It's not allowed in the Philippines because it's a Catholic country. Morals ensue.

But personally, love is love, and marriage is not exclusive to just a man and a woman although the Bible quotes that "a man leaves his father and mother to join his wife and have children". That's basically procreation for me.

But if two guys and two girls love each other, then I don't see why they can't get married.

I'd live with whoever my girlfriend would be since same-sex marriage isn't allowed here and probably just adopt kids.

See, this is the problem I have with theocracies. A lot of the time, when you look at religious morals from an objective standpoint of the golden rule - treat others how you want to be treated - they turn out to be...not so great. I mean...take note, the Bible also has very detailed instructions on when and how it's perfectly acceptable to keep slaves.

And maybe there is a god out there who really does promote this. Okay, it's officially no longer a universe I want to live in, but...until he proves himself to me and demonstrates that this really is what he wants - that the slavery and sexism and homophobia is NOT something that got lost in translation - or even just gives me a LITTLE empirical evidence, I'm not going to believe that denying people the right to be legally family when there are so many rights involved in that is morally just.

A rewrote my post, so here it is:

The subject of homosexual marriage is a battlefield strewn with moral, ethic, and personal convictions. Can moral convictions and subjective whims do not dictate law? If these subjective convictions dictated law the majority could easily subject the minority to unjust treatments. To protect the rights and individual freedoms of those in the minority and those of the majority the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution. As a society we cannot dictate are laws based on the whims of the majority or else what is law? Law would be nothing more than a liquid expanse that would collapse to the whims of the majority for possible vile means. The primary purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights and prevents some persons from harming others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – First Amendment of the United States Constitution

While religion unmistakably has an influence on our laws it cannot dictate our laws. How we vote, how we believe others should be treated, and our personal convictions are all heavily influenced by our attitudes towards religion. Yet religion in itself cannot dictate law and in this aspect the moral convictions of Judeo-Christian principles cannot dictate the laws governing a free society. The “separation” between church and state was not designed to prohibit one from carrying a Bible to school or to remove manger scenes from the public eye. The separation was to make sure on did not engulf the other and corrupt one another.

Throughout the history marriage has been a private contract between two parties and perhaps their families. Today marriage is a contract with the state between two individuals and not a contract between a particular faith and two persons. A couple goes to the state and applies for a marriage license which is then issued by the state and which can then be “blessed” by a religious officer, judge, and numerous other institutions. Religion only plays a voluntary ceremonial role to those interested in entering religion into their private union. Marriage is a contract between two people and then should not be of anyone’s concern than theirs. The rights and responsibilities of partners should be governed by personally tailored contracts and not interpreted by religious or secular entities. The State’s role in marriage is only to recognize the contract so it may be used in the court of law.

There has been no compelling reason that has been made in the court of law for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Firstly, if the goal of banning gay marriage is to strengthen the institution of marriage shouldn’t the court bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation? If the argument is procreation shouldn’t the infertile, aged, and related parties be barred from the unity of marriage? Is the subject about upholding the Western “tradition” of marriage? Marriage throughout history has not simply been between one man and one woman. Ancient Judaism practiced polygamy, Islam practices polygamy, and numerous tribes throughout Africa as well. These arguments are firstly poor and secondly unimportant because once again, the personal views of the majority or minority should not dictate law.

What if it is in society’s self-interest to prohibit homosexual marriage to protect the lives of children who would subsequently be adopted by homosexual parents? What about the probability that sometime in the child’s life they will experience discrimination and stigmatizations as a result of their family circumstances? Society at large frowns upon discrimination and bullying, why should society then bow down to those who bully, discriminate, ostracize, and stigmatize? Interracial couples, single parents, minorities, and religious groups have experienced discrimination and yet continue to raise children despite these negative experiences. Society must continue to frown upon such discriminatory actions and not condone such behavior by accepting it. Why should the possible discriminations against the children of gay and lesbian couples be treated any different? Furthermore, what is the overall danger of homosexual couples raising children compared to single mothers, births out of wedlock, broken homes, unsafe environments, and so on? How different is it from prohibitions on interracial marriage. Didn’t people believe that the factual knowledge supported an inequality of races? Didn’t changes in our factual knowledge contribute to the end of such laws?

As gay and lesbian partners continue to fight for the right to the legal right to marry in many states lesbian and gay couples have been adopting, having, and raising children for many years. While gay couples often adopt or pay for surrogacy lesbian couples have been having children for years through sperm donations and other alternatives. Whether or not a child thrives or is setback compared to heterosexual couples is not just speculation.

