8 Answers | Add Yours
While I do not agree with gay marriage from a religious stand point, I do not think there should be laws against it. We value the separation of church and state in the country. I do not think the government should have control over such a spiritual and personal part of our lives. If a gay couple wants to get married, that is a personal choice and not my place to judge. I choose what is right for my own life but I have no right to say what should happen in theirs. Legally, everyone should have the same rights.
There was once a time when people believed that inter-racial marriages should not be allowed. We believe now that was wrong. This is no different. If we allow the government to control this issue, what type of precedent does that set? What will the government try to control in the future?
I heard on the radio that President Obama describes his views on the issue as "evolving." I think that's politician talk for not wanting to offend any group. Discrimination is discrimination. Why should we suggest that one group has rights while another does not? It always seems to come down to a religious issue to me. Yet I don’t think that religious groups should have that much legal influence. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state.
Brian Montopoli of CBS News stated, more and more political leaders are speaking out in favor of same-sex marriage, while the presidents suggests that he is still struggling with the issue.
There's polling to back up that perception: Gallup found last year that a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage, the sort of finding that has gay rights activists imploring the president to "evolve already." (Montopoli 2012)
More Americans seem to support the idea that marriage is for people who love each other, and that married people of all types should have the same rights. Love is love.
Read more here:
Montopoli, Brian. "Same-sex Marriage an Awkward Issue for Obama." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 07 May 2012. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57429144-503544/same-sex-marriage-an-awkward-issue-for-obama/>.
I don't think the government has the right to restrict who marriage can occur between. How each of us feels about sexual preference is determined by our own beliefs and morals, and in many cases by religious doctrine. I think to restrict marriage based on what is a morality issue, not a legal one, goes against the doctrine of separation of church and state. I think religious organizations have the right to restrict marriage if that is what their dogma dictates, but not the government. If any two heterosexual people can marry (with no regard to age, background, morality, length of relationship, family support etc) then it is illogical that the law prevents a homosexual couple from marrying. The law makes no moral distinction about heterosexual couples (other than already being married) so it should not use moral distinctions to prevent homosexual couples from marrying.
I agree with the previous poster. I see no reason why individuals should not be allowed to enter into marriages with each other. One's sexual preference (even if it was a "choice," which I don't necessarily believe it is) should not preclude their ability to participate freely in society. Even if I had a moral revulsion for homosexuality, which I do not, I fail to see how the ability of a same-sex couple to get married has any bearing on my marriage.
My feeling is that same-sex marriage should be legal. I personally do not see how it harms society. This is because I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral. I do not see any reason why it would be less moral than heterosexual desire and/or heterosexual acts. Therefore, there's no reason to ban such marriages.
As others have noted, the same-sex issue is complex in that what one believes may be shaped by religious teachings, by laws or by a strong sense of what is right or wrong. Perhaps, considering how the the nation dealt with abortion is instructive in the case of same-sex marriage. Prior to Roe v. Wade, there was no uniform treatment of the issue across the nation because each state had the right to determine its own course of action. After Roe v. Wade, abortion was legalized in all states. The Supreme Court made a legal decision. However, there continues to be conflict on the moral aspects of Roe v. Wade. Bottom line, the Court decided that women not governments should have the right to make decisions on matters affecting their own bodies. So, even though federal, state and local governments pass laws to legalize certain behaviors, whether or not one chooses to act on this legal right, is matter of personal choice. The abortion issue will continue to be debated because more scientific information exists today about creating and terminating life than there was in 1973. Furthermore, the intensity of the debate is indicative of how strongly Americans feel about it issue. The morality of same-sex marriages will always exist as long people define marriage according to their religious beliefs. Nine state legislatures have already legalized same-sex unions proving rights and benefits equal to married heterosexuals.
I also personally think there should be no laws against homosexual marriages, but why does the government/the law restrict them? Doesn't religion have anything to do with it? Most world religions - Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, to name a few - find it a sin to be sexually engaged with someone of the same gender. The law must be constituted with reilgion, right?
♂ + ♂ = ♥ ♀ + ♀ = ♥ ♀ + ♂ = ♥ Love is Genderless.
See in my opinion, gender doesn't really matter, because as long as its love why should anyone care? I don't see a difference
We’ve answered 315,924 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question