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

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, good luck getting elected, or staying in office or introducing an "ANTI MARRIAGE" repeal of a tax benefit a hundred million or more Americans love to claim, even if the two in the couple hate each other's guts.

Let's face facts, tax policy is written to favor people who intend to be couples, intend to have children, intend to live together for their entire life. Just as long as they are not gay!!!!

If I was actually going to run for office I would point out that they have a choice between the people that have been lying to them their entire lives and me, the guy who is finally telling them the truth.

THAT tactic has taken down better people than you, dear friend. Nice ideals, non-electable. Married people vote, single people do NOT.

Which explains why I am not running for office. That, and I am smart enough not to want the job.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>>

And you want to deflect away from the fact that higher turnout among minority and younger voters was not enough to offset the effect of religious attendance. How does that make you any better than the people you are trying to counter?

The statement that started this sidebar was that Blacks turned out in "droves" implying they were the reason Prop 8 passed. While that demographics 58/42% vote had a small impact, since they were 7% of the voters iit wasn't that big a deal. The much greater impact was 45% Weekly Religious Service attenders beating the Black demographic by about 2,500,000 votes.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

I promise I will protect the civil and religious liberties of The Rabbi.

No one, The Rabbi, I promise you, I will let no one make you marry a person of your own sex, unless you want to.

I promise you.

 

[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.

According to the Supreme Court marriage is a civil right not a privilege. This is the ruling from Loving v VA

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no reason to think this would not apply to gay people too.

The Supreme Court is wrong. You cannot force someone to marry in this country. It is absolutely unenforceable. If a person chooses another person over you, does that interfere with your "right" to marry? It is silly for them to even say that.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I find the cry for tolerance in this thread pathetic.

You all are demanding tolerance of your point of view but straight out dismissing everyone else's.

Ripe with hypocrisy.

Most of the opinions on the right in this thread are just that, opinions. You idiots on the left brought this subject up asking for opinions with the sole intent to Demonize those that don't agree. Hardly an effort in earnest.

If you truly care about this issue take it up with your represenatives. Demonizing us only makes you look like the insults your using against us.

 

[logical4u]

Where is it written that marriage is a "right"?

Here:

'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).'

Loving v Virginia (1967)

And the issue with regard to same-sex marriage it not the ‘right’ to marry, per se, but equal access to the laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Are "those" that are demanding to be legally paired with the same sex forfeiting all "rights" to "marry" the opposite sex? If they are not, it is "additional" benefit for a sexual preference. Because another chooses not to be homosexual, their "rights" would be less.

 

[Susan45]

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.

According to the Supreme Court marriage is a civil right not a privilege. This is the ruling from Loving v VA

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no reason to think this would not apply to gay people too.

The Supreme Court is wrong. You cannot force someone to marry in this country. It is absolutely unenforceable. If a person chooses another person over you, does that interfere with your "right" to marry? It is silly for them to even say that.

Your statement is so freaken stupid I've been struck dumb. Maybe someone else can explain, but I don't know enough 3 letter words.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All are entitled to their opinions, no one is discounting that at all.

But the bigots want to give their opinions without being called bigots. Tuff, bigots.

Loving does apply, marriage is a right, and universal marriage is inevitable. Get over it.

 

[The Rabbi]

I find the cry for tolerance in this thread pathetic.

You all are demanding tolerance of your point of view but straight out dismissing everyone else's.

Ripe with hypocrisy.

Most of the opinions on the right in this thread are just that, opinions. You idiots on the left brought this subject up asking for opinions with the sole intent to Demonize those that don't agree. Hardly an effort in earnest.

If you truly care about this issue take it up with your represenatives. Demonizing us only makes you look like the insults your using against us.

It is the liberal mindset: if you disagree it is because you are a mean nasty person, not because you might have a POV that someone disagrees with.
The truth is that there are many many good reasons to oppose gay marriage and virtually none to support it. The only thing to support it is that no one wants to be a mean nasty person, which is what they rely on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Where is it written that marriage is a "right"?

Here:

'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).'

Loving v Virginia (1967)

And the issue with regard to same-sex marriage it not the ‘right’ to marry, per se, but equal access to the laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Are "those" that are demanding to be legally paired with the same sex forfeiting all "rights" to "marry" the opposite sex? If they are not, it is "additional" benefit for a sexual preference. Because another chooses not to be homosexual, their "rights" would be less.

Not in the least, heterosexuals could decide to marry someone of the same sex if they wanted to. Nothing "additional" only for homosexuals, the same option would be available to heterosexuals also.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Indeed it does! And gay people currently have all the same rights to marry that straight people have.
Or did you think they were missing something?

Oh yes, that's right...the CHOICE to live YOUR WAY or not at all.

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals, no more no less.
Or do you want to argue differently?

We do not. And you know it. If we did, there would be no discussion. And you know it.

 

[bodecea]

I find the cry for tolerance in this thread pathetic.

You all are demanding tolerance of your point of view but straight out dismissing everyone else's.

Ripe with hypocrisy.

Most of the opinions on the right in this thread are just that, opinions. You idiots on the left brought this subject up asking for opinions with the sole intent to Demonize those that don't agree. Hardly an effort in earnest.

If you truly care about this issue take it up with your represenatives. Demonizing us only makes you look like the insults your using against us.

It is the liberal mindset: if you disagree it is because you are a mean nasty person, not because you might have a POV that someone disagrees with.
The truth is that there are many many good reasons to oppose gay marriage and virtually none to support it. The only thing to support it is that no one wants to be a mean nasty person, which is what they rely on.

