Agree
Acceptable
No

1# agree
2# acceptable
3# No, same sex marriages will not negatively impact the institution of marriage.
(with the divorce rate as high as it is, it could only positively impact the institution of marriage).

ditto the above answers.

Agree
Acceptable
No

Thank you to those who have replied. Can anybody who replies next please explain why they agree or disagree with the questions above.

1. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage?
Agree, because as fellow humans, they have the right to be as happy or as miserable as the rest of us.

2. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for a same-sex couple to have children?
Acceptable because children need loving parents. Their sexual preference is irreverent.

3. Do you think that by allowing same-sex couples to marry, it would negatively impact the institution of marriage?
No, the institution of marriage has been damaged (bludgeoned) enough by high divorce rates, infidelity, shotgun weddings, arranged marriages, domestic violence, and Jerry Springer. Frankly, same-sex couples will probably improve it.

1. As long as the government grants privileges like tax exemptions and health care coverage of spouses it is a legal issue. Feel free to have Marriage+ (worked great for Google) that is just a church thing. I wouldn’t give a fuck about that.

2. Unfortunately there are more babies than people that want them. And a gay couple is just as capable of raising a happy and healthy child.

3. This has always been a weird argument. If a gay dude likes Nacho Cheese Doritos and Cream Cheese does that diminish my relationship with Nacho Cheese Doritos and Cream Cheese? If it did I have way bigger problems than chips and cheese.

1. agree
2. acceptable
3. no

Marriage should be for any consenting adults.

Gays and lesbians can have biological children. Not with their same sex partner, of course, but being gay doesn’t make them sterile. Adoption should also be an option.

The “institution” of marriage will be just fine.

(Edited, I didn’t see your request for explanations.)

Agree I think it should be the other way around: I need a reason why they would need to specifically be excluded from marriage. There just isn’t a good reason not to: if people love each other, let them marry by all means.
Acceptable This is the case where I live, and there are no negative effects of any significance whatsoever – and if there are any, they are mostly a result of the way other people react, but in that case the problem lies with those people, and should be solved there.
No They already are allowed to marry here. I have absolutely no clue why that would be a big deal, as marriage is still marriage.

Take into account that you are targeting a certain demographic here that will likely provide similar answers.

Agree
Acceptable
No

@bunnywok: “1. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage?”

Agree.
There is no legitimate reason to exclude same-sex couples, couples of different religions, “mixed-race” couples, couples who speak different languages, couples with different eye color, etc from state recognition of marriage.

@bunnywok: “2. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for a same-sex couple to have children?”

Acceptable.
(see answer above for reason)

@bunnywok: “3. Do you think that by allowing same-sex couples to marry, it would negatively impact the institution of marriage?”

No.
(and it hasn’t)

The first few answers have overed most of us. As long as they know what they are doing, it’s a case of live and let live.

1. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage?
I agree. It’s a contract between two adults, if state and church really were separated we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

2. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for a same-sex couple to have children?
Absolutely acceptable. And in 50% of cases it’s not even something you can prevent. A woman has every right to go out and get knocked up.

3. Do you think that by allowing same-sex couples to marry, it would negatively impact the institution of marriage?
The same way that allowing people to shave negatively impacts my haircut. So, no.

1. I agree—Benefits should be available for any consenting adults who want to be together and get benefits.
2. If you mean by adoption, then that’s fine. There are too many children in the adoption/foster care program anyway.
3. What is marriage? Now it’s an institution?

Agree – Same sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite sex couples.
Acceptable – I don’t see any reason a same sex couple can’t raise a child. Opposite sex couples don’t have any limitation about having children, so same sex couples shouldn’t either.
No – I think more harm is done to the “institution of marriage” by not allowing same sex couples to get married.

Agree
Acceptable
No

If you are looking for MY honest opinion I’ll give it. I know everyone will disagree with me but I will stand by my opinion. I think many people would actually agree with me just not people on this particular website.

1-disagree
2-unacceptabe
3-yes

To lend credence to the suggestion of bias in the fluther community, I’ll add my vote.

Agree
Acceptable
No

using the reasons that @cookieman, @Vincentt et al have already given.

1. Agree.
Marriage comes with a multitude of civil rights and privileges, such as inheritance, visiting rights, tax advantes, the right to refuse testimony against one’s partner.
To deny a committed couple these rights is to deny them their humanity.

2. acceptable. There is no evidence that being raised by same sex couples is in any way detrimental to the child.
Besides, homosexuals are not sterile. taking away their biological children because of their sexuality is a violation of their human rights, as well as discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Their are Neo Nazis that are allowed to have and raise children.

3. No. Not negatively, anway. But that depends on who you ask.
Marriage was originally a property transaction, with the woman being property.
It was also arranged by the families and the woman had no say in it.
A husband could traditionally also own multiple wives.
Divorce was illegal, and remarriage was equal to adultery, the punishment of which is death.
Therefore, the “institution of marriage” was “negatively” impacted by:
Monogamous marriages.
Non-arranged marriages.
Equal rights for women.
Women choosing their partners on their own.
Legalised Divorce.

@BeenThereSaidThat I’m curious to hear yours because it’s different than mine.

@BeenThereSaidThat Methinks you were the only one that answered the way you did, so your explanations might be interesting to read. Methinks you’re getting quite defensive over nothing. :)

I am with the majority here for pretty much the same reasons given.

I took a quick sidetrip to Sodahead (it had been a long while) and am once again appalled by the hatred and vitriolic rhetoric spouted by so many on the right! Talk about a “Kill ‘em all and let god sort them out” attitude!

