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

[logical4u]

Do you support denying marriage rights to Obese people who cost much more than those with HIV/AIDs?


>>>>

Was that the subject of this thread? Did someone ask for reasons to deny obese people rights? I must have missed that.

Check your own post, you listed Health as a reason and it's associated costs.

Why evade a direct answer?



>>>>

Since I have not had "obese people" demanding extra 'rights' for the last 20 years, I have never sat and contemplated obese people and marriage. Currently, that is one of my greatest fears, that someday I will be one of them (obese people), it is really enjoyable to eat good food, and I don't work the way I used to do. Right now since their is not a 'classification' of 'obese' to non-obese, I simply won't say. If they want extra benefits because they made bad choices, then I would disagree.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

So you agree that registration has its purposes....

Same thing goes for marriage.....opposite sex is one of the parameters....

Not everywhere. In 7 legal entities the "paramenter" is consenting, non-family, adult.


>>>>

a sad state of affairs in those 7....

the far Left has conned the gullible gays and their blind liberal friends....they can't see the next steps...

 

[WorldWatcher]

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 parents raising a child.

It prevents even further 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.



>>>>

Do you have links/evidence where this has happened in the states that legalized 'same sex unions'?

Promoting Monogamy? Common Sense. It's hard to catch an STD when you are in a monogamous relationship.


Parents? Recognizing parents as parents would not make things simpler?


Tax Code? Are you implying that adding a whole new level to tax codes for States and maybe eventually to the Federal Code for Civil Unions wouldn't be more complicated?


Economic Benefit:
"From June 17 to Nov. 4, 2008, when such weddings were allowed before California voters banned them, the San Francisco county clerk issued 5,152 marriage licenses to same-sex couples, said Ted Egan, an economist with the city controller's office. Fewer than half, 45 percent, were city residents, he said in court testimony in 2009. Egan projected that the ban would cost the city about $35 million in annual economic activity."

"The “NYC I Do” campaign “will create millions of dollars in additional economic impact to the city’s $31 billion tourism industry,” Kimberly Spell, a spokeswoman for NYC & Company, the city’s marketing office, said yesterday in an e-mail. Bloomberg will unveil more details in coming days, she said."

"An analysis by the New York City comptroller in 2009, the last time gay marriage was debated in New York, found that the practice would push $210 million into the state's economy over three years. <P> The city's tourism agency is developing a campaign called NYC I Do to make it "the gay weddings destination," which it said could create "hundreds of millions of dollars in additional economic impact."

Seeing an economic boost from same-sex marriages | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/03/2011
New York City Plans Campaign to Woo Gay Weddings - Businessweek
Wanna cash in on gay marriage? New Yorkers say 'I do' - USATODAY.com



>>>>

 

[logical4u]

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.

what did you say to me one time? Get an education? Maybe you should because its a well known fact that in Nature, the act of "gay" happens.

Thats besides the point of us being animals as well and practicing it And its besides the point that if we are all god's creatures then god did indeed create gay people. OR you saying you know better than God and all of gods Wisdom?

Because thats exactly how you are coming off.

Animals will eat their young also. Are you suggesting because animals do, then people should too??????
BTW, in the animal world, a sex act on the same sex is purely dominance, are you saying that is happening in homosexual relationships?
The Lord created cleptos too. Do you think we should encourage them to steal because they were 'born that way'?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So you agree that registration has its purposes....

Same thing goes for marriage.....opposite sex is one of the parameters....

Not everywhere. In 7 legal entities the "paramenter" is consenting, non-family, adult.


>>>>

a sad state of affairs in those 7....

the far Left has conned the gullible gays and their blind liberal friends....they can't see the next steps...

No kidding, soon dogs will be filing to adopt human children.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Was that the subject of this thread? Did someone ask for reasons to deny obese people rights? I must have missed that.

Check your own post, you listed Health as a reason and it's associated costs.

