Where do you stand?
Should gay marriage be legal in America?
Recommended reading:
Barack Obama makes up his mind on gay marriage
Good for Obama, bad for gay marriage?
Begging the question on marriage equality
Breaking down the biblical underpinnings of the "pro-marriage" argument
1369140787
Voting opened on May 10th 2012
Advertisement
Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Advertisement
Economist blogs
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne | European politics
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Erasmus | Religion and public policy
- Feast and famine | Demography and development
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Pomegranate | The Middle East
- Schumpeter | Business and management
- The Economist explains | Questions answered daily
Products & events
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
obviously not, and marriage should certainly be between a man and a woman.
god made adam and not adam and steve.how can two men or two women have kids together with the same genitals.and thats like telling god he made a mistake when creating man and woman.he never makes mistakes,amen
god made adam and not adam and steve.how can two men or two women have kids together with the same genitals.and thats like telling god he made a mistake when creating man and woman.he never makes mistakes,amen
they can adopt kids we have orver 2,000 who dont have home so that could make it go down.
3 reasons against gay marriage
The true question is: Is this about relationship or is this about family? Our government promotes heritage and but has no buisness into relationships. By the end of the debate on gay marrage, ask yourself if you strip away the sexual bond is there still a family? A brother will always be a brother, a sister will always be a sister, a mother will always be a mother and a father will always be a father. Can that be applied to a gay marriage? 1. There is no benifit to the tax payer or our government to promote realationships base on love. 2. Except for adoption purposes gay marriage is real "flimsy" in that perspective of what is a real family. For example then- two siblings living together should be able to get benifits for one another then without any sexual bond. Tell me how is that "less family" than two guys or ladies fighting for benifit rights? So can you cliam your sister or brother or mother or father in your health care package?
America this is a deadly life style 69% of all AIDS cases according to CDC .gov is homosexuals between the age of 13-29 and sending a message that this is o.k. to our youth is killing them. No one shows the pictures of those that are in hospice because of this lifestyle.. Think about this a straight healthy man and a healthy straight woman coming together will produce a child but a healthy gay man and a healthy gay man coming together will produce AIDS according to CDC anal sex produces AIDS this is the facts society is scared and fearful to speak about ...
Homosexuality is a Life Choice
Due to the fact that homosexuality has been proven to sometimes be a life choice (not always genetic), it would be hypocritical to allow gay marriage, but then not allow incest-marriage, or polygamy, since these are obviously both life choices also. A lot of people simply support something because it sounds nice and seems humanitarian, this can lead to ignorance, hypocrisy, and a detrimental/self destructive policy.
3 reasons why your head is up your ass, you bigoted moron!
Family? Using your same argument, if a straight couple stop having sex and get divorced. Are they still family - especially if they didn't have any children? Are they still entitled to marriage benefits? Then you speak of taxation. Where are my notices, from the government, that ask me if I would agree with our tax dollars going to congressional pay increases, the bail out of Wall Street or - something more pertinent - Government funding of religion based groups, many disguised as "American institutions." I don't want tax dollars going to these hate groups! But, like it or not, agree or not, they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as everyone else. But you spew forth nonsense advocating inequality, simply because you are an intolerant prick and can't get past the thought two people, of the same gender, may share a bed together and you may be forced to recognize them as a family.
69%, according to the CDC? Are you looking at stats from the late 1980s, early 1990s? You should check again, you sanctimonious uneducated prick. Did you just pull these numbers out of your @ss? Amazing, considering the tiny bit of space there must be, with your head filling it and all. Read the recent reports - in fact, read the reports going back for the last DECADE: HIV & AIDS IS MORE COMMON IN HETERO-SEXUAL MEN. The fact you chose, puberty to the decline of the male sexual peak, as your target age group, proves nothing besides men are hornier in that age group!