List them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

All are entitled to their opinions, no one is discounting that at all.

But the bigots want to give their opinions without being called bigots. Tuff, bigots.

Loving does apply, marriage is a right, and universal marriage is inevitable. Get over it.

Don't let the posts of those who don't agree with you deter you from feeling like your actually accomplishing something with this pointless thread. Pat yourself on the back and give me the next insult.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

All are entitled to their opinions, no one is discounting that at all.

But the bigots want to give their opinions without being called bigots. Tuff, bigots.

Loving does apply, marriage is a right, and universal marriage is inevitable. Get over it.

Don't let the posts of those who don't agree with you deter you from feeling like your actually accomplishing something with this pointless thread. Pat yourself on the back and give me the next insult.

No one named you, nor insulted YOU. Your attitudes, your behavior, you are capable of changing those, if you feel that they (attitudes, behaviors) have been insulted.

Nonetheless, I have already read several posts where you have no problem insulting others, refusing to accept reality of the different walks of life on this planet, deciding you wanted to eliminate certain people... that's not insulting??????

Eleminate certain people? So you substituted hypocrisy for a sense of humor... Nice

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here...

MOST OF YOU A FRAUDS. You sit here and claim the mantel of richesness and take up an issue that I bet VERY FEW IF ANY OF YOU have contacted your represenatives over. Your no better than the Friday night drinkers turned Sunday morning Christians.

Take your issue to the people that care what you think not to some feel good forum.

 

[logical4u]

Another reason: HEALTH, we all need to make sacrifices to bring down the health costs for the nation and since homosexual behavior (in men) can increase the chances they will get AIDS or HIV, why encourage that type of behavior by legallizing (endorsing) that behavior that will lead to increased health costs for all of us? (They did it for 'smoking', they are doing it for transfats, they are doing it to children's menus in schools) Do youu believe the Czar over the health care plan will not throw you over a cliff (or give you "the" pill) once your health care costs become 'greater than average'?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I find the cry for tolerance in this thread pathetic.

You all are demanding tolerance of your point of view but straight out dismissing everyone else's.

Ripe with hypocrisy.

Most of the opinions on the right in this thread are just that, opinions. You idiots on the left brought this subject up asking for opinions with the sole intent to Demonize those that don't agree. Hardly an effort in earnest.

If you truly care about this issue take it up with your represenatives. Demonizing us only makes you look like the insults your using against us.

It is the liberal mindset: if you disagree it is because you are a mean nasty person, not because you might have a POV that someone disagrees with.
The truth is that there are many many good reasons to oppose gay marriage and virtually none to support it. The only thing to support it is that no one wants to be a mean nasty person, which is what they rely on.

List them.

Here's 5...

1. Religious freedom
2. Rights of children
3. Whither traditional marriage?
4. Education
5. Husbands

Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive change - New York Daily News

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Eleminate certain people? So you substituted hypocrisy for a sense of humor... Nice

Perhaps you don't know the meaning of hypocrisy? I'm now searching for the post where you advocated the elimination of all liberals on the planet, just a few hours ago.

You now think that you were being FUNNY? Or what? Hypocritical?

I read that as it was intended, to insult fellow posters. Nothing more nothing less.

You are free to insult, but feel insulted when someone calls you on your insults?

I never denied saying that. And I'm not surprised that you can't recognise satirical humor with that stick so far up your ass.

 

[logical4u]

According to the Supreme Court marriage is a civil right not a privilege. This is the ruling from Loving v VA



Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no reason to think this would not apply to gay people too.

Indeed it does! And gay people currently have all the same rights to marry that straight people have.
Or did you think they were missing something?

Oh yes, that's right...the CHOICE to live YOUR WAY or not at all.

Live my way, excuse me, do you think we all live the life of perfect acceptance?????????
If you choose to live your own life, according to your own standards, it is hard, and you will be ridiculed. If you go according to the crowd (legion), your social life might be easier, but you still have to live with yourself. If you set your morals high, how many people do you think are working to corrupt you every day? If you want to be a virgin when you marry, how many of your peers would embrace that?
You are 'free' to live your life as you choose. Do not ask me to validate your life, especially if you know that I disagree with your lifestyle. I will not tell an alcoholic they were born that way and they should just 'accept it'. I will not tell a clepto' that their behavior is acceptable. I will not tell a homosexual that their behavior is not risky and will not hurt everyone involved (and their families too).
Choice has consequences. If you choose to snub your thumb at the traditions that built this country, don't expect people to lay down palms for your passing. There are histories for behaviors. Faithful bisexual couples that have families are building the future. Homosexual couples are not (they might pretend, but they cannot be 'true' to themselves and reproduce). If people disagree with your choices, they will "shun" you in their own way. If it is truly important for you to live as you choose, don't keep crying about it. You made the choice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All are entitled to their opinions, no one is discounting that at all.

But the bigots want to give their opinions without being called bigots. Tuff, bigots.

Loving does apply, marriage is a right, and universal marriage is inevitable. Get over it.

Don't let the posts of those who don't agree with you deter you from feeling like your actually accomplishing something with this pointless thread. Pat yourself on the back and give me the next insult.

You don't agree with me. Good, that's the American way. We do accomplish much through dialogue. What accomplished here is that those who don't like marriages in the same sex are flailing aimlessly. Universal marriage is inevitable, just as was the results of the civil rights campaigns.