Same-sex marriage in the United States! What is your stance? (I don't intend on debating with any of the comments; I just want to know how you all feel about it.)
108 deviants saidLegalize it all over the US. Sexual organs shouldn't take part in deciding whether or not two people should have the right to marry.
9 deviants saidI'm neutral on it. I'll leave it to the people it concerns.
4 deviants saidLeave it up to the individual states to decide what they want to do with themselves, as usual.
4 deviants saidNone of the above. HERE'S WHAT I THINK: (comment)
3 deviants saidCivil Unions are perfectly adequate; homosexuals should be satisfied with them. They don't interfere with religion and are practically the same as marriage.
1 deviant saidIt shouldn't be called marriage if it's between homosexuals. It shouldn't be legal.
1 deviant saidIt usually doesn't work out for heterosexuals, so I don't see why homosexuals want it. Strengthening marriage laws is more important at the moment because the sanctity of marriage is at stake.
Marriage certificates are issued by the government, not the church. Marriages are also not always held inside churches and do not always require a pastor-- mayors and governors can also officiate weddings. Marriage is a ceremony that transpires many religions/cultures, so leaving it to just churches does not work.
That's what I am saying. You know in some cultures, marriage is as simple as jumping a broom? They mean different things to each culture, so having one certificate fits all kind of deal doesn't sit well. Point is, let marriage be a religious thing, not a governmental thing. There should be other ways to make a pact between peoples in the eyes of the government.
I dunno. Maybe I just don't know enough on the subject? You seem a lot smarter than I, so if you have some kind of information to enlighten my opinion, please do tell.
That doesn't seem very practical to me, however... while marriage may not be very important to some people, it is VERY important to others, regardless of which religion they happen to occupy.
And I like the fact that people can marry one another and have that special connection, but also gain legal benefits through for it. I think that it's both practical and very... gratifying? You love this person enough to enter an agreement with them and together you get to enjoy legal benefits for it.
Removing the legal benefits from marriage would only enrage countless people and adding a second "pact" to the list just seems really unnecessary.
I just think that we need to work with what we already have and make it available to more walks of life, not completely rewrite the system.
My gay mates have cried over this, people have killed themselves over this, just let 'em get married, what harm is it going to do to anyone outside of their lives personally if they do? It's marriage, it's not the end of the world as we know it. Just give the people what they deserve. I reckon.
It's not about religion or the bible (or at least it shouldn't be). It's about equal rights. The US isn't run by religion, it was founded on the seperation of church and state, and religion shouldn't play a part in marriage laws anymore then it should in other politics.
I figure if it doesn't encroach upon someone's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...Why get your panties in such a twist over it? Let consenting adults marry, regardless of what they have in their pants. Really, the only strong arguments against it are it's a sin (then let God sort it out, and it's not like it will make them any less gay) and it's somehow ruining the institution of marriage (which is laughable, because homosexuals couldn't possibly do any more damage to it than heterosexuals have).
I think the benefits of a marriage should be applied to any consenting adults who wish to enter in such an arrangement. Marriage between two people is one thing; but educated, consenting adults have no particular need for relationships to consist of two people only. I think the relative rarity of polyamoric relationships (in America, at least) should not be ignored, for when it does exist, society is lacking in both acceptance and legal protections (outside of adoption, but that usually only works for adult and child, which... would definitely not be consenting adults, in that case). But the idea of sharing one's life with another need not only apply to familial & mating relationships. It isn't possible to 'adopt' a sibling-- that is, legally declare someone otherwise unrelated as a equal-standing family member-- but this could potentially leave some people in very dangerous situations, if they would otherwise choose to give close friends the rights of a close family member.
Yup. Earlier I debated with a close friend on facebook that was calling a Civil Union equal to marriage. Close, but no cigar, man. Hahaha. Well, here's a screenshot of his status with his argument anyway: [link]
At first this didn't piss me off. I mean, he was clearly just misinformed?? Because we're supposed to be talking about a marriage license, which is a civil issue, not a religious one. Plus he obviously didn't know Civil Unions don't offer equal rights as marriage, which basic research would have led him to know, but I digress. But later, in the comments, he suggested in a nutshell that homosexuals just get a civil union and basically have a pretend wedding and call their significant other their husband or wife or whatever to feel more equal. It just doesn't work like that. That got me a little riled and I went and took a nap I was so full of steam (and here I am now).
But to make things a little bit better, I went back to see that his very own had aunt slammed him with this on his wall: [link] He has admitted defeat. All is well now.
It should definitely be legal. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs in many species of animals and it is wrong to deny it. Marriage doesn't belong to any one religion, and it should not be up to any one religion to decide who can and cannot marry. Particularly when the reasons against it are so flawed and based upon opinions.
Basically-- if people don't like gay marriage, then they should not marry into a homosexual relationship. They shouldn't have the right to deny others this luxury, however.
Lives of people who are homosexual has absolutely no effect on you. I mean unless you get assaulted by someone who just so happens to be gay. But really, them marrying does shit for you because you ain't marrying them.
And I also see civil unions as extremely inadequate and somewhat insulting. I often hear people against gay marriage saying "Why do you care so much? It's not a big deal" about trying to earn the right to marry-- but the same question could be asked to people struggling to keep the definition of marriage as they perceive it.
OH yes, thank you, I forgot about that. And in addition, this is what really gets me--
If people want to keep marriage between a man and a woman for "sacred" reasons, then they should fork over the legal benefits that come with marriage. Marriage isn't all magical flowers and religious goodness-- it is also legally binding and you get helpful benefits from it. It's greedy and stupid to deny others these benefits.
I remember there was once even a comic going around about how a homosexual woman lost the love of her life because she could not marry her and gain proper benefits to assist her medically.
All this, in the end, doesn't matter much to me so I set it as neutral. I, even in a straight relationship, don't ever want to get married. But yeah! I DO hope it's legal everywhere, though. Let people merry who they want. It's no one else's problem but the individual who chooses to do it.