Campaigns Wikia
What's your perspective?

As a way of starting a deeper conversation around Same-sex marriage, please post your "Perspective" below. This will give us a clear structure for looking at all the diverse and interesting perspectives we all hold. Each Perspective may be formatted as follows:

"I am _______, and I believe _______."

What counts is what we believe. I am may be used to put your statement in context.

Remember to "sign" your comment with four tildes (~~~~)
This page or section is very large in size, exceeding 32kb. It is suggested that this page be split up into smaller sections. Discuss it on the talk page.
The most recent vote has been declared null and void. Until a valid decision can be reached, all categories have been removed. Please do not replace them until a proper choice has been made.


1. I am a 20-year-old heterosexual man and I have two thoughts regarding this issue. (1) I think that preventing homosexual couples from marrying is unquestionably and absolutely wrong according to the purposes of US notions of freedom and the pursuit of the classic "american dream" for individuals. I thus fully support allowing homosexual couples to marry. Furthermore, the moral purposes and beliefs of any citizen of America ought to be quite irrelevant in the matter of that same persons support of what anyone else envisions their american dream to consist, and to which only cases wherein which direct conflict arrises should anyone not be allowed to entertain their dreams. and second, (2) I am, however, concerned with the adoption of young children into homosexual homes. Let me explain the nature of the difficulty that arises in this situation: I say this only because, as almost anyone who has gone through the American grade-school education system, children are - it seems by virtue of their very nature - invariably harsh among each other. It is not the issue that having gay parents is necessarily wrong or in any way intrinsically insuperior to different sex parents, but the shear fact that such a familial system will be for at least the next 2 or 3 generations clearly different and anomalous for such children. Children are immeasurably fragile against the words and thoughts of their peers and such instances as those of gay parents will most certainly be taken advantage of by peers who for any reason (rational or not) to make the judgment that their own parental system of a mother and father is superior (they will make it superior, for it is a majority and homosexual parents will be seen as an anomaly). One can imagine gull and demeaning comments such as "at least I have a mom" to abound. And while I am concerned, I feel that it is only right to move forward as best we can and ignore human stupidity. Most of us have learned from the mistake of oppressing our black american brothers and sisters in the past, and so I think the road to success and greatness herein will be smoother, but children do not know better. Many of our children will always be harsh and perhaps even cruel to one another in this respect and until same-sex family systems evolve into a clear state of prominency in the US, they will see it as something to criticize, to be considered anomalous - different. In conclusion, I support both same-sex marriage and the adoption of children into these homes, but I think that in this light we as an american people, collectively, need to understand what it is we are getting ourselves into and reason with each other to make such a radical change as smooth an adaption as possible.

2. I'm a 28-year old gay man, and I believe that the rights equated with marriage should be available to all people, so that marriage is just a religious or personal commitment, and the government does not need to be involved at all.

3. I am a heterosexual secular man, and I believe the government should not discriminate in marriages on the basis of gender but should instead endorse long-term social contracts between two people.

4. I am an 18 year old Christian, and I believe that the Biblical definition should stand- that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

5. I am a 19 year old Christian male, and I believe that it is wrong for the government to make decisions based on any religous organizaton. Thus, I believe that gay marriage should be left up to the people of each state. Personally, I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and I honestly do not see how gay marriage will "erode our christian values" any more than war and bloodshed will.


6. I am a 32 year old married straight agnostic man and I agree 100% with the first two perspectives. In answer to the one about the Biblical definition, I think the Bible stands on its own and does not need the government to endorse or not endorse it. Government should stay out of marriage entirely and the word should be stricken from all government laws. --Kg6cvv 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

7. I am a 19 year old heterosexual Christian college student, and I believe that we should not discriminate against homosexuals. There should be a gay marriage ammendment to the Constitution that makes it universally LEGAL.

