Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[Luddly Neddite]

Tell it to those who bash gays with a bible, like the many bible thumpers here and post #146.

The "thought police" are the narrow minded cons and fundies who have no reason for being against marriage equality, except that they don't like it.

This is like the other freedoms the right wants to end - if you don't like it, don't do it. But in the meantime, MYOB.

That's not the way equality works.

You know....if it weren't for secular laws....many WOULD want to physically hurt us. Just my opinion, of course.

Bullshit.

Next you will opine that there's no such thing as hate crimes, gay bashing and gay murder.

You live in your own little world of fiction and hate.

 

[Freewill]

That's an oxymoron Marty. The courts don't declare gay marriage, they rule that laws treating gay marriage differently from straight marriage have no rational basis. Abortion is another matter. So again, what can opposition be to gay marriage be unless it's based on some myth?

You have no rational objection to abortion. This whole thread is nothing but BS based on BS lie in the OP. The OP made a statement attributing it to people who never make that statement and now it has once again gone where the liberal left takes everything, bashing Christians. You might as well join in and tell us how great your church is for standing for nothing. Not that the gay marriage thing is a religious thing. It is just that people, the majority that vote, don't think we need to redefine marriage it was even proved in California of all places.

No you're failing to analyze the issues. There were laws making it illegal for ALL women to access abortion. The Court struck them down, "creating" a right for all females to choose. That decision may be right or wrong. But it is not logically comparable to same sex marriage. It has nothing to do with equal protection.

States have laws saying straights may marry but gays can't. The reason this violates equal protection is that no one can state a rational reason why gays are different that straights in terms of loving one another and raising kids.

The point being, you have no rational argument against abortion. Abortion is now free and easy so tell me how has that effected your relationship with your children?

There are economic issues with gay marriage as there are issues, still, with who has access to the same laws. In other words, can we now restrict marriage between first cousins? Sister and Brother?

 

[martybegan]

I'd be a lot more comfortable if equal access laws were also struck down. If everyone can choose not to contract with anyone, there's no equal protection issue, and everyone would have an equal opportunity to be a jerk and be ridiculed for it.

But the equal access laws have nothing to with the OP and Marty is just trying to hijack.

The OP itself is a flawed concept. Harm has been done to SOME people due to gay marriage (via public accommodation laws.)

ANd?

You'll be posting proof, right?

j/k cuz you're making it up.

So the baker and the photographer were not harmed?

and I cleaned up your excessive use of lines, you gutless rep turned off dime store hack.

 

[Freewill]

What's the basis for opposition unless it's essentially one's morals? There's no validly proven effect on traditional marriage or society as a whole.

Its objection due to the process used. I have no objection to the states changing the marriage contract they recognize via legislative action. However there is no RIGHT to gay marriage in the federal constitution, just as there is no right to abortion in it. These are derived concepts created by a judicial branch that has been exceeding its mandate for the past 30 years.

There is a right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law in the Federal Constitution, including the right to access marriage law.

There is absolutely no restriction on a gay man marrying a woman, none they have equal access.

 

[martybegan]

You know....if it weren't for secular laws....many WOULD want to physically hurt us. Just my opinion, of course.

Bullshit.

Next you will opine that there's no such thing as hate crimes, gay bashing and gay murder.

You live in your own little world of fiction and hate.

Being opposed to gay marriage does not equal a hate crime, gay bashing or murder.

The fact you have to resort to that equivalency shows you 1) lack of moral turpitude, and 2) your inability to argue from reason, instead resorting to name calling and "i want it just because i want it" line of "reasoning"

 

[GreenBean]

We've been hearing for a very long time about how allowing gays to marry legally in this country (or even in other countries) will ruin marriage altogether. Well, legalized gay marriage has been a reality in 10+ years in some places.....share with us your stories of how it has ruined yours, or someone you know's, marriage.

