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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

logical4u, come to me immediately if someone is trying to force you to marry a person of your same sex.

Otherwise, no one really cares.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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'?

That may have been true in the 80's but no longer. Not a good argument to stand on I'm afraid.

 

[logical4u]

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.

Then why let heterosexual couples 'drain' the taxpayers, if that's what you believe happens?

It was started when the gov't went deeper into taxpayer pockets to 'appease' those they were 'taxing'. If you let us tax you, your spouse will be cared for even if you don't make it. It is now a 'handout', and will be almost impossible to take away. Why would you want to add to that taxpayer burden? Since homosexuals that are true to their 'nature' cannot reproduce without assistance of others, their should be no need to support a 'partner' that stayed at home to raise children and never aquired outside work skills.
Married couples were encouraged to have children to increase the population (workers) to build a nation. The gov't was social engineering.

 

[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.

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.

To equate gay marriage to the plight of the inhumane treatment blacks recieved is not only obsurd but an insult to those that died fighting that fight and those that died for no good reason. You sir are an idiot....

 

[logical4u]

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.

Then why let heterosexual couples 'drain' the taxpayers, if that's what you believe happens?

Because he just admitted that he supports discrimination against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens if they are not straight.

I did not say that, I was stating how it was to the best of my knowledge.
If you want people to behave in a certain way, you reward that behavior. That is not discrimmination. Otherwise, you could claim teachers discrimminated against poor performing students when they gave student good grades for completing homework.

I get that you feel you are persecuted, join the crowd. It is hard to be an adult and even harder to be true to yourself. If you want to use behavior that other people don't like, then don't throw a tantrum when they tell you so.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

If marriage is a "right".....then why do you need to get a license for it.....?
One also has to apply for a license to drive....driving is not called a "right" but a privilege...

what do you mean by "universal marriage"...?

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

If marriage is a "right".....then why do you need to get a license for it.....?
One also has to apply for a license to drive....driving is not called a "right" but a privilege...

what do you mean by "universal marriage"...?

Red herring. If two consenting adults want to marry - no matter what their sex - they should be allowed to. Nobody else's business...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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'?

You’ve got to be kidding.

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

?

None of which manifest a compelling reason to justify a state’s preemption of one’s equal protection rights. Indeed, in Perry supporters of Prop 8 were unable to provide any evidence that same-sex couples with children posed any detrimental effect on their children:

Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent. When proponents challenged Lamb with studies purporting to show that married parents provide the ideal child-rearing environment, Lamb countered that studies on child-rearing typically compare married opposite-sex parents to single parents or step-families and have no bearing on families headed by same-sex couples. Lamb testified that the relevant comparison is between families headed by same-sex couples and families headed by opposite-sex couples and that studies comparing these two family types show conclusively that having parents of different genders is irrelevant to child outcomes.

Lamb…testified as an expert on the developmental psychology of children, including the developmental psychology of children raised by gay and lesbian parents. Lamb offered two opinions: (1) children raised by gays and lesbians are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents; and (2) children of gay and lesbian parents would benefit if their parents were
able to marry.

http://www.sccoclerk.com/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

If marriage is a "right".....then why do you need to get a license for it.....?
One also has to apply for a license to drive....driving is not called a "right" but a privilege...

what do you mean by "universal marriage"...?

Red herring. If two consenting adults want to marry - no matter what their sex - they should be allowed to. Nobody else's business...

Agreed.
But if they want society's acknowledgement of the fact then it is society's business. And they can't have it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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'?

Do you support denying marriage rights to Obese people who cost much more than those with HIV/AIDs?


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Really? What right do you not have that I have? Please be specific here.
You know the answer.
Why you are arguing is beyond me. You are so invested in the issue that there is no argument, none, no fact that would sway your opinion on the matter. So why do you bother?

 

[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.

List them.

To you there are no good reasons other than bigotry and homophobia.
Tell ya what: You list the reasons to oppose it.

 

[Dr Grump]

If marriage is a "right".....then why do you need to get a license for it.....?
One also has to apply for a license to drive....driving is not called a "right" but a privilege...

what do you mean by "universal marriage"...?

Red herring. If two consenting adults want to marry - no matter what their sex - they should be allowed to. Nobody else's business...

Agreed.
But if they want society's acknowledgement of the fact then it is society's business. And they can't have it.

They shouldn't need nor want society's acknowledgement. It is none of society's business. And if it is society's business, then why not add what race people can date, who they can date, how long they can date, whether they can have children or not. Where would it stop?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You are TOO LOGICAL for logical4u's mind to grasp!!!

What would be the societal advantage in allowing two men to marry?

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Really? What right do you not have that I have? Please be specific here.
You know the answer.
Why you are arguing is beyond me. You are so invested in the issue that there is no argument, none, no fact that would sway your opinion on the matter. So why do you bother?

Marriage to each other (well except in NY)...

 

[The Rabbi]

Red herring. If two consenting adults want to marry - no matter what their sex - they should be allowed to. Nobody else's business...

Agreed.
But if they want society's acknowledgement of the fact then it is society's business. And they can't have it.

They shouldn't need nor want society's acknowledgement. It is none of society's business. And if it is society's business, then why not add what race people can date, who they can date, how long they can date, whether they can have children or not. Where would it stop?

That's a slippery slope fallacy.
If they want the aknowledgement of society via benefits then they need to conform to society's interest. And societal interest is not having gay marriage.
You fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Really? What right do you not have that I have? Please be specific here.
You know the answer.
Why you are arguing is beyond me. You are so invested in the issue that there is no argument, none, no fact that would sway your opinion on the matter. So why do you bother?

Marriage to each other (well except in NY)...

I also cannot marry another man.
Now which right is being denied again?

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

You are TOO LOGICAL for logical4u's mind to grasp!!!

What would be the societal advantage in allowing two men to marry?

More women for hetros to hit on. That aside, what would be the disadvantage?

 

[Dr Grump]

Really? What right do you not have that I have? Please be specific here.
You know the answer.
Why you are arguing is beyond me. You are so invested in the issue that there is no argument, none, no fact that would sway your opinion on the matter. So why do you bother?

Marriage to each other (well except in NY)...

I also cannot marry another man.
Now which right is being denied again?

That is because you do not want to. That's like answering a negative with a negative. In other words, it's a strawman and no argument....

I can't eat dairy, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to...anymore asinine arguments on your part?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are TOO LOGICAL for logical4u's mind to grasp!!!

What would be the societal advantage in allowing two men to marry?

More women for hetros to hit on. That aside, what would be the disadvantage?

It would serve to breakdown the premier place that the marital state has in society, a state that produces the most stability in citizens and produces the best future citizens. This si the reason this relationship is favored.

So you have no real answer to my question. Because the women would just become dykes. And many straight women go that way for a variety of reasons.