20 opinions, 32 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
92
12 votes
Apr 27, 2015

This is infinitely simple : What is the government trying to do by having any kind of marriage status ? All the government needs to know, on any level be it federal, state or local, is if in terms of finical activity, you are acting as a single person or not.

The government should remove itself from the discussion of sexuality in terms of marriage because it is irrelevant to the government. Instead the only thing that needs to be known is if you are acting as a single person or jointly with another person. Marriage would qualify for joint legal status, as would civil unions, and civil unions should be accessible to everyone who wants to file for them. Through the legal status of civil union the government can get out of the way of the religious bigots who want to complain about the sanctity of marriage and the government can get on with handling the legal issues of people who are acting in their lives in a joint financial status for whatever damned reason they want to.

Gay or not, it doesn't matter. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. The point is how to legally handle a couple of people who want to act jointly in a financial capacity.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
67
main reply
3 votes,
Apr 27, 2015

The big problem is that the government grants many privileges to married people, for various reasons. There's significant tax benefits to being married, just for starters. This is likely done because the government sees marriage as something it needs to encourage for reasons of social stability, and also because it's not uncommon (even these days) for one partner to stay home and raise kids full-time while the other works. So if you're going to make a privilege available to people, it's not fair to restrict it based on a factor (sexual orientation) that people have no control over.

However, it's also not fair to restrict these benefits to only 2-person groupings, rather than larger groups. What if 3 or 4 adults want to be married and have a family together? Of course, 2-person marriage has been done a long time and the legal technicalities are fairly well worked-out by now. Adding more people into the mix would greatly complicate things, esp. with regard to taxation. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be done however.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Apr 27, 2015

Catering to Polygamy seems unnecessary on a Federal level considering how far out of the norm it is, states can handle what works best for their state.

Polygamy as a legal issue really shouldn't be lumped in with sexual orientation based discrimination, they are separate issues on a Federal level.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 27, 2015

Not really. Remember, the whole reason gay marriage had to become a Federal issue is because of the requirement that State must recognize marriages performed in other States (reciprocity). So what happens when 3 people get married in Oregon, then move to New York where they don't have such marriage? Or what if those 3 people travel to New York and one has an emergency and is hospitalized, and the others want to visit him or her?

As far as being "out of the norm", what difference does that make? Gay marriage isn't all that normal, even now, but people are recognizing it's an issue of fairness and equal rights. Plus, there's estimates that at least a half-million people are involved in polyamorous relationships nationwide, and the number is rising quickly with the Millenials.

Finally, I never mentioned polygamy, I'm talking about polyamory. "Polygamy" is a loaded term that implies Mormon-style patriarchal and religious relationships.

subscribe
load further replies (3)
Load more (5) in reply to Arizhel's post (The big problem is that the government grants many privileges to married people, for various reasons. There's significant tax benefits to being married, just for starters. This is likely done because...)
::unhide-discussion::
-3
main reply
3 votes,
Apr 27, 2015

I think heterosexual Marriage should be strictly regulated because of public health concerns

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 27, 2015

All sex carries health concerns regardless of sexual preference. But, to regulate sexuality is too intrusive. Individuals should be able to determine who they have sex with and how they intend to approach health issues as a result without the intrusion of regulation by the state.

subscribe
Load more (1) in reply to Bartleby's post (I think heterosexual Marriage should be strictly regulated because of public health concerns)
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
main reply
0 votes,
Oct 16, 2015

Being gay should be ok. If you make it not legal then that will be stupid. The government should not tell you who to marry if you're a boy marry a boy or girl it doesn't matter. Same with girls marry a boy or a girl it wouldn't matter

subscribe
75
16 votes
Apr 27, 2015

Yes, gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. No matter what personal or religious beliefs a person has about homosexuality, there is one thing that is incredibly important to remember - gay people are people. Homosexuals, human beings, only desire (and deserve) to have the rights that every other human on the planet has, and they are more than willing to take on the responsibilities that go along with them. They are not some sort of lower being that heterosexuals can claim to have the right to lord over and decide what is acceptable and lawful behavior for them. What does it say about our society that most animals have more rights than homosexuals do? Seriously, racists used to (and still do) spew forth some of the same nonsense in order to deny African Americans equal rights. So, bigots can go on making ridiculous arguments about the religious and moral implications of allowing gay marriage to be made legal; in the end, the truth is that there is no moral "slippery slope" or any other legit reason, anyone can give, that makes sense to deny this particular group of people their rights.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
55
main reply
11 votes,
Apr 27, 2015

