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

[The Rabbi]

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.

What rights are gays being denied?

 

[Colin]

I have been asking conservatives this question for years. Never got a straight answer.

Marriage is seen by most as in the eyes of God. Civil Unions is seen by most as in the eyes of the court.

Fags getting married to me is a little like them spitting in the eye of God. But they can do what ever they want. God will take it up with them at a later date.

your a fucking closet gay....i can tell just by how scared you are of these people....

You could well be right, Harry! It is widely known that those who express such views vociferously are often homosexuals who are unable to come to terms with their sexual
orientation. It comes from a desperate need to hide their secret. Yep, Cowboy is probably a closet gay. Mind you, the high heeled boots and chaps should have been a giveaway!

 

[Lumpy 1]

Marriage is seen by most as in the eyes of God. Civil Unions is seen by most as in the eyes of the court.

Fags getting married to me is a little like them spitting in the eye of God. But they can do what ever they want. God will take it up with them at a later date.

your a fucking closet gay....i can tell just by how scared you are of these people....

You could well be right, Harry! It is widely known that those who express such views vociferously are often homosexuals who are unable to come to terms with their sexual
orientation. It comes from a desperate need to hide their secret. Yep, Cowboy is probably a closet gay. Mind you, the high heeled boots and chaps should have been a giveaway!

My my.. what a shit disturber....

 

[WorldWatcher]

How much of that weekly attendance demographic is black?

Rev. Al Rips Black Mega-Churches on LGBT, Prop 8 | Young Black Professional Guide

Statistically speaking a much greater impact on the outcome would have been made by a 45% demographic voting 70% to approve Prop 8.

Since they were only 7% of the voters, who cares? Well unless the race card is trying to be played.



>>>>>

You missed the question.

For some obscure reason, probably because you do not want to admit it, you seem to miss the point that that 45% demographic of weekly church goers had a few blacks and Hispanics within it. My guess is the numbers were actually pretty significant.

Wanna' know why Prop 8 passed in California? Because Blacks and Hispanics voted for it in droves. Ask THEM why they oppose gay marriage.

For some obscure reason, probably because you do not want to admit it, you seem to miss the point of the original post to which I responded which was that Blacks and Hispanics voted "in droves" and were the major reason Prop 8 passed. I used to think that myself after initial exit polls, but longer term research did not bear that out.

The fact is that Blacks and Hispanics were not a major demographic (7% and 14% respectively) with 42% and 41% of them voting in favor of NOT passing Prop 8. The largest Demographic was "white" which voted in the majority against Prop 8 (IIRC about 48%) but the second largest Demographic was weekly religioius service attendance which voted 70% for Prop 8.

It would be more accurate to state that religious people voted "in droves" against Prop 8, but for some reason the poster wanted to focus on race and not a lifestyle choice like religion.



>>>>

 

[George Costanza]

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:

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.

What rights are gays being denied?

So let's say none. So what? What do YOU care if a couple of gays want to get married?
Intolerance and bigotry? Oh, well then, I understand . . .

 

[George Costanza]

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?

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . .

You can pontificate all you want. It all boils down to just two things, both of them mentioned in the thread title.

 

[George Costanza]

Why do Gays want to get married in the first place if they receive the same rights in civil unions.?

It bothers me that Gays are so cavalier and insulting as to religious beliefs. I believe their marriage push is more related to destroying traditional religious belief, than marriage...

My view is that many act out as spoiled brats that want their way no matter how intolerate they are..

Maye because other members of our society who are in love, are allowed to marry? Have you ever been on the outside, looking in? Not a good feeling.

Your view that the marriage push of gays relates more to a desire to destroy traditional religious beliefs rather than a genuine desire for marriage, is ludicrous. Sorry, L., but it flat is.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.


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:



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.

What rights are gays being denied?

So let's say none. So what? What do YOU care if a couple of gays want to get married?
Intolerance and bigotry? Oh, well then, I understand . . .

If they're not being denied any rights what standing do they have to demand something the rest of us cannot do?
Why should we accord extra rights to people because they like to screw members of the same sex?

But there are no arguments that will persuade you. Your mind is made up that any opposition is simply bigotry and intolerance. Like people who say opposition to Obama is purely racism. There is no arguing with the deluded.

 

[bripat9643]

You could well be right, Harry! It is widely known that those who express such views vociferously are often homosexuals who are unable to come to terms with their sexual
orientation. It comes from a desperate need to hide their secret. Yep, Cowboy is probably a closet gay. Mind you, the high heeled boots and chaps should have been a giveaway!

The first thing a liberal does in any discussion of homosexuality is accuse his opponent of being a fag. Then he accuses him of being "intolerant" and spouting "hate."

 

[Harry Dresden]

I am disgusted by them, not scared of them stupid.I also aviod pediphiles, chicken fvckers, and Democrats all of which are just as sick.

The sick one here is you.

Sorry if I offended you sodomite.

I said you fags could get married if you want, just keep it away from me and my kids. Too much to ask?

You fags are always trying to rub are noses in it. You are the sick ones.

does your wife know your gay?....or are you hiding that from her?....she will find out eventually....

 

[NYcarbineer]

What rights are gays being denied?

So let's say none. So what? What do YOU care if a couple of gays want to get married?
Intolerance and bigotry? Oh, well then, I understand . . .

