Very much pro. I see no reason that society should deny these people the opportunity to marry.
Quote by Rebel428I am against
it. There are many reasons I feel this way, but these two
are the biggest:
1) The family unit is the basic unit of society, and has been
throughout the history of humanity. Outside of adoption, same-sex
marriages cannot become families. Those who desire same-sex marriage do
not desire to start a family anyway - they're mostly only doing it for
the sex; being that marriage benefits are intended to encourage family
building, there is no reason for homosexuals to be married.
So, then, do you believe that elderly couples should be allowed to marry? At some point, it becomes physically
impossible for a man and a woman to procreate. Therefore, if they cannot create a family, they should not get the
benefits of marriage, right?
Furthermore, there are many benefits that marriage provides that have nothing to do with having children. As it is now,
homosexual people cannot have joint ownership of a house. They can't have a joint health care policy. They
can't have a joint insurance policy. They pay extra taxes come retirement because they can't file jointly.
If one partner becomes seriously ill or injured, the other isn't treated like a family member or a spouse, and has
no say in their partner's treatment. And so on, and so forth.
Yes, marriage is often about children - but not always. Even so, allowing gay people to marry would not change that.
People could still marry and have children, just like people now can marry and choose not to have children.
Quote by Rebel4282) This one
should seem fairly obvious, but it apparently isn't.
Certain male "parts" are designed to work with and complement certain
female "parts," for the purpose of procreation. Both are obviously not
present in a single sex relationship.
See above, elderly, etc etc.
Quote by Rebel428Despite my
opinion, I -do- believe that homosexuals do deserve the
respect due to all human beings. However, because it is both unnatural
and destructive to society, homosexuality should most definitely be
discouraged.
Wow, 40 years ago you could've said the same thing about interracial dating and marriage. How exactly are
homosexual people 'unnatural and destructive to society'?
In the end, it comes down to recognizing a loving, committed relationship between two consenting adults. If
'marriage' is somehow sacred, call it something else. But there is no reason to deny a homosexual couple the
benefits that a heterosexual couple can receive.
"A man and a woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship is, cannot
marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As humans or as dogs?"