8. I am a 20 year old Christian male living in Kansas, and I don't believe in preventing people from getting married by the state, as I see state marriage and religious marriage differently. The state is not a christian theocracy, and the concept of marriage should be handled in a secular manner. The church shouldn't be forced to acknowledge all state marriages as valid to their faith, however (but the church can't invalidate a state marriage). The state should stay out of the church's business, and vice versa. One cannot force everyone to do things his or her way. I see my view as a good comprimise, and i'm hoping others will too. --Anphanax 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

9. I am a 23 year old Christian gay man. I find the importance of marriage being in the eyes of God and your peers not our Leaders.

10. I am a 17 year old male Christian high school student, and I believe that homosexual marriage has no lasting purpose because most committed homosexual relationships last less than 3 years.


11. I am a rational human, and I think that even if homosexual relationships had a higher failure rate it might be due to the intense prejudice against the homosexuals from society and not on their inability to be committed.

12. I am a person. I don't believe in publishing private info online. I also don't believe it's State business to interfere in private lives, marriage is an archaic institution, it should be abolished completely. If people want to swear eternal faith and bliss to each other is only their own business. -- Blackdog 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

13. I am a 20 year old male college student, and I believe that the point here is not trying to classify what the word "marriage" means, since this will just show a single person's opinion. "Gay Marriage" cannot be put to the term just as simple as looking at same sex people marrying. It's a simple matter of equal rights. -- Quetzalcoatl 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

14. I am a male American, and I believe that statistics should be left out of this (for both sides), as there are few ways to verify them, and most statistics are twisted, anyway. Futhurmore, I believe that gay marriage should be left completely up to religious organizations and not up to the government at all, and that the government should only be able to grant civil unions, which give any number of people legal rights regarding other members of the same group. This way, no one's religious beliefs should be offended, and any people who trust each other enough to give them rights over their own life can give these rights freely. -- Kimastergeorge 23:00, 6 July 2006

15. I am a 15 year old gay male, and my worst fear in life is that I will die alone, with no one to grow old with.


16. I am a Libertarian. It is time for the government to stop abusing the word marriage. If we must recognize two people making a commitment to each other, then call it a civil union, or something else. The state has co-opted a religious rite, and the religious, including myself should be more offended.

17. I am a heterosexual male and I believe that it is not a big deal. I dont understand how homosexual marriage will hurt america. Gays are people too...

18. I am a 32 year old gay male, and I'd love nothing more than to be able to marry my boyfrield who I love very deeply. I wish the government would just mind their own business - what gives them the right to tell me who I can fall in love with?

19. I am a 18 year old hetero white male, with a Christian upbringing. I see no reason why a goverment, or people should infringe on the lives of others. In a nation such as the US, which prides itself in freedoms, freedom to love and marry who ever you wish should stood for. Religion and old tradition should not define all laws. Tom 360 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

20. I am a 16 year old heterosexual male. I do not subscribe to the agenda of any party. I believe GLBT people should be afforded the same protection and privileges under the law as straight people, including marriage. Marriage in the legal context is not in any way a religious issue. Religion has no place in the laws of the United States. Gay marriage is an issue as to whether gay people should be given the same privileges under the law as straight people, and the Charters of Freedom are quite clear on the idea that every human being is entitled to the same protections and privileges.


21. I am a 20 year old Gay Man. I am the Republican's worst enemy. The worst theing they could do was have George Bush gay-bash in his 2003 State of the Union Address, because it has encouraged me to go into a life of politics. I am a politically active, militant, college-democrat leader who is determined to oust every Republican Politician from my purple state. Their wedge-issue forced me to open my eyes, and they have never closed.

22. I am a 20 year old bisexual male. I believe that same-sex couples should be afforded the rights given to heterosexual couples in marriage.

