Should Gay Marriage and/or Civil Unions for commited Homosexual Couples be legalized in the entire United States?

Vote

Want to post a match question to the forums?

It's easy! Simply click the "open for debate" link on any match question.

MrGeoff

Nov 10, 2009

This question should be seriously modified or removed.  The definition of "civil union" differs in many states, and on top of that many people do not realize that civil unions do not provide all of the benefits of marriage under the DOMA act. 

 

Civil union is not marriage (nor does it confer upon the couple many of the fundamental rights of married couples), and a "yes to both" answer does not correctly convey the attitude that gays and lesbians should have totally equal rights. 

I_am_AlanG

Nov 10, 2009

I would go one step forward

Gay Marriage should be legal for Homosexual Couples in the entire United States. I've taken the committed portion out of the question. Two people regardless of their sexual orientation should be afforded the same legal rights. Period.

 

Of course, I get the point why shouldn't committed people be legalized. But as a straight male if I saw some woman tonight that I fell in "love" with I could get married in a couple days depending on the state. We aren't "committed", why should they have to be.

Kathy2869

Nov 10, 2009

Why is it up to the government who we get to marry any way? Who are they to say who I can love and marry? Every one whether they are Homosexual or Heterosexual should have the same right to get married and be happy or miserable by their own free choice. After all this country prides itself on freedom of choice does it not? But I guess that freedom only is for a sellect few or under certain cercumstances. I'll admit we have as a country come a long way but not quite far enough. 

sing_le

Nov 10, 2009

The government has a responsibility to guarantee preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships and disadvantage those who engage in the anti-social outrage of forming same-sex sexual relationships...the General Welfare Clause of the constitution should properly be read as requiring this.Unfortunately the legal community is reading things completely backward and treating harmful behavior as a protected liberty.

Recognition as a marriage by the government (and since I have never been religious and take the issue too seriously to pretend,I can't conscientiously enter anything but a civil marriage) is an extension of benefits to the married partners by society in exchange for the benefits the partners offer society by being together.That they be of opposite sexes is an indispensable source of those benefits.

All persons have equal rights,and same-sex marriage must never be a right of anyone.

Morsetlis

Nov 11, 2009

Such controlled vitriol, such bald-faced conviction in the facts of your ignorance.

sing_le

Nov 11, 2009

You're the ignorant one,and adherence to common sense in the face of self-righteous indulgence demanding to escape deserved censure is not vitriol.

Calithir

Nov 11, 2009

Oh boy, it's this subject again.  Expect it to explode in size, and expect Sing_Le to devote a significant period of time to it.  While his posts in other topics can be quite interesting, I find that discussing this one with him only raises my blood pressure, and encourage fellow proponents of gay marriage not to bother trying to change his mind.

Smokin_joes

Nov 11, 2009

Recognition as a marriage by the government is an extension of benefits to the married partners by society in exchange for the benefits the partners offer society by being together.That they be of opposite sexes is an indispensable source of those benefits.

What benefits, exactly?

Atl_Pencil

Nov 11, 2009

Joe, don't bother. I guarantee the conversation won't go anywhere.

Touchofinsight

Nov 11, 2009

yes to both, because frankly I haven't heard a good constructive arguement that made sense. Their sexuality will have little to no negative changes on our country and lifestyle. What they do inside their own homes is their buisness. The only arguements I hear are from the irresponsible parents, But if they hear about two men/women being married, how will I explain it to them. You tell them the truth and be responsible, being a parent does not mean you get to pick and choose what information your child learns at what age. This belief needs to stripped from the hearts and minds of parents, children grow up at their own pace, and yes their enviroments can define at what pace. But its your job to teach them and enlighthen them, not smother.

If someone could come up with a realistic and reasonable arguement why it shouldn't be in place, i'd be glad to hear it.

