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

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is asking for polygamy or bestiality. Those are dried up old arguments the Social Conservatives tried thinking America would be just dumb enough to follow them down that primrose path. Marriage is still two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons nor a man and his goat.

There are people that are asking for polygamous marriages, and even bestiality. If we legally change the definition from the traditional one of between one man and one woman what legal justification would we have to tell two men they cannot marry the same woman? Bestiality is an easy one to defend, but polygamy is going to be harder.

Well, Mitt's father George Romney was born in Chihuahua, Mexico where his family had gone to escape laws against polygamy.
Can you name people who advocate for marrying animals?

Seriously?

I want to marry my dog - Google Search

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BUT...........marriage, by definition, is one man and one woman.

In a religious context, perhaps.

But it’s not a compelling reason to preempt a same-sex couple’s 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

 

[American Cowboy]

No one is asking for polygamy or bestiality. Those are dried up old arguments the Social Conservatives tried thinking America would be just dumb enough to follow them down that primrose path. Marriage is still two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons nor a man and his goat.

There are people that are asking for polygamous marriages, and even bestiality. If we legally change the definition from the traditional one of between one man and one woman what legal justification would we have to tell two men they cannot marry the same woman? Bestiality is an easy one to defend, but polygamy is going to be harder.

Well, Mitt's father George Romney was born in Chihuahua, Mexico where his family had gone to escape laws against polygamy.

Can you name people who advocate for marrying animals?

They are called Zoophiles. No kidding. Started watching a film on IFC. It was called "ZOO". It turned out to be a documentary on the subject. Too sick for me. I had to change the channel.

Zoophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are plenty of sickos in the world.

 

[Persy]

Here in Hawai'i, gay tourists always prey on the surfers. They especially target the young ones. They have been known to drug the drinks. They always have pot and x.

 

[FA_Q2]

No one is asking for polygamy or bestiality. Those are dried up old arguments the Social Conservatives tried thinking America would be just dumb enough to follow them down that primrose path. Marriage is still two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons nor a man and his goat.

It is not a dried up old argument. It is a valid comparison.

IF marriage is a right
IF that right extends to whomever you wish to marry and is not subject to scrutiny
Then you must allow polygamists and inter familial marriages.

Personally, I would allow all of them AFTER marriage was removed as a tax benefit. For the time being, I have no issues with gays marrying as what one does on their own time is their own business. I believe that the crux of the argument lies in benefits to society. If there is a negative benefit then it could be argued that the state has no business condoning the relationship. There is no law against marrying for gays, just that the marriage will not be recognized by the state. For me, the verdict is in, it is BENEFICIAL to sanction gay marriage as gay is not a choice and all benefit from a stable relationship. There is also the adoption angle. I am POSITIVE that I do not want children in foster care. Whatever your view on gay behavior, a child is better off in a stable gay family than they are in a fluid and possible abusive foster care.

The "right" itself is not marriage. the "right" is the access to contract law and the Marriage Contract itself. It's just not proper, in a nation that bills itself as a beacon of freedom and civil rights not to allow TWO ADULT CITIZENS access to those legal protections. Not citizens and animals. Animals cannot CONSENT to a legal contract. And it's that point that invalidates the old Social Conservative's argument.

Which is why I never mentioned animals but go ahead and ignore the valad points that I brought up. Both polygamy AND inter-familial marriages would fall in line with the EXACT same arguments that gay marriage has. Why can I not marry my sister then? Go ahead, give me a reason that the gays do not have to deal with...

 

[FA_Q2]

Had an assistant manager at a previous job that is gay. We've remained close friends outside of work.
He is also our local president of the democratic headquarters and we've had some spirited debates on several issues.
He and his partner agree that, by definition, they shouldn't "marry".
They both are fine with 'civil union' or 'legal partnership'.

But I guess they're just being intolerant and bigoted........

So - some of your best friends are gay, eh? Terrific. And are you "fine" with same sex marriage? Or (let me guess) - are you opposed to it?

