Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[bodecea]

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

mostly, ..some produced children.....

anyway...bodecea seems to think its ok to put the same pressure on singles

Some did produce children. That doesn't mean the couple wasn't unhappy. In many cases broken homes were the result. Imagine discovering your spouse wasn't physically attracted to you, but was playing a role.

I personally know of three cases like that. All three the husband was the one living a straight-live lie as long as he can. These lies seem to accumulate until the mid-40s to 50s and by then, it can really destroy a family....kids in particular. A prime example of what happens when one isn't true to oneself.

 

[Seawytch]

Wouldn't of been an issue until a bunch of obsessive compulsives brought it back to life. Even celebrating it.

You should probably look up obsessive compulsion. I don't think you know what it means.



It's still not an issue. Um...Big Love only went off the air a couple of years ago. What, it didn't have gay sex in it so you didn't pay attention?



If it works for them, great...why not celebrate it? There is no legal framework currently to support Civil Marriage for more than two people. If they think they can get that changed, I wish them the best because it does not have any effect on my own marriage and relationship.

Oh, I did look it up. Yep, y'all fit it quite well.

Looked what up? What fits who? Are you intoxicated or are you having a brain related event? Should we contact someone?

 

[rdean]

If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing.

So your marriage means nothing. Got it.

It must have been pretty fragile to begin with.

 

[Geaux4it]

Oh as I have said. I don't care if a guy wants to have sex with a chicken or a woman with a donkey. Now, once the public marriage results in benefits then I have a frigging problem

-Geaux

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Ah...so we are back to that are we? You know that the state of Virginia tried that same argument in Loving v. Virginia and the Supreme Court Justices laughed out loud.

well then should laugh out loud at your discrimination against single people.......

dcraelin is doing the very best that can be done for his side and it is so pathetic. Step along, little man.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Actually quite a few things.

The first is the matter of CHOICE. An individual should be able to choose the consenting adult of their choice, as long as it doesn't involve incest (it potentially causes harm to children produced).

The second choice is fraud. Yep, if you marry someone you don't want to marry, and you do so for tax purposes, or for any other money situation where you seek to gain, you are committing fraud.

 

[frigidweirdo]

WE WILL ANSWER TO GOD on njudgment day not little man.

And how will someone who bullies other people because of who they have sex with fair?

You know, if there is a God, he invented sex. Woo.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you are for polygamy, incest and minors marrying?

 

[Freewill]

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

Actually quite a few things.

The first is the matter of CHOICE. An individual should be able to choose the consenting adult of their choice, as long as it doesn't involve incest (it potentially causes harm to children produced).

Really? What is, or was, the purpose of marriage?
In my opinion the primary reason was to protect the woman. In more ancient times it was more or less a piece of paper showing ownership but even then divorce was not usually just granted. Never the less not needed in a gay marriage.

The second choice is fraud. Yep, if you marry someone you don't want to marry, and you do so for tax purposes, or for any other money situation where you seek to gain, you are committing fraud.

Who are you or I to say why two people get married? Obviously it used to be for one reason procreation and protection of the woman. That is why showing the ability to have children or consummate the marriage was in some laws. Now obviously that is no longer a factor thus who is to say why two people get married. In my opinion gay marriage is for no other reason then to seek gain. Two people can love and live together and do most things without marriage. The only reason to seek marriage without protecting the woman is for financial gain. Which brings up some interesting questions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Actually quite a few things.

The first is the matter of CHOICE. An individual should be able to choose the consenting adult of their choice, as long as it doesn't involve incest (it potentially causes harm to children produced).

Really? What is, or was, the purpose of marriage?
In my opinion the primary reason was to protect the woman. In more ancient times it was more or less a piece of paper showing ownership but even then divorce was not usually just granted. Never the less not needed in a gay marriage.

The second choice is fraud. Yep, if you marry someone you don't want to marry, and you do so for tax purposes, or for any other money situation where you seek to gain, you are committing fraud.

Who are you or I to say why two people get married? Obviously it used to be for one reason procreation and protection of the woman. That is why showing the ability to have children or consummate the marriage was in some laws. Now obviously that is no longer a factor thus who is to say why two people get married. In my opinion gay marriage is for no other reason then to seek gain. Two people can love and live together and do most things without marriage. The only reason to seek marriage without protecting the woman is for financial gain. Which brings up some interesting questions.

