Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[martybegan]

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

So if given an identical contract that wasn't called marriage you would be happy with that?

 

[bodecea]

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

So if given an identical contract that wasn't called marriage you would be happy with that?

Sure...but 19 states rejected even that. Now it's too late.

 

[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

So if given an identical contract that wasn't called marriage you would be happy with that?

Only if applied to ALL married couples.

 

[martybegan]

Marrying whether gay or straight isn't different either.

yes, it is. Just because you think it isn't different doesn't make it so.

That's what I've been telling you -

Just because you don't like equality doesn't mean it should be the law of the land.

Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

What i don't like is people mucking around with the constitution to get what they want.

Use the proper channels, stop relying on judges who think the constitution is merely advisory.

 

[martybegan]

Next you will opine that there's no such thing as hate crimes, gay bashing and gay murder.

You live in your own little world of fiction and hate.

Being opposed to gay marriage does not equal a hate crime, gay bashing or murder.

The fact you have to resort to that equivalency shows you 1) lack of moral turpitude, and 2) your inability to argue from reason, instead resorting to name calling and "i want it just because i want it" line of "reasoning"

That's not what she wrote.
bodecea

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

martybegan

Bullshit.

etc

Its exactly what she is implying, and you know it. its a dumb statement, just as dumb as the cartoon posted by candydumbass.

 

[martybegan]

Being opposed to gay marriage does not equal a hate crime, gay bashing or murder.

The fact you have to resort to that equivalency shows you 1) lack of moral turpitude, and 2) your inability to argue from reason, instead resorting to name calling and "i want it just because i want it" line of "reasoning"

That's not what she wrote.
bodecea

martybegan

Bullshit.

etc

Reading comprehension seems to be an achilles heel for some on the Right.

My reading comprehension is fine. You just don't like being called out when you make a bullshit statement.

 

[Seawytch]

yes, it is. Just because you think it isn't different doesn't make it so.

That's what I've been telling you -



Just because you don't like equality doesn't mean it should be the law of the land.



Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

What i don't like is people mucking around with the constitution to get what they want.



Use the proper channels, stop relying on judges who think the constitution is merely advisory.

Funny, what I don't like are laws based on animus directed at a minority. I'm just glad the framers put in a system whereby I can redress my grievances.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The only thought police here are the progressive statists. Only you assholes want to ruin people for disagreeing with you.

Yeah, its the left who is peeking in windows, taking away rights and trashing the Constitution.

From the beginning of time, it has always been the conservatives who are terrified of change. I can just hear you bozos whining about short hair in revolutionary times and long hair in the 60s.

Social conservatives only want to control your bedroom, Progressive statists want the rest of the house, the outside, your job, everything else.

And I'm not a social conservative, so that dog doesn't hunt.

 

[bodecea]

That's not what she wrote.
bodecea

martybegan

etc

Reading comprehension seems to be an achilles heel for some on the Right.

My reading comprehension is fine. You just don't like being called out when you make a bullshit statement.

Nope...sorry....but feel free to continue with your whine-fest.

 

[bodecea]

yes, it is. Just because you think it isn't different doesn't make it so.

That's what I've been telling you -

Just because you don't like equality doesn't mean it should be the law of the land.

Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

What i don't like is people mucking around with the constitution to get what they want.

Use the proper channels, stop relying on judges who think the constitution is merely advisory.

If you had actually read the Constitution, its amendments and case law...YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN that using the courts IS the Proper Channel.

 

[martybegan]

This is the difference between bod and other people. She answered the question that it doesn't affect her..you can rightwinger don't like to answer the gay marriage issue because it shows them to be wrong.

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?

Okay. License and register each one and make it public record like civil marriage, and I'm okay with it.

What purpose is registration for? You need a license number for your marriage to make sure it is available for governmental transactions requiring it. Your gun doesn't need that.

Again, it should be like getting a driver's license. I get a card and i can buy/use any gun I want. If I keep it on my own property the government doesn't need any more info. If I want to CCW I need a permit.

Oh, and unless I am a felon or adjudicated as mentally unfit, the government can't deny me either document.

 

[Seawytch]

That's what I've been telling you -

Just because you don't like equality doesn't mean it should be the law of the land.

Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

What i don't like is people mucking around with the constitution to get what they want.

Use the proper channels, stop relying on judges who think the constitution is merely advisory.

If you had actually read the Constitution, its amendments and case law...YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN that using the courts IS the Proper Channel.

18 rulings since Windsor...all in favor of marriage equality.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see this PRO gay thread is still in politics why my ANTI gay thread has been tossed out.

Which is why I created my thread. This just proves my point that the agenda can't be avoided. It's infested everything

 

[Pop23]

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

So if given an identical contract that wasn't called marriage you would be happy with that?

Only if applied to ALL married couples.

All or nothing huh?

All children come from male/female coupling

None from same sex (fact is, it's impossible)

How's that for an all or nothing equation?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I don't know if it's twisting the argument, just different view points, seeing the topic from different starting points.

Well don't worry about what was in bold, I stopped reading when I realised I didn't write it and I didn't comment on it.

Yes, there are parts of marriage that are limited. The only one I can see that has any relevance is monogamy.
Age of consent could be moved around a bit, however based on human rights where children have limited rights and limited responsibilities this age of consent is perfectly legitimate. Though I'd say it should be pretty similar to other such things where age of consent exists.
You don't see many people talking about unfair discrimination based on alcohol limits, unless of course it's based on the over 18s, compared with say, European countries.

As far as I can make out, your argument is that because differentiation exists within marriage, that it's okay in every case. In that case interracial marriage being made illegal shouldn't be a problem, should it?

I look at this argument from the human rights point of view. I don't see the need for differentiation, it doesn't hurt other people, except for incest which can lead to deformities in children, age because children don't have full responsibilities, and it has to be based on consent, and not have people being forced to be married.

It's basically about individuals being able to do what they choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.....

I think you're getting a little confused.

People should be free to make the choice to go for tax breaks and so on. I don't particularly understand why the govt promotes marriage in this way, but it does. However based on choice, the choice is there for all straight people to marry another consenting adult of their choice, based on the assumption that straight people are going to marry someone of the opposite sex.
However gay people don't have this choice.

 

[bodecea]

I see this PRO gay thread is still in politics why my ANTI gay thread has been tossed out.

Which is why I created my thread. This just proves my point that the agenda can't be avoided. It's infested everything

So...you made your point that there were too many gay threads by.............making another gay thread?


Is that logic on your planet?

 

[Pop23]

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.....

I think you're getting a little confused.

People should be free to make the choice to go for tax breaks and so on. I don't particularly understand why the govt promotes marriage in this way, but it does. However based on choice, the choice is there for all straight people to marry another consenting adult of their choice, based on the assumption that straight people are going to marry someone of the opposite sex.
However gay people don't have this choice.

Yes they do and have.

 

[bodecea]

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.....

I think you're getting a little confused.

People should be free to make the choice to go for tax breaks and so on. I don't particularly understand why the govt promotes marriage in this way, but it does. However based on choice, the choice is there for all straight people to marry another consenting adult of their choice, based on the assumption that straight people are going to marry someone of the opposite sex.
However gay people don't have this choice.

Yes they do and have.

We do in many states now.

 

[Pop23]

I think you're getting a little confused.

People should be free to make the choice to go for tax breaks and so on. I don't particularly understand why the govt promotes marriage in this way, but it does. However based on choice, the choice is there for all straight people to marry another consenting adult of their choice, based on the assumption that straight people are going to marry someone of the opposite sex.
However gay people don't have this choice.

Yes they do and have.

We do in many states now.

Gays have married straights throughout history.