I'm glad more people are getting closer to accepting gay marriage. There are few reasons for why it should be legal, but the most important thing is to remember, that you have to let other people live their lives as they wish.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
20
5 votes,
Apr 27, 2015

Respectfully,,.. what is there to accept ? No where in the US Constitution is the word marriage mentioned. It is not the Governments concern. What people do in the sanctity of their homes is their business. Having been raised in a very strict religious atmosphere, I was taught that " Marriage " was for procreation. No matter how hard you try, or how good you are, two mares will never produce a foal. That said, if two people care enuff for each other to commit to an eternal bond,...so be it. I just have a problem with it being regulated by the Gov`t. and being called a marriage. Call it anything you want, but marriage it is not. Discrimination against those who prefer an alternate life style is the problem, as is any form of discrimination.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 27, 2015

I was taught that " Marriage " was for procreation.

I was not taught this.

Unless you actually believe that a woman has entered menopause, or a man that has become impotent, or a person who was born sterile, or an individual who has chosen some form of contraception should be prohibited from being married -- I don't think you really hold that that is true. If you do -- we are simply going to have to disagree.

Respectfully, what I was taught as a child does not inform the law or what the law is. I'd be loathe if it were. If we're going to execute the law based solely on what any individual was taught as a child, we're going to have a bad time.

Also note that while the US Constitution may say nothing about marriage, the US Constitution does guarantee due process and equal protection under the laws -- laws that include the benefits accorded to individuals who enter into 'marriage.' If we're going to limit marriage to individuals in who, by your definition, should be actively procreating -- then we should do that across the board and also prohibit marriage for individuals who have chosen not to have children or simply cannot.

Unless you're willing to do that, it is simply not fair and, by the SCOTUS opinion, illegal to prohibit two individuals from enjoying the benefits of marriage based on their sexual preference.

subscribe
Load more (3) in reply to simplicimuss's post (Respectfully,,.. what is there to accept ? No where in the US Constitution is the word marriage mentioned. It is not the Governments concern. What people do in the sanctity of their homes is their bus...)
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Oct 16, 2015

I love that too.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
7 votes,
Apr 27, 2015

This country was founded on the very foundation of the bible. God says 1 man, 1 woman. Adam and eve, not adam and steve ! Being gay is a sick siin !

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
4 votes,
Apr 27, 2015

Sin is something you choose to do. Being gay is not something you can choose, so it is not a sin. I will remind something:

  • Thomas Jefferson once said: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man".
  • Ben Franklin said: "Lighthouses are more useful than churches", "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason" and "I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them".
  • John Adams said: "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it".
  • And last but not least - my favourite - Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession".
"This country was founded on the very foundation of the bible" - I think Founding Fathers would disagree with you on this.
subscribe
Load more (1) in reply to madbuckeye's post (This country was founded on the very foundation of the bible. God says 1 man, 1 woman. Adam and eve, not adam and steve ! Being gay is a sick siin !)
67
12 votes
Apr 27, 2015

I believe people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it is not harming anyone else. Although I think it is harmful to society as a whole, as a Christian, I am separate from society and its popular views. Why should I care so much?

Also, my faith is a choice. Christianity is a choice. If I force God's law onto other people who haven't even accepted Jesus, how is it a choice for them? All they're going to see in God is an angry, controlling ruler with a lightning bolt in one hand waiting to smite anyone who refuses to follow Him. Instead they need to see a gentle, loving God regardless of if people believe He exists. The idea itself is a good enough start, but others like me can't promote that while this country is bound by laws that only create further rebellion and hatred for my faith.

Gay marriage should be legal. Judgement isn't mine to bestow.

subscribe
64
11 votes
Apr 27, 2015

i dont really like gays, but that shouldnt be an excuse to have someone's freedom cut.

it should be legal

subscribe
100
4 votes
Apr 27, 2015

I'm married (typical heterosexual marriage sanctioned by a church and the county. We have no children. There will be no children in this union. If a marriage is solely for procreation and the raising of children, does that make my union an abomination in the eyes of God? Of his disciples? Of his followers? The bible is largely silent on this nuance.

It seems that the argument for or against gay marriage is largely lined up with secular vs religious. The religious argument is that the bible is against homosexuality.

