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

[Sactowndog]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

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.

Okay I will take a stab.

I don't think the government should be recognizing marriages gay or straight. To me marriage is a religious ceremony and should be allowed to remain as so. Religions should be free to marry or not marry whomever they chose....

The government should be recognizing only civil unions and should do so in an unbiased manner for all. White, black, gay, straight. Heck let them recognize polygamists I don't care. Those on the far left talk about the seperation of church and state but on this issue they are very inconsistent. Let religion set it's rules and let goverment set it's laws and let's stop mingling the two.

 

[kaz]

So, your wife is making you a hypocrite. Good one, can I use it?

My wife makes me everything I don't want to be, and everything I do. You seriously know nothing about relationships, no way you are in a 15 year one unless your partner is a doormat. My partner's not a spineless loser like yours who lets me walk all over her. And I like it that way. Marriage is where both partners give 60% and get 40%. Marriage is where you do everything you never believed you would. You can't call what you have even a relationship, it's a sick dependency. You're a callous ass and you need to be better to her. That is if you're not just a white, balding, male middle aged New England Elitist who just likes pretending to be a lesbian as another pompous pretense.

Oooh, someone is a little sensitive about the fact that he's ***** whipped into being a big ******* hypocrite.

So you cleverly figured out I'm married when I told you. It always cracks me up when liberals go with the obvious and then goat in their brilliance. And you did it by ignoring my questions about if ignoring your partner is how you live your own life. Yes, we did identify hypocrisy here...

 

[brono921]

Well, now we know.
Liberals are very comfortable arguing their positions against religious dogma, but when science gets in the way?
They run away.

 

[bodecea]

And yet in an earlier post you said your situation was more ideal than mine because your partner is of the opposite sex? Who is spouting crap exactly?

I didn't say my kids are better then yours, you said yours are better then mine.

I said "all else equal" it's better for kids to have two parents of opposite sex, not two parents of the same sex. That is not a blanket that can be applied to all situations. My God, woman, do you know what "all else equal" means? I like how you boast of reading studies and being well read and your arguments are grade school. If you were right, you'd hold me to what I said, not misapply it to things I didn't. You are actually intellectually lazy and a liar because no ******* way do you treat your partner as you demand I treat mine.

And all things equal, the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to those raised by heterosexuals.

Right now...in many states, they are not. We do not travel to 3rd world country like states like TX and FL and VA because we worry about if one of us got hurt or sick, including our daughter. They would not recognize our family and that is not worth risking.

 

[brono921]

We do not travel to 3rd world country like states like TX and FL and VA
You mean the state's that are doing well, fiscally and productively, of course.
The states you find home have the highest taxation and unemployment.
A literal liberal utopia.

They would not recognize our family
There are many more states that would not, and most likely that are in much better financial shape than yours, for the same reasons.

 

[bodecea]

Well, now we know.
Liberals are very comfortable arguing their positions against religious dogma, but when science gets in the way?
They run away.

What science is that we run away from?

 

[SW2SILVER]

There is another board on the USMB with a similar title: " Is there any opposition to polygamy other than intolerance and bigotry?" Come on peeps! Y'all can do better than THIS. I am about to go over to the science and tech board and create a: "Any opposition to the flat Earth model is ignorant and biased” thread. Give this crud a break already.

 

[bodecea]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

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.

Okay I will take a stab.

I don't think the government should be recognizing marriages gay or straight. To me marriage is a religious ceremony and should be allowed to remain as so. Religions should be free to marry or not marry whomever they chose....

The government should be recognizing only civil unions and should do so in an unbiased manner for all. White, black, gay, straight. Heck let them recognize polygamists I don't care. Those on the far left talk about the seperation of church and state but on this issue they are very inconsistent. Let religion set it's rules and let goverment set it's laws and let's stop mingling the two.

So you would sign a petition to get government out of marriage altogether and to strike down all those laws, statutes, protections, etc. provided to married couples by the government.

They started a petition like that here in CA a few years back....it did not get far.

 

[brono921]

What science is that we run away from?
You might try perusing the thread, if interested.
Feel free to pick up where sleaslitch got her ass handed to her.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Bottom line its a disgusting,immoral and mentally sickening lifestyle. Akin to the disease of pedophilia. Having said that you should be able to have the same rights traditional couples have. You just don't need to bastardize the meaning of marriage in the process of legalizing your disgusting behavior.

 

[Susan45]

My ass is white and my wife is Korean. I've got a government marriage because that was the only way I was getting her past her parents out of her house, but the fact that government recognizes our marriage doesn't give it any meaning to me, our relationship gives it meaning. We've been married 22 years and it's not changing, but that has nothing to do with government.

Kaz, I'll bet you would think differently if one of you got ill and the other wasn't allowed to visit in the hospital because you weren't family. Or if for some reason your children weren't considered your children because you wife is Korean. I've know a few Korean people over the years and I know she would be the first one in line to change things.

I really don't think you've given this much thought, because anyone that does have a wonderful marriage would want to share the experience with other people.

