Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[Newby]

Then I assume you're also an advocate for polygomous marriages, they don't hurt others, there's no reason to deny them being able to marry the people they love?

Not the OP.

This is the only way they can take an opposing view....by going off topic. It's a form of fail for them.

But I'm not taking an opposing view, you don't seem to get that. I don't disagree with gay marriage, I disagree with the encouraged persecution of those that don't agree with your agenda. You claim persecution for years as a gay person, but then turn around and join in on it when it's those that don't agree with you that are now being persecuted.

If gay marriage is fine for the reasons you've advocated, then there is no reason to deny those who love multiple people from getting married as well.

 

[Bush92]

It is just another example of the erosion of cultural and ethical mores and values in our country. The Marxist left began this during the Cold War of the 1960's to undermine our nation and foment a communistic revolt, pitting the young against the old. No lifestyle was to be considered shocking. this is what we have today. Welfare state of whiners who's only question is, "What about my rights?" Does gay marriage ruin hetrosexual unions? It should not because it does not exist. Something that is unethical cannot be compared in the context of something that is. Same as if you tried to compare NAMBLA to heterosexual union.

 

[jillian]

Then I assume you're also an advocate for polygomous marriages, they don't hurt others, there's no reason to deny them being able to marry the people they love?

despite the rightwing inability to address one issue at a time, if we're talking consenting, adults who are not engaged in incestuous relationships, I don't think polygamy really should be anyone else's business. the problem is that in most polygamous situations, we're talking about young girls victimized by older men and forced into undesirable circumstances by a community that adheres to that type of victimization.

 

[jillian]

It is just another example of the erosion of cultural and ethical mores and values in our country. The Marxist left began this during the Cold War of the 1960's to undermine our nation and foment a communistic revolt, pitting the young against the old. No lifestyle was to be considered shocking. this is what we have today. Welfare state of whiners who's only question is, "What about my rights?" Does gay marriage ruin hetrosexual unions? It should not because it does not exist. Something that is unethical cannot be compared in the context of something that is. Same as if you tried to compare NAMBLA to heterosexual union.

another confused loon who doesn't understand the concept of "consenting adult".

me? I think victimizing gays is immoral. so there ya go.

now run along.

 

[Newby]

Not the OP.

Then she's a hypocrit, legal adults should be able to marry whomever they love, even if it's more than one person. They're not hurting anyone.

Where's the already-in-place government set up for marriages of more than two individuals?

It can be constructed, just like it's been recently constructed for marriages containting two people of the same sex.

You can't fall back to legal bs for this, is your cause about civil rights or not? You want to be able to marry the one you love, why shouldn't those in polygomous relationships be able to do the same?

It absolutely astounds me that you would be against them marrying, you truly are a major hypocrit!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes they do and have.

So enlightening but as I know you're going to say something like "yeah, they have the choice to marry someone they don't want to marry and they should bloody well be happy about it too"!

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is just another example of the erosion of cultural and ethical mores and values in our country. The Marxist left began this during the Cold War of the 1960's to undermine our nation and foment a communistic revolt, pitting the young against the old. No lifestyle was to be considered shocking. this is what we have today. Welfare state of whiners who's only question is, "What about my rights?" Does gay marriage ruin hetrosexual unions? It should not because it does not exist. Something that is unethical cannot be compared in the context of something that is. Same as if you tried to compare NAMBLA to heterosexual union.

Get over it, Bush. Ozzie and Harriet are dead.

 

[bodecea]

Then she's a hypocrit, legal adults should be able to marry whomever they love, even if it's more than one person. They're not hurting anyone.

Where's the already-in-place government set up for marriages of more than two individuals?

It can be constructed, just like it's been recently constructed for marriages containting two people of the same sex.

You can't fall back to legal bs for this, is your cause about civil rights or not? You want to be able to marry the one you love, why shouldn't those in polygomous relationships be able to do the same?

It absolutely astounds me that you would be against them marrying, you truly are a major hypocrit!!

Where is the currently legal construct to base it on?


And where did I ever post that I was against polygamy? Please link my posts against it or be known to lie to make a false point.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Not the OP.

This is the only way they can take an opposing view....by going off topic. It's a form of fail for them.

But I'm not taking an opposing view, you don't seem to get that. I don't disagree with gay marriage, I disagree with the encouraged persecution of those that don't agree with your agenda. You claim persecution for years as a gay person, but then turn around and join in on it when it's those that don't agree with you that are now being persecuted.

If gay marriage is fine for the reasons you've advocated, then there is no reason to deny those who love multiple people from getting married as well.

That's called a Strawman argument. Nice try, no donut.

 

[Newby]

Where's the already-in-place government set up for marriages of more than two individuals?

It can be constructed, just like it's been recently constructed for marriages containting two people of the same sex.

You can't fall back to legal bs for this, is your cause about civil rights or not? You want to be able to marry the one you love, why shouldn't those in polygomous relationships be able to do the same?

It absolutely astounds me that you would be against them marrying, you truly are a major hypocrit!!

Where is the currently legal construct to base it on?

Your question makes no sense, marriage is already a legal contruct.

