07-11-2013 at 8:39 AM

I'm bisexual and just recently discovered this, but I think that people are people and should have the same rights. Homosexual marriage should be legal across all fifty states and DC. I also think that gay/lesbian couples should be able to adopt children without any more hassle than straight couples. At some point in my life, when I know I can take care of the kid if the couple changes their minds and doesn't want the child, I'm seriously thinking of being a surrogate for a gay couple. All marriages and civil unions should have the same rights, such as a partner being next-of-kin and being able to claim benefits from the other partner's insurance, etc.

08-4-2012 at 9:49 PM

To start out my argument, I am not gay or in any way looking into that side of the spectrum. I, however, would like to put my thinking into this debate topic.<br /> <br /> I speak in regards to the United States when I say this; this country is based on the idea of freedom. Though it has taken us many years to figure out things like slavery, the principle of freedom is valid. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are things we enjoy – why shouldn’t freedom of love be any different?<br /> <br /> I’m not gay, but that doesn’t mean I have to be against things that I am not. In my opinion, if you don’t approve; why should it even matter? If I were going to eat a sandwich, why should the government care if I chose beef or chicken? If you don’t want to see it, look away. But don’t restrict people, put them in boxes. They’ll have enough time to be in a box when they die.<br /> <br /> All people should have the right to marry whomever they darn well please. Freedom of love; live it, love it, enforce it.<br />

08-4-2012 at 11:27 AM

EDIT: Ugh sorry, accidental double post x___x

08-4-2012 at 11:26 AM

I'm currently questioning my sexuality, and am in a relationship with another girl. I find it scary, offensive, and humiliating that other people think they have control, and currently DO have control, over such a major part of my life. Love and marriage. That should only be between my partner and me. No, homosexuality is not a disease that will soon spread throughout the human population and end the human race. It's still a minority, by far. The main arguments I see against homosexuality are related to religion. Well, there's a separation of church and state, correct? That should immediately wipe out all those arguments. I hear a lot (including in my religion class) that since homosexuality can't produce children, it should not be allowed. In my class, when asked about straight couples who can't have children, the teacher said that they can fulfill other roles in the church. Why isn't that the same for homosexuals? By that line of thinking, couples who cannot or choose not to have children should also not be allowed. Elderly couples, too. But they are all given the rights that all humans deserve. Another thing I see is that because homosexuality isn't natural, it should not be allowed. For one thing, there are studies going on which point to homosexuality being natural. We also see homosexuality in many other animal species. We also allow many other "unnatural" things in our culture. Should things like tattoos, piercings, and make-up no longer be allowed? After all, you weren't born that way. Most homosexuals, however, WERE born homosexual. Sexuality is not something you can choose. Yes, I believe that in some cases it can change over time, but not by the individual's choice. That, I believe, is natural as well. And no, civil union is not enough. Separate but equal worked out so well in the past, right? There are SO many rights not given in civil unions that are allowed in marriages. I believe that gay marriage (and adoption/lifestyle) should definitely be legalized, as well as polygamy (but that's another can of worms, I suppose). I do believe that gay marriage will be legalized in the future. For now, I can only hope that it's soon enough for me to enjoy.

06-26-2012 at 8:22 AM

I totally support same-sex marriage. What ever happened to separation of church and state? Why should the government have the right to take away people's rights? It's not like gay marriage hurts anyone. Now we think of slavery and womans' rights like, " How could we do that to people?" Someday we are going to think about gay marriage like that. "How could we shun people from society just because of their sexual orientation?" I just hope that people grow up and let people do what they choose to do in life.

06-14-2012 at 4:26 PM

But don't y'all know that gays marrying will ruin the sanctity of marriage??<br /> <br /> Ignore the fact that Charlie Sheen had a million wives lol

06-14-2012 at 11:19 AM

I'm all for it. I think its weird how people can be so against it when two guys/girls getting married doesn't affect them. And if you don't want to see two guys/girls kissing just look away. Same bit on YouTube why do people look up videos that do things they hate? Why not look up things you like? Why do people waste away there lives hating on people that are not 'normal' to them? <br /> If every body were 'normal', life would be boring.

04-3-2012 at 4:59 AM

The whole point of the idea to change the name of the document is to take some of the fire out of all the religious arguments. Even my conservative christian brother thinks same sex union should be legal with all the same rights as marriage licenses have today, as long as the word marriage is left up to the church and out of the state. Though i doubt if it passes and the license is left as a marriage license he would make any stink about it.

