Nothing. I'm straight and married also and, frankly, I am offended that people who are in love and ready to commit who also happen to be gay don't have the same rights as I do.What is really so wrong with gay marriage/civil unions?
Nothing.
If people would keep church and state separate there wouldn't be a problem. Because they dont, hence the problem
it's about making law to protect only a certain group of people.any legislation that is done this way is dangerous ground.
the idea of 'marriage' came from the church, and by using it, technically the government is not observing the separation of church and state. i heard someone give this solution, which i think is a pretty good one- let the churches have the 'marriages' and the government have the civil unions. as long as a wedding in a church would be recognized by the government, as they are now- only as a civil union, it would eliminate the issue. that way, each denomination or individual church would decide on same sex marriage.
nothing at all, but people's prejudices against gays and lesbians. really, if people think the validity of their own marriage is in danger if gay people marry eachother, then they should not be married.
There is nothing wrong with it. I love how arguement seems to be centering around somatics. Who cares what the religious definition of marriage is? Only those who are following that religion. The governemnt should not get involved with the definition and just allow everyone to get married. If the government allows the population to create laws based on religious preference (as it is trying to do with dictating who can be married) then it is violating the constitution which seperates church and state. There is an answer above that says that the constitution's demand for seperation means that marriage should be a institution based on religion and as such should be protected by allowing civil unions and not gay marriage. That is backwards. If we follow that thought then those argueing for this protection of the marriage institution by the government is asking the government to uphold one religion above all others...wait that seems to be happening with christianity in the US anyway...
I wonder when the US is going to start following that whole seperation of Church and State requirement and stop upholding christianity above all other religions?
Nothing. It just seems that it is not a ';marriage.'; ';Civil Union'; makes more sense to me. I think people get annoyed that everyone else has to change what a marriage is just to suit some people.
I'm with you, I just don't know. I don't have a problem with it.
If its a government issue, its a state issue. Because its definitely not anywhere in the constitution for the us government to regulate it.
Neither is straight marriage for that matter, and somehow the government got its fingers inside that also.
*Why would one want to ban gay marriage, while there are horrendous things such as gay pride parades going on? How is a couple worse than that?
As a conservative (most people would call me a Goldwater conservative), I understand that this is not any business of the government. If you aren't violating the rights of another, the government has no business regulating your behavior.
Truthfully, the government should not be involved in the marriage business. It should be a contract situation. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a contract creating certain obligations, who are we to disagree?
Because some people actually believe in the Bible and the Constitution as it was written.. You people that want to say separation between Church and State have no clue what that means according to the Constitution...
I have no problem with people being gay, but when it crosses the line into the term marriage I have real problems with people crossing that line to make a point.. Marriage is an institution that means the love and bonding between Man and Woman.. If you allow this institution meaning to be cracked it only opens it up to the meaning that it's ok to call Man and Animal a marriage too.. If they want to be together then why not just use the term Union?? It's nothing but the liberals way to slap an institution in the face and take away the meaning of marriage.
Nothing is wrong with it. It should not be illegal.
I have a proposal; let's allow civil unions (with the same rights as marriage) without even considering the question of sexuality.
There might not be a huge call for people who are not even sleeping together to form a credit/social responsibility/important life decision type of alliance, but it could be useful to some.
Why do we even care who's sleeping with who?
(Wait a minute....I know the answer....It's that horrible human urge to say ';You're not allowed to do that, and you deserve to be treated like garbage for even trying';)
no there is a problem, in the bible it states that it is wrong. and it just doesnt seem right, does it? there wouldn't be all this trouble if man stayed with woman the way it is supposed to be and another thing! you cant seperate the bible from the constitution, guess who were christians and/or involved in some sort of church, our fonding fathers! people who signed and helped with the constitution and build our country for that matter were christians! they believed that homosexuality is wrong, i believe it is truly wrong
No comments:
Post a Comment