Is it such sin (homosexuality) that having a concubine isn't sinful, that giving her to men so they may know her to spare a homosexual relationship with a son isn't a sin, that cutting her into 12 pieces afterwards isn't a sin. Judges 19

subscribe
100
3 votes
Apr 27, 2015

Absolutely!

Where do others get off thinking it's any of their business? (rhetorical question; I know the majority of them are acting on religious fantasy)

subscribe
100
1 vote
Apr 27, 2015

Im only 14 year old but like the same sex as I am. And im really happy that i live in Germany, meaning I dont have to worry that I maybe live in a state in US where gay-marriage is illegal.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Jun 15, 2015

Of course, it should be legal, because that's just who they're attracted to and want to be married to. If straight marriage is legal (which, last time I checked, it was), Then gay marriage should be legal, too.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Aug 9, 2015

Marriage is no longer associated with sex in society. We live in a society, where divorce, adultery, pre-martial sex, and infidelity aren't legally acceptable. To say that marriage as far as the government is concerned is a sacred union is no longer accurate. As such, it is simply a legal contract between two people, and the right to make just contracts of private individuals cannot infringed upon. Homosexuals will be homosexual regardless if you allow them to marry or not. Giving them the right to form a legal bond is only giving them rights that deserve as humans. Perhaps if our society agreed to not have sex outside of marriage, then you could argue otherwise. But given the nature of marriage in our society, it is unjust to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

subscribe
100
User voted Yes.
1 vote
May 9, 2016

The only reason this is even a debate is because of religion. This is a matter of personal freedom ergo it should not even be a debate. If a man wants to be with another man and vice versa for woman, who are YOU to question that. Politics and religion should be kept far, far away from each other. Religion (particularly Islam, Christianity and Catholicism) has absolutely no concrete facts for any of its beliefs and it makes absolutely no sense to fight legalization of homosexual marriage. The bible and/or Quran is not factual. It is senseless and mindless to attack a human right because a story-book told you to.

subscribe
12
17 votes
Apr 27, 2015

No, I don't think it should be allowed. Look all the way back in history where one man and one woman were the requirement for a marriage. What has happened in this age to make us question the wisdom of that? The fact that homosexuals are out of the closet and demanding rights that historically have not been granted to them? What is different now that gay marriage should be entertained?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 27, 2015

> What has happened in this age to make us question the wisdom of that?

I'm more interested in hearing why you think there is any wisdom in it.

> What is different now that gay marriage should be entertained?

We have invented the concepts of liberty, human rights and democracy. That's what's different.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 27, 2015

Interestingly enough, exactly that same argument was used to justify slavery.

Everyone has always done it, so it must be right !
And it allows for it in the Bible, so it must be right.
What is different now that makes slavery so wrong?

And the simple answer is that society has started to grow up, and decided that it is more fair, and just, to allow everyone to be treated equally, no matter their color, or race, or religion, or gender.
And just because society has discriminated against gays (of both sexes) for millennia, doesn't make it right, in the same way that allowing slavery for millennia didn't make it right.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 27, 2015

>What has happened in this age to make us question the wisdom of that? The fact that homosexuals are out of the closet and demanding rights that historically have not been granted to them?

Well, yeah. Why would this be a bad thing?

subscribe
33
3 votes
Apr 27, 2015

Same sex marriage is a basic right. It seems almost silly to say that discrimination is stupid, expensive and wrong. Having said this, I would like you to consider the impact of narrowing down all LGTB rights to just this one, missing the opportunity to understand which institutions challenge power dynamics that constitute our reality nowadays. Marriage is a contract between two individuals, it is an institution with a long history of power imbalance for women that creates a masculinity based on bread-winning. Also, marriage is about taking care of property, inheritance and privilege. Easily we can come up with examples in which people use marriage in a different way, such as helping immigrants to get visas, taking care of intimate friends with poor health, etc. Subverting the privilege narrative imbedded in the marriage contract. Simple debates (pro/con) over marriage leads to poor judgement, so i envite you to have an intersectional, feminist and queer analysis of marriage