ItsAdvanced

Nov 11, 2009

Touchofinsight: Word.  I really don't get why it's anybody else's business what two consenting adults of either gender do in their own bedroom, as long as no one's getting hurt.

JaronK

Nov 11, 2009

I've never seen a logical arguement for why the rights of homosexual couples should be supressed (see Sing_Le for examples of illogical arguements).  They all just boil down to bigotry in the end.  Now, personally I'd like the government out of the marriage buisiness entirely, but some sort of legal recognition of relationships is necessary for wills and hospital visitation and child support and the like.  However, I see no need to restrict those things to any particular requirements other than consenting adults.  I mean, it doesn't even matter if the people are sleeping together at all... if I have a roommate who I've lived with for 20 years, shouldn't that person be the one who is in my will automatically (if I didn't write one) and who visits me in the hospital?  Does it matter if we're  having sex?

So I'd really rather the government do Civil Unions all around, and let marriage be about the more spiritual and romantic side of things (which the government shouldn't regulating).  But as long as the government wants to have a legal standing for straight marriage, that same standing should be available for homosexuals too.

stainless1911

Nov 11, 2009

Homosexuality is against my religion. The Bible says if you are homo, you go to hell without repentance.

kana048

Nov 11, 2009

ABSOLUTELY, Gay marriage should be allowed. It saddens me that we are still having this debate.

Axie13

Nov 11, 2009

I don't know a whole lot about it but, I don't see why it matters if anyone in the GLBT community gets married. They say marriage is something sacred, and to them they're relationship is sacred especially if they want to get married, so I say why not?

no_name_avail

Nov 11, 2009

I put "no" to both. I dont know what a civil union is...

If gay marriage were allowed it would dis-honor all marriages. Gay marriage = very bad. Come up with something else. Dont ruin marriage. It is sacared, and between a man and woman.

MerAngel2112

Nov 11, 2009

Gay marriage should absolutely be allowed. everyone should have the same rights as we do in MA

cecethepunk

Nov 11, 2009

Being a straight female I completely believe that everyone should be able to be married no matter their sexual orientation.  We are all made the same, we are all born the same and we all die the same.  So while we are on this Earth we should all be treated the same.  If you have never had a majority of the population vote on your rights and what can and can not happen in your life, then you just may not understand.

JaronK

Nov 11, 2009

Quoting Stainless "Homosexuality is against my religion. The Bible says if you are homo, you go to hell without repentance."

If you're Christian, you might want to try actually reading your bible instead of trusting homophobic commentators to do your analysis for you.  The bible never says what you claim at all.  There is actually gay marriage in the bible, and it's not frowned upon (Daniel and Johnathan).  Because the King James bible was translated in homophobic times, they played with the words a bit, but the word translated as "covenant" as in the covenant of David and Johnathan is not the same word as the covenant between the Israelites and God.  It in fact translates as "marriage agreement."  And, by the way, while there are many admonisments of homosexual male sex and heterosexual sex, there are absolutely none of lesbian sex... that's the only kind that's actually not criticized at all.  So yes, the bible is both for and against gay sexuality... pro marriage, anti-random (unmarried) sex.  Of course, it's like that about heterosexuality too.  And it just ignores lesbians entirely.

So no, homosexuality is not against your religion, especially not homosexual marriage.  Read it for yourself (and check multiple translations!).

no_name_avail

Nov 11, 2009

The bible was written by the roman senate, fyi.

Anyways its a pretty sad state of affairs that you are all supporting gay marriage...

Equal rights are fine, but hasn't marriage been through enough bullshit already...

Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe marriage is now entirely meaningless. People only get married for tax benifits, or to get a their green card.  Wtf is love?

So anyways... Pretend gay marriage were legal. Whats next? Gay married people are allowed to adopt kids?

Kid walks into bed room, "daddy what are you doing to daddy?"

Well good thing we let them adopt kids because now they can get more tax breaks!

Definition of marriage: Between a man and woman.

Post a comment