Why evade a direct answer?



>>>>

Since I have not had "obese people" demanding extra 'rights' for the last 20 years, I have never sat and contemplated obese people and marriage. Currently, that is one of my greatest fears, that someday I will be one of them (obese people), it is really enjoyable to eat good food, and I don't work the way I used to do. Right now since their is not a 'classification' of 'obese' to non-obese, I simply won't say. If they want extra benefits because they made bad choices, then I would disagree.

So in terms of marriage...

.................................. Obese people additional cost OK.

.................................. Homosexuals additional cost No.



Since you brought up health costs as a condition of marriage that doesn't seem to be a very consistent position.


>>>>

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Who's preventing them from pursuing happiness? All I'm trying to do is prevent them from getting government benefits just because they are shacking up together.

Why should they not get the same benefits as hetro couples? They pay taxes, right?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I do not think it is ok, but I do not think it is any of my business either. If you can show instances where incest has occurred that have caused societies to go to hell in a hand basket, then produce the evidence. As I said, there are many things I do and do not like.

When they affect society as a whole, then lets talk about. But when it doesn't, and people want ot interfere in other poeples' lives just because they 'don't like' something, and no other reason, then I'm sorry, it's a massive fail. If society worked in a way by which nobody could do anything if a person objected to it, then we'd all be standing in a corner doing nothing.

At the end of the day, I look at it like this. If two gay guys married and moved in next door, how would those two facts affect me (not whether they had parties every night, or whatever, just those two facts). It wouldn't. So why should it bother me, or why should I interfere in their lives? I shouldn't. Simple really.

Well at least you are consistent in your argument......however it is obivious you do not care about the CHILDREN.....some liberal you are....

1) Who says I'm a liberal
2) Why don't I care about children? What do you mean by that?

1) you sound like one....but maybe you are just a deranged lib-ertarian....
2) children of incest usually have problems.....but don't let that stop you....i'm sure you are for abortion as well....since it's all "none of your business" anyway...

 

[logical4u]

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 parents raising a child.

It prevents even further 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.



>>>>

Do you have links/evidence where this has happened in the states that legalized 'same sex unions'?

Promoting Monogamy? Common Sense. It's hard to catch an STD when you are in a monogamous relationship.


Parents? Recognizing parents as parents would not make things simpler?


Tax Code? Are you implying that adding a whole new level to tax codes for States and maybe eventually to the Federal Code for Civil Unions wouldn't be more complicated?


Economic Benefit:
"From June 17 to Nov. 4, 2008, when such weddings were allowed before California voters banned them, the San Francisco county clerk issued 5,152 marriage licenses to same-sex couples, said Ted Egan, an economist with the city controller's office. Fewer than half, 45 percent, were city residents, he said in court testimony in 2009. Egan projected that the ban would cost the city about $35 million in annual economic activity."

"The “NYC I Do” campaign “will create millions of dollars in additional economic impact to the city’s $31 billion tourism industry,” Kimberly Spell, a spokeswoman for NYC & Company, the city’s marketing office, said yesterday in an e-mail. Bloomberg will unveil more details in coming days, she said."

"An analysis by the New York City comptroller in 2009, the last time gay marriage was debated in New York, found that the practice would push $210 million into the state's economy over three years. <P> The city's tourism agency is developing a campaign called NYC I Do to make it "the gay weddings destination," which it said could create "hundreds of millions of dollars in additional economic impact."

Seeing an economic boost from same-sex marriages | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/03/2011
New York City Plans Campaign to Woo Gay Weddings - Businessweek
Wanna cash in on gay marriage? New Yorkers say 'I do' - USATODAY.com



>>>>

So... basically what you listed were 'Las Vegas' type benefits (why not use the same terminology: sin taxes)?

Do you have the statistics for how STDs were reduced in these areas?
Do you have the stats for how children are improving and child abuse and neglect are less because of homosexual unions in the area?

