What do you think about gay marriage and should it be legal or illegal?
filed in One Bytes on Jul.28, 2010
Im doing a project for school about gay marriage and I am curious about what you have to say about it. Please give me an answer and a good reason for your answer. Thank You.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
"Don’t take down a fence until you know why it was put up."
Marriage shouldn’t be changed. Reasons (Not in order of importance):
1. Demographics: Homosexuality isn’t genetic and therefore can’t be compared to rights for women, blacks, etc. These groups all have protected rights based on genetics. Dean Hamer, a lead researcher and supporter of homosexuality concluded the following from his research, “[t]he pedigree study failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants.” * Another study done by Andrew M Francis of Emory University as an analysis of Bograet & Blanchard’s Immune Maternity Theory pointed out that many social factor appear in pattern with same-gender attraction. ** No conclusive evidence has been shown to support either homosexual behavior as either purely choice or genetics. Some choose homosexuality, while others say they wish they could change who how they feel.*** Which may be why most psychological research will conclude that same-gender attraction is a complex mix of both social and biological factors. Same-gender marriage shouldn’t be made law based upon demographic arguments, and considered a biological anomaly at best.
2. A Society’s (hear to be know as the "state’s") interest in Marriage: If current debate is about equality, then a rational question would be and has been asked, "Why not rid a state’s interest in marriage altogether?" This option should be just as readily accepted as legalizing same-sex marriage if equality is the only state interest. However, it is obvious that a state has interest in marriage. Procreation, child rearing, interstate uniformity, and monogamy are the court precedents for previous state’s interests in marriage.
Procreation – A state has an obvious endorsement of procreation and thus marriage. If marriage is to include those who cannot procreate, nor to promote the image of procreation in a given state, then another state institution will naturally emerge promoting the such procreation.****
Child rearing – France (which is a fairly secular country) ruled that as a country, they would ban same-sex marriage on the basis that children had a right to parents (i.e. mother and father) and not that parents had a right to children.*****
Interstate Uniformity – States that choose to adopt same-sex marriage impose upon another state’s right to law, especially in the United States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. ****** People could argue that there are already difference in marriage laws and thus this is not a problem. However, there are many complaints for discrimination where one same-sex marriage isn’t recognized in their resident state, resulting now in legal court cases attempting to change individual state constitutions in the United States.
Monogamy: Homosexual relationships haven’t typically been monogamous and don’t really show signs of changing. In the 70′s 75% of homosexual men claimed to have had over 100 sexual partners^ with homosexual women showing lower rates. Also an online poll found that, " 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years." ^^ Additionally in January of this year the New York Times did an article on how homosexual promiscuity could be the evolutionary saving point for the failing institution of marriage.^^^
Disease: Homosexuality is disease promoting behavior. For example, men who have sex with men (MSM), since 1977 of the AIDS epidemic have not double, not triple, but 60 times that of the general population.^^^^ "More than 60% of new infections [of syphilis] are diagnosed in men who have sex with men (MSM). ^^^^^ MSM should undergo the following tests annually: HIV serology, syphilis serology, urethral infection with N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis, rectal infection with N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis, pharyngeal infection with N. gonorrhoeae in men who have acknowledged participation in receptive oral intercourse (regardless of how safe the sex may be for the latter three). ^^^^^^ Additionally the recent epidemic outbreak of syphilis in china is placed upon the shoulders of high risk sexual behavior (i.e. MSM and prostitution). ”’ Although women who have sex with women (WSW) haven’t typically been associated with high risk sexual behavior; there is a large lack of research on the issue. Caution is still taken with WSW in spreading STDs since, "the majority of self-identified WSW (53%–99%) have had sex with me n and might continue this practice." ””” Ha ha yahoo said I have too many sources.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
LEGAL!
everyone deserves to be happy!
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
it shouldn’t even be something people talk about.. ‘gay’ people can marry if they want to. i’m sick of people singling them out.. who cares? if i was in a relationship with a girl, i’d want people to just accept it and not even think anything of it. ugh.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Legal. We are all human beings and all deserve equal rights. To not allow it is to suggest that homosexuals are below heterosexuals.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
I have no problems with it being legal. How will two men or two women that are married effect my life? It won’t. I’m a man and I’m married to a woman. That’s not going to change. If a gay couple moved in next door to me and got married, my marriage would still remain the way it is today.