04-3-2012 at 1:02 AM

If civil unions are made to provide the exact same rights as current marriage licenses, sure. That's what the whole argument is about, is making it so that all partners can be treated equally and have access to the same rights as only heterosexual couples have access to currently.<br /> <br /> I couldn't care less what they call the license, and the struggle to make same-sex marriage legal isn't about what the documents are -called-. It's about equality. But if you were to -not- change anything about civil unions, and just make it so no one gets any kind of benefits as I outlined in my previous post, then that hurts -everyone-, and that's not the goal.<br /> <br /> In the end, the easiest thing is not to focus on what you call the documentation of union/marriage, but to simply award all couples the same rights. There's no need to come up with a whole new type of document with a different name. Just legalize obtaining marriage licenses for everyone, and that's that.

04-2-2012 at 5:02 AM

But what all the people I know mean (including myself) is to change it so that all there is, is a civil union license, and it will have the same rights for EVERYONE!!! Whether they be LBGT, straight, black, white, green, have a hoof growing out their forehead. As long as the person is of legal consenting age (or have parental permission) and are marring another human it will all be the same.

04-1-2012 at 10:04 AM

To my knowledge, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, a civil union doesn't grant the same rights and privileges as a marriage license, and that's what's upsetting so many people.<br /> <br /> I could personally not care less -what- it's called, so long as there are equal rights for ALL. As in, you have the right to be with your partner in the hospital and regarded as family, you have the right to claim the body of your partner in the event of their death, and you are given all the same tax benefits, etc.<br /> <br /> As far as I'm aware, a simple civil union does -not- grant those rights. It's not an issue of what it's called, it's the fact that a civil union is not the same thing as a marriage license and does not grant the same rights. That's where the problem lies.

03-26-2012 at 7:09 PM

I'm by no means saying same sex couples with a religion shouldn't be able to wed in a church, that's completely up to the church. The legal debate has always been about LEGAL marriages not church marriages.<br /> <br /> Like I said my friend's dad and step-dad belong to a christian church that's accepting of same sex marriages.<br /> <br /> And i don't see the common term changing in the next hundred years but what's wrong with changing the name of the legal paper that legal binds two people together to take the argument that so many religious zelliots have away. Union license (the paper you get for all the legal benefits) for EVERYONE no matter their orientation no marriage licenses for anyone and if you want to bring religion into it that's your choice. <br /> <br /> Everyone, right now, has to go get the legal paper before they go through the church ceremony if they want the union to be legally binding. Many people are going through the motions of "marriage" w/o the legal paper work and all that means is in whatever church/religion they belong to they are bound in the eyes of the church/whatever. And I'm sure same sex couples have been going through the same ceremony for decades, its the legal binding that everyone wants what does it matter if its called a marriage license, a union license, a legal contract between two people; as long as it gives every couple be they, man man, woman woman, man woman, asexual asexual, transgender woman, etc etc etc etc etc the exact same rights legally. The longer both sides fight it w/o agreeing to something the longer it'll be before every state accepts it.

03-25-2012 at 8:06 PM

So many terms would make it confusing. Like I said before, there are atheists and its still called marriage, people of all different religions call it marriage, why can't same sex call it that? It's just a way to keep us unlike everyone else.<br /> <br /> Shay did explain what I was trying to say.<br /> <br /> <a href=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_temple_20.jpg>Free image</a>

03-25-2012 at 8:03 PM

Yes, I would think Civil Unions/ Domestic partnerships with equal rights as marriage would be great for same-sex/hetrosexual couples who don't follow a religion. <br /> <br /> As for same-sex couples who practice religious beliefs, I believe they deserve the right to be married in their preferred religion as they're no less of people than the next person to the right or left.

03-25-2012 at 4:58 PM

That's the thing, everyone i know to purposes a "civil union" or whatever, the only changes would be a change in name and available for EVERYONE. The level of "union" or "bond" would depend on how committed the couple was to each other. The only thing a "marriage" would have is it would be in the church/mosque/temple/coven/placeofworship(idk all their names) it would mean nothing more than having the legal license, just like my mom and dad (and all my aunts and uncles) who eloped(went and got the legal papers w/o a religious leader) had the same legal rights as my Cousins who married in the church.<br /> <br /> My friend's dad came out at the age of 63 and ran off to some state and got legally marrie. He and his husband belong to a church that is accepting of same sex marriages, once they got back to Texas with the license they were married in the church.