1. AGREE.
It’s a basic human right to enter into consentual adult relationships. There should not be preferential treatment
2. PERFECTLY FINE
children need loving, caring parents who will look after their well being. I know many abusive heterosexual couples who are unfit to raise children. I’d rather see their kids be raised with a loving homosexual couple than stay where they are.
3. NO.
It may actually enhance it by putting the focus on love and relationships rather than on social tradition

I have not yet read any of the other answers, will do so after posting.

I will preface this with some background information. I live in a city that has a large gay population, I have quite a few gay friends, both male and female. I am a straight female, age 50. I consider myself to be a liberal. I am an agnostic.

1. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage?
I absolutely believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. They are human beings, they are citizens of their respective countries and should be given the same rights as everyone else.

2. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for a same-sex couple to have children?
As with straight people, most same-sex couples should be allowed to have children. As with straight people, some people, such as those with felony criminal records, or a history of child abuse, or sexual abuse, or severe mental problems, probably should not be able to have (or rather, keep) their children. That is only my opinion, though, because I don’t think there are laws specifically denying criminals the right to procreate.

3. Do you think that by allowing same-sex couples to marry, it would negatively impact the institution of marriage?
No. Same sex couples marrying, has zero impact on anyone else’s marriage, same sex or otherwise. It might make some people really mad, because they think it’s icky or sacrilegious, but it has zero impact on their own marriage or the institution of marriage, in general.

1. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage?
Civil unions that mimic marriage but the title should be for traditional man/women (and the women is not plural, so that includes polygamy) unions.

2. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for a same-sex couple to have children?
Only if everyone is afforded the same curtsey, even if those who successfully served time, lockup, parole, probation, etc. for any sex offence with ample time clean.

3. Do you think that by allowing same-sex couples to marry, it would negatively impact the institution of marriage?
In actuality it doesn’t make any more of a mockery than those who just cohabitate never bothering to marry even though they carry on in every endeavor as if they are, however, to legitimize it places a legal mockery on it above social, so in that since, it officially weakens it as oppose to socially.

[Mod says] A reminder that this is in General. Please just address the points raised in the question.

#3 is tricky because of the way it’s worded. Legal marriage isn’t an institution. It’s a license and a contract. You wouldn’t say “the institution of driving” or “the institution of notarizing.” There are just drivers and notaries.

So, “the institution of marriage” refers only to religious marriage—as a sacrament or whatever. In this context (and if we generalize to assume some kind of monogamous and heteronormative tradition that is upheld through expressed or implied reward and punishment, then yes, the institution of marriage (whatever version is being referred to) is negatively impacted.

I’m going to expand on my answer. I think when any two people are committed to each other and formalize the union by getting legally married they only help by their example to promote the institution of marriage. I think from a conservative view marriage should be encouraged, I really don’t understand the logic behind saying gay people can’t get married if those same people at the same time value committment; a lifetime committment. Stability is stability. I value responsibility, stability, committment, and want to feel protected from a legal standpoint in my relationship, and feel legally bound to him, or with him. So, I just can’t understand denying two men or two women the same thing if their desire for legal committment is the same.

Almost every time I talk to someone who Is against gay marriage eventually they start talking about the religious aspect and think churches are going to be forced to marry gay people. That is simply ludicrous, and once they go down that road my eyes roll to the back of my head. Civil marriage is not religious marriage, they are two totally separate things that both happen to use the word marriage.

When I hear two people are married I just means to me they are united in their life together and made a formal committment.

I find some irony in the fact that one of the negative stereotypes of gay men is they are very promiscuous. Conservative and religious people look down on that behavior, or at minimum think it isnt a good way to conduct ones life, yet they want to keep gay people in the situation of not having access to our most prominent way of declaring a committment—a marriage. What happens if gay people are better at marriage than the straight population? Imagine it. It would be almost funny if gay marriage winds up having a much lower divorce rate than straight marriage.

1. Agree to the right.
2. Yes they can have kids.
3. No, it has absolutely no effect on traditional marriage.

By the way, states that are considered the most “anti-gay” have the most gay couples with children, because gay men and women are culturally manipulated into marrying someone of the opposite sex, have a kid or two, and then the burden of being closeted overwhelms them. Then they find a same sex partner and they raise the children.

1. Agree
2. I assume you mean by adoption, artificial insemination, etc., because otherwise, it’s just plain impossible…but acceptable
3. No

1. I agree that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage. I also think other types of relationships should have the same rights as “traditional” whose tradition? marriage, including, but not limited to, homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, ambi-sexual, polygamous, polyandrous, polyamourus, and group marriage, as long as anyone involved knows and agrees to the terms and conditions of the marriage.

2. It is acceptable for a same-sex couple to have children, just as it would be acceptable for anyone in any of the above categories to have and raise children.

3. I do not think that allowing same-sex couples to marry would negatively impact the institution of marriage. I think the high rate of divorce has caused the “traditional” setting to morph over the years from life-long monogamy to serial monogamy

1. Yes GLBT have the right to enter a Marriage like arrangement, but I think they should come up with their own word. Marriage is for a male/ female union and carries the implication of procreation by longstanding tradition. That’s the word for that. If GLBT want to be non-trad, they get to invent their own word. Hetero Marriage was here first so have dibs on the term, GLBT unions have to invent their own term instead of hijacking the traditional majority term.
2. No. As written, it is impossible for same sex couples to procreate.
3. Immaterial given #1. Absolutely they can impact whatever they word for their arrangement. Marriage, being the hetero union will be unaffected.
As a traditionalist and getting set in my ways I don’t believe 3 – 7% of a population can impact the whole.
It isn’t my place in the grand scheme to judge other peoples life choices no matter how vocal and different they are from mine, or the other remaining 90 + %.