Reasons To Be Anti-Gay, By The Numbers

[G.T.]

All gays can marry today if they want to.....nobody is stopping them.....they can go to their local Unitarian church or whatever....any other details can be covered with a contract....

however the leftist-backed gay rights movement is pushing for special government-sanctioned gay marriage......something that will rip up organized society and increase the amount of government in our lives.....not to mention destroy the right of the majority to define marriage as between one man and one woman....

the left is simply out to destroy society and a long-established way of life that functions well....it really has nothing to do with Adam and Steve pining away to get married....

glaringly obvious that there's no rational discussion that can be had with this post.

whatsa prob....the glare of truth blinding you.....?

No, just the intense lack of logic and the emotion-driven rhetoric in your post just makes it obvious that there's no discussion to be had there. It's not on some grown man shit, more like on some "people who aren't like me are icky, and if you disagree you want to destroy the world!" shit. Toddler shit.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

glaringly obvious that there's no rational discussion that can be had with this post.

whatsa prob....the glare of truth blinding you.....?

No, just the intense lack of logic and the emotion-driven rhetoric in your post just makes it obvious that there's no discussion to be had there. It's not on some grown man shit, more like on some "people who aren't like me are icky, and if you disagree you want to destroy the world!" shit. Toddler shit.

wahwahwah.....your prob is you have no argument against such a sensible argument....

....it's totally logical and truthful.....too bad it doesn't fit in your little list.....

 

[PredFan]

Universal marriage is inevitable. The great majority of the 40 and under generation support it. Twenty years from now, the progress of history will be on its side.

Roughly 70% favor gay marriage, of 18-34 year olds. Future looks good for freedom on the issue.

There is a problem with this theory. The belief that anti-Gay sentiment will go away with time is based on an ignorance of reality. (ignorance as in "not knowing" as opposed to stupidity)

Many people believe in things that they thoroughly abandon when they get older. Many young people live a life completely different than what they have when they get older. Ideas change with responsibilities, with family, with careers. Many young people who aren't religious grow up to become born-agains, some even religious enopugh to turn their minds away from sympathy to gay marriage. Does this happen to every young person? Of course not. Are there some people who go from anti-gay to pro-gay as they get older? Probably so. I just believe that imagining that you can count of the youth of today ending DOMA in our lifetimes is not something that can be depended on, and I use the recent votes against gay marriage in many states including California as evidence to support my belief. Unless you think that only old people vote in those elections.

Except for the fact that the trend has been a positive one for a number of years now, within all age brackets.

Well, all I can say is that I hope you are right, just don't bet on it.

 

[PredFan]

Most people who are against gay marriage just think its icky and shreek like school girls about it.

I think homosexuality is very very ickey. Which is why I don't do it. OTOH, if someone else wants to do it then more power to them.

Now I happen to think lesbianism is A-OK.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once we accept homosexual relationships as normal, it is really only a matter of time before this civilization follows all the others into the dustbin of history. Maybe it's just part of the lifecyle of civilizations.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Nice OP, but you left out the religious argument and the "gay sex is icky" argument.

Closely related to the SickRick argument that all sex I icky.

Excellent op because, in fact, there are no reasons to deny basic civil rights to any segment of our population.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Nice OP, but you left out the religious argument and the "gay sex is icky" argument.

Closely related to the SickRick argument that all sex I icky.

Excellent op because, in fact, there are no reasons to deny basic civil rights to any segment of our population.

and how exactly do you define "basic civil rights".........?

 

[bodecea]

Agreed, it's silly.



Garbage. There is no right to marry in the constitution, no right to marry whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. A whole lot of things aren't covered in the Constitution. The ability to marry is not a right but a liberty. Liberties are protected under the constitution and rightly so. You may not have a "right" to marry, but it is a liberty that the government doesn't have the "right" to deny. I have heard this garbage about the 14th amendment many times but it fails because gays do have legal protection of the laws. it is a major stretch to include that amendment in denying something that the laws do not cover.

That said, just because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it is a good argument against gay marriage.



