Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[bodecea]

But how did MY pistol affect you?

It didn't, but it could. That's the point that you refuse to acknowledge.

There is NO chance, zero that any gay marriage will impact you, or anyone else.

Did gay marriage impact Melissa's Sweetcakes? How about Photography by Elayne? I was sued by a lesbian couple for refusing to paint a wedding portrait. Did gay marriage impact me? Did gay marriage impact Marcia Walden who lost her job for referring a lesbian couple to a more competent counselor?

Were you sued because of legal marriage laws....or based on your state's equal access law?

 

[martybegan]

The courts would be wrong. They would be pandering to popular (or popular with the right people) opinion. They are not interpreting law as per the constitution, but making new law, which is the exclusive right of the legislative branch. If equal protection was absolute I should be able to abort a baby i created through impregnating someone, I should not be held liable to the draft when women are not, and i should be able to carry a firearm from one state to another without worrying about the laws changing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

There is a constitutional amendment protecting the right to bear arms specifically. Where in the constitution is the "right" to gay marry specifically provided for?

And when you go to the 14th Amendment, remember that "sex" is a noun and not a verb... Legally, that distinction makes all the difference in the world. Unless you're going to go for "religion". In which case you might have something...

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.

 

[martybegan]

Yes but again, the politics is not in your favor on this topic. You're making no political argument unless you think that less support is somehow better for your political aspirations.

What's next, the argument that gravity is a rumor?

Dumbfuck.

So basically you confirm my point.

No. You're not making an argument about the politics of it. Your argument is rooted in that you're grossed out by gay marriage.

Gravity you can prove an measure, drop a ball against a long enough vertical ruler and have a stop watch and you can calculate it. This thread is about opinion, not fact, something assholes like you can never seem to grasp.

No kidding. You have no facts, just your knee-jerk reaction to seeing two dudes kissing.

How is my politics rooted in being grossed out by it, when I have already stated that I have no issue if a legislature makes the contract open to gay couples? How can I be grossed out by it when I have stated that if put to a referendum, I would probably vote for it?

Is the "gays ur icky" line of argument the only one you have? Are you that much of hacky partisan moron?

 

[bodecea]

Do you have an example of a marriage ruined by legalized gay marriage?

Do you have an example of someone saying it ruined their marriage?

Freewill, there were plenty of people claiming that gay marriage WOULD ruin the institution of marriage. If you deny this you have either been sheltered or you are lying.

He's not willing to commit to saying he believes that no one ever said that gay marriage ruins marriage. He's a coward in this regard.

 

[bodecea]

ask the baker and the photographer who are being forced to go against their beliefs to keep their businesses about that.

And "could" is not enough to deny my Constitutional rights, of which owning a firearm is a right, and gay marriage is not, no matter what a bunch of un-elected lawyers says about it.

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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 say let them marry. Then they too can find out what it's like to argue over money, what type of towels should be used and ones that are decorative. Let them learn to squabble over who's turn it is to take the dogs for a walk or the kids to school/soccer practice. Let them learn about ailing parents or which family to visit on which holiday. Who's gonna take the car to the auto repair shop.....maybe their heads will explode as well.
Yes. Let them marry. Enjoy the REAL world.
I just wish they'd just shut the hell up about it already.

 

[bodecea]

Do you have an example of someone saying it ruined their marriage?

Freewill, there were plenty of people claiming that gay marriage WOULD ruin the institution of marriage. If you deny this you have either been sheltered or you are lying.

Post one where someone said it would ruin their marriage which is what was said in the OP. Or if you want it easier post someone saying that it would ruin marriage and their reasons for saying so.

AFTER you commit by saying you believe that no one ever has said that. Coward.

 

[bodecea]

There is a constitutional amendment protecting the right to bear arms specifically. Where in the constitution is the "right" to gay marry specifically provided for?

And when you go to the 14th Amendment, remember that "sex" is a noun and not a verb... Legally, that distinction makes all the difference in the world. Unless you're going to go for "religion". In which case you might have something...

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.

 

[Plasmaball]

Government actors don't count, because grabbers don't want to stop THEM from owning guns. I am saying if gay marriage is "OK" because it doesn't impact other marriages, shouldn't me owning a gun be "OK" because I don't impact anyone around me as well?

What...did you not understand the first time you asked this question...go and own as many guns as you like. I don't give a shit.

Government actors..what

Most gun control freaks are perfectly fine with cops keeping their guns, its the rest of us they want disarmed.

Neat! It won't happen but neat!

 

[thereisnospoon]

A lot of punting in this thread. ..because they have nothing left but personal attacks.

Some of us are just burned out on the subject. Some of you have beat this dead horse enough to kill it a dozen times over

So you agree that gay marriage has absolutely zero impact on anyone elses marriage then?

