eldar1011

Absolutely!

Frankly, I don't know why anything pertaining to homosexuality should be illegal or invalid. Refer to the threads about Santorum, for example.

If laws are to protect, I'm not quite sure how homosexuality is a danger to anyone.

Optional

Um, what's the difference? Gays can marry right now, if they can find a willing minister. Or if they choose to be in a religion that doesn't require a minister for marriage. No problem. The issue is whether or not they get the same rights and benefits in the eyes of the law as a state-sanctioned married couple, and of course they don't. Most places, anyway.

As for the OP, the answer would be 'of course'.

-me

Ultron

No.

Feather

Why, because gays spread disease and promote promiscuous, immoral behaviour; that's how they're a danger to everyone. Just like drugs, condoms, and not enough God in the schools.

( )

Ultron

Well people in this country are free to vote for what they want.

I understand your viewpoint, but laws aren't JUST to protect. They are also to prevent or punish as well. Nobody has the right to prevent you from promoting laws that support homosexuality, and more than they have a right to prevent me from supporting heterosexuality.

HaysooChreesto!

I'm not sure what this means. How does one "support heterosexuality"? And if said support can be qualified, does it necessarily follow that it's anti-homosexuality?
If I'm pro carne asada, does that mean I should be anti-carnitas?

Cicero

I was referring to legal marriage, and to that which comes with it (access to a spouses health coverage, etc).

Ultron

A delicious delimma.

OK if it clarifies anything, we have the right to ban whatever we want, too. For example we've banned at the federal level, alcohol and slavery. We actually repealed one amendment on alcohol, too. What limits does the Constitution proscribe on what we can vote for to prohibit or support?

beyelzu

I used to be in support of gay marriage.

while I do support other rights for gays and lesbians such as participating in the military, I am on the fence on gay right to marriage. For years I supported gay right to marriage. I read an argument by Dsouza that kind of changed my mind. He argued that marriage is an institution for the raising of children ( this view certainly has anthropological support) and that the government should encourage it for this reason. I guess following this reasoning marriage should still be an option for gay and lesbian couples that want to have children.


Personally, I am not sure. I, obviously, dont have any biblical reasons for the sanctity of marriage. I am just not sure about this issue. I dont think that some sort of "second class" marriage should be set up for gays and lesbians, however. Largely because the only reason for making a different level of marriage for gays and lesbians would be religious.


edited for clarity.

TealVeal

While this is interesting, I fail to see how marriage (in the context of promoting children) has any bearing on hospital visits and ensuring your will is carried out properly and not contested by your hateful family members after you die. Should infertile couples not be allowed to marry? That is what Dsouza is implying if he feels only marriages which can lead to children should be allowed. It also does not follow that allowing a couple to get married who cannot have kids negatively affects the ability of another couple to have kids. He is also opperating under the assumption that it is any business of the state to encourage reproductive behavior, nowhere do I see that in the constitution.