23. I am an American male. The notion of homosexual "marriage" is an affront to every decent man, woman and child. Marriage means, and always has meant, the union of one man and one woman. There is no reason to change that now to mean anything else. Homosexuals can sleep with a flock of geese for all I care, but it's not marriage. Homosexuals should not be allowed to "marry" each other, and they sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to adopt children! Lou franklin 04:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

24. I'm a gay male, and I think it’s too difficult to create gay marriage per se. I think it would make more sense to create a specific law saying that “civil unions” or whatever it was decided was equivalent to marriage in all rights and deeds. That would make the easiest direct connection for rights and allow the people who feel it’s a religious affront to their concept of “marriage” itself. In regards to the person above, you’d rather have children grow up on the streets and in orphanages and turn out to be crack dealers than be adopted by gay people? Think of how crazy that is...

25. I like the idea of dumping marriage from legal status altogether. See the Campaign To Privatize Marriage - Munchtipq 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


26. I am a 29 yrs old student of computer science (straight) and I think, everyone who confuses a state marriage with a religious marriage is just being unprecise. No religious organization should be allowed to impose their standards on a state marriage. So I think it is okay if a priest does not want to marry gay people, but it is totally against the constitution if the state discriminates people on religious grounds

27. I am a 27 year old married straight atheist male from the United Kingdom. I believe that equality means equality, and therefore full marriage should be avaliable to homosexuals, not just special case 'civil partnerships'. I believe that the only people who can diminish the sanctity of your marriage are you and your spouse, and with all respect to the Christians who have posted above - most of whom have shown very reasonable views in my opinion - I find it quite absurd that we allow mythology to dictate position on such important issues in this day and age.

28. I am a 41 year old married man and I think two consenting people should have the right to unite as a single entity in the eyes of the law. That is all that occurs with a legal or 'state' marriage. Two people of the same sex can already enter a religious marriage today. Those that argue to keep marriage as it always was in the Bible are idiotic, since the Bible was rife with poligamy and many if not most marriages in those times were loveless and strictly a means of conferring property or a means of giving a man the right to have sex with the woman(women) he married.

29. I am a 24 year old straight Mormon male (married) and ideally I would have marriage wholly unregulated by the government. I believe marriage is personal in nature and the government has no business interfering. However, there are a lot of practical societal concerns that might come into play if the government stopped recognizing marriage (for instance, what happens to a person's belongings after death). Thus it is my belief that the government should give any consenting adults who wish a civil union and grant no marriages. Let people choose for themselves if they wish to be married irrespective of if they are granted the rights of a civil union. -- Lincoln 16:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

30. I am a human being, and I believe that matters of marriage have nothing to do with the government, and a repressive constitutional amendment disgusts me. There is no real reason to prevent gays from marriage, other than ignorant fundamentalist bias.


31. I am a heterosexual male university student. You can call it what you will, but Marriage is a topic which should be seperated in church and state. It is my belief that it is perfectly legal for the private organization which is the church to deny any service to anyone (just like the Boyscouts. It sucks but there is nothing you can do about it. That is their right). However, in matters of state, Marriage is a purely economic term describing the unity of two people who wish to share their assets and liabilities and in no way should be discriminatory towards race, creed, sexual preference, or otherwise. People are married by the state for one main reason, financial benefits. The examples above mine and the tax benefits associated with marriage are the motivating factor; otherwise we straights would typically "Get Married" in a church and call it a day without reporting to the government. I belive that the fuss Same Sex Marriage is creating in the USA is derived from the use of the word and the connotation it has with the (insert dominant christian religion) Church. I lived and voted in a state which placed a bill abolishing the "Commonlaw Marriage" which essentially gave similar rights to those who lived in the same residence for over 6 years regardless of sex. It is my belief that the removal of this bill was to stop same sex marriage in my state, but it has also taken away the civil liberties granted to those heterosexual couples who do not wish to be "united under God". This is a clear cut case of the federal government overstepping its jurisdiction.

32. I am a 22 year old, straight Canadian male, and I think that same-sex marriages are no worse than hetero marriages. I believe neither homosexual or heterosexual marriage has a special pedistal to stand on because most committed relationships of any orientation last less than 3 years. I agree with my governments decision to marry two committed and consentual adults, while leaving religious institutions free to recognize or not recognize the unions.

