Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[Oddball]

There are two different legal permutations operating in America: common law and statutory law...That is a fact and you cannot change it with bullshit semantics, like changing "gay marriage" to "same sex marriage".

This is the same chicken shit game that has been played by the left for no less than the last century...Back when they were honest, they called themselves socialists...When nobody wanted anything to do with them, they morphed into "progressives"...When that tag didn't fool anyone anymore, they stole the term "liberal"...."Global warming" becomes "climate change"...On and on and on.

Other than getting gubmint the hell out of the equation, I don't have a dog in this hunt....I'm telling you the facts about the two parallel, yet very distinct, legal jurisdictions in play here.....And all jokers like you want to do is play silly-assed semantic games.

If gays (or the mythical straight "same-sex" couples) want this to go away, then all they (you) need to do is draw up legal contracts and sue under Article 1, Section 10, (right to contract).

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!...That doesn't give the fucking poofs a goddamn star on their bellies!

Fuck me running.....I'm out.

 

[bodecea]

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

The same way you objectively determine "straightness"....besides, this is a gender issue, not a sexual orientation issue.

No, it's not...There is no demand from straights to obtain same-sex statutory marriage licenses.

Bullshitter semantics never fly with me and you know it.

It most certainly is a gender issue...the gender of the person you wish to marry....doesn't matter if they are homosexual or not. Discrimination based on gender is......illegal.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The same way you objectively determine "straightness"....besides, this is a gender issue, not a sexual orientation issue.

No, it's not...There is no demand from straights to obtain same-sex statutory marriage licenses.

Bullshitter semantics never fly with me and you know it.

It most certainly is a gender issue...the gender of the person you wish to marry....doesn't matter if they are homosexual or not. Discrimination based on gender is......illegal.

I'd rep you but I've exceeded my limit for the last 24 hours.

 

[BDBoop]

There are all manner of LBGT friendly folk pulling for SSM to be legal in all 50 states. I'm one of 'em.

 

[Oddball]

The same way you objectively determine "straightness"....besides, this is a gender issue, not a sexual orientation issue.

No, it's not...There is no demand from straights to obtain same-sex statutory marriage licenses.

Bullshitter semantics never fly with me and you know it.

It most certainly is a gender issue...the gender of the person you wish to marry....doesn't matter if they are homosexual or not. Discrimination based on gender is......illegal.

Classic leftist moving of the goalposts.

"Gay marriage" doesn't poll well, so you get the marketing wing of the DNC on it and change it to "the same-sex marriage event"....Yet, how many same-sex straight couples are pissing and moaning about not being able to get statutory marriage licenses?....Zero.

I positively detest this type of intellectual dishonesty and you know it.

I'm out.

 

[GHook93]

For the record I strongly support gay marriage!

However, from a devil advocates position. The act of marriage is two things a religious ceremony and contract obligation. Most sensible conservatives believe in allowing fags to have civil unions, but they are against forcing the religious aspect onto religious people.

The other aspect is where does it stop. People say they are wired that way. I believe that is true! However, pedophiles are wired towards like little children. Are we too allow adults to marry children? What about the weirdo that likes animals? Are we going to allow them to marry sheep or dogs?

I personally don't buy either of those arguments, but just because you disagree strongly doesn't mean you have to end the argument by screaming intolerance.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are two different legal permutations operating in America: common law and statutory law...That is a fact and you cannot change it with bullshit semantics, like changing "gay marriage" to "same sex marriage".

That's what you keep missing (either inadvertently or on purpose, I don't know), the government ONLY recognizes Civil Marriages entered into under Civil (or Statutory if you wish) Law. "Common Law Marriage" is only recognized by the government when such an option exists under Civil Law.

Other than getting gubmint the hell out of the equation, I don't have a dog in this hunt....I'm telling you the facts about the two parallel, yet very distinct, legal jurisdictions in play here.....And all jokers like you want to do is play silly-assed semantic games.

If gays (or the mythical straight "same-sex" couples) want this to go away, then all they (you) need to do is draw up legal contracts and sue under Article 1, Section 10, (right to contract).

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!...That doesn't give the fucking poofs a goddamn star on their bellies!

Article I Section 10 applies to Congress, it has no impact on States - who BTW - are the ones that issues Civil Marriage Licenses.

Fuck me running.....I'm out.

Have a nice night.


>>>>

 

[BDBoop]

Pouf.

Just sayin.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's no right, constitutional or otherwise, to a license...By the very nature of the word.

There is a right to apply (equal access), however; the criteria for denial must be consistent and comprehensive per the 14th Amendment.

Race/ethnicity and behavior are two different bases....Moreover, gender can be objectively quantified, whereas homosexuality is a behavior.

Incorrect:

[In Lawrence the] majority decision found that the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Holding that "[t]he Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional (both for equal protection and substantive due process reasons). This Court used rational basis with teeth as its standard of review for the equal protection b/c it seemingly discriminated against homosexuals (animus). The substantive due process right which falls under the right to privacy.

Lawrence v. Texas

The fact that the Founding Fathers didn't find it polite to discuss homosexuality or give gays rights for cultural reasons (similar to African-Americans) doesn't mean they shouldn't have them.

In essence they did – by codifying the rule of law in the Constitution the Framers understood there would be efforts in the future where a minority might be subject to the tyranny of the majority, and the courts would consequently afford them the means by which they would defend their civil liberties.

As Justice Kennedy noted in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Declaring "status" is opening up the legal system to a very expensive can of worms. There is no way to "document", accurately if a person is homosexual. If there was, the homosexuals would be the first to try to suppress it because they would claim deliberate targeting would be possible with this knowledge. This puts us back to square one.... legalizing homosexual marriage would cause massive cases of fraud for government money, and for the legal system. Legalizing homosexual marriage would also set a precedent (as a few on here want to point out) that if a "group" wants to declare its own status, then they too, can force the government to change the laws to encourage their behavior.

So let me get this straight: it is a "fraud" for 2 people that love each other to play house?
It is okay to bilk the taxpayers out of tons of money and clog up the justice department to justify a few "pretend" (one or both people are pretending they are the other sex, for life) marriages?

That one may elect to exercise his civil rights in an inappropriate manner is not justification for denying those civil rights. One may yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowed theater, but is afforded his right to free speech regardless. Should he cross the line from civil right to criminal activity, he’ll be prosecuted accordingly.

 

[MikeK]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.

Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

While adherence to theological principle might be the reason behind some opposition to homosexual marriage there is general agreement within the behavioral profession that the denial factor attending most latent homosexuality accounts for a significant amount of homophobic expression. One outstanding example of that phenomenon was the tendency of Senator Larry Craig, who was arrested for sexual accosting in a public toilet. Prior to that exposure Craig was an outspoken opponent of homosexuality.

There are many similar examples.