Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[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???

him and his fellow rightwingers, donchaknow....

Yes, I was suspecting that....

 

[bodecea]

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.

So you support legal discrimination based on gender. Nice.

 

[AceRothstein]

Gay marriage has ruined my straight marriage that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Iceweasel]

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?

You keep mindlessly repeating that as if it had any meaning. There was no system in place for same genders marrying. In fact, the only variation to male/female marriages were polygamy. Historically and traditionally it has more merit.

Why would you deny a woman and two men or a man and two or more women? Your side is as inconsistent as it can be.

 

[Newby]

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.

And we know that democrats never do anything to please their little polical groups of hacks that vote for them year in and year out.

If it's okay to please some groups and do things their way, it seems that any group should be able to advocate to have things 'their way'. Fair is fair.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

And what the gay movement does to people who don't agree that their lifestyle is normal and perfectly okay is exactly the same. But it's okay, right, because it's not 'moral' to think a person's lifestyle is not normal? And your morals are right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, so they should be forced to conform to your morals, right?



What you don't get is that you are absolutely no different from the supposed fundie Christians trying to force their morals on society, you're the flip side of the same coin. No difference.

My civil marriage has nothing to do with anyone's morals and has no effect on anyone. It forces nothing on you.

 

[Seawytch]

You were never going to 'settle' to begin with, who the hell do you think you're kidding here?







It was never about having the same legal rights as spouses, it's about normalizing gay relationships in society as a whole. Legalizing gay marriage is only one aspect of that, altho a very large one.







You won't settle for anything other than everyone telling you that being gay is as normal as being straight, and making sure anyone who vocalizes anything different is punished by society. The very same thing that was done to gays for years, but hey, as long as it's not you and your kind that are persecuted any longer, and you're now doing the persecuting, then that's just fine. That's what I have a problem with, I could give a shit less what your sexual preference is, as I'm guessing 90% of the public could care less as well. It's the militant persecution of those that disagree with you that I have absolutely no respect for at all. It shows that you care nothing at all for freedom of expression, and that your 'cause' had nothing at all to do with you being able to be who are in public without ramifications. When you agree that anyone can 'be who they are', even if who they are doesn't approve of gay relationships, without social persecution and riducule, then your whole 'cause' is just one big lie.

Name the state where gays said no to civil unions...19 said no to the gays.

That point is irrelvant to what I posted.



When you agree that anyone can 'be who they are', even if who they are doesn't approve of gay relationships, without social persecution and riducule, then your whole 'cause' is just one big lie.

You can not approve all you want...if you say it out loud you get disapproval of your openly stated disapproval. Free speech works both ways.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Your "line" is gone. Gays can marry in 19 states and DC. You lost.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

You keep mindlessly repeating that as if it had any meaning. There was no system in place for same genders marrying. In fact, the only variation to male/female marriages were polygamy. Historically and traditionally it has more merit.



Why would you deny a woman and two men or a man and two or more women? Your side is as inconsistent as it can be.

There didn't have to be. Marriage is for two people. They don't have to be the same race or a different gender anymore but they still have to be only two. Good luck with your polygamy battle though.

 

[Freewill]

Surely this is up to each person's conscience anyway. The US is a constitutional republic with freedoms and rights set out that the govt can't infringe against. It's not a religious country, there is no official religion, in fact this was the very intention of the 1st Amendment.



What someone does in their own bedroom is none of your business, you can choose to be boring and puritanical, or you can choose to be hedonistic and exciting, your choice, your conscience. You can even talk against gay sex etc.

However, preventing people, actually acting against people getting married is another matter. It's you getting you pene in the way of their life. And that isn't right. In fact it goes against the very principles of the Bill of Rights.

What if that person is Jeffery Dahmer?

If he wanted to marry a woman while in prison (if he wasn't dead) the SCOTUS says you must let him.

Dahmer wasn't interested in women. Having completely missing the point, intentionally I think, do you think we should be able to limit what Dahmer did in his bedroom?

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

You keep mindlessly repeating that as if it had any meaning. There was no system in place for same genders marrying. In fact, the only variation to male/female marriages were polygamy. Historically and traditionally it has more merit.

Why would you deny a woman and two men or a man and two or more women? Your side is as inconsistent as it can be.

So Republicans have less than nothing to offer the middle class?

 

[jillian]

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?

You keep mindlessly repeating that as if it had any meaning. There was no system in place for same genders marrying. In fact, the only variation to male/female marriages were polygamy. Historically and traditionally it has more merit.

Why would you deny a woman and two men or a man and two or more women? Your side is as inconsistent as it can be.

which has what to do with equal protection under our laws?

 

[bodecea]

What if that person is Jeffery Dahmer?

If he wanted to marry a woman while in prison (if he wasn't dead) the SCOTUS says you must let him.

Dahmer wasn't interested in women. Having completely missing the point, intentionally I think, do you think we should be able to limit what Dahmer did in his bedroom?

He may not have been interested in women but even that would not have prevented him from having a legal straight marriage.

 

[dcraelin]

This Thread is really zooming along. Since my last post Ive been quoted 15 times, instead of trying to answer all those....with what Ive probably said already.... let me introduce perhaps more to argue about.