Researchers at the University of Virginia and George Washing University published the study, “Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?” The researchers followed 106 families across American. 50 heterosexual couples, 27 lesbian couples, and 29 gay partners who had adopted children as infants. The researchers discovered that a child’s development is unaffected by the sexual orientation of the parents.

Nanette Gartrell, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, focused on what they called planned lesbian families. While 41% of children reported having endured a degree of teasing or discrimination related to being raised by same-sex parents the study found that there are no differences on psychological adjustment tests between the children and those in a group of matched controls. The study indicates that children raised by lesbian partners show no significant different compared to children in heterosexual homes when it comes to social development and adjustment. Loren Marks of the Louisiana State University, Journal of Marriage and Family, American Psychological Associates, based on data that there is “no difference” between being raised by a heterosexual couple or a gay couple. In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of South California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no different between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.

The controversial nature of homosexual marriage will always leave the science community in a hotbed of discussion and debate. Current substantial evidence shows that the raising of children in a same-sex household causes no measurable harm to the child. Yet we must speculate what if the evidence showed otherwise, that children raised in homosexual homes were worse off? If the State removed adoption and raising opportunities for same-sex couples on these lines the State would also have to remove children from interracial families living in certain areas, outlaw sperm donations to lesbian and single mothers, remove children from single parents, particular religious groups, and other peoples that face statistically higher chances of issues. Due to the Constitutional limitations of the State and Federal Government the potential, possible, and other factors cannot dictate law nor would they have the right to enforce such laws. Two good parents are better than one good parent and one good parent is better than two bad parents. Simply, children need parents regardless of gender, income, or status.

The subject of gay marriage is not simply a civil, social, moral, or religious issue; it is a constitution one.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. – Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

The Federal Government has enacted more than 1,000 federal laws regarding taxes and transfer payment, inheritance, property rights, and child custody due to their involvement in marriage. Whenever the government imposes obligations or dispenses benefits, it may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” This provision is explicit in the 14th Amendment, applicable to the states and to the federal government.

In 1954 the 14th Amendment was used to strike down the establishment of segregated schools in states and the prohibition of allowing whites from marrying blacks and certain Asians. The laws prohibiting interracial couples were enacted on the basis of inferiority, that other races were unequal to whites. In this case the court applied the 14th Amendment using the plain text of the Equal Protection Clause despite practices by the states that had been carried out for almost a hundred years even after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor do these bans attain the goals cited by the proponents of such bans. The bans do not support the sanctity of marriages, the divorce rate has been escalated, prenuptials are increasing, and no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation are on the rise. Banning homosexual marriage does not keep homosexual couples from having children due to sperm donations, adoption, and surrogates. Nor does the current evidence support any social harm to children raised by same-sex couples. Instead states have implemented an irrational and unjust system that provides significant benefit to just-married heterosexuals while denying similar benefits to a male or female couple who have enjoyed a loving, committed, faithful, and mutually reinforcing relationship.

California’s ban on same-sex marriage itself has been passed unjustly both on the grounds of insufficient grounds, lack of due process, and against equal protection grounds. Judge Walker wrote an extensive 138-opinion against Proposition 8.

Here are three excerpts:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.

Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis, Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8 cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” [citation omitted] Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Freedom isn't freedom if it’s only excluded to a few.

Thing I'd like to point out, though, while I'm glad you see that it's screwed up to restrict people just because who they are makes random strangers uncomfortable, there is no element of choice involved in the matter. I didn't randomly wake up one morning and go "Hmm, you know what sounds fun? I'd like to be a part of two unpopular and legally oppressed minorities! Yes, yes, that sounds just excellent! Where should I start?"

I mean, think about it. Your first high school crush, you didn't choose for that to happen, it just kind of happened. Everyone you've really felt attracted to - you probably didn't have to talk yourself into liking them, you just kinda did and you had no choice in the matter. And if you're like most people, you've been attracted to someone you wish you didn't like (a crush out of your league? Maybe an ex?) but your brain just couldn't be talked out of it because it's attracted to whoever it's attracted to.

It's the same with me and anyone else. Sure, I could choose to ignore it and not act on those feelings. I could indeed choose to be completely miserable and feel empty and unloved for the entirety of my life because everyone I feel any attraction toward is "wrong". But that's not exactly a healthy way to live life, now is it?

