How would gay marriage affect your life?

[debramster123]

not at all.
they can do what they prefer. as long as they dont force us to love it im cool with it

 

[SovietSecrets]

Wouldn't affect me at all being as I am Bisexual.

 

[101flyboy]

the argument is not specific to the way it would change an individuals life. I don't care what gays do (do what makes you happy, I say), but the attack is on religion, not individuals. changing the definition of marriage from a biblical stand point would affect a lot of people. they would basically have to say, "everything I believe in and have stacked my life on, is wrong!" Because if there is one aspect of the book that is wrong, then they all could be. The people who don't believe that strong in a religion have a hard time seeing this perspective.

what this question seems to be ignoring, is that the word "marriage," is not simply demanding a right. gays can get the same rights in legal partnerships, they have been in California for years (i don't know about other states, but i know a lot of them have rights available). the argument is for the word marriage, not the legal benefits found in one. and that in turn is challenging religion.


so your question is pointless.

The question isn't pointless. Because, the question is actual a simple one. How does allowing same-sex couples affect you, and everyone else, personally? If it doesn't affect anyone, then obviously, there isn't any valid reason to be against it either.

Religion is the pointless thing here. The United States, UK, Australia, and we can go down the list, are not theocracies. So therefore, the constitutions of these countries are not based on the Bible. Making that irrelevant when it comes to legal rights. No-one is attacking religion. You can believe in your sky fairy. No-one is telling religious people they cannot be religious. However, anyone can tell these people they are wrong if they choose to. The REASON why more people are for gay rights is because more people do see these religious individuals as wrong, and guess what, that's their right! If religious individuals cannot handle that, then that shows they maybe are not secure in their beliefs. No-one can force anyone to think one certain way or force morality on one another, and that goes BOTH WAYS. Allowing same-sex couples marriage does NOT affect anyone inherently, you allow it to affect you or you don't, that's a personal choice.

Civil partnerships are not equal, which is why Prop 8 has been invalidated in California. Marriage=marriage. Civil partnerships are not marriage. Gay/lesbian couples require equality under the law. Marriage is NOT locked by religion in any way whatsoever. It's a legal contract. No religious entity can control those legal rights and the government. You can't force people to adhere to religious beliefs they do not ascribe to, and that is exactly what is happening with religious fundamentalists with their outrageous anti-gay initiatives. No-one is forcing these fundies to marry the same-sex. No-one is changing marriage. Heterosexual couples will still be married and get married. But now, same-sex couples are looking for and will be allowed the right to marry as well, and that's the way it SHOULD BE under the LAW.

Religious fundamentalists will just need to keep their beliefs to themselves, and stop forcing them on everyone. If they can't do that, then they will continue being ostracized and losing in court.

 

[101flyboy]

not at all.
they can do what they prefer. as long as they dont force us to love it im cool with it

True. Just like as long as heterosexuals don't force homosexuals to love the fact almost 60% of heterosexual get divorces, they will be cool with straight marriage, although they aren't really cool with it, because they don't like it.

 

[Jenx]

I wouldn't care the slightest bit if people I don't know or cared about married other people I don't know or cared about. So yeah, I don't think it would really affect me at all. If they wonna get married - let em I get married I say.

 

[101flyboy]

No problems at all, as long as the law treats them the same. Not so much marriage as the kid thing. If two gay/lesbians have a kid then one is the biological mum/dad. The fact the other is not a biological parent means that when they leave that relationship they have no legal responsibility for that kid. Now i want that changed. I personally dont think they should have kids because the life they have means that they cant not produce kids with their partner. But if the law says they can, then they both have to be responsible for the kids upbringing regardless if they are the biological parent or not.

"I personally don't think they should have kids because the life they have means they can't not produce kids with their partner."

I personally believe sterile couples should not have kids, because the life they have means they can't produce kids with their partner.

Atleast the straight have the parts to make a child.

How irrelevant is that! Hahahahaha. Can sterile couples have a kid? No. Do all heterosexual couples have children or have sex simply to create children? No. Do gay men and lesbian women have the parts to make children? Yes.

Try again.

you forget, a gay relationship is two men with working parts. So can two men with working parts make a kid? It is basic biology. A gay man and a female lesbien can have a kid but that is unlikely.

