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

[ScreamingEagle]

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"...?

Voting is a right yet one is required to register.

Gun ownership is a right yet many are required to register their firearms or have a firearms license. All are required to complete the background check.

Marriage as a right is no different.

So you agree that registration has its purposes....

Same thing goes for marriage.....opposite sex is one of the parameters....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

So you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry each other....?

Yeah, because that happens all the time, right? Another red herring..

if two brothers want to marry, whose business is it of mine? Do I think they should? No

You seem to think that I like the idea of two men giving it to each other up the arse. I don't. It grosses me out...then again so do brussell sprouts, but I'm not advocating people stop eating them. Why? IT"S NONE OF MY FUCING BUSINESS...get it yet?

If you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry....how about a brother and his sister....?

 

[Dr Grump]

The divorce rate is irrelevant.
That has been the view in common law for about 1000 years.

It is totally relevent. You are inferring that marriage is a sanctity that makes for a more civilsed society (and if not, then what the hell are you arguing about - you being pretty clueless, probably not a lot) and therefore gay marriage would 'pollute' your utopian view of the world that we all live in nice houses with picket fences...In fact divorce etc is a traumatic experience for young kids...

You have some very very weak, almost non-existant arguments...

Most marriages do not end in divorce. Most marriages that occur during the early child rearing years do not end in divorce.
But even if they did, the fact is that stable married couples have fewer issues that are detrimental to society. And they produce citizens that are less detrimental to society.
The fact that it doesn't always happen is not detrimental to the superiority of the married state.

Frankly your ability to reason and present arguments is very very immature and basic. Aren't you pretending to be a lawyer or something?

The bolded part - in that case, why would you oppose gay marriage if you believe that marriage leads to a less detrimental society (which I am very skeptical of)

I would say your last sentence is in response to me calling you out....and no, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If civil marriage has financial benefits, then homosexuals are entitled to them, whether or not you think the benefits are 'fair'.

Maybe single people are entitled to those benefits too?
Your argument fails.

Learn to read. I'm not the one making the argument, your conservative pal logical4u is. Take it up with him.

But, since you don't believe there are any financial benefits associated with civil marriage, then that's one less argument against allowing same sex marriage...

...and the OP is proven correct. The only opposition here is based on bigotry and ignorance.

 

[logical4u]

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.

Yes, I get it Jakey. The only people that the legion cares about are the ones that are trying to destroy society. The ones that work and build families are superstitious louts to be ridiculed by the so-called 'intellectual elites'.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

It would promote monogamy in a section of society where promiscuity has been the norm. Increases in log term monogamy would reduce STD transmission through promiscuity and unsafe sex.

Simplified parental rights for same-sex parants raising a child.

It prevents even futher complication of beneficiary, tax, and medical decision laws instead of adding a new category for "Civil Unions".

Increased economic advantages to the tourism and wedding section of the economy.



>>>>

What is the current rate of promiscuity among gay couples? How does it compare to unmarried heterosexual couples?
You have lost this argument. Try another track.

10 Years Ago - Number of Legal Entities recognizing Same-sex Civil Marriage = 0

Today - Number of Legal Entities recognizing Same-sex Civil Marriage = 7


Who is losing again?



>>>>

 

[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'?

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


>>>>

Was that the subject of this thread? Did someone ask for reasons to deny obese people rights? I must have missed that.

 

[Dr Grump]

So you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry each other....?

Yeah, because that happens all the time, right? Another red herring..

if two brothers want to marry, whose business is it of mine? Do I think they should? No

You seem to think that I like the idea of two men giving it to each other up the arse. I don't. It grosses me out...then again so do brussell sprouts, but I'm not advocating people stop eating them. Why? IT"S NONE OF MY FUCING BUSINESS...get it yet?

If you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry....how about a brother and his sister....?

I do not think it is ok, but I do not think it is any of my business either. If you can show instances where incest has occurred that have caused societies to go to hell in a hand basket, then produce the evidence. As I said, there are many things I do and do not like.

When they affect society as a whole, then lets talk about. But when it doesn't, and people want ot interfere in other poeples' lives just because they 'don't like' something, and no other reason, then I'm sorry, it's a massive fail. If society worked in a way by which nobody could do anything if a person objected to it, then we'd all be standing in a corner doing nothing.

At the end of the day, I look at it like this. If two gay guys married and moved in next door, how would those two facts affect me (not whether they had parties every night, or whatever, just those two facts). It wouldn't. So why should it bother me, or why should I interfere in their lives? I shouldn't. Simple really.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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"...?

Voting is a right yet one is required to register.

Gun ownership is a right yet many are required to register their firearms or have a firearms license. All are required to complete the background check.

Marriage as a right is no different.

So you agree that registration has its purposes....

Same thing goes for marriage.....opposite sex is one of the parameters....

Not everywhere. In 7 legal entities the "paramenter" is consenting, non-family, adult.


>>>>

 

[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?


>>>>

Was that the subject of this thread? Did someone ask for reasons to deny obese people rights? I must have missed that.

