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

[Susan45]

Someone's fat fucking husband or wife is more of a health risk. Obesity is the number one health problem in this country. Are you gonna be the fat police at weddings? Trying an economic angle to your bigotry is pretty transparent.
Oh, and lesbians have the LOWEST HIV risk. Can we get married?

Obesity is more of a health risk? You really need to put your mind before ideology. Obesity isn't a fatal contagion. HIV/AIDS is.
Next time try put forward a thought.
You'll be glad you did.[/QUOTE]

The problem of childhood obesity in the United States has grown considerably in recent years. Between 16 and 33 percent of children and adolescents are obese. Obesity is among the easiest medical conditions to recognize but most difficult to treat. Unhealthy weight gain due to poor diet and lack of exercise is responsible for over 300,000 deaths each year. The annual cost to society for obesity is estimated at nearly $100 billion. Overweight children are much more likely to become overweight adults unless they adopt and maintain healthier patterns of eating and exercise.

Obesity In Children And Teens | American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

You are mistaken. Obesity is a terrible problem and I seriously doubt that HIV/AIDs comes close to the $100B we have to spend each year on Obesity.

Total Federal Funding - Kaiser State Health Facts

 

[WorldWatcher]

You missed the question.

For some obscure reason, probably because you do not want to admit it, you seem to miss the point that that 45% demographic of weekly church goers had a few blacks and Hispanics within it. My guess is the numbers were actually pretty significant.

Wanna' know why Prop 8 passed in California? Because Blacks and Hispanics voted for it in droves. Ask THEM why they oppose gay marriage.

For some obscure reason, probably because you do not want to admit it, you seem to miss the point of the original post to which I responded which was that Blacks and Hispanics voted "in droves" and were the major reason Prop 8 passed. I used to think that myself after initial exit polls, but longer term research did not bear that out.

The fact is that Blacks and Hispanics were not a major demographic (7% and 14% respectively) with 42% and 41% of them voting in favor of NOT passing Prop 8. The largest Demographic was "white" which voted in the majority against Prop 8 (IIRC about 48%) but the second largest Demographic was weekly religioius service attendance which voted 70% for Prop 8.

It would be more accurate to state that religious people voted "in droves" against Prop 8, but for some reason the poster wanted to focus on race and not a lifestyle choice like religion.



>>>>

How many of those religious people that voted against Prop 8 in droves were black?

I have no idea, I do know that from the reference that only 7% of those voting were black and that blacks voted 58% in favor and 42% against Prop 8.

Why do you focus on religion and ignore the facts that are directly in front of you?

I don't "ignore" the facts, I actually look at them before making claims.

The facts directly infront of me are these:

Prop 8 Vote
For 6,838,107
Against 6,246,463
Total 13,084,570

Blacks performance during the vote
7% Black means 915,912 voters
58% voted for Prop 8 (531,229)
42% voted against Prop 8 (384,683)
Delta = 146,546

Highly religious performance during the vote
45% Attended Religious Service at least once a Week means 5,888,057 voters
70% voted for Prop 8 (4,121,640)
30% voted against Prop 8 (1,766,418)
Delta = 2,355,222

Comparison of Impact
Impact of Black Delta on overall outcome = 1.12%
Impact of Highly Religious on overall outcmoe = 18%
18/1.12 = 16.07

Religious views of voters hat 16 times more impact on the outcome of the vote on Prop 8.​

Why point out religion? Because it had a much greater impact on the outcome of the vote than did ethnicity.

So what fact am I ignoring?



>>>>

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Another homophobe who talks more about gay sex than gay people do.

A phobia imply's a fear. There is a difference between fearing something and finding it disgusting.

Oh, so you're just a hateful, backwards, bigot. Gotcha!

A bigot is:

big·ot·ry Noun: Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I have never taken any position to critique anyone else's opinion in this thread. I merely gave my own as requested. It seems maybe you might find the bigot in the mirror.

 

[brono921]

You are mistaken. Obesity is a terrible problem and I seriously doubt that HIV/AIDs comes close to the $100B we have to spend each year on Obesity.

First, obesity is a condition that is treatable. HIV/AIDS, while treatable, is terminal and contagious.
Obesity is none of those.
Second, we spend more fighting the common cold than we do treating obesity, and that is for temporary symptoms.
Third, facts show that transmission of AIDS is highest among homosexual males than any other category.
Fourth, no one has ever died from being fat.

 

[Nosmo King]

There are people that are asking for polygamous marriages, and even bestiality. If we legally change the definition from the traditional one of between one man and one woman what legal justification would we have to tell two men they cannot marry the same woman? Bestiality is an easy one to defend, but polygamy is going to be harder.

