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

[Harry Dresden]

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 ***. Then he accuses him of being "intolerant" and spouting "hate."

Liberal? Me! You really are a dumb ****** ain't you!

you too?......he called me one too Colin..........disagree with this asshole and your a Lib......he and Cowgirl ought to hook up.....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I just glanced through quickly. Seems GC is determined that it be bigotry.. well,, then he made bigoted statements about religion. Ah yes,, religion.. that's the difference. Marriage is a "religious" ceremony.. "That which GOD has joined." most liberals are atheists and I would think their bigoted selves would want nothing to do with a Christian/Religious ceremony.

most liberals are Willow?......i think it would be the ones with the mindset of a guy like Dean.....i work with too many who seem to have some kind of a higher being mindset to think that of them.....

The essence of liberalism is a false sense of superiority.

Libs ain't at all rooted in reality.. this is why they cling to faculty lounge theoreticians like Obama.

 

[brono921]

Someone's fat ******* husband or wife is more of a health risk. Obesity is the number one health problem in this country. Are you gonna be the fat police at weddings? Trying an economic angle to your bigotry is pretty transparent.
Oh, and lesbians have the LOWEST HIV risk. Can we get married? [/QUOTE]

Obesity is more of a health risk? You really need to put your mind before ideology. Obesity isn't a fatal contagion. HIV/AIDS is.
Next time try put forward a thought.
You'll be glad you did.

 

[SW2SILVER]

Absurdity. Pure farce. This is fodder for a million jokes. Now, I am as close to atheist as you can get. I don't see this as a religious issue. Homosexuality is NOT equitable to Heterosexually, no matter how anyone slices it. It’s like equating Evolution with Creationism. You can love whomever you please. But when it comes to having intercourse with that “person"? Are we equating love with sex itself? Then were do we draw the line next? So, it’s between two consenting adults...One day, the idea of consenting adults will go out the window, the same way the model of Heterosexual Marriage is NOW. It’s not a long way from sanctioning marriage between two people of the same sex to an adult and a child, vegatable, mineral or whatever takes the popular fancy. It's a slippery slope here, and this is HUMAN nature we are talking about. Argue THAT. It’s not a stretch of the imagination, either.

 

[bodecea]

Simply put its disgusting. And the mere fact that you label me intolerant because my "opinion" differs from yours shows where the real intolerance is.

No one is saying they can't dip their sticks in each others fecal matter. Were just saying it can't be defined as marriage. There is nothing wrong with the appropriate title of civil unions.

Another homophobe who talks more about gay sex than gay people do.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The essence of liberalism is a false sense of superiority.

Libs ain't at all rooted in reality.. this is why they cling to faculty lounge theoreticians like Obama.

and of course no right wingers have that "false sense of superiority"......like Cowgirl and Briput.......for instance.....

and not all Conservatives are rooted in reality .......

 

[bodecea]

I am a military retiree and my legal spouse cannot even shop in the ******* exchange. That's not equality...that's discrimination without a rational basis, period.

Now you should be able to get that fixed, Seawytch....I'm going on my wife's DEERS now and she is going on mine.

 

[bodecea]

Speaking of bigots, I couldn't help but notice that you framed your argument to provide only one point in opposition. It's called being prejudiced, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for liberals.
That being said, I'd like to introduce you to a position you are absolutely unprepared to deal with.
My opposition to gay marriage is derived from their position that they are pursuing an agenda to force employers to recognize gay spouses so that they may be eligible for healthcare at the expense of everyone.

What is wrong with that if the same is being provided to straight spouses. (sorry, but it looks to me like you are in favor of blatant discrimination against gay employees)

All one needs do is look at the rate of HIV/AIDS transmission and you'll notice that homosexual males are at the top of the list. When you force insurance companies to provide healthcare for such a group, insurance companies will have no choice but to defer the cost to their clients.

You ARE supporting discrimination by employees...do you do the same for straight couples where the spouse is a smoker? (higher health care costs), obese? (higher health care costs), pregnant? (higher health care costs)...and how about lesbians who marry...we've got a LOWER % of HIV/AIDS than you do....do we get ENCOURAGED to marry and put our wives on the healthcare because we save businesses?

That's money you plan on taking out of my pocket pal, for nothing more than an ideological bent.

Ah...so gay employees have to pay out for health costs for straight employees and their families....but you are ok with them not betting the same benefits because you are selfish.....

I see where you are coming from now.....

