Do you think gay people should have the right to marry?
I personally believe so, but i would like to hear contrasting opinions from others.
| Yes | 143 | |
| No | 28 | |
| It depends (comment) | 8 |
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[
Report Post
]
Comments ( 64
)
-
Jakcam
I have not heard one logical argument to this day on why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
dappled
I'd like to meet people who say people shouldn't marry because of the offence it causes to people who aren't even part of the wedding which seemingly causes offence.
I'd like to know why love causes such offence.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
nightmare28
Let them marry, divorce, lawyers, one walks away with the house and the car, other with alimony to pay, who cares, its their personal business. I just hope that once they get equal rights, they will stop with those parades.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Anime7
-
[Old Memory]
No. Im not anti gay and im not religious, but i don't think it's right to change an institution founded by a religion thats against gays. You don't force white nationalists to accept blacks do you? It's not right at all. They should just call it something else, but not "marriage" When i see people going "they're people too" and "they're equals" i think they're missing the point because it's not about that. The church has a problem with it because it infringes on their beliefs. People say there's no reason why they can't, well i've never heard one reason good enough to violate a religion.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
Terranaut
This is simply a claim that religion has more of a right to have everyone adhere to its beliefs than gays have the right to live free of discrimination.
I don't buy it for a second.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
[Old Memory]
No it doesn't mean adhere to them at all it means leave them alone. It has nothing to do with discrimination in the first place. The institution is presided over by the church, so it's simply a case of gays minding their own business. They are infact discriminating against themselves by trying to be part of an institution that hates them. EVERY religion has the right to stick to it's beliefs and not have them changed by outsiders! Way more right than gays have to just but in on something that isn't theirs just to prove a point, i mean they don't need to be married to make a commitment to each other. Just like feminism they always want to be so hard done by but they aren't. Gays were accepted years ago, no more feeling sorry for them as it's time to grow up and realise not everyone can have or do anything they want "just because". The day the whole world becomes politically correct is the day all ethics and order go out the window!
I mean it's sort of like you wouldn't rewrite the bible or the Qur'an just to make someone happy would you?
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
iEatZombies_
As the United States is a country, not a religion, it should be -legal- for them to marry. A church, which is based on religious beliefs, should be -legally allowed- to state that they, as a church, will not marry same sexes, if it violates their own beliefs. As a political matter, marriage is a legally binding contract and should be handled as such. It is unethical to state two people of the same gender cannot sign a legally binding contract.
No person should be left out of a legal matter based on discriminative properties.Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
Captain_Kegstand
The government preventing gay marriage for religious purposes is unconstitutional. Remember that little line in there about the separation of church and state? Apart from religion I have not seen one other valid reason that gays shouldn't marry.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
[Old Memory]
What came first, the constitution or the church?
I get what you're saying but is there a good enough reason that they can marry?
Why don't they just call it something else and just not use the term "married" then everyones happy and there's nothing the church can argue about. But no they want to but in on it, thats what pisses me off, the fucking with someones religion just to make others happy. I see it as far more immoral than keeping marriage between a man and a woman. It opens the gateway for peoples beliefs to be trampled on.Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
lop_of_h
Okay so your argument against gay marriage is that it's religious, and thus if you are against the religion then you can't marry?
Promising to be with someone for the rest of your life (basically a marriage) is found in many religions not just Christianity some of which accept gays, what if they want a marriage by that religion.
Marriage is something many people do even if they aren't religious and the church has no say in that, why do they get to change the rights of gays?
Some Christian churches would permit a gay marriage; but the GOVERNMENT is stopping them.
AND being gay is less of a choice then a religion, so you say that protecting the rights of a choice is more important then protecting the rights of something you are born?
and those are my problems with your argument
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
[Old Memory]
My argument is out of respect for a 2000 year old tradition much bigger and more important than a few gay people who want to wear a ring.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
lop_of_h
then don't force the Christians to allow it, but force the government to give gays the same rights as any married couple if they are willing to dedicate themselves like one.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
[Old Memory]
That makes no sense and would be contradictory to my argument. Christians don't allow it, and it is that tradition i support. Non religious people are the ones supporting the gays because they don't give two shits about what they're destroying as they don't believe in it.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
lop_of_h
Not every marriage is under Christianity. I say the government should allow people to be wed under any religion that will allow them; and then have the same rights and benefits that all married people have. Such as insurance benefits that are only given to married couples, if two people are dedicated to each other for years and one of them passes away the one still living should get the life insurance money. and if they live together and one is dependant on the other to live and they break up they should get similar things to divorce benefits. These are the things gays are fighting for, the equal benefits that straight couples can have, because in some places if your partner dies you get nothing, if you break up they can take what they want unless both your names is on it.