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

You are the one that is defining marriage as being between "Two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons." All I am asking for is your basis for that definition, why are you trying to turn that into an attack on me?

I said two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons. Bodecea believes polygamy could be argued legally. I believe the Marriage License as issued by the state should remain exclusively a contract made between two consenting adults, not more.

 

[code1211]

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.

I have no problem at all with the extension of the rights and financial advantages of Marriage enjoyed by mixed gendre couples to gay couples.

However, the word "marriage" is a religious word based on religious beliefs and as such is potentially an offense when used in this sense. So, with an eye toward being sensitive, there needs to be a word or phrase that both avoids the offense to the religious and bestows dignity on the gay union along with the legal rights.

As with most things, there is a legal and a personal aspect to this that people of good will should take into account.

 

[bodecea]

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

You are the one that is defining marriage as being between "Two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons." All I am asking for is your basis for that definition, why are you trying to turn that into an attack on me?

I said two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons. Bodecea believes polygamy could be argued legally. I believe the Marriage License as issued by the state should remain exclusively a contract made between two consenting adults, not more.

Actually, what I REALLY said was that if you can argue polygamy legally, more power to you. I don't know if it's doable or not....I don't lose sleep over that because it doesn't affect me.

 

[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.

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.

I have no problem at all with the extension of the rights and financial advantages of Marriage enjoyed by mixed gendre couples to gay couples.

However, the word "marriage" is a religious word based on religious beliefs and as such is potentially an offense when used in this sense. So, with an eye toward being sensitive, there needs to be a word or phrase that both avoids the offense to the religious and bestows dignity on the gay union along with the legal rights.

As with most things, there is a legal and a personal aspect to this that people of good will should take into account.

So, you would advocate the removal of the word "marriage" from all civil licenses, laws, statutes, etc. Right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no idea, I do know that from the reference that only 7% of those voting were black and that blacks voted 58% in favor and 42% against Prop 8.

You do not know that, you just choose to believe that.

The fact is that the 2008 election had record out turn among minorities and young people. In California that resulted in two things, Obama got 61% of the vote, and Proposition 8 passed eliminating the same sex marriage. You can site all the exit polls and the attempts of every poll taker who got the numbers wrong from before you want, all you really know is the basic facts.

Feel free to believe anything you want though, even if it contradicts reality.

Why do you focus on religion and ignore the facts that are directly in front of you?

I don't "ignore" the facts, I actually look at them before making claims.

The facts directly infront of me are these:

Prop 8 Vote
For 6,838,107
Against 6,246,463
Total 13,084,570

Blacks performance during the vote
7% Black means 915,912 voters
58% voted for Prop 8 (531,229)
42% voted against Prop 8 (384,683)
Delta = 146,546

Highly religious performance during the vote
45% Attended Religious Service at least once a Week means 5,888,057 voters
70% voted for Prop 8 (4,121,640)
30% voted against Prop 8 (1,766,418)
Delta = 2,355,222

Comparison of Impact
Impact of Black Delta on overall outcome = 1.12%
Impact of Highly Religious on overall outcmoe = 18%
18/1.12 = 16.07

Religious views of voters hat 16 times more impact on the outcome of the vote on Prop 8.​

Why point out religion? Because it had a much greater impact on the outcome of the vote than did ethnicity.

So what fact am I ignoring?



>>>>[/QUOTE]

How about the fact that same day exit polls reported much higher support of the measure among blacks? Or the fact that. in order to believe your poll analysis, I would have to admit that people lie? (Wait, I already insist they do that. Never mind.)

The fact is that you can not just focus on one variable and claim it was the deciding factor. The analysis assigns a weighted average to the various factors in deciding how much impact they had individually, but there is significant overlap. For example, 45% of the voters attended weekly services and 70% of them had gay friends or family.

Just something to think about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are people that are asking for polygamous marriages, and even bestiality. If we legally change the definition from the traditional one of between one man and one woman what legal justification would we have to tell two men they cannot marry the same woman? Bestiality is an easy one to defend, but polygamy is going to be harder.

Again, banning of polygamous marriage is Constitutional because the ban applies to all persons equally. Authorizing same-sex marriage will in no way benefit those wishing to make legal polygamous marriages. Allowing same-sex marriage merely allows access to a legal, binding contract between to people. To bring polygamous marriage into the discussion is pointless demagoguery and an exhibition of ignorance as to the law of the matter.

