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

[mattskramer]

They are the ones saying they don't have the "same" rights, just pointing out that they do have the "same" rights. Are you admitting the homosexual activists are waaaaaaaanting "additional" rights?

It depends on how you define "rights". Does each human adult have the right to wed the human adult that he or she loves? Not necessarily: Heterosexuals may. Yet Homosexuals do not have that right. Yet, each may wed someone of the opposite sex.

"That depends on what is, is" Sound familiar?

No. That is probably a different issue.

Now, you want to re-define "rights" because it is clear that homosexuals have the same rights and limitations that heterosexuals do.

To discuss whether or not people have equal rights, must have clearly agreed upon definition of what constitutes "rights".

Do we re-define woman as a person that wears a skirt, and man as one that wears a tie...

I am not attempting to re-define anything. Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), while males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY). It is as simple as that.

You "choose" to be in love. Attraction may be a different story, but each person "chooses" to be "in love". Ask anyone that has been married over a few years if they "chose" to stay in the marriage (or for that matter if they "chose" to end the marriage).

Yes. People choose to be left-handed or right-handed. People choose to smoke. People choose to drink. People choose fat-free foods. People choose foods that have high fat content.

I have loved and do love a lot of people. That does not mean that I have the right (or would want) to marry any or all of them.

I agree with you on that facet of "rights". Just because you love something does not mean that you have the right to get married to it.

Homosexuals want to say that they are dedicated to their same sex partner, yet some on this thread have said they have biological children. How is that possible?

Do you know how babies are created?

Did they "choose" to make a baby with the opposite sex? Because they did not make a baby with their same sex. Homosexuals "choose" their sexual partner. Some want to pretend that they (or their partner) can stand in as the opposite sex for marriage vows. It is a faux marriage. It is pretend.

Homosexual marriage is not a faux marriage. It is not pretend.

I am not saying that they don't love each other. I am not saying that they are not willing to dedicate their lives to each other. I am saying that two people of the same sex as a couple are very different that two people of the opposite sex as a couple. Why must the homosexual activists make a mockery of marriage, by re-defining it to meet their agenda? Why can't they be honest about their intentions?

By definition of "same sex" and "opposite sex", two people of the same sex as a couple are different from two people of the opposite sex as a couple. I grant you that. A couple of males can't produce an egg on their own. A couple of females can't produce sperm on their own. That does not make a mockery of marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

logical4u, universal marriage is inevitable. Your acceptance of it is inevitable. Give up.

The public will eventually wake up and quite being cowed by the militant homosexuals and liberal parasites. My acceptance certain isn't inevitable. I will never condone homosexual marriage.

That's you right, but the future will not be what you want.

 

[mattskramer]

logical4u, universal marriage is inevitable. Your acceptance of it is inevitable. Give up.

My acceptance certain isn't inevitable. I will never condone homosexual marriage.

Whoopty-doo. Some people don't condone biracial marriage. Some people still consider the offspring of biracial marriages to be "half-breeds and zebras".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Universal marriage is inevitable. End of story.

 

[barry1960]

The part that says MIND YOUR OWN ******* BUSINESS. If it isn't in there, it should be. Your opinion and that of the others that feel the same way is irrelevant. Gays shouldn't have to stand you to having any say in their private lives. They should fight it as fiercely as gun enthusiasts protect their right to bear arms. it's at its basis a civil rights issue and, as such, should use all the strategies the used in previous rights fights. If it takes hate speech legislation to shut you up, so be it. You're the one sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. The only answer is to fight back without mercy>

Sounds real "tolerant."

There should be no tolerance for those who want to control the personal lives of others. Would gun owners tolerate those who say they shouldn't be allowed to own guns? I don't see a difference.[/QUOTE]

The issue of gun ownership does not equate to the issue of homosexual marriage.

Marriage is a public act, therefore those against gay marriage are not trying to control the personal lives of others. Marriage certificates are issued by the state and are a matter of public record. However if laws are passed against hate speech, and such laws prohibit my expressing my religious belief that homosexual is a sin, or prevent use of the bible in a public forum due to passages that do not approve of homosexual, that would be intolerant.

