How does gay marriage affect you?

Well I would agree but also flesh that out by saying if Joe only wants to diddle John and isn't interested in Joan then he is still a homosexual even if he actually hasn't diddled John yet.

Same for if Joe only wants to diddle Joan and isn't interested in John then he is a heterosexual even if he hasn't diddled Joan yet.

That definition is just as clear and just as easy to follow.

 

what about single people? That group is much larger than 1.7%

In fact, those who engage in gay sex are part of the single population. Maybe it would be best to stop trying to segregate that small group based upon sex and just join in a larger group of unmarried people and petition congress from a position of strength.

 

not really. Until such time as said diddling occurs, then nobody can be sure.

keeping the sicko jokes aside, what are monks or priests who take a vow of celibacy?

 

Alright. So first of all people are not simply one thing or the other. There are bisexuals. And it sounds like it's really more like a spectrum or orientations.

Therefore if it is considered equal there will be more, possibly many more homosexual unions than there were. In addition there are various financial advantages of marraige that even complete homosexuals would be able to avail themselves of.

So why is that a problem for anybody else? By any chance have you noticed some of those stories making the rounds periodically about resturants and things banning kids? On the part of the owners, it's just a wise capitalitic move. The people without the kids have more money and cause less problems.

It's true gays could adopt, but that's when you're ready for it, and without having to worry that by waiting into your 30s you'll get a downs baby. Just go and pick a nice healthy one once you've got a pile of money like you're going to pick up some Prada.

So the bottom line is that gay marriage makes it even harder on those of us trying to raise a family. It isn't malicious on their part. They just want to buy some appletinis or whatever and so a family resturant turns into a trendy bar.

Now. Just being harder on those trying to raise a family doesn't mean that we should deny people their shot at happiness.

And it doesn't mean that there aren't any things going on in our culture causing similar effects.

But it is reality.

Personally, instead of trying to fruitlessly restrict peoples freedoms in order to prevent threats to the family. We should just do some things to directly make it easier on people to have kids in their 20s and 30s without dropping from the middle class into lower or worse.

Lets get some "affirmative action" for people kept up all night by a newborn and some tax breaks for the family with the stay at home mom etc.

 

Not really. Homosexuality and heterosexuality is based on attraction OR behaviour.

Depends on what sex they are attracted to. No acts have to take place in order to determine if one is hetero or homosexual.

"Heterosexuality: sexual feeling or behavior directed toward a person or persons of the opposite sex."

"Homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heterosexuality

 

I've always been sure I'm not gay so I would trust someone who says they've always been sure that they are.

Easiest way is to ask them: "If you hadn't taken a vow of celibacy, which gender would you want to have sex with?"

Can't see why that's such a difficult question.

 

Thanks for sharing that; so many people seem to want to ignore those clear definitions.

 

thanks, please pay attention to the first word which is the best fit for definitions

SEXUAL

it is what it is; and so what? Do you think it devalues your cause? So you have sex differently than me. Does that make you any more or less special than me? Absolutely not. I'll never understand why you feel the need to segregate yourself from the rest of society because you have sex differently than the majority of people.

 

Great, so you're happy with anybody marrying the gender of person they desire, so what's all the fuss about?

 

false assumption on your part

I do not favor marriage because 2 people of the same sex have sex with each other.

That does not make them special

I oppose the govt having any say whatsoever about marriage. Let the church or social groups label it however they wish.

I do not support giving govt any more control or governance over the people

I support a common sense tax code whether you are single or have kids
I support equity with respect to SS
I support the free market and think that if I want to purchase a family plan health insurance then family members should be allowed to be added to the plan such as siblings, as long as I don't go over the limit of the number of insured.

So no, I don't support the silliness and all the wasted effort by 1.7% of the population who want to be segregated or ruled as a new class, gender or race because they have sex differently than others. Where will it end? Do we add a new gender for those who wear their baseball caps backwards?

 

I just have to resist the temptation to turn around and look lest I become a pillar of salt.

 

Well think in this way that the society became more efficient when everyone are free to chose. Basically Im applying Economics 101 to another area. When a gay man marries a woman or stay single (as a second choice) because of "social norm" or legal restriction there is social welfare loss. If his second choice, a girl, happens to be my first choice, this induces welfare loss for me as well.

After all the OP asked how it will affect us. It has consequences beyond the gays only and this opens a good discussion on the motivation for public policy change.

 

So you want to abolish the governmental recognition of heterosexual marriage as a legal institution?

I'd be all for that (and I am married) but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

Meanwhile it conveys a ton of benefits, legal rights and responsibilities on the contractees which there is no way of ensuring without a marriage contract.

That's basically the kind of government interference it seems you are trying to avoid?

But at the moment it seems the government does tell people how they can live their lives based on what sex they're having.

