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

[kaz]

ah the take my ball home approach

We see a lot of that from them...anyone remember anybody talking about taking the government out of marriage BEFORE the gay marriage issue came up? I don't.

not a peep....

Wow, what a dimwit. First of all the hypocrisy of the left. Which of course is SOS. When issues come up, you mea culpa if you hadn't already been talking about it before it came up. And I'm Aunt Jemima. But as for me, yes, I did openly advocate taking the government out of marriage

 

[Seawytch]

And why did the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have to defend their fundamental right of free association in the first place? Hello! It should have been a no brainer that homos had absolutely no right whatsoever to sue the Boy Scouts from the jump! Don't tell me that a long line of leftist thugs, including judges, didn't have to be fought off all the up to the Supreme Court to reaffirm the obvious. Statist thugs.

The BSA is perfectly free, as a private organization, to discriminate...they just can't expect to use PUBLIC property, free of charge, for their discrimination.

 

[Seawytch]

The first time my kids school tells her gay is normal I will pull her out and homeschool her the truth.The Bible will be the text book.

Trying to create the next generation of bigots? Sorry, epic fail...

 

[Seawytch]

Well, actually, the sanctity of human life and heterosexual marriage are the first principles of private property in Lockean political theory, the construct of natural law on which this nation was founded. On the other hand, if American society is drifting toward the calamity of formally recognizing queer "marriage" then it would be best that the government got out of the marriage business altogether.

But lefty's not about equal treatment and live and let live at all. His agenda is to tyrannize, to impose, to force, to shove, to bully, to demand.

ah the take my ball home approach

We see a lot of that from them...anyone remember anybody talking about taking the government out of marriage BEFORE the gay marriage issue came up? I don't.

I'm sure it was probably mentioned by some whacko during the anti miscegenation fights back in the 60s.

Hate crime laws are the same way...you never hear any opposition to them until someone wants to add sexual orientation to already existing hate crime laws.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The first time my kids school tells her gay is normal I will pull her out and homeschool her the truth.The Bible will be the text book.

Trying to create the next generation of bigots? Sorry, epic fail...

Im not against your position on gay marriage but your post smacked of hypocricy and I have to point it out.

AmericanFirst wants to teach their children as the bible teaches that being Gay is not acceptable in the eyes of their bible's God. While you and I may not agree with that position, the very same liberty that you claim gays should have under the constitution AmericanFirst also has in regards to religion. By calling them a bigot over their following of their religious text your actually acting like a bigot yourself.

Just trying to keep your eyes open, im not saying this in a hatefule or got you kind of way.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And why did the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have to defend their fundamental right of free association in the first place? Hello! It should have been a no brainer that homos had absolutely no right whatsoever to sue the Boy Scouts from the jump! Don't tell me that a long line of leftist thugs, including judges, didn't have to be fought off all the up to the Supreme Court to reaffirm the obvious. Statist thugs.

The BSA is perfectly free, as a private organization, to discriminate...they just can't expect to use PUBLIC property, free of charge, for their discrimination.

See. Lefty can't even bring himself to respectfully talk about the fundamental right of free association in regard to those with whom he disagrees. He uses the term discriminate, which is the essence of free association, for sure, but he means it pejoratively. Also, see how he thinks he has a sole claim on the public square, that his actions don't call for the business end of a loaded gun, as it were. A little Jeffersonian speak. Imagine gay rights groups using public property not discriminating against groups that oppose them.

Of course leftist political groups would not allow their opponents to violate their right of free association on public property!

Liars. Hypocrites. Thieves. Thugs. Tyrants. In short, leftists!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Righty Extremist keeps up with her fascist positions. The BSA has the right to private association but no right to public funding if it discriminates. As her voice becomes more desperate, her anger and bigotry become more evident. See fabricates, she wants a double standard, she steals the dignity and freedom of those whom she opposes, she is a political shi'ite thug. In short, she is a very stupid Righty Extremist.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Just because John Locke thought something does not necessarily make him right. John Locke is not God. However, you will have to give me a quote from Locke that would prove he would outlaw any type of marriage between consenting adults. Locke seemed to talk in his first treatise more about outlawing practices that violated life, liberty, or property. He gave the example of banning the practice of sacrificing babies, even if a religion supported it.

You're failing to coherently grasp the matter. In Lockean political theory the sanctity of human life and the family of nature are the first principles of private property. Period.

Just how in the world am I supposed to show you where Locke "would outlaw any type of marriage between consenting adults"? Your challenge is disingenuous claptrap. There is but one definition of marriage in accordance with the family of nature. It would never have occurred to Locke some 400 years later that a flock of lunatics would be talking about predicating marriage on anything but heterosexual union.

