Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see this PRO gay thread is still in politics why my ANTI gay thread has been tossed out.

Which is why I created my thread. This just proves my point that the agenda can't be avoided. It's infested everything

So...you made your point that there were too many gay threads by.............making another gay thread?


Is that logic on your planet?

No my point was that people are sick of your bullshit and the endless begging for attention & acceptance

 

[martybegan]

Wrong. Missing out implies that they are denied access, they are not. Guess what tax break I don't get...the one that's only given to people that buy personal jet planes or have "exercise horses".



Those don't have anything to do with marriage equality either.



Singles are taxed differently than married people. Corporations are taxed differently than small businesses. Poor people are taxed differently than rich people.



Oh, and it's a lot more than 167...



Marriage Rights and Benefits

So if given an identical contract that wasn't called marriage you would be happy with that?

Only if applied to ALL married couples.

So in the end you DO want acceptance of your lifestyle from society, not just legal equality.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[martybegan]

That's what I've been telling you -

Just because you don't like equality doesn't mean it should be the law of the land.

Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

What i don't like is people mucking around with the constitution to get what they want.

Use the proper channels, stop relying on judges who think the constitution is merely advisory.

If you had actually read the Constitution, its amendments and case law...YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN that using the courts IS the Proper Channel.

No, appealing to the people and having the contract changed via legislative action is the proper channel. Perverting the courts to get what you want is basically dropping drawers and taking a shit on the constitution, just to get what you want.

 

[Seawytch]

So if given an identical contract that wasn't called marriage you would be happy with that?

Only if applied to ALL married couples.

So in the end you DO want acceptance of your lifestyle from society, not just legal equality.



Thanks for clearing that up.

No, in the end we want equality. Same water came out of both fountains. You want separate but equal. That's unconstitutional.

 

[Newby]

Why did 19 states pass laws making even civil unions illegal?

I think that was short-sighted on their part. I Dont know if any of these were by referendum or all just legislatively. Legislatures can get a little unrepresentative on some of these issues. ....Regardless I think it dangerous to negate the will of the people no matter how important a person feels the issue is.

No shit....now we're not going to settle for less than marriage and the Far Right has no one to blame but themselves....

You were never going to 'settle' to begin with, who the hell do you think you're kidding here?

It was never about having the same legal rights as spouses, it's about normalizing gay relationships in society as a whole. Legalizing gay marriage is only one aspect of that, altho a very large one.

You won't settle for anything other than everyone telling you that being gay is as normal as being straight, and making sure anyone who vocalizes anything different is punished by society. The very same thing that was done to gays for years, but hey, as long as it's not you and your kind that are persecuted any longer, and you're now doing the persecuting, then that's just fine. That's what I have a problem with, I could give a shit less what your sexual preference is, as I'm guessing 90% of the public could care less as well. It's the militant persecution of those that disagree with you that I have absolutely no respect for at all. It shows that you care nothing at all for freedom of expression, and that your 'cause' had nothing at all to do with you being able to be who are in public without ramifications. When you agree that anyone can 'be who they are', even if who they are doesn't approve of gay relationships, without social persecution and riducule, then your whole 'cause' is just one big lie.

 

[Seawytch]

What i don't like is people mucking around with the constitution to get what they want.



Use the proper channels, stop relying on judges who think the constitution is merely advisory.

If you had actually read the Constitution, its amendments and case law...YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN that using the courts IS the Proper Channel.

No, appealing to the people and having the contract changed via legislative action is the proper channel. Perverting the courts to get what you want is basically dropping drawers and taking a shit on the constitution, just to get what you want.

18 rulings since Windsor but you think "perversion of the courts".

 

[Seawytch]

I think that was short-sighted on their part. I Dont know if any of these were by referendum or all just legislatively. Legislatures can get a little unrepresentative on some of these issues. ....Regardless I think it dangerous to negate the will of the people no matter how important a person feels the issue is.

No shit....now we're not going to settle for less than marriage and the Far Right has no one to blame but themselves....

You were never going to 'settle' to begin with, who the hell do you think you're kidding here?



It was never about having the same legal rights as spouses, it's about normalizing gay relationships in society as a whole. Legalizing gay marriage is only one aspect of that, altho a very large one.



You won't settle for anything other than everyone telling you that being gay is as normal as being straight, and making sure anyone who vocalizes anything different is punished by society. The very same thing that was done to gays for years, but hey, as long as it's not you and your kind that are persecuted any longer, and you're now doing the persecuting, then that's just fine. That's what I have a problem with, I could give a shit less what your sexual preference is, as I'm guessing 90% of the public could care less as well. It's the militant persecution of those that disagree with you that I have absolutely no respect for at all. It shows that you care nothing at all for freedom of expression, and that your 'cause' had nothing at all to do with you being able to be who are in public without ramifications. When you agree that anyone can 'be who they are', even if who they are doesn't approve of gay relationships, without social persecution and riducule, then your whole 'cause' is just one big lie.

