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

[Bass v 2.0]

Gay activism ok and accepted as good and should be encouraged and spread through mass media, if you're religious and have beliefs that are contra to the filth thats accepted and promoted by mass media and public opinion you must shut up and keep it to yourself because encouraging morality divides people, gay activism brings us together, dumb liberal agenda.

 

[logical4u]

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'?

and certain animals once they mate, mate for life. Are you suggesting because animals do, then people should as well?

Wrong, Its been shown Dolphins have sex purely for fun.

Are you saying god was wrong?

You were the one holding up the "animal kingdom" as something as a model. I was asking if it was only your particular agenda that you wanted followed, or if you would except all the behaviors. Who says dolphins have sex 'purely for fun'? Are they Doctor Dolittle? Have they actually had a discussion with dolphins? Is this considered scientific research? What is the scientist moral slant?

The Lord made us weak to particular temptations. We all have our own, personal temptations that we strive to overcome (it makes us better people with discipline). Only the homosexuals supporters are telling people to use self control in all aspects of life, except when it comes to sex.

 

[logical4u]

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.



>>>>

Las Vegas makes money off of people's 'sins'. They want to fornicate, gamble, and be intoxicated. Your response is suggesting the 'economic advantages' to homosexual unions are similar to Vegas cashing in on 'tourist' (in this case it would be people traveling to that state to take advantage of laws that were not voted into being, but put into place by corrupt officials. I just thought it was ironic that Vegas called it a sin tax, and this particular thread wanted 'religion' kept out of it. If you want to go there, I can. I was using an expression used in Vegas for tourists and their money.

You are impying that homosexuals are as monogamous as heterosexuals. I am asking you to back it up with evidence. Does the rate of STDs decline when the homosexual is in a legal union?

Again, you have implied that children would be better served if homosexual couples could adopt/have children easier. I am asking you to back it up with some evidence. I listened to a woman that grew up in a 'homosexual household'; she said that the children were absolutely cruel to her for her 'parents' behavior, How much harsher do you think the bullying would be if the 'parents' are parading their 'choices'? It is like I posted earlier: homosexual acts hurt "everyone" in a relationship with the couple (that is especially true for children).

Why support and activity (by endorsing it, legally) when it causes pain and suffering for all involved?

 

[logical4u]

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?

It has a particular definition, why do you want to change/eliminate a word that makes perfect sense?

 

[logical4u]

Another reason: HEALTH, we all need to make sacrifices to bring down the health costs for the nation and since homosexual behavior (in men) can increase the chances they will get AIDS or HIV, why encourage that type of behavior by legallizing (endorsing) that behavior that will lead to increased health costs for all of us? (They did it for 'smoking', they are doing it for transfats, they are doing it to children's menus in schools) Do youu believe the Czar over the health care plan will not throw you over a cliff (or give you "the" pill) once your health care costs become 'greater than average'?

So...eliminate marriage for all people who could get diseases....using your logic.

I am pointing out that people that engage in homosexual activity (males) have a higher rate of getting diseases than people that don't (heterosexuals). BTW this study did not include those that had multiple opposite sex partners.

In the current 'nanny state' that this country is embracing, that is enough to make an activity illegal, or taxed heavily (to cover the health costs, we are told). I did not say that I agree with it. I do find it amusing that the same people that are 'supporting' the 'nanny state', will probably be some of the first to have the boom lowered on them once the 'nanny state' achieves the power that liberals are trying to give it. I can see it clearly. Look at history, where there is legion, there is no rights, only oppression.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

To equate gay marriage to the plight of the inhumane treatment blacks recieved is not only obsurd but an insult to those that died fighting that fight and those that died for no good reason. You sir are an idiot....

Civil rights are civil rights whether we are talking about race, age, gender, religion, or sexual preference. Sorry, your thought patterns are unable to grasp that.

Actually YOU are the one unable to grasp that homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. What they want are special rights.
But we've been through this a dozen times already.

 

[logical4u]

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

If they are in a faux marriage, they should get faux benefits.
If homosexuals want to have tax supported 'unions', the people or their representatives will have a say. If they want to keep us out of their bedroom, please tell them to quit bringing their bedroom into the public square. This behavior should not be encouraged, tolerated, okay, but not encouraged.

It's not a faux marriage, it's a real marriage.


And how are we bringing our bedrooms into the public square any more than any straight couple talking about getting married?

Is one of you a man and one of you a woman? If not it is not a "marriage" unless you want to use the new, twisted, distorted definition to confuse the language. Marriage for eons has been between a man and one (or in some cultures, more) woman. It is a faux marriage. One of you (or both) is pretending to be the opposite sex (or at least the characteristics of that sex).

What 'straight' people are trying to force schools into "teaching" that sex, according to their tastes is normal, and it is wrong (isn't that a religious term and one the left doesn't like to use), to say anything against that person's choices?

 

[logical4u]

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

So if the government gives benefits to people who have children, then people who don't have children are entitled to those benefits as well?

Your argument is idiotic.

Ask all the married childless couples today if that isn't already the case.

The majority of marriages (proper definition) have children (and they do it the 'green way', no extra costs from doctor manipulations), because it is impossible to 'know' which couples will not (or cannot) have children, it would be very hard to enforce.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Another reason: HEALTH, we all need to make sacrifices to bring down the health costs for the nation and since homosexual behavior (in men) can increase the chances they will get AIDS or HIV, why encourage that type of behavior by legallizing (endorsing) that behavior that will lead to increased health costs for all of us? (They did it for 'smoking', they are doing it for transfats, they are doing it to children's menus in schools) Do youu believe the Czar over the health care plan will not throw you over a cliff (or give you "the" pill) once your health care costs become 'greater than average'?