 

[logical4u]

Check your own post, you listed Health as a reason and it's associated costs.

Why evade a direct answer?



>>>>[/QUOTE]

Since I have not had "obese people" demanding extra 'rights' for the last 20 years, I have never sat and contemplated obese people and marriage. Currently, that is one of my greatest fears, that someday I will be one of them (obese people), it is really enjoyable to eat good food, and I don't work the way I used to do. Right now since their is not a 'classification' of 'obese' to non-obese, I simply won't say. If they want extra benefits because they made bad choices, then I would disagree.[/QUOTE]


So in terms of marriage...

.................................. Obese people additional cost OK.

.................................. Homosexuals additional cost No.



Since you brought up health costs as a condition of marriage that doesn't seem to be a very consistent position.


>>>>[/QUOTE]

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you have links/evidence where this has happened in the states that legalized 'same sex unions'?

Promoting Monogamy? Common Sense. It's hard to catch an STD when you are in a monogamous relationship.


Parents? Recognizing parents as parents would not make things simpler?


Tax Code? Are you implying that adding a whole new level to tax codes for States and maybe eventually to the Federal Code for Civil Unions wouldn't be more complicated?


Economic Benefit:
"From June 17 to Nov. 4, 2008, when such weddings were allowed before California voters banned them, the San Francisco county clerk issued 5,152 marriage licenses to same-sex couples, said Ted Egan, an economist with the city controller's office. Fewer than half, 45 percent, were city residents, he said in court testimony in 2009. Egan projected that the ban would cost the city about $35 million in annual economic activity."

"The “NYC I Do” campaign “will create millions of dollars in additional economic impact to the city’s $31 billion tourism industry,” Kimberly Spell, a spokeswoman for NYC & Company, the city’s marketing office, said yesterday in an e-mail. Bloomberg will unveil more details in coming days, she said."

"An analysis by the New York City comptroller in 2009, the last time gay marriage was debated in New York, found that the practice would push $210 million into the state's economy over three years. <P> The city's tourism agency is developing a campaign called NYC I Do to make it "the gay weddings destination," which it said could create "hundreds of millions of dollars in additional economic impact."

Seeing an economic boost from same-sex marriages | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/03/2011
New York City Plans Campaign to Woo Gay Weddings - Businessweek
Wanna cash in on gay marriage? New Yorkers say 'I do' - USATODAY.com



>>>>

So... basically what you listed were 'Las Vegas' type benefits (why not use the same terminology: sin taxes)?

Marriage is a "sin" tax now?

Many heterosexuals are going to be upset with that.

Do you have the statistics for how STDs were reduced in these areas?

Not at the tip of my fingers, but maybe you could explain how promotion of long term monogamy would increase STD rates?

Do you have the stats for how children are improving and child abuse and neglect are less because of homosexual unions in the area?

I never made that claim.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Well, it's late here.

G'night all.


>>>>

 

[Dr Grump]

Well at least you are consistent in your argument......however it is obivious you do not care about the CHILDREN.....some liberal you are....

1) Who says I'm a liberal
2) Why don't I care about children? What do you mean by that?

1) you sound like one....but maybe you are just a deranged lib-ertarian....
2) children of incest usually have problems.....but don't let that stop you....i'm sure you are for abortion as well....since it's all "none of your business" anyway...

I'm anti-abortion, but pro choice

Oh, fair enough re children of incest. As I said, I don't agree with it, but it is their choices and they have to live with the consquences.

But in my opinion, that is different from gays marrying. I take each individual scenario on its own merits. I don't mix and match and play the 'what if' game....

 

[flacaltenn]

Coupla things..

WOMEN are gonna wake up a few years after "gay marraige" carries the day and recognize that all of their advantages in divorce --- child custody, alimony preference, and all of their preference in domestic disputes and restraining order --- HAVE DISAPPEARED.. Why?