Name the state where gays said no to civil unions...19 said no to the gays.

 

[Newby]

What's stopping them?

whats stopping gay and lesbians from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

Many gay people have married members of the opposite sex due to pressure from society to conform. Mostly that produced unhappy couples.

And what the gay movement does to people who don't agree that their lifestyle is normal and perfectly okay is exactly the same. But it's okay, right, because it's not 'moral' to think a person's lifestyle is not normal? And your morals are right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, so they should be forced to conform to your morals, right?

What you don't get is that you are absolutely no different from the supposed fundie Christians trying to force their morals on society, you're the flip side of the same coin. No difference.

 

[emilynghiem]

Same old tired BS coming from the liberal lying left. Sure makes it easy for them when they define what the other side wants and then expect the other side to argue against what they have made up.

It is a lie and all the flying monkeys circle chiming in to support the lie.

The reason that the liberal left has to ask questions like in the OP is because they can't find where anyone who opposes their idea said what they are asking. Again, it is just another bit of flying monkey BS we can expect from liberals.

Wait....you mean all those people who say that legalized gay marriage will ruin marriage were LYING??????

People are lying to themselves
if they scream for "separation of church and state"
and then turn around and want govt to "sanctify marriage" on their terms.

How is this NOT mixing personal spiritual or religious decisions
with GOVERNMENT policy? and trying to MANDATE that for EVERYONE ELSE?

It is this CONFLICT that is ruining govt and democratic process with POLITICS,
attacking and dividing by religion while abusing the SAME tactics being criticized
(by masking it as secular political beliefs that aren't treated or recognized equally as religious beliefs are).

I think the problem with ACA mandates contradicting prochoice principles is even WORSE!

But both issues are similar examples of contradictory positions that are
RUINING the political process and discrediting both the principles
of the Democrat party and the Constitutional authority and standards of govt.
It's nothing but political lobbying at all costs, regardless of the rights and beliefs of other citizens affected.

You can't have it both ways.
If you want "free choice" and "separation of church and state,"
you can't go back and lobby for mandates that VIOLATE these arguments
and expect to enforce consistent principles, authority and respect.
clearly it's not about respect, but about political coercion and control.

To BLAME people for rejecting your approach
when it has these BLATANT contradictions in it
THAT is additionally DAMAGING to relations and the public trust.

Just making a bigger mess of these issues, so they are FARTHER from being
resolved at the root core. it is just adding more political complications on top!

 

[Newby]

Here is an example of how the pro-gay marriage crowd twists the arguement.......

I said the above line to compare Bodecea,s comment about singles to her case.....she quoted it out of context and there have been a number of posts dealing with it OUT OF CONTEXT. I believe it was her who also put words of mine in Bold and enlarged ...probably just to emphasize, but made it appear I said them like that......I did not.

There are differentiations made in marriage by law that are perfectly legal.....age of consent....monogamy.....

It is not the differentiation that is illegal...it is what it is that is being differentiated.....
Thus the so often referred to case of Loving vs Virginia......an illegitimate appeal to the emotions made by the pro-gay marriage advocates.......for it was race that was differentiated there........which was against the plain common sense meaning of the anti-slavery amendments.

I don't know if it's twisting the argument, just different view points, seeing the topic from different starting points.

Well don't worry about what was in bold, I stopped reading when I realised I didn't write it and I didn't comment on it.

Yes, there are parts of marriage that are limited. The only one I can see that has any relevance is monogamy.
Age of consent could be moved around a bit, however based on human rights where children have limited rights and limited responsibilities this age of consent is perfectly legitimate. Though I'd say it should be pretty similar to other such things where age of consent exists.
You don't see many people talking about unfair discrimination based on alcohol limits, unless of course it's based on the over 18s, compared with say, European countries.

As far as I can make out, your argument is that because differentiation exists within marriage, that it's okay in every case. In that case interracial marriage being made illegal shouldn't be a problem, should it?

I look at this argument from the human rights point of view. I don't see the need for differentiation, it doesn't hurt other people, except for incest which can lead to deformities in children, age because children don't have full responsibilities, and it has to be based on consent, and not have people being forced to be married.

It's basically about individuals being able to do what they choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Then I assume you're also an advocate for polygomous marriages, they don't hurt others, there's no reason to deny them being able to marry the people they love?

 

[bodecea]

Yes they do and have.

We do in many states now.

Gays have married straights throughout history.

So...that is your solution? Gender discrimination? Don't let those gays marry who they love and are attracted to, let them marry someone they are not attracted to if they want to marry at all?

 

[bodecea]

Here is an example of how the pro-gay marriage crowd twists the arguement.......