One need go no further than the title of this thread to see intolerance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who oppose universal marriage have that right and to say so.

If they don't have the votes or the law, which they don't and they won't, well, gang, guess what?

 

[mattskramer]

Those who oppose universal marriage have that right and to say so.

If they don't have the votes or the law, which they don't and they won't, well, gang, guess what?

We sure seem to be in agreement.

 

[logical4u]

And far fewer than 4% of our population is in the military. We're not talking about the UCMJ here. We're talking about why American citizens who have committed no crime, are consenting adults and pay their taxes, why should those people be denied access to the benefits, protections and ease of access that the marriage license affords. What could be the reason gay people are actively discriminated against by legislation.

There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from being married as the majority of the population is. They want "special rights" (read above the law). Apparently where the law is being changed, it is for "same sex", no mention of homosexual (I thought this was all about equality). It is about scamming the system and mocking traditional marriage.

You claim marriage laws are being changed to accommodate "same sex" marriages. Gee! I wonder what "homosexual" means?

Whenever a group asserts itself against the prevailing authority, be they women, minorities or workers, that prevailing authority always has some extreme resistors saying something inane like "They want "special" rights" All any American wants and deserves is equality.

If you don't have to declare yourself to be homosexual to marry the same sex, you are opening a can of worms for gov't "handouts (burden on taxpayer), and you are eliminating "marriage" It will now mean a person in a "legal" partnership with another person. The laws are being put in place without any consideration of the impact on society. A legal partnership has nothing about "honor"; it has nothing about "concern" for the partner; it has nothing about "planning for the future". It is a spoof and a con on the American taxpayer. I guess when all those divorces start, the gov't will pick up the bag for all those "alleged" spouses allimony and healthcare. And all those that supported "homosexual marriage" that are paying taxes, will be paying more taxes, like the rest of us, wondering how they were conned.

 

[logical4u]

Yes, nothing like watching two fakes, going at it!

So, you've run out of bullets and have now thrown the gun. Epic fail...

I told you, there is no point. You refuse to admit there is a difference in a relationship between a man and a woman and a relationship of two people of the same sex. There is no point trying to talk to you. You answer in the traditional female way, ..... all emotion, no sense.

As for the comment, you tried to bait me, and I handed it right back to you. There was no falsehood in calling "statues", fakes.

I have never threatened you with bullets or a gun. I have used basic logic that most young children would understand. Your "femminity" has moved in to dislodge reason.

If it ever moves out of the way and you want to have a rational conversation (one that doesn't start with: because I wwaaaaaant it), I would be willing to try.

 

[logical4u]

And far fewer than 4% of our population is in the military. We're not talking about the UCMJ here. We're talking about why American citizens who have committed no crime, are consenting adults and pay their taxes, why should those people be denied access to the benefits, protections and ease of access that the marriage license affords. What could be the reason gay people are actively discriminated against by legislation.

There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from being married as the majority of the population is. They want "special rights" (read above the law). Apparently where the law is being changed, it is for "same sex", no mention of homosexual (I thought this was all about equality). It is about scamming the system and mocking traditional marriage.

Logical, I have explained this to you time and again from a legal standpoint.

You fail to listen.

You fail to understand.

You can't accept being wrong and won't concede even the slightest bit.

There's nothing that can be done for you. You fail, miserably.

Just to explain it again...

It IS an equality question. Homosexuals don't want "special rights". They want all people...straight and gay...to be able to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender.

The comparison you continue to make...between straight males and gay males...who currently have the same rights...is the WRONG comparison.

The comparison is between groups of sexual orientation. GAY people are unable to marry the person of

And as far as your vapid, corny, emotional argument about gays wanting to "mock traditional marriage" - you're on crack. Gay people have much better things to do than mock marriage. They'd rather be polite...not cause a fuss...and get treated fairly.

