Reasons To Be Anti-Gay, By The Numbers

[ScreamingEagle]

"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." - Predfan

"SCOTUS ruled it a right, in the text of the Loving decision." - G.T.

"no, they did not. read it again." - Predfan


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," - SCOTUS

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

How?
most marriage and child relationships are easily defined by bloodlines...this would change that
How?

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

Perhaps you've got a different copy of the Constitution, but I don't remember any mention of any "Right to define marriage", or any group rights at all.
you got that right...that falls to the states....

I thought you guys were all about "individual rights", anyway.
gays currently have the right to marry if they wish...

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....

Huh?
one major aspect of marriage is to form the family unit which is the basic building block of society......the left wishes to destroy that basic formation.....

.

 

[g5000]

....so this is really a money issue......?

It's a legal issue. There are many protections under the law proffered to married people. Not all of them are fiduciary.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The whole "gay couples can't raise kids" argument is personally offense to me as well.

I have many close friends, including my best and closest friend, who were adopted at birth and raised by same-sex couples.

Best parents I've ever met.

 

[g5000]

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

I believe that is the root of all arguments against gays, but you rarely see it honestly expressed. It is preferred to cover up with irrational fallacies rather than speak the naked truth.

 

[g5000]

one major aspect of marriage is to form the family unit which is the basic building block of society......the left wishes to destroy that basic formation.....

I think Newt Gingrich destroyed that particular building block all by himself. Wellll...Senator Vitter helped. And Senator Ensign. As did Governor Sanford. And quite a few others.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

How?

most marriage and child relationships are easily defined by bloodlines...this would change that

How?

Perhaps you've got a different copy of the Constitution, but I don't remember any mention of any "Right to define marriage", or any group rights at all.

you got that right...that falls to the states....

I thought you guys were all about "individual rights", anyway.

gays currently have the right to marry if they wish...

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....

Huh?
one major aspect of marriage is to form the family unit which is the basic building block of society......the left wishes to destroy that basic formation.....

.

Dude, I hate to be a pain in the ass about this sort of thing, but use quote tags. It makes everything so much simpler. I tried to fix your post a little.
(This is not an official moderator post, just a suggestion)

Yes, "gays currently have the right to marry if they wish". Just not "who they wish".

And as I pointed out in my earlier post, same-sex couples can certainly raise kids. Adoption is an amazing and wonderful thing.

As someone who was adopted at birth, "bloodlines" are not the slightest bit important to me.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But they are denied all the protections of the law extended to all other married people. Which is unconstitional for the reasons I explained above in post 38.

they can put all their "protections" into a contract....

Explain how a gay married couple can file a joint Federal tax return.

Explain how a gay man can collect his spouse's Social Security death benefit.

explain how a polygamist gets to declare 15 children from 5 different wives on his tax return....

 

[The Rabbi]

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

I believe it has been defeated every time because of cowardly politicians who are triangulating finger-in-the-wind followers.

As soon as a real leader with intestinal fortitude comes along who vociferously and articulately supports gay marriage, the floodgates will open.

"Cowardly politicians"? Really? Is that your final answer?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

It hasn't. 25% of Americans live somewhere where same-sex marriage is legal.

If you're talking about popular votes, I'd remind you that we don't live in a "democracy".

 

[g5000]

they can put all their "protections" into a contract....

Explain how a gay married couple can file a joint Federal tax return.

Explain how a gay man can collect his spouse's Social Security death benefit.

explain how a polygamist gets to declare 15 children from 5 different wives on his tax return....

Is this your way of saying you cannot think of a contract which would currently allow a gay couple to file a married tax return or for a gay man to collect his spouse's Social Security death benefit?

 

[The Rabbi]

"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." - Predfan

"SCOTUS ruled it a right, in the text of the Loving decision." - G.T.

"no, they did not. read it again." - Predfan


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," - SCOTUS

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....

See the problem is we can point to the states where it is legala dn nothing bad has happened. We can point to the countries that have it and show there is no evidence of society breaking down.

More to the point you are lying and promoting fear. More to the point you are trying to redefine marriage because you are a bigot.you are an antiamerican bigot and so is anyone who thinks like you.

Gay marriage has been legal for how long? Do you really think you can evaluate something like that within a year or two?
People probably made the same argument about abortion. With a 40 year perspective we can say legalized abortion is a disaster, contributing to the irresponsible mentality of people.

