Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[GreenBean]

The OP doesn't even have to be as narrow as "how does this affect you personally". Most don't say that our marriage will harm theirs, they believe that marriage itself is in terrible danger! Danger of what, exactly?

You are right - it's a rarity but you are actually right about something ! Marriage itself is in terrible danger - so what's your hypotesis on the cause for the encroaching societal decay and dissolution of the family unit - There are many sociological variables and theories - many center around feminism and homosexuality - Does the mighty SeaHag have an opinion on the topic ?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

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.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in my state, and that first happy couple were united in love, and a crowd witnessed their union and cheered...
At that moment I was turned into a zombie, and let me tell ya... that really takes a bite out of a marriage.

amiright? Zombies? amiright?
*rimshot*

(Before I get in any trouble, this is a fiction thread, yes? I mean, I conclude this is a thread on fiction from the question asked.)

 

[frigidweirdo]

I happen to be pro gay marriage but I am also anti-straw man. I haven't heard anybody say that gay marriage would hurt straight marriages. I have heard people say that gay marriage would hurt society as a whole. There are usually several reasons for this argument. One argument against gay marriage is based on a religious belief. The second argument is a secular observation based on societal underpinnings derived from thousands of years of experimentation and practice.

Then again, those people who claim it will hurt society are more than likely individualists who want to stop many things that would benefit society. Such as more healthcare in the hands of the govt, banning guns, perhaps legalizing marijuana and other topics which the right generally oppose based on an individual view point.

One reason might be marriage. The problem is that marriage is connected with govt benefits and also govt licensing, which is where that reason falls apart.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in my state, and that first happy couple were united in love, and a crowd witnessed their union and cheered...
At that moment I was turned into a zombie, and let me tell ya... that really takes a bite out of a marriage.

amiright? Zombies? amiright?
*rimshot*

(Before I get in any trouble, this is a fiction thread, yes? I mean, I conclude this is a thread on fiction from the question asked.)

Oh, it's all about zombies you [insert adj swear word] [insert insult] [insert another insult] [insert an insult based on sexuality] [insert swearword based on gender] [insert swearword based on race] [insert swearword maintaining you're a scientologist] [insert insult claiming you're Canadian].

 

[jillian]

I happen to be pro gay marriage but I am also anti-straw man. I haven't heard anybody say that gay marriage would hurt straight marriages. I have heard people say that gay marriage would hurt society as a whole. There are usually several reasons for this argument. One argument against gay marriage is based on a religious belief. The second argument is a secular observation based on societal underpinnings derived from thousands of years of experimentation and practice.

Then again, those people who claim it will hurt society are more than likely individualists who want to stop many things that would benefit society. Such as more healthcare in the hands of the govt, banning guns, perhaps legalizing marijuana and other topics which the right generally oppose based on an individual view point.

One reason might be marriage. The problem is that marriage is connected with govt benefits and also govt licensing, which is where that reason falls apart.

not just licensing and benefits....but property ownership, inheritance rights, etc.

you can call them "individualists", but they are really only for individualism when it doesn't interfere with their desire to turn us into a theocracy.

 

[Newby]

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.

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

Tell that to the Miami football player that was fined because of speech, and also excoriated in the liberal press across the country. That's called 'forcing your morals' on others through punishment and force, no different than the fundie Christians of decades ago that made it socially unacceptable to be openly gay.

 

[Newby]

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.

You can not approve all you want...if you say it out loud you get disapproval of your openly stated disapproval. Free speech works both ways.

There you go, pushing words on me that I never said, it's all you know how to do, lie. I never said I didn't approve, but you know that already. I know, I know, your 'you' wasn't talking about me, right?

The bottom line is that you are persecuting someone for how they feel, how they act, or what they say, which is exactly what was done to gays. It's your morals that are 'right' and everyone is going to follow them or pay the price. You are no different than the fundie Christians.

 

[Newby]

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.

There didn't have to be. Marriage is for two people. They don't have to be the same race or a different gender anymore but they still have to be only two. Good luck with your polygamy battle though.