The right to marry and procreate is a fundamental right in Lockean theory. It's a fundamental right under natural and constitutional law. Governmental approbation of marriage, however, need not necessarily follow, but the notion that the centuries-old practice of governments officially recognizing marriage on the basis of heterosexual union constitutes a form of tyranny is moonbat absurd and presupposes that suddenly in the 21st Century, against centuries of historical apprehension, that "queer marriage" legitimately establishes that.

Further, queers are free to "marry". Who's stopping them? Official recognition of their unions and the civil rights protections that would necessarily be enforced by the state against the practice of certain fundamental rights associated with private property and free association are another matter altogether.

Government should get out of the marriage business no matter what society deems to be marriage. As I said, it is a private societal practice, not a government privilege.

How very libertarian of you . . . over two-hundred-and-thirty years after the founding of the Republic. So, starting with the Founders, we've had it wrong all these years! But now you're here to authoritatively straighten it all out once and for all. LOL! Clearly, you're jabbering nonsense. Whether it also be "a private societal practice" or not, societies most certainly have held, for centuries no less, that the governmental practice of officially recognizing heterosexual marriage is both legitimate and practical.

But let's dispense with the theoretical fantasy speak. Governments have always recognized heterosexual marriage, and they will continue to do so, including that of the Republic. That is not going to change, and expanding the government's power to recognize marriage on the basis of a sexual union that is contrary to biological physiology and reproduction is tyrannical.

I am not deceived.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Righty Extremist keeps up with her fascist positions. The BSA has the right to private association but no right to public funding if it discriminates. As her voice becomes more desperate, her anger and bigotry become more evident. See fabricates, she wants a double standard, she steals the dignity and freedom of those whom she opposes, she is a political shi'ite thug. In short, she is a very stupid Righty Extremist.

See. Lefty can't even bring himself to respectfully talk about the fundamental right of free association in regard to those with whom he disagrees. He uses the term discriminate, which is the essence of free association, for sure, but he means it pejoratively. Also, see how he thinks he has a sole claim on the public square, that his actions don't call for the business end of a loaded gun, as it were. A little Jeffersonian speak. Imagine gay rights groups using public property not discriminating against groups that oppose them.

Of course leftist political groups would not allow their opponents to violate their right of free association on public property!

Liars. Hypocrites. Thieves. Thugs. Tyrants. In short, leftists!

 

[bodecea]

And why did the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have to defend their fundamental right of free association in the first place? Hello! It should have been a no brainer that homos had absolutely no right whatsoever to sue the Boy Scouts from the jump! Don't tell me that a long line of leftist thugs, including judges, didn't have to be fought off all the up to the Supreme Court to reaffirm the obvious. Statist thugs.

The BSA is perfectly free, as a private organization, to discriminate...they just can't expect to use PUBLIC property, free of charge, for their discrimination.

See. Lefty can't even bring himself to respectfully talk about the fundamental right of free association in regard to those with whom he disagrees. He uses the term discriminate, which is the essence of free association, for sure, but he means it pejoratively. Also, see how he thinks he has a sole claim on the public square, that his actions don't call for the business end of a loaded gun, as it were. A little Jeffersonian speak. Imagine gay rights groups using public property not discriminating against groups that oppose them.

Of course leftist political groups would not allow their opponents to violate their right of free association on public property!

Liars. Hypocrites. Thieves. Thugs. Tyrants. In short, leftists!

Well, you are certainly a reasonable person.

 

[Seawytch]

Let's reiterate for the individual that doesn't understand public accommodation laws...the BSA can keep out any group or minority it want's to... What some states and cities have determined is that if they do want to exclude minorities, they cannot continue to use public space free of charge.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The BSA is perfectly free, as a private organization, to discriminate...they just can't expect to use PUBLIC property, free of charge, for their discrimination.

See. Lefty can't even bring himself to respectfully talk about the fundamental right of free association in regard to those with whom he disagrees. He uses the term discriminate, which is the essence of free association, for sure, but he means it pejoratively. Also, see how he thinks he has a sole claim on the public square, that his actions don't call for the business end of a loaded gun, as it were. A little Jeffersonian speak. Imagine gay rights groups using public property not discriminating against groups that oppose them.

Of course leftist political groups would not allow their opponents to violate their right of free association on public property!

Liars. Hypocrites. Thieves. Thugs. Tyrants. In short, leftists!

Well, you are certainly a reasonable person.

Yeah. I know. Right?

Just saying.

 

[bodecea]

Let's reiterate for the individual that doesn't understand public accommodation laws...the BSA can keep out any group or minority it want's to... What some states and cities have determined is that if they do want to exclude minorities, they cannot continue to use public space free of charge.

