<p>How do you guys feel about gay marriage? I'm against it, but how do you feel?</p>
<br>
<p>.>. I'm for it. Why are you against it?</p>
<br>
<p>entirely for it. i'd like to hear your opinions too.</p>
<p>For it, obviously. The only reason that it is still illegal is because we allow the Judeo-Christan religions to run our government, and last time I checked we weren't a theocracy. >.<</p>
<p>Why are you against it, out of curiosity?</p>
<p>The real question is, why should there be government involvement in marriage? It is a contract between 2 people, no need for govt involvement or benefits due to marriage.</p>
<p>Agree with bah completely :].</p>
<p>For all of the legal/financial benefits, it should be available, but marriage within a particular religious denomination is a different story. Each denomination should be able to marry whoever they want. Personally, I don't know how comfortable I would feel if people within the Roman Catholic Church were getting gay marriages. As long as on the legal level the union between two people is equal, we shouldn't have any problems. My feelings applicable to the Church are different, and really have no place within the debate at the national level.</p>
<p>I am against it. No such union between a man and man or woman and woman in my opinion. I am not Christian by the way. I don't want society to get out of control and gay marriage is gonna lead socitey in a wrong path. Gay people can always live together, no one can stop that, but there just does not exsist any union between them. One reason many couples get benefits is cos they start families and have kids and increase pop. Sure gay people can adopt but so can a bachelor.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^</p>
<p>Attack!!!!!!</p>
<p>According to indianbasketball I can never get married. I am 16. Nice thing to know. (I can't have kids btw, hence why I can't get married...)</p>
<p>I think it's discrimination nearly at the level of racism. I'm not gay myself, but I know some gay people, and not letting them do something so benign as marry is like segregation or lack of voting rights.</p>
<p>I once heard an interesting theory here on CC: Marriage as a governmental institution should be abolished and instead, civil unions should be granted to all. Marriages could still be granted by religions, but the governement only recognizes civil unions between two people.</p>
<p>I just thought that was an interesting take. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, though.</p>
<p>I'm into the whole "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others" thing. </p>
<p>History has shown that any type of discrimination is the mark of a backwards society, and when prejudice is eliminated it's usually for the better.</p>
<p>I agree with snoopyiscool. It seems like a solution that could satisfy everybody.</p>
<p>I was thinking of going along the lines of "against both, marriage should be left alone by the government."</p>
<p>But on the other hand, what if the population is very low? Could the government give special benefits to those who are married to encourage childbirth (in the case that the population is low for whatever reason)? In that case, people can still bear children illegitimately, but government can only give benefits to couples under the conditions that they recognize them as such.</p>
<p>Of course this isn't the situation now. </p>
<p>And one could also argue along the lines of "what if the government needs to provide incentives for people not to commit adultery or out-of-marriage crimes?" Are they higher when couples are cohabiting, as opposed to married? Or the other way around? (given that when divorce isn't easy, some people may choose to commit crimes against the partner instead). After all, it is much easier to stop cohabitating than to divorce.</p>
<p>I am against gay marriage....eewwww</p>
<p>I am not against it, but I am not for it. I am for legalizing it, if that's what you mean, but not only for civil rights but legal purposes.</p>
<p>Completely for it. I don't understand how it would affect anyone else's life.</p>
<p>Here is something I wrote on the subject a while back:</p>
<p>" The topic of gay marriage will decide the fate of America’s moral values and ideals. Specifically, the banning of gay marriage would maintain and safeguard these values. Gay marriage is unnatural, immoral, and just plain wrong. </p>
<pre><code>Homosexuality is obviously unnatural. The true American embodies a sense of connection with nature and shuns unnatural things such as automobiles, television, and air-conditioning. It is ridiculous to force Americans to accept something that unbalances the Feng Shui in their lives. The argument that homosexual behavior is found in the natural, animal world is moot because the 700-some documented species that display this trait can be regarded as the ones that Noah had unwittingly saved from the Flood.
The sanctity of marriage – the union of a man and a woman – would be forever threatened by extending the term to apply to gay couples. Popular icons and celebrities like Britney Spears would no longer feel that their 55-hour marriages have the same meaning and significance as before.
</code></pre>
<p>There are many reasons for the tradition of heterosexual marriages. Children thrive in better environments and cannot succeed without a male and female role model at home. This is the reasoning behind the ban on child-raising and rearing by single parents. This idea of heterosexual marriages is open-minded enough to allow rapists, child molesters, and murderers to provide the stable environment for children so long as they are straight. Another reason for the maintenance of traditional marriage is that marriages have the sole purpose of propagating the earth with children. Homosexuals, the infertile, and the elderly should not be able to marry because they would not be able to contribute genetically to society.</p>
<p>Despite these reasons, some groups of people still ask whether the status quo on the definition of marriage is necessarily the good. They have a very valid point. The status quo is not only good, but it is the best one possible. If we allow homosexuals to marry, we would be opening the doors to all sorts of crazy behavior. People would marry their dogs because dogs have the same legal-standing as homosexuals. Allowing gay marriage would lead to the abuse of the system; homosexuals would marry just for the legal and financial benefits of being married. Christianity supports heterosexual marriage while explicitly disallowing gay ones. In a theocracy such as America, religious values are translated directed into legal law and nonwestern religions that don’t oppose homosexuality need not be heeded. We as a nation cannot ordain behavior that would bring down the wrath of God; we already are condemned enough as it is with our gluttony on the abominations of meat, poultry, and shellfish.</p>
<p>Anti-marriage amendments were on the ballot in eight states last election day and were approved in seven of the eight, but by significantly lower margins than in past years. That is a crying shame. We must redouble our efforts for the preservation of not only our way of life, but for the very morals that our country stands for."</p>
<p>^That was satire, if you were too lazy to read it all... I think I covered most of the points :D</p>