Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[bodecea]

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

You keep mindlessly repeating that as if it had any meaning. There was no system in place for same genders marrying. In fact, the only variation to male/female marriages were polygamy. Historically and traditionally it has more merit.

Why would you deny a woman and two men or a man and two or more women? Your side is as inconsistent as it can be.

(1) false equivalency

(2) not in the OP

And after all of these posts, not ONE example of a hetero marriage being hurt by marriage equality.

But lots and lots and lots and lots of deflection.

 

[bodecea]

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.

My civil marriage has nothing to do with anyone's morals and has no effect on anyone. It forces nothing on you.

Yes it does if your "spouse" gets government benefits or insurance coverage. It costs people money. Yet, you will never provide more taxpayers or contributors to society. I would have rather see childless couples loose their benefits, it would make more sense.

As it stands now any special interest group can use the exact same tactics the militant homosexuals use and get the same benefits. I doubt marriage will remain a government condition or interest.

This is a winner too.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

My civil marriage has nothing to do with anyone's morals and has no effect on anyone. It forces nothing on you.

Yes it does if your "spouse" gets government benefits or insurance coverage. It costs people money. Yet, you will never provide more taxpayers or contributors to society. I would have rather see childless couples loose their benefits, it would make more sense.

As it stands now any special interest group can use the exact same tactics the militant homosexuals use and get the same benefits. I doubt marriage will remain a government condition or interest.

I have provided five ******* future taxpayers you dolt...not that procreation is a requirement for civil marriage anywhere, in any state in the United States...hell, in any 1st world country.

You can't have it both ways, fundies...you can't say "you have access to marriage, marry a dude" and then say "your marriage costs money because your spouse is covered by your benefits". Guess who'd she be covered by if we weren't married and covered under my employee provided spousal benefits and the military benefits I earned? You, the taxpayer would be picking up the cost of her medical bills. Hell, she'd be able to collect food stamps too because she's a stay at home parent. Jesus ******* christ on a raft, use your goddamn heads. It's that lump three feet ABOVE your ass in case you wondered which head I meant.

No other "interest" has anything to do with taxpaying American gays and lesbians having equal access to civil marriage for their consenting adult relationships.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

You keep mindlessly repeating that as if it had any meaning. There was no system in place for same genders marrying. In fact, the only variation to male/female marriages were polygamy. Historically and traditionally it has more merit.

Why would you deny a woman and two men or a man and two or more women? Your side is as inconsistent as it can be.

(1) false equivalency

(2) not in the OP

And after all of these posts, not ONE example of a hetero marriage being hurt by marriage equality.

In other words you can't address the points so you want to try to dismiss them. How stupid do you think people are. I gave an example of how it effects me personally and all taxpayers if same genders get spousal benefits. The OP is a sham of a strawman argument since the objection wasn't that it would hurt your individual marriage. You are dishonest.

 

[Iceweasel]

My civil marriage has nothing to do with anyone's morals and has no effect on anyone. It forces nothing on you.

Yes it does if your "spouse" gets government benefits or insurance coverage. It costs people money. Yet, you will never provide more taxpayers or contributors to society. I would have rather see childless couples loose their benefits, it would make more sense.

As it stands now any special interest group can use the exact same tactics the militant homosexuals use and get the same benefits. I doubt marriage will remain a government condition or interest.

I have provided five ******* future taxpayers you dolt...not that procreation is a requirement for civil marriage anywhere, in any state in the United States...hell, in any 1st world country.

But that's the preason marriage exists, dolt, in the first place. Otherwise it would never have come into being. Please tell us how a female got you pregnant.

You can't have it both ways, fundies...you can't say "you have access to marriage, marry a dude" and then say "your marriage costs money because your spouse is covered by your benefits". Guess who'd she be covered by if we weren't married and covered under my employee provided spousal benefits and the military benefits I earned? You, the taxpayer would be picking up the cost of her medical bills. Hell, she'd be able to collect food stamps too because she's a stay at home parent. Jesus ******* christ on a raft, use your goddamn heads. It's that lump three feet ABOVE your ass in case you wondered which head I meant.

No other "interest" has anything to do with taxpaying American gays and lesbians having equal access to civil marriage for their consenting adult relationships.

...which doesn't produce future taxpayers of contributors to society. The fundy is you.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Why can't you just accept the fact that some people believe that marriage is one man/one woman? Why can't you just be tolerant of that?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes it does if your "spouse" gets government benefits or insurance coverage. It costs people money. Yet, you will never provide more taxpayers or contributors to society. I would have rather see childless couples loose their benefits, it would make more sense.

As it stands now any special interest group can use the exact same tactics the militant homosexuals use and get the same benefits. I doubt marriage will remain a government condition or interest.

