Romantic Gay Weddings

gay marriage?

why is gay marriage being banned from some states?
thats wrong to ban it in some of the states. this is a free country . they should have no right to ban it.
what do you think of gay marriage? do you think its wrong? if you do think its wrong please explain. i do not think gay marriage is wrong. people can love whoever they want. it should not matter with who the person they love is. god loves everyone. it may not be "natural" or whatever. but, its not wrong.

Public Comments

1. But god says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Elvis, hun?

2. i agree with u but the people are so ignorant of being natural even the authorities. gays dont do any harm to others then y should they b banned.

3. Gay marriage is being banned because the dream of the US being a free country is not yet a reality. I personally think the thought of gay lovers is a bit disgusting and wrong in the sense that it does not help to re-populate the world, but on the other hand it is really none of my business to interfere in other people's lives and therefore support the idea of gay marriage. Let people do what they want so long as it does not interfere with others' rights. Gay marriage should be limited to civil marriages and any religion that decides to allow it on their own. Specific religions should not be forced by the State to allow it.

4. I am a devout Christian, but I truly believe that the heart loves who it loves. I honestly don't want to see two people of the sex making out, never want to see "Brokeback Mountain," but seriously, whatever two consenting adults do in their bedroom should be NO ONE'S business but theirs.

5. because deviant sexual behavior threatens the majority of people's black and white beliefs about how to live their lives. thus, it becomes a powerful political motivator.

6. Gay marriage, some would say, is an oxymoron. The old meaning of marriage was that a man and a woman would get together to have a family. To change that to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, it would not be the same. Still, I agree that you should love whomever you love, and maybe a different word, other than marriage, should be used, which would mean two people who are devoted to each other. Marriage might be considered a subset of this. I also agree with you, God loves Gays. God also loves Murderers, Child Molesters, and Atheists (not that I'm saying that gays [or atheists] are as bad as murderers, just saying that's not much of an excuse.) And, on the contrary, the government has every right to ban Legal gay marriage. The states have the power to regulate marriage, and technically, could stop one particular heterosexual couple from getting married, though why I don't know. But remember, I'm talking about legal marriage here, not the actual bond between two people.

7. I would'nt doubt if you've heard this already !?! "God made <ADAM&EVE>~!! Not Adam and Steve. !?! It's just not the way things are meant to be !! Or is saying that it's not up`right ring a bell? A.I.D.S might be one of the top three things that would kill a person slowly !?! & in time It becomes painful in some ways I suppose. Now because the story did'nt really focus on this one point!?! ... well that's ok !! it might just start arguments !?! just keep in mind that a horrible thing was introduced to the world mainly having to do with homosexuality !!.. Acquired-Immune-Deficiency-Syndrome(a,k.a.)<A.I.D.S.> Lets face it !! "It's WrOnG"~!!& you know as`well as the straight fornication that had taken place in the cities of:<Sod-om & Go-Morrah> A great deal of homosexuality took place also !! which was also one of the main reasons <God> distroyed them !!even though they had been warned many times!?! "EveryBody died!! Except for the ones God spared!?!."The rest is up to you"~!! ;-`{ `'R"r.r`r,r',.

8. because they want to control everyone.

yes it is wrong

yes this is a free country

but they do have a right to ban whatever they want, they are the law

I think they should be able to get married if they want

No it is not wrong

our souls have no sexual identity, that is a physical thing, you can be in love with any soul you want to be and then you deal with physical aspects

9. Homophobia, that's why. It's basically just an act of tyranny of the 'moral majority.' I have no opinion on the 'morality' of homosexuality; I don't believe it could be proven in a court of law that it is a harm to society. I am of the opinion that, IF an institution such as marriage, where civil rights are established, is to be respected by any state (any government), there should be equal protection under the law regardless of the sex of the parties involved. Marriage should, if administered by any state, be in respect to household arrangements only -- not gender relationships, nor relationships to god, nor sexual morality. Otherwise, the state is playing church, and I believe the spirit of the law of our land forbids that.

10. First, I agree I see no reason that the government should be allowed to discriminate against any group or class of people and we are supposed to have laws against this type of action. I also think the constitution should be expanded (by interpretation) that laws discriminating against sex should include sexual preference.

That said I believe I have come up with a solution. Part of the difficulty here is that legal rights and religion gets confused because they both use the word marriage. For this reason some states have called gay marriage "civil unions" but the gay community complains that they are being treated differently and I agree with them.

Thus, I suggest that all civil ceremonies be called civil unions (so legally everyone would be united). Leave the choice on marriages to churches and marriage as it is now in the church stays a sacrament but the word is struck from all civil unions. So, if your married at the court house or at your church in law you are united. If at the church you have undergone the sacrament of marriage.

Thus, unique in the current political environment, we separate the state and religion.

Michael John Weaver, M.S.