I said the above line to compare Bodecea,s comment about singles to her case.....she quoted it out of context and there have been a number of posts dealing with it OUT OF CONTEXT. I believe it was her who also put words of mine in Bold and enlarged ...probably just to emphasize, but made it appear I said them like that......I did not.

There are differentiations made in marriage by law that are perfectly legal.....age of consent....monogamy.....

It is not the differentiation that is illegal...it is what it is that is being differentiated.....
Thus the so often referred to case of Loving vs Virginia......an illegitimate appeal to the emotions made by the pro-gay marriage advocates.......for it was race that was differentiated there........which was against the plain common sense meaning of the anti-slavery amendments.

I don't know if it's twisting the argument, just different view points, seeing the topic from different starting points.

Well don't worry about what was in bold, I stopped reading when I realised I didn't write it and I didn't comment on it.

Yes, there are parts of marriage that are limited. The only one I can see that has any relevance is monogamy.
Age of consent could be moved around a bit, however based on human rights where children have limited rights and limited responsibilities this age of consent is perfectly legitimate. Though I'd say it should be pretty similar to other such things where age of consent exists.
You don't see many people talking about unfair discrimination based on alcohol limits, unless of course it's based on the over 18s, compared with say, European countries.

As far as I can make out, your argument is that because differentiation exists within marriage, that it's okay in every case. In that case interracial marriage being made illegal shouldn't be a problem, should it?

I look at this argument from the human rights point of view. I don't see the need for differentiation, it doesn't hurt other people, except for incest which can lead to deformities in children, age because children don't have full responsibilities, and it has to be based on consent, and not have people being forced to be married.

It's basically about individuals being able to do what they choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Then I assume you're also an advocate for polygomous marriages, they don't hurt others, there's no reason to deny them being able to marry the people they love?

Where is the already established government framework for that?

 

[Newby]

So if given an identical contract that wasn't called marriage you would be happy with that?

Only if applied to ALL married couples.

So in the end you DO want acceptance of your lifestyle from society, not just legal equality.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Absolutely, and they don't draw the line at that either, they want the persecution by society of those who do not accept it as normal as well.

 

[jillian]

Yes they do and have.

We do in many states now.

Gays have married straights throughout history.

and people used to own other people... and men used to be able to beat their wives as "property".

your point?

 

[emilynghiem]

Wrong. Missing out implies that they are denied access, they are not. Guess what tax break I don't get...the one that's only given to people that buy personal jet planes or have "exercise horses".

Those don't have anything to do with marriage equality either.

Singles are taxed differently than married people. Corporations are taxed differently than small businesses. Poor people are taxed differently than rich people.

Oh, and it's a lot more than 167...

Marriage Rights and Benefits

So if given an identical contract that wasn't called marriage you would be happy with that?

Only if applied to ALL married couples.

AGREED!!!

the personal part of marriage should be private, and left to the couple, church etc.

only the civil contract part involves matters that are jurisdiction of the state
(estate, custody, financial contracts, etc.)

SW where is there a petition or TRUCE where people can agree to take marriage out of the courts and legislatures and leave it open for people to decide on their own?
No "bans" no "enforcing" unless all people of that state agree on the language since this involves religious, spiritual or personal beliefs that are private not for govt to decide.

Can we write up a truce, and sample language of how to write laws so that the definitions remain "NEUTRAL" -- and any issues of conflict are decided privately and not through govt?

I will gladly sign or help form teams to write this up per state facing this issue!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is an example of how the pro-gay marriage crowd twists the arguement.......

I said the above line to compare Bodecea,s comment about singles to her case.....she quoted it out of context and there have been a number of posts dealing with it OUT OF CONTEXT. I believe it was her who also put words of mine in Bold and enlarged ...probably just to emphasize, but made it appear I said them like that......I did not.

There are differentiations made in marriage by law that are perfectly legal.....age of consent....monogamy.....

It is not the differentiation that is illegal...it is what it is that is being differentiated.....
Thus the so often referred to case of Loving vs Virginia......an illegitimate appeal to the emotions made by the pro-gay marriage advocates.......for it was race that was differentiated there........which was against the plain common sense meaning of the anti-slavery amendments.

I don't know if it's twisting the argument, just different view points, seeing the topic from different starting points.

Well don't worry about what was in bold, I stopped reading when I realised I didn't write it and I didn't comment on it.

Yes, there are parts of marriage that are limited. The only one I can see that has any relevance is monogamy.
Age of consent could be moved around a bit, however based on human rights where children have limited rights and limited responsibilities this age of consent is perfectly legitimate. Though I'd say it should be pretty similar to other such things where age of consent exists.
You don't see many people talking about unfair discrimination based on alcohol limits, unless of course it's based on the over 18s, compared with say, European countries.

