. "Eventually, someone would bring up same-sex adoptions, which would only dramatize and psychologically effect the child when they grow up, which wouldn't help children's needs at all." How so? Are you stating that homosexual partners in a healthy relationship are unable to 'correctly' raise children? Or are you simply pointing out that these children may face issues from others in the community (or something to that effect) due to their parents being homosexual? If the former, then you are objectively wrong, as studies repeatedly show that there is no actual difference between children raised by heterosexuals and children raised by homosexuals, all other things being roughly the same. If the latter, then this is simply not relevant at all; the exact same argument could be made to mixed-race couples in the old deep south. This is a transparently ridiculous statement. "The problem is that marriage has recently been weakened by a revisionist's view that marriage is more for adults' desires than children's needs." Marriage is not 'for' children. Your apparent view that there is some kind of inherent relationship between marriage, which is a legal and social contract between two consenting adults for the purposes of consolidating and providing greater rights and benefits to the couple, and reproduction or the act of child rearing, which are purely biological functions, and an entirely different kind of relationship disconnected from romantic/sexual ones, respectively, is simply not correct. If this were the case, then it would also be the case that heterosexual couples with no intention or ability to have children would not be able to get married, except potentially on the proviso that they adopt children. As this is simply not what marriage actually is or entails, there are no such restrictions or 'provisos' with regards to straight couples. Attempts to enforce these pathetic and fallacious standards with regards to homosexual couples are purely the result of discrimination, and that's simply all there is to it.
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-08T12:21:15.4332930-06:00
FIRSTLY, WHO CARES if someone is homosexual or not? Are they bothering you in any way? Is someone going to force you to marry someone of your gender?! SECONDLY, IF it IS wrong, let us just say, would YOU be punished? Would you be affected? No! They will! So mind your own business and let them be! THIRDLY, people get "hitched" and leave each other very often (I mean divorce). If irresponsible people who just want to get married for the fun of it can, then why can't people of the same gender. Period.
michael90000 says2014-02-14T20:37:40.8652604-06:00
I'm going to make this short: If marriage is just love, what's the difference between girlfriends-boyfriends and marriage? Additionally: If gay marriage was to be legalized, public schools would begin to teach gay marriage to students whose parents are opposed that it's moral and right. This means that this will interfere with other's business. Gay marriage also affects family values, morals, and children. Since history has marriage always been between a man and a woman, this idea should be reinforced, not redefined, otherwise it's silly. They can go ahead and create a union or something.
Jingram994 says2014-02-14T23:55:24.3740003-06:00
"I'm going to make this short: If marriage is just love, what's the difference between girlfriends-boyfriends and marriage?" Government recognition and addition of rights and 'benefits' to the relationship itself. If it is right that heterosexual couples get this recognition and those rights, it must also be the case that homosexual couples get this recognition and those rights, unless you can think of a compelling reason that is not grounded in tradition or religion for why this should not be the case. "Additionally: If gay marriage was to be legalized, public schools would begin to teach gay marriage to students whose parents are opposed that it's moral and right. This means that this will interfere with other's business. Gay marriage also affects family values, morals, and children." So what? Those parents are wrong; it's really as simple as that. If they believe that gay marriage is wrong according to their religion, fine. If they also think that this should in any way, shape or form impact legality or the rights of others, they are undeniably in the wrong and simply not correct. This does not 'impact on the rights of others', and it does not genuinely 'interfere with other's business'. One could make exactly the same argument for inter-racial marriage. "Since history has marriage always been between a man and a woman, this idea should be reinforced, not redefined, otherwise it's silly. They can go ahead and create a union or something." Nonsense. Clearly not a student of history. Historically, marriage is between a strong male and anyone else he wants to be in a relationship with, and this relationship traditionally does not actually require consent on the other party's behalf. It also effectively gives this 'strong male' total control over the property, rights and life of his partner. This is not what you are talking about when you say 'traditional marriage', so your definition of what 'traditional marriage' is is not correct at all. You are conflating 'what my religion says marriage should be' with 'historicity of marriage and/or what marriage really is'.
