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

[Seawytch]

Why is this stupid topic on the first page? We have such serious problems in this country that this is just stupid for it to be drawing this kind of attention. Put your passions into a subject that impacts everyone and stop arguing about this senseless bullshit.

It's only "senseless" to someone whose equal rights aren't being denied. If it is such a "senseless" topic, why did you take the time to post on it? (which keeps it front page I might add)

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Because currently everything is a signed to Civil Marriages, which if course is completely different than Religious Marriage. Civil Marriage is a function of the secular government, Religious Marriage is a function of individual religious institutions.


>>>>

I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.

So I guess I'm not clear.

Are you saying that religious marriages performed by religious institutions are the ones that the government would recognize?


>>>>

Marriage are spiritual and sacred, not some free for all thing, gays can have a civil union if it has all the legal and rights to property, going beyond that is not equal rights but trying to legitimatize homosexuality and put it on same status as heterosexuality when it is not, they are not the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any church can marry same sex individuals, if said church bylaws approve it and the priest/bishop/pastor, etc will do it.

Only the state recognizes civil marriage, not any church.

 

[Seawytch]

I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.

So I guess I'm not clear.

Are you saying that religious marriages performed by religious institutions are the ones that the government would recognize?


>>>>

Marriage are spiritual and sacred, not some free for all thing, gays can have a civil union if it has all the legal and rights to property, going beyond that is not equal rights but trying to legitimatize homosexuality and put it on same status as heterosexuality when it is not, they are not the same.

Going beyond that to what? Religious marriage? Thanks to the fabulous 1st Amendment, we already HAVE that. I can walk out my door and find dozens of religious institutions willing to MARRY my partner and me.

If a marriage license is what the state issues as a legal document, that is what gay and lesbian couples should be issued as well.

Even if we were to, once again, try our hand at separate but equal (which failed so miserably before), do you think we would walk around saying we were "civil unioned"?

 

[konradv]

Two men doing it up the butt is a hell of a lot different than a man and woman doing that. my point is that gays will never have it "equal" like heterosexuals, heterosexuals can procreate, gays cannot procreate with each other with samesex sex, is God now homophobic and unfair to gays? I never said heteros are innocent why use that strawman?

How so? Neither act leads to procreation. The point of being "equal" means "under the law", NOT equal outcome when having sex.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.

So I guess I'm not clear.

Are you saying that religious marriages performed by religious institutions are the ones that the government would recognize?


>>>>

Marriage are spiritual and sacred, not some free for all thing, gays can have a civil union if it has all the legal and rights to property, going beyond that is not equal rights but trying to legitimatize homosexuality and put it on same status as heterosexuality when it is not, they are not the same.

Marriages are performed in religious institutions now for same-sex couples, should the government not recognize those "spiritual and sacred" marriages also?



>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.

So I guess I'm not clear.

Are you saying that religious marriages performed by religious institutions are the ones that the government would recognize?


>>>>

Marriage are spiritual and sacred, not some free for all thing, gays can have a civil union if it has all the legal and rights to property, going beyond that is not equal rights but trying to legitimatize homosexuality and put it on same status as heterosexuality when it is not, they are not the same.

Homosexuality is legitimate. It is legal and a choice for millions of Americans

What benefit is there to having two classes of partnership?

 

[Lovebears65]

I am a conservative and I have no problem with gay marriage. SHOCKER right.. Its their life and if they want to get married more power too them.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Your ass is showing.

As to your post to the other poster - the will of the many should never eradicate the rights of the few.

No one has a right to marry someone of the same sex.

No One has the "right" to marry. It is an "honor". Please list those "honorable" homosexuals (you know ones that do not deceive).

Being honorable isn't a requirement to get married. It's funny that you'd prefer to have homosexuals marry someone of the opposite sex, yet, you think they shouldn't be deceptive.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How is married hetero-women taking up the ass any different, Mr. Comic man. Or masturbation? Or contraceptives? If you want to get down to the nitty, any form of sex (tit *******, oral sex, etc.) for nonprocreation reasons are a deviate perversion practiced by society. So get off your righteous horse about the majority of hetero-****-ups. They can't stand one another as it is, that is why there is so many dovorces and cheating among heterosexuals.

Two men doing it up the butt is a hell of a lot different than a man and woman doing that. my point is that gays will never have it "equal" like heterosexuals, heterosexuals can procreate, gays cannot procreate with each other with samesex sex, is God now homophobic and unfair to gays? I never said heteros are innocent why use that strawman?

You've thought about this a lot.

Bass is obsessed with gay butt sex. He doesn't seem to think het butt sex is any big deal. What's the difference?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let the civilian law have their laws is all I'm saying but let the spiritual things stay with the churches, if gays get the same rights under a civil union I see no reason to give gays marriage, its only legitimatizing their lifestyle, it isn't about rights.

Incorrect.

It has very much to do with rights, in this case equal access to the law.

It has nothing to do with ‘lifestyle,’ whatever that means, nor making anything ‘legitimate.’

