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

[The Rabbi]

Marriage to each other (well except in NY)...

I also cannot marry another man.
Now which right is being denied again?

That is because you do not want to. That's like answering a negative with a negative. In other words, it's a strawman and no argument....

I can't eat dairy, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to...anymore asinine arguments on your part?

"Want" has nothing to do with it. I don't want to marry a black woman but if I couldn't I would be denied the right.
Again, what rights are gays denied that normal people have?

 

[Dr Grump]

Agreed.
But if they want society's acknowledgement of the fact then it is society's business. And they can't have it.

They shouldn't need nor want society's acknowledgement. It is none of society's business. And if it is society's business, then why not add what race people can date, who they can date, how long they can date, whether they can have children or not. Where would it stop?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.
If they want the aknowledgement of society via benefits then they need to conform to society's interest. And societal interest is not having gay marriage.
You fail.

Actually, yours is the slippery slope fallacy. you think if you open up gay marriage, then you are opening up people marrying dogs, which is a total fail. All pro gay marriage proponents are talking about consenting adults - not dogs, not parrots, not whales. Consenting human adults.

Why is it not in society's interest to have gay marriage. It has been legal in NZ for some time. Unemployment has not gone up, crime rate has not gone up - in fact it has had zero impact on society. So what's the problem (other than the holy rollers and anti-gay bigots 'not liking' it?)

 

[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?

It was started when the gov't went deeper into taxpayer pockets to 'appease' those they were 'taxing'. If you let us tax you, your spouse will be cared for even if you don't make it. It is now a 'handout', and will be almost impossible to take away. Why would you want to add to that taxpayer burden? Since homosexuals that are true to their 'nature' cannot reproduce without assistance of others, their should be no need to support a 'partner' that stayed at home to raise children and never aquired outside work skills.
Married couples were encouraged to have children to increase the population (workers) to build a nation. The gov't was social engineering.

If civil marriage has financial benefits, then homosexuals are entitled to them, whether or not you think the benefits are 'fair'.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive change - New York Daily News

?

None of which manifest a compelling reason to justify a state’s preemption of one’s equal protection rights. Indeed, in Perry supporters of Prop 8 were unable to provide any evidence that same-sex couples with children posed any detrimental effect on their children:

Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent. When proponents challenged Lamb with studies purporting to show that married parents provide the ideal child-rearing environment, Lamb countered that studies on child-rearing typically compare married opposite-sex parents to single parents or step-families and have no bearing on families headed by same-sex couples. Lamb testified that the relevant comparison is between families headed by same-sex couples and families headed by opposite-sex couples and that studies comparing these two family types show conclusively that having parents of different genders is irrelevant to child outcomes.

Lamb…testified as an expert on the developmental psychology of children, including the developmental psychology of children raised by gay and lesbian parents. Lamb offered two opinions: (1) children raised by gays and lesbians are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents; and (2) children of gay and lesbian parents would benefit if their parents were
able to marry.

http://www.sccoclerk.com/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf

There are all kinds of psychologists.....but 99% of them are of the liberal mindset....so i don't really trust what that Lamb guy testified...

Children can be adaptable as they have no choice....however it has been proven time and again that children raised typically without their fathers have many problems.....you don't think kids raised by two queers don't have their problems too....? get real...

...but of course the idea is to solve that dilemma thru the eddycashun system...

 

[The Rabbi]

They shouldn't need nor want society's acknowledgement. It is none of society's business. And if it is society's business, then why not add what race people can date, who they can date, how long they can date, whether they can have children or not. Where would it stop?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.
If they want the aknowledgement of society via benefits then they need to conform to society's interest. And societal interest is not having gay marriage.
You fail.

Actually, yours is the slippery slope fallacy. you think if you open up gay marriage, then you are opening up people marrying dogs, which is a total fail. All pro gay marriage proponents are talking about consenting adults - not dogs, not parrots, not whales. Consenting human adults.

Why is it not in society's interest to have gay marriage. It has been legal in NZ for some time. Unemployment has not gone up, crime rate has not gone up - in fact it has had zero impact on society. So what's the problem (other than the holy rollers and anti-gay bigots 'not liking' it?)

Because who the **** wants this country to be like New Zealand??

 

[Dr Grump]

What would be the societal advantage in allowing two men to marry?

More women for hetros to hit on. That aside, what would be the disadvantage?

It would serve to breakdown the premier place that the marital state has in society, a state that produces the most stability in citizens and produces the best future citizens. This si the reason this relationship is favored.

So you have no real answer to my question. Because the women would just become dykes. And many straight women go that way for a variety of reasons.

You mean the institution that has a 60 percent divorce rate? That state? who says marriage has the premier space in society?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

It was started when the gov't went deeper into taxpayer pockets to 'appease' those they were 'taxing'. If you let us tax you, your spouse will be cared for even if you don't make it. It is now a 'handout', and will be almost impossible to take away. Why would you want to add to that taxpayer burden? Since homosexuals that are true to their 'nature' cannot reproduce without assistance of others, their should be no need to support a 'partner' that stayed at home to raise children and never aquired outside work skills.
Married couples were encouraged to have children to increase the population (workers) to build a nation. The gov't was social engineering.