michael90000 says2014-02-22T14:07:53.6511574-06:00
Marriage was religiously created. It was created to promote family values and religious means.
michael90000 says2014-02-22T14:24:25.9690478-06:00
Jingram994; You and we need to remember that marriage was created to produce children, procreation. That came all the way from the crater of civilization. Common people married to have a successful and thriving family while royalties had marriage to produce heirs. Redefining marriage will destroy marriage and if this proceeds, marriage shouldn't exist anymore as its principles has been destroyed. We need to remember that people should have their own rights to their own beliefs, and schools incorrectly teaching gay marriage as something moral and natural strongly violates that principle. Gay marriage is wrong, it's simply immoral, one main reason because it's unnatural, but that's just one reason out of a multitude, please realize that. Most of all though, it turns a moral wrong into a civil right, you can't be born gay. Many people have claimed that but scientists have openly acknowledged that they cannot find a "gene" to prove that. After all, the gene tells us who you are, your uniqueness, and codes for you. I know my biology.
michael90000 says2014-02-22T14:27:26.1957472-06:00
Additionally, if gay marriage gets legalized, who knows what logical argument would be defeated when we begin to legalize pedophilia, bestiality, and incest in the future. We're going down a dark road, Americans.
Jingram994 says2014-02-23T04:24:36.8348488-06:00
"Marriage was religiously created. It was created to promote family values and religious means." No, the basic 'institution' of legally/socially binding individuals together in 'marriage' has likely been around longer than organized religion. Even if it has not, you cannot state that it is 'necessary' for the two to be inter-related unless you are willing to argue that atheists can't get married, and that one specific religion therefore is the only one that can 'give out' 'legitimate' marriages. "You and we need to remember that marriage was created to produce children, procreation. That came all the way from the crater of civilization. Common people married to have a successful and thriving family while royalties had marriage to produce heirs." See above; not necessarily true, and not really relevant even if it is. Effectively the same grounds. "Redefining marriage will destroy marriage and if this proceeds, marriage shouldn't exist anymore as its principles has been destroyed." Not true. Terms, relationships and other such things change all the time. You are arguing that only 'traditional' marriage is meaningful and legitimate, because other 'marriages' don't follow the principles of this 'institution', yes? You must then provide good reasoning for why this 'traditional' aspect is actually important, why the term should not be redefined to suit reality, and why the 'principles' of this 'traditional institution' are actually important to the term marriage and why all marriages should have to conform to this standard. "We need to remember that people should have their own rights to their own beliefs, and schools incorrectly teaching gay marriage as something moral and natural strongly violates that principle." Correct. All people have their own rights and beliefs. Nobody has the right to restrict the freedoms of others because of their beliefs. If you do not like gay marriage, for whatever reason, provide a rationale for making it illegal that is not grounded solely in your personal religion. Remember, the US is a secular country; religion does not and cannot have anything to do with legality. "Gay marriage is wrong, it's simply immoral, one main reason because it's unnatural, but that's just one reason out of a multitude, please realize that. Most of all though, it turns a moral wrong into a civil right, you can't be born gay." Bull. Homosexuality is a result of epigenetic and 'environmental' (as in, womb environment) conditions. Regardless of 'how' it occurs, this does not have anything to do with whether or not it is moral. Why is homosexuality 'immoral'? I fail to see any way that this could be so that is not simply your religious belief, not an actual moral standard. "Additionally, if gay marriage gets legalized, who knows what logical argument would be defeated when we begin to legalize pedophilia, bestiality, and incest in the future." Slippery slope fallacy. Ridiculous. Homosexuality is not even in the same 'ball park' as those things. Homosexuality is between consenting adults, same as heterosexuality. The other things you have listed are by definition non-consensual, thus illegal and immoral. Please explain to me how homosexuality is in any way related to those things. Also explain how this is an argument against homosexuality itself, and not simply those other things.