The religious argument is a joke. Why should one religion cram their beliefs down other people’s throats? If your religion does not support gay marriage, then your church does not have to perform a gay marriage ceremony. A church can refuse to perform the ceremony now to a heterosexual couple, so why would that change for a gay couple?
The "sanctity of marriage" argument is likewise a joke. How sacred can it be if a couple can get married and divorced over one weekend? If the current form of marriage is so sacred, why don’t they ban divorce?
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
I don’t believe gay marriage is right, but i have no right to say who can and cant get married. Im a christian went to a christen school my whole life, and i hated how judgement Christians are, they say to love your neighbor, but Christians are the first to cast the first stones at gay people. So I say I don’t think its right in Gods eyes, BUT i don’t have any right to be rude or mean or judge gay people, that is not my place. If they want to get married then thats their personal choice, not mine.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Gay marriage should be legal. So, what’s the big deal? If two people love each other, shouldn’t they be allowed the same rights, privileges and responsibilities, no matter their genders? Yet, marriage is so much greater than the commitment of two people to each other. Marriage is an institution that much of our culture revolves around. It is also an institution that is in crisis.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Legal. All adults have the right to be happy… that includes marriage.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
It should be legalize, we can’t chose who we’re attracted to and who we fall in love with. So we should have the rights to marry the person we love regardless of gender, race, skin color, disability, and anything else. I think it’s inhumane for people to just be able to vote away our marriage. When could we vote away their marriage, if we want to marry someone of the same sex then let us and go on with your life, but don’t shove your beliefs upon us.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
The sanctity of marraige is about love, commitment and trust. If two people come together, make each other happy and make the world a better place (there’s too much unhappiness in the world right now), then gender should not be an issue. So much of the bible (if you believe in God) is misconstrued and manipulated and turned into a weapon for narrow minded bigots to use in their favour against homosexuality. Marraige is nothing but an act of binding two people with their hearts and souls and sharing their lives together. Gender should never be an issue. Ever.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
LEGAL!
Everyone should be allowed to get married or no one should. Double standards are not right.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Love Gays but no Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage? is Illegal. No Gay Marriage in Bible
Thus No Gay marriage for anyone
In Bible .. Love all as I have Loved you Jesus
10 Commandments Love Your Brother as yourself
Old Testament Preaches Love too
However ..
Marriage is for Man and WOman.
In OT Gensis
and for this reason a man will leave this mother and father and cleave to His Wife.
<< Mark 10:7 >>
New International Version (©1984)
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
Also in Mark..
Be Fruitful and Multiply
God Blessed Adam and Eve
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
http://biblebrowser.com/genesis/1-22.htm
And After the Flood God Blessed Noah and Told Them to Multiply
Genesis 9:1
New International Version About NIV
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/9-1-compare.html
Man and Man and Woman and Woman cannot marry according to the Word of God
We are Separate but Equal in Love.
Love all/ Love your brother as yourself NT BIBLE
IC XC NIKA
KYrie Eleison
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Legal. At the end of the day the ability to chose your partner is a basic human right. These people should not be punished by being treated differently just because they have CHOSEN another man or another woman to be their partner. It is like giving people who drink wine more civil rights than people who drink beer. People have NO CONTROL over who they are attracted to.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
i personally feel that gay marriage is ok. if a man and a women love each other the law says it’s ok to marry. but if a gay couple want to get married it is wrong. i don’t believe this. it shouldn’t matter as long as the 2 people involved love each other. after all a lot of male and female marriages end in divorce. the same could be true of gay couples. that doesn’t make it wrong. in my belief i don’t feel god is going to say that you can’t enter the Kingdom of heaven because you are gay. that is not to say that you may feel differently. if you do than that is your beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with that
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Idk because like, marriage is a biblical thing in all and it says it is only between a man and a woman, but like i support gays and lesbians being together 100%.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Legal, of course. Marriage is a symbol of love between two people, people who wish to give each other their word that they will be faithful, supportive and loving to each other for as long as they live. Plenty of gay couples feel that way about each other: they love each other, remain faithful to each other, support each other. Yet they are singled out because they love somebody of the same gender.
