Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[frigidweirdo]

O. I. C..

If someone believes that marriage is between one man/one woman, they are intolerant (never mind that their beliefs are likely religiously rooted, right?).

If someone believes that marriage is between m/m, w/w, m/w they are correct and therefore can blast anyone who believes just in m/w, they need not be tolerant of others beliefs.

Do I have that right?

Collins English Dictionary | Always Free Online

"adjective

able to tolerate the beliefs, actions, opinions, etc, of others"

This isn't necessarily about belief. It's about accepting others.

I can know someone doesn't like same sex marriage, and I don't discriminate against them, I don't do anything that takes away their rights, their choice, their freedom. I don't support laws that do this, I don't try and force them the marry gay people, I allow them to choose and if they don't hurt any others all I will do is tell them they are wrong.

That's tolerance.

Intolerance is saying you don't believe gay marriage should happen and that discrimination should take place and people shouldn't be free to choose, and making this happen, with laws against gay marriage.

Do you see the difference?

A tolerant person can be tolerant of those who aren't tolerant. That doesn't mean they have to accept tolerance as being good. It just means they allow the intolerant to do what they choose as long as it doesn't impact others.

 

[Seawytch]

So that's why even communist countries have marriage? God oh my God how can people oh my God, disagree with me oh my God....blah blah blah. You're a joke.

It's still about property...and we aren't talking about anything other than civil marriage here in the US of A.

Oh, it's very material. You don't generally marry the sperm donor. The fact is that nature is what it is, your laboratory pregnancies don't change the fact that it was male/female.

Infertile couples don't marry their sperm donors or surrogates either.

You must be another one that confuses parenting with procreation.

Your state of mind, or lack thereof, is immaterial to me. Male/female relationships typically do provide offspring. It's called nature. But the main point is that there is a special relationship between males and females that civilization has always recognized. And they have done by government recognition, including polygamy. Your bizarre lifestyle doesn't alter history.

My "state of mind"? What are you talking about? You can't be drunk this early can you? How many times must this be stated? Not only do gay have children, procreation is not a requirement ANYWHERE for civil marriage. Let me say that again, procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage in any state...in fact, there are states where procreation is prohibited in some marriages. Understand that? Prohibited. It is a failed argument if you are trying to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

So let's eliminate public benefits instead of participating with the gay hoax of a marriage. It's just a phony imitation of the real thing and everyone knows it. That's why you assholes consistently lie and try to browbeat anyone that disagrees with the stupidity.

Go ahead, try it. Gays have been marrying without the cash and prizes until very recently so go right ahead and fill up that pool.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

Yes, Yes everybody that doesnt agree with you is a racist......
typical holier-than-thou BS from your side Seawytch

In the book the author says all the rights of former slaves are insured under the 13th and 15th amendments...that the 14th is basically superfluous............actually a small part, or supposedly intended, to address past Supreme Court screw ups in precedent, but the author says that could have been addressed in other ways, if I remember right. Does go to show tho that the federal Courts are always screwing up and certainly arent infallible. Corporate "person-hood", something somehow derived from the 14th is another example.

Don't make the parables so easy to point out...right down to the language used...and we wouldn't have to point out the parables.

Of course, gays aren't the only ones that have seen it...

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

 

[Seawytch]

?? Which is it?

My intolerance of people who wish to deny me equal rights is personal. I don't associate with them on anything beyond a professional level. I am intolerant of their intolerance. However, I do not wish to legislate my intolerance of them. They, on the other hand, do wish to legislate their intolerance.

Well, ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point.

If it's ok for you to be intolerant of their intolerance then visa versa, no? Let's all be intolerant of the other guys pov if we don't agree with it.

While we're at it, let no one force their pov on anyone else.

I see...so because they are losing in their battle to deny me equal rights, I should "forgive them their trespasses"? Maybe if I were more Christlike I could do that...Oh well.

Wanting to deny equal rights isn't simply a "point of view", it's action against a group of people based on animus towards them. I think freedom loving Americans would have an obligation to be intolerant and speak out against that.

Silence isn't going to end racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

 

[Zoom-boing]

O. I. C..

If someone believes that marriage is between one man/one woman, they are intolerant (never mind that their beliefs are likely religiously rooted, right?).

If someone believes that marriage is between m/m, w/w, m/w they are correct and therefore can blast anyone who believes just in m/w, they need not be tolerant of others beliefs.

Do I have that right?

Collins English Dictionary | Always Free Online

"adjective

able to tolerate the beliefs, actions, opinions, etc, of others"

This isn't necessarily about belief. It's about accepting others.

I can know someone doesn't like same sex marriage, and I don't discriminate against them, I don't do anything that takes away their rights, their choice, their freedom. I don't support laws that do this, I don't try and force them the marry gay people, I allow them to choose and if they don't hurt any others all I will do is tell them they are wrong.

