should gay marriage be legalized?

is it even any of our business who someone marries

Update:

in the bible it says things about being greedy and thats not illegal, it says dont have affairs and thats not illegal it even says dont kill and hey thats not illegal either ever heard of capital punishment and secondandly not everyone is christian what if you had follow the believes of someone else and didnt believe in them would that make you happy

30 Answers

Relevance
  • acgsk
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes it should be legalized. We have no business interfering with the private life of others. Unfortunately Christians like to force their ignorance and hatred on those who don't believe what they do.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The real question is why the government should be involved in the marriage business at all. I think it'd be much better if the government's role was limited to enforcing marriage-like contracts. You can have a religious or private ceremony if you want, but the legal part of a "marriage" would be a contract between the adults entering into the agreement. Curches could stipulate what kind of marriages they'd solemnize. Private businesses could decide what kind they'd recognize for benefits, etc. Marriage is too important to let the government have a say in it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • SDTerp
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Of course. Civil marriage should be a right to all couples when both people are consenting adults. I think the part missed by those who are morally against gay marriage is that our society actually has two types of marriage and only one counts from a legal perspective while only the other counts from a religious perspective. The religious aspect of marriage should be controlled by the various churches. If this religion or that doesn't agree with the concept, then so be it -- likewise if other churches don't mind performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples that should be OK too.

    However, the civil aspect -- the part that makes it official in the eyes of the law, for taxes, for possession of property, rights for survivors of the deceased, etc. -- is supposed to be separate from religious bias.

    One of the complaints I often hear regarding this argument is that they don't want their church to be forced to perform weddings for something they believe is morally wrong. Well, that won't come to pass because of the same separation of church and state.

    Another thing to consider: In the south prior to the supreme court's 1967 decision that repealed bans on interracial marriages, 72% of white southerners polled believed interracial marriages were wrong or immoral (over 90% in some states). After the legalization, a majority of people polled supported the legality of interracial marriage. In the United States, recent polls indicate that only about 1/2 of Americans are opposed to legalization of gay marriage.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    You can't say thay you think gay marriages should be legalized because it's not our business who gets married. Making something subject to a law is saying its the public's business to regulate it.

    I'm not exactly sure why gays would be so anxious to have their relationships regulated by law when more and more heterosexuals are opting to avoid legal marriage in order to avoid the legal complications associated with it. I think they view legalization of gay marriage as legislated legitimacy for their relationships. If a person needs an act of congress to legitimize their personal choices, there may be an inner need they need to try to solve.

    ANyways, in reality you need to scrape away all the pseudo-compassionate propaganda and get down to what the legislation would do. There is no ban on gays getting married. The problem for them is that Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. The government didn't create this institution, it simply saw that it was so widespread, and the consequences of it being unregulated were so severe, that the government had an obligation to set up standards and protections for those involved for the greater good of society.

    A gay is not banned from being married, he does not want to, as he's not interested in being involved in an institution that involves a percieved intimate relationship with the opposite sex. Marriage is not a government created institution, as it most likely preceeded the creation of governments. The same is, of course, true with homosexual relationships of a similar nature.

    The only reason I could see for the government to start getting involved in similar gay institutions is if the same pressing need to regulate it could be demonstrated. If it could, then the good of society would deem legislative intervention appropriate, if there is no such societal need, then legislative intervention in their relationships would be a violation of their right to privacy.

    I personally think marriage is a religious institution and the government shouldn't have power over it at all. If a Muslim or Mormon wants to marry 4 women, and they are all okay with it, why should the government care. But they shouldn't care across the board.

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

    The process of understanding and compassion began in Canada while Pierre Trudeau was our Prime Minister. His statement, "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation," started the ball rolling. Then...

    Court decisions, starting in 2003, legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999. Finally, same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada by the Civil Marriage Act enacted on July 20, 2005.

    Has anything terrible happened since? Has Canada descended into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah? Absolutely not! The country is virtually the same. The only thing that's changed is, same-sex couples are treated with respect and afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. If this is somehow considered "bad" then I guess institutions that support biased treatment of specific groups of people like, apartheid must be, by this logic, "good." If that's the case...

    I'm extremely glad that I live north of the 49th parallel!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well most of the world is headed in the right direction on this matter; they are legalizing it as we speak.

    Anyone who thinks that marriage is a religious institution is either; fundamentally stupid, or terminally gullible.

    It is a LEGAL institution first, and a religious institution second, if at all.

    Case in point; Head to a church and try to get married without the legal paperwork. Can't be done.

    Now go to city hall and get married by a judge or a marriage commissioner without ever mentioning an imaginary sky-pixie like god. No problem at all.

    So you see the people that claim that marriage should stay in the realm of the religious are fooling not only themselves, but trying to fool the rest of the world.

    It is a civil right that is being denied to a segment of the population based solely on an arbitrary criteria. And thankfully, it's well on it's way to becoming another embarrassing footnote in history.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Kallan
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    I don't care what you believe about gays...in the United States, we have a separation of church and state. There is absolutely no foundation for making gay marriage illegal.

    No government has the right to tell human beings who they can love or spend their lives with.. nor do you really want the government regulating what goes on in your bedroom.

    To open the door to this only makes it easier for the government to begin restricting everything in your life.

    If christians were being regulated in some way.. say, christian marriage is illegal, I guarantee they'd be singing a different tune.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    marriage from a legal standpoint is hard to hold to just one man and one woman. In a free and democratic country whose constitution prescribes equality, no government has the right to make some people more equal than others. However, marriage from the religious standpoint is to be based on the beliefs held by that religion thus they may or may not condone gay marriages. In fact a religion should even be free to refuse marriage to people not of the religion.

    So, you are right, who I or you marry is none of anyone else's business unless we belong to a particualr religion that forbids the tyep of marriage we have. But in that case there are lots of other religious groups who would welcome us anyway without having to give up our basic beliefs.

    So, marry me or your best friend or whomever you choose and enjoy life. And let thoose who hate you for it all rot in their internal hell since hatred is a disease that destroys the hater.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    One has to love all the 'religious' people who posted here and pass judgment on others.

    And to those who quote Leviticus, you're all nothing more than a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites. I'll bet not one of you follows the rest of what Leviticus says is bad.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I do not believe that marriage between gay people should be legalized, but if society wants to legalize same-sex unions in another name then that is society's business. For me, marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman. I would not want to prevent someone who is needs to have access to making desicions for a life partner though. My personal preference based upon my personal beliefs...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Leviticus 20:13:”If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.”

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.