Anyone believing they can decide personal things for people are a largely naive people.

I concur.. I know several 'same sex' couples that are, by far and large, better parents than some hetro one's I know..

I agree with this too.. NO one has control over OTHER peoples decisions OR choices.. LIVE.. and LET Live

if something has caused a man/woman to no longer be able to reproduce,i can understand that but i do have a problem with men/women that purposely have their tubes tied just so they can no longer reproduce.

ummm Paul's writings were in the new testament

I think if they have biological children , they must not be EXCLUSIVELY homosexual

they can choose to lay down enough to make a child, they could also CHOOSE to marry someone of the opposite sex,,same OPPORTUNITY is there

I'm for people doing what they want, and loving who they want.

The right for two adult human beings in love to marry in a civilly-recognized fashion cannot be made dependent upon their gender in a free society, any more than it can be made dependent upon their race, childbearing ability, income, creed or eye color. Human beings are either free and entitled to equal rights, or we must admit to preferring a caste system under which some are citizens of the first class, while others are relegated to the second, third or some even lower class.

I prefer freedom and equality over classism and caste divisions. Human rights are not subject to the whim of a majority vote. In the US, we've already covered that ground with emancipation, the civil rights movement, interracial marriage (see: Loving vs. Virginia) and the First Amendment itself.

There will likely always be religions which restrict who can marry whom within the traditions of their faith... and that is perfectly acceptable because this is a religiously pluralistic nation (again, see the First Amendment). Civil law does not affect religious marriage restrictions within the bounds of a given religion.

If the state has a vested interest in regulating marital unions for the purposes of shared property, hospital visitation and healthcare decisions, parental responsibilities, differential tax rates or other aspects of a marital or family unit, then it is plain that this interest applies regardless of the gender of those who are so united.

Not all heterosexual couples bear or adopt children, while some homosexual couples ARE parents (whether by adoption or by one or both partners producing a child), so clearly a couple's existing or potential parental status is not at issue here. After all, we do not restrict marriage only to those who are or are intending to become parents, nor even to those who are capable of reproducing. It is entirely legal for a man who has undergone a vasectomy or a woman who has had a hysterectomy to subsequently marry.

Here in the US, our culture predicates marriage upon a loving relationship; we do not generally condone marrying for the sake of money or other material gain, nor do we encourage the practice of strategic but impersonal marriages to produce alliances between powerful or wealthy families as was common among the aristocracy of Europe and elsewhere in centuries past. (Indeed, the bulk of the US population is not in a position where such marriages would even be a factor.) While we do often quietly encourage those who have produced a pregnancy out of wedlock to marry, we do not require it and we do not expect it of couples who know themselves to be incompatible for the long term.

So, what's left? Love. It has already been demonstrated that love is not exclusive to heterosexual couples, because homosexual couples also fall in love. With that in mind, we rightly place as few restrictions as possible upon the state of civil marriage, considering only the age of the couple (majority or age of consent to marry), whether or not either is currently married to another partner, competency to enter into a contractual agreement, and to some extent consanguinity.

An equal application of these considerations without restriction of gender is the only way to involve the state (by which I mean civil government at any level) in marriage without deliberately or inadvertently making an underclass of those who happen to love someone of the same rather than the opposite gender.

MA bad I thought this topic was under DATING & RELATIONSHIPS.. not RELIGION!

lets not pretend I didn't specifically say
'biological children'

VERY well put..

Let's not pretend that biological children can't be conceived in a multiple ways.

lol

yes, that's what normally happens

Im not going to keep referring to the exceptions


yes, its possible that people have biological children without laying down with the opposite sex

my statement does logically not include those people

So, you have a problem with same sex marriage because they cannot reproduce, but you don't have a problem with straight marriages where the couple cannot reproduce?

And are you against birth control, too?

Or in vitro fertilization.

Thank you.

as long as people have the right to make their own choices.. there will ALWAYS be controversy from those wanting to control it, and take those rights away.. sadly.. they're the ones that scream the loudest when someone tries doin it to them..

2kids said it best.. opinions are like azzholes.. everyone has one

peace 'n love people.. there's enough war 'n strife in the world to go around already..

if the couple has purposely had surgery so they can't reproduce,yes i have a problem with it

and yes i have problem with birth control

And I thought that people here were free to answer the question in the thread's title any way that they wanted.