It's all these Christians imposing their religious views on the population of America. You've got a right to vote however you want, but the argument behind your hatred of homosexuality, even if it is religiously-based, is bullshit.

That isn't "marriage" (at least as how it has been defined for EONS). It is a legal partnership. I have stated that I have no objection to "legal partnerships". I have an objection to re-defining a word to please a small percentage that will do nothing to improve communication. It will cause more confusion (read more expensive legal documents, higher government fees, more paperwork to "clarify" the differences in "marriages" without actually saying that is what is being done", more stress, more medical problems brought on by more stress, etc, etc, etc).

The homosexual terrorists are just "starting" with the re-definition of "marriage". Now they are actively placing homosexual agenda teachings in school. How is that "equal"? Where do schools "teach" that heterosexual is normal and important in society (Hint, it isn't and never will be because you can't promote heterosexuality AND homosexuality as "normal"). How is that equal?

Keep drinkin' the koolaid.

 

[logical4u]

And far fewer than 4% of our population is in the military. We're not talking about the UCMJ here. We're talking about why American citizens who have committed no crime, are consenting adults and pay their taxes, why should those people be denied access to the benefits, protections and ease of access that the marriage license affords. What could be the reason gay people are actively discriminated against by legislation.

There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from being married as the majority of the population is. They want "special rights" (read above the law). Apparently where the law is being changed, it is for "same sex", no mention of homosexual (I thought this was all about equality). It is about scamming the system and mocking traditional marriage.

I don't see how that confers "special rights". If it passed, wouldn't heterosexuals also be allowed to marry someone of the same sex? What's your problem? We'd all have the SAME rights. I've never seen the opponents explain what these "special rights" are supposed to be!!!

I want to declare myself a US Ambassador. I want a law that says I can be a US Ambassador. A bunch of other citizens join me. We use coersion and ugly tacticts to get some judges to agree. Now we are "Ambassadors". We use the laws that were made to "protect" Ambassadors to scam/rob/and deceive other Americans. We don't have "special" rights, we have the "same" rights (as Ambassadors). Don't you think we are "mocking" Ambassadors?

You are an IDIOT. There are millions of people in this country that are not married. They live within the legal system. They are not "crying" about married people. They made "adult" choices on how they would live their lives. They have no problem respecting the word "marriage" for its "traditional" definition. A tiny portion of the population has gone on a propoganda tour to change the "culture" of this country. They use the same methods that liberals, communists, socialist, and islamists use: this group should be elevated, because people are not "respectful" of them. They never talk about the consequenses, only the "feelings".

I "feel" I should have a Jag; when I do my bills, I realize, I will have to settle for something very different. Reality and consequenses should have a place in this discussion. You and your koolaid drinking buddies don't want to acknowledge either.

 

[mattskramer]

There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from being married as the majority of the population is. They want "special rights" (read above the law). Apparently where the law is being changed, it is for "same sex", no mention of homosexual (I thought this was all about equality). It is about scamming the system and mocking traditional marriage.

Logical, I have explained this to you time and again from a legal standpoint.

You fail to listen.

You fail to understand.

You can't accept being wrong and won't concede even the slightest bit.

There's nothing that can be done for you. You fail, miserably.

Just to explain it again...

It IS an equality question. Homosexuals don't want "special rights". They want all people...straight and gay...to be able to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender.

The comparison you continue to make...between straight males and gay males...who currently have the same rights...is the WRONG comparison.

The comparison is between groups of sexual orientation. GAY people are unable to marry the person of

And as far as your vapid, corny, emotional argument about gays wanting to "mock traditional marriage" - you're on crack. Gay people have much better things to do than mock marriage. They'd rather be polite...not cause a fuss...and get treated fairly.

It's all these Christians imposing their religious views on the population of America. You've got a right to vote however you want, but the argument behind your hatred of homosexuality, even if it is religiously-based, is bullshit.