ESocialBookworm says2014-03-07T18:16:40.4252796-06:00
Https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=4fmPWa7gL8k
ESocialBookworm says2014-03-07T18:17:04.7295497-06:00
^^ wrong link
Juris says2014-03-31T01:00:34.1798489-05:00
Same-sex marriage should be allowed. F*cking church does not respect the principle of separation of church and state. Also, the definition of marriage that it allows only man and woman to marry is so traditional and jurassic. Same-Sex marriage is not allowed primarily because that Fiction book called "Bible" prohibits it, but it allows instead slavery, torture, death penalty, racism, and other evil doings.
WetLoveBacker says2014-04-18T15:15:06.3047726-05:00
I just think that sexual orientation should be covered under equal rights, and kids and marriage is a part of that. Research shows that gay parents are just as likely to be good parents. http://capbls.ly/1mhYRhR
0pini0nAL says2014-04-19T20:39:07.1761295-05:00
The one thing I would like to see is bible preaching patrons please use relevant facts. Give numbers and statistics as to why gay marriage is bad. Please don't say God said so because frankly he didnt, one of his disciples said he did. I feel, in my opinion, the Bible was written and rewritten to suite the needs of the rich and powerful at the time of its early existence to coerce the masses into picking a side to gain power. Thumpers are so quick to put down homosexuals but can't follow any of the other rules the bible has to deem them a pass to heaven. God said don't judge, so why are you judging? And for the legal side of it, unfortunately for many reasons the government has to be involved in marriages. It makes someone else liable for their spouse, legally, whether it be through death, inheritance, insurance etc. At the current state I'm not on the government should side but for legal reasons they should iron out this matter.
logan97 says2014-04-27T20:38:15.4955582-05:00
I believe I am one of the very few Christians who believe that gay marriage should be legal because I believe in freedom and freedom for all, also I think Christians seem to forget that God loves everyone not just Christians, I may not be the same but they deserve to be free and as a free country we are entitled to give them those freedoms.
AnonymousAthiest says2014-11-10T12:04:11.0642671-06:00
Says some holy book written 2000 years ago by a few guys who where "no smarter than the average bear". Homosexuality was originally hated by religion because religion was made to protect people originally, and homosexuality prevented reproduction. Now we have over 6 billion people on earth, so we don't have to worry about that anymore!
AwesomenessIsOnline says2015-03-03T13:53:18.6906489-06:00
If it should be illegal to love someone who's a human being whether the same or opposite gender or even support anyone who does, then I'd gladly accept the punishment
Thescarecrow066 says2015-03-16T20:10:59.8209627-05:00
Explain to me why men and women are marrying each other? Children arn't allowed to marry yet where allowing two men? Wow and I now I know why everyone say why america is now a cess pool of nothing but greed and corruption and what used to be such a mighty state had now fallen to such a evil that this state thinks and acts as its god. I probably opened the eyes of some by my commet but let it be wake up america is becoming worse and worse every day pretty soon we will have little boys marrying other little boys. Wake up America
Chrisdz says2015-04-27T20:45:32.9276917-05:00
Yes, your religious beliefs have no effect on whether or not two people should be married. It is their choice, and forbidding them is harming their freedom
Thescarecrow066 says2015-04-27T20:49:49.5041811-05:00
In my corrections America never really has been free.
Davdanther says2015-05-02T12:20:28.6082978-05:00
Getting angry at Gay Marriage is like getting angry at someone for eating a doughnut, when you are on a diet...
mwesigwa1 says2015-05-05T18:02:41.8735831-05:00
If marriage is about love, not gender, who's to say that it can't be between multiple people, siblings, or a human and an animal?
TheBlackBeret says2015-08-10T02:39:02.3355839Z
I think that civil unions would be an ok compromise. Libtards can have their immoral partnerships registered in Washington, and religious weirdos can keep their traditional definition.
savalisk says2017-09-15T05:10:31.2334771Z
With the amount of people not wanting to get married or seeing marriage as pointless, is there a point in allowing same sex couples to enter into a contract of marriage? People seem quite happy to live together and call each other their "partner" rather than rush in to put a label on themselves. Legalizing same sex marriage isn't really the correct term, it's not illegal, just not recognized.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.