Quantcast

Would gay marriage really make gays happy?

Gracie - Proud Conservative 2012/08/07 23:34:46
It seems to me that gays think it's the ultimate key to happiness...marriage! While I love my husband I must admit that I'm not happy with him because we're married, I'm happy because we have a great relationship and are happy together. If I didn't have that piece of paper, we'd still be together and living our lives just as we do now. I haven't heard anyone gay say that they need to be married because cohabitation is immoral and without marriage, they can't live together and have sex together. That seems to be reserved for the Christian heterosexuals.

So, are married gay couples that much happier than unmarried couples or is it the job and tax benefits that married couples get that make them so much happier? Or is it nothing but the grass is greener and I need you to say I'm normal thing?

I personally think that many Liberals in general think they're only one piece of legislation away from utopia and it's Conservatives keeping them from it!
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • ilstarwars 2012/08/07 23:41:33
    ilstarwars
    +12
    I don't think it's so much about them wanting to get married, I think they are just mad that they aren't allowed to do it if they so desire. I'd be angry too if I weren't allowed to have something that everyone else is allowed to have just because of a sexual preference.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Gracie ... Loop 2012/08/14 01:35:05
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Is that a fact or a hope?
  • Loop Gracie ... 2012/08/14 07:55:12
    Loop
    more in between the two: it was made in a very public statement by our prime minister, David Cameron.
  • Gracie ... Loop 2012/08/14 20:38:38
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Okay, so it's only a hope.
  • Loop Gracie ... 2012/08/15 07:52:02
    Loop
    +1
    Well yes, but one with plenty of backing, and one being pursued greatly by government. And it's not too ambitious either..
  • Gracie ... Loop 2012/08/15 18:43:16
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +1
    Be sure and let me know when it happens.
  • Loop Gracie ... 2012/08/15 18:44:29
    Loop
    +1
    Sure :)
  • overlord rai 2012/08/12 11:18:31
    overlord rai
    I honestly believe that it's not the fact that they will get married, just the fact that they have the option too. i mean, my brother doesn't think he'll be marrying anytime soon, but certainly the right that he could, would make him a whole lot happier. The matter is more about equality than anything else.
  • Gracie ... overlor... 2012/08/12 17:03:16
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    What if I wanted two husbands?
  • sockpuppet 2012/08/11 14:22:07
    sockpuppet
    +1
    Don't you receive federal benefits for being married, Gracie?
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/11 16:28:26
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Not really much, perhaps income tax but I doubt that's very substantial. The entire income tax structure needs to be changed far more than marriage. I can't even itemize because I'm responsible and haven't indebted myself into oblivion? The deductions are a strange way to make people irresponsible.
  • sockpuppet 2012/08/11 14:20:50
    sockpuppet
    +1
    Not as it stands now. They deserve true equality under the law like anyone else, and thanks to DOMA, they're not going to get it. This whole issue has only arisen because
    of the impending election, and the Feds have done nothing but lip service.
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/11 16:29:39
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Why not polygamy? I'm not saying that to change the debate, but it is relevant. If you say that being equal entitles you to pretty much everything, you're opening a great big can of worms.
  • sockpuppet Gracie ... 2012/08/11 16:55:23
    sockpuppet
    +1
    Does it? I don't think this particular slope is that slippery. They've carried on perfectly well with One Man, One Woman for several generations. Other countries have legalized gay marriage without polygamy, bestiality and plagues of locusts appearing on the horizon.

    Meanwhile, perfectly decent citizens are being shafted while the filibustering continues.
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/12 02:03:28
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    The UK only has civil unions for the same reason, it doesn't jive with their social norms. It's not really whether you can carry on with it, is it? As you say, does polygamy hurt anyone, they can be perfectly good citizens.
  • sockpuppet Gracie ... 2012/08/12 03:53:26
    sockpuppet
    +1
    The UK notwithstanding, it's legal in Canada, Spain, Belgium almost all of Scandinavia and a few other countries. Haven't heard of a sudden rush to polygamy in those places... which is to say, they seem to be carrying on perfectly fine in that regard.