You said "gay people can't have children". That is incorrect. You are now twisting it in another direction to save face, and are blatantly hypocritical in your condemnations of the direction you are trying to twist this discussion. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Try to find other ways to justify your anti-gay attitude.

How literal do you want me to be? Two gay men can not have a kid. It is a biological fact. I do not think gay people should have kids because the law isnt fair as there is always one part fo a gay relationship that isnt biologicly a part of the child. Thus they are not responsible for that childs up bringing and can walk away. Change that part of the law and i am fine.

How literal do I WANT you to be? No, you can't turn it on me. You said something incorrect. I called you out on it. You can't get mad at me for that, sorry.

You know, you are saying that all gay/lesbian couples have one biological parent. Actually, not always true. Because many gay/lesbian couples do adopt. Or, because many gay/lesbian couples actually have a heterosexual couple create a baby for them. Also, many gay/lesbian couples have kids from previous heterosexual relationships. You don't really have a clear view of things on this subject. And, as for the gay adoption rules, you need to check some websites, because you don't really know what you are talking about. When a gay couple adopts a baby and fills the correct documents, they are the legal guardians.

Anyway, glad that you clarified what you were saying and fixed your error. Now, explain why you said that:

"I personally don't think they should have kids because they life they have means they cannot produce kids with their partner."

 

[101flyboy]

It would not as long as it was considered something separate from traditional marriage. This is because in my view marriage is a man and a woman, and the place in which I hope to be married (eventually, maybe) would not be happy about having to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.
My point: If you make it legal, call it something else legally. I feel that would be the easiest way to avoid conflict.

You guys tried that with racial segregation ("separate but equal") as well. I do wonder where that got you, in the end..

*Hems*

[sub]Hint - It didn't work[/sub]

It is not the same thing. Being gay does not make you a different race or give you different rights, it just makes you getting married different. Besides, using different legal name does not mean segregation, it means a different legal name. It also allows for making provisions specific to gay marriage easier. I don't know of any such provisions at this time, but the ability to make the change is easier.

Being gay makes you a different sexuality, but still require 100% equality, as legal citizens. And sorry, "different legal name"=separate but equal=inequality. Separate isn't equal by definition. Equal is equal. Gay/lesbian couples deserve and require equality, and nothing less. There are no provisions towards same-sex marriages/relationships outside of an outright denial of same-sex couples being married, and that a couple can only be opposite sexed. That is gender discrimination. Legal citizens require equal rights.

 

[Signa]

My mom has used your country as an example of why gays shouldn't marry. Supposedly you guys have the lowest marriage rate or something. Mind expanding on those points so I have some ammo or something next time? I mean it's plainly obvious to me that society doesn't run on marriage rates, but do you see anything regarding a low marriage rate and how that may have affected anything in the people around you? Something as subtle as "broken homes" that don't put out bad people?

I'm just grasping for straws here. I really don't know what to suggest to look for that lack of marriage could change things for the worse while still having a happy, running society.

You could ask her how more people being able to get married is going to be a threat to marriage. And even if it would mean there are less straight marriages, why would that be a bad thing? It's not like we are dying out as a species, and gay families have children too.
In any case, yearly changes in marriage rates in my country can be big, but in general, the amount of straight marriages is on the rise, while the divorce-rate has stayed the same.

http://www.stat.fi/til/ssaaty/2009/ssaaty_2009_2010-05-06_tie_001_fi_001.gif
Source: the Finnish Statistical Institute.
In that picture the pink thing is the amount of marriages, and the blue divorces. In 1988 the law changed, and getting a divorce became much easier, which explains the rise there.
The gays have much smaller rate of divorce, but when the time passes, they are bound to rise closer to the straight marriage divorce rates.

So gays being able to get into a civil union hasn't caused or coincided with any meaningful changes in marriage/divorce-rates. (In fact, the divorce rate has gone down, and the marriage rate up).

However, Finland is quite high on the rate of divorce in general, and has been for quite some time. The reasons for this are bound to be complex and not easy to understand. One article written by a sociologist I recently read indicated that this might be because the young Finnish people have a very romantical ideal of a relationship; they get married soon, since they think "this is the one", and then when the problems arise, they rather get divorced than work on the relationship, since they have an idealised image of romance. But I don't really know if the Finns are any different in this than other Europeans.

