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

[bodecea]

If we were intended to mate with the same sex we would have evolved that way. It is unnatural to say the least. Apparently mother nature, god, or just plain ole evolution is the biggest bigot of all.

Personally I consider the desire to perform such acts as a mental abnormality.

Having said that I only wish all left wing nuts practiced this lifestyle because eventually they would become extinct through the innability to reproduce.

About 5-10 % have been that way from the git go....You DID know that, right?

 

[bodecea]

If we were intended to mate with the same sex we would have evolved that way. It is unnatural to say the least. Apparently mother nature, god, or just plain ole evolution is the biggest bigot of all.

Personally I consider the desire to perform such acts as a mental abnormality.

Having said that I only wish all left wing nuts practiced this lifestyle because eventually they would become extinct through the innability to reproduce.

Would you say this is an example of intolerance or bigotry? Or both?

Both, with some stupidity thrown in on that last sentence.

 

[bodecea]

Where is it written that marriage is a "right"? It is not a "right" (otherwise people could be forced into marriage to fullfill another's "right"). Marriage is the partnership between one man and at least one woman. The definition has stood for centuries. There is no reason to twist, mock, confuse that word. Do those that want a homosexual partner legally reject the ability for themselves to have a 'raditional' marriage? If not, his is special treatment (an additional privilege for people of a sexual preference is not equality).
From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime. The reason the gov't started giving money to widows was because the husband 'was' the sole money maker, and the wife was left with no form of income. Homosexuals have no reason to not to be 'productive members of society', they cannot procreate without 'influences from outside the partnership'. If they choose to have children, they must rely on persons of the opposite sex to assist them in this matter.

Homosexuals should not be able to "marry" for those reasons. If they want to make a new category of legal definition, possibly, common law partner or bound partner, I have no objections. If they want to make a "special" legal joiner that all taxpayers will be forced to support thru the gov't, then it should be put on a ballot.

According to the Supreme Court marriage is a civil right not a privilege. This is the ruling from Loving v VA

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no reason to think this would not apply to gay people too.

Indeed it does! And gay people currently have all the same rights to marry that straight people have.
Or did you think they were missing something?

Oh yes, that's right...the CHOICE to live YOUR WAY or not at all.

 

[bodecea]

Indeed it does! And gay people currently have all the same rights to marry that straight people have.
Or did you think they were missing something?

Just missing the right to marry the person they love most, or is that NOT SO important to 50+% of heterosexuals, who marry and then divorce?

What is it about LOVING someone for a LIFETIME that heterosexuals get wrong so often??? Perhaps it's in their genes? Or their behavior? Or their cavalier attitude that says that ONLY THEY have the right to decide who they can marry, and divorce, and marry and divorce, etc etc etc.

Newt Gingrich comes to mind, poster boy for heterosexual men.

You may be onto something there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never said it was "the deciding factor". The only "deciding factor" was the final vote outcome, that outcome was that Prop 8 succeeded by a narrow margin as a percentage all vote cast.

I have said (and or implied) that it (weekly attendance of religious service) was a greater factor than race and provided the mathematics to support it.

There are some (not saying you) that want to deflect away from religious observance as a factor and would prefer to play the race card and advocate (or admonish as the case may be) that it was the blacks that passed Prop 8. The fact is that mathematically their impact was relatively small.



>>>>>

And you want to deflect away from the fact that higher turnout among minority and younger voters was not enough to offset the effect of religious attendance. How does that make you any better than the people you are trying to counter?

 

[bodecea]

Yes, you did make me laugh and I thank you.

You missed a spot on commies... Glenn Becks mind. There are several key word that a Beck watcher uses...Soros, commies, socialist, Alinsky to name a few. There are more but I don't feel like wallowing.

Ah Glenn Beck, is he a TV star? NO? Radio?

I will have to look out for those words, probably there's a whole "dog whistle" code that fans of his would use. They only like white guys, (or women) to run their nation. They only believe heterosexuals can marry (and can divorce, too, if one of them, [man] wants). They fear rich men who are liberal, BUT THEY LOVE Romney types who grew up rich and threw tens of thousands of men and women out of work in order to become much much richer. They hate rules and regulations, but want to restrict women by enforcing rules that any of them who are preggo MUST GIVE BIRTH, no matter what the circumstances. They want to be rich, but don't want others to get rich or live a decent life by teaching school. They have the best health care money can buy, but don't want sick people to use tax dollars to get well and stay healthy.

OK I will look for those words... phrases.. Beck.. still don't know the guy....but...

Alinsky, civil rights worker and minority organizer from the 60's, seems to really threaten folks like this, even tho Alinsky died in 1972, (39 yrs ago!)

Glenn Beck, I don't know the guy, will have to look him up. Did he have a comedy show on TV?

Google "Crying Liar"...you'll find him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime.

Then why let heterosexual couples 'drain' the taxpayers, if that's what you believe happens?

 

[bodecea]

From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime.

Then why let heterosexual couples 'drain' the taxpayers, if that's what you believe happens?

Because he just admitted that he supports discrimination against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens if they are not straight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Once again, intolerance and ignorance shows its ugly face. Oh and speaking of the bible...didnt it say something about divorce? Why is that ignored by these same idiots. Divorce, fidelity etc.

