Can I get an opinion on legalizing gay marriages?
110670
My opinion is no, it shouldn't be allowed, fullstop.
1144778
yes it should be legal, the people that are afriad i twill affect their relationshiops don't have strong relations and fear losing their loved one. RIGHT TO PRESUE HAPPYNESS. Marriage is about love not religon creed or sexual orentition, if you really wanan look at it religously I'd guess that jesus would have hung out wiht the gay guy or girl or the bisexual just like he hung out with the prostitute and blind guy and the guy with lepracy, if theres anyone  who he wouldnt hang with its the guy saying no these arnt people and that they cant live happily and love who they want  to. I'm not even religous I just like to give what i think even catholics and cristians can think cuse I used to be one till I decide I was bisexual ... and I think the only thing needed for marriage is LOVE.
802846
abqdan.. is spot on....\nI agree with him completely, the only 'bad' thing is a religious implication of sin.\n\nIf people are so conserned about 'family values' maybe they should look at past religious teachings about the accepetablity of wife beating. and look into single parent families, and foster families and no families. \nIf people are against it for reilgiouse beliefs so be it that is their right.  The freedom of religion.\n\nBut they can not expect to be able to force there religion on another.. therefore cancelling thier freedom of religion.\n\nThe only consquence of same sex unions becoming legalised, will be more work for the governement in re-writing forms and such, and also the cases thathave come up about organizations not allowing...say for example.... the renting of a hall for a gay wedding..\n\nThis is against the law, if you advertise a public service you are not allowed to dicriminate against people, for any reason.\nThere will, for this generation be many 'bad feelings' from people towards the gay community, but that will change in the next generation as it become a social norm.....\n\nIn example, i bring womens equal rights.... only 50 years ago, women were lawfully beaten by there husbands, as it was his right to do so.  Now women are equal, are not allowed to be beaten, work the same jobs, and can choose whether or not to be married....\n\n50 years ago the question you asked would have been also asked about women and equal rights. but now adays its part of every day nrom to see women doctors, police, firefighters.\nand so it will be with gays, by the time our grand children have grown, it will have been accepted as a social norm
491659
Yes! I hope they pass the laws banning gay marriage, but I think they should have some rights (in hospitals and such).
772719
It depends on exactly what you're asking here. Will you have the right to wed openly and have your spouse guaranteed the same benefits as a partner in a heterosexual marriage? If that's your question, I would say probably not. The Christian right still has its claws on the balls of government. Separation of church and state is a convenient illusion. G.W. is an evangelical Christian. He opposes everything about gays, including their right to love whomever they want. As far as you have come in assuring that you will be treated equally in America, you have that far to travel yet again. Good luck.
1086339
The current debate is foundational.  It touches on the issues of how the country should be governed.  Whether we should employ democratic and constitutional processes to change the meaning and intent of the US Constitution and the granting of "rights."  Second, the current campaign will not ensure that your brother or any other gay or lesbian persons will actually enjoy the privileges and benefits that current heterosexuals enjoy now as a married couple.  In short, the current campaign for gay marriages is ill-conceived and will cause more harm than good for both homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals.  You need to look beyond the hype and your emotions and become informed.  Your goals are not helped by using the incorrect political process.\n\nThere are several secular and non-religious reasons for rejecting the current process to secure "Marriage" or "Civil Unions" for gay and lesbians. I have summarized the major reasons below. For more indepth analysis, see the reference below.\n\nI.Why the Current Campaign to Establish Gay \nMarriages Is Anti-Democratic and Anti-Constitutional\n\n\nOur government was founded upon the premise that “Governments are instituted among men [and women], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The current attempt to change the scope and meaning of the US Constitution in regards to 'gay marriages' by side stepping the amendment process will--in the end--jeopardize everyone's freedom. The attempt to expand the current tradition and meaning of marriage to include same gendered individuals through either a judicial pronouncement of a single state or federal judge--or a decision by a “State” or an Appellate Court, and/or through the edicts of several local politicians--should be seen as an attack on our constitutional democracy from within. \n\nSeeking to expand the rights of a few, by the few, by trouncing on the rights of the governed, should be seen as an act similar to those which occasioned the creation of the “Declaration of Independence.”\n\nIt is our position that expanding the rights of gays and lesbians to enter into marriage should be done through the amendment process that has been used for over 200 years. Seeking to side step the ‘constitutional’ process in favor of expediency is a sign not of enlightenment, patriotism, nor constitutional fidelity, but of hubris—of pride and arrogance. Historical and constitutional integrity requires all Americans to work to defeat the present attempt to expand the U.S. Constitution by the dictates of the few whether or not an individual believes that granting “gay marriages’ is a just cause.