    I don't believe that necrophilia hurts anyone, either-- but I'm pretty sure it will never follow gay marriage into the mainstream. The point, of course, is that polygamy is a whole new can of legal worms to contend with, and the feds (through DOMA) have actively avoided addressing the legal implications of the comparatively simple issue of gay marriage yet.
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/12 17:08:15
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    You're making an assumption that just because some places have allowed one thing and it hasn't been followed by the second that it's not an issue. Have you watched the show "The Sister Wives"? The people who believe in polygamy are certainly in the minority and are mostly silent because they don't want the scrutiny. That's much like the gays have been in the past. I don't want marriage redefined for that very good reason. If it is, the pressure will be put on the churches to perform these marriages or they will be in violation of the law. Thus, differentiating between marriage and civil unions is essential for religious freedom. That's a very valid reason.
  • sockpuppet Gracie ... 2012/08/12 20:36:59
    sockpuppet
    +1
    I respect your concern, certainly, but the leap to polygamy from gay marriage seems about as long as it is from heterosexual marriage. Polygamy carries incredible implications that reach into property rights, custody, insurance claims and citizenship like gay marriage never even broaches.

    If there are enough polygamists out there to get such measures to pass, I suppose that's how democracy works. We'll just have to continue living our lives unimpeded by those who live differently than we do.

    I've not yet seen anything credible that indicates the feds will require churches to marry gay couples. If you know of an actual policy statement to this effect, I'd like to read it. As I understand it, the State only agrees to recognize such marriages in an administrative sense-- which the federal gov't does not.
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/13 02:03:15
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Not true, gay marriage has multiple implications with child custody, serious issues. If you're really the age you are you cannot say that just because you don't see an issue at this time and place that there won't be an issue in the future.

    This is exactly how Supreme Court decisions are arrived at that stretch the Constitution beyond comprehension. A simple phrase in a majority decision lays the foundation for the next step in the next decision. These things are planned out years and even decades in the future. They pick and choose cases to make the point they want to achieve. For example, abortion isn't based on whether you're taking a life, it's based simply on the point that you have a right to privacy, taking the Griswold case that came before it. Now, you don't have the right to kill a person in the privacy of your own home but because they said that a couple had a right to use birth control, rightfully so, and based it on a privacy issue, they concluded that you had the right to abort your baby with the privacy of the physician or medical facility doing so.

    That, my friend, is how you do things that people never saw coming. To say that changing the definition of marriage won't open a can of worms is probably hopeful to you because you believe in it, but to a Chri...

    Not true, gay marriage has multiple implications with child custody, serious issues. If you're really the age you are you cannot say that just because you don't see an issue at this time and place that there won't be an issue in the future.

    This is exactly how Supreme Court decisions are arrived at that stretch the Constitution beyond comprehension. A simple phrase in a majority decision lays the foundation for the next step in the next decision. These things are planned out years and even decades in the future. They pick and choose cases to make the point they want to achieve. For example, abortion isn't based on whether you're taking a life, it's based simply on the point that you have a right to privacy, taking the Griswold case that came before it. Now, you don't have the right to kill a person in the privacy of your own home but because they said that a couple had a right to use birth control, rightfully so, and based it on a privacy issue, they concluded that you had the right to abort your baby with the privacy of the physician or medical facility doing so.

    That, my friend, is how you do things that people never saw coming. To say that changing the definition of marriage won't open a can of worms is probably hopeful to you because you believe in it, but to a Christian community that doesn't, this is a problem. Haven't you seen all the private businesses that aren't being allowed to deny their services to gay marriages? How about this case?

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
    (more)
  • sockpuppet Gracie ... 2012/08/13 02:30:24
    sockpuppet
    +1
    I understand that gay marriage carries serious custody implications. My point is, polygamy carries many more. All worries about the legal recognition of same-sex marriage opening the floodgates for things like polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is absurd. And all three concerns have been raised-- hysterically.

    Abortion *should* be legal... so, good job to the Supremes. :O)

    Notice that I said "...a whole NEW can of legal worms" by which I meant that both polygamy and same-sex marriage are indeed cans of worms unto themselves... but that one falls distinctly short of paving the way for the other. I mentioned necrophilia to highlight the absurdity of your claim that we're on a slippery slope to other 'lifestyle choices'.

    If you have a link to specific policy statements regarding churches being forced to perform gay marriages, I'd like to see it. Something that ends in .gov would be good. No blogs or op-ed pieces-- bona fide fact is what we should be dealing with, rather than conjecture.
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/13 03:16:21
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Do you truly believe that because something isn't here, it can't be here soon? I read a book that was excellent and it explains how your thinking is somewhat naive. This is not to equate Hitler with anything to do with homosexuality, only the naivete of people.

    how to kill 11 million people
  • sockpuppet Gracie ... 2012/08/13 03:25:31
    sockpuppet
    I reckon our time would be better spent dealing with the problems we face in reality. All the time we spend intentionally avoiding the issue and filibustering just means more citizens are being denied their rights. That's not the way this country works... not even in theory.
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/13 03:28:14
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Marriage is not a right, let's stop making everything about some fictitious right! You can't marry your child, your brother and in some states your first cousin. It's not a right, it's a societal ritual and the rules are clearly in place. A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. You say let's not worry about what isn't, well in most states, gay marriage isn't.
  • sockpuppet Gracie ... 2012/08/13 03:47:56
    sockpuppet
    Again, it's a matter of dealing with the issue at hand, rather than theoretical ones on slippery slopes.

