Isn't 'your marriage' part of the 'institution of marriage'?
Well, if harming the 'institution of marriage' won't have any consequences, then why not allow gay marriage?
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.
**** it! Let's just outlaw all marriage. :mrgreen:
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.
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.
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.
So for over 2000 years, everyone was wrong.
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.
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.
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.
So for over 2000 years, everyone was 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.
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.
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?
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?