33. I am a 20 year old male who does not classify his sexuality. I simply believe this issue of same-sex marriage is one of individual ethics and feelings, and cannot be fairly defined as 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' by the government. Though I personally feel that gay people deserve the same rights as anyone else, the issue of ethics must be faced by individuals, not by law makers. Because of this, I honestly do not believe in marriage laws at all, but if we are to have them, they should cover *all* people.

34. I am a 40 gay man from the USA and I want to have the same rights as other men. My partner is from another country and does not have legal status here. Heterosexual men in my situation can marry their partner and the federal government provides the partner with legal immigration status immediately. This is just one example of benefits denied to me because of my sexuality. I do not want anything from organized religion, I want my civil rights.

I am made a second-class citizen in the U.S. because I am gay.

35.' I am a 24 year old Catholic gay male, and I agree with the concept of separating marriage from the goverment all together. (Marriage Licenses) The concept was first suggested to me in 2002 by a close friend who is an evangelical christian. We both believed that the government should only grant civil unions, which bestow legal benefits, and leave marriages up to churches. A constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violated the 1st Amendment rights of religious denominations who support same-sex marriage by forcing a particular religious view of some religions upon the entire state or country. I'm surprised more people don't see it for the flagrant violation of one of our country's founding principles that it is, the Separation of Church and State. Separation of Church and State is the bedrock of our nation and religious freedom is the reason many of our original settlers came to the new world. In addition, it also runs contrary to the principle of equality; however, the former would be the easier legal argument against same-sex marriage bans. IrishWolfhoundJC 07:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


36. I am gay and I think the government should subsidize my living arrangement, even though it does not promote economic stimulation or social well-being.

37. I am a 28 year old bisexual male. My fiance is also bisexual, and though biologically female, he sees himself as male and goes by male pronouns. Both of us have had both opposite sex and same sex relationships in the past. Though heterosexual, we are a fairly genderqueer couple as you can see. We fell in love as two people; the fact that we are man and woman is pure chance; we could have ended up with the same sex. It find it absurd that the law discriminates between homosexual and heterosexual based on anatomy. Technically, we are a gay couple but we are allowed to marry just because we have the "correct" genitals. Klafubra 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

38. I am a 24 year old heterosexual, Christian, conservative/libertarian male, and I believe homosexual people should be allowed to marry. I don't agree with homosexual lifestyles... I find it strange and disgusting. However, whether I *like* homosexuality or not should be irrelevant. A gay couple getting married does not harm me in any way. While I consider homosexuality a sin, it would be an even greater sin for me to force my religious beliefs onto others. Zarxrax 16:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

39. I am a homosexual MAA in my late teens. Although I do not view myself as "gay" (I'm not attracted to pubescent/post-pubescent people) I believe that preventing gay marriage is a serious infringement of civil rights. BLueRibbon 04:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

40 and discussion[]