Why is marriage only for two? What if three people all love each other and want to have equal acceptance under the law for their relationship? You guys are a bunch of f'in hypocrits.

 

[jillian]

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.

Tell that to the Miami football player that was fined because of speech, and also excoriated in the liberal press across the country. That's called 'forcing your morals' on others through punishment and force, no different than the fundie Christians of decades ago that made it socially unacceptable to be openly gay.

you mean no one is defending his bigotry? that offends you?

oh well.....

 

[Newby]

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.

Yes you do, you're all in favor of people being punished for not feeling that your relationship is normal, or not seeing it in the light you feel they should see it. That's all you've argued the entire way thru this thread.

 

[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.

Tell that to the Miami football player that was fined because of speech, and also excoriated in the liberal press across the country. That's called 'forcing your morals' on others through punishment and force, no different than the fundie Christians of decades ago that made it socially unacceptable to be openly gay.

The Miami football players fine and suspension had nothing to do with anyone's civil marriage. Sheesh, I thought you guys were reaching before.

 

[jillian]

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.

Yes you do, you're all in favor of people being punished for not feeling that your relationship is normal, or not seeing it in the light you feel they should see it. That's all you've argued the entire way thru this thread.

your intolerance stops in your home. you need to get over that.

 

[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.

Yes you do, you're all in favor of people being punished for not feeling that your relationship is normal, or not seeing it in the light you feel they should see it. That's all you've argued the entire way thru this thread.

Nope. They can "feel" all they want to. If they say something in the public sphere, however, they do have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Racists can't be as openly racists as they used to be. It doesn't make me sad.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

There didn't have to be. Marriage is for two people. They don't have to be the same race or a different gender anymore but they still have to be only two. Good luck with your polygamy battle though.

Why is marriage only for two? What if three people all love each other and want to have equal acceptance under the law for their relationship? You guys are a bunch of f'in hypocrits.

Because that's what the current law stipulates. If you want to change it, I wish you the best of luck. Let me know where I can send my donations. Julie Andrews is still single.

 

[Newby]

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.

I see...so because they are losing in their battle to deny me equal rights, I should "forgive them their trespasses"? Maybe if I were more Christlike I could do that...Oh well.

Wanting to deny equal rights isn't simply a "point of view", it's action against a group of people based on animus towards them. I think freedom loving Americans would have an obligation to be intolerant and speak out against that.

Silence isn't going to end racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

Did you miss this? "ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point." Be tolerant that they hold a differing pov and live your life.

There will always be those who hold a differing pov on these things. Isn't it wrong to force acceptance of your pov onto someone else?

As she's demonstrated throughout this thread, it's not about legalization of ssm, it's about silencing anyone that disagrees with ssm or doesn't feel it is normal. It will get legalized in all 50 states, and they will still continue to institute social pressures to silence those that don't agree with it, I guarantee it. It's absolutely about forcing acceptance of it as normal.

 

[Seawytch]

I see...so because they are losing in their battle to deny me equal rights, I should "forgive them their trespasses"? Maybe if I were more Christlike I could do that...Oh well.

Wanting to deny equal rights isn't simply a "point of view", it's action against a group of people based on animus towards them. I think freedom loving Americans would have an obligation to be intolerant and speak out against that.

Silence isn't going to end racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

Did you miss this? "ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point." Be tolerant that they hold a differing pov and live your life.

There will always be those who hold a differing pov on these things. Isn't it wrong to force acceptance of your pov onto someone else?

As she's demonstrated throughout this thread, it's not about legalization of ssm, it's about silencing anyone that disagrees with ssm or doesn't feel it is normal. It will get legalized in all 50 states, and they will still continue to institute social pressures to silence those that don't agree with it, I guarantee it. It's absolutely about forcing acceptance of it as normal.

