Yes. People should really understand something. HOMOSEXUALITY IS FOUND IN OVER 400 SPECIES. HOMOPHOBIA IS ONLY HUMAN. It's not always a choice. People need to accept that. And if that's what will make people happy, why not. If you have a problem with it, stay apart from it. YOU CAN AVOID IT.
8 months ago
Last edited at 6:54PM on 4/23/2013
Hey, why not? For homosexuals, it's who they are. For straight people, it shouldn't bother them. Love is love, no matter if you're straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or any number of things. If it isn't yours, why mess with it? Why be against it? You can't change it. People should be allowed to spend a lifetime with the person they love. What if a man and a woman couldn't get married? What would a straight person say? They would want it changed. It is a fact of life. You are born who you are, and you can't change it. I can't change that I'm a girl, or that I have brown hair, or I am American. My golden retrievers can't change that they have floppy ears. I am personally straight, but I support equal rights 100% for all reasons. I support all rights. I am not prejudiced. I love everyone as they are.
I'm sorry if this answer is offensive to anyone. I'm just stating my opinion. Who is *they* anyways?
Well why shouldn't they? I'm confused at why they shouldn't. Do they love each other? Then let them be together. Its a basic human right to choose who you want to be with and its none of the governments business who you choose as long as they are consensual adults
No. Marriage should stay between a man and a women. There is a reason why every major civilization, religion, and society has defined marriage as between a man and a women, because it's worked for thousands of years. It's not about adult gratification; it's about the children. They deserve both a mother and a father, and studies show that it's the best environment to raise a child. Society won't function if definitions can be changed, and gay marriage would be an oxymoron if marriage wasn't redefined. It's like this: A polygon is a shape with four sides that connect at points and don't overlap. That's it's definition. A circle shouldn't be able to come along and say, "I want to be a polygon too.", and force them to change the definition of the polygon. It doesn't work that way. If you let gays marry, it's not even real marriage anymore. I want my children to grow up knowing the importance of traditional marriage. I don't hate gays, I just think that they shouldn't be able to redefine a well-established institution for their own personal gain. Change isn't always for the better...
I'm straight and I happen to have a lesbian aunt. I'm not on a side I just don't care about gays if their not affecting my life then I don't really care so all in all I'm not on a side I just don't care.
Simply from a logical standpoint, there is no compelling argument to support that it shouldn't be legal for homosexuals to marry. Most stem from some sort of religious debate and, don't get me wrong because I myself am religious, but however in the context of the law and the rights individuals should be guaranteed homosexuals should have all the liberties others receive.
saying that gays can't be married is like saying that black people can't get married, or whites or mexicans, leaving out the gays is like leaving out a race there people to. The gay guys and lesbians probably feel like slaves they only have certain things they can do, while the straight people can do everything we want, i feel for them they should have just as much freedom as we do.
This is not the question at hand. The one at hand is, "Shall we take over the rights of states to define marriage? Shall we give gays protections that straights don't have? Shall we rush this to a conclusion and ignore the many other people who disagree, and force a resolution that very few gays will ever use?" States have rights. This is one of them. The Feds can't define marriage. This is an issue that should reflect compromise: allow gays civil unions, with all the same privileges, and there is no discrimination. Assume that gays actually can have civil unions, it will be used by less than 20 percent of gays (foreign polls say 10% of a gay population of 4%). This is likely a tempest in a teapot.
Well, not going right into the answer, i would write my views and you would find answer if you understand. If we think from legal point of view and what people want and desire, then we should not be 'forcing' things on them and they should be free to take decisions. So, from this view, there is no problem in the thing that you are asking. But if we think about the topic, then it is something unnatural. And in India ( i don't know about US's law, so i would be just saying things about India ) unnatural sexual acts are taken as offenses. And male-male and female-female sexual acts aren't something natural ( according to me ) And also something right, it could just be the result of an uncontrollable lust. And still, despite these things same sex couples can be allowed but a formal marriage, no way ( in my opinion ). And if it is allowed, then all the norms would need to be changed. Even marriage is defined as - "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."