I am fine with gay civil unions or partnerships. The company I now work for provides benefits for gay/lesbian partners.
Gays should be allowed to lose half their shit, too, in the event of a separation/divorce..
BUT...........marriage, by definition, is one man and one woman.
You can't put an eraser on a pen and call it a pencil.

No. To withhold the WORD marriage is simply bigotry. Many gay couples are willing to let this go simply because it is not worth the trouble BUT what POSSIBLE reason could you have for giving all the same rights and calling something different. Face it, let's call a dog a dog and a marriage a marriage. There is no reason to pretend otherwise. To do so is to simply try and fool yourself that the state is sanctioning the act.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here in Hawai'i, gay tourists always prey on the surfers. They especially target the young ones. They have been known to drug the drinks. They always have pot and x.

No different than men praying on women with date rape drugs. What the hell is your point?

 

[American Cowboy]

It is not a dried up old argument. It is a valid comparison.

IF marriage is a right
IF that right extends to whomever you wish to marry and is not subject to scrutiny
Then you must allow polygamists and inter familial marriages.

Personally, I would allow all of them AFTER marriage was removed as a tax benefit. For the time being, I have no issues with gays marrying as what one does on their own time is their own business. I believe that the crux of the argument lies in benefits to society. If there is a negative benefit then it could be argued that the state has no business condoning the relationship. There is no law against marrying for gays, just that the marriage will not be recognized by the state. For me, the verdict is in, it is BENEFICIAL to sanction gay marriage as gay is not a choice and all benefit from a stable relationship. There is also the adoption angle. I am POSITIVE that I do not want children in foster care. Whatever your view on gay behavior, a child is better off in a stable gay family than they are in a fluid and possible abusive foster care.

The "right" itself is not marriage. the "right" is the access to contract law and the Marriage Contract itself. It's just not proper, in a nation that bills itself as a beacon of freedom and civil rights not to allow TWO ADULT CITIZENS access to those legal protections. Not citizens and animals. Animals cannot CONSENT to a legal contract. And it's that point that invalidates the old Social Conservative's argument.

Which is why I never mentioned animals but go ahead and ignore the valad points that I brought up. Both polygamy AND inter-familial marriages would fall in line with the EXACT same arguments that gay marriage has. Why can I not marry my sister then? Go ahead, give me a reason that the gays do not have to deal with...

Although i support fag marriage. I do not support inter-familial marriage due to inbreading for the baby's sake. Inbreading is a real problem with dogs. Why would you allow it in human life?

At least the fags aren't producing little liberal fag freak babies.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Banana republicans!

 

[Lumpy 1]

BUT...........marriage, by definition, is one man and one woman.

In a religious context, perhaps.

But it’s not a compelling reason to preempt a same-sex couple’s 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

Well then.. if it is a matter of equal protection of the law under the 14th amendment why the intolerance and bigoted attacks on religious beliefs..? just wondering

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I would suggest hate and fear along with ignorance.

 

[Grace]

The "right" itself is not marriage. the "right" is the access to contract law and the Marriage Contract itself. It's just not proper, in a nation that bills itself as a beacon of freedom and civil rights not to allow TWO ADULT CITIZENS access to those legal protections. Not citizens and animals. Animals cannot CONSENT to a legal contract. And it's that point that invalidates the old Social Conservative's argument.

Which is why I never mentioned animals but go ahead and ignore the valad points that I brought up. Both polygamy AND inter-familial marriages would fall in line with the EXACT same arguments that gay marriage has. Why can I not marry my sister then? Go ahead, give me a reason that the gays do not have to deal with...

Although i support fag marriage. I do not support inter-familial marriage due to inbreading for the baby's sake. Inbreading is a real problem with dogs. Why would you allow it in human life?

At least the fags aren't producing little liberal fag freak babies.

Breaded babies and breaded dogs? Gosh. Never heard of that kind of recipe.

And you say you never buttfucked a woman? I'm willing to bet your nose just grew.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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.

I would suggest hate and fear along with ignorance.

I would suggest the same could be said of Gays pushing for same sex marriage...