03-25-2012 at 4:30 PM

Tiger, I believe she had a different view upon it. <br /> <br /> When the African American segregation was still happening, the code word was "Seperate but equal". <br /> <br /> I also see the definition (in American terms) domestic partnership to be very meager compared to marriage. It feels more like a "Seperate but equal" sort of thing. A domestic partnership doesn't sound as 'united' and 'bonded' and seems like a silly knock-off. Even the rights for domestic partnerships aren't as good as marriage. <br /> <br /> It'd be great if domestic partnerships were given equal rights of marriage. It'd be great if same-sex couples could have the option of either one AND hetrosexual couples could have that option, too. <br /> <br /> The thing is the wording. Marriage holds a stronger standing in today's (American) society than 'domestic partnership'. To most, domestic partnership sounds like some 'cheap, knock-off' of marriage that isn't as good. <br /> <br /> So, I believe what Kaitie was trying to get at was that the same-sex couple community wants that strong meaning of marriage, not domestic partnership which is viewed a little lower. =]<br /> <br /> Very good points were brought up though. Really made me think about my view points and how I could approach this. <br /> <br />

03-25-2012 at 3:07 PM

i agree. x3 i think that legally, it should be called something universal. domestic partnership or something of the like.<br /> <br /> christians and such could call it a marriage. after all, the paper doesn't have to make it a marriage. the wedding is meant to be a commitment ceremony for two people, under god. <br /> <br /> if gay couples want to call it a marriage as well, then they can.<br /> <br /> one of the ironic statements i have heard recently is that allowing gays to get married as well would 'cheapen' a straight couple's marriage. i think that it is up to the person to put a value on their marriage.<br /> <br /> if i'm not mistaken, if you are together and living with a person for x amount of years (seven, i believe?), then you are in an unofficial legal 'marriage' with them.

03-25-2012 at 3:00 PM

*Kaitie, what if the legal PAPER for EVERYONE was called a "domestic partnership" or "Civil union" or whatever, that's what I don't get with the whole "That sounds really lame and a cheap way of making sure we aren't as equal as everybody else." argument (or how ever who ever wants to word it). All of us who are for same sex marrage who argue that changing the label might solve some problems are for changing it for EVERYONE and leaving "marrage" for the church or whatever. Also "married" would be changed on papers to "Civilly united" or whatever. <br /> <br /> We want everyone to be equal, but we're trying to find a way to defuse all of the religious arguments against it.

03-25-2012 at 2:12 PM

What about atheists or others that aren't Christian? They get to call it marriage. If I was able to be with my girl, I would want it to be called marriage, not a 'domestic partnership'. That sounds really lame and a cheap way of making sure we aren't as equal as everybody else. On forms they ask if you are married and like I said, I can't imagine all married couples are Christian or even have a religion. Not to mention some states already approved it.<br /> <br /> I think it will be allowed across the country but it will take time. I believe it will happen though.

03-25-2012 at 12:15 PM

well, i suppose you could consider me a little biased because i am bisexual, but i personally find the fact that same sex relationships are so... i don't know, controversial, whatever one would like to call it, ridiculous.<br /> <br /> i don't support gay 'marriage.' marriage is a word pertaining to someone's religion and beliefs and is derived from them. i think if a gay couple are christian, they can put whatever title they want on it.<br /> <br /> i believe that if it was called a 'domestic partnership' instead of 'marriage', there wouldn't be so much controversy over the issue. a gay couple that wants to officialize their relationship in the same way a man and a woman can by getting married and receiving all of the official legal benefits should have the right to.<br /> <br /> personally, it's a bit heartbreaking to me. being bisexual, i have the option of finding love with two sexes rather than just one, i'm at least blessed that i don't always have to live my life in secret. gays and lesbians only have people of their own sex they believe they can be happy with.<br /> <br /> i believe everyone deserves legal rights when it comes to legalizing their partnership.<br /> <br /> i am christian, and it really disgusts me when i hear other christians talking about how if you're gay, you go to hell. i don't believe that at all. the bible states that all sins are equal in the eyes of god, and we are all sinners because we are man. i also believe that the only way to heaven is through faith through jesus christ.<br /> <br /> before i even realized i was attracted to both sexes, i didn't see the difference.<br /> <br /> boy + boy.<br /> girl + girl.<br /> boy + girl.<br /> <br /> love is love. i don't see what is so disgusting about it.<br /> <br /> i actually think it's kind of funny because it seems that, in my experience talking to gay-bashers and such, that the main reason they think it's so disgusting is the sex... which cracks me up a bit. |DDD it's kind of like... wow, is that really where your mind goes when we're talking about this kind of issue? that's not all that a relationship is about.<br /> <br /> /endrant. <br /> haha, sorry. x.x;;<br /> i'm sure half of this was offensive/made no sense at all. |DD