How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage?

[Margot]

For some people it's very similar to the interracial marriage crisis of the post ww2 and post civil rights era. My 91 year old grandmother cannot stand the idea of 'mixed blood' in a marriage. My parents and my uncles are completely for interracial marriage because they grew up in an era where it was widely accepted and tbh they couldn't care less.

In contrast, those same parents and relatives are adamantly against gay marriage. My generation is not.

I think, to some extent, that the issue of gay marriage is going to be a byproduct of 'it gets better' because, as morbid as it is, the opponents will age out or die out and the numbers for will be greater than the numbers against.

This 100% My grandparents were against interracial marriages and my parents ARE in one, but there's always going to be that one group that is looked upon as wrong. First it was interracial marriages and now that it's more widely accepted, gay marriage is taking the heat.

I don't get why people who are extremely against it are like "this is going to ruin our country and we'll fall to pieces because the sanctity of marriage is beind destroyed"! Well, the counties that DO leagalize gay marriage seem to be doing just fine imo, they're still there in one piece. I also agree when people say that people who abuse their spouses, get drunk and marry someone they've known for an hour, and get re-married seven times have already ruined the sanctity of "till death do us part".

It's just sad that people are denied the rights to be there for the person they love in times of medical crisis just because they're not "of kin". I read a book/memoir by the creator of the It Gets Better Project and he mentioned that he wasn't even allowed to pick up his dog from the vet because his boyfriend was the one who dropped the dog off and only a family member or wife could pick up the dog even though he had payed for the dog and everything.

It just sucks some people are so against other people for LOVING each other.

 

[Mika]

I don't get why people who are extremely against it are like "this is going to ruin our country and we'll fall to pieces because the sanctity of marriage is beind destroyed"! Well, the counties that DO leagalize gay marriage seem to be doing just fine imo, they're still there in one piece. I also agree when people say that people who abuse their spouses, get drunk and marry someone they've known for an hour, and get re-married seven times have already ruined the sanctity of "till death do us part".

You used to not be able to get out of a Marriage. People went to drastic measures to get out of them. Henry the 8th anyone? It used to be arranged and this was in the days before women were worth anything more than property. Back then, a couple marrying out of love was taboo and breaking your marriage vows was an unforgivable sin.

Our society now treats marriage like a joke (which is ironic, they're fiercely protecting a joke) and there's nothing abhorrently wrong with ditching your wife or husband for a younger model. Divorce rates are at 50% or higher in most places and yet the older generations still cling onto that tradition of one man and one woman for all eternity. The gay couples I know (and I'm willing to admit that this view may not be accurate) have been together as long as if not longer than many of the straight couples in my area. The couple I mentioned in my initial post have been together for 24 years now.

Civil rights are not gained in a single generation. They are patiently soldiered after and patience and a strong will can outlast even the toughest of cookies. :3

 

[Esper]

I don't feel like marriage is really that important. Marriage (of any kind, for anyone) is kind of old fashioned by itself. You don't need it to love someone. You don't need it to have a family. You don't need it to show you're committed. But if marriage is what two people want then they should be allowed to have it.

What we should really encourage, in the long run, is for all people to go for civil unions, or partnerships, or whatever term you want to use. With those you can decide how exactly you want to tie yourself to someone. It's an economic relationship when you get down to it because, as I said, you don't need anything to be in love and committed. Marriage doesn't really have any flexibility to it and for some people it might not be the best thing for them.

Of course the rest of society would need to get on board with this idea. You can't have people stubbornly refusing hospital visitations just because someone has a civil partnership instead of a marriage. So for now there should be marriages allowed for everyone because that's the quickest and easiest way to make things fair.

 

[lx_theo]

Personally, I'm not gay or even bisexual. In fact, I'm a bit of a homophobe when it comes to actually being in a situation involving it (it makes me considerably uncomfortable physically, in a bad way). I'm in full support of gay rights, though.

As a legal service provided, it should be the same for whoever might be involved. Marriage is the union between two people that love each other (hopefully). The government recognizes marriages and provides benefits for the status.

Civil Union and those ideas are not separate but equal. Marriage has been around so long that it has a reputation that puts it above anything else that provides the same benefit. To deny it is simply repeating the idea of segregating things so people who have issues with certain minority groups get their way.