 

[Colin]

The "right" itself is not marriage. the "right" is the access to contract law and the Marriage Contract itself. It's just not proper, in a nation that bills itself as a beacon of freedom and civil rights not to allow TWO ADULT CITIZENS access to those legal protections. Not citizens and animals. Animals cannot CONSENT to a legal contract. And it's that point that invalidates the old Social Conservative's argument.

Which is why I never mentioned animals but go ahead and ignore the valad points that I brought up. Both polygamy AND inter-familial marriages would fall in line with the EXACT same arguments that gay marriage has. Why can I not marry my sister then? Go ahead, give me a reason that the gays do not have to deal with...

Although i support fag marriage. I do not support inter-familial marriage due to inbreading for the baby's sake. Inbreading is a real problem with dogs. Why would you allow it in human life?

At least the fags aren't producing little liberal fag freak babies.

Ah. That accounts for it! So, you aren't bred...you're bread. I guess that must be a spelling mistake on your wrapper. It says 'thick cut'.

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

Really? You can see NO other possible reason except BIGOTRY and INTOLERANCE? That to me is proof of the level of sheer INSANITY of the left. I grew up at a time when "intolerance and bigotry" had REAL definitions and not this bullshit crap from the left that unless someone fully supports their own activist, radical agenda -why the only possible reason to not support it must be because the individual is just a bad, nasty, mean person just seething with BIGOTRY and INTOLERANCE!

"Bigotry" means "complete intolerance of any creed or belief but one's own" -and it does NOT mean "opposing redefining marriage" and it doesn't even mean "opposing the radical gay activist political agenda" either. "Intolerance of homosexuals" means "unable to tolerate the existence or presence of homosexuals". It sure as hell doesn't mean "opposed to altering a thousands year old definition of a very specific word that has never once meant "any two adults who feel like calling their particular relationship a 'marriage' just to make Bob and Joe personally happy!"

Whether it makes particular people happy or unhappy is NOT the basis for our laws! What makes Joe Gay Person happy or not is IRRELEVANT to the entire thing because it isn't an issue about what is best for Joe and Bob. It is whether it is best for society at large right NOW and for society in the future. PERIOD.

The REAL burden is on those who insist making such a fundamental change to society itself by meddling with one of its underlying pillars, something that evolved over the course of thousands of years for a REASON and it didn't end up including gay relationships -to prove it will either provide greater benefits to society as a whole, or at the very least not cause ANY negative, unwanted consequences by such a change. If it doesn't provide a greater benefit for society by changing it -then automatically that means any move to alter it should be done with GREAT hesitation. It isn't enough that radical gays (because not all support it) and liberals insist it will have no impact on society because they do know it will have no benefit for society itself -so they are arguing it will be a neutral impact -one of those "no harm no foul" situations. Except we DO know that isn't true. It will have widespread unwanted consequences and the very people who will pay most dearly for it have NOT been taken into consideration by gays and liberals -not at all. In fact they actually don't give a shit who will pay a heavy price for fucking it up because THEY want what THEY want and they don't care about a damn thing beyond that. And they do NOT care who gets hurt as a result, no matter how damaging that hurt may be. Because in their mind, what THEY want supersedes ALL ELSE and is far more important than WHO GETS HURT BY IT. It is the thinking and mentality of a child -which is actually required in order to be a liberal. Liberals base their opinions on what they FEEL. If they PERSONALLY like it or will PERSONALLY benefit by it -that makes it automatically good and anyone who opposes giving it to them can only be refusing to do so because they are just...MEANIES! Their FEELINGS are what counts most for a liberal and are far more important than anything else. Including FACTS and OUTCOMES and RESULTS.

You can't demand it be done just because of what you FEEL. YOUR feelings are just as irrelevant as my own. You have to be able to provide FACTS to back up any contention it will at the very least cause no harm that will outweigh any possible good -and you can't do that! Yet you CHILDISHLY insist the real burden lies with those who oppose it! Proving yet again the level of INSANE lack of critical thinking skills! I have thousands of years of the evolution of the pillars of society to back up MY opinion that it should not be altered in this way. WTF do you have? That Joe and Bob will be able to call their average 7 year long relationship a "marriage"?