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

States can not be compelled to recognize polygamous marriages per Federal enforcement because no Constitutional rights are violated pursuant to the ban. States are required to provide a compelling interest when they wish to preempt constitutionally protected acts, such as equal access to the laws. Since no one has access to polygamous marriage, no claim of discrimination may be made.

However, the word "marriage" is a religious word based on religious beliefs and as such is potentially an offense when used in this sense. So, with an eye toward being sensitive, there needs to be a word or phrase that both avoids the offense to the religious and bestows dignity on the gay union along with the legal rights.

The word ‘marriage’ has also a legal definition – it is not a matter of semantics. It would be pointlessly complicated and confusing to try to find a different word for the same legal construct: marriage is marriage. Indeed, the ‘religious’ do not have a monopoly on the word, as there are many who marry in non-religions ceremonies and the religious don’t find that offensive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

You are the one that is defining marriage as being between "Two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons." All I am asking for is your basis for that definition, why are you trying to turn that into an attack on me?

I said two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons. Bodecea believes polygamy could be argued legally. I believe the Marriage License as issued by the state should remain exclusively a contract made between two consenting adults, not more.

Oops, my mistake. Sorry Bodecea.

What do you base that belief on?

 

[Susan45]

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

You are the one that is defining marriage as being between "Two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons." All I am asking for is your basis for that definition, why are you trying to turn that into an attack on me?

I said two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons. Bodecea believes polygamy could be argued legally. I believe the Marriage License as issued by the state should remain exclusively a contract made between two consenting adults, not more.

I agree with you. But I want to warn you. At one point I wrote that I didn't find it difficult to understand that a marriage should be between two consulting adults. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? Well (hahahahaha) then a wingnut accused me of being for incest.

So please be clear...a marriage is between two consenting, unrelated adults.

Personally I don't care if they are non-loving and drunk. HAHAHAHA! I find it's none of my business.

 

[bodecea]

You are the one that is defining marriage as being between "Two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons." All I am asking for is your basis for that definition, why are you trying to turn that into an attack on me?

I said two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons. Bodecea believes polygamy could be argued legally. I believe the Marriage License as issued by the state should remain exclusively a contract made between two consenting adults, not more.

Oops, my mistake. Sorry Bodecea.

What do you base that belief on?

Which belief is that? That polygamy, if made legal, doesn't affect MY marriage? That belief?

 

[Susan45]

Just like so many things that are embarrasing in our history, this one will be right there. The ones who opposed equal rights for blacks and women are the same idiots who are against this.

Once again, intolerance and ignorance shows its ugly face. Oh and speaking of the bible...didnt it say something about divorce? Why is that ignored by these same idiots. Divorce, fidelity etc.

Pick and choose Bible readers, we call them "cafeteria Christians" in my neck of the woods.

Whatever suits one's agenda, there's GOT to be something in the Bible to endorse it.

I'm more of a pragmatist than a religious guy; I find what works and stay with it.

So far, acceptance and celebration of people's differences has made me an ethically rich and happy person. Anyone else found a better way?

There's a certain logic to being accepting of people's differences, since we all recognize that all people, every human being is different from one another.
I fail to see the "logic" in restricting such "acceptance" to only a certain group of people, large or small. We are all here together, wouldn't it be in ALL our interest to accept each other as we are, and treat each other with an equal amount of justice?

Welcome!!! Of course it would be logic and much nicer if you all just got along. But there really are people who don't want to get along. Dealing with them is another story altogether.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons. Bodecea believes polygamy could be argued legally. I believe the Marriage License as issued by the state should remain exclusively a contract made between two consenting adults, not more.

Oops, my mistake. Sorry Bodecea.

What do you base that belief on?

Which belief is that? That polygamy, if made legal, doesn't affect MY marriage? That belief?

I was asking Nosmo what he bases his definition of marriage on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have no idea, I do know that from the reference that only 7% of those voting were black and that blacks voted 58% in favor and 42% against Prop 8.

You do not know that, you just choose to believe that.

The fact is that the 2008 election had record out turn among minorities and young people. In California that resulted in two things, Obama got 61% of the vote, and Proposition 8 passed eliminating the same sex marriage. You can site all the exit polls and the attempts of every poll taker who got the numbers wrong from before you want, all you really know is the basic facts.

Feel free to believe anything you want though, even if it contradicts reality.

Why do you focus on religion and ignore the facts that are directly in front of you?

I don't "ignore" the facts, I actually look at them before making claims.