Thanks for the response. It's pretty clear from your posts and that chart that my mom's info is just full of shit. I'm guessing that chart shows percentages of the population? The figures that my mom quoted were 1/10th that. Supposedly, allowing gay marriage dropped the straight marriages to single digits. Still, I don't see how that is inherently bad, but I did point out to her without knowing your social situations there, the low marriage rates could be accounted for with something as simple as poor tax laws that make it more costly to be officially married. I know I've heard something to that extent with France.

As I said in my first post in this thread, my parents are literally the perfect image of a happily married couple. I think that feeds into them a little when they try to comprehend that not everyone is capable of finding some one as compatible as each other or able to work out their problems as quickly and easily.

Then there is the fact that they are Christian. Need I say more?

 

[testicular torsion]

the argument is not specific to the way it would change an individuals life. I don't care what gays do (do what makes you happy, I say), but the attack is on religion, not individuals. changing the definition of marriage from a biblical stand point would affect a lot of people. they would basically have to say, "everything I believe in and have stacked my life on, is wrong!" Because if there is one aspect of the book that is wrong, then they all could be. The people who don't believe that strong in a religion have a hard time seeing this perspective.

what this question seems to be ignoring, is that the word "marriage," is not simply demanding a right. gays can get the same rights in legal partnerships, they have been in California for years (i don't know about other states, but i know a lot of them have rights available). the argument is for the word marriage, not the legal benefits found in one. and that in turn is challenging religion.


so your question is pointless.

The question isn't pointless. Because, the question is actual a simple one. How does allowing same-sex couples affect you, and everyone else, personally? If it doesn't affect anyone, then obviously, there isn't any valid reason to be against it either.

Religion is the pointless thing here. The United States, UK, Australia, and we can go down the list, are not theocracies. So therefore, the constitutions of these countries are not based on the Bible. Making that irrelevant when it comes to legal rights. No-one is attacking religion. You can believe in your sky fairy. No-one is telling religious people they cannot be religious. However, anyone can tell these people they are wrong if they choose to. The REASON why more people are for gay rights is because more people do see these religious individuals as wrong, and guess what, that's their right! If religious individuals cannot handle that, then that shows they maybe are not secure in their beliefs. No-one can force anyone to think one certain way or force morality on one another, and that goes BOTH WAYS. Allowing same-sex couples marriage does NOT affect anyone inherently, you allow it to affect you or you don't, that's a personal choice.

Civil partnerships are not equal, which is why Prop 8 has been invalidated in California. Marriage=marriage. Civil partnerships are not marriage. Gay/lesbian couples require equality under the law. Marriage is NOT locked by religion in any way whatsoever. It's a legal contract. No religious entity can control those legal rights and the government. You can't force people to adhere to religious beliefs they do not ascribe to, and that is exactly what is happening with religious fundamentalists with their outrageous anti-gay initiatives. No-one is forcing these fundies to marry the same-sex. No-one is changing marriage. Heterosexual couples will still be married and get married. But now, same-sex couples are looking for and will be allowed the right to marry as well, and that's the way it SHOULD BE under the LAW.

Religious fundamentalists will just need to keep their beliefs to themselves, and stop forcing them on everyone. If they can't do that, then they will continue being ostracized and losing in court.

if they already have the same rights under the law, how does calling it marriage change it? unless its trying to inadvertently prove a point to another group of people.

like i said, the argument for same sex marriage is not about the rights, its about the word. which is a different argument all together. look up the rights to legal partnerships, there is nothing that marriage provides that its not given under a partnership. they are the same under the law, so that makes the argument about rights mute. its now about the word used to define those rights. same reason they took homosexuality off the psychological disorder definition list (which was accurate in its reasoning and scientific breakdown). people are afraid of labels, pure and simple. even as simple as labeling it as a disorder, many ignorant people think that means it has to be, or even could be fixed (or even should be).

unless my research has been wrong. if you know anything that is sanctioned under the rights given by marriage, that is not provided by a legal partnership? that would be vary informative and helpful.