I don't care if you want to look at long past history or current -we already know that gay marriage creates a SUBSTANTIAL change to one of the underlying pillars to a stable society -and that change in fact increases the instability of a society with the ripples of instability growing with each passing generation. Human beings already LEARNED this the hard way in the past -yet along comes a MINORITY in this generation -because get real, the overwhelming majority oppose this -convinced that they are SUPERIOR in every way to literally BILLIONS of human beings, every person who ever lived or is alive today and THEY ALONE got it right and our ENTIRE SPECIES got it all wrong. And THEY ALONE just FEEL what it SHOULD be and will ...fix it all. Dismissing out of hand ALL human experience over the course of thousands of years! What arrogance.

We already know that altering marriage in this way will result in many negative and unwanted and UNINTENDED consequences that FAR outweigh any possible good Gee, do you THINK that might be why it evolved to what it did? Of course not because all that matters to you is what you FEEL and you FEEL its more important to make Joe and Bob happy than ANYTHING else, right?

Try taking a hard, HONEST look at what Denmark -the nation that has the longest experience dealing with same sex marriage - has done to itself and look at the HONEST reports on the problems in their society that have occurred as a direct result of dismantling the very pillars of their society -to the point they are now scrambling to figure out how to repair their own self-inflicted damage. Just a few decades later and the damage is undeniable. The marriage rate in Denmark has sharply fallen off and continues to this day. They try to cover that by trumpeting a relatively unchanged divorce rate -but if people aren't getting married at all, then that becomes a pretty irrelevant statistic. Their birth rate remains the same though. But within ten years, the overwhelming majority of first born children were born out of wedlock. In another ten so were the majority of second born children and today about 50% of all 3rd born children are as well. In other words -the majority of all children born in Denmark today are born to an unmarried woman. On top of which because a child's parents have not committed to a bonded unit for the purpose of raising children, the average child in Denmark sees an average of FIVE men come in and out of his mother's life before the age of 15 and have only minimal contact with their biological father. That is a big, red flag in the life of male children in particular when it comes to their emotional health and their own future relationships. Studies have shown the great damage done to male children when they see men come and go in their mother's life -they are far more likely to have difficulty establishing a stable relationship themselves, far more likely to have mental health issues, far more likely to engage in self-destructive behaviors, have more difficulty in school and more likely to engage in acts of anti-social behavior and more likely to commit acts of violence. Even when people did these studies trying to prove that wasn't true, they only confirmed what is a known fact every time -there is no other situation that comes close to raising the next generation to be emotionally healthy, independent and productive citizens than marriage of the biological parents. Doesn't matter if you FEEL that can't be right -it is. And it turns out that is true for both girls AND boys -both boys and girls have far more difficulty establishing and maintaining a stable relationship themselves if they are raised in ANY other situation but by their married biological parents, are far more likely to have mental health and far more likely to engage in anti-social behaviors. But they don't stop having children and inflicting that same damage to their own kids as well which actually becomes compounded with each passing generation. In fact we know RIGHT NOW today that Denmark has THE highest rate of mental illness in their children in the west -to go along with also having the longest experience with same sex marriage. Not the least of which is the SHOCKING fact that SUICIDE is the second highest cause of death for their SEVEN YEAR OLDS, right after accidental deaths -something that is so rare in this country it isn't even on the list - is directly correlated to their decision to dismantle THE single most stabilizing pillar for any society.

Look what is happening in Nordland, Norway which has followed suit and is the most liberal county of Norway. In the first ten years of same sex marriage, out of wedlock births rose from 39% (already shockingly high) -to 80%. They are seeing the same spikes in all the other indicators of an increasingly UNSTABLE society as well.