Homosexuals are persons living in the United States and entitled to 14th Amendment equal protection rights as with any other person in the Nation.

Their ‘lifestyle’ and sexual habits do not mitigate those rights.

I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.

You may advocate the sky be pink with green polka dots, but it won’t happen. Just as states will forever be the administrators of marriage laws.

Marriage are spiritual and sacred, not some free for all thing, gays can have a civil union if it has all the legal and rights to property, going beyond that is not equal rights but trying to legitimatize homosexuality and put it on same status as heterosexuality when it is not, they are not the same.

In the eyes of the law they are the same, just as the law treats everyone equally regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity – homosexuals are a protected class, for gays you’re advocating a separate and unequal status.

Marriages are performed in religious institutions now for same-sex couples, should the government not recognize those "spiritual and sacred" marriages also?

All marriages are valid in a given state provided they conform to that state’s marriage laws, such as the person performing the marriage is authorized by the state to do so, for example.

When a rabbi performs a wedding for a Jewish couple, that marriage is recognized by both the faith and the state. Should that same rabbi marry a Catholic couple, neither faith will recognize the marriage, but the marriage would still be valid and legal in the state, equal to all others.

I am a conservative and I have no problem with gay marriage. SHOCKER right.. Its their life and if they want to get married more power too them.

No, not a ‘shocker’; pity, though, more of your kind aren’t as enlightened.

 

[logical4u]

No one has a right to marry someone of the same sex.

No One has the "right" to marry. It is an "honor". Please list those "honorable" homosexuals (you know ones that do not deceive).

Being honorable isn't a requirement to get married. It's funny that you'd prefer to have homosexuals marry someone of the opposite sex, yet, you think they shouldn't be deceptive.

You "choose". If you don't want to marry the opposite sex, don't.
But do not change the definition that has been in place for THOUSANDS of years for a tiny percentage of the population, that will want something else "re-defined" tomorrow.
If you want "legal" rights, then do a "civil" partnership.
Love is a "choice". It is not hard-wired. Deciding that you want to have a "traditional marriage" and marrying the opposite sex is not deceptive, unless you have no intention of being faithful or even trying. If you don't want to marry the opposite sex, join the millions of people that are single or "shacked up". No deception.

 

[Vanquish]

Christians whining about the values of others is completely hypocritical.

Furthermore, homosexuals don't want special rights. They want all men and all women to have the right, should they choose, to marry someone of the same gender.

Marriage isn't something that you just get to keep to yourself simply because "its been that way for thousands of years." Homosexuality has existed in nature for longer than that...and there are tons of civil rights violations that have gone on for hundreds of years.

There's a difference in cu's and marriages. Read it and weep here.

You conservatives want control of gays, but you cloak it under wanting control of a word "marriage". I know you wont...but at least consider...you can disagree with someone's views but not discriminate against them to get your point across.

 

[logical4u]

Christians whining about the values of others is completely hypocritical.

Furthermore, homosexuals don't want special rights. They want all men and all women to have the right, should they choose, to marry someone of the same gender.

Marriage isn't something that you just get to keep to yourself simply because "its been that way for thousands of years." Homosexuality has existed in nature for longer than that...and there are tons of civil rights violations that have gone on for hundreds of years.

There's a difference in cu's and marriages. Read it and weep here.

You conservatives want control of gays, but you cloak it under wanting control of a word "marriage". I know you wont...but at least consider...you can disagree with someone's views but not discriminate against them to get your point across.

Yes, the homosexual extremists want "special rights". There is no way to tell who is homosexual and who is not without the person "stating" it (their word). So basically, we are being told "trust me" I am as I say. There is no proof, no way to know if this will be an honest person. Being that they are "homosexual" they are naturally deceptive (on what they really want in the beginning of a relationship, when dealing with society, is it convenient to "act straight" or is convenient to "act homosexual", etc). Why should people that want to believe they are "just" the same as the opposite sex be trusted with this bond that implies absolute trust?
Re-defining, is the first step in eliminating. Why do you want to see a cultural foundation (marriage) made weaker (and eventually eliminated)?

 

[rightwinger]

Christians whining about the values of others is completely hypocritical.

Furthermore, homosexuals don't want special rights. They want all men and all women to have the right, should they choose, to marry someone of the same gender.

Marriage isn't something that you just get to keep to yourself simply because "its been that way for thousands of years." Homosexuality has existed in nature for longer than that...and there are tons of civil rights violations that have gone on for hundreds of years.

There's a difference in cu's and marriages. Read it and weep here.

You conservatives want control of gays, but you cloak it under wanting control of a word "marriage". I know you wont...but at least consider...you can disagree with someone's views but not discriminate against them to get your point across.

Yes, the homosexual extremists want "special rights". There is no way to tell who is homosexual and who is not without the person "stating" it (their word). So basically, we are being told "trust me" I am as I say. There is no proof, no way to know if this will be an honest person. Being that they are "homosexual" they are naturally deceptive (on what they really want in the beginning of a relationship, when dealing with society, is it convenient to "act straight" or is convenient to "act homosexual", etc). Why should people that want to believe they are "just" the same as the opposite sex be trusted with this bond that implies absolute trust?
Re-defining, is the first step in eliminating. Why do you want to see a cultural foundation (marriage) made weaker (and eventually eliminated)?