Exactly...they worked very hard to prove themselves to be a private religious organization. More power to them when they want to exclude people...But they cannot turn around and then expect to be able to use Public facilities either free or at a very low sweetheart cost. They pay now as any private organization would pay. Funny how they are crying about that...they are the ones who wanted it that way.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Let's reiterate for the individual that doesn't understand public accommodation laws...the BSA can keep out any group or minority it want's to... What some states and cities have determined is that if they do want to exclude minorities, they cannot continue to use public space free of charge.

And let's reiterate for the mindless, go-along-with-anything-the-government-says statist: what some municipalities have obviously done is abolish individual liberty and free association on public property for organizations or gatherings organized around traditional values. Of course, the tax dollars seized by these municipalities from these organizations' members will still come in.

In short, leftist thugs are pushing a cultural civil war toward a hot civil war.

I am not deceived.

 

[bodecea]

Let's reiterate for the individual that doesn't understand public accommodation laws...the BSA can keep out any group or minority it want's to... What some states and cities have determined is that if they do want to exclude minorities, they cannot continue to use public space free of charge.

And let's reiterate for the mindless, go-along-with-anything-the-government-says statist: what some municipalities have obviously done is abolish individual liberty and free association on public property for organizations or gatherings organized around traditional values. Of course, the tax dollars seized by these municipalities from these organizations' members will still come in.

In short, leftist thugs are pushing a cultural civil war toward a hot civil war.

I am not deceived.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Righty Extremist keeps up with her fascist positions. The BSA has the right to private association but no right to public funding if it discriminates. As her voice becomes more desperate, her anger and bigotry become more evident. See fabricates, she wants a double standard, she steals the dignity and freedom of those whom she opposes, she is a political shi'ite thug. In short, she is a very stupid Righty Extremist.

See. Lefty can't even bring himself to respectfully talk about the fundamental right of free association in regard to those with whom he disagrees. He uses the term discriminate, which is the essence of free association, for sure, but he means it pejoratively. Also, see how he thinks he has a sole claim on the public square, that his actions don't call for the business end of a loaded gun, as it were. A little Jeffersonian speak. Imagine gay rights groups using public property not discriminating against groups that oppose them.

Of course leftist political groups would not allow their opponents to violate their right of free association on public property!

Liars. Hypocrites. Thieves. Thugs. Tyrants. In short, leftists!

Righty Extremist still keeps up with her fascist positions. The BSA still has the right to private association but no right to public funding if it discriminates. As her voice becomes more desperate, her anger and bigotry become more evident. She fabricates, she wants a double standard, she steals the dignity and freedom of those whom she opposes, she is a political shi'ite thug. In short, she is a very stupid Righty Extremist.

Righty Extremist Fascist does not understand that she does not have any political rights on public property that violate Constitutional protections.

Honey, you are getting shriller and close to hysteria. No, you will not get to use a double standard to violate the Constitution.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Righty Extremist Fascist does not understand that she does not have any political rights on public property that violate Constitutional protections.

Reality check. What the cowardly JakeStarkey is actually saying: Decent people do not have any political rights on public property should they violate lefty's tenets of multiculturalism/political correctness.

I am not deceived, and we will eventually have to take up arms against the vicious likes of you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Righty Extremist Fascist fully understands that she wants to violate the Constitution so the country can be run the way she wants and so that she can punish those with whom she disagrees. Then she threatens violence.

Don't matter. When the Righty Extremist Fascist militias rise up, their neighbors will put them against the wall and they will end problem right then. Then they will go back to their gardening.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Righty Extremist Fascist does not understand that she does not have any political rights on public property that violate Constitutional protections.

Reality check. What the cowardly JakeStarkey is actually saying: Decent people do not have any political rights on public property should they violate lefty's tenets of multiculturalism/political correctness.

I am not deceived, and we will eventually have to take up arms against the vicious likes of you.

you wont do jack shit

She will merely give in to hysteria and sniffles.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

…but the notion that the centuries-old practice of governments officially recognizing marriage on the basis of heterosexual union constitutes a form of tyranny is moonbat absurd…

No one’s making such an argument, that disallowing same-sex marriage constitutes some sort of ‘tyranny.’ The issue is only equal access to the law, nothing more.

…and presupposes that suddenly in the 21st Century, against centuries of historical apprehension, that "queer marriage" legitimately establishes that.

There were ‘centuries of historical apprehension’ with regard to Catholics holding public office and loyalty to their Nation, or blacks eating with whites in public venues, or interracial marriage. The principal of due process and equal protection of the law is not new to the 21st Century – or the 20th, for that matter. Indeed, for more than 140 years these principals have contributed to greater freedom for all Americans and the greatness of this country.