Is same-sex marriage really an orientation issue or a gender issue?
399035
it is an orientation issue because if you legally change your sex then you are entitled to all of the same rights as a person of that sex you have become.\nif 2 men want to get married and one of those men legally becomes a woman then legally they are able to get married because it is then seen that they are a heterosexual couple (in the broadest sense of the term).\nto be more specific, i would say that it's more of a legal issue rather than an orientation of gender issue but in the context of your question i would have to side with orientation.
469256
Techinically yeah, but that's what people are trying to change...that marriage isn't defined as between a man and a woman rather two individuals.
227630
Personally, I don't believe it will damage our society. Most of the ppl in the world are very religious and believe marriage should just be between a man and a woman. But we are human beings just like them, except we love a person of the same gender. Theirs nothing different between us except that. Everyone has their own beliefs on this issue. I just say you can't help who you fall in love with!!! Been with my gf for 2 yrs now!!! And we're still goin!!
99213
I would say that one of the big issues is sexuality.  Everywhere you look there are protests and news about gay marriage and in my opinion I think it will be hard for young people in this age group to understand what is going on and what is right and what is wrong.
725426
Individual's Rights, Morality Issues, The Tradition of Marriage (is it between 2 people who love each other, or strictly between a man and a woman?)\n\nI'm not really sure what kind of topic you're looking for, but I hope this helps.
972744
You can read all about this issue here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_South_Africa
1058560
I do not have any problem at all with gay marriage.  If two people love each other, and want to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives legally, then I think it is okay.  Love is hard enough to find in this world.  Why should people who find love with the same sex be punished and not have the same rights as the rest of us.  \nBy the way, in response to one of the answers, I do believe i am a human being even though I support people's right to get married, even if of the same sexual orientation.
1119301
Probably the same reason a lot of US states won't.  They say it's wrong because God created man and woman to be together.  and the devil created homosexuality.  People in general just don't accept things that they don't understand and what they have been taught and always have thought was wrong.  I think if two people love eachother who cares.  Does the governor or all these protestors or the judge of the courthouse have to go to the wedding or go to their house?  NO they don't.  I think there are bigger issues than this that states and countries should worry about.  This shouldn't even be an issue.  Its not fair that when two people of the same sex want to get married they get a protest outside their wedding but if two people who have a 60 year difference want to get married they can without any problems from the outside world...Its just sad to think that a 80 yr old man can marry a 20 yr old woman and its ok, even though the woman is only marrying him for his money but two people, of the same sex...which shouldn't even matter, who love eachother want to make a commitment to one another the entire world thinks its their right to come in between it just because God says its not right.  Let God do His job and they should do theirs.\n**by the way I'm not a lesbian...I'm married to a man**
808679
Gay marriage for one, minimum wage for another.\n\nit's not that these issues aren;t important, but they are used to distract from other issues (Iraq, Immigration) and set up separate camps of opinions
462290
The arguments against are usually religiously based or 'traditions' based (it's never been done, it isn't how it has been done, why should we do it now is the 'tradition' type argument).\n\nThose favoring same-sex marriage make a very important distinction. Civil marriage versus Religious marriage. With the traditions argument it almost always comes down to the imagery of a man and woman walking down the aisle of a church with a reverend, etc at the front...the bride in white and the men in tuxedos. That's the tradition (never mind that other religious groups' religious marriage ceremonies are completely different). Thus for the 'traditions' argument, it is based upon 'religious' marriage and most of the tradition arguments start going into religious arguments.\n\nThe point being distinctive here is that there is, actually, two forms of marriage.\nCivil marriage : a legal binding contract instituted and regulated by government that contains certain benefits as well as certain restrictions to those that choose to enter into this contract.\nReligious marriage : a spiritual union done in the eyes of the divine for blessings, etc. it also is a contract between the couple entering into the arrangement and their religious institution. the religious institution then provides certain benefits and restrictions within its sphere of influence.\n\nWhat the people arguing for same-sex marriage are talking about is civil marriage. Advocates of same-sex marriage in now way want to infringe upon the rights of religious institutions to regulate and maintain their religious marriage regulations, rules, etc. However, because homosexuals pay taxes, not to a religious institution but to the government, and these taxes are often what is used to help provide the benefits of marriage, and that the civil marriage also holds government/civil protections...same-sex marriage advocates are asking for civil marriage...the marriage regulated by government.\n\nYou have to pay close attention to the arguments, because both are equally valid. Certainly the government has no right to impose upon any religious institution the requirement of performing a marriage it does not condone....but the government does not regulate religious marriage...it only regulates civil marriage. And people aren't necessarily talking about changing the 'tradition' of marriage, they simply want to include more people into the civil marriage aspect. The traditions of the ceremony and the deeper meanings are regulated by religious institutions. And if we are arguing that for religious reasons same-sex marriage must be denied...then are we not violated the rights of the religious institutions that allow same-sex marriage? Again, though, the distinction being made is that what is being asked of the government is CIVIL MARRIAGE and not religious marriage. Many of the religious institutions that allow same-sex marriages already provide their members with religious marriage....the argument is about the government and whether or not people who are part of this nation and pay their taxes, that all couples...all unions between two consenting adults...be accepted in civil marriage laws. \n\nAgain, the argument is not to force religious groups to recognize anything or to do anything that violates their religion...it merely requests that the government not favor any religion and recognize all of its citizens.