Post your stories here.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Gay Marriage has wrecked anybodies marriage, unless of course one of the partners in a real marriage was a closet *** or bi-sexual wackadoodle. It has however degraded the institution of marriage to a point of being somewhat comical.

More than 200 posts and still, no one can say that marriage equality in 44 states has ruined their marriage.

See Above ^

You're confusing opinion with fact.

The so-called "institution" of marriage is just the same as it has always been. Gay or straight or married to the building on the corner, its only as strong as the participants. And, its no one's business except those in the marriage.

And still, no one has made a case for marriage equality ruining a marriage.

The so-called "institution" of marriage is just the same as it has always been. Gay or straight

Hardly -It was initially a foundation for siring a familyl and providng some sort of guarantee for the male that the children he was raising, supporting and defending were in fact the fruit of his own loin - not the mailman or milkman.

or married to the building on the corner,

...or a Saint Bernard for that matter ? watch out for those slippery slopes there snoopy !

... its no one's business except those in the marriage.

Yup - can't argue with you on that, although my knee jerk reaction is to fight it tooth and nail - my rational side says ....sigh...faggots have the same rights as real people.

And still, no one has made a case for marriage equality ruining a marriage.

YUp, not ruining it ... but certainly degrading and cheapening it .

 

[martybegan]

What do the "christians" on teh board think of this?

Disagreeing politically is not bashing gays with a bible. When you have to stoop to this to silence political disagreement, you show yourselves to the thought police wanna-be's you really are.

Tell it to those who bash gays with a bible, like the many bible thumpers here and post #146.

The "thought police" are the narrow minded cons and fundies who have no reason for being against marriage equality, except that they don't like it.

This is like the other freedoms the right wants to end - if you don't like it, don't do it. But in the meantime, MYOB.

That's not the way equality works.

The only thought police here are the progressive statists. Only you assholes want to ruin people for disagreeing with you.

 

[martybegan]

Was that because of legalized gay marriage or because of that state's Equal Protection laws? Why won't you answer?

its because of both. Here's the trade, I'll give ya gay marriage for repeal of equal protection clauses when it comes to non-retail businesses. Deal?

Negative. It is because of the Equal Access Laws alone. But, tell you what. Show a case where someone was FORCED to go against their beliefs in their business in a state which does NOT have Equal Access Laws. Go for it.

Fruit of the poisoned tree. Equal access laws being used this way are resulting from gay marriage being legalized. Get rid of equal protection laws and you remove alot of my argument.

 

[Nosmo King]

Its objection due to the process used. I have no objection to the states changing the marriage contract they recognize via legislative action. However there is no RIGHT to gay marriage in the federal constitution, just as there is no right to abortion in it. These are derived concepts created by a judicial branch that has been exceeding its mandate for the past 30 years.

There is a right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law in the Federal Constitution, including the right to access marriage law.

They can access it, they just can't marry people of the same sex, because, you know, it isn't equal.

What makes homosexuality unequal? Do homosexuals pay taxes? Do they serve in the military? Are they committing crimes by merely being homosexual? What criteria do you use to decide which sober, tax paying citizens are equal, worthy or eligible for the same protections under law as you? Should there be citizens who are 'unequal'?

 

[martybegan]

The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Now....since the law provided legal marriage licenses to couples who are of opposite gender, they are required, per the 14th to provide the same for couples of the same gender.

Just like the government cannot withhold drivers' licenses from gay drivers while providing them to straight drivers.

driving whether gay or straight is not different. being same sex married and opposite sex married is different, no matter how much you fervently hope it isn't. Equal protection doesn't apply if things are not equal.

Marrying whether gay or straight isn't different either.

yes, it is. Just because you think it isn't different doesn't make it so.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Liberals ******* goats hasn't ruined my marriage either.

That's because you got to them first.

 

[Nosmo King]

driving whether gay or straight is not different. being same sex married and opposite sex married is different, no matter how much you fervently hope it isn't. Equal protection doesn't apply if things are not equal.

