Am 26. Juni 2015 urteilte der Oberste Gerichtshof der USA, es verstoße gegen die im 14. Zusatzartikel der US-Verfassung festgehaltenen Prinzipien der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Gleichbehandlung, Paaren den Trauschein zu verweigern. Mit der Entscheidung wurde die gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe in allen 50 US-Bundesstaaten legalisiert.
@8FNW8XS4 Jahre4Y
Ja, und wir sollten Kirchen in die 21. Jahrhundert nehmen, und machen die erkennen Gleichgeschlechtliche Ehen, Egal wenn sie sind dafür oder Dagegen
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Wie wichtig ist es Ihnen im Hinblick auf gleiche Rechte und persönliche Freiheiten, dass alle Paare, unabhängig vom Geschlecht, das Recht haben, zu heiraten?
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Wenn die gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe eines Freundes oder Familienmitglieds keine direkten Auswirkungen auf Ihr Leben hätte, würden Sie sich dagegen aussprechen und aus welchen Gründen?
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Warum glauben Sie, dass manche Menschen stark von den Eherechten anderer betroffen sind, die sie nicht persönlich kennen?
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Verändert die Rechtmäßigkeit einer Ehe den Wert der Liebe und Bindung zwischen zwei Menschen?
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Was bedeutet die Gleichstellung der Ehe für Sie und warum ist sie Ihrer Meinung nach zu einem so zentralen Thema in der Gesellschaft geworden?
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Wie wirkt sich die rechtliche Bestätigung einer Liebesbeziehung auf das soziale Gefüge unserer Gemeinschaften aus?
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Sollte die Regierung ein Mitspracherecht darüber haben, wer wen heiraten darf, oder ist das eine persönliche Freiheit?
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Kann sich die Anerkennung der Liebe zwischen zwei Erwachsenen auf Ihr persönliches Leben auswirken? Wenn das so ist, wie?
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie finden Ihren perfekten Partner, aber die Regeln der Gesellschaft hindern Sie daran, zu heiraten. welche Emotionen löst das aus?
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Wie würden Sie sich fühlen, wenn Sie aufgrund eines Gesetzes nicht die Person heiraten dürften, die Sie lieben?
@2J3ZBRJ3 Jahre3Y
No form of government should have any involvement in marriage.
@2J3YKT43 Jahre3Y
The marriage laws should be "equal" to traditional marriages and divorce decrements which include court decisions such as alimony, fornication, etc.
@2J3WQZQ3 Jahre3Y
Explain to me, other than someone making a buck, why you need a religious ceremony and a law to validate how you feel about someone.
@2J3W9CL3 Jahre3Y
As long as it's named something else! We call a man a man and a woman a woman so that we know the difference, since marriage is traditionally defined as a man and woman so same sex unions should be defined by a word that describes that! Give them the same rights, benefits, and consequences.
@2J3PGFK3 Jahre3Y
Who the hell cares. Why don't we talk about the economy instead???
@2J38PTZ3 Jahre3Y
Yes, but marriages are hetero-normative and perpetuate sexism and homophobia.
@2J37K58Republikaner3 Jahre3Y
No, allow civil unions and increase what civil unions mean and rights within civil unions. Marriage by definition is between man and women because there is a natural way to create offspring, however difficult or easy that may be for each individual marriage. Churches should always remain separate from government, which means they are to be allowed to refuse marriages per their choice. They currently do that with traditional man and women marriages when they feel there is not enough preparation among other reasons. So that should be continued, a church is a following of people not just a building to be admired.
@2J2NLJRRepublikaner3 Jahre3Y
For me marriage has to do with my faith. I think the Government should stay out of marriage and provide family benefits in place of marriage benefits. For someone to be denied access to their loved ones because they are not married is wrong.
@2J2NDXF3 Jahre3Y
Marriage should be a solely religious ceremony and non-religious people should not be married, but have a civil union and a church should have the right to marry, or deny marriage, to whom they choose.
@2J2BZ5N3 Jahre3Y
The government has absolutely no business telling anyone who they should or should not marry.
That is legislating someones religious views, and is absolutely contrary to the separation of church and state, as well as an infringement on individual rights.
@2J26NMK3 Jahre3Y
Yes- but do not force a church to offer license. Patrons are free to choose churches to hold ceremony as they please. Also, condemn the use of artificial insemination for same sex couples. Children have an inherent right to have a father and mother care for them.
@2J26JM63 Jahre3Y
Yes, it's wrong, and no it's not. It's not right for people to bash it constantly when they say it's a sin in the bible. There are thousands of sins but they continue to only bash this particular one. Then LGBT we get it equal rights, but you can't shove this down other people's throats, the hardcore Christians aren't going to accept unless you show the many standpoints not just have pride days and celebrations. Both sides are wrong, but both are right, so I'm a both
@2HZFBC43 Jahre3Y
Each state should be able to make their own choice. For example, it is fine if Alabama bans it, while New York makes it legal.