 

[g5000]

Gay marriage has been legal for how long? Do you really think you can evaluate something like that within a year or two?
People probably made the same argument about abortion.

Apples and oranges.

Granting a gay marriage equal protection under the law is like granting interracial marriages equal protection under the law.

Loving v. Virginia was handed down five years before Roe v. Wade. How is THAT working out for you? Are we better or worse off with interracial marriages being able to file jointly, receive Social Security death benefits, etc., etc., etc.?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It hasn't. 25% of Americans live somewhere where same-sex marriage is legal.

If you're talking about popular votes, I'd remind you that we don't live in a "democracy".

That would cover what, Mass and New York?
In every other state where it's legal it was imposed by judicial fiat, against the will of the people. Remember that government derives its power solely from the will of the people.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

It hasn't. 25% of Americans live somewhere where same-sex marriage is legal.

If you're talking about popular votes, I'd remind you that we don't live in a "democracy".

That would cover what, Mass and New York?
In every other state where it's legal it was imposed by judicial fiat, against the will of the people. Remember that government derives its power solely from the will of the people.

The government derives its power from the "will of the people", yet the "will of the people" isn't where the power resides.

It's the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

 

[g5000]

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

It hasn't. 25% of Americans live somewhere where same-sex marriage is legal.

If you're talking about popular votes, I'd remind you that we don't live in a "democracy".

That would cover what, Mass and New York?
In every other state where it's legal it was imposed by judicial fiat, against the will of the people. Remember that government derives its power solely from the will of the people.

So long as the will of the people does not violate the Constitution. For instance, if the will of the people was to deny you the ability to purchase a handgun, then the "will of the people" argument is null and void.

If the Court decided the "will of the people" violated your Constitutional right to bear arms, I seriously doubt you would be droning on about "judicial fiat" or "states rights".

 

[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.

All evidence to the contrary.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How?

How?

Perhaps you've got a different copy of the Constitution, but I don't remember any mention of any "Right to define marriage", or any group rights at all.


I thought you guys were all about "individual rights", anyway.



Huh?
one major aspect of marriage is to form the family unit which is the basic building block of society......the left wishes to destroy that basic formation.....

.

Dude, I hate to be a pain in the ass about this sort of thing, but use quote tags. It makes everything so much simpler. I tried to fix your post a little.
(This is not an official moderator post, just a suggestion)

Yes, "gays currently have the right to marry if they wish". Just not "who they wish".

And as I pointed out in my earlier post, same-sex couples can certainly raise kids. Adoption is an amazing and wonderful thing.

As someone who was adopted at birth, "bloodlines" are not the slightest bit important to me.

you "fixed it" alright....

gays can marry other gays today if they wish.....tis true!

adoption is normally for kids who have no parents.....or parents who have given up parental rights....

what would you say about two gay "mothers" and two "fathers" who "have" a kid.....all 4 would have equal rights no?

....then the divorces come and the kid could instantly have 8 "parents"......not to mention endless grandparents and aunts and uncles......etc, etc.

children could be torn into pieces...

(it's already bad enough with straight couples who divorce and remarry)

 

[The Rabbi]

Gay marriage has been legal for how long? Do you really think you can evaluate something like that within a year or two?
People probably made the same argument about abortion.

Apples and oranges.

Granting a gay marriage equal protection under the law is like granting interracial marriages equal protection under the law.

Loving v. Virginia was handed down five years before Roe v. Wade. How is THAT working out for you? Are we better or worse off with interracial marriages being able to file jointly, receive Social Security death benefits, etc., etc., etc.?

Men and women could marry before Loving. Men and women can marry after Loving. No real change there.
And inter-racial marriage was legal in most of the U.S. anyway.

 

[PredFan]

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.

No, the right to equal protection does not apply to gay marriage. Sorry, there just isn't any way you can spin that that actually makes sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

It hasn't. 25% of Americans live somewhere where same-sex marriage is legal.

If you're talking about popular votes, I'd remind you that we don't live in a "democracy".

That would cover what, Mass and New York?
In every other state where it's legal it was imposed by judicial fiat, against the will of the people. Remember that government derives its power solely from the will of the people.

The government derives its power from the "will of the people", yet the "will of the people" isn't where the power resides.

It's the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

do you actually understand what you wrote? I don't think so.
Whether it's a republic or democracy, authority and legislation do not come from the judiciary of unelected judges.