40. I am a 24 year old married heterosexual Christian male, and as I read my bible (and I do), I see that marriage is not defined even there as between one male and one female. While that definition may be acurate if we limit our area of interest to the white non-mormon history of the US, it is a lie to say "Marriage means, and always has meant, the union of one man and one woman." Furthermore, any definition of marriage is inherently religious, and to put such a thing into law should be seen as a violation of the Establishment clause of the first ammendment. Gay marriage should not be seen as an affront to American law, heterosexual marriage should be. The rights automatically granted to me and my wife are available to all people, and should be made easier to grant, regardless of any sexual relationship. Recognition of "marriage" should be left up to individuals and religious institutions with the state affirming none.DeusVolt 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the bible defines marriage as one man and one woman - in several places:
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh". (Ephesians 5:31)
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body". (Ephesians 5:22-23)
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it". (Ephesians 5:25)
"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church". (Ephesians 5:28-29)
I'm not sure how that could be any clearer. Lou franklin 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You've cited a total of two chapters and included no consideration of the applicable contexts. In the Genesis creation story (never mind issues of translation and the discontinuity between chapters 1 and 2) there are only two humans in existence, so the numbers cannot be seen as exclusive. No disapproval is voiced for any of the patriarchs in the rest of the book of Genesis. The primary difficulty for your interpretation of Ephesians (which is, admittedly, the view of the vast majority of Christians) is the issue of the society to which it was written. Polygamy was not common, so not a concern for anyone involved. We cannot automatically take a text as normative without carefully examining what it is saying. Attempting to pull principles out of phrases which have another purpose altogether is failing to consider what's actually going on. I'm not saying that we should be polygamists; I'm simply saying that the Bible does not support the claim that the Bible is against it. DeusVolt 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only is my "interpretation" the view of the vast majority of Christians, it is the view of the vast majority of people who know how to read. Read it again: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh". That says "man" and "wife". There is no "interpretation" about it. Lou franklin 03:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So, how does that affect non-Christians? Chadlupkes 05:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't. Who said that it did? Lou franklin 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
By trying to make the Christian definition of marriage applicable to all people in this country, you are making the decision that Christian morals and biblical law trump the religiously held beliefs of all non-Christians, or at least those who don't follow the teachings of the descendents of Abraham. The Christian churches should be allowed to interpret and follow the rules that they believe in. But those rules and standards can't be applied to everyone else through the secular laws put down by the government. Even with a Christian majority making that decision via a democratic majority, it simply enforces the tyranny of the majority without showing any respect for the rights of the minority. Chadlupkes 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If you don't accept the "Christian definition of marriage", how about the common definition of marriage? Marriage has meant the union of one man and one woman for hundreds of years. If we can just redefine terms to make things mean whatever we want them to, we could make "marriage" include farm animals, couldn't we? How about plants? Could we redefine "marriage" to include water buffalos too? Or do words actually have meaning?
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Meaningless. Chadlupkes 05:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not the "slippery slope argument". You say that you don't accept "the Christian definition of marriage", but marriage means the union of one man and one woman in the secular world too. To deny that, or to try to change that by redefining the term, is ludicrous. Lou franklin 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Marriages between people and plants or farm animals should certainly be allowed, as long as those plants and animals are legally (and physically) able to sign legal documents like a marriage license. --whosawhatsis? 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Up until now marriage has been allowed as long as there is one man and one woman, but if we are going to change the criteria, why not really open it up? Why restrict marriage to people who can sign? Why restrict marriage to just two people? Why restrict marriage to people who are alive? Why restrict marriage to adults? Why not allow a chicken to marry a can of soup?
The answer is that if you change marriage to mean those things, it is not marriage anymore. Lou franklin 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the answer is that, no matter what else it entails, marriage is a legal contract. In order to enter into a legally binding contract, you are required to fit the legal definition of mental competence (which plants, farm animals, corpses, and inanimate objects do not) and be at least 18 years of age. As far as restricting it to just two people, you're right, I see no reason that a larger group of people shouldn't be able to enter into such a contract, although there could be exclusivity conflicts involved in one individual signing more than one of them. If you wanna be a fundie and say that you don't consider this marriage, that's your business, use the term "civil union" or some other term that is legally interchangeable with "marriage", but it's not right for a government to discriminate who can enter into such a contract based on gender. Religious marriages are another matter, and homosexual couples can already get those (in a form that's not legally-recognized) from some of the more progressive clergy members. --whosawhatsis? 04:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That's great. So if you want to marry your grandfather, go right ahead. Maybe you'd like to marry the New York Yankees. Why not? They're over 18. Or maybe you'd like to propose to the AFL-CIO. If they accept, you could honeymoon in Hawaii. Lou franklin 08:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Legally? Yes. If all of the parties involved consent, and it's not hurting anyone else, what business does the government have saying that it's not right? --whosawhatsis? 21:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only can Christian "rules and standards be applied to everyone else through the secular laws put down by the government" but Christian rules and standards are the very basis of our legal system. The commandments say thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal. Try telling the cops that the law against murder doesn't apply to you as a non-Christian. That ain't gonna fly.
Nor should it. Every single religion that I'm aware of declares that killing other people is not something the gods want done. It doesn't make sense in a civil society. Chadlupkes 05:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Then why are you arguing against applying Christian standards to "everyone else"? Lou franklin 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is denying "respect for the rights of the minority", because the minority has no such right. There is no right to "marry" a member of the same sex.
We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess that means that others have the right to do everything possible to prevent the happiness of others, but that wouldn't fly either, would it? Chadlupkes 05:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Want to run that by me again? The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you can steal hubcaps or smoke crack or "marry" another dude. That's not what the Founding Fathers meant. Lou franklin 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That may seem like the "tyranny of the majority" to you, but at some level society needs to set some parameters about what is acceptable and what is not. Is heroin allowed? Is paying taxes mandatory? Do I need to get a driver's license? Can I marry a lamp post? Without the majority setting some parameters there would be chaos.
Lou franklin 05:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
So, because a majority exists, the minority can be told to stay silent. Nice vision of community. Chadlupkes 05:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The majority doesn't have to "stay silent", but that doesn't mean that each individual gets to make their own laws either. Lou franklin 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem isn't with the words themselves. I can read too. The problem is with the purpose behind them. You, and most other people, read that and automatically see what you expect to see, regardless of whether that is what is actually there. This section of text is not about setting a normative standard of what constitutes a marriage; it's about telling people how to treat each other within a particular relationship. The sequence is relations within the Church (4:1-5:21), relations within marriage (5:22-5:33), relations within family (6:1-6:4) and relations within households (6:5-6:9). None of those sections is about what constitutes the particular relationship or even the rightness of the relationship (in the case of slaves and masters), but simply what to do once you're in it. In making it into what it isn't, you twist the text. Then, by attempting to use state power to restrict homosexuals to the relationships that they would be allowed if they chose to join the Church (assuming it is a Church that holds to the traditional disapproval of homosexual unions), regardless of whether they actually make that choice, you not only ignore their constitutional rights, but you cheapen sincerely held religious devotion (not by being insincere yourself, but by forcing others into a false obedience to religious expectations).DeusVolt 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