Marrying whether gay or straight isn't different either.

yes, it is. Just because you think it isn't different doesn't make it so.

What makes same sex marriage unequal?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Marrying whether gay or straight isn't different either.

yes, it is. Just because you think it isn't different doesn't make it so.[/QUOTE]

Actually the matter here is about freedom.

Freedom to choose. The right to do what you want to do.

Let me sum up the theory of rights.

people want to be able to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people, and they don't want the govt interfering in this and stopping them doing what they want to do.

I want to be able to choose who I marry. Of course there are limitations. These limitations, however, should be the same for everyone.
First there's incest, this is about harm, because producing babies through incest is known to be damaging.
Then there's minors. Well, they're not old enough to legally consent, so it's not even possible legally.
Then there's those who aren't willing, well this is clearly harming someone if they're forced to marry someone.
Then there's polygamy, and no, I don't have any reason for this one. This is a different issue, you can argue against polygamy laws all you like, I don't care, I'm not pro or against, I don't particularly like it though.

And then there are those who would allow certain people to marry who they choose, and then say to others, if you want to marry, you have to marry someone you don't choose. Ie, gay people. It's the govt sticking its nose in, and making people unhappy (or happier perhaps) because they can't choose.

Imagine if this were black people. Imagine the outcry if black people were not allowed to marry white people.
What's the difference between gay people marrying and interracial marriage?

 

[Pop23]

There is a right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law in the Federal Constitution, including the right to access marriage law.

They can access it, they just can't marry people of the same sex, because, you know, it isn't equal.

What makes homosexuality unequal? Do homosexuals pay taxes? Do they serve in the military? Are they committing crimes by merely being homosexual? What criteria do you use to decide which sober, tax paying citizens are equal, worthy or eligible for the same protections under law as you? Should there be citizens who are 'unequal'?

They do not provide future population. My children will care for them in their old age, they will contribute to their social security.

The opposite is not true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's the basis for opposition unless it's essentially one's morals? There's no validly proven effect on traditional marriage or society as a whole.

Fear of change and diversity.

 

[Nosmo King]

They can access it, they just can't marry people of the same sex, because, you know, it isn't equal.

What makes homosexuality unequal? Do homosexuals pay taxes? Do they serve in the military? Are they committing crimes by merely being homosexual? What criteria do you use to decide which sober, tax paying citizens are equal, worthy or eligible for the same protections under law as you? Should there be citizens who are 'unequal'?

They do not provide future population. My children will care for them in their old age, they will contribute to their social security.

The opposite is not true.

Should we ban the elderly from accessing a marriage license? Surely no post menopausal woman can 'provide future population' If that's the criteria, shouldn't we then oppose marrying beyond the age of 55?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Being opposed to gay marriage does not equal a hate crime, gay bashing or murder.

The fact you have to resort to that equivalency shows you 1) lack of moral turpitude, and 2) your inability to argue from reason, instead resorting to name calling and "i want it just because i want it" line of "reasoning"

Nor does being a racist, nor does being a pedophile, nor does having thoughts of murdering people.

Until you break the law, it's not a crime. If a white racist acts on their racism and kills a black person, then they committed a crime.

However we know from the past that racists have gone and done things. Because a society that encourages people to think and accept prejudice is often a society where someone thinks it's okay to commit crimes against minorities.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They do not provide future population. My children will care for them in their old age, they will contribute to their social security.

The opposite is not true.

There are too many people on this planet.

Marriage doesn't equal children, you don't need marriage to have children and being married doesn't ensure children. The same as wearing a blue t-shirt doesn't.

 

[bendog]

Green Bean, didn't the Talmud have provision for widows and orphans and divorce?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Should we ban the elderly from accessing a marriage license? Surely no post menopausal woman can 'provide future population' If that's the criteria, shouldn't we then oppose marrying beyond the age of 55?

Everyone should have to undergo a fertility test before they can marry to make sure they can have kids as well... surely.