Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[GreenBean]

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

I like that term - I think I'm gonna ues it "degenerative farce" kind of sums up the whole LGBT agenda.

 

[Silhouette]

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

I like that term - I think I'm gonna ues it "degenerative farce" kind of sums up the whole LGBT agenda.

Actually, that's a good one. I've always been calling it pedophila-grooming writ-large. But they're kind of the same...

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”). 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.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Why do you change the subject?

Oh, the irony.

Thanks for confirming what many have stated ... that nothing less than acceptance will be tolerated.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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?

1st bolded ... can you restate this, I'm not sure what you're saying.

2nd bolded ... Yes. Here's the thing ... those who believe that ssm is wrong aren't homophobic ... they don't fear or hate homosexuals. That's intolerant-progressive-speak for anyone who disagrees with ssm. Belittling, insulting, labeling anyone who holds a differing view on ssm or homosexuality (or interracial marriage but that isn't equivalent to ssm as interracial is between one man/one woman) as a hater/bigot/homophobe is (attempting) forced acceptance. ftr, homophobe is a full-on retarded word.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence used to invalidate the un-Constitutional state measures designed to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights is settled and accepted case law, reviewed by scores of judges over the decades, reaffirmed and codified by the Supreme Court time and again, such as in Romer and Lawrence, for example.

Federal judges are invalidating these measures not because they’re ‘liberal’ (as many of the judges indeed might not be), but because they’re following the law and in accordance with Article VI of the Federal Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1st bolded ... can you restate this, I'm not sure what you're saying.

2nd bolded ... Yes. Here's the thing ... those who believe that ssm is wrong aren't homophobic ... they don't fear or hate homosexuals. That's intolerant-progressive-speak for anyone who disagrees with ssm. Belittling, insulting, labeling anyone who holds a differing view on ssm or homosexuality (or interracial marriage but that isn't equivalent to ssm as interracial is between one man/one woman) as a hater/bigot/homophobe is (attempting) forced acceptance. ftr, homophobe is a full-on retarded word.

1) You wanted someone who says "I don't believe gay marriage is right" to be above reproach, I don't agree with that. That's a question if freedom of speech, not of freedom to believe what you like.

2) It doesn't matter whether people who believe gay marriage is wrong are homophobic or not. Some of them clearly are. The fact of the matter is, if I think you're homophobic I can say so within the limits set out under the first amendment. That's the point.

I don't belittle or insult people on here as much as possible.

Interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It doesn't matter that it's different because it's a man and a woman, it's about freedom of choice. Freedom to do what you like without the govt sticking its nose in when you're not hurting anyone else.

If you look at some of the posts written by people who oppose gay marriage, you'll see some of them using words like "fag" "queer" and much, much worse.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Why do you change the subject?

Then let’s put it on subject:

When individuals seek to deny gay Americans their civil rights using the authority of the state, where same-sex couples are subject to discriminatory measures as authorized by the state, those seeking to do so are in fact bigots, as the motive to advocate denying same-sex couples access to marriage law can be solely that of animus toward gay Americans, given the fact there is no rational basis for doing so, where such measures further no proper legislative end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

In other words you can't address the points so you want to try to dismiss them. How stupid do you think people are. I gave an example of how it effects me personally and all taxpayers if same genders get spousal benefits. The OP is a sham of a strawman argument since the objection wasn't that it would hurt your individual marriage. You are dishonest.

The point is that you, Iceweaseln, have not addressed the OP.

Has marriage equality hurt your marriage: yes or no?

This thread of the tens of thousands of the Board's history by far demonstrates that this OP is correct and eviscerates its opponents' arguments against marriage equality.

Thank you, Iceweasel, for making history here.

 

[Plasmaball]

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

well hey we got something in common then. Because your opinion is nothing but a farce.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1st bolded ... can you restate this, I'm not sure what you're saying.

2nd bolded ... Yes. Here's the thing ... those who believe that ssm is wrong aren't homophobic ... they don't fear or hate homosexuals. That's intolerant-progressive-speak for anyone who disagrees with ssm. Belittling, insulting, labeling anyone who holds a differing view on ssm or homosexuality (or interracial marriage but that isn't equivalent to ssm as interracial is between one man/one woman) as a hater/bigot/homophobe is (attempting) forced acceptance. ftr, homophobe is a full-on retarded word.