Oh and just a note, I go to a Christian church and my minister supports gay marriage, there are thousands of other churches just like ours who would preform a gay marriage if requested, but some are in places where gay marriage is illegal and if they want to preform the marriage they should be alloud
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
-
-
poof!gone122
But, since America supposedly has no official religion, your argument is invalid. Constitutionally, we have the right to follow our own religion as we please. And many religious beliefs see homosexuality as not a sin, so why do it for one side and not the other?
Your argument is invalid and unfair.Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
[Old Memory]
Very true. But because the religion that founded marriage happens to be one of those religions that DOES think it's a sin, your argument is invalid.
The Constitution has nothing to do with this debate, you americans do realise that it doesn't exist outside of america right? This is a world wide issue. It has NO POWER ANYWHERE in the world so how is it relevant to this world debate?
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
An_Unlikely_Subject
That's funny, especially since one of the chief concepts the US government was founded on is separation of church and state.
"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." - Thomas Jefferson
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Seeing as legalizing gay marriage does not prohibit any religions that I can think of off the top of my head, I am unable to fathom why it's still up for debate. Religions can deny it in their churches, sure, but that shouldn't stop the government from giving it the "go ahead."
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
[Old Memory]
Thomas Jefferson? US government? First Amendment? They weren't around when the church and marriage were founded. Your destroying a 2000 year old tradition and law by supporting this, just so some gays can put a ring on their finger? It's just self indulgence on behalf of the gay population.
I mean if a gay couple are married i don't see how you could look at that ring and not realise where it comes from. They should forget about marriage and save some self respect.Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
poof!gone122
98.73645% of these comments against gay marriage are the dumbest things i think i have ever heard in my life. -_-
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Captain_Kegstand
I challenge anybody to try and give me a valid reason that gay people shouldn't enjoy the exact same rights as any of you and I. Gays should be able to marry, share insurance, adopt children, and every other right that we are promised as Americans. (I don't really know the situation of gay rights in the rest of the world so I cannot offer a valid opinion outside of the US)
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Glass
My idea, marriage should be taken it completely off the law list and replaced as Registered Civil Union, make it applicable to anyone and everyone, and give it the exact same benefits as a married couple would get today. And there we go, marriage is no longer idiotically dictated by the government, and people simply register that they're together to get the benefits. Whoever can be coupled with whoever, while still keeping equal rights for everyone, and at the same time it's still not going with the bad "separate but "equal"." route.
And then hooray, everyones happy. At least in theory.Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Justsomejerk
Yes but they have to marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage is the union of a man and woman by definition. It is not discriminatory as I as a straight male cannot marry a man either. I have no problem with same sex unions.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Straight couples who aren't religious or even don't believe in a God can get married, but it's not okay for a religious gay couple to?
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
bigtoy
-
suckonthis9
This exemplifies what is intrinsically wrong with our current society. We structure our laws mostly on rights. I think that we should have equal laws that are structured on responsibility. Do you think that gay people act responsibly if they marry, is a better question. Let the debate begin.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
Glass
Using that logic, straight people shouldn't be aloud to marry. Seeing as there are more straight people get into all forms of trouble than gay people.
Attatching responsibility to ones sexuality is a stupid idea. Being straight, gay or bi doesn't mean that you are immediatly more responsible than another. A system based on assumptions is a terrible system.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
suckonthis9
I agree with you that a system based on assumptions is a terrible system. We currently have many laws that make assumptions. For instance, drinking laws. The law assumes that you were a child the day before your birthday, and an adult the day after. The law assumes that you suddenly become responsible enough to drink alcohol responsibly, within 24 hours. Marriage licensing laws assume that the married persons are going to have children. How are gay people going to have children?
"Attatching responsibility to ones sexuality is a stupid idea". Are you actually suggesting that everyone should act sexually irresponsibly? That would mean that pedophilia, rape, incest, and polygamy would all be allowed. Not to mention, the rampant spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Heck, we can just use coat hangers for abortions and if you're against abortion, there's always a dumpster nearby.
There are more straight people that get into trouble than gay people. That's because gay people are a small percentage of the population. You need to use a per capita basis when analyzing statistics. You are correct that some straight people should not be allowed to marry, like brothers and sisters.Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
Glass
1st paragraph, I can (mostly) agree with. Though gays can adopt, just like anyone else can. And straight couples don't always have children either. So it does work both ways. Another thing, you yorself said that you don't agree with laws that make assumptions either, and I now don't understand your first post at all, because you seem to contradict what you just said with your own arguement.
