Well I think it couldn't do anything bad. So.. it really wouldn't affect me much at all.

Not in any way shape or form.

Gay Marriage affects only those gay folks who wish to become married. It is a contract that they each undertake willingly with the other - a commitment. As such it can affect no-one else at all. What we homosexual people campaign for is full partnership benefits rights. Inheritance, pension, hospital visitation. THOSE are the key things we desire, and those are the things that the religiously biased, unwholesome administrations funded by their imbecile churches keep from us.

I would be ecstatic! Because I'd finally be able to get married!

It wouldnt affect me?why would it?

It wouldnt affect me??Why would it?

I wouldn't affect me at all.

Did I ever say it would? Same-sex marriage actually happens to be legal where I live, so the idea is actually normal to me.

Gay Marriage would not affect me at all. I am married already.

Wouldn't affect me :)

it would affect me if there wasnt any reception with cake and icecream.

I personally don't see why either gay or straight people would want to marry - but if gay people want to give up their ability to say, to a needy or insecure partner obsessed with monogamy, "I'd love to marry you, but it's not legal here", they should have that right. For me, it won't affect me at all. Maybe I'd be vaguely glad about it, because I don't think homosexual couples should be treated differently under the law than heterosexual couples. It would be a nice judicial symmetry.

Man would mt wife be pissed yo...

Well, I would very much like to get married. It would grants some benefits that I would not be able to get any other way...that I know of. Hell, if I'm want to live with someone for the rest of my life anyway, marriage does seem like the logical next step, doesn't it? Overall, it's a good thing for me. In fact, I can't think of any negatives....for me, or anyone else.

It wouldn't. So, let them get married!

It would increase the divorce cases in my practice:)

It wouldn't. This is a brilliant question pointing out how pointless the whole debate about legalizing gay marriage is. Who cares if two people want to get married?

Whatever makes people happy.

I doubt it would.

Not at all. All my family members are straight. It would only affffect me indirectly.

None, I am not gay, so its nothing to me.

Why would it affect me? I don't care what other people do in their private lives, gay or straight. Let them marry. Who's it going to harm?

it wouldn't in the least bit unless my husband walked in one day and said.....honey, i have something to tell you......hahaha j/k seriously~it's 2 consenting adults willing to make a committment to one another.....what's wrong with that?

it would not affect me in no way...is legal in CANADA

It wouldn't.

not at all. it would give everyone equal rights.

Any grand children wouldn't be biological

I don't see how it would affect me at all.

I'd have a lot of weddings to go to all of a sudden.

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal 01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children. 07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America. 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Personally, it would give me more tax breaks (if it were federally recognized). It would give me protection, if my "in-laws" decided to contest my partner's will. I would ensure I have the right to make decisions for my partner, if he were unable to make them for himself. It would not make my partner mean more, or less. It would just acknowledge our relationship on a legal standing.

It would not affect me at all.

Let me begin by stating that I know there are plenty of intolerant people out there, so I’m sure this answer is going to get downrated. If you can honestly say I didn’t answer the question, please downrate me with my blessing; if not, thanks for confirming my assessment. ;-) * * * There are two ways I can think of, offhand, that “gay marriage” would affect me. The first way is with respect to the children of these relationships. Harvard University’s Craig Cardon has a short piece on this at http://tinyurl.com/623cen . The second way deals with the legal process. The articles I will cite for this are much longer, so I’ll quote a small portion here. First, RoseMarie Briggs, executive director of the Family Leader Network: “How does California's new genderless marriage law affect charitable organizations like adoption agencies who believe children should be placed in homes headed by a married mother and father? “What happens to the parochial school teacher who tells her students that marriage is between a man and a woman? Will her comments now be a job performance issue subject to fines or firing? “How will the legalization of same-sex marriage affect admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs at California’s religious universities? “Will churches that only perform marriages between a man and a woman be punished by losing access to public facilities or lose their tax-exempt status? “[Family Leader Foundation Executive Director Peter] Knobloch concludes, ’The legal fallout of California's new genderless marriage law begs for serious questions by journalists. Why aren’t they asking the tough questions of this historic and landmark law? Maybe the answer is they don’t care or maybe the answer is they won’t like what they find—which is that same-sex marriage and the First Amendment are a legal train wreck. First Amendment scholars on both sides of the marriage debate are well aware of this fact—regrettably, the public is not. Whose job is it to tell the people the whole story?’" (Briggs, “Media Ignore the Legal Fallout of California's Genderless Marriage Law”, Meridian, 19 June 2008; article available online at http://tinyurl.com/48r9tf). …and again… “[T]hose who see marriage as the union of husband and wife, and view sexuality as best confined to marriage so defined, are in the exact position as racists under California law , according to marriage expert Maggie Gallagher. Racists are not tolerated and are certainly not given government benefits such as tax-exemptions. This makes the rights of freedom of religion on a collision course with this new-found right of sexual orientation. “‘Can a group—a church or religious charity—that opposes gay marriage keep its tax exemption if gay marriage becomes the law?’ Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, asked. Certainly, if the California court’s logic is carried beyond California, tax exemptions and government benefits for religions and their affiliates such as church schools and social service agencies benefits will be affected” (Maurine Proctor, “First Presidency Urges Californians to Protect Marriage”, Meridian, 27 June 2008; article available online at http://tinyurl.com/3ew7v5). I could go into the reasons that homosexuality is inherently detrimental from a religious point of view, but that isn’t really the purpose of this discussion. The question is how “gay marriage” will affect me, and I think the foregoing quotes are a pretty good start at answering that question.

Pretty much depends on if I'm the bride, groom, other groom or other bride or possibly just attending. Gee I don't know.

not in anyway at all...except that it would make my life a little easier not having to listen to all the crap that come out of peoples mouths who are illogically against it

Actually, I'm gay and unmarried with no opportunity of marriage in site. So how would gay marriage really effect me? Well, I and every other single, straight, bi, lesbian or any other would be the only ones left out of the benefits. So I think single people should be able to marry themselves or select a partner to share benefits with for whatever reason they might have.

It wouldn't.

As long as their play is not on my table, let them be as they will be. It is really no one elses business to care about it at all.

It doesn't affect me I don't agree with it but it's none of my business what two people decide to do with their life in the privacy of their own home

Not in any way whatsoever.

It would mean I'm married---now to find the right guy

It would probably cut down on my sex life---which is why I'm still single. Now, if I could meet a guy who is a total nympho like me, I'd be good with it.

this is really not right to be talking this way .because Gay is legal in most countries in the world