same sex marriages, who's in favor?
551910
Well its not really "marriage" is it.\n\nMarriage is recognised by God as a man and a woman.\n\nI think if two people want to spend the rest of their lives together, and they are gay.  Feel free, but its not natural so dont parade it around in front of others.
953253
You can't make decisions based on if you know someone involved or not.  You have to be empathetic or not to gay marriage regardless.  If one of your family members is gay, that doesn't change whether it is right or not for gays to be married.
408956
I dont think it should matter to others when two people of the same sex want to get married. I mean, its not harming them in any way, shape, or form. Why do they have to be in someone elses business and stop someone else from being happy. Just because you arent happy with your life, you shouldnt throw around complaints about what others are doing with theirs, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. \nReligious people who said "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" need to open their eyes. Society is changing. People are changing. They aren't changing in a way that they are becoming gay, it's just that people are having more courage to come out of the closet because society is slowly becoming more accepting (more or less, except for those who are still prejudice). There have always been gay people and there always will be. Why are we tormenting them just because they are different? Is it right to torment someone because of their race? their ethnicity? their culture? their age? their religion?\nNO, its wrong to do that! It's wrong to point out a certain group of people and shun them for their preferences. Denying them the right to marry who they love is denying them the right to happiness.\nIn the Declaration of Independance, it clearly states that we are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" but with the government banning same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians are denied that right. They are denied the right to the "pursuit of happiness" because they are shun and belittled for being who they are. \n\nThere have been studies on this. It is proven that homosexuality is not something people CHOOSE to be, it's something that they are born with... something that they cant help. Don't tell me its bullsh*t because it has been proven and unless you give me SCIENTIFIC facts that proves otherwise, this is my belief. AND PLEASE DO NOT USE THE BIBLE AS A SOURCE TO TRY TO PROVE ME WRONG. The bible is entirely too religious for me. I am agnostic. I do not know what the bible says (except for the outline that homosexuality is a sin) and I really don't care what it says. You want to know why? IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A BUNCH OF NON-FACTUAL PIECES OF BIASED OPINIONS AND STORIES. I don't care for stories and I may listen to those opinions, but I do not agree with them.\nI have my own opinion and you may not agree with them, but at least I'm not teaching you to discriminate on anyone. You cannot and should not shun people for being who they are. This type of discrimination is unjust, it is unfair to the homosexuals and bisexuals, and it is just plain wrong.\nYou may think that homosexuality is wrong, but I think that homosexuality being discriminated upon is wrong.\n\nYou people have to open your eyes...
972744
You can read all about this issue here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_South_Africa
149141
Totally against it. Where does one stop in the changing of the meaning of marriage. If gays can have the right to marry, why not brothers and sisters? Why not be able to have two wives? Four wives? Why not be able to marry a 7 year old? Why not be able to marry a dead person? Why not an animal? Where does it stop once you begin the trek down that slippery slope?\n\nMarriage is a sacred rite derived from religion. I know you liberal secularists hate to hear that, but it is true. Most religions define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.\n\nJust one man's opinion.
428820
I beleive that if the supreme court decides, (not sure about the NEW supreme court or future) they would choose FOR same sex marriages. Popularity isn't the issue here. Honestly coast to coast right now if people voted in a private booth for or against civil rights, sadly I don't think our country would choose it. It ws decided because it was the right thing, dispite the prejudiceness of the country. Straight marriages are not going to crumble because of it. It would remove one argument of gay sin as sex -when married. It would give us equal rights (no special rights) for property and visitation (upon sick or dying) and the other 1700 rights and privilages given straight married couple automatically imposed or implied when legally married. I beleive I'll see the day. At least the hope of it keeps me going and the faith in our legal system.
462290
The arguments against are usually religiously based or 'traditions' based (it's never been done, it isn't how it has been done, why should we do it now is the 'tradition' type argument).\n\nThose favoring same-sex marriage make a very important distinction. Civil marriage versus Religious marriage. With the traditions argument it almost always comes down to the imagery of a man and woman walking down the aisle of a church with a reverend, etc at the front...the bride in white and the men in tuxedos. That's the tradition (never mind that other religious groups' religious marriage ceremonies are completely different). Thus for the 'traditions' argument, it is based upon 'religious' marriage and most of the tradition arguments start going into religious arguments.\n\nThe point being distinctive here is that there is, actually, two forms of marriage.\nCivil marriage : a legal binding contract instituted and regulated by government that contains certain benefits as well as certain restrictions to those that choose to enter into this contract.\nReligious marriage : a spiritual union done in the eyes of the divine for blessings, etc. it also is a contract between the couple entering into the arrangement and their religious institution. the religious institution then provides certain benefits and restrictions within its sphere of influence.\n\nWhat the people arguing for same-sex marriage are talking about is civil marriage. Advocates of same-sex marriage in now way want to infringe upon the rights of religious institutions to regulate and maintain their religious marriage regulations, rules, etc. However, because homosexuals pay taxes, not to a religious institution but to the government, and these taxes are often what is used to help provide the benefits of marriage, and that the civil marriage also holds government/civil protections...same-sex marriage advocates are asking for civil marriage...the marriage regulated by government.\n\nYou have to pay close attention to the arguments, because both are equally valid. Certainly the government has no right to impose upon any religious institution the requirement of performing a marriage it does not condone....but the government does not regulate religious marriage...it only regulates civil marriage. And people aren't necessarily talking about changing the 'tradition' of marriage, they simply want to include more people into the civil marriage aspect. The traditions of the ceremony and the deeper meanings are regulated by religious institutions. And if we are arguing that for religious reasons same-sex marriage must be denied...then are we not violated the rights of the religious institutions that allow same-sex marriage? Again, though, the distinction being made is that what is being asked of the government is CIVIL MARRIAGE and not religious marriage. Many of the religious institutions that allow same-sex marriages already provide their members with religious marriage....the argument is about the government and whether or not people who are part of this nation and pay their taxes, that all couples...all unions between two consenting adults...be accepted in civil marriage laws. \n\nAgain, the argument is not to force religious groups to recognize anything or to do anything that violates their religion...it merely requests that the government not favor any religion and recognize all of its citizens.
