How would gay marriage affect your life?

[z0nbie]

I live in Canada where it's legal ... I've been to one of my gay friends wedding and it was fine. If people really cared about the sanctity of marriage they would rally together to have divorces illegal rather then worrying about keeping gay marriage illegal.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

Well, living in Canada where it's legal, it hasn't affected my life at all.

Hell, my aunts have the longest current marriage amongst my family. Hasn't affected me at all either. My aunts - they get to pay more in taxes (it's actually cheaper to file as a single person, y'know).

Unless you have dependents. If you have someone you can claim as a dependent, it helps a bit when it comes time to file a return.

 

[101flyboy]

So least this nation, get married, don't have 20 kids you don't support around the states, keep one mate and have 2-3 kids. You get tax breaks and share benefits of the medical plans ect.

Gay couple. No self child production with out outside medical or adoption. Not helping build the populace.

What I just read was gay marriage could solve overpopulation by encouraging closeted me to break out of their false relationships and stop producing fucking children.

Want the same tax breaks? Adopt a kid as those tax breaks are for families that should grow and it would help the orphans.

Then the same should be done for straight couples. Until you have a kid, no tax breaks. I know approximately 4 straight married couples that do not have children and have no interest in having children, yet still get the benefits of the tax break. That would be unjust, don't you think?

Thing is the married tax break is still thinking a woman won't be working, and in this day in age they sure hell can and do... so it's out date so your solution might very well be sound. But then again people having kids just for a tax breaks a bad idea...remember the welfare problems...

Since procreation in itself is not in any way a requirement for marriage, any debate on the subject whatsoever is irrelevant.

Wrong as the laws of modern marriage were not written for love, or the requirement of children. It was written for the chance of a potential increased population hence work force. Check history on after war baby booms, the nuclear family and all that. You don't have to procreate, but same time they also discourage same sex marriages because if it is already a social taboo and this is what you "need" to be in societies eye...

Religion did it for fresh recruits in it's holy wars, lowing the changes of inscet, disease, even making sex a sin so people just didn't hump all day. In a sad twisted manner the form of control it's a matter of accepting why it was made, the situations of the time ect.

So today... it is relevant since marriage in the modern world is still from the old world. A pointless fear of homosexuals, the want to have children born 20 year later ready for the work place or war to replace the old/dead. And no matter how we pretend we are better than that.... well nothing gets done.

So make the changes relevant to the modern age, and make the old people who write the laws understand we just don't live in times that require fear mongering over population, and the world will not shut down tomorrow because everyone just stayed home having sex...

You'd be amazed how caveman like some of the law makers of today thinking is...

The question is, how do you change it constructively?

Hmmmmm, interesting. From what I know, marriage has generally always been about economic, social and political considerations, and everything that revolves around that. However, I do know some of the history around the soldiers returning home from WW2 and the whole integration process, economic boom, baby boom, all that. I probably should read up more on it.

As for changing marriage laws, I don't know, since I can't stand the institution of marriage anyway, and so therefore I tend to essentially ignore everything about it. I've always though to just eliminate government control from marriage but I don't know if that's a truly viable option.

 

[101flyboy]

i live in Australia and i think i heard that this was going to be reviewed (along with the R Rating for games at last), as far as i know most of the debate has been because marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.........now if my knowledgeable of hypocritical phantom worshiper books which contradicts itself on every page is right they have this meaning of marriage and in Australia, all the opposition to gay marriage has been from religious groups

now if you read the bible, yes gays will go to hell, but then again following the bible will take you to hell as half of it tells you not to do stuff or go to hell and the other half says for you to do that stuff or go to hell for not doing it, but remember that god created man and free will for man, for him to say that people born gay will go to hell or going gay will send you to hell makes him hypocritical

to have things of the heart bound and forbidden by the government only because the preachers think it goes against what they stand for is crap, if priests don't like to host marriage ceremonies for gays in the house of god, then don't, send them to someone who will, since the only thing official in marriage is just some paper work, the rest is the celebration with friends and family that you found the one you love that dearly that you want to spend the rest of your life with them, it should not matter if your strait or gay, feeling are feelings and that should be shared

and just to note, i'm not gay or have any gay friends, i fine with gays and all, after all, the lady Minda does say "For he who rejects without understanding, may he be sent to my realm and be kicked and stabbed repeatedly for being a self centered junkass"

The Bible never even says "gays are going to Hell." It's just made up for political reasons. Religious organizations are simply using the gay thing as a wedge issue to activate their base. Their problem is that they are becoming outnumbered by people who are against their practices. I read a poll and only like 35% of Australians are against same-sex marriage. Julia Gillard is like Obama of Australia when it comes to the gay issue, though, from what I've read. Deflect and deny.

It's still easier for politicians to take a neutral or anti-gay stance than a pro-gay one, as homosexuality is gaining acceptance pretty quickly, but is still unaccepted enough by individuals in positions of power where there is at least equal and in most cases a higher risk of damage for these politicians to fully support gay rights and potentially lose those individuals. It's really sad.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Snip

It would totally effect everybody's lives.

Now gay people won't complain about it.

Thus gay marriage will make everybody slightly less annoyed about life in general.

