Should homosexual marriages be legal? Why or Why not? (legality)?

Homosexual marriages should be legal. Marriage is a status. It confers certain rights upon a couple - the right to inherit, to make medical decisions, to share in gains and losses and more. Moreover, marriage creates a stable family unit that is more productive than any two single people. When one member becomes disabled, marriage decreases the cost to society of that disability.

Refusing to allow homosexuals to marry has a perverse effect. It is uneconomical as two single people will earn less and one disabled person will cost society more than when a couple is married. It will discourage personal responsibility among homosexuals. It will decrease their respect for the law.

It is fundamentally unfair to treat black people differently because of their race. It makes them feel bad and decreases their productivity. The same is true for homosexuals.

Some people argue that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman or that homosexual marriage devalues marriage in general. This is not logical. Each of us knows a married couple that should be divorced. The wife may drink, the husband may cheat, they both may argue, the kids may be left uncared for or a hundred other things may be wrong. Their marriage is a sham, a worthless shame. But the fact that their marriage is without value does not make my marriage without value. Any homosexual couple living next door will not magically devalue the relationship of their hereosexual neighbors.

It should also be mentioned that being exposed to homosexuals does not increase the chance of an individual becoming homosexual. Being raised by homosexuals does not increase the chance of a child becoming homosexual. And homosexuals are less likely to be pedophiles or sexual predators than heterosexuals. Whatever arguments are made, these are absolute statistical facts.

It is also a statistical fact that jurisdictions that recognize homosexual marriage or civil unions have suffered no increase in any negative statistic as a result.

There is simply no reason homosexuals should not enjoy the same right to marry as any other person. Society would do nothing but benefit.

Leaving religion aside, I believe that marriage is a legal institution with the final motive of creating a family. Marriage provides a solid ground from which a couple can raise children. Families are the basic social unit (even without kids), so the question is whether an homosexual couple can create a family. In my opinion, an homosexual couple can be considered a family, and as long as they are also allowed to adopt, I don't see the real difference with an heterosexual couple from the legal point of view. So I don't think there are true legal grounds against homosexual marriage. Of course, if we consider religious or morality factors, then answering this question becomes much more complex.

Homosexual marriages do nobody any harm. They don't affect anybody's rights. And they would give some people a right without imposing an obligation on anybody else. So, yes. I think they should be legal.

BTW, you didn't have to threaten to report us if we talked about religion, if only, because we'd be doing nothing deserving a report. If someone had mentioned religion, you could have just ignored them. Mind you, I'm most definitely not a religious person, so I wasn't going to mention religious matters, here. And I understand your point: marriage is a civil institution and religions shouldn't interfere with it. But still... :-)

I do believe that Homosexual/s have just as much a right as you or I. A Man & Woman Marry & everything is O.K. & Legal.Two Women Want to Marry each other as well as two other Couples, Two Men. The Homosexual Couples do not get the same attention as the Man & Women Couple that just Married. The HomosexualCouples ConstitutionalRights have been violated. Every American has the Constitutional Right to "Freedom Of Expression" To Freely Express your Love to Someone in Marriage is to Freely Excersize your Freedom of Speech. If being "Gay is not Illegal-then why is Illegal to Marry Someone??? The Freedom to chose your own destiny should not be Restricted to Marriage.

Interesting that most U.S. residents think marriage is a religious ceremony and that's the end of the story. Marriage (or unions) can be performed by a Justice of the Peace (or Notary) because it is giving legal rights to those being bound as one in a relationship. I personally would not choose to be married in a religious setting because it is meaningless to me. I do, however, feel very strongly that the more than 1200 laws giving rights to those in a legal union be given to any couple. Why must the union be between people only of opposite genders? I can't think of a good reason other than discrimination.

Well...I feel the laws should be drafted to say "Union" not "Marriage" so a layman could look at a Union License and know it's not between members of the opposite sex. And union rights should be very similar but not identicle to marriage laws. This country is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by trying to have homosexual unions match marriages. If they went with my idea the religous types would be happy because their "sacred marriage" would remain theirs and the homosexual community would be happy because it gains similar as well as union-speciffic rights. But I'm not some money-grubbing Governor or Senator looking for a kick back so my idea will sit in the annals of Yahoo Answers for another 20 years before someone with clout thinks of it themselves. Yay progress! Your tax dollars at work right there people. Can I get a HELL YEAH!

Same sex marriages should definately be allowed. This is a civil right issue!! Although in a far less way, this is comparable to how we have treated other races, and we will look back with shame and disgust as to why this wouldn't be allowed. Who is it really bothering to allow for same sex marriages to become legal? Why is anyone else's, beside the two people in love, business? We take far too much interest in the lives of others and should focus more on ourselves.

Our marriage laws aren't religious. They date back to ancient Anglo-Saxon tribal law. If we sactioned marriage based on religon, we'd allow first cousin marriages, polygamy, and cuncubiniam, all of which were allowed in the Bible.

It's quite simple. Marriage is definied as a union betwen a man and a woman. Not a man and a chair. A woman, two goats, and a horse. If gays want to call their "relationship" something more permanent, let them coin a word which stats it is a semi-permanent arrangement without changing words which have had the same meaning for thousands of years.

Equal marriage, if you don't mind the term, doesn't harm anyone and provides a number of benefits to those who would not otherwise have them, including making it easier to have access to health care, to inherit property, and to be with a sick or dying spouse in the hospital. It allows two people who love each other to be able to be responsible for each in legal terms in the same manner as traditional heterosexual couples do. Equal marriage helps to provide more social support for committed couples and to knit the social fabric together.

But besides the real and tangible benefits just listed, equal marriage also allows couples to feel well...equal in a society that can be mistrustful of those who seem different. It gives them the recognition that is afforded to heterosexual couples with no questions asks and affirms that gays and lesbians are not outsiders, but equal members of our society.

In many ways, it is like desegregation.

How often do you intend to ask this question?

As long as there are advantages married couples have over non-married couples that are not dependent of them being parents, marriage between two adults who want to commit to each other should be legal independent of the gender of these two adults. Such advantages are spousal benefits that are not applicable to non-married partners.

My suggestion would be instead to create two versions of personal partnerships:

* to procreate and bring up children

no divorce until the yongest child is at high school level minumum

all benefits of this union are bound to the children, no spousal benefits without child

only possible as union between one man and one woman

* to commit to one another

divorce possible at all times with responsibilities regarding the former partner

possible as union between two or more people, all consenting, all adults, no gender restrictions

spousal benefits for all members of this union