But it seems most people here agree with that sort of sentiment, so there's no need to elaborate more at the moment.

 

[Edsbob]

Marriage is a fairly to an incredibly religious ceremony. I'm not too sure about disrespecting the values of say the Christians whose beliefs and teachings are against homosexuality.

However I am not a single part religious and will not be any time soon. Not only that, but marriage has certainly changed from what it was in the past. I dislike the belief of thinking homosexuality is wrong, but I don't know the validity about disregarding the values of those who have views against homosexuality just because they are extremely dissimilar to mine. And while I would like to encourage the change in religion to accept homosexuals and same-sex marriages, not only will that would create conflict within religious communities, that is like asking some to throw away a belief of theirs-- we would be as equally pushy as they are and at the point we are in society, that would just create conflict as well. But I do wish the anti-homosexual views and homophobic people (of course situational) would change, I do.

I suppose one would like to think that creating a separate ceremony with the same rights is a fine solution. But that only serves to separate homosexuals from society and common rights even more. We're stuck at the point of the religious people having difficulty accepting homosexuals/those that do not have the same one belief as them (and we all know how things end up when they clash). And as I'm not a single part (once again) involved in the religious community, I don't know whether I can have a say in the matter of changing religious values.

But my simple and ideal answer from the top of my head would be that they should be able to enjoy the rights of ceremonial celebration of unity (and the details that come with it) like any heterosexual human being as they haven't done anything to have that right revoked.

 

[Bluerang1]

Lemme stand out. I oppose it. It shouldn't be called marriage since marriage is for man and woman and as always have been. The term Civil-Partnership is fine since it's what it is. The different term is fine since people still say interracial-marriage and don't see it as just marriage. Each to their own though. Yes, I'm Christian... in training.

 

[lx_theo]

Lemme stand out. I oppose it. It shouldn't be called marriage since marriage is for man and woman and as always have been. The term Civil-Partnership is fine since it's what it is. The different term is fine since people still say interracial-marriage and don't see it as just marriage. Each to their own though. Yes, I'm Christian... in training.

I've never seen anyone use interracial marriage in a way that makes it not marriage. Interracial would just be an adjective to describe the more specifics of the marriage. It that was all that'd be needed, why can't they call it Gay Marriage instead of degrading people by making them settle for Civil Unions or Partnerships?

 

[Lily]

Lemme stand out. I oppose it. It shouldn't be called marriage since marriage is for man and woman and as always have been. The term Civil-Partnership is fine since it's what it is. The different term is fine since people still say interracial-marriage and don't see it as just marriage. Each to their own though. Yes, I'm Christian... in training.

mar·riage
[mar-ij]
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It should be a protected right mandated by the federal government. Individual states should not be allowed to prohibit what ought to be a basic human right.

Meh. We shoud repeal our anti-bigamy laws as well then (I actually belive this and I'm not just being sarcastic.) My libertarian core is uneasy with the federal government mandating anything.

mar·riage
[mar-ij]
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

Technically, it would be called same-sex marriage or homosexual marriage, not "gay" marriage.

 

[Mika]

The term Civil-Partnership is fine since it's what it is. The different term is fine since people still say interracial-marriage and don't see it as just marriage.

Civil Partnership.

Interracial-marriage

Marriage.

Hmm... One of these things is not like the other~

People may see interracial-marriage as not-just-marriage but if that's the case, why can't we call it gay-marriage? :>

 

[VulpixVixen007]

It should be allowed, People have the right to live there lifes how they want as long as it is not breaking laws and almost all laws are fair and balanced.

well said. :) though it's rather disturbing news cause we all know marriage is rieally for man and woman, people can do what they want. even though it's wrong to do. it's their life. let them live in peace. people wouldnt want them to tell them who to marry, so why do it to others?

 

[lx_theo]

well said. :) though it's rather disturbing news cause we all know marriage is rieally for man and woman, people can do what they want. even though it's wrong to do. it's their life. let them live in peace. people wouldnt want them to tell them who to marry, so why do it to others?

It's "wrong"? I honestly don't get this argument. If for a long time we use paper to draw on, then comes the idea of writing language on it, is it wrong to do otherwise.

