Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Dot
Lv 6
Dot asked in Entertainment & MusicPolls & Surveys · 1 decade ago

Are You For or Against Gay Marriage?

I am for it.

No priest should be forced to marry a gay couple however they should be able to legally get married and all ceremonies performed in a church would be marriage, all those in a government facility a union. Same benefits, different names.

And gays can not reproduce, but should we ban infertile couples from getting married as well?

And before anyone says it, the difference between homosexuals and people who are pedophiles and practice bestiality is that both parties CHOOSE to be in that relationship.

Also, if marriage was so religious, why do you need a LEGAL contract to get married?

Update:

It's not a choice, I seriously dislike when people say that. Why would someone choose to be discriminated against and unhappy as they are? In order for it to be an actual choice, this would imply that they can easily go to being straight, no big deal, which is ridiculous.

Update 2:

Grecky, so they should not get the benefits that come with marriage just so others don't get offended?

I thought we lived in America :/

Update 3:

Also, religion shouldn't be a factor when it comes to the legality of something.

25 Answers

Relevance
  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You have good values.

    I like your opinions..on this..on politics..and about helping people..

    I wouldnt know HOW to singe out a segment of the populace to arbitrarily assign "Hitler's Jews"-status to. So then we can all hate on them, to feel superior and self-righteous and smug.

    And to feel like we know about things, when we're actually ignorant (and mean).

    And to have some people to blame for things.

    If ever we actually HAD a good president..a good LEADER...he or she would give talks on the tv regularly, and discuss stuff like this...and so encourage people to re-think some of their automatic thoughts and behaviors.

    A good leader would have public discourse going on all the time,about socially important things, and be working towards erasing the ignorance and bias and hatism by simply stating the truth eloquently...and then leaving it to the people to talk amongst themselves...

    and they'd even occasionally sponsor a bill as a result of what was consensed by the people. by such means.

    A good leader would LEAD. Not just sit and count the money and the tanks, and be absent mostly, and work on things the common people have no connection to.

    The republican party, being actually just a few thousand corporate owners who wanted to take over the government (so they could exempt themselves from taxation and law, and make wage slaves, and rule the world(wow)....well they only represent the interestes of a few thousand,...so to get the MILLIONS of votes needed to get in, they had to start a long term effort at lying to various segments of the populace, getting them to parrot the lies...and then they have to run their campaigns by citing how the opposition is (imaginarily)"bad" (and so vote for them because they will save you from the bad)

    (but since they ARE the actual bad,....)ALL they can really do is make up lies,and get people to meanly parrot them , until they actually beleive them

    so what kind of leadership is this? (we were talking about what good lesadsership would do)

    what does it end up causing to happen in our society?

    it doesnt work to end ignorance and hate...it works to create it!

    well..now the democrats have the admin,the congress, and the senate..they can make sweeping reform

    not unlike george junior when 9-11 happened (and he could have taken us in a peaceful direction ,instead of to war..he could have been a nobel peace prize winner, a GOOD man)...he was in a position to chose what he would do with his position as leader....well Obama is in that position now...he could establish and be anything too, right now...what will it be?

    will he get on the tv, and say SHAME on you homo bashers!

    Shame on you for using religion AS AN EXCUSE????

    well I wish he would.

    I wish he'd decide one term would be enough, if it got him on the outs, to just go full steam ahead, AND SPEAK THE TRUTH NO MATTER WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS ( and the HELL with saying the politically "right " things

    and you know what? he might just find he'd be very popular for it!

    I'd like him

    I'd probably become emotionally overwhelmed if I saw him actually lead..and stick to the truth, and deal with the stuff that matters, and end the war yesterday and stop killing and bankrupting us and making the world hate us

    Source(s): THE POINT IS....in order for hatisms and ignorances to come to an end...1) having a 2 party system has to go! 2) having a few thousand people making laws to serve their greedy, pillaging interests alone, while the people themselves get damned by it has to go! and 3)the leadership we have has to lead opinion on social things..say GOOD things, and engage people actively in their own running of their own affairs societally Hillary said this...she said our biggest problem wasnt the environment or economics or any of those things...it was a total lack of any kind of moral leadership...and in its place we have just lies being propagated for people to beleive through repetiton ...so they end up hating and blaming (and doing nothing constructively, or decent)! and split into Two! (US VERSUS THEM! thats the nature of a 2 party system) It's entirely hobbling. And it's a peaceful form, but an albeit form, of civil war. It is NOT people getting together and consensing what they want, and based on reality. AT ALL.
  • Kal
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    4

  • 1 decade ago

    I agree with you! Every reasn that can be brought up against gay marriage can just as easily be brought right back down.