Many people say, "Love transcends everything". Then it also transcends genders, I believe.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
I support it 100%
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
To my mind marriage is about commitment, love, and companionship too. Why should someone be excluded from all that just because they’re gay? It doesn’t make sense, there’s no valid justification for denying gay people the right to marry.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
You’re asking this in the GLBT section of Yahoo! Answers. I think your answers are going to be a little biased?
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Fifty years ago one of the favorite targets of Christian bigotry was inter-racial couples. Like any other type of bigotry it is easy to find Bible verses to buttress your intolerance.
When the issue of inter-racial marriages came before theSupreme Court of the state of California the court ruled, correctly, that the right to a CIVIL marriage is a fundamental civil right in our society.
When many years later the same court (different justices) heard arguments over gay marriage the court found once again that the right to a CIVIL marriage is a fundamental civil right in our society and they acknowledged the existence of loving gay couples. See link to PDF of court decision below.
Faced with the threat of equal justice under the law Christianity went into full panic mode. Mor[m]on bigots and the Holy Roman Boy Rape Church pumped millions of dollars into a campaign of lies, slander, demonization, deliberate deception, misrepresentation and fear mongering in Jeebus’ name.
The problem with letting religious bigots determine public policy is that not everyone participates in their idiotic and spiteful stupid clubs.
In the very near future a US District Court in California will overturn Proposition H8 but the case will certainly find its way to the SCOTUS.
The day will come when Christian bigots will just have to suck it up and try to behave like decent human beings because all persons are entitled to equal justice under the law.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
what ever I thought about it before, if i were able to marry an incredibly hot, looking guy as you., i would call the wedding chapel today.. A piece of paper does not make the marriage, its what is within you..the law of the land does not allow it, but many are married within there heart, and soul..So you have God’s law, and man’s law.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
What if society was formed thousands of years ago differently to where now heterosexual people were fighting for the right to marry? Something to think about…People can have freedom of religion but not freedom of sexual preference? The physical body is just a shell where your spirit resides – that’s all it is. There shouldn’t be restrictions on people telling other people who they can and can’t be with or love. We aren’t in times anymore where humans have to breed for the survival of the species. If anyone believes in marriage then they should be able to get married.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Legal, and federally recognized.
It’s a matter of civil rights and equality before the law.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
I think the institution of marriage is inherently flawed. It’s definition is blurred, and mixed with religion. I think the state should no longer recognize marriages legally, as they are a religious institution, and instead recognize domestic partnerships for gays and straights, with clearly outlined benefits. Marriage should not be recognized, it’s special rights for only a certain group of people.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Everyone deserves to be happy and no one should be excluded from love. Bringing religion into this is stupid.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
Illegal. "Marriage" in every society and religion is the union of one man and one woman. Not two people of the same gender. I am religious, but thats not my only reasoning. There is already enough chaos in the world, this will only complicate things further. The Sanctity of marriage has already been abandoned with over half ending in divorce(and more than half the 2nd/3rd time around) and do not think it needs to be corrupted further. Its sad to see it become so disposable and I fear for the future. Marriage is defined as a covenant between a man and woman. The term "Same Sex Marriage" is a contradiction. To say that marriage means whatever we want it to mean implies that marriage has no intrinsic meaning of its own. Its no longer anything special. Redefining marriage will not elevate the status of same sex couples, but will undermine the sanctity of marriage. On a side note, if gays want to live together and get mutual health benefits or whatnot, fine. But God made woman for man.
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
what
July 28th, 2010 on 6:56 pm
This is a controversial issue, which I will have obvious bias on. Nobody really knows any way you look at it (theologically and/or scientifically), but the biggest example used to support the gay movement is gay animals in nature. Whether this is "natural" or just a deviance caused by mental/social stigma or abnormal biology I’ll leave up to you.
Of course, there is the religious angle – that we were created man & woman and commanded to keep it that way. People like to argue that we are animals just like the rest, but from a spiritual perspective I would have to say that this is false. Man was born with eternity in his soul and, therefore, is able discern between good and evil. Whether they give into the grace of God or the seduction of Satan is up to them.
July 29th, 2010 on 1:35 pm
This is relevant to the discussion. The exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis causes nervousness. Why? Because the real sin Adam and Eve committed was anal sex–the mystery Augustine almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought their sin was normal penile/vaginal sex.) For more information google “WikiAnswers-What is wrong with Robert Hagedorn’s Blogs”