41. I'm a 41-year-old of nonstandard gender, and I have long believed that the concept of marriage is fundamentally broken for many people. I suggest that we change the terms of the whole debate: let the churches and other social organizations define "marriage" however they want (which would apply only to members of those organizations), and let all government regulation regarding insurance, discrimination, reproduction, etc. apply to "civil unions" or some other such phrase. (I also think that the argument about whether homosexuality is a choice or not is bogus, and I don't think we should even be arguing on that point; I see nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality even if it turned out there was some choice involved, and I think that is the point upon which we should be standing firm.) --Woozalia 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (Addedum: The Campaign To Privatize Marriage sounds like it takes care of half of this, i.e. separation of marriage and state, so to speak, so I (tentatively) support it. The issue of what laws should apply to people who want to share insurance, reproduce, visit each other in the hospital, etc. still needs to be addressed, however. --Woozalia 11:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

42. I'm a 19 year old male student, and I support the Campaign To Privatize Marriage. The issue of homosexuality being right or wrong isn't an issue the state needs to decide. The issue of equal rights is, and it is wrong to not allow homosexual people the same rights as heterosexuals. - Xtreme680 07:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

43. I am a straight white female. Married to a man. I dont understand people who say that gay marriage will destroy or in any way harm their husband's secretary is a greater threat to my marriage than the gay couple that lives down the hall from me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bronhi (talkcontribs) .

44. I am a heterosexual female, and I believe that people should be free to love whomever they choose and marry who they want to marry regardless of gender. We've already approved of marrying people of different race and denomination - two things that are pretty big steps. Outlawing same-sex marriage seems like a step backwards to me.

Read: Perspectives ››