That's not the point.
Your side is removing the definition of marriage for your own convenience.
it's liberalism at its best. Remove all the rules until there is chaos.
Fine. While you're at it, how about losing the rules regarding political correctness.

 

[Freewill]

The courts would be wrong. They would be pandering to popular (or popular with the right people) opinion. They are not interpreting law as per the constitution, but making new law, which is the exclusive right of the legislative branch. If equal protection was absolute I should be able to abort a baby i created through impregnating someone, I should not be held liable to the draft when women are not, and i should be able to carry a firearm from one state to another without worrying about the laws changing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

There is a constitutional amendment protecting the right to bear arms specifically. Where in the constitution is the "right" to gay marry specifically provided for?

And when you go to the 14th Amendment, remember that "sex" is a noun and not a verb... Legally, that distinction makes all the difference in the world. Unless you're going to go for "religion". In which case you might have something...

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.

You are right they could not discriminate in such manner. No more so then they discriminate against a gay man marring a woman.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

By that yardstick neither is polygamy, incest or minor marriage. Where exactly would you draw the legal line and why?

 

[bodecea]

There is a constitutional amendment protecting the right to bear arms specifically. Where in the constitution is the "right" to gay marry specifically provided for?

And when you go to the 14th Amendment, remember that "sex" is a noun and not a verb... Legally, that distinction makes all the difference in the world. Unless you're going to go for "religion". In which case you might have something...

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.

You are right they could not discriminate in such manner. No more so then they discriminate against a gay man marring a woman.

EXACTLY! So it's a question of GENDER discrimination by the government....not gay discrimination.

Thank you for helping prove one of our points about this issue.

Now, if we could only get you the "man up" on stating clearly for all to see that 'you do not believe there are any posts/people saying that gay marriage would ruin marriage'.

 

[Pop23]

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.

How many boobs participate in a male/male marriage?

Lol, two, just like a traditional one!

True story

 

[bodecea]

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.

By that yardstick neither is polygamy, incest or minor marriage. Where exactly would you draw the legal line and why?

Incest varies by state...some states consider first cousins married as ok, others don't....and yet.....if first cousins marry in a state where it's legal and move to a state where it isn't....they are still recognized as married.

As for polygamy....are drivers' licenses allowed for MORE THAN ONE behind the wheel? I think not.

And as for minors....in many states, particularly in the RED South, minors are allowed to marry....are minors allowed to drive?

 

[Freewill]

In my opinion the reason gays want marriage instead of civil unions is that they want validation. Can't really blame them. But what is not understood is that the majority of American when asked vote no to gay marriage. Does, in a free society, matter why they voted no? So what if the people think that putting Gay marriage on the same level as the traditional definition of marriage diminishes the definition? Does that have a tangible effect on traditional marriage? No more so then the difference between civil unions and marriage as defined by law.

So gays could have everything they say they want with civil unions. So ask yourself, why would getting what you say you want not enough?

 

[bodecea]

In my opinion the reason gays want marriage instead of civil unions is that they want validation. Can't really blame them. But what is not understood is that the majority of American when asked vote no to gay marriage. Does, in a free society, matter why they voted no? So what if the people think that putting Gay marriage on the same level as the traditional definition of marriage diminishes the definition? Does that have a tangible effect on traditional marriage? No more so then the difference between civil unions and marriage as defined by law.

So gays could have everything they say they want with civil unions. So ask yourself, why would getting what you say you want not enough?

So....in your opinion....the reason straights want marriage instead of civil unions, it that they want validation.


BTW....shooting down the idea of civil unions was NOT gays' fault. It was the far Right...especially in the 19 states that either passes laws disallowing marriage AND civil unions, or the 1 state (Oregon) that had civil unions and the Far Right put up a Proposition to get rid of that because they didn't even accept the idea of civil unions.

(In other words, it's the Far Right's fault that we no longer are stopping with Civil Unions..... )

 

[Freewill]

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.

A gay couple can have babies? Really? If you believe there isn't a difference then I suggest a biology book. The marriage contract was intended to protect the family. In other words a man was not suppose to run out on his wife and if he did the marriage contract protected her. Marriage license used to protect the couple from marrying their sister or cousin. Now I do not see how that can be prevented by law.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[bodecea]

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.

A gay couple can have babies? Really? If you believe there isn't a difference then I suggest a biology book. The marriage contract was intended to protect the family. In other words a man was not suppose to run out on his wife and if he did the marriage contract protected her. Marriage license used to protect the couple from marrying their sister or cousin. Now I do not see how that can be prevented by law.

Just like having babies isn't a requirement to get a driver's license.....it is NOT a requirement for getting legally married either.


Oh...but many gay families have children. I know you don't want to see THOSE families protected, do you?