If civil marriage has financial benefits, then homosexuals are entitled to them, whether or not you think the benefits are 'fair'.

Maybe single people are entitled to those benefits too?
Your argument fails.

 

[The Rabbi]

More women for hetros to hit on. That aside, what would be the disadvantage?

It would serve to breakdown the premier place that the marital state has in society, a state that produces the most stability in citizens and produces the best future citizens. This si the reason this relationship is favored.

So you have no real answer to my question. Because the women would just become dykes. And many straight women go that way for a variety of reasons.

You mean the institution that has a 60 percent divorce rate? That state? who says marriage has the premier space in society?

The divorce rate is irrelevant.
That has been the view in common law for about 1000 years.

 

[Dr Grump]

I also cannot marry another man.
Now which right is being denied again?

That is because you do not want to. That's like answering a negative with a negative. In other words, it's a strawman and no argument....

I can't eat dairy, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to...anymore asinine arguments on your part?

"Want" has nothing to do with it. I don't want to marry a black woman but if I couldn't I would be denied the right.
Again, what rights are gays denied that normal people have?

So now you are stating that you have a right to prevent consenting adults to pursue happiness just because you don't like it.

As I have said, they cannot marry.

 

[Dr Grump]

That's a slippery slope fallacy.
If they want the aknowledgement of society via benefits then they need to conform to society's interest. And societal interest is not having gay marriage.
You fail.

Actually, yours is the slippery slope fallacy. you think if you open up gay marriage, then you are opening up people marrying dogs, which is a total fail. All pro gay marriage proponents are talking about consenting adults - not dogs, not parrots, not whales. Consenting human adults.

Why is it not in society's interest to have gay marriage. It has been legal in NZ for some time. Unemployment has not gone up, crime rate has not gone up - in fact it has had zero impact on society. So what's the problem (other than the holy rollers and anti-gay bigots 'not liking' it?)

Because who the **** wants this country to be like New Zealand??

Translation: "You just kicked my arse, so I'll got the route of ad hominem"

No surprises there False Rabbi....you're too easy to pick apart...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You don't agree with me. Good, that's the American way. We do accomplish much through dialogue. What accomplished here is that those who don't like marriages in the same sex are flailing aimlessly. Universal marriage is inevitable, just as was the results of the civil rights campaigns.

If marriage is a "right".....then why do you need to get a license for it.....?
One also has to apply for a license to drive....driving is not called a "right" but a privilege...

what do you mean by "universal marriage"...?

Red herring. If two consenting adults want to marry - no matter what their sex - they should be allowed to. Nobody else's business...

So you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry each other....?

 

[The Rabbi]

That is because you do not want to. That's like answering a negative with a negative. In other words, it's a strawman and no argument....

I can't eat dairy, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to...anymore asinine arguments on your part?

"Want" has nothing to do with it. I don't want to marry a black woman but if I couldn't I would be denied the right.
Again, what rights are gays denied that normal people have?

So now you are stating that you have a right to prevent consenting adults to pursue happiness just because you don't like it.

As I have said, they cannot marry.

No one is preventing anything. They can marry if they want.
They cannot have the benefits that society grants to mixed sex couples. Just like anyone else.
Any other arguments here?

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, yours is the slippery slope fallacy. you think if you open up gay marriage, then you are opening up people marrying dogs, which is a total fail. All pro gay marriage proponents are talking about consenting adults - not dogs, not parrots, not whales. Consenting human adults.

Why is it not in society's interest to have gay marriage. It has been legal in NZ for some time. Unemployment has not gone up, crime rate has not gone up - in fact it has had zero impact on society. So what's the problem (other than the holy rollers and anti-gay bigots 'not liking' it?)

Because who the **** wants this country to be like New Zealand??

Translation: "You just kicked my arse, so I'll got the route of ad hominem"

No surprises there False Rabbi....you're too easy to pick apart...

Translation: Your objections are so stupid they didnt deserve a considered answer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If marriage is a "right".....then why do you need to get a license for it.....?
One also has to apply for a license to drive....driving is not called a "right" but a privilege...

what do you mean by "universal marriage"...?

Voting is a right yet one is required to register.

Gun ownership is a right yet many are required to register their firearms or have a firearms license. All are required to complete the background check.

Marriage as a right is no different.

 

[Dr Grump]

It would serve to breakdown the premier place that the marital state has in society, a state that produces the most stability in citizens and produces the best future citizens. This si the reason this relationship is favored.

So you have no real answer to my question. Because the women would just become dykes. And many straight women go that way for a variety of reasons.

You mean the institution that has a 60 percent divorce rate? That state? who says marriage has the premier space in society?

The divorce rate is irrelevant.
That has been the view in common law for about 1000 years.

It is totally relevent. You are inferring that marriage is a sanctity that makes for a more civilsed society (and if not, then what the hell are you arguing about - you being pretty clueless, probably not a lot) and therefore gay marriage would 'pollute' your utopian view of the world that we all live in nice houses with picket fences...In fact divorce etc is a traumatic experience for young kids...

