• 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

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One of the reasons cited by opponents of gay marriage is the effect it'll have on marriage in America. That has got me wondering. How will gay marriage affect the marriages of those who oppose it. Will it make them want to divorce their partner because they feel their marriage is no longer as valid as it was before gay people were allowed to marry? Or will nothing change?
 
I dunno, but the fact that heterosexuals are allowed to marry each other completely invalidates my relationship with my boyfriend and renders it absolutely meaningless.
 
If the legalization of homosexual marriage makes a person want to divorce their spouse, what possible motivation could there be for such an act except that they themselves are homosexual?

Makes me wonder how many of these anti-homosexual activists are secretly afraid that their spouses are playing for the other team.
 
If the legalization of homosexual marriage makes a person want to divorce their spouse, what possible motivation could there be for such an act except that they themselves are homosexual?

Makes me wonder how many of these anti-homosexual activists are secretly afraid that their spouses are playing for the other team.

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.
 
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.

I think how easily we allow people out of state-sanctioned marriage does far more to cheapen the institution than allowing more people in ever could.

Of course, part of the problem is that these people seem to believe that the government has some authority over that which is sacred; if they better understood the difference between what is legal and what is sacred, I believe this issue would be far less controversial.
 
I think how easily we allow people out of state-sanctioned marriage does far more to cheapen the institution than allowing more people in ever could.

Of course, part of the problem is that these people seem to believe that the government has some authority over that which is sacred; if they better understood the difference between what is legal and what is sacred, I believe this issue would be far less controversial.

I agree with that.
 
Last edited:
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.

Male and female satanist can and do get married in any state of this of the great UNION called the United States of America.
 
Male and female satanist can and do get married in any state of this of the great UNION called the United States of America.

Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
 
Makes me wonder how many of these anti-homosexual activists are secretly afraid that their spouses are playing for the other team.

A pretty sizable number of anti-homosexual activists are playing for the other team themselves.

images


images


images
 
One of the reasons cited by opponents of gay marriage is the effect it'll have on marriage in America. That has got me wondering. How will gay marriage affect the marriages of those who oppose it.

Ant-gm is claiming an effect on the institution of marriage, so why are you asking about individual marriages instead of the institution?
 
lol. The poll choices are ridiculous. C'mon Hatuey. At least try to make it appear like this is a legitimate poll.

Or at least a 3rd option: Gay marriage has helped me realize how precious my marriage is.
 
Obviously, same sex marriage isn't going to affect anyone. It's not going to make your relationships any less meaningful, it's not going to make you fall out of love, it's not going to make you head for the divorce courts. It doesn't cheapen the meaning of marriage, it makes it stronger, and all those people who are blind to all these facts need to pull their heads out of the sand.
 
One of the reasons cited by opponents of gay marriage is the effect it'll have on marriage in America. That has got me wondering. How will gay marriage affect the marriages of those who oppose it. Will it make them want to divorce their partner because they feel their marriage is no longer as valid as it was before gay people were allowed to marry? Or will nothing change?

Perhaps the tradition of Holy Matrimony should be left to the church(s) and civil union left to the state. I guess I don't understand if this 'homosexual marriage' issue is trying to force churches to marry homosexuals or if all homosexuals want is civil unions. Maybe someone explaining that to me would help.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the tradition of Holy Matrimony should be left to the church(s) and civil union left to the state. I guess I don't understand if this 'homosexual marriage' issue is trying to force churches to marry homosexuals or if all homosexuals want is civil unions. Maybe someone explaining that to me would help.

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.
 
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.

Okay. I feel like I'm chasing my tail. Should the state mandate to church(s) what the church(s) recognizes as Holy Matrimony and legislate to the public what should be recognized as marriage?
 
It means that my current marriage will be annulled. I don't know why they have to make gay marriage mandatory.

Oh, wait.......
 
Okay. I feel like I'm chasing my tail. Should the state mandate to church(s) what the church(s) recognizes as Holy Matrimony and legislate to the public what should be recognized as marriage?

Two separate questions.

I don't think the State has any business interfering in church business, just as the church has no business interfering in the State's.

But I do think that the State has every prerogative to decide for itself which relationships it should extend special legal benefits to, and I think the State should use this prerogative in pursuit of society's interests.

We could argue over which arrangements are in society's best interest-- though I suspect our views are similar-- but first, we would have to agree that this is what we are actually doing, and not arguing about religious principles or gay rights. These issues obscure what is relevant, as evidenced by the fact that nobody is considering the two questions in your post as separate matters.
 
Or at least a 3rd option: Gay marriage has helped me realize how precious my marriage is.

Great, then there's no reason to oppose gay marriage, is there?
 
I don't think the State has any business interfering in church business, just as the church has no business interfering in the State's.

Of course, the state isn't interfering in church business, the modern institution of marriage is a purely secular, legal institution that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Certainly some religious people would like to celebrate their legal marriage with religious ceremonies, but that doesn't make marriage religious, only the ceremonies.

You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.
 
Of course, the state isn't interfering in church business, the modern institution of marriage is a purely secular, legal institution that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Certainly some religious people would like to celebrate their legal marriage with religious ceremonies, but that doesn't make marriage religious, only the ceremonies.

You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.

oops :shock:
I wonder where that piece of paper is? no way I want my wife to think we might not have one, it would give her an out..:lol:
 
oops :shock:
I wonder where that piece of paper is? no way I want my wife to think we might not have one, it would give her an out..:lol:

While I'm sure it varies from state to state, whatever form the marriage license takes and by which the state considers you to be legally married.
 
Gosh I have divorced and married 6 times. Was it all because I met that gay lady in paris in 1965.

I was told that it was because of a gay man, that WW2 started in 1939.

I was once accosted verbally by a gay man, but I was more interested in his wife to care what he wanted. She was a Hot Fox.

my goal has always been to live with 5 lovely beautiful rich ladies, and have them support me in a great fashion.
 
Back
Top Bottom