Yes, it is about marriage equality. That is all it is about. You don't have to accept anything. You can say how disgusted you are by gays all you want to. When you say it in public or give public donations to anti gay campaigns, you will suffer the consequences of it just like someone who donates to a racist organization or says racist things in public. I'm not at all sorry that I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[Seawytch]

Waaaa....I can't be racist or homophobic in public anymore without people thinking I'm an asshole that they don't want representing their organization. Waaaaaaa

 

[Newby]

I see...so because they are losing in their battle to deny me equal rights, I should "forgive them their trespasses"? Maybe if I were more Christlike I could do that...Oh well.

Wanting to deny equal rights isn't simply a "point of view", it's action against a group of people based on animus towards them. I think freedom loving Americans would have an obligation to be intolerant and speak out against that.

Silence isn't going to end racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

Did you miss this? "ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point." Be tolerant that they hold a differing pov and live your life.

There will always be those who hold a differing pov on these things. Isn't it wrong to force acceptance of your pov onto someone else?

Nobody is forcing acceptance, that's the point. Public disapproval of behavior that is no longer found socially acceptable isn't "forcing". You are still free to be a bigoted asshole in public...just don't expect people to want to associate with you.

You are hilarious.... so it would have been okay to continue public disapproval of gay lifestyles and gay sex and keep it socially unacceptable, which is the way it's been up until the last 10 to 20 years? So you were still free to be 'gay' in public, just don't expect people to want to associate with you?

Can you possibly be any more of a hypocrit??

As I said, using social pressure to force acceptance, as long as you agree with it is okay, when you don't agree with it, then everyone else is just being 'intolerant' and a 'bigot'. You are no different than those you disagree with, no different at all.

 

[Seawytch]

Did you miss this? "ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point." Be tolerant that they hold a differing pov and live your life.

There will always be those who hold a differing pov on these things. Isn't it wrong to force acceptance of your pov onto someone else?

Nobody is forcing acceptance, that's the point. Public disapproval of behavior that is no longer found socially acceptable isn't "forcing". You are still free to be a bigoted asshole in public...just don't expect people to want to associate with you.

You are hilarious.... so it would have been okay to continue public disapproval of gay lifestyles and gay sex and keep it socially unacceptable, which is the way it's been up until the last 10 to 20 years? So you were still free to be 'gay' in public, just don't expect people to want to associate with you?

Your attempts at associating open bigotry with simply openly living my life is pathetic at best.

It used to be socially acceptable to own people. It used to be socially acceptable to be openly racist and openly misogynist. Are you glad it isn't anymore or would you rather those things were still socially and publicly acceptable?

Can you possibly be any more of a hypocrit??

As I said, using social pressure to force acceptance, as long as you agree with it is okay, when you don't agree with it, then everyone else is just being 'intolerant' and a 'bigot'. You are no different than those you disagree with, no different at all.

You can disagree all you want to. When you say it out loud, other people get to openly disagree with you...and sometimes they do it with their pocketbooks.

 

[Newby]

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

Yes you do, you're all in favor of people being punished for not feeling that your relationship is normal, or not seeing it in the light you feel they should see it. That's all you've argued the entire way thru this thread.

Nope. They can "feel" all they want to. If they say something in the public sphere, however, they do have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Racists can't be as openly racists as they used to be. It doesn't make me sad.

Keep saying it, you just prove post after post how you want your morals forced on others, while bitching about a group you don't agree with doing the exact same thing.

And try as you might, the reality is that there is no simlarity between not accepting that a gay relationship is 'normal' and racism.

Here's the difference, people who are racist dislike someone just because they have a different skin color than their own, which isn't rational. People who oppose ssm do not hate you because you are attracted to someone of the same sex, they don't hate you at all, they simply don't believe that a ssm is 'normal'. It's a rational and normal reaction given that marriage has been what it's been for thousands of years. It's also a normal and rational and biological reaction for a heterosexual person to see sex between two males or two females as repulsive since they are not wired that way.

Discrimination and hate of someone because of something they don't control, i.e. their skin color or their sexual preference, is wrong. You seem to take that further to include ssm, when opposition to ssm has nothing to do with discrimination.