As far as I can make out, your argument is that because differentiation exists within marriage, that it's okay in every case. In that case interracial marriage being made illegal shouldn't be a problem, should it?

I look at this argument from the human rights point of view. I don't see the need for differentiation, it doesn't hurt other people, except for incest which can lead to deformities in children, age because children don't have full responsibilities, and it has to be based on consent, and not have people being forced to be married.

It's basically about individuals being able to do what they choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Then I assume you're also an advocate for polygomous marriages, they don't hurt others, there's no reason to deny them being able to marry the people they love?

Not the OP.

 

[bodecea]

I don't know if it's twisting the argument, just different view points, seeing the topic from different starting points.

Well don't worry about what was in bold, I stopped reading when I realised I didn't write it and I didn't comment on it.

Yes, there are parts of marriage that are limited. The only one I can see that has any relevance is monogamy.
Age of consent could be moved around a bit, however based on human rights where children have limited rights and limited responsibilities this age of consent is perfectly legitimate. Though I'd say it should be pretty similar to other such things where age of consent exists.
You don't see many people talking about unfair discrimination based on alcohol limits, unless of course it's based on the over 18s, compared with say, European countries.

As far as I can make out, your argument is that because differentiation exists within marriage, that it's okay in every case. In that case interracial marriage being made illegal shouldn't be a problem, should it?

I look at this argument from the human rights point of view. I don't see the need for differentiation, it doesn't hurt other people, except for incest which can lead to deformities in children, age because children don't have full responsibilities, and it has to be based on consent, and not have people being forced to be married.

It's basically about individuals being able to do what they choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Then I assume you're also an advocate for polygomous marriages, they don't hurt others, there's no reason to deny them being able to marry the people they love?

Not the OP.

This is the only way they can take an opposing view....by going off topic. It's a form of fail for them.

 

[Newby]

No shit....now we're not going to settle for less than marriage and the Far Right has no one to blame but themselves....

You were never going to 'settle' to begin with, who the hell do you think you're kidding here?



It was never about having the same legal rights as spouses, it's about normalizing gay relationships in society as a whole. Legalizing gay marriage is only one aspect of that, altho a very large one.



You won't settle for anything other than everyone telling you that being gay is as normal as being straight, and making sure anyone who vocalizes anything different is punished by society. The very same thing that was done to gays for years, but hey, as long as it's not you and your kind that are persecuted any longer, and you're now doing the persecuting, then that's just fine. That's what I have a problem with, I could give a shit less what your sexual preference is, as I'm guessing 90% of the public could care less as well. It's the militant persecution of those that disagree with you that I have absolutely no respect for at all. It shows that you care nothing at all for freedom of expression, and that your 'cause' had nothing at all to do with you being able to be who are in public without ramifications. When you agree that anyone can 'be who they are', even if who they are doesn't approve of gay relationships, without social persecution and riducule, then your whole 'cause' is just one big lie.

Name the state where gays said no to civil unions...19 said no to the gays.

That point is irrelvant to what I posted.

When you agree that anyone can 'be who they are', even if who they are doesn't approve of gay relationships, without social persecution and riducule, then your whole 'cause' is just one big lie.

 

[Newby]

I don't know if it's twisting the argument, just different view points, seeing the topic from different starting points.

Well don't worry about what was in bold, I stopped reading when I realised I didn't write it and I didn't comment on it.

Yes, there are parts of marriage that are limited. The only one I can see that has any relevance is monogamy.
Age of consent could be moved around a bit, however based on human rights where children have limited rights and limited responsibilities this age of consent is perfectly legitimate. Though I'd say it should be pretty similar to other such things where age of consent exists.
You don't see many people talking about unfair discrimination based on alcohol limits, unless of course it's based on the over 18s, compared with say, European countries.

As far as I can make out, your argument is that because differentiation exists within marriage, that it's okay in every case. In that case interracial marriage being made illegal shouldn't be a problem, should it?

I look at this argument from the human rights point of view. I don't see the need for differentiation, it doesn't hurt other people, except for incest which can lead to deformities in children, age because children don't have full responsibilities, and it has to be based on consent, and not have people being forced to be married.

It's basically about individuals being able to do what they choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Then I assume you're also an advocate for polygomous marriages, they don't hurt others, there's no reason to deny them being able to marry the people they love?

Not the OP.

Then she's a hypocrit, legal adults should be able to marry whomever they love, even if it's more than one person. They're not hurting anyone.

 

[bodecea]

Then I assume you're also an advocate for polygomous marriages, they don't hurt others, there's no reason to deny them being able to marry the people they love?

Not the OP.

Then she's a hypocrit, legal adults should be able to marry whomever they love, even if it's more than one person. They're not hurting anyone.

Where's the already-in-place government set up for marriages of more than two individuals?