\n\nAs stated above and worth mentioning again, it is our position here that the real issue is not whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. The real issues are (1) did the original white male voters, who approved the original articles of the Constitution, mean to include gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage and, if not, (2) did subsequent voters expand marriage to include gays and lesbians and, if not, (3) what are the proper means for expanding the institution of marriage to include gays and lesbians?\n\nAs Americans, we should all believe in the use of the “proper means for a proper end.” The proper means for expanding the rights we have under the US Constitution is to submit such changes to the American people via a proposed Constitutional Amendment. We believe that the US Constitution should only be changed with the consent of the governed as is required in our democracy.\n\nThe current campaign to enact 'gay marriages' without allowing all Americans to exercise their right to vote is counter-productive to maintaining our constitutional form of democracy, divisive to society, a waste of tax payers' dollars and a frivolous use of the time and skills of our elected and judicial officials. We believe that our elected and judicial officials
607353
>>>How does two gay people forming a union affect you?<<<\n\nIt doesn't, but its effect on me personally is not the only reason for keeping marriage "as is."\n\nAfter all, whether or not drugs are legalized doesn't affect me either.  Whether they're legal or not, I'm not going to take them.  \n\nBut according to your logic, I should not oppose the legalization of drugs because it doesn't affect me personally -- whether it affects me seems to be your litmus test on whether I should oppose it or not. \n\nA very solid majority of Americans are against legalized gay marriage -- and we should not have to justify that opinion by appealing to whether or not it affects us personally.   \n\n>>>Why are you opposed to it? Is it because you feel it's your job to determine their morality?<<<\n\nNo, it's because marriage is under enough assault as it is -- through high divorce rates and the like.  Legalize gay marriage, and the divorce rate would skyrocket, given the promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle.  \n\n>>>If that's not the reason, then what is?<<<\n\nBecause, again, the fundamental man-woman union of marriage is under enough assault as it is, and we need not intensify that assault by changing its defition to suit a small percentage of people who engage in a historically promiscuous lifestyle.  \n\n>>>I can see no logical reason why you should oppose two people committing themselves to monogamy, even if it's homosexual...<<<\n\nAnd I can see no logical reason why homosexuals have to push for legalized gay marriage in order to encourage monogamy within their ranks.  Surely they can commit to monogamous relationships without seeking to hijack the concept of marriage to justify their sexual behavior.  \n\nHomosexuals are just as physically capable of monogamy -- without legalized gay marriage -- as are heterosexual people.  But the fact that gays are notoriously promiscuous compared to heterosexuals means that though they are capable of monogamy, they're not necessarily willing.  \n\nWhy should we fundamentally change the definition of marriage in order to encourage monogamy among homosexuals, when they've as a group displayed little willingness to live such monogamy in the first place?
447325
I REALLY don't understand what the big deal is all about.\nThis world is a weird and scary place. If an adult can find true love and wants to marry someone, I don't care if they are gay or black, or Hindu or little people or WHATEVER. That will have absolutly NOTHING to do with my marriage. I do understand that marriage is a sacred thing but, isn't it up to us to keep our own marriages sacred rather than poke around in someone elses business?\n\n  The divorce rate is around 50% in this country. What is so sacred about that? Since Gays and lesbians arn't allowed to marry, the high divorce rate and the lack of respect for marriage is an obvious sign that most straight people don't honor marriage. Maybe if we allowed gays to marry, they could teach us straights a thing or two.\n\n  Could it be at all possible that people are afraid to let gays marry because maybe the gays will be more successful at it? Just a thought.\n  And as for the people that quote bible passages against gay marriage, I can pop my head into the bible and find tons of quotes advocating slavery, incest and all that jazz.\nThe fact is that this country was founded on the principal of "Separation of Church and State" Look it up if you don't understand. I appreciate other peoples religous views but,\nIf we do not see eye to eye, it is because we have different opinions and NOT because one of us is right or wrong. To behave in a self-ritous way like that is ignorant and just plain rude.\n  Also, There are THOUSANDS of orphans and foster kids living in institutions. They are sent out into the world without a family once they turn 18. I bet dollars to donuts that if you ask these kids, they would much rather live in a nice home with a couple of  married gays than the orphanage. If gays could marry and adopt, it would give these forgotten children a chance to be a part of a loving and supportive family for LIFE. How happy they would be to have their own bedroom and parents to help with their homework and to see them in the school play? \nWe have already tried hating people for being different and it dosn't seem to have done much good. Maybe we can all try to be more loving or understanding to people different than us. Maybe we Christians can see past the hatred and fear to the TRUE word of Jesus Christ. I don't remember Jesus hating on "sinners" or people different than Him. I remember acceptance and UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. WWJD? In your HEART you know the answer. \nPlease forgive any misspellings, spellcheck is on the fritz.
1020304
Gay marriages have been made legal in Canada for the past year.  The New Prime Minister Steven Harper has promised to hold a "free vote" on this subject...it was the last government (Liberal) under Paul Martin that made it legal and changed the whole definition of marriage.  I don't see the point of a "free vote" now; it's too late to take it back now and will just cost a lot of tax money to hold it.