As for your "choice" hypothesis. Again, you have stuck your foot so far inside your mouth you have teeth marks on your knee! I've a dual doctorate in psychobiology and neuroscience - working on a third in biochemistry. FACT: 76% of the people, on the planet, have expressed some degree some degree of homosexuality - latent or otherwise. FACT: only 4% of the people are exclusive to homosexuality. FACT: Nature is filled with animals (other mammals, like us) playing and enjoying behavior that could only be described as homosexual in nature. FACT: Society, peer pressure, etc ingrain a heterosexual set of values - which is contrary to the human existence. FACT: People are sexual beings, morons like you terrorize them into being 100% heterosexual. FACT: Sexual orientation is ingrained BEFORE birth - usually, most people are born with bisexual variations. Society forces them str8.
Hypocrisy, hatred, intolerance, genocide, wars, bigotry, degradation of women, degradation of other religious beliefs and ethnic origins, ignorance, torture, and so many other atrocities that have plagued this world for thousands of years - All of these things can trace their number one cause to just one thing: Religion.
Gay people preach the concept, "you should be allowed to love anyone you choose." Christians preach, "Intolerance of everyone who does not believe what they believe."
Lastly... Choice? I'm a lesbian, answer if this was a choice: For 20 years, I lived a str8 life; married, kids, etc. Never was I with another woman. Never was I ever sexually aroused by a man, much less sexually satisfied. Men have threatened me, beaten me, lied to me, tortured me, cheated on me and have almost - literally - killed me. The first time I ever experienced true love was in 1998, at the hands of another woman. My first REAL sexual experience - that actually lasted more than 3 minutes. Hmmm .. someone who truly loves and cares for ME - all of me, my heart, mind and soul. Or, someone who abuses me and sees me as not much more than a life-support system for a vagina.. I wonder which one I should choose? According to you, I should choose the abusive man over the relationship where I feel safe and NORMAL. Yes, NORMAL. Gay or str8, when you are in a place, with another person, and you feel comfortable and love is equally shared and felt by both people, this is NORMAL. I NEVER -- I repeat: NEVER -- felt this once with a man. For 20 years I tried. But never once did it feel right, never once was I content to be there. The last 15 years, as a lesbian, I feel good in my own skin...
What was the choice?
What makes America Great is Freedom to
Choose. I say, let All Americans choose
by placing the issue on the Ballet.
This is Certanily Not something for the
Courts to decide. All Americans should
be able to Vote on this.
Really? Let Americans choose? Jay Leno has done a number of "on the street" type things. If Americans where to choose pay attention to these findings.
In the course of one day, over 125,000 signatures were attained from a single area (obviously a very busy area) on a petition to end women's suffrage. People thought "suffrage" was wrong and women should not have to suffer. These morons did not realize they had just signed a petition to end a woman's right to vote!
In 2008, amidst the many many straw polls, held that presidential election year, a small organization - curious about the people voting for the whole gay rights thing - conducted a poll about equality, as it pertains to black Americans. In 3 states, the polls showed a greater than 50% majority to end equal rights for blacks. One state had a greater than 60% majority. Interestingly, in 4 states the re-institution of slavery was considered a "good idea." Additionally, in an alarming 7 states, the concept of interracial marriage should be illegal.
Yeah, let's leave it to the people who re-elected King George II, to a second term!
Coincidentally, those same states favor anti-abortion and, ironically, the death penalty.
"A democracy is where 51% of the people can take away the rights and privileges of 49%" --- Thomas Jefferson
"We have given you a republic [not a democracy], ma'am. Let us see if we can keep it." --- Benjamin Franklin
"A republic stands for the equality of all of its people... even if it is not popular to do so." --- JFK
If you prefer being Gay, then be Gay
at your Own Risk. If you want to get
Married, then find Yourself Someone
of the Opposite Sex and Get Married
just like everyone else.
Gays already have the Same Rights as
All Other Americans, just change your
Partner. Not Our Sanctity of Marriage.
One of the most glaring arguments by the "marriage = hetero union" cabal is that they presume semantic uniformity across the ages without taking into consideration how and what the supposedly Ur-Christian term meant. In Latin, the term was not only used for 'unions', but also for "animals and viticulture" (Oxford English Dictionary). If it is good enough for swine, it is good enough for same-sex marriage.
