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

[bodecea]

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?

How?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's funniest about this is that 20 years from now, at the MOST, opposition to same-sex marriage won't even be a part of the Republican agenda, and except for some diehard extremists, it won't even be a part of the conservative agenda.

All this pissing and moaning you're seeing from the Right on this is nothing more than a long drawn out death rattle over a lost cause.

 

[brono921]

The highest rates of terminal illness? Is that a requirement of marriage in our country?
Ehhh.....no. But that wasn't the question you asked, was it?

OR is that some new requirement you made up as a roadblock?
No, the road block is that you are trying to introduce a group of people who by choice practice high risk recreational activities, then use the flawed arguments that "you can't help yourself, it's in our genes".
Try stringing a few thoughts together rather than leftwing propaganda.
You'll be glad you did.

If so, we can assume you have NO PROBLEM with lesbians marrying then, right?
Well, that goes hand in hand with "same sex couples". And that is the language you are looking for.

 

[kaz]

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.

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

 

[kaz]

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.

Liberal logic, an oxymoron. If government doesn't recognize it, it's "illegal." So gin rummy is illegal? I am aware of no law recognizing gin rummy as a card game. And we gave lots of reasons, rather then responding to them you just cover your ears and didn't hear them.

 

[logical4u]

.

Lets interview the adult children raised by "homosexual couples" and hear what they have to say.

That has been done. There are studies in the UK, Canada, and yes, the USA!!! Hundreds of children involved.

I'm sure you can find the research and read it.

Oh wait, it's the poster that doesn't read or do research.

There are films of interviews, too. Maybe that's easier for you!

The result:? Children are as well or better adjusted, more open, accepting, and just as likely to be "straight" heterosexuals as children from heterosexual couples.

"The result:? Children are as well or better adjusted, more open, accepting, and just as likely to be "straight" heterosexuals as children from heterosexual couples." That would be the criteria according to those supporting homosexuality. How are those children in schools? What are their rates of depression? How do they compare for children from "straight" parents as far as risky behaviors? Pretty vague.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

i disagree.....no MAN will act like Richard Simmons by choice......unless he is Gay.....being a Bi-Sexual is choice.....why is it so far fetched to believe that at sometime during the formation of said person in the birth canal,that something happened to the fetus that gave it the Mentality of a female and the physical characteristics of a man or vice versa?.......

 

[mattskramer]

.

Lets interview the adult children raised by "homosexual couples" and hear what they have to say.

That has been done. There are studies in the UK, Canada, and yes, the USA!!! Hundreds of children involved.

I'm sure you can find the research and read it.

Oh wait, it's the poster that doesn't read or do research.

There are films of interviews, too. Maybe that's easier for you!

The result:? Children are as well or better adjusted, more open, accepting, and just as likely to be "straight" heterosexuals as children from heterosexual couples.

"The result:? Children are as well or better adjusted, more open, accepting, and just as likely to be "straight" heterosexuals as children from heterosexual couples." That would be the criteria according to those supporting homosexuality. How are those children in schools? What are their rates of depression? How do they compare for children from "straight" parents as far as risky behaviors? Pretty vague.

Here is your answer:

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This focuses on their fitness as parents. The fact is that children need both a mother's nurturing and a father's challenge. It's not that either is a better parent, it's that we evolved with that need. All else equal, the ideal situation is two parents, male and female. That doesn't mean kids can't grow up with two parents of the same sex or one parent and turn out fine. My father was gone from when I was five. I see clearly having my own kids how much better is is for them that they have both my wife and me and not one parent. My sister has a PhD, my brother went to the Naval Academy and also has a masters in math. I have two masters degrees, one in Computer Science and an MBA and I own two businesses. I never said kids with homosexual parents will fail. Our mother took care of us, but no one challenged us. Girls need a father for their self esteem in particular and boys need a role model. Reverse it and you get comparable diminishement.

Two mothers would not have replaced having a father. All else equal, hetero is the best scenario. But there are many factors, which is why I said "all else equal."

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Nature v nurture. Fwiw, I took Psych 101 in college, and that's it so it's not like I'm a genius, and from what I remember psychologists and social scientists have pretty much come to the agreement that it is a sort of combination of the two. As far as sexuality goes, I don't see why the same couldn't apply. A baby is pops out of the vagina with a slight bias to the same sex, and this is further reinforced through life experiences.

 

[brono921]

i disagree.....no MAN will act like Richard Simmons by choice......unless he is Gay
Well, that settles it, science be damned.
Our template is Richard Simmons.
Sheesh.
And liberals wonder why no one takes them seriously..........

why is it so far fetched to believe that at sometime during the formation of said person in the birth canal,that something happened to the fetus that gave it the Mentality of a female and the physical characteristics of a man or vice versa?......
Hmmmm.......good point.
And with that, "There was an old lady who lived in a shoe........."
How old were you when you stopped playing with dolls, anyway?

 

[bodecea]

Off to the town picnic. Happy Independence Day...and don't forget to thank a liberal.

Have fun. When your friends see you coming they're going to say look, here comes the witch...

Is there a reason for you to say such things besides proving the OP right?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Funny how MOST pedophiles are straight men...and sadly...a lot of times family members.

Maybe we should said straight males are akin to pedophilia....it would be a more accurate statement.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ion-to-eliminate-civil-marriage-licenses.html

Go vote, if you haven't already.

 

[xsited1]

I have no problem with that. But I don't see why you need a government piece of paper to validate it

The main reason is to obtain the same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages. I've seen situations where a partner in a gay relationship of 25 years dies and the other partner is left with nothing. That's not right.

It's also not necessary. They could have had a will which is a far easier solution then marriage. BTW, if a married person dies without a will then it's also more expensive and complicated depending on where they live as well. Using marriage as a will is like hammering in brads with a sledge hammer.

