Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[Newby]

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.

You are hilarious.... so it would have been okay to continue public disapproval of gay lifestyles and gay sex and keep it socially unacceptable, which is the way it's been up until the last 10 to 20 years? So you were still free to be 'gay' in public, just don't expect people to want to associate with you?

Your attempts at associating open bigotry with simply openly living my life is pathetic at best.

It used to be socially acceptable to own people. It used to be socially acceptable to be openly racist and openly misogynist. Are you glad it isn't anymore or would you rather those things were still socially and publicly acceptable?

Can you possibly be any more of a hypocrit??

As I said, using social pressure to force acceptance, as long as you agree with it is okay, when you don't agree with it, then everyone else is just being 'intolerant' and a 'bigot'. You are no different than those you disagree with, no different at all.

You can disagree all you want to. When you say it out loud, other people get to openly disagree with you...and sometimes they do it with their pocketbooks.

You keep evading my point because you have no legitimate counter to it, or you just don't understand it. It all boils down to your POV and you believing that POV is morally superior to someone else's. In this instance, we're just using ssm as the topic, but really the topic is irrelevant. 50 years ago, those that would have dared to speak out in support or acceptance of gay behavior in public would have been given the same treatment that you are giving those that speak out against ssm today. You are using social pressure and the moral highground to supress a group of people from voicing their views because you believe their views to be immoral. You are no diferent than fundie Chrisians of 30 years ago doing the exact same thing to control what was openly acceptable in society at that time. But when you do it, it's okay. You're a hypocrit, plain and simple.

 

[GreenBean]

I happen to be pro gay marriage but I am also anti-straw man. I haven't heard anybody say that gay marriage would hurt straight marriages. I have heard people say that gay marriage would hurt society as a whole. There are usually several reasons for this argument. One argument against gay marriage is based on a religious belief. The second argument is a secular observation based on societal underpinnings derived from thousands of years of experimentation and practice.

Then again, those people who claim it will hurt society are more than likely individualists who want to stop many things that would benefit society. Such as more healthcare in the hands of the govt, banning guns, perhaps legalizing marijuana and other topics which the right generally oppose based on an individual view point.

One reason might be marriage. The problem is that marriage is connected with govt benefits and also govt licensing, which is where that reason falls apart.

not just licensing and benefits....but property ownership, inheritance rights, etc.

you can call them "individualists", but they are really only for individualism when it doesn't interfere with their desire to turn us into a theocracy.

Basically - in a nutshell- the lefties won this battle - but will lose the war
The OP: "Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage"
Gay Marriage doesn't ruin anybody elses marriage . It cheapens and degrades the institution of marriage - but thanks to other branches of the socio-fascist machine that's been happpenning for several decades anyway . Can't exclusively blame the Gays for that one.

 

[GreenBean]

You are hilarious.... so it would have been okay to continue public disapproval of gay lifestyles and gay sex and keep it socially unacceptable, which is the way it's been up until the last 10 to 20 years? So you were still free to be 'gay' in public, just don't expect people to want to associate with you?

Your attempts at associating open bigotry with simply openly living my life is pathetic at best.

It used to be socially acceptable to own people. It used to be socially acceptable to be openly racist and openly misogynist. Are you glad it isn't anymore or would you rather those things were still socially and publicly acceptable?

Can you possibly be any more of a hypocrit??

As I said, using social pressure to force acceptance, as long as you agree with it is okay, when you don't agree with it, then everyone else is just being 'intolerant' and a 'bigot'. You are no different than those you disagree with, no different at all.

You can disagree all you want to. When you say it out loud, other people get to openly disagree with you...and sometimes they do it with their pocketbooks.

You keep evading my point because you have no legitimate counter to it,

Get used to it , that's her modus operandi - she evades , deflects and ducks the issues she can't refute.


By the By Seawytch - you still haven't answered the question -

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...iage-ruined-your-marriage-39.html#post9161876


Go ahead sugr plum take the bait - go ahead suck that worm in - HEY - you might like it

 

[Newby]

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

Yes you do, you're all in favor of people being punished for not feeling that your relationship is normal, or not seeing it in the light you feel they should see it. That's all you've argued the entire way thru this thread.

your intolerance stops in your home. you need to get over that.

I think you should look to yourself and your own home before you start preaching to me about mine.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes you do, you're all in favor of people being punished for not feeling that your relationship is normal, or not seeing it in the light you feel they should see it. That's all you've argued the entire way thru this thread.

Nope. They can "feel" all they want to. If they say something in the public sphere, however, they do have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Racists can't be as openly racists as they used to be. It doesn't make me sad.

