Should homosexuals have the right to get married?

Let people do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt any one. That is what this country is about right?

 

Although I dont like it,I believe that they should be allowed. In the U.S.A our rights are to life,liberty,and the "pursuit of happyness",so I say if it makes them happy then let them.Let god be the judge,not man.

 

Other people find happiness in keeping the sanctity of marriage. Why doesn't this apply to them?

 

thats fine if they want to but if you are preventing someone else's inalienable rights to fulfill your own ,thats against the law.

 

and to Dam Prayer Noobs,that picture is highly offencive to me and some others.

 

I really don't want to dive through all this right now, but I will make one point.

Amendments have been proposed to allow all the same benefits of marriage to that of a civil union among homosexual couples. They would essentially have the same rights, legal benefits, etc. as a married couple, except it would be a civil union and not be considered marriage. That being said, isn't this simply the same idea behind "Separate but equal"? To me that's discrimination.

All that said, I won't be posting my personal beliefs on the subject, I just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

The point is that a set of rules exist, which prohibits homosexuals from "joining the club" and get married.

It would be like a black man showing up at a KKK meeting and expecting to be let in on the fun, for no other reason than he wants to.


But as I've said earlier in the thread, I don't see the problem as whether or not the should be allowed to marry. What puzzles me is that they want to be associated in any way with a religion that condemns them.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

 

He made a good point, with an excellent example.

 

I would argue by that verse that the bible condemns the acts of homosexuality, not homosexuality itself. I hardly see a reason they can't marry and be celibate.

 

Marriage is in essence a permission to have sex. What's the point of getting married if you're gonna stay celibate?

 

No they should not get married. I am very religious and strictly disagree with homosexuality.

 

Marriage is not the gate to sex, if you think that then that is called lust my friend. Marriage is the gate to living with someone that you love a lot, at least that's what I think.

 

Good for you.

"I have more respect for a man who practice what he preaches, even if he's wrong"

The way I see it, there is a distinct difference. Not married: can't have sex, married: can have sex. Nothing restricts you from living with someone you're not married to.
You describe yourself as very religious, so you should agree.

 

Marriage is a bond between two people to be committed to one another, and only to each other. To be committed to a person does not require sex. So if your definition is correct, then say people born without and/or dysfunctional genitalia should not get married because they can't have sex.

 

That was not about dysfunctional genitalia, it was about people getting married to live in celibacy. Big difference.

 

Either way, they are celibate. Elaborate on how your definition does not fit my example.

 

Ok, I can say the same thing. Why get married if you can't have sex. Sex is the key difference between married and not married.

Tax-cuts, social status, blah blah blah, are flawed motives to get married.

 

This^

As well, the "Tax cuts, and blah blah blah" are a MAJOR reason even heterosexual couples get married. Basically by not allowing it, they make gay couples "second-class citizens" to those of straight couples.

Thank you for furthering my point.

 

Am I the only one to see the flaws here? Sex outside of marriage is a sin, and getting married for economical reasons has nothing to do with the original idea.