But even if it were a choice, you're absolutely correct. My "choice" (not to make myself completely miserable for the rest of my life based on someone else's ideas on what's good for me) is absolutely not anyone's business but my own and my potential partners'. And I can assure you that some stuffed shirt politician is not in that category by a longshot. I can assure you, suburban soccer moms, that I will not go around seducing your children just because I have the same legal rights as everyone else. But how will you tell them that there are two men who are married? You're gonna talk to them for five minutes like a parent is supposed to. You claim I'm an unfit parent solely because I'm a guy who likes guys, but you refuse to perform the most basic parenting duties because the subject makes you uncomfortable? Hmm...

But no, because of these irrational, baseless fears and these jerkasses who think they should get to choose how total strangers live their lives, I get to legally be considered a second-class citizen. Thanks a lot, US government.

It's great fun... I must be like the scum of the earth since I'm a guy who likes guys, enjoys being a guy, wears dresses and has more than one significant other. >.<

Well I would like to be able to marry whomever I decide to marry when the time comes. The fact that finding love in the gay community to me seems to be a much bigger challenge than that of the heterosexual community simply because there's more of it. It's sad sometimes that I still hear people bashing gays simply because they exist, and they do it right in front of people whom they have absolutely no clue about. Just like the other day an acquaintence of mine tried to say that it's like nuts and bolts and asked me if there were two nuts or two bolt structures that exists and I just laughed at him. Homosexuality exists in the animal world and he said that it rarely happens and I told him to research it that it was much more common in the animal world just as it is in our own species. Such biggotry still exists but atleast in most of our part of the world it's not as bad as it once was. I still think we got a ways to go but I feel eventually as time goes on it will become more and more accepted.

I do believe same sex marriage should be allowed. No one seems to look at it like normal human beings being in love and wanting to get married, it's almost like "what this toaster and a rabbit want to get married? PREPOSTEROUS!!" Ok, maybe not exactly like that, but most, not all, but most people against it view the LGBTQ+ community as being animals or something. It's sad, I don't care what gender identity, sexual orientation, color, religion.. or anything above and beyond that, that a person could be, the bottom line is, we're all people, we all want to be happy, so does it really matter who's marrying who?

I mean, is equal rights really such a radical issue? "These human beings want to be treated fairly and equally like all the rest of the world..." Crazy thought huh? gah.. I wish we could change the world, and erase all the negativity and hatred.

Originally Posted by The Wandering Poet

Found this on memebase... golden statement on marriage in general.

...Suddenly I feel very enlightened. This just makes so much more sense. I've always personally felt that my love for someone needn't be recognized an any official or legal way, but now I'm starting to question why anyone's love should be. o_o

But of course, all types of relationships should have the same rights. I can't see any reason gender should matter.

Alright, I am speaking as a lesbian in the hopes of settling down with a partner some day!

The thing of it is, for people who say "marriage isn't a big deal" or "it's not all it's cracked up to be". Well, for people who aren't allowed to get married and sit there watching heterosexual couples getting married, can you blame us? Maybe marriage isn't the most amazing thing in the world, but the LGBTQ community is deprived of the right to figure this out for themselves. It's only natural to want something you aren't allowed to have. And considering the reason we're not allowed to, it makes us want it more. When I hear all these people saying marriage isn't a big deal I always wonder, then why is it a big deal for a gay or lesbian couple to get married? What's the big deal about that? Why make such a small deal (marriage) into such a huge deal merely because of gender?

I'll never understand it.

That is exactly my only reason for giving a fuck about the title. Truthfully, I wouldn't even WANT to get married if it weren't for the fact that idiots are trying to keep it from me for the most ridiculous of reasons ever - I mean, really...maybe for the legal benefits, sure, but my relationships are AWESOME and I actually DON'T need to get the government involved to prove it.

But because people are trying to say "No, you don't deserve over 1000 individual rights that I just love to take for granted and treat as a game because I think you're icky/my interpretation of this vague entry in this ancient book says you're icky and clearly my opinion defines the world lololol" YEAH FUCK YOU I'M USING EVERY LOOPHOLE I'VE GOT.

Yeah, Quantum, I would only do it for the legal benefits too, but now I'm wondering if there should be any legal benefits to being in a relationship in the first place, regardless of gender. It suddenly doesn't make sense.