WE CAN'T HAVE THAT! D:

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I only know a handful of gay people, none of which I'm very close with or who to my knowledge are on the track to getting married, so I don't think it would affect me at all.

Snip

It would totally effect everybody's lives.

Now gay people won't complain about it.

Thus gay marriage will make everybody slightly less annoyed about life in general.

WE CAN'T HAVE THAT! D:

Actually good point, it would remove threads like this from existence. I guess that's the extent of how much it would affect my life, since I'm replying to this thread.

 

[jboking]

Guess helping out one kid is just to much then?
Then again families without kids tax break is nothing, with kid it's like 3k
Sure give everyone the same normal tax break, no kids no bigger one.

Well, since that is what is already occurring(which is what I think you're pointing out), let's just assume that the tax break that couples get just from being married is there to support the marriage and encourage settling down.

 

[WolfThomas]

No way what so ever at all.

Really though we need to abolish the concept of a legal marriage, replace it with some sort of legal union. Therefore heterosexual or homosexual couples can be legally joined, but we're not calling it marriage for either groups. Then if they want to perform a cultural or religious ceremony well that's up to them they can, but if they want to hold it in a church, it has the right to refuse.

 

[Ashcrexl]

i dont know any gay people (probably). so gay marriage would affect my life approximately 0%.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It would only effect me indirectly in that I'd be forced to listen to lengthy angry diatribes against it from an angry mob. Beyond that, I cannot foresee how it could possibly impact me.

 

[Christopher Roberts]

Unless they're sword fighting (ha) in front of me, not at all.

 

[smurf_you]

Oh noes! Not the sanctity of marriage!! We need to protect our right to marry the old hooker from the corner that we met on a drunken excapade in Vegas, only to divorce her the next morning!! (I'm looking at you Brit and Justin) *sigh* sorry I'm done... but in all seriousness, living here in Canada, it hasn't changed my life in the slightest....

 

[Lieju]

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?

"I'm guessing that chart shows percentages of the population?"
No, it's in how many thousand marriages/divorces there were.

Tell her that by the official statistics, after legalising civil unions for gay couples, the number of marriages has gone up, and the number of divorces down, and see what she makes of that.

 

[zombiestrangler]

It wouldn't in the slightest.

I mean, we have "civil partnerships" over here, which are basically marriages, but if they did call them marriages it would just mean, oh I don't know, the elimination of discrimination.

As for America (am I correct in thinking some States allow it, or not?), it seems everyone gave it the tagline 'the land of opportunity' and forgot the suffix, 'as long as you're white, male and straight'.

Don't forget practicing, Protestant Christian and own land. And rich.

OP: Wouldn't affect me in the slightest.

 

[Zing]

It wouldn't. I don't really care.

 

[Nieroshai]

It really doesn't matter in the slightest. Even those who consider homosexuality to be a sin shouldn't care, because marriage is a civil matter and has been since government has existed. A religious wedding ceremony, on the other hand, is a religious matter pertaining to uniting of two (or more) spirits in the name of [deity/essence/thing/General Zod] and should be specific to the laws (if any) of the [deity/essence/thing/Great Old One] in question. So in other words, as a Christian, I don't care.

 

[Gigano]

It would have no impact at all on my life, though I'd appreciate that such discrimination against gay people was brought to an end through gender neutral marriage.

Now if the religious were able to marry, that would bother me, because reading old books is totally a sin and should cost you your access to the civil recognition and legal rights of a marriage. A book claiming to be true told me so, so that's how it is.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

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.

"Married different"? The only difference two gay individuals have in a marriage ceremony to a man and a woman is the same gender concept. Otherwise, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have hundreds of different ways they celebrate the marriage itself. And the provisions would be exactly the same thing. The homosexual population does not want special treatment, simply the same rights and benefits heterosexuals get by default. You know, equal civil and human rights. Those silly concepts.

And you are advocating the "separate but equal" fallacy. You don't want your personal definition of marriage to be "corrupted" by allowing same sex individuals to marry one another like a heterosexual couple would, so by such logic, society should keep gay's out of the "sacred", traditional term of marriage in order to make you happy and let you cling those last decades to the traditional format that appeases you before it likely vanishes. Society does not operate to restrict the rights to civil ceremonies (which fundamentally, that is all marriage is) of others because some have the belief those others should not have access to it.

And I assume in the bolded, you are speaking of a church. Legalizing gay marriage does not force churches to perform what they do not wish to do. They are private organizations. It only affects the society outside of the church. You know, the secular one.

ShadowsofHope, I'm totally with you on this.
Just a bit of backstory, I've discussed (A little bit, then the rest of the forum did it for me) hoosexuality with Hashime.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.234029-Homosexuality?page=7#8276743

He thinks being gay is a mental illness and it screws up kids.
Good luck talking to him

I know his stance, yeah. I feel compelled to say something anyways, rather than let him go unchallenged. He could actually convince someone of his backwards views on homosexuality, otherwise.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

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.

Homosexual individuals are not barren, they have exactly the same parts as everyone else. Also, artificial insemination and surrogate mothers. Many same-sex couples have their own children. Shocking, isn't it?

In other words, your argument is bunk.