Skúste politický kvíz

0 Odpovedať

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Nakoľko je pre vás dôležité z hľadiska rovnakých práv a osobných slobôd, aby všetky páry bez ohľadu na pohlavie mali právo uzavrieť manželstvo?

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Ak by manželstvo priateľa alebo člena rodiny medzi osobami rovnakého pohlavia priamo nezasahovalo do vášho života, boli by ste proti tomu a na základe čoho?

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Prečo si myslíte, že niektorí ľudia sú hlboko ovplyvnení manželskými právami iných, ktorých osobne nepoznajú?

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Mení zákonnosť manželstva hodnotu lásky a záväzku medzi dvoma ľuďmi?

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Čo pre vás znamená rovnosť v manželstve a prečo sa podľa vás stala v spoločnosti takou kľúčovou témou?

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Ako právne potvrdenie akéhokoľvek láskyplného vzťahu ovplyvňuje sociálnu štruktúru našich komunít?

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Mala by vláda rozhodovať o tom, kto si koho vezme, alebo je to osobná sloboda?

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Môže uznanie lásky medzi akýmikoľvek dvoma dospelými ovplyvniť váš osobný život? ak áno, ako?

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Predstavte si, že nájdete svojho dokonalého partnera, ale pravidlá spoločnosti vám bránia v manželstve; aké emócie to vyvoláva?

 @ISIDEWITHspýtal sa…5mos5MO

Ako by ste sa cítili, keby ste si na základe zákona nemohli vziať milovanú osobu?

 @2J3YKT4z Kentucky odpovedané…4 r4Y

The marriage laws should be "equal" to traditional marriages and divorce decrements which include court decisions such as alimony, fornication, etc.

 @2J3WQZQz Ohio odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2J3W9CLz California odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2J38PTZz Ohio odpovedané…4 r4Y

 @2J37K58Republikánskejz South Carolina odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2J2NLJRRepublikánskejz Maryland odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2J2NDXFz Michigan odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2J2BZ5Nz Colorado odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2J26NMKz New Jersey odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2J26JM6z South Carolina odpovedané…4 r4Y

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

 @2HZFBC4z North Carolina odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2HZCG2Kz North Carolina odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2HZC2CWz Georgia odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2HZ3PTVz California odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2HYY4C6z Idaho odpovedané…4 r4Y

 @2HYX3LPz Nebraska odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2HYSG5Pz California odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @2HYKBJHz Virginia odpovedané…4 r4Y

Yes, it's not my right to say if someone could marry someone else that they love, regardless of sexual orientation.

 @2HYC6C8z Massachusetts odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @NB23F5 z Texas odpovedané…4 r4Y

 @N946VJ z Connecticut odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @N828FM z Pennsylvania odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @N4GVS7 z New York odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @N2P4J5 z Florida odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @MB9WMR z Wisconsin odpovedané…4 r4Y

 @MB7LK4 z Texas odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @M9QS3W z New York odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @M9QBLM z Arkansas odpovedané…4 r4Y

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

 @M9LP8R z Maryland odpovedané…4 r4Y

I think that all marriages should be called marriages, but the churches could have sacremental marriages.

 @M87S2T z Louisiana odpovedané…4 r4Y

 @M5ZSRY z Washington odpovedané…4 r4Y

 @M58RHB z Wisconsin odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @M2PSK8 z Washington odpovedané…4 r4Y

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.

 @LZPPCV z New Jersey odpovedané…4 r4Y

Everyone gets a civil union, marriage can be done as a religious ceremony and each religion can decide who it will grant the rite to.