Moreover, as Rep. Andy Gipson (Mississippi) pointed out and supports, the Old Testament (Lev. 20:13) calls for the death of homosexuals (although this can be debated based on translation as well). The only question left in this light is: where is the Jewish voice in this debate? Ironically, the Christians have dominated the religio-political discourse and also completely hijacked pre-Rabbinic Levitical bloodletting as a substitute for the New Testament (which, ironically, emends and adumbrates most of what Leviticus calls for).
in US of course yes! in my country of course no!!!
It's incredibly sad to watch America tear itself apart with prejudice and bigotry under the name of "our good lord". But really, please continue. You're giving the rest of us endless entertainment.
Personally, I just want the presentation to not be two faced. If you do NOT believe in it, then shove your false American values somewhere else. ("...with liberty and justice FOR ALL." Except people who do not look like me.) If you do believe in it, admit that it's a dramatic change in what it means to the way of understanding the concept.
Neither side is cost-neutral when it comes to the social values. Let the anti-equality side win it out, and we've whored out American values ... again. The promise of "Equal protection under the laws." will be something else we've sent up the river. If they lose, then we're making far reaching changes to things, some which may have a social cost AND a financial cost.
Personally, I think the government has no more right to govern marriage as it does sexual positions, hairstyles, nose-picking, or any other task or activity not crucial to the function of the state. Legalizing (or not doing so) misses the question of why in the hell is it their business.
The only practical issue (in terms of government governance) is of taxation - marriage grants a different taxation status in many nations. In the US federal level, singles and persons in civil unions are considered the same for taxation (correct me if I am wrong). i.e. one cannot file as as married if the two persons are only in civil union.
It took a bit of effort to revoke "Don't say, don't tell" (a federal level issue). Addressing the taxation issue of this is next issue - the "obvious" solution is to consider marriage being at the same as civil union for federal taxation; the social conservatives will then argue making that equal is same as recognizing same-sex marriage. It is all about rhetoric and meaning of words...
We are certainly backward in many respects in Argentina, but this topic of same sex marriage thank god was not much of an issue. We understood that what matters is respect and love, not what your sexual preferences are. If you are not a corrupt mind, you are a good person, and that is what counts If you are corrupt, you can be straight and still be a bad person. I am proud that in my country same sex people who love and commit to the other can have access to this fundamental right.
I believe long term partners deserve legal rights to share property and legal responsibility for each other as in the marriage contract. Demanding same sex union be called "marriage" is like a soccer ball demanding to be included in a tennis match because it is round and bounces.
Interesting, you say that you belive, "long term partners deserve legal rights to share property and legal responsibility for each other as in the marriage contract," yet you don't want to call the union a "marriage" A rose by any other name. . .
-
It is interesting that you often do not see what you do not wish to...
I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why it should not (and by convincing I mean one not based on religious pretexts, vague promises of societal collapse or outright homophobia). Legalising gay marriage will, in my opinion, simply be one more step towards the breaking down of a damaging social cleavage, helping to normalise the idea of homosexual relationships in our world.
Yet, normalising the concept of homosexuality does nothing to make ordinary, reproductive heterosexuals turn gay. Sexuality of any kind is largely ingrained in people; biologists even suggest genetic preodisposition these days.
Let's not kid ourselves. The rising number of self-identified LGBT people can only be related to the gradual "normalisation" of homosexuality insofar as it is now far more acceptable for already-gay people to live frank and open gay lives. Gay marriage will not make anyone gay, but it will certainly make it easier for gay people to live happy and free lives.
Marriage is between husband and wife in all religions. Gays have civil partnerships to protect their interests as a couple. Why do they feel the need to be 'married' and invoke themselves to religions that clearly do not support them by protesting for rights to 'marry'? I don't have an issue with homosexuals, live and let live I say, but it is definitely not right to disrespect the followers of religion by allow 'marriage'.
Also, homosexuals do have a lot more rights now and can live generally well in society, so why always protesting and creating mountains over molehills? Calm the F* down!
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S.
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples.
Insisting on equal rights is not disrespect. Imposing religious beliefs even when that religion is in the majority is. Further, there is no place for a religious definition of marriage in the public square. Return it to the church, close and lock the door, and no one will trouble you.