If they're not being denied any rights what standing do they have to demand something the rest of us cannot do?
Why should we accord extra rights to people because they like to screw members of the same sex?

.

So if ONLY same sex marriage were legal, heterosexuals would have no complaint?

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

put yourself at the head of that list ......you are one disturbed motherfucker....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

so that is your problem.....your one of them thar inbreds....ok now i see why you are so fucking stupid............

 

[NYcarbineer]

What rights are gays being denied?

So let's say none. So what? What do YOU care if a couple of gays want to get married?
Intolerance and bigotry? Oh, well then, I understand . . .

If they're not being denied any rights what standing do they have to demand something the rest of us cannot do?
Why should we accord extra rights to people because they like to screw members of the same sex?

Legal gay marriage does not make hetero marriage illegal. Nor does it prevent you from choosing same sex marriage.

Therefore, it does NOT demand something the rest of us cannot do. That's bullshit, and simply more proof that bigotry is the only motivation for opposing same sex marriage. Well, to be precise, perhaps outright ignorance of the matter is another reason some oppose gay marriage.

 

[Wry Catcher]

HYpocrisy is another thing to consider when one examines the 'callous conservatives' opposition to Gay and Lesbian marriages. Consider how they argue for freedom and liberty from government oppression, yet hope to deny the freedom of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

Prop. 8 in California is a classic example, funded in part by the Mormon Church and supported by the Catholic Church, both of which have suffered the pain of prejudice, and both benefit from the freedom from taxation, something which should be reevaluated as organized religion becomes indistinguishable from other special interests.

P.S. If conservatives wish to defend traditional marriage, why have they not outlawed divorce? Why don't the conservatives seek to amend the Constitution and deny elected federal office to any divorced person - wouldn't that protect marriage?

 

[SW2SILVER]

Only intolerant and ignorant people are opposed to Gay marriage? As opposed to: only narcissistic perverts with vested interest SUPPORT Gay marriage? Let’s don’t use simplistic absolutes here. It is a little more complicated than that, don’t ya think? Gays have all the same rights as I , and I feel this cheapens and degrades marriage. (As if it isn’t already being cheapened by Heterosexuals that treat it as if it were petty and disposable). Maybe, on second thought, we might as well go the whole nine yards and let gays marry and ruin it COMPLETELY. Good move, NYC.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Only intolerant and ignorant people are opposed to Gay marriage? As opposed to: only narcissistic perverts with vested interest SUPPORT Gay marriage? Let’s don’t use simplistic absolutes here. It is a little more complicated than that, don’t ya think? Gays have all the same rights as I , and I feel this cheapens and degrades marriage. (As if it isn’t already being cheapened by Heterosexuals that treat it as if it were petty and disposable). Maybe, on second thought, we might as well go the whole nine yards and let gays marry and ruin it COMPLETELY. Good move, NYC.

Your feelings aside, how does the marriage between a gay or lesbian couple degrade your marriage or anyones? Would you prefer a neighborhood where stable relationships based on mutual respect and love exists, or the Time's Square type where gratuitous sex and impersonal relationships dominate?

No one asked you to be tolerant of others, you don't need to be and obviously you are not. What matters is the rule of law. The incredible hypocrisy of bigots cannot stand the test of time; those who opposed the ERA will soon be faced with a new iteration, asking the Constitution to be amended and to provide, "Equality of rights under the law" whichk, "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" or sexual orientation.

It is right, it is just and it doesn't effect the marriage of anyone else. Those who love liberty will support it, those who support tyranny will not.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just like so many things that are embarrasing in our history, this one will be right there. The ones who opposed equal rights for blacks and women are the same idiots who are against this.

It's a "conservative" thing.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk]YouTube - ‪Lewis Black - Queers‬‏[/ame]​

 

[Sheldon]

I would like to hear from some posters who bring polygamy up all the time.....what is it about allowing gay marriage that triggers polygamy that would not be triggered by straight marriage?

What legal justification would we have to ban polygamy if the government is not allowed to define marriage as being between one man and one woman? I want to here a rational argument that defends that position, if anyone actually has one.

they dont. Consenting adults should be allowed to enter whatever contract they see fit.

But hen who actually gives a shit besides you? I dont care if 4 people want to hook up. That has no affect on my life. More to the point:

Buddy: So you have some interesting Neighbors.
Me: yup i think they are all married together.
Buddy: No shit
Me Yup
Buddy: So hows work...


Same goes for a gay couple. Unless you actually found out that they are gay, how would you even know? Why would you even care? Live your life and be happy.

I don't have a problem with polygamy either. My only point of concern is how much of a say should wife #1 get in the marriage between the husband and wife #2 that he marries at a later date. Since a contract between him and #2 could effect the split of assets or whatever with #1, I'm wondering if she should have some legal ground to prevent that marriage. I guess it could just be up to the three of them to work out. Probably just one of many headaches for having multiple spouses.

 

[Seawytch]

Historically, marriage has been more of a religous and cultural ceremony than to provide tax breaks and health coverage. Just FYI

You might want to read up on marriage history. You have a confused view of it.

HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION


I'm sure you won't read it...it has more than two paragraphs, but some very useful information about how marriage was a contract more than anything else. It was all about the Benjamins.

As for the religious aspect...you are correct, but do you know which religion? It wasn't Christianity. EARLY CHURCH AGAINST MARRIAGE