Should same-sex marriage be recognized by the state?

Answer 1

Of course they should! Because anyone should be allowed to marry whomever they want. If two girls or boys like each other that much, then they should be allowed to marry, because it's like saying that a black guy can't marry a white girl. So yes gays should be allowed to marry.

Another Opinion:Another interesting point is that marrige is technically a legal issue not a religious one so by denying the right to marry is a form of govenmental infringment of human rights. Another Opinion:Sure. Gays should be allowed to be as miserable as everyone else. Another Opinion:It isn't necessary to call it marriage. It can be a union, or an agreed upon binding relationship, or you could make up a word to describe it. The label isn't important. And, any time a government has gotten into the habit of writing legislation to the tune of religion, there has been trouble. So, while you can use religion in the discussion to support your own personal views on what and what is not a "sin," it is totally inappropriate to use it to discuss what should and should not be permitted by law. Another Opinion:No, I personally don't think it should be allowed, because--not to get into any religions but--in The Bible it says that god made the man and the woman and being gay is an abomination in the sight of god also the definiton of marriage is a relationship beetween a "man" and a "woman" not a man and a man. It isn't necessary to call it marriage. It can be a union, or an agreed upon binding relationship, or you could make up a word to describe it. The label isn't important. And, any time a government has gotten into the habit of writing legislation to the tune of religion, there has been trouble. So, while you can use religion in the discussion to support your own personal views on what and what is not a "sin," it is totally inappropriate to use it to discuss what should and should not be permitted by law. Point of fact, when politicians start using the bible or religion to push their agendas, everyone needs to take a closer look at the behavior and doings of that politician. People in glass houses and all.
this is all a matter of how you feel about homosexuality. personally I think we should be able to marry whoever makes our hearts happy. male OR female

Note that we are currently really discussing same-sex marriage, not homosexual marriage. It is perfectly legal (currently) for a gay man and a lesbian woman to get married.

Overall, marriage has two aspects: a civil (legal) one, where the state sanctions a contract between two people, and confers special benefits on that contract, in the idea that promoting that contract is in the society's benefit; and a religious one, where it marks some level of commitment and religious belief by the two partners.

Second things first: like all religious beliefs, we should allow all of those which do not directly harm individuals. That is, the religious definition of who can marry should be up to the specific religion, and people outside that religion should have no say in that definition.

In a civil context, there should be some rational basis for defining what social benefits we see from allowing the "marriage contract" to exist. ALL reasons should have a firm legal rational, and not be arbitrary (or just to support "tradition"), since society plans to confer special benefits on those entering the marriage contract. Any persons meeting these requirements should be allowed to civil marry. Persons unable to meet these requirements should not be allowed to marry.

As such, I have yet to see a definition of marriage - one which does not include deference to "traditional" values (which have no legal basis) - that can be written to allow all the current people we allow to marry, yet exclude same-sex partners. Thus, Q.E.D., same-sex marriage should be legal. In other words, all the restrictions people would like to place on marriage to exclude same-sex partners can apply to a variety of existing allowable marriages. For instance, the idea that procreation and family are an integral part of marriage, and thus should exclude homosexuals as they cannot procreate, should also exclude post-metapausal woman (of any orientation) any any infertile person from marrying. The presumption of family should also disqualify any couple who does not wish to have children (so, we would revoke a marriage license if the couple didn't produce children / adopt within a certain period?). The idea that raising children in a homosexual household is harmful and should thus be discouraged would also potentially apply to mixed-race couples, or couples with a history of child abuse, or anyone with a criminal conviction or history of some mental health isssue.

Bottom line here: this is basic (civil) discrimination, as no supportable reason can be given for continuing the existing system of sanctioning who can and cannot be married.

Problems start to come up when people confuse the religious definition with the civil one, and presume that one must have a religious marriage to have a civil marriage. In a multi-religious society (one which does not regulate religion), religious marriage CAN HAVE NO BEARING on legal civil marriage. It would be a gross violation of the separation of religion and government to do so, as you would have to accept some religion's definition of marriage as the "correct" one. Even taking the majority consensus of religions would still be a gross violation.

In the end, we have a terminology problem. Realistically, "marriage" should be a SOLELY religious one, as pertains to how that religion defines it. "Civil Union" (or some other similar phrase) should be used in all civil legal contexts. That is, there SHOULD BE NO CIVIL MARRIAGE. Thus, "marriage" and "civil union" are completely distinct things, and having one confers NO benefits of the others. We're in this pickle because we haven't bothered to seperate civil from religious marriage in terminology (though, we mostly have in legal settings).

Answer 2

Yes. The Catholic Church should permit same-sex marriage to avoid alienating and losing membership, to avoid causing unnecessary emotional harm and tearing families apart, to avoid the appearance of obsolescence and irrelevance and for the lack of a legitimate reason not to permit it.

.

Catholic AnswerSuch a question makes no sense on many levels. To start with, the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, it may only teach what has been revealed to it by Our Blessed Lord. The Catholic Church is the only institution which has never changed anything in regard to faith or morals during the entire 2,000 years of its existence, it is incapable of such. Everything that Our Blessed Lord revealed to the Church as necessary for salvation was contained in the Deposit of Faith which was closed with the death of the last Apostle.

.

Secondly, marriage is a God given institution between one man and one woman, this has been revealed by God since long before there was a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, just as it is incapable of changing any revelation from God, is also incapable of changing reality to suit individuals or times.

.

Thirdly, same-sex marriage is a modern euphemism, despite what anyone may say, to legitimize what has always been taught by the Church that Our Blessed Lord founded, for sin. No amount of verbal sanitizing is going to change the fact that all sin is antithetical to God, it is the absence of good, and is the very thing which the Church was founded to fight.

.

In view of all of that, it is ridiculous and meaningless to ask if the Catholic Church "should" allow something that it was founded to stand against. The Catholic Church was founded by Our Blessed Lord to show people how to live moral lives. To redefine terms, and expect the Church to turn its back on its God-given mission is ludicrous and impossible.

Answer 3

Yes. The Supreme Courts of the United States, Canada and Mexico have all ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

Answer 4

Yes, it should. All US states and Mexican states are required to recognize same-sex marriages.