I don't believe I've ever heard that argument, but sure, it's silly as well.



#4 here is quite the strawman, but I'll address it anyway.

1st, what is wrong with screwing like rabbits?

(I'll ignore your racist nonsense)

The reason heteros are beginning to outpace homos is due to the much larger population of heteros. No surprise there, and no relevant point either.

Syphillis has been around since time immemorable, AIDS only in the past 3 decades or so. Again, your point is moot.

Agreed that it is still a rediculous argument against gay marriage since marriage would promote fidelity and therefor decrease the risk of spreading AIDS, Herpes, and any other STD. Allowing Gays to be married would help in the fight against these diseases.

As a Libertarian, i am for liberty for everyone and anti-big government, however, posts like this OP don't really help the cause very much.

SCOTUS ruled it a right, in the text of the Loving decision.

no, they did not. read it again.

They didn't say this?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

 

[High_Gravity]

Once we accept homosexual relationships as normal, it is really only a matter of time before this civilization follows all the others into the dustbin of history. Maybe it's just part of the lifecyle of civilizations.

People used to say the same thing about interracial marriages.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Once we accept homosexual relationships as normal, it is really only a matter of time before this civilization follows all the others into the dustbin of history. Maybe it's just part of the lifecyle of civilizations.

People used to say the same thing about interracial marriages.

race is an integral part of a person's makeup......"civil rights" is historically linked to the race isssue....

but crossing over from race to sexual orientation does not automatically define another "basic civil right"....even blacks will agree on this.....

 

[PredFan]

SCOTUS ruled it a right, in the text of the Loving decision.

no, they did not. read it again.

They didn't say this?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Was that said in the loving decision?

The point is that the RIGHT to marriage is in fact a liberty. Despite what one of the judges said, it isn't a right. Our basic rights are covered specifically in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Everything else are liberties. That said, the government has no right to rule on our liberties and gays should be afforded the same liberties as hetersexuals have.

 

[The Rabbi]

All of those arguments could be marshalled about denying ANYONE the ability to marry ANYONE else. Perhaps I could marry a couple. Maybe a Mexican illegal can marry the town of San Bernadino CA and get citizenship. Maybe my entire family could marry John Boehner's family.
When you go down that road the marital state means nothign anymore than a tax advantage. That is not positive for society, which rightly enshrines the married couple with children as the cornerstone of society.

 

[g5000]

however the leftist-backed gay rights movement is pushing for special government-sanctioned gay marriage

How is asking for the ability to file a married tax return a "special" government-sanctioned marriage? What makes it different from any other marriage?

......something that will rip up organized society and increase the amount of government in our lives

How so? The government used to invade the bedroom and arrest homosexuals.

.....not to mention destroy the right of the majority to define marriage as between one man and one woman....

The majority have defined marriage as between a man and a woman, until one of them gets a lover and then they divorce and fight over custody of the children for years. Then they re-marry and then re-commit adultery. Rinse. Repeat.

That's the institution that the Decider of Right-And-Wrong known as Newt Gingrich treasures.

I can see how two guys getting married really threatens that!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Universal marriage is inevitable. The great majority of the 40 and under generation support it. Twenty years from now, the progress of history will be on its side.

Roughly 70% favor gay marriage, of 18-34 year olds. Future looks good for freedom on the issue.

There is a problem with this theory. The belief that anti-Gay sentiment will go away with time is based on an ignorance of reality. (ignorance as in "not knowing" as opposed to stupidity)

Many people believe in things that they thoroughly abandon when they get older. Many young people live a life completely different than what they have when they get older. Ideas change with responsibilities, with family, with careers. Many young people who aren't religious grow up to become born-agains, some even religious enopugh to turn their minds away from sympathy to gay marriage. Does this happen to every young person? Of course not. Are there some people who go from anti-gay to pro-gay as they get older? Probably so. I just believe that imagining that you can count of the youth of today ending DOMA in our lifetimes is not something that can be depended on, and I use the recent votes against gay marriage in many states including California as evidence to support my belief. Unless you think that only old people vote in those elections.