subscribe
33
3 votes
Apr 27, 2015

I voted no, simply because I don't see a need for it. It's not part of the homosexual life style and seems to only be about sticking it to the status quo. There are psychological reasons for it and equally against it. I think if we accept it publicly in this sense then what's next. The only valid reason I can argue it with little conflict is to compare it to incestuous marriages, yet not one homosexual advocate will argue for the rights of incestuous couples, not even incestuous homosexual relationships. I don't care about the argument who can breed or not, it's irrelevant. And in most cultures what we consider pedophilia is legal in some countries, so it's cultural and not abnormal in nature. I don't care what other animals do to survive or to masturbate or why they rape. I also voted no because heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals, it's important to us/me that we retain a sense of gender roles for psychologically healthy children, and no I'm sorry but homosexuals will just have to sacrifice them selves, to fee like the outcast, that they some how don't belong.. because quite frankly you don't. My answer isn't about ignorance, bigotry or malice of any kind. It's simply for the mental health of our children. They have enough to figure out without one more obscure sexual fetish to ponder. I'd rather the FEW homosexuals growing up to be confused about their sexual identity then every single heterosexual. Has anyone thought about the suicide rates of those who can't figure out they are gay, and what effect that would be on heterosexual children if they feel they are not gay. What if these roles were reversed?... No one likes to be the outcast and I have no doubt children will mimic homosexual behavior just to fit in, be a part of something if the acceptance of it grows. There is talk already about homosexual advocates wanting to Black List anyone who doesn't support homosexuality from jobs and college. If that isn't a social ill then what is....

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
main reply
0 votes,
May 9, 2016

This is a matter of personal freedom. YOU have no right to deny them the right to marry

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
May 15, 2016

That's how you see it, I see it as a mental disease so your inquiry is moot point.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
May 15, 2016
subscribe
-4
4 votes
Apr 27, 2015

No it should not be legal.
If we legalise gay marriage this opens the door to other types of official unions within the United States. Soon people will be marrying their dogs and we will have opened the door to beastality, sex between man and animal. Then there will be half-man half-dog people walking our streets at night preying on innocent white children and robbing the pet stores for treats. I predict that following that there will be a mass uprising by the dog-man mutants where they will overthrow the human race and take over our planet with the help of Hillary Clinton and other Neo-Nazi sympathisers. DO YOU WANT THIS AMERICA?!?!? DO YOU?

Additionally gay marriage is not natural, real Americans always reject unnatural things such as polyester and air conditioning. Now I am a proud American father of 8 and my wife and I have definitely experienced a drop in our level of marriage felt since the homo-sexualisers started getting married. Gay marriage is already damaging the sanctity of our wonderful Christian nation and I find it disgusting how it is allowed to occur.
Furthermore my second eldest son, Christopher, was diagnosed to our horror with the homo-sexualisers virus last year. We managed to get him help from our local church and community and now he is 100% straight again, praise The Lord.

For all the atheists out there who believe in gay marriage let me ask you this:

If god truly loves homosexualisers then why does he hate them in the bibles?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
main reply
1 vote,
May 9, 2016

This is truly the most mindless and baseless opinion I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Problems: If people marry their dog, what impact does it have on you The percentage of the American population that would marry their dogs is likely below 1% People are already having sex with animals Cross species breeding is impossible Hilary Clinton is already running for the presidency and does not seem to have a bad platform Neo-Nazi's have never been prominent or a majority in the U.S.A. I-Phones are more unnatural then homo-sexuality Homo-sexuality could not have had an impact on your marriage unless one of you two are cheating on each other Homo-sexuality is not a virus you imbecile There is no evidence that a "god" exists in fact there is significant evidence that "god" does not exist godisimaginary.com/ Religion is not factual. The Bible is a story-book

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Apr 27, 2015

The real question is, "Why is the Government involved in marriage at all?"

Really, why? What reason does the government have in saying who's married or who's not?

I'm sure people can figure out how to make babies without the government. People can figure out how to live together without the government. What reason do they have?

With a few minor changes in existing programs and laws,(for example everyone would have to file their own taxes and if they didn't work at all they could assign their deduction to someone else) the government would be out of the marriage business, then it would become a church thing and you'd be free to "marry" anyone or any number of people you want.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
May 1, 2015

I hate it when people say that gay marriage is against the bible, they can't back up their bloody opinion. What i think is that people now a days are scared of change, of letting gay marriage. I believe there should not be a restriction on love.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
May 3, 2015

As has been stated many times before me, gay people have just as much right to the misery and intolerable cruelty of marriage as anyone else.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Jul 20, 2015

I see no reason not to other than religion and sexist arguments (women are nurturing and men are disciplinary, etc.), so of course not.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Aug 2, 2016

I don't see why not, why should gay love get any different treatment than straight love?

subscribe
0
0 votes
Aug 3, 2016

I don't see such a big reasons to say "no". They even could be much more good parents then many of us.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: