• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How will gay marriage affect your marriage?

How will gay marriage affect your marriage?

  • It wont

    Votes: 36 85.7%
  • It'll make me want to divorce my partner

    Votes: 6 14.3%

  • Total voters
    42
**** it! Let's just outlaw all marriage. :mrgreen:
 
Isn't 'your marriage' part of the 'institution of marriage'?

So you agree that all marriages fall under an umbrella idea of what the meaning of marriage is, and that subjective meanings are secondary?
 
Well, if harming the 'institution of marriage' won't have any consequences, then why not allow gay marriage?

Here again, who is claiming there wouldn't be any consequences? You haven't given a real example of anyone making that argument.
 
That's... a pretty strange philosophy, Bonnie.
And if you're an actual feminist- as in, belonging to feminist organizations such as NOW and NARAL- then I'm sure you're aware that we have a somewhat symbiotic relationship with gays and their organizations. Gays have done a lot to help advance women's rights, and we owe it to them to help advance their causes.

No, I don't even like NOW and NARAL is just a pro-abortion group, not a women's rights group.

While it doesn't matter, I do oppose criminalization of abortion, there are some guidelines and restrictions on abortions I support, and believe abortion also singularly is the woman's choice to make or even know the choice is being made. But I also believe that abortions are not going to be outlawed and on the list of real issues that matter, it is very low on the list.

Mostly, I don't accept the concept of "women's issues" and that fundamentally is sexist and demeaning. They also have fragmented and essentially destroyed the otherwise feminist majority voters.

I do not equate women's rights with the near singular issue of abortion of which you are dictated your side on the issue as well. I seem old-school feminists as the greatest barrier to further advancing equality for women as equals - not as a powerful minority special interest group.

What have gays done to advance women's rights?
 
Last edited:
Anyone who sits and thinks so hard about the marriage of two homos that it causes conflict in their own marriage doesn't need to be married to start with.
 
Here again, who is claiming there wouldn't be any consequences? You haven't given a real example of anyone making that argument.

I can play this game too, Jerry.

When did I say that anyone said that there wouldn't be any consequences?
 
That's... a pretty strange philosophy, Bonnie.
And if you're an actual feminist- as in, belonging to feminist organizations such as NOW and NARAL- then I'm sure you're aware that we have a somewhat symbiotic relationship with gays and their organizations. Gays have done a lot to help advance women's rights, and we owe it to them to help advance their causes.


Allow me to rant on...

Gays are a tiny minority based upon the issue of their alternate choice of sex-fun seeking full legal equality to non-gays in family, tax and employment laws for which generally their protests are deliberately anti-social and attempts to be shocking not to be persuasive but to be cool in a party sense - then outraged further that the people the intended to shock and offend are shocked and offended.

Women were denied the right to vote longer than any other group, same for property rights and still no constitutional right to equal pay, equal representation, or equal treatment under the law.

Gays have never been denied the right to vote, on average have higher salaries than straight women and straights on average, nor ever denied property rights. r of a tiny minority special interests group - I'm not a member of a minority at all. I'm one of THE majority of citizens and voters of this country - and without us literally there would be no gays, no country, nobody.

Billions and billions of words for gay rights and equality. Not 5 posts outside my own of how women are paid on average thousands of dollars a year less in salary nor even 1 but mine on the lack of a constitutional amend to prohibit gender discrimination into the US or State constitutions.

My view is simple. EXACTLY EVERYONE GROUP has cut in line in front of women on equality and I won't tolerate it. It literally would be no different than someone cutting in line in front of me at the bank and then expecting me to take his/her side when others push him/her to the back of the line.
 
Allow me to rant on...

Gays are a tiny minority based upon the issue of their alternate choice of sex-fun seeking full legal equality to non-gays in family, tax and employment laws for which generally their protests are deliberately anti-social and attempts to be shocking not to be persuasive but to be cool in a party sense - then outraged further that the people the intended to shock and offend are shocked and offended.

Women were denied the right to vote longer than any other group, same for property rights and still no constitutional right to equal pay, equal representation, or equal treatment under the law.

Gays have never been denied the right to vote, on average have higher salaries than straight women and straights on average, nor ever denied property rights. r of a tiny minority special interests group - I'm not a member of a minority at all. I'm one of THE majority of citizens and voters of this country - and without us literally there would be no gays, no country, nobody.

Billions and billions of words for gay rights and equality. Not 5 posts outside my own of how women are paid on average thousands of dollars a year less in salary nor even 1 but mine on the lack of a constitutional amend to prohibit gender discrimination into the US or State constitutions.

My view is simple. EXACTLY EVERYONE GROUP has cut in line in front of women on equality and I won't tolerate it. It literally would be no different than someone cutting in line in front of me at the bank and then expecting me to take his/her side when others push him/her to the back of the line.

