<p>I fully support gay marriage, same-sex unions, the right to adopt and hospital visitation rights. As a political tangent, if our current administration is so bent on spreading freedom to all people, why do they want to restrict the freedoms of gay couples?</p>
<p>I hope you're a straight male, Nom. I just assumed it. Hopefully I'm not barking up the wrong tree!</p>
<p>Banning their marriage is what I think to be unconstituional. It also goes against the reason settlers came to the U.S.: freedom.</p>
<p>I support same-sex civil unions. I would support same-sex marriage, but I believe the government shouldn't grant marriages to anyone. Leave that to the churches. The government can legally bind people and give them tax breaks with civil unions, and if the church agrees to marry the couple, then they can get married. That would preserve the "sanctity of marriage" and give homosexuals equal rights in the law. Equal rights in the church is another matter, but no one has ever been able to effectively legislate the church.</p>
<p>"I would support same-sex marriage, but I believe the government shouldn't grant marriages to anyone. Leave that to the churches."</p>
<p>That's a flawed argument. What about non-religious straight couples who want a marriage?</p>
<p>I totally agree with you, Nom.</p>
<p>I hate to compromise such an issue. However think about the slavery and the women right.
Sometimes we just have to take a little longer route cuz of not-so-intelligent human beings.</p>
<p>"That's a flawed argument. What about non-religious straight couples who want a marriage?"</p>
<p>Well what about the gay people now who want to get married? Compromise. There are too many straight people opposed to gays having any rights and too many gay activists who will settle for nothing less than marriage for everyone to get what they want.</p>
<p>Gays have every right and freedom that straight people have.
---think about it.....</p>
<p>It's not what the majority of people want, but the argument is in what's just and right. Like plag just said, "Gays have every right and freedom that straight people have." They should, but the problem is though, at this point they don't.</p>
<p>RaboKarabekian, i can't follow what you're trying to say.
Right now, legally the church has nothing to do with marriages.
(or perhaps r u just kidding? or sarcastic?)</p>
<p>Anyway, do you want to be half-free? Half-free=Not-Free
I am talking about progressing (compromising for now) homosexuals' rights due to idiotic earthlings, rather than just compromise and stop there.</p>
<p>I actually meant they do have the same rights. A straight man/woman can't marry a person of the same-sex either. Marriage is a term legally defined by a contract, nothing legally to do with love.</p>
<p>it's not my place to say what two consenting adults can do in their love life and i don't think it's the government's either.</p>
<p>for it. why should homosexual people be subjected to worse treatment than heterosexuals? are heterosexuals better? Dont you think it might be better for the adoption market?</p>
<p>"Keep the government out of our bedrooms!" Enemy of the State starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman</p>
<p>To clarify plagmayer's position for him or her, s/he believes that all people should be permitted what are called "civil marriages". S/he used the term "civil unions" instead in this context ti distinguish it from purely spiritual marriage, as ordained by a house of worship. Please correct me if I am wrong.</p>
<p>Superior Child24, I assume you'll be campaigning at the constitutional convention this fall (predicted time).</p>
<p>To those who do not know, Massachusetts ruled that barring same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional. Now, an ammendment is pbeing pushed to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman. The bill was voted through the first of two legislative gates it must pass in order to be put to popular vote. Those who support gay-marriage are staunchly fighting against the bill. Proponents of the bill are equally incensed, making sure to counter the efforts made by these activists. The state will get red-hot during the second convention.</p>
<p>I wish... I'll be too busy getting situated at my new highschool.</p>
<p>jaug1 asked the (rhetorical) question: "if our current administration is so bent on spreading freedom to all people, why do they want to restrict the freedoms of gay couples?"</p>
<p>The answer is simple. Both truth and campaign points aside, our administration seeks to spread the SAME freedoms we enjoy to all people. Coincidentally, same-sex marriage is not one of them.</p>
<p>dreaming said, "Right now, legally the church has nothing to do with marriages."</p>
<p>This statement is not entirely true and is the source of much confusion. As is, congregation leaders are endowed with the right to sign marriage certificates. A Justice of Peace is supposed to do this, technically, but permitting priests/rabbis/<insert your="" faith's="" head="" honcho="" here=""> to grant marriage licenses is far more conveneint for all of the involved parties. I believe this is not seen as a challenge to the separation of church and state because no one faith is preferred. Still, the practice obscures the distinction between religious and legal marriage.</insert></p>
<p>I'm just saying that most of the argument against same-sex marriage is that it's against religion. People bring up bible passages constantly, trying to prove that gay marriage is immoral. Problem is, our government isn't supposed to be based on religion, so that argument's moot. Now, if you give homosexuals civil unions with the exact same rights as married straight people, that's kind of separate but equal, which is no good. So why don't you just give everyone civil unions? If a couple really wants to get "married," then have the ceremony done religiously.</p>
<p>So if you think about it...</p>
<p>Men and women have unequal rights. A man has the right to marry a woman, but a women does not have a right to marry a women and vice versa. </p>
<p>Yes, everyone has the same specification. However, the specification itself discriminates. (Check first two sentences I wrote.)</p>
<p>For example, we could say everyone must marry someone of their own race. Now, the rule would be fair in the sense that the rule applied the same to everyone. However, as with the gay marriage issue, it is inherently unfair to set specifications.</p>
<p>As my thoughts probably show, I definetly support homosexuals having the right to marry. I'd accept civil unions as a compromise, but I feel the title of marriage is a right all couples deserve. The problem is that the government and church both use the word "married" and yet they may have different definitions. The government should continue to grant marriage in a non-secular way. The churches as individuals can decide if they want to marry a homosexual couple. </p>
<p>I was once indifference on the issue, but then after researching it and talking to many different people about the issue I am a staunch supporter of gay rights.</p>