"Marriages" between people of the same sex?

[OlaaMej]

Defenitely : YES. Why do heterosexual people should have more rights? We are all people. We should have the same rights to happiness. I really don't understend all this hatred for gays and lesbians. It's none of our buisness how they love, if they are happy. We should take care of our lives and stop interfere in their lives. :)

[justynasta]

At bottom it doesn't interest me and I don't have opinion at this topic. Let them do what they want. I think that there are more important points to discuss for example the hunger on the world.

[agatawerecka]

As far as im concerned i don't care about it. I'm a tolerant person, I guess every man is the architekt of his own fortune. If someone actions have nothing in common with my life, let him do what he wants.
I am neither for nor against.

[MajaPu]

I have no opinion on this topic. We should let everyone love who they want, not who we want:) Same like justynasta, i think there are more important things in life than this, like what should I wear 2morrow, ech...

[Adifanstal]

It can't exist. It's unnatural and don't have any sense. They couldn't have children. What's more, if they adopt child, what he can say in school, when teacher ask for your mother name? My mum name is John...
People don't have to be tolerant. If some media "force" us to be tolerant for homos why they aren't tolerant for us untolerant ;)

[NaKuzajewska]

It is a hard question for me, because on the one hand the also are people, so they should do with their life what they want. But on the other hand if they colud have a weeding, they probably would like to adopt children and I can't imagine a little kid, who has two fathers or two mothers.

[Krisi]

not needed. they r so free...

[reindeer]

Is that possible?!

[annmadej]

I thing that every person should be able to live in my own way, I think that such marriages should be allowed.

[reindeer]

every person should be able to live in my own way

...Judges had to thing it over twice and scratch their bald spots assiduously...

Taking into account the significance of the arguments, Holly Inquisition re-considered the matter once again, and announced them, lost souls, innocent! Since the moment they are allowed doing their lewdness here and there every now and then. Ahem!

[SOATOAVINA]

IT IS A COMMON AND WIDELY KNOWN PRACTICE IN RICH COUNTRIES TO DIVORCE AFTER SOME YEARS OF MARRIAGE. NOW, HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE WANT TO MARRY.

One thing is clear in this situation. They want to promote and defend their new situation. However, instead of just defending themselves, they prefer to attack by claiming their right to marry, and not just to marry, but to marry at church. The best defence is attack.

Homosexual are called Sodomite in the christian bible and the kuran. It has never been natural to have sex with someone of the same genre than oneself apart from the big and lustful city of Sodom and Gomorrah. So, the question is: is our country becoming Sodom2 and Gomorrah2?

[OskiDz]

I beg, just not this question.. Sorry, I'm intolerant. Let people do what they want but not before my eyes.

[Basharuae]

GOD created ADAM and EVE not ADAM and STEVE, (no offense to anyone with the name Steve)

There is nothing called marriage of the same sex rather than sex between the same sex.

Because Logically, Historically, religiously, ethically...etc, marriage has consequences which do not exist when 2 of the same sex are together.

Marriage at least has husband (male) and wife (female).
so, how would the case be same sex.

[theguest]

First of all, i have to say that i don't believe in gods or any supernatural entity. Ok now about the topic, i think marriages between homosexual shouldn't be allowed for several reasons: 1) I know this could be seen stupid, but in my opinion, homosexuality in general is a disease, a genetic defect that shouldn't be powered. 2) The marriage, by the definition, is the union between man and woman, if it's man-man, woman-woman, it can't be called marriage anymore. 3) Children. Think about them, and the moral and social "repercussions" that they will have.

[Krisi]

This very question was raised by a correspondent during an interview to a boxing champion in my country which led to several outbursts from much of the society over the course of two weeks. When the boxer was asked if he supported same sex marriage he responded that he was not, stating that it was not supported in the Christian bible then proceeded to quote some lines from the holy book that directly opposed homosexuality. Subsequently one offended actor reacted to the champion's response in a harsh manner calling the boxer a "false prophet" resulting in his suspension from work.

In my opinion, the amount of negative attention that this incident attracted was entirely unnecessary, as the boxer was just honestly answering the question presented to him in the interview and his answer was not a direct strike towards the LGBT community rather it was his own take on this topic. The freedom of expression entitles anyone to his/her own opinion. What the boxer had quoted (from the bible) is true therefore, he should not in any case or condition be labelled as a false prophet. One does not have to be a prophet to quote any verse from the bible because the bible is for the guidance of all Christians.
Is it possible that the offended actor just didn't know the correct meaning of the word 'prophet'

[leking]

The government, federal or state, has no business in defining what a marriage is or is not.

It's only concern should be identifying those who wish to establish themselves as a family household for the purposes of financial, medical, child guardianship matters.

Marriage was established as a religious sacrament long before the US or state governments were formed.

Government by dictating what is and is not a marriage, has established itself as the religious authority on the matter. This clearly violates our first amendment rights : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Do not let the federal or state governments dictate what a marriage is. That is the right of the people to decide for themselves.

If a group of individuals want to establish themselves as a family household, then the governments should legally recognize that and equally apply the laws to all households when it comes to taxes, inheritance, insurance and any other financial, medical, and child guardianship matters.

Leave it to people to call themselves married, unioned, joined, or what ever else their religion or philosophy calls it.

Marriage will continue to be an issue as long as the government stays in the religion business despite anything the Supreme Court rules on the matter.

[jawad]

never,its against the nature.the one who created everything,created opposite sex for each other.have you ever seen a female dog doing sex with a a female dog

[Alisafdar]

I think no God created pairs of everything, it's almost against the nature, however it is also scientifically proved unsafe.

[chanhxinh]

I do think that marriage is a kind of commitment of love. For that, it does not relate to one's gender.

Legelization between pp of the same sex therefore should be conducted to ensure the equality

[DavisBrown]

Marriages between people of the same sex are a beautiful expression of love and commitment. Everyone deserves the right to marry the person they love, regardless of gender.