Homosexual Marriage

"Marriage is not societal, by giving legal benefits to married couples the government is intervening in marriage." Which it ought to stop doing. "This does change society, however society should not change legality." Come again? You're say that laws SHOULDN'T be based on the society they belong to? I really don't understand that. "Because we grant some citizens legal benefits, we must grant all citizens those legal benefits. THAT is the Democratic legal basis for the government to intervene. All people are created equal, after all." Those benefits can be granted in ways other than marriage. And since we can't agree what a marriage even is, it makes sense that we provide equal benefits based on something we can agree upon. It works in Europe. "Marriage must have some legality to make it official. Without that there is no commitment, and many laws pertaining to marriage would have to be changed." Given the divorce rates in this country, I question how much commitment there is anyway. Besides, if a marriage is recognized legally by becoming a civil union, there really is no objection here. As for changing laws, well, our politicians may as well have something productive to do. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it isn't right. Besides, you'd have to change a lot more laws to legalize same sex marriages. "Civil Unions only provide the marriage rights provided by respective states, not the entire country." And same sex marriages provide rights in only two states. A system of civil unions could be done more easily (relative to same sex marriage, anyway) and faster than what you propose. "1: Equality Other people are granted these benefits. There is no reason homosexuals should not be granted these rights" That's not true. The government does not have the authority to define what is and is not a marriage. Marriage is not a right to be granted but an institution to be kept from the filthy paws of politicians. "2: Commitment Marriage is a sign of commitment that people should be able to show to their life partner" I thought you wanted to talk about legality. You've wandered into the realm of shaping society, and neither you nor anyone else has the right to do that through legislation. "3: It only affects homosexuals I really don't see the negative effect in allowing gay marriage. It only affects the homosexuals, and I don't see why it "bothers" people to see others expressing love." If you don't see the reason for something, you're the last person to have the right to criticize it. And anyway, how would you like to be told that your religion is wrong? How would you like to be told that by the government? How would you like to see legislation telling you your view of love is misguided? That wouldn't affect you? That wouldn't make you think twice about either your religion or your country? 51% of California (California for crying out loud!) seems to believe that gay marriage does affect them, and I'm inclined to agree. Whatever side you're on, you have to recognize that the government really doesn't have the authority to decide this issue. They've got no right to come into a cultural debate and take sides. Civil unions are more agreeable, easier to get, and would achieve the disputed rights more quickly. There is no reason to prefer marriage to civil unions, except for the sake of imposing one's views on society. I've been told time and time again that I shouldn't try to force my views on others and that religion shouldn't interfere in government. Well now I ask that other's views should not be forced on an unwilling society and that government not interfere with what I consider to be a very dear religious institution. I leave that to your judgement.