I respect your views but I am afraid I don t agree, sorry. I am proud that in my ciountry, Argentina, although a backweard coiuntry in many respects, people have agreed to same sex marriages. Marriage is NOT a religious institution, but a civil one.
Marriage is not, by definition, a religious concept. Marriage may have its origins in religion (in the West, this is specifically Christian), but the civic institution of marriage, as regulated by the government of the USA and other countries, is inherently secular. Many straight couples take advantage of their right to get married in completely secular civil ceremonies.
Although civil partnerships often guarantee the same rights as marriages, there is an obvious homophobic impetus behind the exclusion of gay couples from the sanctity of the time-honoured-- but completely secular, in its institutional embodiment in the USA-- tradition of marriage. Substituting something "separate, but equal" for marriage serves to sanctify an institution that, in reality, has nothing officially to do with religion or reproduction.
Human Rights if for no other reason.
Human Rights is just a cap-out. The gay and lesbian community have all the rights the rest of the people in this country have. This Country is not a Secular country and all these people who have no fear in God, never go to Church want to impose on other people their demands. That is not right!
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S.
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples.
Look my daughter is a lesbian and has a partner. They have two kids that belongs to the partner. Each carries their own medical insurance, etc. They both have jobs and they do not feel any discrimination or feel that they need to get married. Take for example this black guy who has 30 kids with multiple woman and now is asking for State assistant to support the kids. This is unconscionable and disgraceful. This man should be castrated! I have been in this Country for 55 years and I am a Hispanic. I never felt any discrimination because I was Hispanic. I educated myself, worked hard and never had to depend on a hand-out by the Government. The reason some of these gay and lesbian people want to get married is to see what freebees they can get from the Government. Enough of that! We are bankrupt and there are too many people milking the Government. I invite you to go South of the Border and see what the Government gives you. A big NOTHING! That is why there are so many Mexicans crossing the border because they are hungry and willing to risk their lives. I do not blame them because I would probably do the same. But can you tell me why do we have to give benefits to Illegals? So I hope to end this conversation because you can talk all day long and you are not going to convince me that we need to have Gay and Lesbian marriages. Have a good day!
That they do or do not feel discriminated against has no bearing on whether they are. That has more to do with social awareness.
To which black guy do you refer? Is it different than the white guy under similar circumstances? If you want to make a case for castration as a remedy for delinquent dads -- best of luck. Sounds like a topic for a different thread.
Again, whether or not you 'feel' discriminated against is not the same as whether or not you are discriminated against.
Please provide details about how you educated yourself. Especially given you claim to be in the US (presumably) for the last 55 years. Were you shut in a room with a bunch of books? No teachers or mentors? Even if it is true, your point is off target. Whether or not you personally avail yourself of the rights you enjoy has no bearing on the fact that others do not enjoy the same rights.
The homosexual community is looking for the same freebies offered to the heterosexual community. Its a parity issue.
I don't know that we need to have marriages at all in the public square. If we had not tried to legislate a religious definition of marriage, we wouldn't be having the conversation.
Thanks for at least being honest about your intent on a soliloquy vs a dialogue. You know you are right because you say so and no one will ever convince you otherwise. Most are not that self-aware or truthful about it if they are.
United States is a secular country in every sense of the word. The separation of Church and State is meant to be absolute, written directly in the constitution. Nobody is asking a god-fearing Christian to marry their own sex, they are only asking for the basic dignity of choosing their own love to be respected. I can't see how that is a "cap-out" [sic]. It's no more of an imposition than a black man asking to go to an otherwise all-white school.
Actually no, gays and lesbians do NOT have all the rights the people in the U.S. have. Also, the U.S. IS a secular nation, regardless of what theists like yourself might wish.
hyun smith - total nonsense and bigotry. if marriage was about children then millions couldnt get married at all. and you show yourself to be bigoted towards women as well. you sir, are an idiot. and it shows.
Ol doc, marriage means a lot of different things to a lot of different religions.
Let the gays marry in the religions that allow it. Nobody is being forced to do or accept anything. Gays are just given the right to marry. (With all the legal benefits that follow!)