That's tolerance.

Intolerance is saying you don't believe gay marriage should happen and that discrimination should take place and people shouldn't be free to choose, and making this happen, with laws against gay marriage.

Do you see the difference?

A tolerant person can be tolerant of those who aren't tolerant. That doesn't mean they have to accept tolerance as being good. It just means they allow the intolerant to do what they choose as long as it doesn't impact others.

Like I said in my previous post, ssm is being passed state by state and the marriage equality argument is rapidly becoming a moot point.

The bolded ... you changed it up. You gave the definition of tolerance then stated that "this isn't about beliefs, it's about accepting others". So which is it about, tolerance or acceptance?

Tolerance is allowing someone else to hold their pov/belief without bashing them for it. Do you agree with that?

Tolerance is that if someone believes in m/w marriage and does not believe in ssm, then they are free to hold that pov without being called a homophobe. Do you agree with that?

Tolerance is not the same as acceptance; forcing acceptance onto someone is wrong. Do you agree with that?

 

[KNB]

It's called "COMPROMISE", people. Have Americans forgotten what "compromise" means because of all of that gung-ho cowboy "We don't negotiate with turrists" bullshit? "Compromise".

Gay marriage is legal. What is not legal is for the majority of Americans to call for a law forcing churches, mosques and synagogues to perform gay weddings. So the compromise is: churches, mosques and synagogues that choose to perform gay weddings are free to do so, and gay people can be married in a courtroom, on a beach, in a flower garden, wherever, just not in a church, mosque or synagogue that chooses not to perform the ceremony.

Anyone who is not willing to compromise is free to move to Iran.

 

[dcraelin]

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

Yes, Yes everybody that doesnt agree with you is a racist......
typical holier-than-thou BS from your side Seawytch

In the book the author says all the rights of former slaves are insured under the 13th and 15th amendments...that the 14th is basically superfluous............actually a small part, or supposedly intended, to address past Supreme Court screw ups in precedent, but the author says that could have been addressed in other ways, if I remember right. Does go to show tho that the federal Courts are always screwing up and certainly arent infallible. Corporate "person-hood", something somehow derived from the 14th is another example.

Don't make the parables so easy to point out...right down to the language used...and we wouldn't have to point out the parables.

Of course, gays aren't the only ones that have seen it...

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

parables?.....

you dont have to use it anyway......but it comes in handy to drum up sympathy

but I noticed instead of addressing the coercion in the passage of the 14th....or
the problem of corporate person-hood......you jump right back to snide charges of racism

kinda only got one note there dont you

 

[Zoom-boing]

My intolerance of people who wish to deny me equal rights is personal. I don't associate with them on anything beyond a professional level. I am intolerant of their intolerance. However, I do not wish to legislate my intolerance of them. They, on the other hand, do wish to legislate their intolerance.

Well, ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point.

If it's ok for you to be intolerant of their intolerance then visa versa, no? Let's all be intolerant of the other guys pov if we don't agree with it.

While we're at it, let no one force their pov on anyone else.

I see...so because they are losing in their battle to deny me equal rights, I should "forgive them their trespasses"? Maybe if I were more Christlike I could do that...Oh well.

Wanting to deny equal rights isn't simply a "point of view", it's action against a group of people based on animus towards them. I think freedom loving Americans would have an obligation to be intolerant and speak out against that.

Silence isn't going to end racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

Did you miss this? "ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point." Be tolerant that they hold a differing pov and live your life.

There will always be those who hold a differing pov on these things. Isn't it wrong to force acceptance of your pov onto someone else?

 

[Seawytch]

Well, ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point.

If it's ok for you to be intolerant of their intolerance then visa versa, no? Let's all be intolerant of the other guys pov if we don't agree with it.

While we're at it, let no one force their pov on anyone else.

I see...so because they are losing in their battle to deny me equal rights, I should "forgive them their trespasses"? Maybe if I were more Christlike I could do that...Oh well.

Wanting to deny equal rights isn't simply a "point of view", it's action against a group of people based on animus towards them. I think freedom loving Americans would have an obligation to be intolerant and speak out against that.

Silence isn't going to end racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

Did you miss this? "ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point." Be tolerant that they hold a differing pov and live your life.

There will always be those who hold a differing pov on these things. Isn't it wrong to force acceptance of your pov onto someone else?

Nobody is forcing acceptance, that's the point. Public disapproval of behavior that is no longer found socially acceptable isn't "forcing". You are still free to be a bigoted asshole in public...just don't expect people to want to associate with you.

 

[GreenBean]

Why can't you just accept the fact that some people believe that marriage is one man/one woman? Why can't you just be tolerant of that?

I am tolerant of that. I don't want to legislate my intolerance...they do.

