Same-sex civil marriage should be allowed, and it should be called “marriage.” Churches that want an exclusive term can have religious unions.
I’m for it!
They should have to suffer too!
This.
Or this. Either way, religions should worry about their own sheep, not every one else’s flock.
I’m not opposed, but the crux of the matter is economic. Companies that have contracts based on marital status, such as Life and health insurance companies have to pay out to surviving partners if same-sex marriage is approved. They also lose the additional penalty that’s inflicted on single people’s rates. The IRS also loses the higher tax rates that apply to individuals.
In effect that puts you in the “for” camp, since if you really don’t care you won’t be trying to stop them.
I use to be against but changed my mine around 2002 or 2003. It took only a little logic to realize how silly my prior position really was.
FOR implies favor. I’m not FOR gay marriage; I don’t want to actively promote or discourage it. I just want to allow it to happen if desired.
As someone once put it so eloquently, “Let’s let two people who love each other to marry, and it will be the biggest non-event in history.”
I wish the 5 people who voted that they are against gay marriage on this board would apply the same logic that you did 10 years ago, and come to the same conclusion. It really is a cut and dry issue, and in 50 or 60 years we’ll look back on it in the same way we do with other civil rights issues (18 year olds getting the vote, women voting, multitude of minority issues). It only takes a brief moment of logical thinking to see why all those changes were good, yet they were highly contentious issues in their day as well. It’s very interesting how strongly social mores and traditions can color our logical thinking.
That works for me (not that I get a say).
Churches should be able to do what they want. They are welcome to invent a special name for it.
But “marriage”, being a legal term, should apply to everyone.
“Want to allow it to happen” is what the “for” people say. “Don’t want to allow it to happen” is what the evil people say.
So you said what the “for” people say. Congratulations - you’re not evil! 
I suggest “Fahrvergnügen.”
I think you’ll get a more honest sample this way. If you’re aggin’ it your opening yourself up to some serious grief here on the SDMB. If you want honest answers you need to make sure it doesn’t come back to bite some folks in the ass.
Nope. Make it such that 1/1/2013 any relationship between 2 people is legal and done by signing the paperwork in town hall. If people then want a religious ceremony, they can do what they want from a high Catholic mass to naked on a beach at sunrise with a Universal Life mail order reverend. The civil signing is what makes it all legal. Any marriage performed in a church previous to 1/1/2013 is still legal, grandfathered in.
See? No change for those who already got churched. No harm, no foul.
Quite honestly thats my opinion, there is so much serious stuff happening in the world this issue is, to put it mildly, very low down on my list of concerns.
If I was forced to vote then I’d vote yes by all means let them get married.
But if it wasn’t a compulsory ballot, I wouldn’t bother going to the polling station if it was opposite my house.
There is no such thing as a strictly “religious” marriage. While all civil ceremonies are legal marriages, all religious institutions must conform to the state’s civil requirements to perform a legal marriage. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one, otherwise two atheists could not get married. A marriage is not legal unless the civil stuff is attended to: license, witnesses, report to the county by the clergy, whatever is required, no matter what religion you choose.
I am “for” marriage between two consenting adults, be they gay or straight.
Yeah, First World Problems.
It is sucky, but it isn’t like widespread poverty, disease, starvation, and death; or bloodbaths and civil wars in developing countries.
We should all count ourselves lucky that our serious political matters are about marriage and not about survival.
same sex couples should have equal opportunity to suffer too. so yes legal marriage should be allowed.
civil unions, if different from marriage, should also be available to heterosexual couples as well. civil unions should be available for multiple adults as well.
For it because of the legal protections that married people have. After my sweetie had heart surgery, only family was allowed in the ICU. I got in because we have the same skin and hair color and people assumed that I was his daughter.
Many G/L couples wouldn’t be able to get away with that deception. It would be heart breaking to not be able to be with a long time partner just because they aren’t legally considered to be a family member.
I feel that all committed couples should be able to have their union legally sanctioned if they want to take that step.
Put me down as very much for it.