That isn't "marriage" (at least as how it has been defined for EONS). It is a legal partnership. I have stated that I have no objection to "legal partnerships". I have an objection to re-defining a word to please a small percentage that will do nothing to improve communication. It will cause more confusion (read more expensive legal documents, higher government fees, more paperwork to "clarify" the differences in "marriages" without actually saying that is what is being done", more stress, more medical problems brought on by more stress, etc, etc, etc).

The homosexual terrorists are just "starting" with the re-definition of "marriage". Now they are actively placing homosexual agenda teachings in school. How is that "equal"? Where do schools "teach" that heterosexual is normal and important in society (Hint, it isn't and never will be because you can't promote heterosexuality AND homosexuality as "normal"). How is that equal?

Keep drinkin' the koolaid.

There would be no confusion. Dictionaries already say that marriage can mean that between people of the same sex. There would be no additional stress - except possibly for you. It seems like you would not be able to handle the reality of it. In fact, there would be less legal trouble - fewer hurdles for homosexual couples to leap through.

 

[logical4u]

It depends on how you define "rights". Does each human adult have the right to wed the human adult that he or she loves? Not necessarily: Heterosexuals may. Yet Homosexuals do not have that right. Yet, each may wed someone of the opposite sex.

"That depends on what is, is" Sound familiar?

No. That is probably a different issue.



To discuss whether or not people have equal rights, must have clearly agreed upon definition of what constitutes "rights".



I am not attempting to re-define anything. Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), while males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY). It is as simple as that.



Yes. People choose to be left-handed or right-handed. People choose to smoke. People choose to drink. People choose fat-free foods. People choose foods that have high fat content.



I agree with you on that facet of "rights". Just because you love something does not mean that you have the right to get married to it.



Do you know how babies are created?



Homosexual marriage is not a faux marriage. It is not pretend.

I am not saying that they don't love each other. I am not saying that they are not willing to dedicate their lives to each other. I am saying that two people of the same sex as a couple are very different that two people of the opposite sex as a couple. Why must the homosexual activists make a mockery of marriage, by re-defining it to meet their agenda? Why can't they be honest about their intentions?

By definition of "same sex" and "opposite sex", two people of the same sex as a couple are different from two people of the opposite sex as a couple. I grant you that. A couple of males can't produce an egg on their own. A couple of females can't produce sperm on their own. That does not make a mockery of marriage.

"I am not attempting to re-define anything. Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), while males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY). It is as simple as that."

You are trying to re-define:
rights
marriage
parents (do you know how children are made, over 4 million in this country 2007, under 250,000 were made with artificial means, well under 10%)

See above

 

[logical4u]

Logical, I have explained this to you time and again from a legal standpoint.

You fail to listen.

You fail to understand.

You can't accept being wrong and won't concede even the slightest bit.

There's nothing that can be done for you. You fail, miserably.

Just to explain it again...

It IS an equality question. Homosexuals don't want "special rights". They want all people...straight and gay...to be able to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender.

The comparison you continue to make...between straight males and gay males...who currently have the same rights...is the WRONG comparison.

The comparison is between groups of sexual orientation. GAY people are unable to marry the person of

And as far as your vapid, corny, emotional argument about gays wanting to "mock traditional marriage" - you're on crack. Gay people have much better things to do than mock marriage. They'd rather be polite...not cause a fuss...and get treated fairly.

It's all these Christians imposing their religious views on the population of America. You've got a right to vote however you want, but the argument behind your hatred of homosexuality, even if it is religiously-based, is bullshit.

That isn't "marriage" (at least as how it has been defined for EONS). It is a legal partnership. I have stated that I have no objection to "legal partnerships". I have an objection to re-defining a word to please a small percentage that will do nothing to improve communication. It will cause more confusion (read more expensive legal documents, higher government fees, more paperwork to "clarify" the differences in "marriages" without actually saying that is what is being done", more stress, more medical problems brought on by more stress, etc, etc, etc).

The homosexual terrorists are just "starting" with the re-definition of "marriage". Now they are actively placing homosexual agenda teachings in school. How is that "equal"? Where do schools "teach" that heterosexual is normal and important in society (Hint, it isn't and never will be because you can't promote heterosexuality AND homosexuality as "normal"). How is that equal?