Yeah gays in America have had it so easy. Not like being gay was ever outlawed.
 
Last edited:
Of course allowing gays to marry won't have any effect on my marriage. It would, however, affect the society I live in because the last bastion of legalized descrimation and bigotry would have been leglislated away. The result? A better society.

I'm truly ashamed of my fellow California voters. :(
 
My view is simple. EXACTLY EVERYONE GROUP has cut in line in front of women on equality and I won't tolerate it. It literally would be no different than someone cutting in line in front of me at the bank and then expecting me to take his/her side when others push him/her to the back of the line.

I'm not sure why you have this perception that there is a "line" to get to equal rights and protection under the Constitution.

There isn't a "line" to have to wait through. Everyone is entitled to demand equal rights and protection at any time they feel they are being slighted. There isn't a gate you have to pass through to earn that entitlement...the Constitution freely gives it to everyone.
 
So for over 2000 years, everyone was wrong.

What about when people thought the world was flat? Turned out everyone was wrong, eh?

:mrgreen:
 
I find the topic of this question amazingly contradictory given some of the posters here and their views on other boards.

I'm not married, but on a larger level question it is "how would gay marriage affect my life?"

I don't see that as the question at all! And contradiction is that on other boards they rage about abortion rights, when whether someone else gets an abortion or not doesn't affect their lives, family or children at all. So its pick a cause to crusade for.

In this, I then see the question as the exact opposite. "How would gay marriages positively affect my life?" If they won't, give me any reason to support gay marriage?

I should support gay marriages because gays have a grievance? Why should I care? SERIOUSLY, why should I care? I can name dozens of greater injustices is this country alone that gay marriage and some of those do affect me.

Gays WANT something from me - they WANT my vote. WHY, what's in it for me, to do so? What is in it for any non-gay to do so -unless some day they come to realize that really - after all - they never were attracted to all those of the opposite sex they had sex (and children) with because actually their dna tells them they don't have any attraction at all to the opposite sex.

Since I am very confident I am not confused that I enjoy heterosexual sex, give me any, any reason for my sake to give you what gays want from me? It is the person wanting the change with the burden.

Why is it about you?
What if it were your child? Would it benefit you then?
This is about people being kept beneath the surface because people don't know how to accept a difference. It shouldn't have to benefit you because frankly, you've already seen benefits. It's like womans rights. They didn't affect men--it was men who voted for us to be able to have them. Rights for blacks didn't bring benefits for whites, yet they still helped bring justice for them.
 
Allow me to rant on...

Gays are a tiny minority based upon the issue of their alternate choice of sex-fun seeking full legal equality to non-gays in family, tax and employment laws for which generally their protests are deliberately anti-social and attempts to be shocking not to be persuasive but to be cool in a party sense - then outraged further that the people the intended to shock and offend are shocked and offended.

Women were denied the right to vote longer than any other group, same for property rights and still no constitutional right to equal pay, equal representation, or equal treatment under the law.

Gays have never been denied the right to vote, on average have higher salaries than straight women and straights on average, nor ever denied property rights. r of a tiny minority special interests group - I'm not a member of a minority at all. I'm one of THE majority of citizens and voters of this country - and without us literally there would be no gays, no country, nobody.

Billions and billions of words for gay rights and equality. Not 5 posts outside my own of how women are paid on average thousands of dollars a year less in salary nor even 1 but mine on the lack of a constitutional amend to prohibit gender discrimination into the US or State constitutions.

My view is simple. EXACTLY EVERYONE GROUP has cut in line in front of women on equality and I won't tolerate it. It literally would be no different than someone cutting in line in front of me at the bank and then expecting me to take his/her side when others push him/her to the back of the line.

Iron my shirt.
 
Last edited:
The anti-homosexual activists do not want the State or Federal governments to sanction homosexual relationships at all.

The homosexuals want the State and Federal governments to recognize their relationships as identical to heterosexual ones-- which means that, legally, their relationships have to use the same laws and the same terminology as heterosexual marriages.

These two groups have mutually exclusive goals. What people who argue for compromise solutions like "civil unions" do not understand is that their position not only does not give either party everything they want, it gives both parties nothing. Civil unions would be the State recognizing homosexual relationships and extending legal benefits to them, but because it would be a separate legal identity from marriage, those benefits would not include the Federal benefits extended to marriage and would vary widely from State to State.

There is no compromise solution. Churches are already free to sanction marriages as they see fit-- whether to refuse to sanction homosexual marriages where they are legal, or to insist upon sanctioning them where they are illegal-- and the State's sanction of a marriage lies within the legal privileges it bestows, not the name by which it is called.

This is why, IMO, civil unions need to be "federally" sanctioned. Take it out of the state's hands.
 
So for over 2000 years, everyone was wrong.

