Topic : Gay Marriage Debate

For those of you that believe the Bible, good for you. But the United States isn't for Christians only. I was raised Jewish. I have friends who are Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu and Buddhist, and they all pay the same amount of taxes to this country and have the same right to worship or don't worship as they see fit. So don't use the Bible in legal matters. My father is Caucasian and my mother is Filipina, people in this country used the Bibled against interracial marriage not that long ago and according to some Christians I should have never been born because their book tells them so. 

As far as gay marriage goes, I don't realy see heterosexuals really keeping the "sanctity of marriage" alive. I really don't think gays could do any worse.  

Many gay people have children, being married would protect their children to have two parents instead of the non biological one or legal guardian just completely skipping on their obligations. So allowing gays to get married would protect children. Also, it would allow gays to protect themselves and their own assests better and have their spouse benefit from SS and medical benefits.  

I am not saying that you necessarily have to agree with their lifestyle, but no one is asking for you to. There are heterosexuals that do things all the time that I disagree with on ethical grounds but it's still their business. 

BTW, I am a happy, heterosexual female in a monogamous relationship. 

I would like to reiterate part of the last poster's message, which I thought was pertinent.  If you who interpret  the bible (and interpretation is so often the key to the bible's contents) to be against gay marriage and have an egregious interest in prohibiting any love contract other than that which is heterosexual, perhaps your energy could be more creatively used as a proponent of the sanctity of all marriage.  Had you noticed the general condition of heterosexual, traditional marriage in this country?   

My questions to those who oppose marriage between ANY two people would be the following.  Why does someone else's love for another human being threaten your own?   How does another couple's love, whoever they may be, diminish yours in any way?  Why do you care with whom another shares a deep and abiding love and a desire to legally declare it?  Opposition to anyone's shared love and ability to publicly display such strikes a chord similar to racism.  If you are a racist no doubt you have a devalued opinion of yourself which provokes the need to devalue others.  If you are, in general, a person who is happy and satisfied with herself, you have no need to devalue or attempt to prohibit happiness or equal opportunities to those of other races, lifestyles or spiritual beliefs.  It's really just that simple. 

Ok everyone.  It's no one's business who wants to get married.  I by no means think that judges or ministers who do not agree with it should be forced to marry a gay couple but it should be allowed.  No one has the right to tell anyone who they can and can not marry.  It's simply not fair.  Religion has to much power in this country.  It needs to change.  I understand that it is man and woman in the bible, but some people do not have the same beliefs.  If we are all gods' children then he will love us for who we are not who we marry.  Thank You for listening. 

The biggest issue with Gay Marriage is "Marriage". 

Many religions consider marriage to be sacred.  This makes it a matter between those getting married and God.  This makes the whole issue a double-edged sword: 

1) If you are for Gay marriage, you are seen as trying to force your point of view on those who believe more conservatively - potentially violating centuries of tradition and established definitions of what constitutes particular sins.  The concern from the conservatives is that if unions are made legal, advocates will bring further pressure on churches to accept what is not part of their traditions and force them to change their beliefs - a violation of the church's rights.  

2) If you are against Gay marriage, you are seen as trying to force your point of view on those who believe more liberally - interfering with a matter that is viewed as either between God and the couple or simply a secularly legal issue.   The concern from the liberals is that marriage should be a civil right, such that churches should not impose their moral ordinances on those who don't follow those beliefs. 

Dicey. 

Personally, I'm willing to accept a third road.  Allow for homosexual civil unions.  Churches may proceed as is appropriate for their doctrine and tenets.  That means, however, that I do not support a homosexual marriage in a Roman Catholic church.  The RCC is free to allow or restrict what it wishes to within it's own venue; a church marriage is NOT a civil right.  Anyone wishing to protest against the Catholics in an effort to force change will find me on the other side, defending their right to their own beliefs.