A history of something mainly driven by institutions that specifically hate the group in question. Think all the civil rights movements we've seen: Women, African Americans... All the ideas about them were driven by history and civil rights for them were often considered "wrong" until they were forced to fight against those ideas.

 

[Bela]

My libertarian core is uneasy with the federal government mandating anything.

Shouldn't libertarians be all for the maximization of people's civil liberties? And is marriage not one of those most basic rights that heterosexual persons enjoy? Why should a right not be afforded to homosexual individuals as well?

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

It may be still yet be a long way in the future, but there will come a day when the eyes of the law hold no prejudice for who marries whom.

For those who don't understand, "civil unions" and "marriage" are not equal in terms of the rights and benefits afforded to the parties involved. There is not equality in this regard, and no reasoning I have ever seen has been brought forward defending this state of affairs, aside from antiquated religious views about how things "ought" to be. And religious views should not dictate our country's policy: there is to be a separation of church and state in our governance. Otherwise, we face the threat a theocracy holds.

 

[Mario The World Champion]

I have no problems about same sex marriages. In fact, I live in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize same sex marriages. I know some people would rather use "Civil Union" instead of "marriage" and consider that word only when a man and a woman marry.

Do I support it? I wasn't picketing outside Beacon Hill when it became legal. I say if two people of the same sex want to be together like a normal couple, I say let them. Just because they are homosexual doesn't mean they are not people like the rest of us.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Shouldn't libertarians be all for the maximization of people's civil liberties? And is marriage not one of those most basic rights that heterosexual persons enjoy? Why should a right not be afforded to homosexual individuals as well?



It may be still yet be a long way in the future, but there will come a day when the eyes of the law hold no prejudice for who marries whom.

For those who don't understand, "civil unions" and "marriage" are not equal in terms of the rights and benefits afforded to the parties involved. There is not equality in this regard, and no reasoning I have ever seen has been brought forward defending this state of affairs, aside from antiquated religious views about how things "ought" to be. And religious views should not dictate our country's policy: there is to be a separation of church and state in our governance. Otherwise, we face the threat a theocracy holds.

Liberty =/= Right

A liberty is a freedom FROM the government, a right is a freedm given BY the government. I say let the states decide.

 

[Bela]

Liberty =/= Right

A liberty is a freedom FROM the government, a right is a freedm given BY the government. I say let the states decide.

Why do you feel the states should decide if homosexuals should be allowed to have gay marriage, with all of the benefits that entails?

The only result is that some states will take a majority's collective prejudices and legislate against a minority. How can you stand for such an injustice?

 

[Steven]

I am for gay marriage, there are no reasons not to have it. All the reasons people give are either religious, which can't be used, or just down right false. Claiming organizations that sound legitimate (but really aren't) as their source when the people for it actually have legitimate organizations and facts backing their beliefs.

Oh, and I'd like to get married some day, and "seperate but equal" really just means "I'm a bigot."

And, liberty does equal right. The definition of a liberty is and I quote, "An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one."

 

[Luck]

I'm starting to believe that marriage is pointless more and more the more time passes, but I don't think any government should prevent consenting adults from getting married. It shouldn't be their right to decide these things.

The only result is that some states will take a majority's collective prejudices and legislate against a minority. How can you stand for such an injustice?

That's just how democracy works. The tyranny of the majority isn't a pretty reality sometimes.

 

[pooch]

Another one of those topics everyone's been talking about. There is a very fine line between "good" and "bad" gay marriage/ homosexuality. I have nothing against same-sex marriage. But there is such a thing as taking it too far. Those who support it, ask yourself; do you know what it's like to be followed, stalked and copied by someone who you never know that when you turn your back, you'll get raped? Have you ever been copied, someone stealing everything that made you you, your jokes, the way you talk, where you sit at lunch when you're absent from school? Have your friends abandoned you, your life ruined by someone you don't think is even attracted to the opposite gender? Guess what? I have. Imagine you were in my shoes, would you want a country where people like that walk freely, ruining people's lives and rallying children to approve of, even practice, their unholy ways? I have no compassion for anyone who does this and those who support them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care if they keep to themselves, just don't ruin my life while ruining your own.

 

[blue]

I don't really opposed to it, we all have equal rights and we can't control our feelings.