The facts directly infront of me are these:

Prop 8 Vote
For 6,838,107
Against 6,246,463
Total 13,084,570

Blacks performance during the vote
7% Black means 915,912 voters
58% voted for Prop 8 (531,229)
42% voted against Prop 8 (384,683)
Delta = 146,546

Highly religious performance during the vote
45% Attended Religious Service at least once a Week means 5,888,057 voters
70% voted for Prop 8 (4,121,640)
30% voted against Prop 8 (1,766,418)
Delta = 2,355,222

Comparison of Impact
Impact of Black Delta on overall outcome = 1.12%
Impact of Highly Religious on overall outcmoe = 18%
18/1.12 = 16.07

Religious views of voters hat 16 times more impact on the outcome of the vote on Prop 8.​

Why point out religion? Because it had a much greater impact on the outcome of the vote than did ethnicity.

So what fact am I ignoring?



>>>>

How about the fact that same day exit polls reported much higher support of the measure among blacks? Or the fact that. in order to believe your poll analysis, I would have to admit that people lie? (Wait, I already insist they do that. Never mind.)

The fact is that you can not just focus on one variable and claim it was the deciding factor. The analysis assigns a weighted average to the various factors in deciding how much impact they had individually, but there is significant overlap. For example, 45% of the voters attended weekly services and 70% of them had gay friends or family.

Just something to think about.[/QUOTE]


I never said it was "the deciding factor". The only "deciding factor" was the final vote outcome, that outcome was that Prop 8 succeeded by a narrow margin as a percentage all vote cast.

I have said (and or implied) that it (weekly attendance of religious service) was a greater factor than race and provided the mathematics to support it.

There are some (not saying you) that want to deflect away from religious observance as a factor and would prefer to play the race card and advocate (or admonish as the case may be) that it was the blacks that passed Prop 8. The fact is that mathematically their impact was relatively small.



>>>>>

 

[logical4u]

Where is it written that marriage is a "right"? It is not a "right" (otherwise people could be forced into marriage to fullfill another's "right"). Marriage is the partnership between one man and at least one woman. The definition has stood for centuries. There is no reason to twist, mock, confuse that word. Do those that want a homosexual partner legally reject the ability for themselves to have a 'raditional' marriage? If not, his is special treatment (an additional privilege for people of a sexual preference is not equality).
From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime. The reason the gov't started giving money to widows was because the husband 'was' the sole money maker, and the wife was left with no form of income. Homosexuals have no reason to not to be 'productive members of society', they cannot procreate without 'influences from outside the partnership'. If they choose to have children, they must rely on persons of the opposite sex to assist them in this matter.

Homosexuals should not be able to "marry" for those reasons. If they want to make a new category of legal definition, possibly, common law partner or bound partner, I have no objections. If they want to make a "special" legal joiner that all taxpayers will be forced to support thru the gov't, then it should be put on a ballot.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Guess what, because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Lev.20:13 "if man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." You see, it is because the Bible says it that it is wrong. It is not shoving religion down anyones throat, it is the truth spoken in God's word, period.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Just like so many things that are embarrasing in our history, this one will be right there. The ones who opposed equal rights for blacks and women are the same idiots who are against this.

Once again, intolerance and ignorance shows its ugly face. Oh and speaking of the bible...didnt it say something about divorce? Why is that ignored by these same idiots. Divorce, fidelity etc.

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.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

How about this one.

I can imagine a way out… a truce. In the end, the truce would look like this:

1. That same-sex marriage be legalized and recognized federally and
2. Every one of us remains free to raise our children in the way that we choose, including the ability to express a preference for opposite-sex relationships, without the name-calling, business boycotts, demonization, and social condemnation that have become the tools of the pro-gay-marriage zealots.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe the left is capable of agreeing to #2, and if they are, I don’t believe they will do it sincerely and, eventually, they will return to calling families that choose a preference for opposite-sex marriage bigots. Since I have no confidence that #2 will ever come to pass, I remain on the side of traditional marriage and civil unions. My position is not taken out of ideology, but is taken as a consequence of the politicized tactics of the left.

The Heathen Republican: Politicizing Gay Marriage

Some of the proponents of same sex marriage do more to make the case against it than any opponent could by insisting that the only argument against it comes from intolerance and bigotry.

That does not mean thee is not a case that revolves around other things though.

The Heathen Republican: The Non-Faith-Based Case Against Same-Sex Marriage

Change for the sake of change is not always a good thing.

Exactly, it is the leftwing idiot loonbats who are always calling names, throwing things, and getting violent. But they think they are on the right side of things, boy are they going to be surprised when they meet their maker.