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.

Reply to this opinion
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
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Apr 27, 2015

Since the government is conferring a legal status and benefits & privileges to the "marriage", it *is* the government's concern.

If you want government out of the institution of marriage, simply remove all legal recognition of it and let the churches run it. If we want religious discrimination out of it and legal benefits/rights to be concerned, we ought to split it up into different arrangements: one for religious purposes, and one for legal. Churches will be able to deny "marriage" to whomever they want for whatever reasons they want, but they will be unable to confer any legally binding status. People that want the legal status can enter into a "legal union" for all the benefits, status, and disentanglement issues - but they get zero recognition from any church. If some party wants both, they have to sign up for both. Neither party steps on the others toes: churches get out of the legal rights business, government gets out of the religious support and discrimination business, and everyone that counts can be happy.

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

You are clinging to the definition of a marriage. We live in XXI century. Times have changed and so should the definition of a marriage.

   What people do in the sanctity of their homes is their business.

Yes, you're right, but... Gay couples should have the right to spousal inheritance. Some regulations are needed. Sure, we can change the word. We can call it "civil union" or "registered partnership" or whatever... But wouldn’t it be a discrimination? It's a separate status unequal to marriage.

   "Marriage in the United States is a civil union; but a civil union, as it has come to be called,
   is not marriage"

Evan Wolfson

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

While I appreciate your acceptance of those who identify as LGBT, I am concerned with your view of marriage as a tool for "procreation." People simply do not need to be married to procreate--it may be a more ideal setup for some, but it is not a necessity.

Now, what if a man and woman love each other and want to marry, but one of them is infertile and cannot reproduce? Should they not be allowed to marry because they cannot have children? What if they simply don't want children?

Besides, LGBT individuals can and do reproduce--they just don't do it in the "traditional" way.

To me, marriage is a legal bond between two consenting adults who love each other. People get married because they want to have the experience of being a bride or a groom, and they want to have that special bond that only married couples do. Children have nothing to do with it.

subscribe
::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
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
1 vote,
Sep 29, 2015

No, it really wasn't founded on the Bible. It was founded on a desire to evade taxes without representation (and they did sort of have representation, by the way), a desire for free trade, and a general unpleasantness towards the divide between middle and upper classes.

Recently. I've been reading A People's History of the United States, by historian Howard Zinn. According to Zinn, this country wasn't even based off of that. It was instead based off of a desire for American elites to gain power and control (almost all of our founding fathers were fairly well off), and to redirect the discontent of the lower classes away from themselves (where it originally lay; lower classes actually sided with the British against the American upper class) and towards the British by using flowery Enlightenment language, convincing them to do all the fighting and dying for them.

Even the philosopher who had arguably the largest impact on our country's ideas, John Locke, was a, for lack of a better word, elitist pig. His language about rights and government he meant only to apply to slave-owning upper classmen, and he actively advocated for young children of lower class families to be taken out of school and put to work as soon as possible.

I love our country today, but let's be honest. It's founding was terrible.

Oh, and had nothing to do with the Bible.

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