Second paragraph is nonsense, utter nonsense. Where did I even HINT that people SHOULD act irresponsibly? What does rape have to do with whether someone is attracted to the same sex, or pedophilia, polygamy, or incest? Where did I ever mention abortion either? That statement was completely off the subject as well, and is just a blatant attempt at making me look bad. Please, quit pulling completely irrelevant things out of your ass, and actually present an arguement for me to analyze if your going to write me a paragraph, or some sort of valid statement. The only thing I said in that sentence you quoted was that assuming someone will act irresponsibly because they're gay, straight, or bi, is stupid. Nothing more. That whole paragraph might as well just not have been there, seeing as it helps your arguement none, and looks to be just an attempt at a smear job on me using things that have no correlation to the topic at hand.
Last paragraph, alright I'll think using your logic again, on a percentage basis, with another example. A good portion of people in prisons are black. Should we assume that since someone is black, they will commit more crimes than someone else, and limit the population's rights for that?
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
-
gloryholeflasher
For some groups, organizations, whatever, it's just inherently wrong to change the definition in order to allow others into the group. In my opinion boys do not belong in the Girl Scouts, girls do not belong in the Boy Scouts, whites don't belong in the Black Panthers, blacks don't belong in the Ku Klux Klan, and two people if the same gender don't belong in a marriage, because of the very definition of what a marriage is. Gays and Lesbians shouldn't be deprived of the same constitutional rights and privileges as other citizens, but that doesn't include changing the definition of an institution that's stood the test of time all over the world throughout recorded history.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
bubblebuster
If people were getting married for the right reasons, they wouldn't need the government's permission to do so, no matter how disgusting it is. If we didn't give the government this much power, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. If you want to be married, straight or disgusting, be married. By the way, if sex has no possibility of reproducing, then it is naturally not right. No matter what your public stance on this is, deep inside you know this is true. Consider your bubble busted.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
somebody23
It depends if they are really fay or idiots pretending for everyone to focus on them.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
izakthegoomba
Why is this such a big thing? It shouldn't need to be a cause for celebration when it looks like we may be moving towards equal rights. It should be a fucking embarrasment when we're NOT.
Also, Corleone makes a good point - there are MUCH bigger problems with the world. Gay marriage should not be this big a problem with the currant state of things.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Lynxikat
Here's my opinion, and I'm surprised I've encountered no one else who shares it:
If gays want to marry, fine, be my guest. HOWEVER, I also think that it's also the church's decisions whether or not they allow gays to marry at their specific church. If one church does not want to marry gays, then that's their right; you just have to find another one that is comfortable with marrying gays.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
800imawesome
Of course it should be legal. Gays are people just like us. Theyre humans, theyre caring, the only difference is that they love people of the same gender. Christians think its wrong because god says it is. Well I wouldnt waste my time listening to a big, old, dead, sky-dude who contradicts himself every two seconds, and defys logic and science. Besides, what if banning gay marriage is against your religon?
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
SimpleBlue
I think homosexual people SHOULD have the right to marry. It is almost like discrimination or racsism, the black person is the gay person. If gays want to marry, then that is their problem and their right. Yes it is against God's rule, but if they want to go against God's rule, then let them.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
sarahwinter
Married couples pay less on income tax. So if gays were allowed to marry, all the straight couples would have to pay more to balance it out. Do you really want to pay more on taxes just so that gay people can enjoy the same rights everyone else has?
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
NerdyChickFTW
I voted "It depends," because if they are marrying for lust or money, I disagree. I feel the same way about heterosexual couples, so don't think I'm a gay-basher. But if they are marrying because they are in love with each other, I think that is perfectly fine. (: God may have created us to procreate with the opposite sex, but you really can't help who you fall in love with.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
chewy
I don't see why not, too many people treat gays unfairly they are people too and they have feelings.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Corleone
If it's an extremely long text without any paragraphs or punctuation, the no. I won't read, and I won't vote either
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
Captain_Kegstand
-
-
dinz
I find the irony that a majority of people who find the government intrusive are quick to turn around and expects the government to jump thru hoops when it comes to such a topic.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
iEatZombies_
This is a typically open-minded site. You'll likely get open-minded answers. If you were hoping for open-minded, open-hearted people, you're on the right site. However, if you're looking for statistics, you'll have to ask a large variety of peoples.
As for my own view, Current public views on gays can be compared to previous public views on blacks. Our generations will be looked at with the same shame we look at recent past generations (1940's-60's) for virtually the same reasons.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
Sweetz
-
anti-hero
I don't think the government has the right to tell anyone what to do with their personal life. So I think they should be allowed to if they want.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
nobleserpent
I'm afraid I cannot approve of this.
Not because I dislike gay people but because I don't want them to go through the horrors of Divorce.
Jk. I support same-sex marriage. Love is a beautiful thing. :)
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
Captain_Kegstand
Lolz I thought you were kind of a dick there for a min. I'm glad you clarified this!
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
nobleserpent
It's an easy mistake to make. No foul. ;D
I think if People read my comments carefully and here me out, they'll see where I'm coming from.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-