?? Which is it?

Looks like you caught her in Freudian slip - [somehow the thought of that slimy dike in a slip makes me feel slightly ill]

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, Yes everybody that doesnt agree with you is a racist......
typical holier-than-thou BS from your side Seawytch

In the book the author says all the rights of former slaves are insured under the 13th and 15th amendments...that the 14th is basically superfluous............actually a small part, or supposedly intended, to address past Supreme Court screw ups in precedent, but the author says that could have been addressed in other ways, if I remember right. Does go to show tho that the federal Courts are always screwing up and certainly arent infallible. Corporate "person-hood", something somehow derived from the 14th is another example.

Don't make the parables so easy to point out...right down to the language used...and we wouldn't have to point out the parables.

Of course, gays aren't the only ones that have seen it...

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

parables?.....

you dont have to use it anyway......but it comes in handy to drum up sympathy

but I noticed instead of addressing the coercion in the passage of the 14th....or
the problem of corporate person-hood......you jump right back to snide charges of racism

kinda only got one note there dont you

I'm not charging anyone with racism, I'm saying that the parables between the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gay couples wanting to marry are the same, right down to the language used. You want to conflate that with artificial personhood.

You want to keep changing the topic to ones completely unrelated so they get ignored. Start a thread on how unfair the tax code is between singles and married...it is unrelated to the issue of gay couples having equal access to civil marriage.

If you want to discuss how the court created artificial persons in corporations, great, I will discuss it in THAT thread. You can't tar the 14th Amendment because person-hood was created for corporations. You're blaming the symptom not the cause.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Homosexual "marriage"....lol

What an absurd , concocted, premise....

 

[Seawytch]

Homosexual "marriage"....lol

What an absurd , concocted, premise....

A "round earth"...

What an absurd, concocted, premise.

Oops...both are a reality, whatever will we do?!?!

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Just because a handful of backward liberal judges proclaim legitamacy for queer betrothels doesnt make it any less of a degenerative farce....

 

[Zoom-boing]

I see...so because they are losing in their battle to deny me equal rights, I should "forgive them their trespasses"? Maybe if I were more Christlike I could do that...Oh well.

Wanting to deny equal rights isn't simply a "point of view", it's action against a group of people based on animus towards them. I think freedom loving Americans would have an obligation to be intolerant and speak out against that.

Silence isn't going to end racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

Did you miss this? "ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point." Be tolerant that they hold a differing pov and live your life.

There will always be those who hold a differing pov on these things. Isn't it wrong to force acceptance of your pov onto someone else?

Nobody is forcing acceptance, that's the point. Public disapproval of behavior that is no longer found socially acceptable isn't "forcing". You are still free to be a bigoted asshole in public...just don't expect people to want to associate with you.

So when someone expresses their belief that homosexuality is a sin/wrong and you call them homophobes, haters, bigoted, etc., that's just you being tolerant of their differing beliefs. Got it.

 

[Seawytch]

Did you miss this? "ssm is rapidly being passed state by state. Soon that will be a moot point." Be tolerant that they hold a differing pov and live your life.

There will always be those who hold a differing pov on these things. Isn't it wrong to force acceptance of your pov onto someone else?

Nobody is forcing acceptance, that's the point. Public disapproval of behavior that is no longer found socially acceptable isn't "forcing". You are still free to be a bigoted asshole in public...just don't expect people to want to associate with you.

So when someone expresses their belief that homosexuality is a sin/wrong and you call them homophobes, haters, bigoted, etc., that's just you being tolerant of their differing beliefs. Got it.

When someone expresses a belief that interracial marriage is wrong, I call them haters and bigots. Sue me.

 

[Seawytch]

Just because a handful of backward liberal judges proclaim legitamacy for queer betrothels doesnt make it any less of a degenerative farce....

Um...it's a few Federal courts (19 rulings since US v. Windsor...all in favor of marriage equality) and this last guy in PA...he was a Bush appointee endorsed by none other than Frothy Santorum!

a tee and a hee

 

[dcraelin]

Don't make the parables so easy to point out...right down to the language used...and we wouldn't have to point out the parables.
Of course, gays aren't the only ones that have seen it...
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

parables?.....
you dont have to use it anyway......but it comes in handy to drum up sympathy
but I noticed instead of addressing the coercion in the passage of the 14th....or
the problem of corporate person-hood......you jump right back to snide charges of racism
kinda only got one note there dont you

I'm not charging anyone with racism, I'm saying that the parables between the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gay couples wanting to marry are the same, right down to the language used. You want to conflate that with artificial personhood.
You want to keep changing the topic to ones completely unrelated so they get ignored. Start a thread on how unfair the tax code is between singles and married...it is unrelated to the issue of gay couples having equal access to civil marriage.
If you want to discuss how the court created artificial persons in corporations, great, I will discuss it in THAT thread. You can't tar the 14th Amendment because person-hood was created for corporations. You're blaming the symptom not the cause.

quote"I'm not charging anyone with racism".....sure you are....and your using it illegitimately to try and give a guilt trip to anyone who doesnt see gay marriage like you do.....and sadly its working..... with judges at least, who should know better.