476011
According to Justice Scalia, the legal arguments used in favor of same-sex marriages apply equally to polygamous marriages. Personally, I think we could solve both arguments by getting the government completely out of the business of telling you with whom you are allowed to form relationships. Whoever came up with the idea that you had to ask the government for permission to get married? I'll tell you: Churches wanted more political power in Europe, and bigots wanted to keep blacks from marrying whites in America. Without those two "honorable" traditions, we would all still have freedom of marriage. Polygamy has a longer history in almost every culture in the world, including English and Native American, than monogamy has. If consenting adults are free to marry someone of the same gender (which is clearly contrary to almost all human tradition), then they must also be free to marry two other consenting adults of the opposite gender (which is clearly supported by most human tradition).
298235
No.  The federal government is currently run by morons who are afraid to legitimize gay marriage because they are under the dilusion that it might somehow impact the Church (even though the religious and legal institutions of marriage are totally and completely separate and any Chuch can refuse to marry anyone they want for any reason they want).  Same-sex partnerships essentially have no legal status in the US, so their existence is virtually irrelevent to the immigration process.  It's not fair but that's the way it is.
449464
This is a very good question and I don't believe that it can be asked too many times. The more we all think about prejudice and hatred, the quicker it will go away. I also like that you put in the stipulation that there be no reference to religion. In a country that was founded on the principles of freedom and equality, the use of religion as a way to shoot down a political issue just flabergasts me. This is 100% a legal issue and not a religious one. Gays and lesbians know that they cannot force a church to accept them if it doesn't want to. However, they should be able to force the government to accept them. Why else do they all pay those taxes if not for a little acceptance and protection now and again?\n\nThe issue of gay marriage as is brought up most frequently can really be boiled down to the question of does the government offer legal protection to all of its citizens regardless of race, religion, creed, or anything else. The fact that gay marriage has not been put into effect is evidence that, no, the American government does not offer this protection to all of its citizens. This is a travesty. \n\nI will admit that for religious people in America, the word "marriage" does have some very high emotional weight attached to it and this is a big part of the problem. The word "marriage" should be stricken from all legal and official documents and state proceedings to avoid any confusion about the issue. If marriage were really only reserved as a ceremony to be done in a church or other place of worship particular to the participants wishes, and (let's call it this for now) legal partnerships were to be reserverd for the legal and governmental arenas, then this whole issue could be resolved with a little less spit and venom. \n\nThere is no rational reason that anyone can give for discriminating against another human being. Please do this test; the next time you find yourself saying anything negative about a group of people (gay or otherwise) please replace the word Jewish or black into the blank and see if you are still comfortable saying it. If not, then it may be time to reasses your value system and beliefs into one that is more tolerant and loving towards all humanity. \n\nLove and Peace!
121341
I'm not really sure if marriage is a federal issue right now.  It will be a federal issue if the right-wingers get their way and change the Constitution.\n\nIt will be legal on a state by state basis when enough people realize that the only real argument against it is of a religious nature and that there is a constitutional separation of church and state.\n\nThink about it, gay people should have the same rights as every other American and allowing them to be legally married would harm no one!
1112316
The theory that gay marriage is wrong because it somehow threatens male-female marriage is a crock of shite.  Tradition is no reason to continue a practice.  To say that we should prohibit gays from marrying because we have not allowed it up til now and marriage has traditionally be between a man and a woman it no different that that standard answer your parents gave you when you asked why you could not eat your dessert first -- "because we say so."  Makes no sense.  It offers no logic.  Guess what else is tradition -- traditionally we don't let jews play at our golf courses.  And traditionally we don't let blacks marry whites (there were actually laws on the book in most states, so it went beyond tradition, it was the law).  Traditionally, children slept on their stomaches, until the scientists told us that the chances of SIDS skyrocketed when an infant doesn't sleep on its back.  So don't give me that tradition garbage.  We don't continue doing things just because that how it has always been done.  The american people deserve better than that -- we deserve to know how it benefits the overall society.  The bottomline is that monogomy and marital committment is a major benefit to modern society, whether it is between opposite sexes or the same sexes.
1130410
No.  If gay people want to be responsible and be married, I see no issue with that. \nI will vote for any that comes out against amnesty for illegals.  So very few have done that.
257002
It's here to stay, weather we accept it or not.  Personally, I'm opposed to gay marriage but not a gay union.\nI believe gay people are entitled to the same benefits and perks as any other citizen, as long as they're paying their way they should get entitlement.\nThe one area I find confusing is when a gay man will sell himself as a heterosexual for the purpose of marriage with a heterosexual female.  I have had two female acquaintances who have fallen into this trap and found out after tying the knot that their husbands were gay.  In both cases, the marriages ended most ricky- tick.  This was a traumatic experience for both women, one they would never forget!\nSociety is more accepting of homosexuality, today.  There is no logical reason for a homosexual to do this to an un-suspecting person.  Women beware!!!!!