Marriage evolved to what it is because it is an HISTORICALLY and REPEATEDLY PROVEN fact over the course of THOUSANDS OF YEARS to be the single most best way of raising the next generation to become productive, self-reliant and emotional healthy adults. PERIOD. And there is no close second. That can't be emphasized enough -there is NO close second. Every single study you will find only confirms that, even ones done by people trying to prove otherwise. Every other possible situation is so far down the list as to not even be in the same ball park. You fuck that up and you screw over MILLIONS and MILLIONS more and in far more damaging ways than any harm to gays by not calling their gay relationships a "marriage". That's it and there is NO reason great enough to justify fucking that up, including any smarmy BULLSHIT about how poor Joe and Bob feel cheated because they can't call their relationship "marriage". The demands by gay activists and liberals is nothing but the WHINING of the most superficial, self-absorbed, self-indulgent minority in this country (because the overwhelming majority oppose screwing with it). That is the REAL purpose of marriage -to have and raise children because it is THE single most best way to prepare and raise the next generation to become productive, emotionally healthy adults. The change that is actually done to this pillar of a stable society by redefining it in this way is that it substantially changes society's perception of marriage from one for the purpose of having and raising children -to being just about coupling. Which then results in fewer people getting married for the purpose of having and raising kids but doesn't change the rate at which they have them anyway. Which then results in raising children in what is a KNOWN FACT and REPEATEDLY PROVEN to be such a SIGNIFICANTLY INFERIOR situation to raise kids as to result in causing great emotional and mental harm to far, far more.

But liberals and gay activists are REALLY saying is either they just don't believe it and no amount of FACTS will make a dent in their cement heads because it doesn't fit in with what they FEEL -or respond with SO WHAT if it does inflict great harm to future generations because of the unwanted and unintended consequences? None of that will EVER be as important as making sure Bob and Joe got to call their average 7 year long "marriage" a marriage before they split up, is it?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Which is why I never mentioned animals but go ahead and ignore the valad points that I brought up. Both polygamy AND inter-familial marriages would fall in line with the EXACT same arguments that gay marriage has. Why can I not marry my sister then? Go ahead, give me a reason that the gays do not have to deal with...

Although i support fag marriage. I do not support inter-familial marriage due to inbreading for the baby's sake. Inbreading is a real problem with dogs. Why would you allow it in human life?

At least the fags aren't producing little liberal fag freak babies.

Breaded babies and breaded dogs? Gosh. Never heard of that kind of recipe.

And you say you never buttfucked a woman? I'm willing to bet your nose just grew.

Is there a better term for that... sheesh...

 

[Lars]

Opposition to Polygamy- Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

 

[FA_Q2]

So far George and none of the rest have even bothered to address the points. It seems they assumed bigotry...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Scalia’s tactic is of course quite clever from a political standpoint: it allows conservatives to oppose same-sex marriage without appearing to be intolerant.

Scalia and his disciples might indeed say they approve of same-sex marriage and the rights of gays in general – they merely believe it to be a legislative, not judicial, issue.

As already noted, however clever it doesn’t comport to Constitutional case law and the intent of the 14th Amendment. In order for that Amendment to be successful, its framers knew that due process and equal protection must apply to all persons – any qualifications might give the governments of former slave states (or any state of a like mind) an advantage, excuse, or ‘loophole’ to exclude their discriminatory laws from the Amendment’s requirements.

The Amendment states only all persons. Period. And to paraphrase the Plyler Court, women and homosexuals are persons in any ordinary sense of the term.

The REAL burden is on those who insist making such a fundamental change to society itself by meddling with one of its underlying pillars, something that evolved over the course of thousands of years for a REASON and it didn't end up including gay relationships -to prove it will either provide greater benefits to society as a whole, or at the very least not cause ANY negative, unwanted consequences by such a change.

In Lawrence v Texas, striking down state laws banning homosexual relationships as in violation of the 14th Amendment, the Court noted that neither tradition nor history is justification for laws or official practices that are un-Constitutional:

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.

WTF do you have?

The Constitution, its case law, and the fact no state has provided a compelling governmental interest to preempt the rights of those wishing to enter into same-sex marriage.

 

[Lumpy 1]

So far George and none of the rest have even bothered to address the points. It seems they assumed bigotry...

Well.. as much as I like George as a fellow member his original OP proved the exact opposite of his intent...He's completely intolerant, dismissive and insulting of the opposing viewpoint...

either that or.. "So what" means something different than I thought.....