Keep drinkin' the koolaid.

There would be no confusion. Dictionaries already say that marriage can mean that between people of the same sex. There would be no additional stress - except possibly for you. It seems like you would not be able to handle the reality of it. In fact, there would be less legal trouble - fewer hurdles for homosexual couples to leap through.

"There would be no confusion." I have heard this before. Please site evidence where this will not "damage" society, increase gov't cost (taxes), or infringe on religious rights of others.

 

[mattskramer]

"That depends on what is, is" Sound familiar?

No. That is probably a different issue.



To discuss whether or not people have equal rights, must have clearly agreed upon definition of what constitutes "rights".



I am not attempting to re-define anything. Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), while males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY). It is as simple as that.



Yes. People choose to be left-handed or right-handed. People choose to smoke. People choose to drink. People choose fat-free foods. People choose foods that have high fat content.



I agree with you on that facet of "rights". Just because you love something does not mean that you have the right to get married to it.



Do you know how babies are created?



Homosexual marriage is not a faux marriage. It is not pretend.



By definition of "same sex" and "opposite sex", two people of the same sex as a couple are different from two people of the opposite sex as a couple. I grant you that. A couple of males can't produce an egg on their own. A couple of females can't produce sperm on their own. That does not make a mockery of marriage.

"I am not attempting to re-define anything. Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), while males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY). It is as simple as that."

You are trying to re-define:
rights
marriage
parents (do you know how children are made, over 4 million in this country 2007, under 250,000 were made with artificial means, well under 10%)

See above

Marriage according to Dictionary.com:

"a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage."

How stressful! How utterly confusing!

Marriage according to Merriam-Webster:

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Wow! How can anyone understand this!?!

Yes. I know how children are made. What does that have to do with the topic?

 

[mattskramer]

That isn't "marriage" (at least as how it has been defined for EONS). It is a legal partnership. I have stated that I have no objection to "legal partnerships". I have an objection to re-defining a word to please a small percentage that will do nothing to improve communication. It will cause more confusion (read more expensive legal documents, higher government fees, more paperwork to "clarify" the differences in "marriages" without actually saying that is what is being done", more stress, more medical problems brought on by more stress, etc, etc, etc).

The homosexual terrorists are just "starting" with the re-definition of "marriage". Now they are actively placing homosexual agenda teachings in school. How is that "equal"? Where do schools "teach" that heterosexual is normal and important in society (Hint, it isn't and never will be because you can't promote heterosexuality AND homosexuality as "normal"). How is that equal?

Keep drinkin' the koolaid.

There would be no confusion. Dictionaries already say that marriage can mean that between people of the same sex. There would be no additional stress - except possibly for you. It seems like you would not be able to handle the reality of it. In fact, there would be less legal trouble - fewer hurdles for homosexual couples to leap through.

"There would be no confusion." I have heard this before. Please site evidence where this will not "damage" society, increase gov't cost (taxes), or infringe on religious rights of others.

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American Anthropological Association stated in 2005:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies."

That 70% of younger Americans are willing to give it a chance really makes this discussion moot.

 

[Political Junky]

Bad news for homophobes this week. The end of DOMA and the end of DADT.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Bad news for homophobes this week. The end of DOMA and the end of DADT.

Thats bad news for the country and those who support homosexuality, not for us that oppose the promotion and acceptance of homosexuality. Those of us who are against homosxuality are closer to God than those who are for homosexuality.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

There would be no confusion. Dictionaries already say that marriage can mean that between people of the same sex. There would be no additional stress - except possibly for you. It seems like you would not be able to handle the reality of it. In fact, there would be less legal trouble - fewer hurdles for homosexual couples to leap through.

"There would be no confusion." I have heard this before. Please site evidence where this will not "damage" society, increase gov't cost (taxes), or infringe on religious rights of others.

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American Anthropological Association stated in 2005:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

Yeah, I'd like to see the "results" of such research that scientifically make these conclusions to see if they're not based on gay activism.