Except for the fact that the trend has been a positive one for a number of years now, within all age brackets.

The trending has been undeniably pro-universal marriage the last fifteen years, more dramatically the last five. By 2020, the trend will be 65% of better.

 

[The Rabbi]

however the leftist-backed gay rights movement is pushing for special government-sanctioned gay marriage

How is asking for the ability to file a married tax return a "special" government-sanctioned marriage? What makes it different from any other marriage?

!

You just answered your own question, Mary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The statist The Rabbi wants to use big government to prohibit universal marriage. Won't succeed in the long run.

 

[PredFan]

There is a problem with this theory. The belief that anti-Gay sentiment will go away with time is based on an ignorance of reality. (ignorance as in "not knowing" as opposed to stupidity)

Many people believe in things that they thoroughly abandon when they get older. Many young people live a life completely different than what they have when they get older. Ideas change with responsibilities, with family, with careers. Many young people who aren't religious grow up to become born-agains, some even religious enopugh to turn their minds away from sympathy to gay marriage. Does this happen to every young person? Of course not. Are there some people who go from anti-gay to pro-gay as they get older? Probably so. I just believe that imagining that you can count of the youth of today ending DOMA in our lifetimes is not something that can be depended on, and I use the recent votes against gay marriage in many states including California as evidence to support my belief. Unless you think that only old people vote in those elections.

Except for the fact that the trend has been a positive one for a number of years now, within all age brackets.

The trending has been undeniably pro-universal marriage the last fifteen years, more dramatically the last five. By 2020, the trend will be 65% of better.

Then tell me, why has gay marriage been defeated every time it comes up? I think reality flies in the face of your statistics.

 

[g5000]

2. “Show me where the right to marry is in the Constitution”. This is probably the second most common argument. It is actually a one-size-fits-all argument used in many debates, not just the gay marriage debate. “Show me were (fill in the blank) is in the Constitution.” Its users believe it is a debate ender, but it really only exposes their ignorance of the Constitution.

State and federal governments have created benefits and privileges specific to married couples in their laws. The benefits and privileges therefore have the protection of the law. If you file a married federal income tax return, for example, you are exercising one of those privileges.

The 14th amendment specifically states that one must provide “equal protection of the laws”. Therefore, if you extend the married tax return benefit to one married couple, you must extend it to all married couples. Be they a white/white marriage, or a black/white marriage, or an opposite gender marriage, or a same gender marriage.

So the “show me where the right to marry” Constitutional question is a logical fallacy known as a false premise, and not a very clever one at that.

Garbage. There is no right to marry in the constitution, no right to marry whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.

I know there isn't. That is why you need to read #2 again.

The right to equal protection of the laws IS in the Constitution, and that is what is at issue with respect to gay marriage. If you permit gays to "marry", or whatever you wish to call the official sanction of their union, you must extend all the same state and federal protections granted to other sanctioned unions.

Nor can you ban their unions for irrational reasons. You must provide a rational explanation for your discrimination against gay marriage, or they cannot be denied.

We know this because Loving v. Virginia provides us the basis for what we can expect from the Supreme Court when gay marriage comes before them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Except for the fact that the trend has been a positive one for a number of years now, within all age brackets.

The trending has been undeniably pro-universal marriage the last fifteen years, more dramatically the last five. By 2020, the trend will be 65% of better.

Then tell me, why has gay marriage been defeated every time it comes up? I think reality flies in the face of your statistics.

Because the older generations vote in much higher numbers than the younger ones.

Your generation will die out and will so your out-moded thinking on marriage.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

no, they did not. read it again.

They didn't say this?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Was that said in the loving decision?

The point is that the RIGHT to marriage is in fact a liberty. Despite what one of the judges said, it isn't a right. Our basic rights are covered specifically in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Everything else are liberties. That said, the government has no right to rule on our liberties and gays should be afforded the same liberties as hetersexuals have.

gays can marry already....

but making all marriages "government-endorsed" is altogether a different animal....