Wait, the bold is what you said, right? I'm confused about this here.

Gay marriage is just for gain, then so is straight marriage. So what? Let people have their gain if they want to. I'm not especially fond of laws that provide tax breaks and things like that to the married, but while they are there, all people should be able to get a hold of them without having to sell their soul.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Actually quite a few things.

The first is the matter of CHOICE. An individual should be able to choose the consenting adult of their choice, as long as it doesn't involve incest (it potentially causes harm to children produced).

Really? What is, or was, the purpose of marriage?
In my opinion the primary reason was to protect the woman. In more ancient times it was more or less a piece of paper showing ownership but even then divorce was not usually just granted. Never the less not needed in a gay marriage.

The second choice is fraud. Yep, if you marry someone you don't want to marry, and you do so for tax purposes, or for any other money situation where you seek to gain, you are committing fraud.

Who are you or I to say why two people get married? Obviously it used to be for one reason procreation and protection of the woman. That is why showing the ability to have children or consummate the marriage was in some laws. Now obviously that is no longer a factor thus who is to say why two people get married. In my opinion gay marriage is for no other reason then to seek gain. Two people can love and live together and do most things without marriage. The only reason to seek marriage without protecting the woman is for financial gain. Which brings up some interesting questions.

What laws were the ability to procreate written into. Please site them. Are you aware that NOT procreating is actually written into some US marriage laws now? Do you realize that renders your argument ridiculous?

Your opinion is that marriage is only for gain, not gay marriage since there is no such thing, there is only marriage. Do all your straight friends know how you feel about their marriages, that they are just doing it for the cash and prizes?

What "interesting questions" does equality bring up for you? List some of them.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The gay couple across the street are very snappy dressers, so yeah, that has raised standards for the rest of us in the neighborhood and that does piss me off a bit.

So there's that.

.

 

[bodecea]

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

Actually quite a few things.

The first is the matter of CHOICE. An individual should be able to choose the consenting adult of their choice, as long as it doesn't involve incest (it potentially causes harm to children produced).

Really? What is, or was, the purpose of marriage?
In my opinion the primary reason was to protect the woman. In more ancient times it was more or less a piece of paper showing ownership but even then divorce was not usually just granted. Never the less not needed in a gay marriage.

The second choice is fraud. Yep, if you marry someone you don't want to marry, and you do so for tax purposes, or for any other money situation where you seek to gain, you are committing fraud.

Who are you or I to say why two people get married? Obviously it used to be for one reason procreation and protection of the woman. That is why showing the ability to have children or consummate the marriage was in some laws. Now obviously that is no longer a factor thus who is to say why two people get married. In my opinion gay marriage is for no other reason then to seek gain. Two people can love and live together and do most things without marriage. The only reason to seek marriage without protecting the woman is for financial gain. Which brings up some interesting questions.

In my opinion straight marriage is for no other reason then [sic] to seek gain.

 

[dcraelin]

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

Actually quite a few things.
The first is the matter of CHOICE. An individual should be able to choose the consenting adult of their choice, as long as it doesn't involve incest (it potentially causes harm to children produced).
The second choice is fraud. Yep, if you marry someone you don't want to marry, and you do so for tax purposes, or for any other money situation where you seek to gain, you are committing fraud.

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.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Actually quite a few things.
The first is the matter of CHOICE. An individual should be able to choose the consenting adult of their choice, as long as it doesn't involve incest (it potentially causes harm to children produced).
The second choice is fraud. Yep, if you marry someone you don't want to marry, and you do so for tax purposes, or for any other money situation where you seek to gain, you are committing fraud.

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.

You feel that marriage discriminates against singles. That's a perfectly valid view...however, it has nothing to do with marriage equality. Right now, singles are treated the same gay, straight, black, white, Jewish, Christian, etc. Married people are not in some states.

A thread on how unfair taxes are to singles would be a great place for you to debate such things, but it has nothing to do with the current topic.

 

[dcraelin]

Actually quite a few things.
The first is the matter of CHOICE. An individual should be able to choose the consenting adult of their choice, as long as it doesn't involve incest (it potentially causes harm to children produced).
The second choice is fraud. Yep, if you marry someone you don't want to marry, and you do so for tax purposes, or for any other money situation where you seek to gain, you are committing fraud.