Well, not exactly. States were same-sex marriage or civil unions are not recognized allow family members to contest a will and win. I've seen it happen. And why not allow same-sex couples the same death rights? I don't understand your reasoning.

You may be interested in this site to add to your knowledge on this subject:

Outright Libertarians

 

[kaz]

Off to the town picnic. Happy Independence Day...and don't forget to thank a liberal.

Have fun. When your friends see you coming they're going to say look, here comes the witch...

Is there a reason for you to say such things besides proving the OP right?

If you read the discussion, she said I was required to ignore my wife/partner's feelings and divorce her and live with her because I don't think marriage should be a government function. She also said she had a 15 year partner.

I kept asking her if she ignored her partner's values as she demands I ignore mine, and she repeatedly refused to. It is that I was referring to.

 

[brono921]

Funny how MOST pedophiles are straight men...and sadly...a lot of times family members.


Interesting point.
You compare pedophillia to homosexuality.
One is an illness, the other is not (allegedly).
Ooops.
Then there's the problem of the pedophiles sexually assaulting members of the same sex, which by definition is homosexuality.
Ooopsie again.
Get back on your meds.

 

[logical4u]

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?



Your religious opinion has no bearing on a discussion of legal, civil marriage. We want to legally marry and protect our partners, not someone of the opposite sex that we don't love, honor or cherish. My marrying someone of the opposite sex would be the mockery, not my marrying my long-time partner.

There was no "religious opinion". There was the reasons that most people get married. I noticed that you did not address those, but go on to declare your reasons are the same while, physically, impossible to achieve. Wouldn't that be superstitious or silly to believe (hence bigoted)?

Ours is the , but we are denied the legal protections. In case you were wondering, that is discrimination.

What married couple have the "EXACT same love, EXACT same commitment"? You are being deceptive. You cannot possibly have the EXACT same emotions as ANY other person on this earth. (Let me go religious on you: you are unique in all the world and your emotions, as such are as unique as you). You have legal protections, you just want "special" legal protections to reward you for making risky decisions. You make the choice, don't try to force the rest of us to "support" your choices. Live with it.

You would have an argument if we gave fertility tests to couple prior to marriage. We don't. We don't prevent the elderly from marrying, despite the fact that they are well beyond their "childbearing" years.

It would be "silly" to give fertility tests, not to mention expensive (what are the chances of a homosexual couple procreating, with each other). You said your reasons were the same. I showed they are not. Most hetero couples that are married have children. There are exceptions. Some elderly marry out of want for companionship. They make a comittment to the children of the previous marriages (there is a tiny percentage that have no children). Show me "scientifically" how a homosexual couple can have each other's children?

My partner and I have two children. She stays home and cares for our children. Now tell me again why my partnership is not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of legal, civil marriage?

Are they children from "your union", or is there a donor parent in the mix? You chose to do things differently. You were well aware of the issues you would have. You chose that path, anyway. Now, you want others to give you sympathy? You chose to make the lives of those children harder?


Thanks for sharing your opinion but the LAW of this country says differently. The Supreme Court, on more than one occasion, has declared marriage a fundamental right that cannot even be denied to convicted murderers.



Again you are arguing the religious aspect of marriage and that is not what this argument is about. It might interest you to know that people opposed to interracial marriage used the exact same arguments to oppose legalizing it as you do now. Bigotry is still bigotry.

What religious aspect? Society benefits from "traditional marriage". Let's take it to a community level: where do homosexuals "buy" houses? How many family oriented people choose to buy a house in a homosexual community? Why do you think that is? Are the homosexuals that are purchasing homes bigoted? Why don't they support the homosexual community by purchasing a house in the homosexual community? Why don't they invite their family, their boss, their co-workers into the homosexual community?

Ah the rub...see, you can't prove that allowing me equal access to legal, civil marriage would be a detriment to society. The burden of proof is on those opposed to marriage equality to come up with a compelling state reason to deny legal marriage to gay couple and nobody has. This is why ya'll keep losing in court and all these anti-gay laws are being ruled unconstitutional.


Is this like the health care bill: we have to legalize homosexual marriage before we can examine it (it will be too late to do anything to stop the corruption at that point). And no, the burden is on those that want "new laws" to provide evidence that those laws will be beneficial to the citizens of the country (still waiting). The reason the "courts" keep using the homosexual agenda is because the judges are homosexual or sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. There is no where in the Constitution that declares homosexual deserve "special" benefits.


Gay marriage will be a reality, across the country, in just a few years. You'll be on the wrong side of history just like those opposed to interracial marriage were.

This sounds a lot like those supporting Shariah law in this country. The reality: either will be destructive to our society. I am not worried about being on the wrong side of history. I didn't vote for the current President either. That put me on the wrong side of history, but if others had joined me, the country would probably be in a lot better condition, now.

 

[brono921]

The irony is a liberal telling everyone to be worried about being on the wrong side of history.
You might check their record sometime.
They seem to live there.

 

[kaz]

The main reason is to obtain the same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages. I've seen situations where a partner in a gay relationship of 25 years dies and the other partner is left with nothing. That's not right.

It's also not necessary. They could have had a will which is a far easier solution then marriage. BTW, if a married person dies without a will then it's also more expensive and complicated depending on where they live as well. Using marriage as a will is like hammering in brads with a sledge hammer.

Well, not exactly. States were same-sex marriage or civil unions are not recognized allow family members to contest a will and win. I've seen it happen. And why not allow same-sex couples the same death rights? I don't understand your reasoning.

You may be interested in this site to add to your knowledge on this subject:

Outright Libertarians

You can contest any will, marriage doesn't stop that. Whether you can win is a matter of local law. Applying a universal solution (marriage) to local law is...silly.