I have provided five ******* future taxpayers you dolt...not that procreation is a requirement for civil marriage anywhere, in any state in the United States...hell, in any 1st world country.

But that's the preason marriage exists, dolt, in the first place. Otherwise it would never have come into being. Please tell us how a female got you pregnant.

No, that isn't the reason marriage exists. God, how can you people be this uniformed with practically all the knowledge of the world at your fingertips? I blame hamster videos.

Property was the reason for civil marriage and why marriage ended up in the "gubmint" system. That's it, property.

How I got pregnant is immaterial...just like it is for the millions of infirtile straight couples across the United States. The two children of my partner and I and the three children of the gay men for whom I was a surrogate are the parents of these children, legally as well as emotionally.

Name the state where children are a requirement to obtain or retain a civil marriage license. Please don't be upset if I don't wait for the information. You won't find it.

You can't have it both ways, fundies...you can't say "you have access to marriage, marry a dude" and then say "your marriage costs money because your spouse is covered by your benefits". Guess who'd she be covered by if we weren't married and covered under my employee provided spousal benefits and the military benefits I earned? You, the taxpayer would be picking up the cost of her medical bills. Hell, she'd be able to collect food stamps too because she's a stay at home parent. Jesus ******* christ on a raft, use your goddamn heads. It's that lump three feet ABOVE your ass in case you wondered which head I meant.

No other "interest" has anything to do with taxpaying American gays and lesbians having equal access to civil marriage for their consenting adult relationships.

...which doesn't produce future taxpayers of contributors to society. The fundy is you.

I did. When are you going to demand that the marriage license be taken away from the millions and millions of childless married straight couples?

According to 2010 U.S. Census data, the number of childless people age 40 to 44 is close to 20 percent — compared with 10 percent in 1979.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Why can't you just accept the fact that some people believe that marriage is one man/one woman? Why can't you just be tolerant of that?

I am tolerant of that. I don't want to legislate my intolerance...they do.

 

[Seawytch]

My civil marriage has nothing to do with anyone's morals and has no effect on anyone. It forces nothing on you.

Yes it does if your "spouse" gets government benefits or insurance coverage. It costs people money. Yet, you will never provide more taxpayers or contributors to society. I would have rather see childless couples loose their benefits, it would make more sense.

As it stands now any special interest group can use the exact same tactics the militant homosexuals use and get the same benefits. I doubt marriage will remain a government condition or interest.

This is a winner too.

Yup...you found someone to admit to wanting to fill in the pool so the gay kids can't swim. I must say, well done, ma'am.

 

[jillian]

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.

Why can't you just accept the fact that some people believe that marriage is one man/one woman? Why can't you just be tolerant of that?

no one should be tolerant of others' intolerance. and even if we are in our personal lives, it isn't the place of the law to legitimate intolerance.

 

[GISMYS]

STRANGE!!! How the sick minded sexual perverts who try to deny GOD still want to post trying to defend their sick abomination.

 

[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.

Why can't you just accept the fact that some people believe that marriage is one man/one woman? Why can't you just be tolerant of that?

It's about forced domination, not equality. Once the marriage hurdle is jumped it will be another bizarre issue - such as lowering the age of consent , which is something the Gay Agenda has been hammerring at since the begginning.

Gay Marriage is just another step in the destruction of the nuclear family - the hurdles they've already crossed via their close cousin "feminnazism" is the belittling and destruction of masculinity - removing the father figure from the family scenario - which makes it's much easier to control the mother and child. This is one of the reasons Gays and Fedminazis have been at war with the Boy Scouts and youth organizations that promote father-son activities. This is also a reason they have hijacked the GirlScout National organization and inserted some pretty bizarre proaganda and indoctrination into what the girl scouts are force fed.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Why can't you just accept the fact that some people believe that marriage is one man/one woman? Why can't you just be tolerant of that?

I am tolerant of that. I don't want to legislate my intolerance...they do.

?? Which is it?

 

[Iceweasel]

I have provided five ******* future taxpayers you dolt...not that procreation is a requirement for civil marriage anywhere, in any state in the United States...hell, in any 1st world country.

But that's the preason marriage exists, dolt, in the first place. Otherwise it would never have come into being. Please tell us how a female got you pregnant.

No, that isn't the reason marriage exists. God, how can you people be this uniformed with practically all the knowledge of the world at your fingertips? I blame hamster videos.

Property was the reason for civil marriage and why marriage ended up in the "gubmint" system. That's it, property.

So that's why even communist countries have marriage? God oh my God how can people oh my God, disagree with me oh my God....blah blah blah. You're a joke.

How I got pregnant is immaterial...just like it is for the millions of infirtile straight couples across the United States.