 

[Bush92]

I will quote Ronald Reagan..."I don't care what you do in your private life, just leave the animals and the kids alone." I do not care if two same sex people have a relationship. Just don't try to validate it with a union recognized by the state. We must draw a line in the sand somewhere as a society.

 

[Newby]

This is the only way they can take an opposing view....by going off topic. It's a form of fail for them.

But I'm not taking an opposing view, you don't seem to get that. I don't disagree with gay marriage, I disagree with the encouraged persecution of those that don't agree with your agenda. You claim persecution for years as a gay person, but then turn around and join in on it when it's those that don't agree with you that are now being persecuted.

If gay marriage is fine for the reasons you've advocated, then there is no reason to deny those who love multiple people from getting married as well.

That's called a Strawman argument. Nice try, no donut.

How so?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is just another example of the erosion of cultural and ethical mores and values in our country. The Marxist left began this during the Cold War of the 1960's to undermine our nation and foment a communistic revolt, pitting the young against the old. No lifestyle was to be considered shocking. this is what we have today. Welfare state of whiners who's only question is, "What about my rights?" Does gay marriage ruin hetrosexual unions? It should not because it does not exist. Something that is unethical cannot be compared in the context of something that is. Same as if you tried to compare NAMBLA to heterosexual union.

Actually it started in the 1700s with the revolution against the British. This was throwing out the old and replacing it with the new. Problem is, the new likes to get old and doesn't want to be replaced as it replaced.

Many people can't cope with change, hence why we die.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Give it up Bode. If you were to agree that there is nothing wrong with polygamy, the Right would then start arguing about the slippery slope which will eventually allow people to marry their toaster.

 

[Newby]

Give it up Bode. If you were to agree that there is nothing wrong with polygamy, the Right would then start arguing about the slippery slope which will eventually allow people to marry their toaster.

Well, what is 'wrong' with polygamy? It's consenting adults living a lifestyle that they choose, you're not passing judgement on them are you?

 

[jillian]

I will quote Ronald Reagan..."I don't care what you do in your private life, just leave the animals and the kids alone." I do not care if two same sex people have a relationship. Just don't try to validate it with a union recognized by the state. We must draw a line in the sand somewhere as a society.

puleeze.... Reagan and his fellow idiots were responsible for countless deaths with their laughing at AIDS victims. No one cares what he says.

and luckily the constitution isn't particularly interested in your religious based opinions.

they're just your opinions.

 

[martybegan]

I will quote Ronald Reagan..."I don't care what you do in your private life, just leave the animals and the kids alone." I do not care if two same sex people have a relationship. Just don't try to validate it with a union recognized by the state. We must draw a line in the sand somewhere as a society.

puleeze.... Reagan and his fellow idiots were responsible for countless deaths with their laughing at AIDS victims. No one cares what he says.

and luckily the constitution isn't particularly interested in your religious based opinions.

they're just your opinions.

What should the government had done? Make it a law saying gay people are forced to use condoms and stop having sex? Public Health Agencies tried to close the bathhouses where casual gay sex was going on, and they got ridiculed by the community they were trying to save.

What was the government supposed to do? AIDS is viral, and it STILL doesn't have a cure, only treatment, and that treatment took decades to come about. Even if they would have started heavier research earlier the timeline would have been moved up by years, not decades.

Progressives say the government should keep out of people's sex lives, how then should they have stopped the spread of AIDS in the Gay Community?

 

[jillian]

What should the government had done? Make it a law saying gay people are forced to use condoms and stop having sex? Public Health Agencies tried to close the bathhouses where casual gay sex was going on, and they got ridiculed by the community they were trying to save.

What was the government supposed to do? AIDS is viral, and it STILL doesn't have a cure, only treatment, and that treatment took decades to come about. Even if they would have started heavier research earlier the timeline would have been moved up by years, not decades.

Progressives say the government should keep out of people's sex lives, how then should they have stopped the spread of AIDS in the Gay Community?

funding research and education isn't "interfering in people's sex lives". I suspect this article says it better than I can. but I remember "silence = death" and I remember one of my best friend's significant other dying in a matter of weeks since no one knew he was even sick... until he got an opportunistic infection.

As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS.

Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon. Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of mean-spirited hostility.

A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men."

With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The response of the Reagan administration was indifference.

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing. That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.

Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death - SFGate

every bit of Reagan's AIDS policy was directed at pleasing fundamentalist Christians.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I will quote Ronald Reagan..."I don't care what you do in your private life, just leave the animals and the kids alone." I do not care if two same sex people have a relationship. Just don't try to validate it with a union recognized by the state. We must draw a line in the sand somewhere as a society.

Why? And if so, exactly who is supposed to draw that line? Who is supposed to be empowered to do that, and who would NOT be empowered? Hmmm???

 

[jillian]

I will quote Ronald Reagan..."I don't care what you do in your private life, just leave the animals and the kids alone." I do not care if two same sex people have a relationship. Just don't try to validate it with a union recognized by the state. We must draw a line in the sand somewhere as a society.

Why? And if so, exactly who is supposed to draw that line? Who is supposed to be empowered to do that, and who would NOT be empowered? Hmmm???

him and his fellow rightwingers, donchaknow....