@2HZCG2K3 Jahre3Y
I do not support it because I am a Christian, but for the same reason I do not and will not keep anyone from having a same sex marriage. It would be wrong for me to hate someone for it. I do not agree with it, however.
@2HZC2CW3 Jahre3Y
From a governmental stand point the term marriage should be changed to civil union for all couples. The term marriage is a religious invention anyway.
@2HZ3PTV3 Jahre3Y
Yes, but I still feel a bit uneasy about this as small children may be exposed to public displays affection within the same sex, which I do not feel is natural, but understand, this is something you are born with. However, as the years pass, this will be considered 'normal' and this issue will be a thing of the past.
@2HYY4C63 Jahre3Y
Marriage should be abolished - replaced with limited term co-habitation contracts
@2HYX3LP3 Jahre3Y
Yes but call it something else to alleviate the fears of the religious nuts. I couldn't care less what others do in regard to their marriages and it does not threaten mine.
@2HYSG5P3 Jahre3Y
Marriage was created to safeguard the human race, i.e. protect women and children. In the U.S. and other parts of the world it is used to control permissions and freedoms, i.e. taxes, property, and medical decisions. Therefore, marriage should not be religious or based on sex. It is a legal status therefore it should be based upon two people who decide they want to enter a legal relationship.
@2HYKBJH3 Jahre3Y
Yes, it's not my right to say if someone could marry someone else that they love, regardless of sexual orientation.
@2HYC6C83 Jahre3Y
Don't care, just don't be all up in my face about it and broadcast it everywhere. Just do what you want and go about your business.
@NB23F53 Jahre3Y
They may get married but only receive "marriage" benefits if they have children.
@N946VJ3 Jahre3Y
I couldn't care who marries whom, or what. All I ask is that if a gay couple get married, that they call it gay married to substantiate the difference. That way, if I say I am married, the person asking knows I am married to a woman. If I said I was gay married, they would know my partner was a male. That is all I would ask for. Fair enough.
@N828FM3 Jahre3Y
Civil Unions for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Separation of Church and State is well documented. The State should not be allowed to name one of its numerous licenses after a Christian sacrament. The Church is allowed to dictate who it will and will not provide a marriage ceremony. This should solve the whole thing. It's semantics.
@N4GVS73 Jahre3Y
It shouldn't be called "marriage" because marriage from the very beginning was between a man and a woman. They should call it something else and they should be allowed to be together.
@N2P4J53 Jahre3Y
For a workers party. For a workers government. For the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual, & transgender marriage - and divorce! For full democratic rights for GBLT people. Defend the 1st Amendment Jeffersonian-Madisonian separation of religion & state, including 1st & 14th Amendment equality before the law for GBLT people. For the 2nd Amendment right of armed self-defense by GBLT people against bigoted terrorism. For the arming of GBLT people in self-defense against bigoted terrorism.
@MSJG3Z3 Jahre3Y
Individual decision, does not need a master to grant permission.
@MB9WMR3 Jahre3Y
Call it a partnershjp, and give them rights - but DON'T call it marriage!
@MB7LK43 Jahre3Y
It's not the role of government to define the term "marriage" for the people and their religions. There is no valid reason for the state to be involved in, or to regulate, adult consensual relationships that don't involve procreation. But it should have nothing to do with "banning" or refusing to allow anyone to define their relationship and the term they choose for it, however they, and their religion, defines it.
@M9QS3W3 Jahre3Y
Clergy should not act as agents of the state in witnessing marriages. All unions gay and straight should be civil. If the couple wishes to have a religious ceremony subsequently then they can do so according to the rules of their house of worship.
@M9QBLM3 Jahre3Y
Marriage should be seperated from the ritual, churches should not be required to marry everyone but, I believe it is financially a better decision to be inclusive of multiple no traditional types of relationships for marriages
@M9LP8R3 Jahre3Y
I think that all marriages should be called marriages, but the churches could have sacremental marriages.
@M98THR3 Jahre3Y
yes, Government has no business in this matter
@M87S2T3 Jahre3Y
I don't need the state to sanction marriage. It's a religious institution.
@M84PP83 Jahre3Y
Government should not be involved with this.
@M65JNB3 Jahre3Y
Why is the government allowed to define relationships?
@M5ZSRY3 Jahre3Y
Let the individuals, families, and churches to decide. Not the Federal government.
@M58RHB3 Jahre3Y
I don't believe marriage as long as divorce is legal. The decision to remain committed to another is a second by second decision and the glamorization of marriage has corrupted youth to unrealistic expectations of married life. religion, and the law have failed to prove marriage as necessary or a natural phenomena. no legal perks should be given to those who decided to make this oath.
@M2PSK83 Jahre3Y
Separate the religious and civil aspects of marriage. The government recognizes civil unions for all couples, gay or straight, then let the churches decide which ones they will recognize.
Die historische Aktivität von Benutzern, die sich mit diesen question .
Daten werden geladen...
Diagramm laden...
Laden der politischen Themen von Benutzern, die sich an dieser Diskussion beteiligt haben
Daten werden geladen...