BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Civil Rights The Right to Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a topic that is widely debated. But in all reality, why should anyone worry about whether someone gets married or not?

Let me know your thoughts. Please also read my article here

Amen!

I think that two people who are in a loving relationship that is stable should be able to get married: gay, straight, or bi!

THe thing people get stuck on is the religious connotations of MARRIAGE verses the fact that it is simply a civil contract with our govt.

Why would 2 men want to marry unless they are both out of their minds?

My feeling is that any time 2 people love each other enough to make a promise to care for each other for as long as they live, that is a good thing for society and should be encouraged.

WOuld two women marrying be ok for you? SInce you ask why 2 men would want to marry

Just like the issue of homosexuality itself, this question (and therefore the answer) isn't as black and white as most people think or believe it to be. I'm new on this forum, and would like to share with you the answer...give me some time to assemble my thoughts, and I will provide you all with something very thought-provoking based on truthful facts, logic, and reason. You will notice that any references that I use will be both non-religious and also not from pro-homosexual sources as well. At that point, you can draw your own conclusions about the issue of homosexuality and same sex marriage. I shall return with a very thorough and detailed answer...

The expalnation is simple. Marriage is about religion where it started and government and rights are a whole differnet ball of wax. You cannot mix the two as water and oil do not mix. You can create all the laws you want but you can never change peoples beliefs (at least not so easily although you are trying by always ingesting PC into the game)

The LGBT community wouldn't be arguing for their "right" to marry if it were just about love. Anybody can celebrate their love and commitment for each other in any way kind of celebration or ceremony they come up with...a contract of the heart is what I'm talking about here. So saying that marriage is a "right" to begin with is based on false pretenses. Based on that, lobbying for same sex marriage is hypocrisy. And based on what you just stated, straight people wouldn't be arguing against the homosexuals "right" to marry if it were just about love. Yes, marriage is a religious construct that the government got their greasy paws into. So don't you think it is also very hypocritical for anybody (including straight) to be granted and accept legal incentives and tax write offs for being married and/or having children? (This is somewhat of a rhetorical question)

Pat, There is nothing more disturbing than a heterosexual trying to explain all the facts/dynamics/beliefs within the homosexuality community. Seriously, I would like to see your full assertion of Cambodian cultures, Islamic cultures and throw in the Aboriginals while your at it!

Wow, I'm a little late to this, but I'll jump on in. Before I reveal why gay people want the right to get married, I should probably take a moment to make the definitions in this issue very clear. 1. Marriage is a civil right, defined as such by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia case. The court specifically stated: [i]Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... [/i] 2. Marriage is not a religious institution. Every government requires two people to acquire a license to get married, but it does not require those people to have a religion. Marriage existed long before religion did. With those two factors clearly and irrefutably defined, I can tell you why gay people are fighting for the right to be legally married. When a man marries a woman, it grants that woman the legal status of "NEXT OF KIN." Marriage legally unites two individuals as family, thus giving them all of the rights and protections of a family member. This is a status that CANNOT be granted by a durable power of attorney nor by any other contract or legal document (aside from adoption of a child). Here is another factor that compels gay people to fight for the right to get married (instead of accepting civil unions): Marriage is incontestable (in other words, no authority can tell a legally married couple that their marriage is not legitimate) in every state; civil unions lose their legality in states that do not allow them. You see, it really is about civil rights, because marriage is a civil right. It is being denied to gay people based on gender, which is the definition of discrimination.

Very well said, NewPerson. (Where's my "LIKE" button?!)

And posting information found on NOM or AFA or AFR is likely to be flawed (either being addressed now as in the one study by Mark Regnerus or as already proven flawed but ignored by these groups)... I'm just throwing that out there.

It is absurd that a man would want to be married to another man.

Yes I agreed.Let every one to do freely what they want.All are equal before law no matter from which country they belongs.gay Marriage is not an issue.The hot issue are security.Securing our border form the illegal entries.

In March 2014 I posted a piece on my blog called "The Gay-marriage Thing" in which I said, What is so special about marriage? It can’t be all about children, surely, in these sophisticated times. At least, not in the West. Promiscuity is blatant, adoptions are easy, artificial insemination is routine, divorces are simple, surgical sex-changes abound, birth control is everywhere, and serial monogamy is the norm. The old ideal of “the nuclear family” has gone out the window.

You can find the whole piece in my Archives of the relevant month OR by Googling the title of the piece preceded by my name. My argument concluded that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether - while (hopefully) remaining in the child-care business. For me, the term "marriage" should apply only to *first*-marriages. Marriages of divorced individuals should be called "civil unions".

Loved your article Gordon