    You're concerned about polygamy and incest... way off topic. If I'm off-topic, I guess I don't understand the very core of the gay marriage debate.
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/13 03:56:34
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    We just fundamentally disagree about marriage and what it is. My first husband is gay and while I'm not holding a grudge like many people assume, I just have a clear picture of the gay lifestyle. The fact that civil unions with the same advantages and rights isn't sufficient leads me to believe that it's more the need for society to accept homosexuality as normal than anything.

    If you don't believe that there will be a legal attack on the churches you're wrong.
  • sockpuppet Gracie ... 2012/08/13 04:11:01
    sockpuppet
    I agree there... it's all about societal acceptance. A laudable pursuit in any free society.

    What, exactly, is it that's such a threat in this issue, and who is (possibly) going to be hurt by it?
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/13 04:13:38
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Religious freedom, that's already under attack and gay marriage will be just another attack. Civil unions would be secular and differentiated from marriage. Look how society has been harmed by single parenthood, the family is under attack and it harms children every day.
  • sockpuppet Gracie ... 2012/08/13 04:20:08
    sockpuppet
    But they're not actually talking about forcing any church to perform such a service. Don't gays have the right to be Christian or whatever, as well?

    I'm no fan of single parenthood AT ALL, but I'd rather live in a society that permits it than one that... does whatever a society would have to do in order to prevent it. Forced sterilization? Forced marriages? Child abductions by the State?
  • Gracie ... sockpuppet 2012/08/14 01:37:48
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    No, how about a society that doesn't celebrate it and reward it? Welfare destroyed the black family and we need to fix families by encouraging morality. You can't force anything but you can stop with the moral decay.
  • Gia 2012/08/11 13:08:53
    Gia
    +1
    Yes to most of them. Some are just obsessed with getting the law passed to prove some point. http://latimesblogs.latimes.c...
  • Fariborz-Zak 2012/08/11 06:46:13
  • jere.chievres 2012/08/10 03:49:10
    jere.chievres
    +1
    NOTHING WILL EVER MAKE THEM HAPPY.
  • lolitalovely 2012/08/09 21:14:12
    lolitalovely
    +2
    There are many reasons. I know some LGBT who want to get married because of what an "eternal" bond signifies to them. I know some pragmatists that just want benefits. I know some religious ones that don't want to have sex before marriage. I know some that combine these. I've never met an LGBT that wants the world to accept them. Most of the ones I know have known they were LGBT for a while and had, by that time, concluded that they were normal. I did witness my best friends coming out, but she never much cared for public opinion. Besides I like to see people who really will make it work, get married.
  • xXScarlettXx 2012/08/09 19:44:53
  • Gracie ... xXScarl... 2012/08/09 23:40:28
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +1
    I don't think the economy has anything to do with marriage. If it's just for the benefits, why not civil unions with ALL the same benefits and leave the definition of marriage alone?
  • Billy the kid 2012/08/09 19:02:44
    Billy the kid
    +2
    I'm not sure if they would be happy or not. What i am sure about is that I don't really
    care in the slightest how they feel about anything much....
  • BUCCANEER~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/08/09 16:12:44
    BUCCANEER~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    No,they are only happy when whingeing,same as libs
  • doc moto 2012/08/09 15:51:40
    doc moto
    +2
    Nope! Never! For one, "Happiness" is from within and an outside relationship might, might, might bring a tad of it, but you know it is from within and if you do not have it there, it is no where to be found... All of this marriage crap is for court time and time to continue to stir and corrupt what is the basic institution and Whom institutionalize it by its origin! The first to the second part, the first is a lifetime commitment and the second was to have children and since the second would be impossible by two of the same seed or egg, they have to use an outsider and that just mess everything up as they love the attention and the gathering of FOOLS!
  • Matt 2012/08/09 15:13:09
    Matt
    +2
    Happy ?
    Miserable
  • Gracie ... Matt 2012/08/09 15:14:13
  • jere.ch... Gracie ... 2012/08/10 03:51:38
    jere.chievres
    +2
    NO LAUGHING MATTER THAT!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/20 14:25:26

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals