Same_Sex_Marriage

I am against the government sanctioning same-sex marriages. Am I intolerant' Am I homophobic' Am I part of a fundamentalist religious sect of some sort' What if I tell you that I am against the government sanctioning marriages between a man and a woman as well' Am I against marriage' Am I an anarchist' Am I insane' Actually, I believe I have the sanest solution to the whole marriage debate and I don't hear anyone talking about it. My solution is to leave marriage where it belongs - in religious and private institutions. What business is it of the government to sanction relationships between consenting adults' Why is it up to the government to define what a marriage is' Why should the government be involved in promoting or discouraging particular types of relationships' We are a free country so why is it up to the government to tell us how we, the citizens, can define our relationships and which ones are acceptable in their eyes and which ones are not' My contention is that unless relationships chosen by consenting adults of their own free will endanger other individuals, the government has no business sanctioning them or preventing them. I believe that all legal partnerships between two people who have committed to each other should all be civil unions in the eyes of the government. Whether these relationships are called marriages or not is up to the individuals themselves. I have a friend who is a gay. The man he loves is American and they got married last year in Canada where it is legal. I saw the pictures. They were happy, joyful. Their families and friends attended the ceremony and support them in their commitment to each other. They have a house together. They have jobs and pay taxes and they are lively members of the community. They are enjoying life, their love for one another and their pursuit of happiness. But what if their families did not support their choice and their commitment to each other' If something were to happen to one of them, either a life threatening illness or even death, by law, the family could prevent the partner from being involved in making decisions for her loved one's care or even the arrangements for a funeral. Unless prior arrangements were made, the benefits of being a legal couple would not apply to these two committed partners who make every bit as much of a contribution to society as any heterosexual married couple does. Some people argue that allowing same-sex couples to have civil rights to become a recognised married couple would result in an undue financial burden on society, primarily because of the benefits that currently apply to married couples that would now have to be extended to same-sex couples. So are we trying to prevent people from having equal rights to save a few bucks' To me, that's like saying we should not have allowed women the vote because it would increase the cost of elections. Some people are concerned that allowing same-sex couples the legal rights of a civil union would require religious institutions to marry them. There would be no such requirements. Churches and other religious institutions would be free to exercise their beliefs and traditions as they have always been. Two people who love each other should be able to commit to each other and be protected by law in the relationship and in the case that the relationship ends. Any children who are the result of the relationship should have their rights protected as well. In my opinion, all people who want to have legal recognition of their committed status should have the option of marriage, to truly fulfil their bond of each other. The government should not have a say on what’s right and what’s wrong under the terms of marriage, it’s the individuals themselves who it affects. So much for an equal country with equal rights. Australian government you need to go back to the drawing board. What do you think should happen, deny your fellow citizens to be happy and move on with your life, or stand up for a change so deep down everyone has the chance of fulfilling their dreams.