Gay marriage

[kokotai]

Do you think that gay marriages should be legalized and if so why or why not?

 

[Brandon]

I have a wishy washy opinion about this topic. While I could care less about gay marriage in general, I don't think the government should not deny freedoms to other people. Government should not endorse a two tier system of citizens. Marriage is also only part religious now, since the state is involved in licensing the act itself.

 

[capitalist_junkie]

People don't seem to realize that when the government is discriminating against gays, they're basically doing what they did to other races before the civil rights movement. It used to be that marriage BETWEEN blacks was illegal, and then, of course, interracial marriage was illegal. I don't get why people see how discriminatory our government continues to be.

 

[Brandon]

Gay people are not a race, it is a sexual preference!

The government would not be violating any civil rights if it did not issue marriage licenses.

I honestly think marriage should stay with the church. Let churches decide if they want to marry gay men and women and allow the government to mediate if problems arise. Marrage from a legal standpoint is only a contract, let government treat it as such.

 

[Word2Action]

Gay people are not a race, it is a sexual preference!

The government would not be violating any civil rights if it did not issue marriage licenses.

I honestly think marriage should stay with the church. Let churches decide if they want to marry gay men and women and allow the government to mediate if problems arise. Marrage from a legal standpoint is only a contract, let government treat it as such.

I really like this idea about letting the church mediate this issue. The only problem that I see arising with this is the flooding of gay populations to certain areas just to get married. This would adversely affect social and economic situations wherever this may occur.

 

[Brandon]

Marriage is a contract and the church as no authorization to mediate contracts. Governments should only handle the divorce (breach of contract) and resolve custody issues (contract terms).

People should be able to form any contact they choose, whither it is with a cable company or another person. Governments should only be the third party.

Even with an influx of gays to a certain area, I don't see how that would compomise that area or others.

 

[kokotai]

Church and state

The very problem with this issue is that there is no seperation of church and state in this issue. The church is literally dictating what the government should do. I think that being married should be a basic right afforded everyone. As for it not being a race, that is true enough however it is not a choice either so it is a civil rights issue.

 

[sushimonster]

I think for the most part it is not a choice. What gay person would choose to be hated by so many people.

I do find that gay culture is rather trendy though. Even years ago when I was in school, I saw groups of people that thought it was cool and unique to "act" gay.

 

[capitalist_junkie]

I think for the most part it is not a choice. What gay person would choose to be hated by so many people.

I don't know. I think many people would rather be hated for who they are and loved for who they are not.

I'm not saying that homosexuality is a choice with the above statement --- I really have no clue whether it is or it isn't. And really, I don't care. I think the state needs to legalize marriage (and not just civil unions) and let the church's handle that legislation individually. Because there are some liberal denominations that do in fact support gay marriage.

 

[Paula62]

I see no reason to exclude gay marriages from the marital benefits provided by government. the secular side of marriage is largely designed to both create responsibility on the part of the spouses to care for each other, and to protect spouses when they need it, as in old age or disability. By not allowing gay marriage, the government prevents people from being reponsible for each other (for example, through health insurance benefits, spousal social security benefits, property division upon a dissolution of the marriage, etc.) Our public policy should promote practices that lessen the potential for extreme poverty.

 

[kokotai]

I see no reason to exclude gay marriages from the marital benefits provided by government. the secular side of marriage is largely designed to both create responsibility on the part of the spouses to care for each other, and to protect spouses when they need it, as in old age or disability. By not allowing gay marriage, the government prevents people from being reponsible for each other (for example, through health insurance benefits, spousal social security benefits, property division upon a dissolution of the marriage, etc.) Our public policy should promote practices that lessen the potential for extreme poverty.

I could not agree more. This is what most gay couples want in the first place, the right to take care of each other and their children.

 

[Martyr]

I'm a strong gay sympathizer and am very much against homophobia, but I don't give a **** what you call it so long as the benefits are equal. Civil union, marriage, whatever.

 

[kokotai]

It is a shame that more people don't think the way that you do. Why do you think that mainstream America really doesn't want gay couples to be recognized. What are they afraid of?

 

[sarah]

Marriage is a contract and the church as no authorization to mediate contracts. Governments should only handle the divorce (breach of contract) and resolve custody issues (contract terms).

exactly, after all the big deal with this issue is not the ability to have a marriage recognized by a religious institution, but to have the ability to live a life with a spouse and possibly children and to have the rights that are taken for granted by the straight members of society.

 

[OneofaKind]

If it was that simple, then gay people would be satisfied with civil partnerships which provide them with the same rights.