So...eliminate marriage for all people who could get diseases....using your logic.

I am pointing out that people that engage in homosexual activity (males) have a higher rate of getting diseases than people that don't (heterosexuals). BTW this study did not include those that had multiple opposite sex partners.

Then do you support Same-sex Civil Marriage for females since they have lower rates of STD/HIV's then both gay men and heterosexuals?



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

You are mistaken. Obesity is a terrible problem and I seriously doubt that HIV/AIDs comes close to the $100B we have to spend each year on Obesity.

First, obesity is a condition that is treatable. HIV/AIDS, while treatable, is terminal and contagious.
Obesity is none of those.
Second, we spend more fighting the common cold than we do treating obesity, and that is for temporary symptoms.
Third, facts show that transmission of AIDS is highest among homosexual males than any other category.
Fourth, no one has ever died from being fat.

People die from being fat every single day. The health costs associated with obesity are miles beyond the health costs for HIV and AIDS and yet YOU wanted to use the cost to prohibit gays from marrying.

Here are some ACTUAL FACTS for you.

Cost of Treating Obesity Soars

Overweight and Obesity - Economic Consequences

Weighing the cost of obesity

Obesity a key link to soaring health tab as costs double

So, I'll ask again...do want to prohibit a guy from marrying his fat girlfriend because of the health coasts of adding her to his employee health care? If not, you are just the same old bigot with a new angle.

 

[Seawytch]

I have no problem at all with the extension of the rights and financial advantages of Marriage enjoyed by mixed gendre couples to gay couples.

However, the word "marriage" is a religious word based on religious beliefs and as such is potentially an offense when used in this sense. So, with an eye toward being sensitive, there needs to be a word or phrase that both avoids the offense to the religious and bestows dignity on the gay union along with the legal rights.

As with most things, there is a legal and a personal aspect to this that people of good will should take into account.

Only if the same name applies to heterosexual legal marriages as well. If a state issues a marriage license, that same license should be issued to gay and lesbian couples. Anything else is separate but equal and we've tried that already here...it didn't work.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

So the premise of the OP is that if you don't support gay marriage you're intolerant and a bigot, typical far left argument of those who feign support for homosexuals to be seen as good people who care about gays.

 

[bodecea]

So the premise of the OP is that if you don't support gay marriage you're intolerant and a bigot, typical far left argument of those who feign support for homosexuals to be seen as good people who care about gays.

Your statement there reminds me of the Right wing argument that white people only voted for Obama because of white guilt.

 

[Seawytch]

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.
>>>>>

Whatever their reason for pushing that meme, the "blame the blacks" strategy didn't work. We don't blame the blacks for the passage of prop 8. Mostly we blame the lies paid for by the Mormons and other religious groups.

With marriage equality, poll after poll shows that opposition is an age and religion thing, period.

 

[kaz]

Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.

Yes, marriage should not be a function of government, gay marriage only deepens it. Government marriage like all government functions is only used to divide people as leverage for political power. Gay marriage just makes a bad situation worse.

 

[Seawytch]

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).

You are sitting at a ******* computer. Is it really so hard to do a little research before typing? The SCOTUS has determined, on no less than three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right so that's "where it is written" that marriage is a right.

You are also, obviously, another one that needs to read up on the history of marriage.

What is a raditional marriage?

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.

No, we want to get legally married for the exact same reasons that heterosexuals get legally married. There is no difference in the "reasons" that we want to marry our partners...none at all. Are you legally married? If you are, why did you get legally married?

Are you really trying to argue that gays shouldn't be allowed marriage equality because then their partners would get survivor benefits? Why should heterosexuals be allowed these benefits and not gays and lesbians? You are advocating blatant discrimination.

So what if gays and lesbians need "assistance" from members of the opposite sex to start their families. What does that have to do with whether or not we should have marriage equality. Should sterile couples not be allowed to marry in your twisted world?

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.

Sorry, but civil rights should not be voted on. If we had voted, say, on interracial marriage...do you know when it would have passed? It wouldn't have been in 1967 when Loving v Virginia was ruled on. If we had voted on interracial marriage, it would not have enjoyed majority support until the 1990s. Bigots should NEVER be allowed to vote their bigotry into law.

 

[Seawytch]

Guess what, because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Lev.20:13 "if man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." You see, it is because the Bible says it that it is wrong. It is not shoving religion down anyones throat, it is the truth spoken in God's word, period.

Leviticus? Really? Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

The bible is completely irrelevant in a discussion about legal, civil marriage. The two have NOTHING to do with each other.

 

[kaz]

I guess the concept of supporting equal rights for all Americans is now "far left" in a staunchly conservative's brain

Calling privileges "rights" because you can't logically support your arguments only works because too many people don't have critical minds

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Homosexuality has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species...some of whom even mate for life with same sex partners and yet it is somehow inconceivable to you that there is a natural basis for it? There are animal species that can change their gender, but in your narrow mind, gays and lesbians have a mental disorder?

Seriously people, pick up a ******* book every once in a while...

 

[Seawytch]

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.

How about the eye witness testimony of gays and lesbians? Does that account for nothing? WE will tell you that we did not make a choice to be attracted to members of the same sex...it is simply how we have ALWAYS felt.

Find a credible scientist (not some like "rent boy" Reekers) that claims sexual orientation is a choice (and has peer reviewed studies to back it up)