You have some very very weak, almost non-existant arguments...

 

[Dr Grump]

If marriage is a "right".....then why do you need to get a license for it.....?
One also has to apply for a license to drive....driving is not called a "right" but a privilege...

what do you mean by "universal marriage"...?

Red herring. If two consenting adults want to marry - no matter what their sex - they should be allowed to. Nobody else's business...

So you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry each other....?

Yeah, because that happens all the time, right? Another red herring..

if two brothers want to marry, whose business is it of mine? Do I think they should? No

You seem to think that I like the idea of two men giving it to each other up the arse. I don't. It grosses me out...then again so do brussell sprouts, but I'm not advocating people stop eating them. Why? IT"S NONE OF MY FUCING BUSINESS...get it yet?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not in the least, heterosexuals could decide to marry someone of the same sex if they wanted to. Nothing "additional" only for homosexuals, the same option would be available to heterosexuals also.

You are TOO LOGICAL for logical4u's mind to grasp!!!

What would be the societal advantage in allowing two men to marry?

It would promote monogamy in a section of society where promiscuity has been the norm. Increases in log term monogamy would reduce STD transmission through promiscuity and unsafe sex.

Simplified parental rights for same-sex parants raising a child.

It prevents even futher complication of beneficiary, tax, and medical decision laws instead of adding a new category for "Civil Unions".

Increased economic advantages to the tourism and wedding section of the economy.



>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean the institution that has a 60 percent divorce rate? That state? who says marriage has the premier space in society?

The divorce rate is irrelevant.
That has been the view in common law for about 1000 years.

It is totally relevent. You are inferring that marriage is a sanctity that makes for a more civilsed society (and if not, then what the hell are you arguing about - you being pretty clueless, probably not a lot) and therefore gay marriage would 'pollute' your utopian view of the world that we all live in nice houses with picket fences...In fact divorce etc is a traumatic experience for young kids...

You have some very very weak, almost non-existant arguments...

Most marriages do not end in divorce. Most marriages that occur during the early child rearing years do not end in divorce.
But even if they did, the fact is that stable married couples have fewer issues that are detrimental to society. And they produce citizens that are less detrimental to society.
The fact that it doesn't always happen is not detrimental to the superiority of the married state.

Frankly your ability to reason and present arguments is very very immature and basic. Aren't you pretending to be a lawyer or something?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are TOO LOGICAL for logical4u's mind to grasp!!!

What would be the societal advantage in allowing two men to marry?

It would promote monogamy in a section of society where promiscuity has been the norm. Increases in log term monogamy would reduce STD transmission through promiscuity and unsafe sex.

Simplified parental rights for same-sex parants raising a child.

It prevents even futher complication of beneficiary, tax, and medical decision laws instead of adding a new category for "Civil Unions".

Increased economic advantages to the tourism and wedding section of the economy.



>>>>



>>>>

What is the current rate of promiscuity among gay couples? How does it compare to unmarried heterosexual couples?
You have lost this argument. Try another track.

 

[logical4u]

Are "those" that are demanding to be legally paired with the same sex forfeiting all "rights" to "marry" the opposite sex? If they are not, it is "additional" benefit for a sexual preference. Because another chooses not to be homosexual, their "rights" would be less.

Wow, I think I have already found that A number one hypocrite who posts on here, I am betting it's a guy, and that he (or she, if I'm wrong) looks a lot like Newt Gingrich..overweight, chubby, intellectually lazy, but not reluctant to write and post and say what he/she thinks... without actually "thinking"!

Wait wait wait......Newt Gingrich......THREE marriages......and this guy/gal/// [ill]Logical4u? has the nerve to say these words above "paired with the same sex forfeiting all "rights" to "marry" the opposite sex"

What about Newt, "paired with the opposite sex forfeiting all "rights" to "marry" the [same (opposite) sex again and again and again]....

OH wait, only heterosexuals can marry more than once, get tax breaks more than once for two spouses in the same tax year...

This [ill]Logical4u person..........does anyone else read his posts without breaking out laughing like they do when they see Newt Gingrich on TV talking about the same topic?

Maybe there ought to be an intelligence test before people are allowed to post here.........something several posters here might fail.

USER:[ill]Logical4u
CONCEPT:hypocrisy
mean the same thing

Let me guess, personal attacks over substance..... liberal? Heterosexuals are not demanding that eon long definitions are changed on a 'whim'. Heterosexuals are not making riduculous statements that 'marriage' is a right. (What about all the people that never get married?)
As for my sex and what I look like, I can see why you would focus on that, I gave some very valid reasons for not having homosexual marriage, and instead of telling us how beneficial homosexuality is to society, you want to 'imagine' who I am? I guess that public school system really is failing when someone cannot make counterstatements in a reasonable fashion, but go straight for insults. Go for it, I have been called racist, bigot, liar, etc because the liberals cannot tell me what they believe, or how to acheive that 'great society' or even give evidence where it works.

It is almost 1100, so I will be sleeping shortly, maybe you can insult that too, instead of making a comprehensive statement to what would be beneficial about changing a defintion for people 'acting' like they are another sex, with nothing rational behind it.