I couldn t agree more
Very few (no one?) cares what "gays" do actually. We do care about changing the thousands year old definition of marriage to accommodate their sexual preference,perverted or not. I don't see much about what other cultures/countries do. Not how well they tolerate and accept these practices,but whether they call such partnerships marriage.
People also cared about "changing the thousands year old definition of marriage" when interracial marriage was illegal.
Gay marriage is NOT about sex just as heterosexual marriage is NOT about sex.
Who are you to deny 1400 federal rights to people who are in love and choose to enter into marriage?
Think back about how this all started when "Gays" were dying off fast from HIV-Aids and someone came up with this idea of pairing off with one person to try to stop them fron dying.
It did work here a little here but it has gotten worse in some other places and passed on to women and children too. Cuba isolated them and it worked faster there. We tried to help them but now they want to destroy us and they are suceeding.
Marriage between a man and a worman until we die has a lot more reasons for being than sex. (my wife and I have been married for seventy years.) Our family has not fallen apart and are all well.
I wish the same for others who seem to want to live only for themselves, if that is what they want to do, but it will destroy our country in due time as everyone who has eyes can see.
You are wrong. You will die soon with your generation and you will take your prejudices and theological nonsense ideas with you to oblivion.
That your marriage as survived 70 years does not justify your attempt to force everyone else to live exactly the same life with the same rules as you have.
You might not be gay, but I can assure you there is someone in your family, probably a son or grandchild who is. Would you like them to live a life of discrimination, of half-rights?
that is not discrimination. I have no objections that gay people living as couples should have all the benefits and rights that married couples have. There is no reason for them to get married. This is insane! A MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN and the majority of people in this country agree with that. I have family who are gay and there are fine living together without getting married. So stop this non-sense.
You are arrogant by calling other senior poster (Yankee Kid) “You will die soon...” and despicable liar by saying “...theological nonsense idea..”, when everybody can see that his post does not use religion as an argument at all. Your blind homosexual activism makes you untamed.
If you do not like normal heterosexual relation then abstain from supernatural...vegetarians abstain from meat or diabetics abstain from sugar, ask them how it is done.
Apart from the actual word "Marriage" what discrimination do legalized gay social partnerships experience? From what I understand the resistance is only over the use of the word itself as civil unions cover all of the discriminatory and legal concerns. Shouldn't there be a terminological differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual partnerships as there is between male and female for instance?
It seems strange that a word can be redefined my a minority that seems to feel offended by that words current and long accepted definition.
Its great that you are in favor of fixing the current legislation which extends some 1400 benefits to hetero couples that are denied others.
You might be interested to know that same sex marriage has a history in the US back to the 19th century -- not even a new idea and certainly predates HIV.
Once you set aside the question of benefits, the only part remaining is that of marriage, which has a religious component to it, and as such needs to stay out of the public square for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
This again is non-sense by you bringing the religious aspects to Gay Marriage. What is next? Marriages with multiple partners? Wise up wytworm! Some 30 plus states have already voted against Gay marriage. This is an issue Gay people is not going to win. If you are gay, move to a State where they allow gay marriage like California although the people voted against it. Let the states decide if the want gay marriage in their states. I do not have anything against gay or lesbian people, Comprende! Many of these people are better off staying single because in the gay and lesbian community the majority of these people are always looking for a new partner or adventure, and who is going to stop them. A piece of paper is not going to do it. I should know! I have members in my immediate family who are gay and lesbian. So give it up!
You are parroting very nicely the same argumenet around slavery and denying women rights that has come before. I don't recall how those turned out. Do you?. It is also very close to the arguments around religious persecution that drove many to flee europe for the new world. Again...let me check wikipedia to see how that one ended up....Oh yeah, the founding of a secular state that gave enough freedom for a subset of its members to forget their own roots and begin persecuting minorities much in the same way their own ancestors were persecuted. Bravo!
On the numbers I have seen, christianity is not doing well and is in decline. It is also true that like a malevolent tree having been chopped at the roots, it seems to be taking its time falling over and in the falling, seems determined to strike as many as possible and do what damage it can on the way out...