 

[bodecea]

I just glanced through quickly. Seems GC is determined that it be bigotry.. well,, then he made bigoted statements about religion. Ah yes,, religion.. that's the difference. Marriage is a "religious" ceremony.. "That which GOD has joined." most liberals are atheists and I would think their bigoted selves would want nothing to do with a Christian/Religious ceremony.

most liberals are Willow?......i think it would be the ones with the mindset of a guy like Dean.....i work with too many who seem to have some kind of a higher being mindset to think that of them.....

The essence of liberalism is a false sense of superiority.

Libs ain't at all rooted in reality.. this is why they cling to faculty lounge theoreticians like Obama.

My Irony Meter just went off.....loud and shrill.

 

[bodecea]

Someone's fat ******* husband or wife is more of a health risk. Obesity is the number one health problem in this country. Are you gonna be the fat police at weddings? Trying an economic angle to your bigotry is pretty transparent.
Oh, and lesbians have the LOWEST HIV risk. Can we get married?

Obesity is more of a health risk? You really need to put your mind before ideology. Obesity isn't a fatal contagion. HIV/AIDS is.
Next time try put forward a thought.
You'll be glad you did.[/QUOTE]

You are really showing some ignorance of health statistics now.

 

[brono921]

You are really showing some ignorance of health statistics now.[/QUOTE]

I'd suggest checking the CDC website before spouting stupidity.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Simply put its disgusting. And the mere fact that you label me intolerant because my "opinion" differs from yours shows where the real intolerance is.

No one is saying they can't dip their sticks in each others fecal matter. Were just saying it can't be defined as marriage. There is nothing wrong with the appropriate title of civil unions.

Another homophobe who talks more about gay sex than gay people do.

A phobia imply's a fear. There is a difference between fearing something and finding it disgusting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What the **** are you babbling about now? Have you noticed that the only person in this thread that insists on bring Scalia into the discussion is you? If you got down off your high horse and your pretensions that you actually understand the law you might be worth listening to.

Until you do, I will just keep repeating the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is not the final answer to every question. It is not even the final answer to the questions it actually chooses to address. If it were we would still have slavery.

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.

Again you ignore the fact that the very case law you are holding up as the final answer contradicts what you say the intent of the 14th Amendment is. Doesn't that make you know different than the rest of us who argue that SCOTUS is wrong when they interpret things diffrently than the framers intended?

Why is it you only have a problem with originalism when you disagree with the results?

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:

Bowers v Hardwick

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.

Yet you continually ignore what the law actually says in favor of your interpretation thereof.

Interesting.

If you want a compelling government interest, it costs money that states sorely need for other things. We need to eliminate the preferential treatment of martried couples under the law because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



>>>>

How many of those religious people that voted against Prop 8 in droves were black?

Why do you focus on religion and ignore the facts that are directly in front of you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

There is plenty of intolerance to go around. A lot of it is coming from you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Your intolerance is showing again.

Feel free to check through the multiple posts I have made on this issue in this forum. I think you will find that my position is been consistently what you just claimed yours is, it is none of my, or anyone else's, business, and the state should eliminate preferential treatment for married couples.

Thanks for making my point for me though.

 

[Smash_Hits]

Simply put its disgusting. And the mere fact that you label me intolerant because my "opinion" differs from yours shows where the real intolerance is.

No one is saying they can't dip their sticks in each others fecal matter. Were just saying it can't be defined as marriage. There is nothing wrong with the appropriate title of civil unions.

Another homophobe who talks more about gay sex than gay people do.

A phobia imply's a fear. There is a difference between fearing something and finding it disgusting.

Oh, so you're just a hateful, backwards, bigot. Gotcha!

 

[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.

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

You are the one that is defining marriage as being between "Two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons." All I am asking for is your basis for that definition, why are you trying to turn that into an attack on me?

 

[brono921]

Oh, so you're just a hateful, backwards, bigot. Gotcha![/QUOTE]

You just got schooled on the meaning of "phobia", and that's your retort?
LMFAO!!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Marriage is more than a mere contract. I would be fine if there were a "domestic partnership" contract that addressed issues. BUt gays don't want that.

Please provide the instances where civil unions were offered to gay and lesbian couples and they refused them. Let me save you some trouble...you won't be able to find them.

Now, go look for instances where ******* right wing assholes blocked civil unions or domestic partnerships. You WILL be able find those.

Do I really need to prove you wrong on this?

https://www.facebook.com/TheTrevorProject/posts/10150090798437734

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000411153886

Quentin Hill I dislike this. It's the same as anti gay marriage states. We are not good enough for the word marriage.