Keep saying it, you just prove post after post how you want your morals forced on others, while bitching about a group you don't agree with doing the exact same thing.



And try as you might, the reality is that there is no simlarity between not accepting that a gay relationship is 'normal' and racism.



Here's the difference, people who are racist dislike someone just because they have a different skin color than their own, which isn't rational. People who oppose ssm do not hate you because you are attracted to someone of the same sex, they don't hate you at all, they simply don't believe that a ssm is 'normal'. It's a rational and normal reaction given that marriage has been what it's been for thousands of years. It's also a normal and rational and biological reaction for a heterosexual person to see sex between two males or two females as repulsive since they are not wired that way.



Discrimination and hate of someone because of something they don't control, i.e. their skin color or their sexual preference, is wrong. You seem to take that further to include ssm, when opposition to ssm has nothing to do with discrimination.

I don't want my morals forced on anyone else. I don't care what you think or feel about gays legally marrying. I care about the equal access to civil marriage, not how you "feel" about it.

Codifying into law preventing gays from equal access to civil marriage is discrimination, regardless of the basis of your "feelings" about it. Segregationist "felt" they were religiously "right" too.

A person is free to "feel" interracial marriage goes against "gods plan". Do you think public statements by prominent figures or the CEO of a major corporation should go ignored should their make their "feelings" about interracial relations public?

 

[Nosmo King]

Yes you do, you're all in favor of people being punished for not feeling that your relationship is normal, or not seeing it in the light you feel they should see it. That's all you've argued the entire way thru this thread.

Nope. They can "feel" all they want to. If they say something in the public sphere, however, they do have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Racists can't be as openly racists as they used to be. It doesn't make me sad.

Keep saying it, you just prove post after post how you want your morals forced on others, while bitching about a group you don't agree with doing the exact same thing.

And try as you might, the reality is that there is no simlarity between not accepting that a gay relationship is 'normal' and racism.

Here's the difference, people who are racist dislike someone just because they have a different skin color than their own, which isn't rational. People who oppose ssm do not hate you because you are attracted to someone of the same sex, they don't hate you at all, they simply don't believe that a ssm is 'normal'. It's a rational and normal reaction given that marriage has been what it's been for thousands of years. It's also a normal and rational and biological reaction for a heterosexual person to see sex between two males or two females as repulsive since they are not wired that way.

Discrimination and hate of someone because of something they don't control, i.e. their skin color or their sexual preference, is wrong. You seem to take that further to include ssm, when opposition to ssm has nothing to do with discrimination.

Would you agree that there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance? Many folks who have been repressed by the majority would gladly take tolerance and leave acceptance for the unfortunate individual who thinks his way of looking at a situation is right or normal.

Tolerance means one lets marriage equality run its course and not interfere of subvert it. One can hold whatever beliefs they were raised with in some repressive upbringing. But to voice those repressive ideas in the public sphere does not show tolerance in the least.

Once someone is acquainted with a same sex couple and sees first hand that such couples pose no greater threat to the institution of marriage than a Vegas quickie wedding chapel, acceptance is sure to follow.

 

[Newby]

Nope. They can "feel" all they want to. If they say something in the public sphere, however, they do have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Racists can't be as openly racists as they used to be. It doesn't make me sad.

Keep saying it, you just prove post after post how you want your morals forced on others, while bitching about a group you don't agree with doing the exact same thing.

And try as you might, the reality is that there is no simlarity between not accepting that a gay relationship is 'normal' and racism.

Here's the difference, people who are racist dislike someone just because they have a different skin color than their own, which isn't rational. People who oppose ssm do not hate you because you are attracted to someone of the same sex, they don't hate you at all, they simply don't believe that a ssm is 'normal'. It's a rational and normal reaction given that marriage has been what it's been for thousands of years. It's also a normal and rational and biological reaction for a heterosexual person to see sex between two males or two females as repulsive since they are not wired that way.

Discrimination and hate of someone because of something they don't control, i.e. their skin color or their sexual preference, is wrong. You seem to take that further to include ssm, when opposition to ssm has nothing to do with discrimination.

Would you agree that there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance? Many folks who have been repressed by the majority would gladly take tolerance and leave acceptance for the unfortunate individual who thinks his way of looking at a situation is right or normal.

Tolerance means one lets marriage equality run its course and not interfere of subvert it. One can hold whatever beliefs they were raised with in some repressive upbringing. But to voice those repressive ideas in the public sphere does not show tolerance in the least.

Once someone is acquainted with a same sex couple and sees first hand that such couples pose no greater threat to the institution of marriage than a Vegas quickie wedding chapel, acceptance is sure to follow.