    All the are talking about is the definition! How crazy is that!

    If we allow them to marry we allow a man and a child to marry, we allow a man or an amimal to marry, we allow a man and an object to marry, we allow a man to many as many people as he wants, we allow a man to marry a family member.(or woman)

    Well what is marriage defined as:

    The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

    Can that not as easily be changed to "The social institution under which two condesenting adults establish their decision to live as a couple by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

    And by doing that It is not allowing a man to marry a child(that is against the law by the way) It says nothing about an animal, they can sign contracts! And nothing about an object and they can sign contracrs either! Also It clearly states TWO condesenting adults, not however many you fancy. And i've heard its against the law to marry family memebers, so thats out of the case.

    So i personally think i justified myself and unjustified people who use those reasons against gay marriage.

    Also the church should be SEPERATED from the government, which is part of the constitutions, right?

    And don't religions want people to join theirs? So if they accept gays in to their church people would like the church way better.

    Jesus says nothing against gays, by the way...

    I almost forgot! There is SO many children in orphanages, so why not let them raise children! They are giving a child a home, other wise that child could be homeless! And if you believe a gay couple will only raise gay kids, then how do straight couples raise gay kids, shouldn't they raise only straight kids? Being gay is not a choice or how your raised.

    And if a single woman can adopt then why cant two loving parents adopt?!!?!?

  • 1 decade ago

    I definately am FOR it. My husband and I are so happy together and I can't stand the thought of 2 people loving each other so and not being able to come together as a family with one name. Also, many couples are now adopting or having children of their own and what about those children? They should get the same benefits, insurance, etc as any other couple with children. Many say it says no in the bible but here's my question. Shouldn't that final decision be up to God? Are we not also breaking a commandment by judging? Hmmm.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • papaw
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Religion and faith should govern every phase of our life. It isn't something to put up on a shelf and pull down when YOU want to. As such, with the Bible as our code of conduct, NOTHING "GAY" should be accepted or tolerated. Marriage is one MAN for one WOMAN for one lifetime. Anything else is a farce and an abomination, and unhealthy, and not sanctioned by God. Rejection of this lifestyle has nothing to do with politics, as it is a learned behavior of choice and NOT an inborn flaw. People choose this lifestyle because the corruption of their inner being is so strong that they will endure anything to try to justify their decadence.The perverted immoral world would love to silence Christians and other faiths with strong moral values, and try to sell the "born that way" lie.

    PS You asked the question, I hope you respect the right that I have to have an opinion about it and the right to express that opinion.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Somebody asked me the other day "how can we vote for a black man" I replied with " This is America, How can we not?" I feel the same way about gay marriage. Laws should only be set if it is personally hurting somebody ie: Murder, Robbery, Kidnapping ETC. Laws should not be set on what gender should and should not be allowed to be married. If they found somebody that makes them happy then they should have the same rights as everyone else. It is very hard to find someone who makes you happy.

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm absolutely for it. I'm bisexual. Even if I weren't, I believe everyone has the right to be married to the one they love. :)

    And I have to add to your statement, that's not the only difference. The big difference is that people in gay relationships, as in any other relationships, love each other. Yes they both choose to be in the relationship, but I think the love factor is much more focal than the choice factor.

  • 1 decade ago

    Against.

    The bible condemns the practice of homosexuality and I follow the Scriptures as best I can.

    Source(s): The Force!
  • 1 decade ago

    For it. The Religious Right does not own the copyright/patent on "family values".

    And the Golden Rule doesn't end with the word "except", meaning treat others as you want to be treated, EXCEPT homosexuals, etc.

  • 1 decade ago

    I am for gay marriage. A marriage is a union of two, it does not matter if they are the same sex or opposite sex

    Source(s): bap
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.