The debate "Gay marriage should be legal" was started by
March 19, 2015, 3:24 pm.
34 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PsychDave posted 4 arguments, Getmurked posted 1 argument, milimehta068 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Naudious posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
SiGuy27, PsychDave, Getmurked, Jake, Bodaciouslady16, Sosocratese, molly314, danielle, invincible_01, Hjkp98, mdavis1309, Superr1fifty, CX_LD_Ashley, Electrogoose, milimehta068, Egert_Clueless, Cormi98, sickboyblonde, shinywhale, frozen_emily, l2lll, transfanboy and 12 visitors agree.
dagyemango, Kirito, cocobb, debateer, PathwayHomeFan, Naudious, Daph, ihatechinks_69, egybro, ArsonLarson, sdiop and 9 visitors disagree.
I'm not sure I understand why you feel it is necessary to change the name. Marriage and civil Union seem to serve the same purpose, so why do we need to change the name and not just the laws regarding its definition?
You should be able to have the legal relationship now associate with marriage anyone and multiple people, regardless of romance, but rather residence. This is not marriage, it is a government legal contact, a Civil Union.
it is should be legal in all countries according to me..people treat this issue as a disorder. its not one .. people need to understand the thing.. its just a preference.
Renaming it civil union changes nothing. The government is involved because being married changes taxes, meaning they need proof. If there is a divorce, it shows that both parties agreed to be married. Without it, I say that my roommate and I were married in university, so I'm entitled to half his stuff and alimony. It impact citizenship in some cases. All of which means that the government needs paperwork to show who got married and when. The government isn't profiting from marriages, nor are they sticking their noses into if you are happy, loving partners.
There shouldn't be a government paper which recognizes Marriage. Everyone should be allowed to get a civil union with anyone they live with, loving people or no. It's a absurd concept that the government needs to be involved in the romantic part, as if your love status is decided by a state legislature.
How could you possibly privatize marriage? The industry supporting weddings is already private businesses, churches are nonprofits, and the officiant is either a clergy member, a justice of the peace, or a non-denominational officiant. The only government involvement is in the paperwork, which is for legal and tax purposes.
There shouldn't be gay marriate or straight marriage. The government can't handle love. Privatize Marriage, and let people figure it out, withoutbthe Government endorsing a side.
i agree of course, i previously stated this argument. the prebysterian church changed thier rules to allowing gay marriage, so i.dont see why others.cannot. the govt should not force them to make churches accept it, but they should offer another means of a marriage, along with all the benefits of it
I'm just curious, the people voting that it should be illegal, why? Is it on religious grounds, personal belief, or something else?