Because by redefining genders in "marraige", the law will have to start making these decisions truly blind to Sex. Those "benefit protections" for women will no longer exist.

AFA my opposition to gay marraige --- it exist only in the terminology. Get those creative gay communities to come up "domestic partnerships" or preferably something more romantic -- and I'm on board. All the legal protections and equal under the law.. It's just not "marraige".

Keep the CONGRESS and the FEDS out of it. Create a name for the bond. Create the local govt paperwork to realize it. Sign the bill at the state level. It'll have MUCH more popular support..

BTW --- I suggest "Pairaige" .

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not everywhere. In 7 legal entities the "paramenter" is consenting, non-family, adult.


>>>>

a sad state of affairs in those 7....

the far Left has conned the gullible gays and their blind liberal friends....they can't see the next steps...

No kidding, soon dogs will be filing to adopt human children.


>>>>

yup.....the communist objective is to destroy the family unit....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All are entitled to their opinions, no one is discounting that at all.

But the bigots want to give their opinions without being called bigots. Tuff, bigots.

Loving does apply, marriage is a right, and universal marriage is inevitable. Get over it.

Been looking in a mirror again?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1) Who says I'm a liberal
2) Why don't I care about children? What do you mean by that?

1) you sound like one....but maybe you are just a deranged lib-ertarian....
2) children of incest usually have problems.....but don't let that stop you....i'm sure you are for abortion as well....since it's all "none of your business" anyway...

I'm anti-abortion, but pro choice

Oh, fair enough re children of incest. As I said, I don't agree with it, but it is their choices and they have to live with the consquences.

But in my opinion, that is different from gays marrying. I take each individual scenario on its own merits. I don't mix and match and play the 'what if' game....

imo..... i think you're one messed up individual....

 

[bodecea]

Coupla things..

WOMEN are gonna wake up a few years after "gay marraige" carries the day and recognize that all of their advantages in divorce --- child custody, alimony preference, and all of their preference in domestic disputes and restraining order --- HAVE DISAPPEARED.. Why?

Because by redefining genders in "marraige", the law will have to start making these decisions truly blind to Sex. Those "benefit protections" for women will no longer exist.

AFA my opposition to gay marraige --- it exist only in the terminology. Get those creative gay communities to come up "domestic partnerships" or preferably something more romantic -- and I'm on board. All the legal protections and equal under the law.. It's just not "marraige".

Keep the CONGRESS and the FEDS out of it. Create a name for the bond. Create the local govt paperwork to realize it. Sign the bill at the state level. It'll have MUCH more popular support..

BTW --- I suggest "Pairaige" .

Then you support removing the term "marriage" from all legal documentation, laws, statutes, etc., right?

 

[bodecea]

1) you sound like one....but maybe you are just a deranged lib-ertarian....
2) children of incest usually have problems.....but don't let that stop you....i'm sure you are for abortion as well....since it's all "none of your business" anyway...

I'm anti-abortion, but pro choice

Oh, fair enough re children of incest. As I said, I don't agree with it, but it is their choices and they have to live with the consquences.

But in my opinion, that is different from gays marrying. I take each individual scenario on its own merits. I don't mix and match and play the 'what if' game....

imo..... i think you're one messed up individual....

Because he doesn't think like you or fit into the neat little box you like to put people into?

 

[Dr Grump]

1) you sound like one....but maybe you are just a deranged lib-ertarian....
2) children of incest usually have problems.....but don't let that stop you....i'm sure you are for abortion as well....since it's all "none of your business" anyway...

I'm anti-abortion, but pro choice

Oh, fair enough re children of incest. As I said, I don't agree with it, but it is their choices and they have to live with the consquences.

But in my opinion, that is different from gays marrying. I take each individual scenario on its own merits. I don't mix and match and play the 'what if' game....

imo..... i think you're one messed up individual....

I know - and you're right wing, christian whackjob, but we all can't be perfect...