1) You wanted someone who says "I don't believe gay marriage is right" to be above reproach, I don't agree with that. That's a question if freedom of speech, not of freedom to believe what you like.

2) It doesn't matter whether people who believe gay marriage is wrong are homophobic or not. Some of them clearly are. The fact of the matter is, if I think you're homophobic I can say so within the limits set out under the first amendment. That's the point.

I don't belittle or insult people on here as much as possible.

Interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It doesn't matter that it's different because it's a man and a woman, it's about freedom of choice. Freedom to do what you like without the govt sticking its nose in when you're not hurting anyone else.

If you look at some of the posts written by people who oppose gay marriage, you'll see some of them using words like "fag" "queer" and much, much worse.

True.

And citizens are at liberty to oppose equal protection rights for gay Americans, and to express that ignorance and hate with impunity – they are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify that ignorance and hate by denying gay Americans their civil liberties, where seeking to do so is indeed bigotry, and consequently repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[Crick]

Then let’s put it on subject:

When individuals seek to deny gay Americans their civil rights using the authority of the state, where same-sex couples are subject to discriminatory measures as authorized by the state, those seeking to do so are in fact bigots, as the motive to advocate denying same-sex couples access to marriage law can be solely that of animus toward gay Americans, given the fact there is no rational basis for doing so, where such measures further no proper legislative end.

Well said. Right on target. Bears repeating.

 

[dcraelin]

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”). 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.

I agree that a lot of Federal court rulings aren't worth the paper they're written on...
and at least from your quotes it does seem The Windsor case does what you say it does...but the media ..and lower courts seem to be taking another view from it.

I also agree that this very well could backfire on Democrats....and I think it will further tarnish the reputation of the courts, (thats not altogether a bad thing.)

I think we approach the topic from slightly different view points, but its nice to have at least a few people arguing the case in the face of the constant drone of posters smearing gay-marriage opponents as bigots and racists. Some of the language could be toned down on both sides I think.

 

[GreenBean]

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

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence used to invalidate the un-Constitutional state measures designed to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights is settled and accepted case law, reviewed by scores of judges over the decades, reaffirmed and codified by the Supreme Court time and again, such as in Romer and Lawrence, for example.

Federal judges are invalidating these measures not because they’re ‘liberal’ (as many of the judges indeed might not be), but because they’re following the law and in accordance with Article VI of the Federal Constitution.

CLAYTON -stfu -NOBODY READS YOUR BULL SHIT

 

[Indeependent]

Whenever I see plumbers crack I need about a week to recover to get it on with my wife.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[bodecea]

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

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence used to invalidate the un-Constitutional state measures designed to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights is settled and accepted case law, reviewed by scores of judges over the decades, reaffirmed and codified by the Supreme Court time and again, such as in Romer and Lawrence, for example.

Federal judges are invalidating these measures not because they’re ‘liberal’ (as many of the judges indeed might not be), but because they’re following the law and in accordance with Article VI of the Federal Constitution.

CLAYTON -stfu -NOBODY READS YOUR BULL SHIT

So..did gay marriage ruin YOUR marriage? Is that why you are so bitter and shrill?

 

[Zoom-boing]

1st bolded ... can you restate this, I'm not sure what you're saying.

2nd bolded ... Yes. Here's the thing ... those who believe that ssm is wrong aren't homophobic ... they don't fear or hate homosexuals. That's intolerant-progressive-speak for anyone who disagrees with ssm. Belittling, insulting, labeling anyone who holds a differing view on ssm or homosexuality (or interracial marriage but that isn't equivalent to ssm as interracial is between one man/one woman) as a hater/bigot/homophobe is (attempting) forced acceptance. ftr, homophobe is a full-on retarded word.

1) You wanted someone who says "I don't believe gay marriage is right" to be above reproach, I don't agree with that. That's a question if freedom of speech, not of freedom to believe what you like.

Well no, that's not what I said at all. What I said was "Tolerance is allowing someone else to hold their pov/belief without bashing them for it", then gave the example of what I was referring to "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".

I'm not talking about people who go around screaming fag, queer, discriminate, etc. I'm talking about people who hold a belief (usually it is religiously based) that homosexuality is a sin and they believe that marriage is one man/one woman. Why is it that when someone expresses that pov, they get called hater, bigot, homophobe? Where is the tolerance from the other side?

