Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

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.

Proof?

Equality is indeed guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

Another really amazing work of fiction by our male/female/doctor/lawyer/portrait artist/dog bather.

 

[Freewill]

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?

Having the ability to drive is a requirement.

BTW, should brother and sister now have the "right" to marry?

 

[bodecea]

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?

Having the ability to drive is requirement.

Wait...are you saying that having the ability to have children is a requirement of marriage? What state has that as part of their legal marriage requirement? Name the state....and even better, link their marriage requirement law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Freewill's comment is simply pathetic, a denial of what his gang has said from the get go. Common knowledge, FW. You are just sucking sour lemons.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

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

Not just your opinion. All we have to do is read some of the posts here and of course, there are lots of gay bashings and even killings.

Never underestimate how frightened some are of their own sexuality.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

Having the ability to drive is a requirement.

BTW, should brother and sister now have the "right" to marry?

Stop trying to hide from the OP.

If you want to change the subject, start a new thread.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

 

[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 fag 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 ^

 

[bendog]

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.

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.

 

[bendog]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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 fag 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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.)

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

If they can, the right will gut the constitution.











And then blame Obama.




.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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

Bullshit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

Proof?

Equality is indeed guaranteed by the Constitution.

Under the law. It is not guaranteed in a bake shop or with a photographer. The GOVERNMENT has to treat you equally. Forcing private organisations and individuals to do it is a progressive statist invention.