 

Nope, the government is telling people who gets certain tax breaks and governmental entitlements. Limiting the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage to heterosexual couples, is no more a denial of rights than limmiting the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that go to owners of small businesses, to owners of small businesses is a denial of rights.

The gays that dont think they can live their life without the endorsement and tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage, just have mental issues regarding how they live their life.

 

for the millionth time

Y E S

I want them out of marriage, out of the bedrooms

if you want to have sex with another guy then bully for you. it does not make you a new gender, race, or deserving of affirmative action.

I'm also against affirmative action. Get govt out of that too. People are people

 

I suspect a woman, agreeing to bear a mans children, might see more value in the institution of marriage, than you.

 

I am a "straight" woman who has a (now grown) child and doesn't believe government should have any say over what goes on in our bedrooms - or our homes and property - as long as no one is being harmed.

The only reason to believe one segment of society should be denied equal rights as in gay marriage is bigotry. No one is harmed when two people of the same gender form a marital partnership. The sensibilities of some bigots might be offended, but there is no right to not be offended, and there should be equal rights for all citizens under the law.

 

to me, marriage should be a bond between a MAN and a WOMAN without any govt involvement. If you are religious then have a ceremony at church before God and witnesses.

I do not support the concept of trying to make anew species, gender or race because Joan and judy diddle each other. That is one big slippery slope when you segment society for such silly things as how they have sex. Next up will be a new gender for those who like to wear their pants low.

Think about it.......waa waa, you won't marry us because we're gay. waa waa, you won't marry us because we're football players etc etc

with the football players you can at least go to a game and verify they are who they claim to be. With the gay couple, do you really want to go to their bedroom and watch them just to verify they are what they claim to be?

Absolutely not. So, since that is the only way to confirm one is gay, then don't make special laws for them unless you are willing to also demand proof beyond all doubt and watching them have sex is the only way since that is the only difference between straight and gay people.

 

Afraid I cant imagine what you are going on about. Government has say in who gets tax breaks and governmental entitlements, NOT what goes on in your bedroom.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Has nothing to do with bigotry, it is biology.

 

Definitions of marriage (religious, legal and social) have changed over time. Homosexual people are correct to continue their fight to be legally married today.

 

ooook, but still, the limitation of marriage to hetersexuals still has nothing to do with bigotry, and everything to do with the biology of procreation.

 

But you're OK with others thinking it can also be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and ok with whatever religious establishment they belong to sanctioning that?

Me too because IMO religious ceremonies are really just a gig to anyone not involved in that particular religion.

I don't think anybody's trying to do that but some people are expecting the government to sanction their beliefs on which consenting adults should marry based on how they have sex which you obviously disagree with?

That's not what they're saying. If nobody was getting segmented based on how they have sex, then you'd have a point but at the moment some people are and some aren't, that's the point!

As far as I am aware, there are no marriage restrictions on low pant wearers or did somebody pass a constitutional amendment?

Now you're just over-simplifying real issues which genuinely affect people with respect to family law. I agree, get rid of biased family law and no-one will have an issue.

As far as I am aware, there are no marriage restrictions on football players or did somebody pass a constitutional amendment?

What if they're gay football players, which part requires proof?

I thought we were past talking about "special laws", I think you're in danger of going off message here.

 

I've been consistent all along

Let's discuss some things which aren't right

A person begins work at age 16, pays into Social Security as does their employer. The person never marries or has children. That person works for a total of 50 years to the age of 66 and dies. Or, maybe died in an accident in their 40's or 50's.

All of the money taken from that person and their employer is kept by the govt. Why couldn't the person have written a will to pass along some portion of it or donate it to charity? Who knows the amount? Now, I of course think every plug nickel taken from the person and employer should be how much but we know that won't happen.

Only if the person above was married or had under age children would any benefit be paid

The above example does't matter if that person has gay or straight sex. It's single people getting the shaft from the govt.


Med insurance is another thing. i DO NOT support govt health care but do think that if I'm single and want to buy a family plan then why can't I put my sibling or elderly parent on the plan? I would expect some limit to the number of people allowed on a plan but why must it just be for spouses or children if I'm willing to pay? Why not other blood relatives

Again, the above example has nothing to do with how one has sex

so, to pass some type of law or create some type of special rules for anyone who claims to engage in gay sex is nonsense. Fix the rules from jumpstreet so we don't have to keep revisiting them for every type of sexual act or special interest group.

 

In principle I agree with everything you say but while the inequalities remain, certain groups will come forward to address and compare their grievances. The closer their comparison the more likely they will win legal favour but beyond that I do agree with all the points you have made.

I'd like to see you make them in the political opinions section with a note that you won't tolerate gays being used as a specific scapegoat. It's the rules that are at fault, not the people trying their best to find some way to conform to them.