Hell yes!!!

The Top Ten Reasons Why Anti-Gay Marriage People Are Stupid:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, liposuction and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; yeah, women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Kami, it looks like someone else wrote that list for you; I've certainly seen much of that material before. If that's the case, you need to put it in quote tags.

Well why not? Just because you might not like gay people, doesn't give you the right to say they can't get married. Personally, i'm not a lesbian but I seriously don't have a problem with gays, because thats their way of life. However, I don't agree with gay people bringing up a child because there's a high chance that child will get bullied at school.

Originally Posted by Inertia

They are allowed to marry, just not the same gender.

Just like everyone else.

"I did not let him starve. He was allowed to eat his strawberries, just like everyone else. Is it my fault nature made him allergic to strawberries?"

Originally Posted by Nalah Sin

"I did not let him starve. He was allowed to eat his strawberries, just like everyone else. Is it my fault nature made him allergic to strawberries?"

Eloquently stated.

They can get married, and I think they should. No one can stop a couple from having a religious ceremony, they can only stop them from having rights as a couple through the government. I think that if more homosexual couples did get married, regardless of what legal benefits they would receive, that a lot of the people against gay marriage would realize their argument is lost. No one can stop a spiritual ceremony, they can only stop what rights the law gives them. And since most arguments are about the spiritual/religious side to begin with, that takes away from their argument in a big way.

Originally Posted by Nissa

They can get married, and I think they should. No one can stop a couple from having a religious ceremony, they can only stop them from having rights as a couple through the government. I think that if more homosexual couples did get married, regardless of what legal benefits they would receive, that a lot of the people against gay marriage would realize their argument is lost. No one can stop a spiritual ceremony, they can only stop what rights the law gives them. And since most arguments are about the spiritual/religious side to begin with, that takes away from their argument in a big way.

I'm really confused as to what you mean. No, they cannot get married, because marriage is wholly a legal institution. The trappings that may or may not go along with it are not marriage. They could get a ceremony and claim it was marriage, but it wasn't.

And even if they decided to call something marriage that wasn't, I'm unsure as to how it would help. The opponents wouldn't recognize it as a marriage either by law or by their god, and it wouldn't change their opinions about it. And while most arguments against same sex marriage are based on religion, what they are the most focused on is the name (which they have no control over) and the rights. Some claim that civil unions would be perfectly okay, but they almost certainly realize that civil unions do not grant the same rights as marriage, and in fact tend to fight against changing the way civil unions are set up in order to make them more similar to marriages. So I'm not certain what you think would be accomplished.

you dont choose who you fall in love with or who you dont fall in love with, and isnt marriage about loving someone so much that you want to spend the rest of your life with them. It wont cause any harm to anyone like incest would so why shouldnt gays be able to marry?

Who cares? If they wanna get married they should get married. Not like they're hurtin' anyone...

i think they should be allowed to marry, even if its the same gender. everybody has rights nowadays, and no one should be deprived of their rights. i know 4 gay couples. some of which are family. and no one has made any judgement to them about who they are or what they are doing. and i think everyone else in the world should do the same. just leave them alone.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I'm really confused as to what you mean. No, they cannot get married, because marriage is wholly a legal institution. The trappings that may or may not go along with it are not marriage. They could get a ceremony and claim it was marriage, but it wasn't.

And even if they decided to call something marriage that wasn't, I'm unsure as to how it would help. The opponents wouldn't recognize it as a marriage either by law or by their god, and it wouldn't change their opinions about it. And while most arguments against same sex marriage are based on religion, what they are the most focused on is the name (which they have no control over) and the rights. Some claim that civil unions would be perfectly okay, but they almost certainly realize that civil unions do not grant the same rights as marriage, and in fact tend to fight against changing the way civil unions are set up in order to make them more similar to marriages. So I'm not certain what you think would be accomplished.

Marriage as a legal institution is relatively new. For most of humanity's history, marriage has been nothing more then two people, a religious leader, and some vows. There were no tax credits, no rights given by the government, no anything beyond what that religion gave it. Those who are against gay marriage are against that part of it happening, and that is the part that the law can not control. As for recognizing marriage by ones own god, we already recognize marriages from different religions.

To me, it's an issue of human rights. Two people who are want to prove themselves as a couple before a court of law and share their possessions and earnings should have the right to "marry." Regardless of any spiritual/religious significance to the act of marrying, even regardless to love, people who want this legal opportunity should be able to carry it out.

To not allow gay people, male or female, to marry is an unjust discrimination from this perspective.

EDIT: In response to Nissa, who got her post in just a few seconds before me, it may be true that marriage as a legal institution is fairly new, but then again so is the school of human rights... and from a human rights perspective, there is no way you can justify not allowing gay people to marry.