I'm not really addressing the SSM issue itself, I'm addressing people being punished for voicing their opinions in a public sphere. My point is there is nothing wrong with thinking that SSM is not normal, that thinking it is abnormal is perfectly rational, and that those that hold that opinion should be able to voice it publically should they choose to do so without being attacked. That has no bearing on discrimination, they have an opinion and should not be ridiculed for holding it or voicing it. When you start a movement to publically ostrasize them from society for how they feel about something, then you are now holding a postion of moral superiority and attempting to force your morals on others. No different than the supposed christian moral majority did 50 years ago, and which the liberals have supposedly been opposing since the 70's. It is completely hypocritical for that same group to now do the exact same thing today, only this time with their morals being the ones forced through public opinion. They have become that which they supposedly opposed. They are countering years and years of their arguments of not having other's morals forced upon them by doing exactly that now that they have managed to sway public opinion (or at least the media) to their side. It just shows that they are no different, and once they hold the 'moral majority', they will act every bit as much like those that held it 50 years ago acted. And that their years of spouting freedom to 'be accepted for who you are' was just one big lie.

 

[NLT]

 

[Nosmo King]

Keep saying it, you just prove post after post how you want your morals forced on others, while bitching about a group you don't agree with doing the exact same thing.

And try as you might, the reality is that there is no simlarity between not accepting that a gay relationship is 'normal' and racism.

Here's the difference, people who are racist dislike someone just because they have a different skin color than their own, which isn't rational. People who oppose ssm do not hate you because you are attracted to someone of the same sex, they don't hate you at all, they simply don't believe that a ssm is 'normal'. It's a rational and normal reaction given that marriage has been what it's been for thousands of years. It's also a normal and rational and biological reaction for a heterosexual person to see sex between two males or two females as repulsive since they are not wired that way.

Discrimination and hate of someone because of something they don't control, i.e. their skin color or their sexual preference, is wrong. You seem to take that further to include ssm, when opposition to ssm has nothing to do with discrimination.

Would you agree that there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance? Many folks who have been repressed by the majority would gladly take tolerance and leave acceptance for the unfortunate individual who thinks his way of looking at a situation is right or normal.

Tolerance means one lets marriage equality run its course and not interfere of subvert it. One can hold whatever beliefs they were raised with in some repressive upbringing. But to voice those repressive ideas in the public sphere does not show tolerance in the least.

Once someone is acquainted with a same sex couple and sees first hand that such couples pose no greater threat to the institution of marriage than a Vegas quickie wedding chapel, acceptance is sure to follow.

I'm not really addressing the SSM issue itself, I'm addressing people being punished for voicing their opinions in a public sphere. My point is there is nothing wrong with thinking that SSM is not normal, that thinking it is abnormal is perfectly rational, and that those that hold that opinion should be able to voice it publically should they choose to do so without being attacked. That has no bearing on discrimination, they have an opinion and should not be ridiculed for holding it or voicing it. When you start a movement to publically ostrasize them from society for how they feel about something, then you are now holding a postion of moral superiority and attempting to force your morals on others. No different than the supposed christian moral majority did 50 years ago, and which the liberals have supposedly been opposing since the 70's. It is completely hypocritical for that same group to now do the exact same thing today, only this time with their morals being the ones forced through public opinion. They have become that which they supposedly opposed. They are countering years and years of their arguments of not having other's morals forced upon them by doing exactly that now that they have managed to sway public opinion (or at least the media) to their side. It just shows that they are no different, and once they hold the 'moral majority', they will act every bit as much like those that held it 50 years ago acted. And that their years of spouting freedom to 'be accepted for who you are' was just one big lie.

What is the virtue of speaking out against marriage equality? Is such speech intended to roll back marriage laws to a time when they were far more repressive?

Should racial bigots be given a wide berth to voice their opposition to racial integration? Should those who advocate making homosexuality itself a crime be given credence in the public sphere? Is it essentially wrong for homosexuals, having been repressed for generations, to react to those who advocate limiting their rights with disdain and revulsion?

Is there a virtue to be protected in criticizing same sex marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

As soon as activist judges and the Lavender gestapo take their jackboots off the necks of sovereign voters, christians, citizens and business people in the respective states, we'll get right on that.

Until then, get used to it.. Oh, and as a plus, you might want to dethrone that pedophile Harvey Milk that the LGBT cult is all about worshipping the sexuality of. People tend to get chatty about a topic when it involves the sexual exploitation of minors...and gaining access to orphaned minors via a new definition of "marriage"...