How would gay marriage affect your life?

[sclubdevin]

How will everyone on the opposite side of the world getting nuked affect you?

It won't. I support gay marriage, but this is a flawed argument.

I don't see how people don't realize this. Self-interest isn't the only reason for doing something.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I won't be able to walk outside on my front lawn with out seeing the neighbors taking turns pooing on each others chest. I can't have my future children seeing that!

Ah I kid. It doesn't change anything to me. Thusly I don't care if they did or not. I'm not going to actively campaign for it, but I'm also not going to campaign against it either, and if it happened to wind up on the ballet I'll vote yes.

 

[testicular torsion]

wow!?

you are a piece of work.

First, I never said i thought it was a physiological disorder. that was a reference to the issue. you clearly know nothing about the differences and/or similarities for legal partnerships and marriage.


Second, you are ignorant to your own lack of knowledge on the issue, and most likely cloud any discussion on the topic with "why not" questions; further proving that you are not actually arguing with an understanding, but merely taking up a defensive position trying to stay on everyones good side and not offend anyone. you have single handedly taken my statement and turned it into an anti gay claim. This further proves your lack of reading comprehension, as you're clearly looking for a fight.


I'm sorry you are unable to see the point beyond your ignorance, and it is sad to say so. I am also sorry that you fail to see the difference between equality, and just plain sticking it to the other team in the name of being wronged.

depressing, really.

 

[Strain42]

Two words: "It wouldn't"

 

[Durgiun]

It would be strange waking up next to another man every mourning... and a bit sore if I lost the coin toss the night before.

http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/1732/original/winternet.jpg

 

[CommanderKirov]

"Hi Steve, how's the Mr?"
...
"Hey that's great! Have a nice day mate!"


I cannot think of anything else that would change except a greeting...

 

[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.

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.

wow!?

you are a piece of work.

First, I never said i thought it was a physiological disorder. that was a reference to the issue. State to state regulation is different for marriage as well. there is no universal defining of it, thats what the super religious types tried to do with prop 8. and rights allowed to married couples are different from state to state. stating the obvious to differentiating state laws is child's play. You clearly know nothing about the differences and/or similarities for legal partnerships and marriage. so don't argue them.


Second, you are ignorant to your own lack of knowledge on the issue, and most likely cloud any discussion on the topic with "why not" questions; further proving that you are not actually arguing with an understanding, but merely taking up a defensive position trying to stay on everyones good side and not offend anyone (or look dumb). you have single handedly taken my statement and turned it into an anti gay claim (which it wasn't). This further proves your lack of reading comprehension, as you're clearly looking for a fight.


I'm sorry you are unable to see the point beyond your ignorance, and it is sad to say so. I am also sorry that you fail to see the difference between equality, and just plain sticking it to the other team in the name of being wronged.

depressing, really.

If you want a good example of what I'm referring to, go look up the actual writing proposition for porp 8. both, that is BOTH, sides the straight super religious, AND the GAY had terrible standings on the issue, and it was clear that they were no longer fighting for mere rights.

but hey, what the hell! right? the internet was made for people talking about things they know nothing about, but actually thinking that opinions are some how facts. woot! I'm out >.>

 

[TragicHero84]

3 words that would save our economy:
Gay. Bridal. Registry.

 

[MetreMaidPlayer]

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.

This. This right here. Props to you sir. (or madam. I don't want to assume)

 

[Griphphin]

I'm not gay and I don't have any love interests at the moment either way. If a gay couple moved in next door I wouldn't have a problem with it tbh, as long as they replace those people that get carried away with Christmas decorations xD

 

[BonsaiK]

The whole point of the argument is that there's only one answer - it wouldn't affect your life. Gay people are already dating and moving in together and making life-long commitments to each other, so giving them the title of "marriage" isn't going to change day-to-day life at all.

How on Earth did this thread spin out to 16 pages after this person summed it up so conclusively on page 1?

 

[TankCopter]

It wouldn't affect me in any way. Unless someone is gay/ is closely related to someone who is gay, I wouldn't think it would affect them, at least not in a meaningful way.

 

[Pinguin]

I might get to go to a few more weddings...

 

[Mr. Google]

People being happier would make me happy. so It would affect my life positively!

 

[Riobux]

Besides my big brother's girlfriend's sister being able to marry her girlfriend and if and when I get into a gay relationship I'll be able to marry, eh, not really much at all.

Honestly, best way to sum up the view of anti-gay marriage folks is "but it's wrong!". There isn't much logic to their argument to be fair and they've already shown how irrational they can get around homosexuality. Especially since Fox News has flipped out about Mass Effect's "sex" (I use that in the loosest way possible) because you can have lesbians, Jack Thompson has complained about the idea of a T rated game showing boys kissing (not snogging, kissing) and apparently enough people complained about the homosexual relationship choices in Dragon Age: Origins to cause the writer to have to actually defend himself. This is despite that all the relationship choices I've just mentioned are absolutely optional.

People are actually complaining over the option to have a homosexual relationship in a game even though you can have a heterosexual one if you want. It's silly at best and down right needlessly hateful most likely.

 

[Klepa]

Two possible answers to this question..
1: "It would not."
2: "I'd get married."