The 14th amendment was never meant to address the issue of Gay marriage, I think that much is apparent to all.(tho some now think it can be more expansively read). But according to one book Ive read the Amendment was never correctly/legitimately ratified anyway. I believe it was the only amendment that failed to be ratified and then, under coercive threat to the southern states was given 'another chance'. The other amendments dealing with slavery did not have this problem I dont believe. This is from a book by John R. Graham called Free,Soveriegn and Independent States (I think that was the title)

Charles Beard, a famous historian, also had a theory that the amendment was also in part written to hand out favors to the railroad industry.

So the whole basis for the lawsuits may be based on an illegitimate amendment.

 

[bodecea]

This Thread is really zooming along. Since my last post Ive been quoted 15 times, instead of trying to answer all those....with what Ive probably said already.... let me introduce perhaps more to argue about.

The 14th amendment was never meant to address the issue of Gay marriage, I think that much is apparent to all.(tho some now think it can be more expansively read). But according to one book Ive read the Amendment was never correctly/legitimately ratified anyway. I believe it was the only amendment that failed to be ratified and then, under coercive threat to the southern states was given 'another chance'. The other amendments dealing with slavery did not have this problem I dont believe. This is from a book by John R. Graham called Free,Soveriegn and Independent States (I think that was the title)

Charles Beard, a famous historian, also had a theory that the amendment was also in part written to hand out favors to the railroad industry.

So the whole basis for the lawsuits may be based on an illegitimate amendment.

The 14th is an illegitimate amendment? Yeah...go with that.

 

[dcraelin]

This Thread is really zooming along. Since my last post Ive been quoted 15 times, instead of trying to answer all those....with what Ive probably said already.... let me introduce perhaps more to argue about.

The 14th amendment was never meant to address the issue of Gay marriage, I think that much is apparent to all.(tho some now think it can be more expansively read). But according to one book Ive read the Amendment was never correctly/legitimately ratified anyway. I believe it was the only amendment that failed to be ratified and then, under coercive threat to the southern states was given 'another chance'. The other amendments dealing with slavery did not have this problem I dont believe. This is from a book by John R. Graham called Free,Soveriegn and Independent States (I think that was the title)

Charles Beard, a famous historian, also had a theory that the amendment was also in part written to hand out favors to the railroad industry.

So the whole basis for the lawsuits may be based on an illegitimate amendment.

The 14th is an illegitimate amendment? Yeah...go with that.

I think the 14th may also be the origin of "corporate person-hood". A lot of people, especially of the left, disagree with that way of looking at corporations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

You keep mindlessly repeating that as if it had any meaning. There was no system in place for same genders marrying. In fact, the only variation to male/female marriages were polygamy. Historically and traditionally it has more merit.

Why would you deny a woman and two men or a man and two or more women? Your side is as inconsistent as it can be.

(1) false equivalency

(2) not in the OP

And after all of these posts, not ONE example of a hetero marriage being hurt by marriage equality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This Thread is really zooming along. Since my last post Ive been quoted 15 times, instead of trying to answer all those....with what Ive probably said already.... let me introduce perhaps more to argue about.

The 14th amendment was never meant to address the issue of Gay marriage, I think that much is apparent to all.(tho some now think it can be more expansively read). But according to one book Ive read the Amendment was never correctly/legitimately ratified anyway. I believe it was the only amendment that failed to be ratified and then, under coercive threat to the southern states was given 'another chance'. The other amendments dealing with slavery did not have this problem I dont believe. This is from a book by John R. Graham called Free,Soveriegn and Independent States (I think that was the title)

Charles Beard, a famous historian, also had a theory that the amendment was also in part written to hand out favors to the railroad industry.

So the whole basis for the lawsuits may be based on an illegitimate amendment.

The 14th is an illegitimate amendment? Yeah...go with that.

The 14th is illegitimate? Who knew? Resurrect the congress and the legislatures and referendums that put into law. dcraelin is here for jokes and grins, nothing more.

 

[Seawytch]

This Thread is really zooming along. Since my last post Ive been quoted 15 times, instead of trying to answer all those....with what Ive probably said already.... let me introduce perhaps more to argue about.

The 14th amendment was never meant to address the issue of Gay marriage, I think that much is apparent to all.(tho some now think it can be more expansively read). But according to one book Ive read the Amendment was never correctly/legitimately ratified anyway. I believe it was the only amendment that failed to be ratified and then, under coercive threat to the southern states was given 'another chance'. The other amendments dealing with slavery did not have this problem I dont believe. This is from a book by John R. Graham called Free,Soveriegn and Independent States (I think that was the title)

Charles Beard, a famous historian, also had a theory that the amendment was also in part written to hand out favors to the railroad industry.

So the whole basis for the lawsuits may be based on an illegitimate amendment.

The 14th is an illegitimate amendment? Yeah...go with that.

Yeah, you know...it lets "those people" have rights...

 

[Iceweasel]

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

And what the gay movement does to people who don't agree that their lifestyle is normal and perfectly okay is exactly the same. But it's okay, right, because it's not 'moral' to think a person's lifestyle is not normal? And your morals are right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, so they should be forced to conform to your morals, right?



What you don't get is that you are absolutely no different from the supposed fundie Christians trying to force their morals on society, you're the flip side of the same coin. No difference.

My civil marriage has nothing to do with anyone's morals and has no effect on anyone. It forces nothing on you.

Yes it does if your "spouse" gets government benefits or insurance coverage. It costs people money. Yet, you will never provide more taxpayers or contributors to society. I would have rather see childless couples loose their benefits, it would make more sense.

As it stands now any special interest group can use the exact same tactics the militant homosexuals use and get the same benefits. I doubt marriage will remain a government condition or interest.