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.

You feel that marriage discriminates against singles. That's a perfectly valid view...however, it has nothing to do with marriage equality. Right now, singles are treated the same gay, straight, black, white, Jewish, Christian, etc. Married people are not in some states.

A thread on how unfair taxes are to singles would be a great place for you to debate such things, but it has nothing to do with the current topic.

no it does have to do with this topic, because that is how the pro-gay marriage advocates approach the topic.....from an expansive reading of Equality under the law.....their reading inevitably brings in such an argument....

If you follow their logic.....that gays are missing out on the material benefits of marriage....some 167 laws I think I saw one celebrity say(do gay advocates even want all these laws to apply?) ......Then this gets thrown in. Then the judges have to consider equality under all these laws........

singles also miss out on the tax benefits of marriage.....

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You feel that marriage discriminates against singles. That's a perfectly valid view...however, it has nothing to do with marriage equality. Right now, singles are treated the same gay, straight, black, white, Jewish, Christian, etc. Married people are not in some states.

A thread on how unfair taxes are to singles would be a great place for you to debate such things, but it has nothing to do with the current topic.

no it does have to do with this topic, because that is how the pro-gay marriage advocates approach the topic.....from an expansive reading of Equality under the law.....their reading inevitably brings in such an argument....

If you follow their logic.....that gays are missing out on the material benefits of marriage....some 167 laws I think I saw one celebrity say(do gay advocates even want all these laws to apply?) ......Then this gets thrown in. Then the judges have to consider equality under all these laws........

singles also miss out on the tax benefits of marriage.....

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

 

[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.

You feel that marriage discriminates against singles. That's a perfectly valid view...however, it has nothing to do with marriage equality. Right now, singles are treated the same gay, straight, black, white, Jewish, Christian, etc. Married people are not in some states.

A thread on how unfair taxes are to singles would be a great place for you to debate such things, but it has nothing to do with the current topic.

no it does have to do with this topic, because that is how the pro-gay marriage advocates approach the topic.....from an expansive reading of Equality under the law.....their reading inevitably brings in such an argument....

If you follow their logic.....that gays are missing out on the material benefits of marriage....some 167 laws I think I saw one celebrity say(do gay advocates even want all these laws to apply?) ......Then this gets thrown in. Then the judges have to consider equality under all these laws........

singles also miss out on the tax benefits of marriage.....

So...what is stopping singles from getting married to gain those benefits? The government?

 

[dcraelin]

You feel that marriage discriminates against singles. That's a perfectly valid view...however, it has nothing to do with marriage equality. Right now, singles are treated the same gay, straight, black, white, Jewish, Christian, etc. Married people are not in some states.

A thread on how unfair taxes are to singles would be a great place for you to debate such things, but it has nothing to do with the current topic.

no it does have to do with this topic, because that is how the pro-gay marriage advocates approach the topic.....from an expansive reading of Equality under the law.....their reading inevitably brings in such an argument....

If you follow their logic.....that gays are missing out on the material benefits of marriage....some 167 laws I think I saw one celebrity say(do gay advocates even want all these laws to apply?) ......Then this gets thrown in. Then the judges have to consider equality under all these laws........

singles also miss out on the tax benefits of marriage.....

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

The only reason you are denied access is the same reason singles are denied access..........that you dont want to marry someone you dont love....and neither does a single person..........that makes it relevant

The other examples you noted dont have to do with marriage law.

 

[Seawytch]

no it does have to do with this topic, because that is how the pro-gay marriage advocates approach the topic.....from an expansive reading of Equality under the law.....their reading inevitably brings in such an argument....

If you follow their logic.....that gays are missing out on the material benefits of marriage....some 167 laws I think I saw one celebrity say(do gay advocates even want all these laws to apply?) ......Then this gets thrown in. Then the judges have to consider equality under all these laws........

singles also miss out on the tax benefits of marriage.....

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

The only reason you are denied access is the same reason singles are denied access..........that you dont want to marry someone you dont love....and neither does a single person..........that makes it relevant

The other examples you noted dont have to do with marriage law.

Neither does the tax rate for singles. It has nothing to do with marriage equality. All singles are treated equally, all married people are not.