Oh, it's very material. You don't generally marry the sperm donor. The fact is that nature is what it is, your laboratory pregnancies don't change the fact that it was male/female.

The two children of my partner and I and the three children of the gay men for whom I was a surrogate are the parents of these children, legally as well as emotionally.

Name the state where children are a requirement to obtain or retain a civil marriage license. Please don't be upset if I don't wait for the information. You won't find it.

Your state of mind, or lack thereof, is immaterial to me. Male/female relationships typically do provide offspring. It's called nature. But the main point is that there is a special relationship between males and females that civilization has always recognized. And they have done by government recognition, including polygamy. Your bizarre lifestyle doesn't alter history.

No other "interest" has anything to do with taxpaying American gays and lesbians having equal access to civil marriage for their consenting adult relationships.

Consent away but the union won't reproduce, that's the point.

According to 2010 U.S. Census data, the number of childless people age 40 to 44 is close to 20 percent — compared with 10 percent in 1979.

So let's eliminate public benefits instead of participating with the gay hoax of a marriage. It's just a phony imitation of the real thing and everyone knows it. That's why you assholes consistently lie and try to browbeat anyone that disagrees with the stupidity.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Why can't you just accept the fact that some people believe that marriage is one man/one woman? Why can't you just be tolerant of that?

no one should be tolerant of others' intolerance. and even if we are in our personal lives, it isn't the place of the law to legitimate intolerance.

O. I. C..

If someone believes that marriage is between one man/one woman, they are intolerant (never mind that their beliefs are likely religiously rooted, right?).

If someone believes that marriage is between m/m, w/w, m/w they are correct and therefore can blast anyone who believes just in m/w, they need not be tolerant of others beliefs.

Do I have that right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

STRANGE!!! How the sick minded sexual perverts who try to deny GOD still want to post trying to defend their sick abomination.

Nothing strange about people not being bigots, it might be strange to you and you feel you need to use words like "sick" and "abomination" in order to justify yourself.

Why don't you just tottle on back to your church and talk to those who will actually care about your bigotry?

 

[Seawytch]

Why can't you just accept the fact that some people believe that marriage is one man/one woman? Why can't you just be tolerant of that?

I am tolerant of that. I don't want to legislate my intolerance...they do.

?? Which is it?

My intolerance of people who wish to deny me equal rights is personal. I don't associate with them on anything beyond a professional level. I am intolerant of their intolerance. However, I do not wish to legislate my intolerance of them. They, on the other hand, do wish to legislate their intolerance.

 

[Crick]

You're the one that wishes to place restrictions on the institution. You are the one being intolerant. No one is stopping you from holding the opinion that only a man and a woman can wed and no one is going to force any church to sanction such unions. We are only demanding that the STATE license such unions and give them the same legal status that heterosexual marriages have always enjoyed.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I am tolerant of that. I don't want to legislate my intolerance...they do.

?? Which is it?

My intolerance of people who wish to deny me equal rights is personal. I don't associate with them on anything beyond a professional level. I am intolerant of their intolerance. However, I do not wish to legislate my intolerance of them. They, on the other hand, do wish to legislate their intolerance.

Well, ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point.

If it's ok for you to be intolerant of their intolerance then visa versa, no? Let's all be intolerant of the other guys pov if we don't agree with it.

While we're at it, let no one force their pov on anyone else.

 

[dcraelin]

This Thread is really zooming along. Since my last post Ive been quoted 15 times, instead of trying to answer all those....with what Ive probably said already.... let me introduce perhaps more to argue about.

The 14th amendment was never meant to address the issue of Gay marriage, I think that much is apparent to all.(tho some now think it can be more expansively read). But according to one book Ive read the Amendment was never correctly/legitimately ratified anyway. I believe it was the only amendment that failed to be ratified and then, under coercive threat to the southern states was given 'another chance'. The other amendments dealing with slavery did not have this problem I dont believe. This is from a book by John R. Graham called Free,Soveriegn and Independent States (I think that was the title)

Charles Beard, a famous historian, also had a theory that the amendment was also in part written to hand out favors to the railroad industry.

So the whole basis for the lawsuits may be based on an illegitimate amendment.

The 14th is an illegitimate amendment? Yeah...go with that.

Yeah, you know...it lets "those people" have rights...

Yes, Yes everybody that doesnt agree with you is a racist......
typical holier-than-thou BS from your side Seawytch

In the book the author says all the rights of former slaves are insured under the 13th and 15th amendments...that the 14th is basically superfluous............actually a small part, or supposedly intended, to address past Supreme Court screw ups in precedent, but the author says that could have been addressed in other ways, if I remember right. Does go to show tho that the federal Courts are always screwing up and certainly arent infallible. Corporate "person-hood", something somehow derived from the 14th is another example.