 

[Mr Montmorency]

Why would marriage affect your life?

 

[Azaraxzealot]

divorce rates would go up.
if i could marry my best bud who needs a woman? XD just kidding

but seriously (since i live in the bay area, which is pretty much homosexual central <-- all my homosexual friends agree with this) i would just be surrounded by happier friends than angry ones

 

[ninjapenguin981]

It would not effect me at all. I say gay marriage should be legal.

 

[Sexbad]

Why would marriage affect your life?

I think this is perhaps one of the best posts I have ever read.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

I live in Norway, where it's been legal since....2008? and I haven't been affected at all. Stop worrying, it's nothing bad or scary or anything, you'll hardly notice it.

 

[Mookie_Magnus]

I'd be able to marry whomever I choose.

 

[King_Serpent]

i don't agree with gay marrage, and i have several reason why it is wrong.
but i respect the choices of others because only they have the right to choose how they live.
anyone who tries to take away that right is no better then hittler.
but i do advise that people who choose to be gay should fully consider his or her actions.
they might be able to find what they are looking for while still being strait.
so i recomend that the strait should try to understand the reasons a person chooses to be gay, but only if you are concerned for that person.

do not fight them, EDUCATE them.
make sure that they know what they are getting themselves into and why they want to.

You're talking about education of gay people when you're saying it's a choice? Learn some fucking science. You're born with your sexuality, whether mostly straight, mostly gay, or a little bit of both. When did you choose to be straight?

By being gay I'm not "getting myself into anything." It's not dangerous unless you count the unwarranted discrimination.

i'm saying you have the choice but you should be sure that you are making the right choice.
people will find any excuse to do what they think is "right".
i don't care if you are strait or gay, and i never said it was dangerous.
but you should not do somehing unless you know all the facts.
and as for science: two humans males cannot reproduce together, nor can two females. therefore, how is it logical to for two people of the same gender to be "more then friends"?

You have zero reasons why same-sex marriage is wrong. You have nothing. Let's look at the Prop 8 debate. Why is the pro-Prop 8 crowd being destroyed in the courts? It's because there are ZERO logical reasons to be anti-gay whatsoever.

Procreation? Really? Interesting. Did you know babies aren't even a top 10 reason why people have sex? Homosexuality is rampant in nature, why is that? I mean, does Mother Nature make mistakes? I don't think so.

No-one is making excuses, or needing justification, for an absolute non-issue. Sexual orientation isn't a choice. It isn't a negative. It's not how one defines their life. Being gay is not an action, it's a sexual attraction, and guess what, what "they" are looking for and getting themselves into is a same-sex mate and relationships, because they are NOT STRAIGHT. No-one becomes straight or leaves heterosexuality. Gay people are gay. And that's the facts. The only person here clearly needing to be educated is you, Jack.

you are right i don't know how gays think, and i'm very sure that very few of you even think the same way at all. everyone is different, and the only people that can teach the straite about how gays think are the gays. so why don't you try and teach people how you think instead of just yelling at anyone that shows even the slightest feelings against gays. when you yell at people they tend to not listen.
and i've already sad this twice now "i do not care if you are strait or gay"
in fact in my first post i even stated that anyone who tries to force gays from being themselves is worse the Hitler. this is because the only person that can make decisions in someones life is the person that owns that life.
i own myself and no others, i am not in charge of any others, therefore i am not allowed to decide for others.
i said that in my first post, but instead you take it as the most offencive thing ever written. i'll admit, my communication skills are not something to envy and i could have worded my first post better, so i'm sorry that my efforts to translate my thoughts into words failed.
i don't agree with being gay, but that only applies to ME, not anyone else.
i have my reasons, you have yours.

and PLEASE read this VERY CAREFULLY

Read it. Fact remains you are still in the wrong. Realize that "the way gays think" is just an ignorant statement. They think like straight people. Yes, they just are attracted to the same sex. Other than this, there is no difference. You act as if they are not human and act in radically different ways than straight people. That is why he is angry with you. You claim to be reasonable then say they are too different to understand. They are exactly the same. To say they are different is to say they do deserve a different system. "Maybe gay citizens don't deserve these rights." That is what is wrong about what you said or at least angering to others. You might not have thought you said that, but you did. Just because you say that it only applies to you doesn't make what you said any less thoughtless.