Obviously, I agree that homophobes are ridiculous. I don't understand why men and women have to be so different that it's okay for a man to love a woman but not a man. I really don't understand why those are so different. :/

There is more than one gender out there and with their own distinct kinks and quirks. People should be allowed to live out their choices to stand up for what they want. If they end up working out, well and good. May you love birds enjoy the rest of your days togetht. If otherwise, then that is fine as well. Ther are other fish in the sea; you'll eventually snag yer own at some point. If they tried going anything but het but ended up being straight in the end, hey at least you know now where you really stand after having gone through all that. The point is: choice, let's all a fair chance in the lov department than bar em. Only leads to subconscious frustrations and rebellious attitudes, yanno.

As for marriage... Why should only the straight people enjoy and suffer (depending If it works out or ends up in a divorce/legal separation...)? Everyone should try planning their wedding and experience the jitters! XD Should be a good experience for those who want it.

Also, I believe there are no conclusive studies that make same sex parents bad parents? So what gives. Having kids? Many ways. If there's a will, there is a way: the traditional law of families being a means to propagate the species and preserve culture is still there. The smell of used diapers and seeing your precious baby turn into a brat... No exclusion please. Taking part in these universal societal inclusion and building practices should be for all who want it.

Just saying.

I believe that humans put way too much thought into hating, and considerably not enough into just focusing on their own life! Does it really effect them if two females or two males wish to marry and have a family? Or if someone is Transgender? So many people just want to put something down without fully understanding it, or grasping at words they twist from their religion to condemn people. Is this very different from the civil rights battles all that time ago?

I know someone, who's view was thus: "I don't think there should be equal rights, no one should try to fight to change laws, just keep the world the way it is" Which I believe means, african americans shouldn't have rights? Women shouldn't have rights? People with disabilities shouldn't have rights? Hell, most of this country wouldn't have any rights should no one have "fought" to change things! HE would not have any rights had no one "fought" to change things! It's ignorance like that, which keeps the world from changing!

I'm sorry to the humans who fall under that category in which I speak, but no one, absolutely no one, has the right to condemn anyone just simply for who they are... I mean, everyone agree's pedophiles, murderers and rapists don't really deserve any leeway... but that's different. It's hurting other people, the LGBTQ+ community doesn't hurt anyone. That's not to say there aren't bad apples in the bunch, but you can't just an entire group based off of the actions of a handful of people!

That's my 2 cents... but what do robots know? We don't have rights either! XD

Well... Here in New Zealand, I don't believe gays can get married, but there is high enough tolerance in this country. (We also legalised prostitution... So what's that saying about our country?) I think they were talking about allowing it last year sometime, and I hope they do. Seeing we were the first country to allow women to vote, and are trying to become the first smoke-free country. New Zealand is a paradise in some aspects.

There is still hatred and unexplained fear against LGBTQ people here, but it isn't as huge as it is in other countries. We aren't a catholic country, we have many cultures and religions here, so everyone can believe what they want. Every now and then there might be some discrimination, but it is so rare it makes national news when it happens. Not sure about how people act towards transgendered people however, as I am one myself. I'm not out of the closet though, as I feel like it would be too hard to explain to everyone, and a lot of people I have already told are just like "Oh, don't be silly, you're just a tomboy."

I guess they just can't really accept that a girl wants to be a guy, because it's usually the other way around. But anyway, back to the question. I believe love is love and just because you are same gendered, you shouldn't be told you can't commit to one another by getting married. That just furthers the stereotype of gays being unfaithful and horny individuals that go to orgies every night. Oh, and making the argument about God not loving gays, there's nowhere in the Bible where it actually says that being gay is a sin or bad. Also, you say God made everyone in His image and loves all of His children. Then why would He hate someone for loving some one of the same sex? As long as the love is pure and true, He wouldn't mind at all.

Every single place on this earth should allow same-sex marriages. Love is love. And although there are so many incredibly arrogant and ignorant homophobes crowding this planet, I just wanted everyone to know that thank God I'm not one of them. God never said anything about how wrong it is, jfc. As far as I see it, same-sex couples seem to know more love than what homophobes do </start to a deep rant>

I think its hilarious people debate on who we should love. I don't believe it matters what gender we are, besides we were all once a boy and girl at one point in our lives.
Isn't it rather strange how the human race feels a lot more comfortable with two men holding guns instead of two men holding hands?

what's everyone thinking/feeling about everything that's happening with the Supreme Court the last two days?