On the gay marriage thing...?
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?
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.
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
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.
23886
It might lead to it in the long run, polygamists might eventually get the court precidence if gay marriage goes through. Legally speaking, it could easily happpen. There really hasn't been "homosexual marriage" in history, but there have been hundreds of societal examples of it being extremely common, and expected, valued, and practiced - the greeks, the spartans, the japanese, etc. It has only been considered 'unnatural' in some western cultures over the past 1,000 years or so. In many cultures, it has only become 'unnatural' in the last 200 years or less, and that is simply because of Western ideals being imported.
596529
Yes, I believe if two people are in love, they should be able to wed. If they want to make that kind of a commitment and are that secure in their relationship, which I doubt I will EVER be that secure, let them have at it!! I do have a problem with them raising kids though. And I would hate to see a divorce between 2 gay men. That would be one hell of a cat fight!! I think a lot of people are coming around to this point of view since a lot of states have legalized same sex marriages. It was a very good thing indeed!! Thank you for asking!!
996282
Well, sooner or later (hopefully), more and more people will understand that being gay and 2 gay married one and another are not a 'crime'! but it is just another alternative lifestyle.\n\nI think majority of straight people is HYPOCRITICAL. Even straight people nowdays has extra-marital affairs, 3some, swingers and etc. Why cant straight people honour their vow while they are being married if marriage is THAT sacred? If we are believe in democracy why being bias toward gay, lesbian to get married and have their basic rights as human and etc? I do not want to teach my kids to be bias, prejudice, hypocrite while at the same time I want them to look the world in different perspective.  Understanding that there are too many people in this world with different culture, sexuality, needs, wants, color, shape, sizes and the most importantly learn to respect other people preferences!!!
700507
I honestly don't understand what the big deal is!  Men and women get married to procreate, or that is what marriage was originally created for.  So, why is it SO important for gays to marry?  They can't procreate.  Do they really need a special piece of paper to commit eternally to each other?  I really can't understand why it is SUCH A BIG DEAL!!  I say let's abolish marriage all together, then everyone can be happy.  50 - 60% of marriages don't last any more, so why bother?   WHAT IS THE BIG DAMN DEAL????
927296
Start here for more or less neutral look at the issue:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Controversy
1049336
First, I must once again I must couch an objection to the term "gay marriage" because gay people aren't looking for a new form of marriage... they're trying to join everyone else in  marrying the person they love.\n\nSecond, I think the series of answers saying "hey!  I don't object!" probably establishes that not everyone has a problem, and I'm glad they don't.\n\nHowever, as far as those who have a problem with the notion, I have read the Bible quite thoroughly, and yes, I must admit most of those who object to the concept of "gay marriage" do so because of what is written in its pages.\n\nThe thing about it, though, is that if you pay real attention to modern Christian doctrine, very little of it comes from the words of Jesus, at least in America.  It would probably inconvenience the lives of Christians far too much to have to admit Jesus forbids them most of their judgmental actions (along with quite a few other things like keeping excess wealth, publicly donating to charity and being recognized for it, eating non-kosher foods, divorcing and re-marrying, etc).\n\nFor the moment, Christianity largely seems to have become a movement for those who don't want to be righteous so much as they want to be self-righteous, which always comes with a core of egotistical judgmentalism.  It isn't enough for most people to be faithful, they have to find a way to scorn those who don't share their faith, and it often manifests in movements like this, to forbid other people rights they feel entitled to themselves on the basis of the fact they don't like the minority choice.\n\nI would object to that notion, and so would the Founding Fathers, on many grounds, though they are often pointed to as supporting the idea of America as a "Christian Nation".  To that, I would have to quote Dave Chappelle:\n\n"Hmmm... let's see... 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'... that's a good start.  Get over here n*gger!  Bring me my dinner or I'll kill you!!!"  \n\nSo, the Founding Fathers may not have been the flawless thinkers on the subject of human rights or protecting the minority we'd like to think they are.\n\nOn the other hand, though, I would also have to quote the man who actually WROTE our Constitution, James Madison:\n\n"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others."\n\nAnd:\n\n"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."\n\nOr, to put it another way:\n\n"There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong"\n\nThere may be conflicting quotes by other Founding Fathers, but honestly I think when it comes to considering the American Constitution, what James Madison had to say about the matter probabl
894767
. . You are witnessing the degeneration that happens to all Nations before there fall. \n  If gay marriage is legalized, why can't a brother marry his sister? ? After all, you who claim gay marriage is okay, what gives you the right to oppose  two brothers, are a brother-sister marriage?  You went wrong when you created your own ethics. If right and wrong are merely what you esteem it to be, What ever gives you the right to oppose others, on anything,without being a intolerant bigot yourself? Is your opinion more worthy than theirs Are, are you just arrogant enough to think yours is,and theirs is not. Situational ethics is a train wreck. There has always been right and wrong, good, and evil. God told mankind what was right, and wrong. The U.S.A. is slipping into degeneracy. Marriage is what it has always been. All through history, marriage has been between a man and woman.  That is the very definition of marriage.
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.
959301
In the UK we have recently started to accept civil partnerships, which I hope is the first step towards a better gay marriage law.  The difficulty is that a lot of pople think that "marriage" can only be between a man and a woman and a lot of people think that gay people don't deserve the same human rights as straight people, I hope that these views fall out of favour because there is no real difference and surely two people in a happy, commited relationship are better off than two single people that are living alone and miserable!
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!!!!!
1101811
Doesnt seem that we have ruined marriage without the help of gay marriage. Look at the divorce rate...could be possibly screw it up anymore. Maybe gay marriage might actually benefit the divorce rate.
617479
Ofcourse yes I will vote for it.\nBut do you know the meaning of marriage?that means union between man and women that they can join together and bear childs to fill the world.how then can guy marry one another?are they gone crazy?are they became beasts?\nits a foolish idea that has even no right to be discussed by human being.\n thank you for good question
1177099
[Here is an answer I gave to this elsewhere in the Y!A zone.  I hope you will review the link as well.]\n\nEven though we might disagree on this, I will respectfully submit my reason as a follower of Jesus Christ. \n\nEven though I fully disagree with homosexuality, if two people want to be recognized as committed to each other that's not as big of deal to me. Just don't call it "marriage"...that's where I have the problem.\n\nSince you asked, the term marriage was defined by God (and if not by God as you might feel, at least it was defined by those who wrote the Bible). Either way, it was defined as between a Man and a Woman in Genesis 2:24 "24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (NIV)\n\nThere are a bunch of reasons I can share for why it endangers marriage. I found an article on an anti-gay marriage site that sums it all up but these are not only anti-gay views. In many cases they are the views of pro-gay, anti-gay marriage folks. \n\nhttp://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp\n\nRespectfully submitted...Mister Bob the Tomato