I agree Susan, but that is not limited to my wife and it's not necessary to solve with marriage. So trying to use marriage is overkill and only partially effective anyway.

What I just can't seem to understand is you think it's OK to deny marriage to some people. Maybe you can explain to me why it should cost our gay citizens thousands of dollars for benefits that you received for the cost of a marriage license. What's fair about that? Don't we all want the best for out beloved? That is what the gay community wants...simple fairness.

 

[Sactowndog]

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.

This could also be asked of a state government wishing to ban same-sex marriage. In order for a law designed to preempt equal protection or a civil right to be upheld as Constitutional, a ‘compelling governmental interest’ must be provided, given the standard of review.

In Perry, for example, the Prop 8 case, no good or compelling objective reasons could be provided to support the constitutionality of the measure.

Isn't that the point. If laws defining marriage as a relationship between a man and women get thrown out as unconstitutional doesn't the same logic apply to 1 man and multiple women?

 

[brono921]

Maybe you can explain to me why it should cost our gay citizens thousands of dollars for benefits that you received for the cost of a marriage license. What's fair about that?
You might want to check out the highest rate of transmissions of terminal illnesses.
Again, science isn't something you're prepared to debate, is it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Aren't you as a homosexual extremist saying that homosexual marriage should be accepted as normal? Doesn't that strike you as false? A homosexual partner comes from the union of one man and one woman. Declaring the homosexual way to be normal (if everyone did it) would eliminate future generations. Isn't it non-scientific (hence bigoted) to believe that a system that has proven non-productive will produce?

You’re clearly confused.

The Supreme Court has ruled that procreation is not a required criterion as to the right to marry, as opposite-sex couples who can not have children marry all the time.

It is not society’s concern as to whether homosexuals can reproduce; it is not society’s place to make a determination as to what is ‘normal,’ as the Court has also stated.

None of what you’ve noted meets the standard of review necessary to justify preemption of same-sex couples’ right to equal access to the laws.

Okay, is a "fundemental" or "civil" right? In my opinion, it is neither…

Incorrect, it is a fundamental right, in that the Court will usually apply strict scrutiny to cases involving preemption of the right to marry. Strict scrutiny may also be applied in that homosexuals are a suspect class, adversely effected by the violation of the Equal Protection Clause:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978)…

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Kaz, I'll bet you would think differently if one of you got ill and the other wasn't allowed to visit in the hospital because you weren't family. Or if for some reason your children weren't considered your children because you wife is Korean. I've know a few Korean people over the years and I know she would be the first one in line to change things.

I really don't think you've given this much thought, because anyone that does have a wonderful marriage would want to share the experience with other people.

I agree Susan, but that is not limited to my wife and it's not necessary to solve with marriage. So trying to use marriage is overkill and only partially effective anyway.

What I just can't seem to understand is you think it's OK to deny marriage to some people. Maybe you can explain to me why it should cost our gay citizens thousands of dollars for benefits that you received for the cost of a marriage license. What's fair about that? Don't we all want the best for out beloved? That is what the gay community wants...simple fairness.

You can achieve those goals without the term marriage. There is no need to turn what millions cherrish into little more than a perversion of its original intent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As often as these threads occur here and there, and no matter how many posts they run up,

not once does anyone who's against same sex marriage come up with one substantive reason to justify keeping it illegal.

 

[bodecea]

What science is that we run away from?
You might try perusing the thread, if interested.
Feel free to pick up where sleaslitch got her ass handed to her.

It's a long thread....since you know, why don't you link it?

BTW...is it necessary to alter posters' names in an attempt to be insulting?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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'.

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.

How does the legality of hetero marriage get the government into THEIR bedrooms?

 

[bodecea]

Maybe you can explain to me why it should cost our gay citizens thousands of dollars for benefits that you received for the cost of a marriage license. What's fair about that?
You might want to check out the highest rate of transmissions of terminal illnesses.
Again, science isn't something you're prepared to debate, is it?

The highest rates of terminal illness? Is that a requirement of marriage in our country? OR is that some new requirement you made up as a roadblock? If so, we can assume you have NO PROBLEM with lesbians marrying then, right?

 

[Sactowndog]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

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.
So you would sign a petition to get government out of marriage altogether and to strike down all those laws, statutes, protections, etc. provided to married couples by the government.

They started a petition like that here in CA a few years back....it did not get far.

Absolutely, I would happily sign a petition to replace the words "marriage" with the term "civil union" in all government documents. And I live in CA and most people I know feel the same, including many who voted for Prop 8.

I think the laws and statutes make complete sense and should apply to all civil unions. So I wouldn't support removing them because I think gay and straight couples should benefit from them equally as do most people that I know.

You can support restricting the ceremony of marriage to the church and support equal rights for gay's, straights and polygamists.

(As an aside, I am not sure why anyone who want to marry two women. I have enough trouble dealing with the one I have. I'm sure laws against polygamy were started by older men who were trying to keep younger overly hormonal men out of trouble.)