An idiot is one who equates gay with race or gender. Homosexuallity is a choice, which should be left in the bedroom by the way, and not shoved down our throats.

Homosexuality is not a choice....what IS a choice is you trying to make us choose between being true to who we are and who we love....and lying just to keep people like you happy. Now THAT's a choice.

It isn't genetic or environmental. The only thing that leaves is choice.

 

[bodecea]

An idiot is one who equates gay with race or gender. Homosexuallity is a choice, which should be left in the bedroom by the way, and not shoved down our throats.

Homosexuality is not a choice....what IS a choice is you trying to make us choose between being true to who we are and who we love....and lying just to keep people like you happy. Now THAT's a choice.

It isn't genetic or environmental. The only thing that leaves is choice.

Explain why the gay % of our population is around 2-10%, but among identical twins (even if separated at birth), it's about 40-50%?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Keep your God out of my bedroom and I promise to keep my sex out of your church.

The only opposition to same sex marriage is the "moral right." Other than that, marriage is a state/county/town granted license which should be distributed with the same objectivity as a fishing or driving license. Any "judgement" on the part of a government should be unlawful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime.

Then why let heterosexual couples 'drain' the taxpayers, if that's what you believe happens?

We shouldn't. We should eliminate the preferential treatment the government gives to married people because it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Quite honestly, I think the whole child tax exemption should be eliminated. People with children utilize more resources; schools, roads, medical, social services. Why should people without children pay more?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

We shouldn't. We should eliminate the preferential treatment the government gives to married people because it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, good luck getting elected, or staying in office or introducing an "ANTI MARRIAGE" repeal of a tax benefit a hundred million or more Americans love to claim, even if the two in the couple hate each other's guts.

Let's face facts, tax policy is written to favor people who intend to be couples, intend to have children, intend to live together for their entire life. Just as long as they are not gay!!!!

Agreed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Homosexuality is not a choice....what IS a choice is you trying to make us choose between being true to who we are and who we love....and lying just to keep people like you happy. Now THAT's a choice.

It isn't genetic or environmental. The only thing that leaves is choice.

Explain why the gay % of our population is around 2-10%, but among identical twins (even if separated at birth), it's about 40-50%?

If it was genetic you would see a 100% correlation in monozygotic twins, it actually runs around 50% depending on which study you look at. (One study pegged it at 100%, but I think that was selection bias.) I have not seen any statistics on the correlation between genetic twins separated at birth, but the fact that you peg it at 50% is indicative that my numbers agree with yours. Dizygotic twins have about a 20% correlation rate for homosexuality. Those numbers are indicative that, although genetics may play a part, it is not the deciding factor. Neither is environment.

That leaves choice, unless you can think of something else that makes a difference.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We shouldn't. We should eliminate the preferential treatment the government gives to married people because it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, good luck getting elected, or staying in office or introducing an "ANTI MARRIAGE" repeal of a tax benefit a hundred million or more Americans love to claim, even if the two in the couple hate each other's guts.

Let's face facts, tax policy is written to favor people who intend to be couples, intend to have children, intend to live together for their entire life. Just as long as they are not gay!!!!

If I was actually going to run for office I would point out that they have a choice between the people that have been lying to them their entire lives and me, the guy who is finally telling them the truth.

 

[The Rabbi]

According to the Supreme Court marriage is a civil right not a privilege. This is the ruling from Loving v VA



Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no reason to think this would not apply to gay people too.

Indeed it does! And gay people currently have all the same rights to marry that straight people have.
Or did you think they were missing something?

Oh yes, that's right...the CHOICE to live YOUR WAY or not at all.

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals, no more no less.
Or do you want to argue differently?

 

[Kuros]

From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime.

Then why let heterosexual couples 'drain' the taxpayers, if that's what you believe happens?

We shouldn't. We should eliminate the preferential treatment the government gives to married people because it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

No, its not. Neither married nor unmarried individuals are suspect classes. Thus, for EPC analysis, tax credits are measured by the permissive rational basis standard. As for Due Process, tax credits to married couples don't burden a fundamental right, so it is also analyzed under the permissive rational basis standard.

 

[The Rabbi]

Indeed it does! And gay people currently have all the same rights to marry that straight people have.
Or did you think they were missing something?

Just missing the right to marry the person they love most, or is that NOT SO important to 50+% of heterosexuals, who marry and then divorce?

What is it about LOVING someone for a LIFETIME that heterosexuals get wrong so often??? Perhaps it's in their genes? Or their behavior? Or their cavalier attitude that says that ONLY THEY have the right to decide who they can marry, and divorce, and marry and divorce, etc etc etc.

Newt Gingrich comes to mind, poster boy for heterosexual men.

You may be onto something there.

That the solution to a high divorce rate is to make it worse?
Yeah, there's an idea.
WHat happened to the first gay couple in MA to be married?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then why let heterosexual couples 'drain' the taxpayers, if that's what you believe happens?

We shouldn't. We should eliminate the preferential treatment the government gives to married people because it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

No, its not. Neither married nor unmarried individuals are suspect classes. Thus, for EPC analysis, tax credits are measured by the permissive rational basis standard. As for Due Process, tax credits to married couples don't burden a fundamental right, so it is also analyzed under the permissive rational basis standard.

I disagree, the courts have made all sorts of rationals for not applying the Constitution in order to justify many things the government does. We need to revoke every single one of them.