Originally Posted by Nissa

Marriage as a legal institution is relatively new. For most of humanity's history, marriage has been nothing more then two people, a religious leader, and some vows. There were no tax credits, no rights given by the government, no anything beyond what that religion gave it. Those who are against gay marriage are against that part of it happening, and that is the part that the law can not control. As for recognizing marriage by ones own god, we already recognize marriages from different religions.

And? That's still the way it is. What it was a century ago does not change what it is today. Also, marriages have long granted rights. Mainly, the right of the husband to do what he pleased with the wife (abuse, assault, rape, etc.) and the wife's legal ownership being passed from father to husband and certain property rights, but it was still a legal right.

If that were the case, though, that they were only against the religious part, they wouldn't have a complaint. No one has ever suggested forcing any religious leader to perform same sex marriages (the closest they've come is suggesting that churches who practice discrimination should no longer be given tax breaks), and marriage does not require a minister or anything of the sort. It is strictly legal. If they're stupid enough to think it does, then they really should keep their mouths shut until they educate themselves. However, from what I've heard on the subject, firsthand, it's not the idea of gays being granted a religious wedding that they have an issue with, it's this "sanctity of marriage" thing, and what they believe two people of the same sex being married would cause.

Phil makes an excellent point on marriage historically granting the husband rights of ownership over his wife. Springing from that idea, what does everyone here think about same-sex marriage being a "marriage of equals?" I'd heard it toted that way, so what do you think, Debate Forum? ^^

Hm. Well, while I think there's a lot less pressure for two people of the same sex to have a dominant/submissive relationship (and no, not the fun kind), to call it a 'marriage of equals' over-simplifies it, I think. There's still this idea that two people cannot coexist as equals, which affects even the most well-intentioned of couples, and there are, sadly, not-so-well-intentioned same-sex relationships, just as there are hetero relationships, in which one considers herself the "head of the household", the authority, and the other is expected to obey.

In the same vein, that saying also suggests that someone's worth and authority is based on her sex. That is, since the only thing necessarily different about same-sex marriages is that they are between two people of the same sex, they are equal because they are the same sex, and were they not, they would not be equal. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems like it's promoting the idea that one sex is naturally worth more or has more rights or is more commanding than another.

Originally Posted by Nissa

For most of humanity's history, marriage has been nothing more then two people, a religious leader, and some vows

I am not entirely sure what you are basing this assertion on as my understandings, albeit as limited as they are, of kinship systems lead me to the conclusion that marriages as you have just described fall into the vast minority. On the first count, about 66% of cultures have had polygamous systems. Although even if we put that point aside, we are still confronted with the detail that in most cultures marriage has not been about the people getting married. But rather in many instances marriage has been controlled by the group. Indeed for many societies marriage served the role and function of maintaining social cohesion both within and between groups. This observation led Levi-Strauss to label it as a system of reciprocity.

If you love someone you should be able to get married, gay or not. No one should be judged by who they love.

Some people use the good old "They can't have children" reason, or even "they wouldn't be a good example for an adopted child since they lack of one gender "role-model" to imprint.

I personally disagree their theories, and strongly.
I think marriage is about love, and parenting is about love and taking care of.
Nothing a gender can really obstruct.

I simply can't get my head around why it's such a big deal to let two people marry? Maybe it's because I live in sweden, where it's legal. I don't know. But to me this whole bullsh*t about not letting two people of the same gender marry is just stupid.
What does it matter? And if it's because of religious reasons does it say anywhere in the bible (or any other wholy script) that people of the same gender are strictly forbidden to marry? Because it seems to be the religious opinions that's the biggest problem.

Oh and those other people that says that gay couple wouldn't be good parents or role models can go hide somewhere. The gay people I have met are probably better role models than any of the straight people I know. But that's just my personal experience.

Marriage shouldn't be gender specific. If two people love each other then they are going to find ways to be together so the state should just let them get married. The whole separation of church and state never really was separated. The proof is on our money, the whole abortion fiasco, the laws that are written, etc The whole country is founded on christian or catholic beliefs so once we can fully separate church and state then there will be nothing standing in the way. There will always be people who don't approve but they are always going to be people who disapprove of everything.

Legalize gay marriage. nuff said.

Yes because if you love each other (despite what you are) then you love each other. So what if you're of the same sex? You love each other and if you want to get married, then you should be able to get married. Don't listen to what people say. They just don't see love for what they should see love.

I'm for gay marriage everyone deserves the right to be miserable.

i think that gay marriages should be legal. im not gay, but if i was i know i would be fighting for my right to get married. everyone in america and all over the world should be treated equally and then everyone would be happy. let the gays marry!

I have absoloutely no problem with gays or lesbians, in fact, my best friend is bisexual.
If they want to be as legally miserable as straight people, let them.