1035552
I totally support same sex civil unions.  I believe all people should be viewed as equal, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
937742
In all seriousness, I know a lot of gay people that believe marriage is meant for man and woman, but believe they should at least have a civil union. they both contribute to each other except of course the reproductive aspect.
1068992
I personally think it is silly to want the state involved in any marriage either straight or gay. Marriage is a formal ceremony stating your intentions before God it is a travesty and an abomination to invite the state to take part in such a union. I have a marriage license but only because my minister required it. I think if I was to get married now I would find a minister who would agree to do it with out the states intrusion. Regardless of if I was marrying a man or a woman. Although as a bisexual I don't think I would ever get married again.
127996
This debate has clarified for me that the government shouldn't really be in the marriage business.  Let the churches perform marriages for whomever they think fit, and let the government simply record the marraiges or civil unions and grant equal rights to them all.  As for plural "marriages,"  they exist, but there is not a sizable part of the population which supports them.  That is a different debate for another day, and the issues are quite different.  In my mind, the purpose of marriage or civil union is to provide support to individuals, especially when they are raising children.  Some of the most monogamous couples I know are gay, and they are some of the best parents too.
747548
I don't know if marriage is a basic human right.  Living with dignity, access to clean water and decent food, those seem like human rights.\n\nMarriage is a convenient financial arrangement.  For that reason I think legal unions between gays should be allowed.  Right now a partner cannot be "next of kin" if the other is in the hospital.  Most employers and states don't recognize a partner as a beneficiary or a dependent for insurance.  Gay couples should have the same rights for this.  \n\nFor the people who are against it, I am not sure why.  It really doesn't affect them.  I also don't get why gays are barred from adopting children.  Is a kid better off bouncing around from group home or foster home to foster home?  Don't you think that kid would choose a stable loving household over institutional care?
833313
The Christian point of view varies, though fundamentalists won't tell you that.  My Church supports gay marriage, so do many others. \n\nThe gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.\n\nOne of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.\n\nOf course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.\n\nOn the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faith, which says it is ok to marry same sex couples?\n\nThe first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.\n\nEveryone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com\n\nPS In response to the person who answered directly above my answer.  Your answer is meaningless of course, if the Bible is not really divine and not the central foundation of Christianity.\n\nThe canon of the Bible was not formalized until the Council of Carthage -- when it affirmed a resolution of the synod of Hippo recognizing a group of books drawn together and claimed as divine by Bishop Anathasius.  Anathasius did not even coin the word canon until 327  and the Council of Carthage did not formalize the list approved by Hippo until the 390s, and then sent it on to "the Church across the sea" (Rome) for the Pope's approval.\n\nThere are no full copies of what is now considered scripture until the 4th century.  There are two copies from the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) together with hundreds of manuscript fragments of various forms (Papyrus and Vellum Manuscripts and Vellum Palimpsests).  Overall there are over 5000 copies of at least part of the present canonical Bible that are from the sixth century or earlier.  These range from a few verses to whole books, to Bibles that were read in churches.  According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost experts in the world on Textual criticism and Textual reconstruction, those manuscripts have between them at least 200,000 differences.  Some of those differences are minor, or meaningless -- but some are very important and would change core Christian doctrines like the Virgin birth
392945
I have nothing against same-sex marriages. I think it's really stupid how the government is not allowing it in the US. We have the freedom of religion. Wouldn't that mean that we have the freedom to choose what sex our marriage partner is? This topic is purely religious, and what happened to "seperation of church and state"? For the land of the free, there are a lot of useless things restricting our freedom.
476011
According to Justice Scalia, the legal arguments used in favor of same-sex marriages apply equally to polygamous marriages. Personally, I think we could solve both arguments by getting the government completely out of the business of telling you with whom you are allowed to form relationships. Whoever came up with the idea that you had to ask the government for permission to get married? I'll tell you: Churches wanted more political power in Europe, and bigots wanted to keep blacks from marrying whites in America. Without those two "honorable" traditions, we would all still have freedom of marriage. Polygamy has a longer history in almost every culture in the world, including English and Native American, than monogamy has. If consenting adults are free to marry someone of the same gender (which is clearly contrary to almost all human tradition), then they must also be free to marry two other consenting adults of the opposite gender (which is clearly supported by most human tradition).
1085187
No, I don't think homosexuals should have equal rights.  I don't support gay marriage, or homosexuality in general.  It confuses our children and has a negative impact on society.  If God wanted two men or two women to be together, he wouldn't have given men a penis and women a vagina.  I'm a firm believer that nobody is born gay, but is either raised or decides to be gay.  So I think it is something you can control and if you make the decision to be gay, you shouldn't be demanding equal rights.
1109745
first off, the law should allow homosexual couples to get married   \n\ni think a marraige service should be offered by the government in the case that a church refuses to marry a homosexual couple.  everyone deserves the benifits (misery) of marriage.\n\ni think the church should be more accepting because isnt that what they stand for?  love and happiness?  does it really matter in what form that happiness and love come in?\n\n and if the church wont marry them then a government sponsered program can do it for them.  thats just how i think...fair and equal.