So now you want people to prove they are homosexual before they can get married? You don't trust them to be married?

I'm sorry, your arguments are just getting too bizarre

 

[logical4u]

Christians whining about the values of others is completely hypocritical.

Furthermore, homosexuals don't want special rights. They want all men and all women to have the right, should they choose, to marry someone of the same gender.

Marriage isn't something that you just get to keep to yourself simply because "its been that way for thousands of years." Homosexuality has existed in nature for longer than that...and there are tons of civil rights violations that have gone on for hundreds of years.

There's a difference in cu's and marriages. Read it and weep here.

You conservatives want control of gays, but you cloak it under wanting control of a word "marriage". I know you wont...but at least consider...you can disagree with someone's views but not discriminate against them to get your point across.

Yes, the homosexual extremists want "special rights". There is no way to tell who is homosexual and who is not without the person "stating" it (their word). So basically, we are being told "trust me" I am as I say. There is no proof, no way to know if this will be an honest person. Being that they are "homosexual" they are naturally deceptive (on what they really want in the beginning of a relationship, when dealing with society, is it convenient to "act straight" or is convenient to "act homosexual", etc). Why should people that want to believe they are "just" the same as the opposite sex be trusted with this bond that implies absolute trust?
Re-defining, is the first step in eliminating. Why do you want to see a cultural foundation (marriage) made weaker (and eventually eliminated)?

So now you want people to prove they are homosexual before they can get married? You don't trust them to be married?

I'm sorry, your arguments are just getting too bizarre

Trying to understand:
two homosexuals that are married are the same as two heterosexuals
homosexuals do not have the same rights
changing marriage definition won't have any effect on society
homosexual marriage will not cost the taxpayer any more money

All of those are deceptions. You can repeat them all day long, but you can offer no proof. Just admit it: homosexual activists want "homosexual marriage" because they waaaaaant it. It has nothing to do with rationality, it is purely emotional (unlike "traditional marriage"). Our country is in a major crisis, and the homosexual activists want to push it over the edge, by make emotional demands, and costing the taxpayers money that could be spent other places more wisely.

 

[Vanquish]

Yes, the homosexual extremists want "special rights". There is no way to tell who is homosexual and who is not without the person "stating" it (their word). So basically, we are being told "trust me" I am as I say. There is no proof, no way to know if this will be an honest person. Being that they are "homosexual" they are naturally deceptive (on what they really want in the beginning of a relationship, when dealing with society, is it convenient to "act straight" or is convenient to "act homosexual", etc). Why should people that want to believe they are "just" the same as the opposite sex be trusted with this bond that implies absolute trust?
Re-defining, is the first step in eliminating. Why do you want to see a cultural foundation (marriage) made weaker (and eventually eliminated)?

So now you want people to prove they are homosexual before they can get married? You don't trust them to be married?

I'm sorry, your arguments are just getting too bizarre

Trying to understand:
two homosexuals that are married are the same as two heterosexuals
homosexuals do not have the same rights
changing marriage definition won't have any effect on society
homosexual marriage will not cost the taxpayer any more money

All of those are deceptions. You can repeat them all day long, but you can offer no proof. Just admit it: homosexual activists want "homosexual marriage" because they waaaaaant it. It has nothing to do with rationality, it is purely emotional (unlike "traditional marriage"). Our country is in a major crisis, and the homosexual activists want to push it over the edge, by make emotional demands, and costing the taxpayers money that could be spent other places more wisely.

I come back and illogical4u keeps proving he swam up from the shallow end of the gene pool.

How does homosexual marriage cost anyone anything? You flip the switch and the government makes MORE money, marriage licenses being one way of course.

Your argument is based in the same logic you accuse others of:
Anti-gay activists want to stop "homosexual marriage" because they waaaaaant it. Or rather, because they haaaaaaaaate gays getting to exist. If you could shoot them legally, I bet you would.

Your hatred has no basis in Christianity, just so you know. Ancient Judaism perhaps, but not Christianity. Jesus didn't call for you to be so hateful. He called for love.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage is not going to cost taxpayers more money. How ridiculous.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/04/05/cx_al_0405gaymarriage.html?

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

There is a difference between being 'opposed to gay marriage' and being opposed to the government being in the business of marriage. The government has no business knowing who we love or who we trust to involve in our personal matters. Supporting gay marriage is only extending the unwarranted reach of the government. Get the government out of marriage you can marry anyone you like. I really don't give a shit.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

There is a difference between being 'opposed to gay marriage' and being opposed to the government being in the business of marriage. The government has no business knowing who we love or who we trust to involve in our personal matters. Supporting gay marriage is only extending the unwarranted reach of the government. Get the government out of marriage you can marry anyone you like. I really don't give a shit.

And until your idea is reality, gays should have the same rights we do.