"right down to the language used"...not sure what you mean by that, Im using the English language I guess, is that ok?

Artificial person-hood is another way the 14th has been misinterpreted.....shows at least the idiocy of the federal courts....or, as Beard seemed to think..it was deliberately written to hand out favors to Railroad companies....

these aren't unrelated,..they are related precisely, as i've said before, because of the expansive interpretation your side is using to claim a right to marriage under the 14th amendment. An expanisve reading that wasnt used in the Loving V Virgina case BTW.

marriage isnt just one law...if your side wants to discuss the law,then all the aspects of the law should be examined. Unless your just talking about a definition....then certainly this topic doesnt belong in the courts....Marriage has a long history that defines it....man and woman.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Like I said in my previous post, ssm is being passed state by state and the marriage equality argument is rapidly becoming a moot point.

The bolded ... you changed it up. You gave the definition of tolerance then stated that "this isn't about beliefs, it's about accepting others". So which is it about, tolerance or acceptance?

Tolerance is allowing someone else to hold their pov/belief without bashing them for it. Do you agree with that?

Tolerance is that if someone believes in m/w marriage and does not believe in ssm, then they are free to hold that pov without being called a homophobe. Do you agree with that?

Tolerance is not the same as acceptance; forcing acceptance onto someone is wrong. Do you agree with that?

I agree that someone is allowed to hold their own point of view.

I don't agree that someone who believes in gay marriage are free to have this without being called a homophobe. Though before you jump the gun on this one, labelling people isn't necessarily wrong. If you think someone is a homophobe, should you be able to say it? Well this is about freedom of speech so it depends where and how you say it.

As for the last part I'm not sure where you're coming from on this one.
What do you mean by "forcing acceptance onto someone"

If I don't believe in black people marrying white people, but it's legal, is that forcing acceptance onto me?

 

[Silhouette]

quote"I'm not charging anyone with racism".....sure you are....and your using it illegitimately to try and give a guilt trip to anyone who doesnt see gay marriage like you do.....and sadly its working..... with judges at least, who should know better.

"right down to the language used"...not sure what you mean by that, Im using the English language I guess, is that ok?

Artificial person-hood is another way the 14th has been misinterpreted.....shows at least the idiocy of the federal courts....or, as Beard seemed to think..it was deliberately written to hand out favors to Railroad companies....

these aren't unrelated,..they are related precisely, as i've said before, because of the expansive interpretation your side is using to claim a right to marriage under the 14th amendment. An expanisve reading that wasnt used in the Loving V Virgina case BTW.

marriage isnt just one law...if your side wants to discuss the law,then all the aspects of the law should be examined. Unless your just talking about a definition....then certainly this topic doesnt belong in the courts....Marriage has a long history that defines it....man and woman.

Marrige laws are vast and wide and vary from state to state.

You shouldn't worry about what those activist judges are trying to do with democracy. Their judgments aren't worth the paper they're written on. The US Supreme Court just last Summer had this to say about gay marriage:

United States v. Windsor

[Page 14 of Opinion]
Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York..recognized same-sex marriages...After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage

...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States...By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States...

[page 16]

..it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see , e.g., Loving v.Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“ an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”...

[page 17]

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v.North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders&#8221. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

And how do those states define marriage within their sovereign borders? Via consensus of the governed....NOT one or two activist judges overriding democratic rule. ie, the LGBT cult needs to cease pitching it's dogma to the fed and start courting voters state by state if they want legal gay marriage. They should start in California where it is and always has been illegal by the definition of Windsor 2013..

Loving v Virginia was about race, not a highly exclusive cult of sexually deviant behaviors called "LGBT" that doesn't carry polygamy or incest or pedophilia on its shoulders...oh, wait, check that last one. They do hold pedophilia on their shoulders, just under an invisibility cloak.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-celebrate-jerry-sandusky-s-equivalent.html

The real issue of this thread isn't how gay marriage affects other marriages. It's how it affects the rights of children, particularly adoptable orphans, to be protected by the state they live in.


BTW, the net result of these activist judges practicing contempt of US Supreme Court's 2013 Windsor Upholding is a GOP stunt to herd middle voters to the right by the quiet outrage of having their vote suppressed.

Democrats are idiots. How long will the repeal of DADT and the "standing judgments of all these activist judges" stand once the GOP has the Senate and Whitehouse? Answer: less than three nanoseconds.