527126
Okay- I did a Public Speaking presentation on same-sex marriage. (BTW, not only homosexuals want to get married to people of their own gender, bisexuals would like to do it too; if you use "same-sex" marriage, it's more professional, since that's what the news media has termed it recently.)  In the sources, I've put all the internet sources I used.  I'm not sure if this will help, since you didn't specify if it could be an online newspaper or if it had to be a print newspaper.  Good luck!\n\nNOTE: For the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (last link), I used Articles: 1, 6, 7, 12, and especially 16\n\n(PS- I can't remember where I found it, but I remember one of the pros was that married people pay more taxes, so that if same-sex couples were allowed to marry they'd be charged under spousal income tax laws and more money would flow into the government.)
490449
I'm not gay, and i think they should. People should be allowed to marry who they want. The only reason people are trying to ban it is because of religious beliefs (i.e. conservative christians) getting in the way of non-biased desicions that could legalize it.
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.
217027
I support gay marriage all the way. Civil unions sound like a good way to keep the "sanctity of marriage" while still giving gays equal rights, but actually civil unions only give a portion of the rights that marriage gives and are more easily contested in court by family members. Gays and lesbians would still be denied equality that way. I also think the "sanctity of marriage" argument is bogus, as the definition of marriage not only differs with culture and religion, but has also changed within this country several times over the centuries. See the link for a short and amusing "history of marriage in America."
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.
271871
Marriage is based on a religious Principal your not going to get them to accept gay marriage. And I don't think they have to corrupt it because a minority wants to make it so. I do think that there should be civil unions without religion so gays can finally make it legal.
435319
Vote for gay rights and gay marrage.... For all the straight people out there... wouldnt you be upset if you couldnt marry the one you love or wanted to spend the rest of your life with... YES I thought so... thats where this falls into play for the gay and lesbian communities who want to be married. VOTE YES FOR GAY MARRAGE AND RIGHTS. Its the year 2006 shouldnt we be ending this fight!!!
57526
Yes...although I'm thinking this wasn't the place to ask this question...unless you're looking for a fight.  You will invariably get rude and hateful answers.  Since you don't have any history, it's impossible for me to guage if you asked this to see others' views on the subject or if you are gay and wanting to marry.\n\nI am a strong advocate for gay marriage.  I'm straight myself, but I have quite a few gay friends and I like to think of myself as somewhat liberal.  Who are we to define who should and should not get married?  Granted, anything within a family is sick and wrong (although I'm sure there are some people out there that will beg to differ with me - but I've seen in places that the result of children from incestuous relationships often have severe abnormalities)...and I agree with NoMorLuv that anything involving animals (beastiality) is also wrong.  They can not speak for themselves.  Multiple partners, not okay either.  \n\nThat remains simple.  Set a law establishing that a marriage is a union between 2 persons - be it a man and a woman, 2 men or 2 women.  That's it.  1 union per 2 people, not related by blood.  There ya go.  Solves that.  Why can't 2 guys get married in most states?  Why can't 2 women?  Why does it matter?  \n\nI'll tell you why - because you have the religious types (nope, not quite sure where my faith lies) that say that it is wrong in the Bible.  I thought God was supposed to love you no matter what?  No matter what your sexual orientation?  I've seen people post here that if you repent for your sins (ie homosexuality - I saw it on a post concerning lesbians going to hell) that God will forgive you.  Why should you have to repent for loving someone of the same sex?  That implies that it's wrong, when it's not.  So what if you're the same sex?  As long as you love each other, that's what's important.\n\nIn my mind, I think that a marriage should be just as stated above.  It's a commitment to love and honor your spouse, no matter what.  I have a very close friend at work (he lives in Massachusetts - where gay marriage is legal) who is married to another man and he can't be happier!  And you know what, I can't be happier for him!  \n\nPeople say that by allowing gays to marry, it will destroy the sanctity of marriage.  Will not.  Like said, it shouldn't matter as long as there is love and commitment there!  \n\nPlus, there's the whole children thing.  Just because Mary has 2 moms (or 2 dads) doesn't mean that she will grow up to be a lesbian.  It's more important to show a loving relationship than the sex of the parents.  Homosexuality is not something that is induced by surroundings or peers, it's just something that happens.  Nor is it an abbhoration, as I've also seen people post here.  Damn people and their closed minds.  It's actually been seen in young children, sometimes they just don't know it yet.  I believe it's something that is just predetermined...a lot of gay people (mostly men) that I've talked to said they always knew.  Actually, my married friend was married to a woman once...he thought he might change!  (I saw that here too...someone said with enough of the right counselling they can "become" straight!)  So it really doesn't matter who your parents are, as long as they're happy.\n\nBesides, why should they be denied the benefits of being married just because they're not man/woman?  Gay people need health insurance too!  (No smart comments, future posters, please!)  Life insurance?  Then again, some plans might let you place a sibling or what not as a beneficiary.  There's the tax break (although that's not as big of a reason but it is still a reason)...\n\nSo all that being said...YES.\n\n\nPS - Thanks for the clarification.  I'm all for it.  If you don't live in a state where gay marriage is legal yet, lobby for