11. The debate has been framed rather narrowly.
___Treating marriage as if it can be fully comprehended as a civil "right" is an example of the sort of framing of the question so that the answer that a group of advocates wants comes out seeming "obvious".
___Marriage has aspects of both obligation and privilege as well, and for good reason.
___The rights discourse has gotten out of hand. A human participant in society is both active in some respects and passive in others. But rights merely limit what constraints others can put on persons, and say nothing about how persons ought to conduct their active behavior. Rights are granted TO people, but say nothing about what is expected FROM them in return. A rights-only discourse is a selfish, gimme-gimme discourse. And since it implicitly mis-describes the moral beings to whom ethical presuppositions are supposed to apply, it will in the long run fail to serve the ethical needs and purposes of a society.
___European nations that allow gays to "marry" have seen real marriage rates plummet. Unmarried couples break up more often than married couples, and children from single-parent households have significantly worse life outcomes than those from married couples. This impact on the greater good is a valid consideration of public policy.
___Marriage has been treated narrowly in other ways. The procreation argument is treated as irrelevant in our modern world, but immigration into Europe threatens to demographically bury Western liberal traditions with people from nations with very different governmental traditions. America is in a similar difficulty, though the threat isn't quite as immediate. To the extent that "gay marriage" undermines the welfare and numbers of children negatively, it harms the society at large.
___Marriage, for the purposes of this debate, has been treated as just the loving union of two people. Defined in such terms of gratification, and so trivially, it's easy to claim that there's no reason not to call it a "right" and to open it up to gays. But marriage's function in human society goes further than that. It has a special place in bringing together the two halves of humankind, across the only biologically significant division there is among humans. Marriage is the bringing together of sexual opposites, and the basis of an elemental toleration and fidelity. It sets good life-examples for young children.
___That our society has been subject to other assaults on marriage, and has been in trouble for the past century or so, doesn't give an argument for throwing caution to the winds, but rather, to fortify the institution.
___Americans talk a good talk about toleration, but there seems precious little of it in our political discourse. Perhaps in the name of nominal toleration we have undermined the real article.
___A chief benefit of real marriage is the completeness it brings to the lives of individuals who, in virtue of their sex, would miss out on how the other half lives and thinks and feels. Claiming that gays are suitable subjects for marriage ignores this benefit. Stable relationships are better than unstable ones, and gays who maintain stable relationships deserve some recognition from the state and some privileges. But gay relationships are not the same as marriages, lacking the one of the most important aspects of marriage.
___Marriage isn't just a "right" to be opened up to anyone, but a sanctification of a particular kind of relationship, whether a religious or secular sanctification. It a granting of a special status to a relationship that serves an important function in human society. And gay relationships don't qualify for that in all the relevant respects.
___Today, there isn't a whole lot of authentic toleration in American society when it comes to gender issues, and little interest in seeing the "evil" sex as having something to offer. And feminism seems to claim difference when it works to its advantage, and to deny it when it doesn't. So the argument for the reconciling of differences falls on deaf ears with them.
___Apparently the selfish gratifications of a couple of constituencies (gay-marriage advocates and feminists) are more important than the welfare of the society at large, or even its preservation. No matter. This society will cease to be, rotting from the inside, and demographically overrun in a few generations. Maybe the successor culture will handle itself more responsibility. Look to Syria and Mexico if you want to see the civil future of the West.

12. it makes me giggle that people always say the whole adam and eve not adam and steve thing...and how people always wanna use the bible to tell someone else that they are wrong, but don't wanna really live by it themselves. the good book is missing some pages. and the bible says way more about what straight people should and shouldn't do than straight people

13. And i should be able to marry my chocolate cupcake which i love dearly.
who cares, marriage will be obsolete in a couple generations anyway.

14. I believe that in the US the government should never interfere unless your actions are harming someone else. Many people argue that gay marriage is against the Bible, but guess what? The founding fathers specifically said that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." It's right there in the first amendment.

Gay marriage affects only the couple who are married to eachother. Why should people be forced to comply with the things the Bible says when they believe in a different religion, or don't believe in a religion at all. I don't care what anyone else says. The church can do what they want, but gay marriage should be accepted legally in this country.

Besides there are so many other things that need to be addressed in this country. What about poverty? According to the US Census taken in 2003, 12.9 million children are living in poverty. Or the problems with the environment? I know that there has been a strong push to lower the damage being done to the world, but there's still plenty more to be done. I could care less if global warming is real.

Are the exhausts from cars and factories contaminating the air so much that it is affecting the health of people? Yes.

Is the rainforest being cut down despite the animals living there and the fact that only .5 percent of the forests have been examined for possible medicinal cures? Yes.

Is the garbage being dumped in our rivers and streams causing species to die out and drinking water to be polluted? Yes.

Is the world's supply of oil running out? Yes.

There's so much to worry about that I think protesting gay marriage is the least of people's problems. It doesn't hurt anyone and it's not the church's decision to say what is the moral thing to do.

15. I have no problem with someone being gay - it is their decision. I do believe that the sanctity of marriage is reserved for a man and a woman as it was intended in the Bible. According to the Bible, one of the main reasons for marriage is procreation. I don't see this happening anytime soon in a gay marriage. I hope that nobody gives me a thumbs down on this - just as they are entitled to believe the way they do, so am I.

16. Marriage, like any government granted legal status has qualifications. You must be a couple, of a certain age, not be a close relative, and you must be a man and a woman, must be found mentally competent.......etc

Thus, the "equality" argument is bogus. There are dozens of restrictions on marriage. Polygamists for example. It's not as if same sexers are the only group like they would have people believe.

Listen gays, stand up for my right to have 10 wives, or marry a straight buddy for all the benefits. (if same sex marriage is allowed, why not let two <or 7> straight men get married too. What's the gov going to do? Give a queer test at city hall?) then you can make your "equality" arguments to me.

17. Marriage was devised for respectable procrastination !