2) It doesn't matter whether people who believe gay marriage is wrong are homophobic or not. Some of them clearly are. The fact of the matter is, if I think you're homophobic I can say so within the limits set out under the first amendment. That's the point.

I don't belittle or insult people on here as much as possible.

"it doesn't matter, because some are [homophobic <--- once again, retarded word there] so I can say whatever I want". It doesn't matter? How is that being tolerant of those who hold opposing views? Some are nasty so you lump everyone in together?

Interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It doesn't matter that it's different because it's a man and a woman, it's about freedom of choice. Freedom to do what you like without the govt sticking its nose in when you're not hurting anyone else.

"Interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It doesn't matter that it's different because it's a man/woman". It's the same but different?

Interracial is m/w; ss isn't. Marriage is between one man/one woman.

If you look at some of the posts written by people who oppose gay marriage, you'll see some of them using words like "fag" "queer" and much, much worse.

Not everyone who opposes ssm does this, yet they get lumped in with the assholes just the same ... just for holding a differing pov.

You never answered this from my earlier post --- 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?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interracial is m/w; ss isn't. Marriage is between one man/one woman.

Incorrect.

Marriage is a contract entered into by two equal partners, same- or opposite-sex. When a state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in by enacting a measure designed to prohibit them from doing so, such a measure violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The same was true when the states sought to deny interracial couples access to marriage law they were eligible to participate in.

The issue has to do with the fact that to deny any class of persons access to marriage law, a class of persons otherwise eligible to participate in that marriage law, be that class of persons interracial couples or same-sex couples, is un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence used to invalidate the un-Constitutional state measures designed to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights is settled and accepted case law, reviewed by scores of judges over the decades, reaffirmed and codified by the Supreme Court time and again, such as in Romer and Lawrence, for example.

Federal judges are invalidating these measures not because they’re ‘liberal’ (as many of the judges indeed might not be), but because they’re following the law and in accordance with Article VI of the Federal Constitution.

CLAYTON -stfu -NOBODY READS YOUR BULL SHIT

So..did gay marriage ruin YOUR marriage? Is that why you are so bitter and shrill?

Likely because he and others who agree with him have realized that they have no ‘argument,’ that their opposition to same-sex couples marrying is predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans, devoid of any rational basis or proper legislative end.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well no, that's not what I said at all. What I said was "Tolerance is allowing someone else to hold their pov/belief without bashing them for it", then gave the example of what I was referring to "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".

I'm not talking about people who go around screaming fag, queer, discriminate, etc. I'm talking about people who hold a belief (usually it is religiously based) that homosexuality is a sin and they believe that marriage is one man/one woman. Why is it that when someone expresses that pov, they get called hater, bigot, homophobe? Where is the tolerance from the other side?

Why do they get called that? For the same reason people on the left get called names by those on the right. People who don't have enough of an argument to fight, end up just fighting with what they do have, name calling and insults.

"it doesn't matter, because some are [homophobic <--- once again, retarded word there] so I can say whatever I want". It doesn't matter? How is that being tolerant of those who hold opposing views? Some are nasty so you lump everyone in together?

I didn't say it was being tolerant. But it's a part of free speech to a certain extend.
I was lumping them together based on what was being said.

"Interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. It doesn't matter that it's different because it's a man/woman". It's the same but different?

Interracial is m/w; ss isn't. Marriage is between one man/one woman.

Yep, like an orange and a tangerine, they're the same, but then they're different. Ie, lots of the same characteristics, but a few things that clearly separate them. Nothing is "the same" if you want to get pedantic about it. No house, not person, no organism is truly the same.

Actually interracial marriage can be between two people of the same sex. Like I said, it shares many characteristics. It's a topic that involves marriage. It's a topic that has caused people to want to deny this choice.
The difference lies in the fact that one concerns race and the other sexuality.

Not everyone who opposes ssm does this, yet they get lumped in with the assholes just the same ... just for holding a differing pov.

You never answered this from my earlier post --- 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?

No, of course they don't. Just as people on the other side of the debate don't.

I probably didn't answer because I don't really see where you're getting at. Does this have to be about just one thing? Surely there are plenty of words we could use to describe what it's about.

However I was responding to what someone what written.

People don't need to be tolerant. They don't need to accept. Why? Because for some reason people have managed to exclude this from the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

However, if the Bill of Rights is to be included then a person doesn't need to be tolerant, they can hate gay marriage, but if it exists, they have to accept it exists within the law.