Yes. There are many things that we've believed for hundreds of years, or more, that have been proven wrong.
 
How it could affect marriage?

A man (opposite gender analogy also could work) could find the burdens of family life heavy and announce:

Hey! I just realized down at the gay bar where I was partying without a care in the world, that my dna says that really I never wanted or enjoyed sex with any of those women before marriage, certainly never wanted sex with my wife because actually I'm sexually replused by women sexually, so I just have to divorce, marry Butch, and go to court for custody of my children declaring the judge a homophobic bigot if he won't give them to me just because I'm gay.

That could be an example of harming a marriage. "Gayness" is a vastly convenient excuse to abandon all parental and relationship responsibilities already established when that life is being replaced with a live on the "high-moral-level" or morality measured in obtaining sex-pleasure. And then having the pre-set excuse of being helplessly gay but confused on sexual orientation - raging at anyone criticizing the abandonment as being homophobic bigots.

Another prospect is it doubles the number of people that might take away my spouse and father of my children (theoretical - I'm not married) to take my husband for himself. Thus, it could be argued that gay marriage exactly doubles the chance of a divorce.

Your position rests on the opinion that one can 'become" gay. Since that does not happen, everything that flows from your position is debunked. For example, if we assume the father of your children were heterosexual, there would be no chance that he would be "taken" by someone who is gay. The chances for divorce are not altered.
 
Allow me to rant on...

Gays are a tiny minority based upon the issue of their alternate choice of sex-fun seeking full legal equality to non-gays in family, tax and employment laws for which generally their protests are deliberately anti-social and attempts to be shocking not to be persuasive but to be cool in a party sense - then outraged further that the people the intended to shock and offend are shocked and offended.

Nothing accurate here. Just a rant as you said.

Women were denied the right to vote longer than any other group, same for property rights and still no constitutional right to equal pay, equal representation, or equal treatment under the law.

Gays have never been denied the right to vote, on average have higher salaries than straight women and straights on average, nor ever denied property rights. r of a tiny minority special interests group - I'm not a member of a minority at all. I'm one of THE majority of citizens and voters of this country - and without us literally there would be no gays, no country, nobody.

Billions and billions of words for gay rights and equality. Not 5 posts outside my own of how women are paid on average thousands of dollars a year less in salary nor even 1 but mine on the lack of a constitutional amend to prohibit gender discrimination into the US or State constitutions.

My view is simple. EXACTLY EVERYONE GROUP has cut in line in front of women on equality and I won't tolerate it. It literally would be no different than someone cutting in line in front of me at the bank and then expecting me to take his/her side when others push him/her to the back of the line.

This thread is on gay marriage, not women's rights. I've said it before and say it again. You want to discuss women's rights, start a thread on it. Don't hijack this one.
 
I think inter racial marriages will change the institution of marriage in such a manner as to....... Oh wait.... I got into this conversation a bit late..... ah well .... the more things change the more they stay the same.



Anyway, I've seen this movie before. Hate and injustice put up a nasty fight and pretend to be the good guys wrongly infringed upon. Eventually they are defeated in the end. I'm hoping this will be the last installment of this series
 
Well if would not effect me but theoretically they could believe it cheapens the holy union of marriage and not want to be associated with state sanctioned marriage.

How does it cheapen the union of marriage? If two people love each other and want to commit to spending the rest of their lives together--why does it matter whether they are heterosexuals or homosexuals?
 
How does it cheapen the union of marriage? If two people love each other and want to commit to spending the rest of their lives together--why does it matter whether they are heterosexuals or homosexuals?

Presumably it matters to conservatives because of its percieved effects on the institution of marriage. Methodological individualism is a poor way to analysis social institutions.
 
What about when people thought the world was flat? Turned out everyone was wrong, eh?

:mrgreen:
Friend, you're talking scientific discoveries, this is social. Do you think two guys kissing looks different today than 2000 years ago. I knew someone would throw out the flat earth cliche. You're so predictable.
 
Friend, you're talking scientific discoveries, this is social. Do you think two guys kissing looks different today than 2000 years ago. I knew someone would throw out the flat earth cliche. You're so predictable.

2000 years ago was the time of the Ancient Roman Empire, Bathhouses and public homosexuality. I'm not understanding the reference here. :confused:
 
If America is such a free country, why is gay marriage even being questioned in some states? How does loving someone the same sex as you and marrying them render another heterosexual marriage invalid? Thats ridiculous. Love is love, love does not have a gender, and gay marriage is an absolute yes. Who is the government to say you cannot marry the one you love? That is not Democracy, and im outstanded at the fact that gay marriage is a no in California.
 
Last edited:
Interesting tidbit of history.

Elagabalus, Roman Emperor from 218 - 222, supposedly married a man publicly according to historical accounts.
 
Back
Top Bottom