do you think gay marrige should be legalized?
116272
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  Thomas Jefferson. If my neighbor is gay it doesn't hurt me either, there is also no scientific studies that proove two gay parents will raise a gay child either. This is America we live in.
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.
1094771
I think it's a great idea.\n\nThe only real problem I have with homosexual marriage is that once you change the definition of marriage the freakshows will start coming out and demanding their right to marry animals and shoes and pieces of land ... how do you make the legislation so that consenting adults can marry but they have to marry other people. You know that as soon as you allow homosexual marriage but say it has to be between two people some guy is gonna sue for his right to marry a hole in a watermelon. The madness will never stop.
592463
Gay marriage is an excellent way for two men / two women to bind themselves together legally, spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, and physically.  Doing so would allow them to make decisions on each others behalf, join and purchase  assets together, file income taxes together, make end of life arrangement together, and pass on the estate as they see fit.\n\nSure!  It requires a high level of responsibility.  But, many Gays and Lesbians are up to it.  It would not impose ANY danger upon anyone anywhere.\n\nLegalizing Gay Marriage is the right thing to do.
137800
I agree that it should legal. The only reason it's not is because the right-wing seems deadset on living in the past and not progressing at all. It will happen one day, trust me. There were people who once said black people or women would never have the right to vote either. And to the first answerer, homosexuality is not the only way AIDS is spread!
1173355
I doubt it, considering we actually had to vote on whether to add a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, even though gay people can't get married to begin with.  \nGeorgia for now is much too conservative (at large) to legalize marijuana.  Maybe that will change someday, maybe for medical reasons at first.
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!!!
164641
Gay marriage ought to be legalised. Homosexuals should have the same rights that heterosexuals have. Many conseratives point to the bible in defence of illegalising same sex marriages. This country should not be ruled with the Bible in either case. The first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no official religion. Other than the bible, these conseratives have no real defence. Many state that homosexuals will destroy the institution of marriage. Stats show that 50% of HETEROSEXUAL marriages end in divorce. For years, heterosexuals have married for less than pious or romantic reasons. Many have married because they were inpregnated as teens. Many Golddiggers have married simply for monetary gain. The institution of marriage has been destroyed, by heterosexuals. Perhaps homosexuals can bring back dignity and love into marriage.
246741
Homosexual marriages should be legal.  Marriage is a status.  It confers certain rights upon a couple - the right to inherit, to make medical decisions, to share in gains and losses and more.  Moreover, marriage creates a stable family unit that is more productive than any two single people.  When one member becomes disabled, marriage decreases the cost to society of that disability.\n\nRefusing to allow homosexuals to marry has a perverse effect.  It is uneconomical as two single people will earn less and one disabled person will cost society more than when a couple is married.  It will discourage personal responsibility among homosexuals.  It will decrease their respect for the law.\n\nIt is fundamentally unfair to treat black people differently because of their race.  It makes them feel bad and decreases their productivity.  The same is true for homosexuals.\n\nSome people argue that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman or that homosexual marriage devalues marriage in general.  This is not logical.  Each of us knows a married couple that should be divorced.  The wife may drink, the husband may cheat, they both may argue, the kids may be left uncared for or a hundred other things may be wrong.  Their marriage is a sham, a worthless shame.  But the fact that their marriage is without value does not make my marriage without value.  Any homosexual couple living next door will not magically devalue the relationship of their hereosexual neighbors.\n\nIt should also be mentioned that being exposed to homosexuals does not increase the chance of an individual becoming homosexual.  Being raised by homosexuals does not increase the chance of a child becoming homosexual.  And homosexuals are less likely to be pedophiles or sexual predators than heterosexuals.  Whatever arguments are made, these are absolute statistical facts.\n\nIt is also a statistical fact that jurisdictions that recognize homosexual marriage or civil unions have suffered no increase in any negative statistic as a result.\n\nThere is simply no reason homosexuals should not enjoy the same right to marry as any other person.  Society would do nothing but benefit.
1162240
No Jackson. Not only should President Bush not support gay marriage, neither should anyone else. If the gays and lezbo's want to play house, then they can just simply live together and pretend. \n\nI do not believe it is fair to straight (normal) couples who believe in the religious sanctity of marriage to have it defaced and demoralized by the irregulars. \n\nFurthermore, I blame the media for allowing this concept to become "acceptable" behavior.  If it wasn't splattered all over our TV, cramming it down our throats in sit-com's, they would all still be in the closet.
769285
I'm against gay marriage,I'm against preferential treatment to any1. I don't think my city ought to pay for special events for gays. They wanna be gay fine, just leave me and mine alone!\nBorn with it or becoming gay is not normal any way,shape or form. God created Man and Woman to be as one and reproduce and to love and live for him. Man what a mess we made of all that!
868828
That is an interesting question.  If marriage had never been banned between gay couples, I beleive we would see more households raising healthy children, paying taxes as afforded to them under that right, spousal health benefits (lowering the number of uninsured citizens), more "out" activity in our neighborhoods.  And by out activity, I am NOT referring to anything of a sexual nature.  Gays without children have a great deal more disposable income, therefore they could bost their local economy.\n\nWouldn't it be interesting to ban marriage for straight people, letting only gay people get married?  Imagine the ruckus that would cause!
1160673
Marriage is what you make of it. If you make it sacred, it will be sacred.\n\nI think most people have made a mockery out of what is supposed to be a very special thing.\n\nI also do not think allowing homosexuals to marry will "ruin" the sacred bonds of marriage. We straight people have already done that.
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?
787373
I dont care if they do. As a matter of fact, I think they should. Seperation of church and state, marriage, legally, is a state issue.\n\nHowever, a friend of mine, a Christian, does not support it, because it contributes to the moral decline of marriage. My point to her was "Doesnt the 50% HETEROSEXUAL divorce rate do that too?" She had no answer.
222479
NO!!!!\n\nAnd let me give you TEN reasons why not:\n\n01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. \n\n02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. \n\n03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. \n\n04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. \n\n05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. \n\n06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. \n\n07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. \n\n08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. \n\n09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. \n\n10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
1087413
I think its' ok. Look at it like this. If gays are allowed to marry, some will want to adopt and have a family just like everyone else. They dont mind adopting the children that others dont want. If abortion is made illegal, there will be a huge increase in children being given up, right? Who's going to adopt those children? Gays dont 'raise children gay'. There has been many studies on this. They are actually less rigid and judgemental to the children they care for, probably because they were given hell by their own parents. Most children raised by gays turn out straight. This makes sense cause only 3-10% of the population is born gay and gay people dont generally 'recruit'. Banning gay marriage is just like the Jim Crow laws of the last century. It is discrimination and bigotry. The problem is that gays are only a small percentage of the population. Even if every single one of them marched to make their voice heard, it would be dwarved by the Civil Rights marches of past days. Is it ok to bigot against them just because they are too small a minority to force change? Look into the other reasons for gay marriage, like your gay partner being able to make medical decisions for you in emergencies, power of Attorney, inheriting property or estate, funeral decisions. These people are mostly in commited loving relationships that last for many decades, but when a crisis happens they are pushed aside, have no right to decide care for their lover, can be called to testify against their partner, can be shoved aside by the sick ones family.