 

[101flyboy]

the argument is not specific to the way it would change an individuals life. I don't care what gays do (do what makes you happy, I say), but the attack is on religion, not individuals. changing the definition of marriage from a biblical stand point would affect a lot of people. they would basically have to say, "everything I believe in and have stacked my life on, is wrong!" Because if there is one aspect of the book that is wrong, then they all could be. The people who don't believe that strong in a religion have a hard time seeing this perspective.

what this question seems to be ignoring, is that the word "marriage," is not simply demanding a right. gays can get the same rights in legal partnerships, they have been in California for years (i don't know about other states, but i know a lot of them have rights available). the argument is for the word marriage, not the legal benefits found in one. and that in turn is challenging religion.


so your question is pointless.

The question isn't pointless. Because, the question is actual a simple one. How does allowing same-sex couples affect you, and everyone else, personally? If it doesn't affect anyone, then obviously, there isn't any valid reason to be against it either.

Religion is the pointless thing here. The United States, UK, Australia, and we can go down the list, are not theocracies. So therefore, the constitutions of these countries are not based on the Bible. Making that irrelevant when it comes to legal rights. No-one is attacking religion. You can believe in your sky fairy. No-one is telling religious people they cannot be religious. However, anyone can tell these people they are wrong if they choose to. The REASON why more people are for gay rights is because more people do see these religious individuals as wrong, and guess what, that's their right! If religious individuals cannot handle that, then that shows they maybe are not secure in their beliefs. No-one can force anyone to think one certain way or force morality on one another, and that goes BOTH WAYS. Allowing same-sex couples marriage does NOT affect anyone inherently, you allow it to affect you or you don't, that's a personal choice.

Civil partnerships are not equal, which is why Prop 8 has been invalidated in California. Marriage=marriage. Civil partnerships are not marriage. Gay/lesbian couples require equality under the law. Marriage is NOT locked by religion in any way whatsoever. It's a legal contract. No religious entity can control those legal rights and the government. You can't force people to adhere to religious beliefs they do not ascribe to, and that is exactly what is happening with religious fundamentalists with their outrageous anti-gay initiatives. No-one is forcing these fundies to marry the same-sex. No-one is changing marriage. Heterosexual couples will still be married and get married. But now, same-sex couples are looking for and will be allowed the right to marry as well, and that's the way it SHOULD BE under the LAW.

Religious fundamentalists will just need to keep their beliefs to themselves, and stop forcing them on everyone. If they can't do that, then they will continue being ostracized and losing in court.

if they already have the same rights under the law, how does calling it marriage change it? unless its trying to inadvertently prove a point to another group of people.

like i said, the argument for same sex marriage is not about the rights, its about the word. which is a different argument all together. look up the rights to legal partnerships, there is nothing that marriage provides that its not given under a partnership. they are the same under the law, so that makes the argument about rights mute. its now about the word used to define those rights. same reason they took homosexuality off the psychological disorder definition list (which was accurate in its reasoning and scientific breakdown). people are afraid of labels, pure and simple. even as simple as labeling it as a disorder, many ignorant people think that means it has to be, or even could be fixed (or even should be).

unless my research has been wrong. if you know anything that is sanctioned under the rights given by marriage, that is not provided by a legal partnership? that would be vary informative and helpful.

Coming from someone who thinks homosexuality is a mental disorder, I don't think anything you say is valid in any way whatsoever. You obviously come from a position of stupidity and negativity, so everything you say will be derived from that, and be stupid accordingly.

Anyway, I'll give you one hint as to why LGBT citizens and their supporters are fighting for marriage, in terms of legal rights. Civil unions aren't federally recognized, and aren't state to state recognized. Marriage is.

 

[Geekosaurus]

It wouldn't. At all. In any way. Why the hell would it?

 

[Yureina]

Not in the slightest. I couldn't possibly care less what other people do behind closed doors with consenting adults (when they don't tell me about it). Even if they do, my reaction is one of annoyance over people telling me details rather than what the details themselves are.