What is your opinion on gay marriage?

Dave Hitt www

I believe that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they like as long no innocent people are harmed and it doesn’t scare the horses.

Every argument against gay marriage is religious, so I reject them. The idea that it will hurt existing families or marriages is just dumb. Every time I’ve seen or heard that claim I’ve asked for a specific example of how it would hurt my family. I have yet to get an answer.

So the bottom line is: It doesn’t harm me, it doesn’t harm anyone else, and it’s no one else’s business – therefore, there’s no reason to oppose it.

George Ricker www

I think same-sex couples should have the same right to marry and form families that is enjoyed by heterosexual couples. For me this comes down to a fundamental issue of fairness and equity in our society.

Religious arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage are irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Churches who don’t want to conduct such marriages are under no obligation to do so, just as churches who won’t marry divorced people are under no obligation to do so. However, religious opinions and preferences cannot be controlling on what should and should not be legal in a secular society.

Nor do I accept the rationale you cite from Romans. By that reasoning every action committed by any tyrant or despot should be regarded as acceptable because it is ordained by the “governing body” that is appointed by “God.” Frankly, that’s a terrible basis for any sort of moral stance. Government’s are made by people. We have not just a right but a responsibility to challenge their actions when they are in the wrong.

To argue that all government action is proper because all governments are ordained by the deity is to argue that Hitler was in the right and Stalin’s Gulags should be accepted as the norm.

I take the position that all human beings have the same fundamental rights. When same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, regardless of the rationale used to justify that denial, it is a violation of that principle.

brian thomson www

There are some “historically obvious” objections to homosexuality that we (as societies) are still trying to shake off, even though the old problems can be considered resolved. It’s not something that I would care to see in person, never mind participate in, but I can tell the difference between my feelings and “so no-one should do it”. I do not want to be a “moral authority” and impose my opinions on others.

Conversely, I think that it’s a good indicator of the maturity of a society when it can get past “moral objections” when setting policy, and judge things based on their impact and the harm done to others, if any. There is no “moral objection” to drunk driving: it’s illegal because of the impact it has on others. Since gay marriage has little if any impact on other people, and may even be beneficial to society (e.g. through adoption of children), why should it be subject to law at all?

One argument I’ve heard is that there’s a “gay agenda”, as if supporters of gay rights would be out to recruit straight people in to their ranks. I don’t know whether this is really possible, but I doubt it. Regardless, if something is legal, that does not imply an obligation to do it. If I lived in Texas, I would not buy a gun, even though it is legal to do so, not even if a NRA member gave me a spiel about the 2nd Amendment.

SmartLX

I have to wonder how far you would follow Romans 13:1. If your government reinstituted slavery, or concentration camps, would you not object?

I have no issue with gay marriage. Firstly, the scriptural arguments obviously don’t mean much to me. Secondly, I recently responded to a religious group’s new campaign in the USA which presented all the major secular arguments against gay marriage. As I discovered, there’s not much merit to those arguments.