Check your own post, you listed Health as a reason and it's associated costs.

Why evade a direct answer?



>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry each other....?

Yeah, because that happens all the time, right? Another red herring..

if two brothers want to marry, whose business is it of mine? Do I think they should? No

You seem to think that I like the idea of two men giving it to each other up the arse. I don't. It grosses me out...then again so do brussell sprouts, but I'm not advocating people stop eating them. Why? IT"S NONE OF MY FUCING BUSINESS...get it yet?

If you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry....how about a brother and his sister....?

A brother marrying a sister would be a heterosexual, or at least a one man one woman marriage.
That is legal now, but brother/sister marriages are excluded.

How is that possible? Why didn't legalizing hetero marriage lead to brother/sister marriage being legal?

...so much for the slippery slope baloney.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yeah, because that happens all the time, right? Another red herring..

if two brothers want to marry, whose business is it of mine? Do I think they should? No

You seem to think that I like the idea of two men giving it to each other up the arse. I don't. It grosses me out...then again so do brussell sprouts, but I'm not advocating people stop eating them. Why? IT"S NONE OF MY FUCING BUSINESS...get it yet?

If you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry....how about a brother and his sister....?

I do not think it is ok, but I do not think it is any of my business either. If you can show instances where incest has occurred that have caused societies to go to hell in a hand basket, then produce the evidence. As I said, there are many things I do and do not like.

When they affect society as a whole, then lets talk about. But when it doesn't, and people want ot interfere in other poeples' lives just because they 'don't like' something, and no other reason, then I'm sorry, it's a massive fail. If society worked in a way by which nobody could do anything if a person objected to it, then we'd all be standing in a corner doing nothing.

At the end of the day, I look at it like this. If two gay guys married and moved in next door, how would those two facts affect me (not whether they had parties every night, or whatever, just those two facts). It wouldn't. So why should it bother me, or why should I interfere in their lives? I shouldn't. Simple really.

Well at least you are consistent in your argument......however it is obivious you do not care about the CHILDREN.....some liberal you are....

 

[logical4u]

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.

If civil marriage has financial benefits, then homosexuals are entitled to them, whether or not you think the benefits are 'fair'.

If they are in a faux marriage, they should get faux benefits.
If homosexuals want to have tax supported 'unions', the people or their representatives will have a say. If they want to keep us out of their bedroom, please tell them to quit bringing their bedroom into the public square. This behavior should not be encouraged, tolerated, okay, but not encouraged.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yeah, because that happens all the time, right? Another red herring..

if two brothers want to marry, whose business is it of mine? Do I think they should? No

You seem to think that I like the idea of two men giving it to each other up the arse. I don't. It grosses me out...then again so do brussell sprouts, but I'm not advocating people stop eating them. Why? IT"S NONE OF MY FUCING BUSINESS...get it yet?

If you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry....how about a brother and his sister....?

A brother marrying a sister would be a heterosexual, or at least a one man one woman marriage.
That is legal now, but brother/sister marriages are excluded.

How is that possible? Why didn't legalizing hetero marriage lead to brother/sister marriage being legal?

...so much for the slippery slope baloney.

are you kidding....abnormal aka "gay" marriage is already a BIG SLIP down the slope....especially when you look at all the ramnifications...

 

[logical4u]

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.

If civil marriage has financial benefits, then homosexuals are entitled to them, whether or not you think the benefits are 'fair'.

Maybe single people are entitled to those benefits too?
Your argument fails.

My 'argument' is what is in place. The gov't did it. Not me. I have one vote per election. I don't pretend I am a dead person and vote more than once. Currently, the gov't encourages the original defintion of 'marriage'. If you want to change the laws, use your vote. If that is more important than the country surviving, then by all means vote for someone that thinks handouts are the way to a prosperous country.

 

[Dr Grump]

If you think it's OK for 2 brothers to marry....how about a brother and his sister....?

I do not think it is ok, but I do not think it is any of my business either. If you can show instances where incest has occurred that have caused societies to go to hell in a hand basket, then produce the evidence. As I said, there are many things I do and do not like.

When they affect society as a whole, then lets talk about. But when it doesn't, and people want ot interfere in other poeples' lives just because they 'don't like' something, and no other reason, then I'm sorry, it's a massive fail. If society worked in a way by which nobody could do anything if a person objected to it, then we'd all be standing in a corner doing nothing.

At the end of the day, I look at it like this. If two gay guys married and moved in next door, how would those two facts affect me (not whether they had parties every night, or whatever, just those two facts). It wouldn't. So why should it bother me, or why should I interfere in their lives? I shouldn't. Simple really.

Well at least you are consistent in your argument......however it is obivious you do not care about the CHILDREN.....some liberal you are....

1) Who says I'm a liberal
2) Why don't I care about children? What do you mean by that?

 

[bripat9643]

If civil marriage has financial benefits, then homosexuals are entitled to them, whether or not you think the benefits are 'fair'.

So if the government gives benefits to people who have children, then people who don't have children are entitled to those benefits as well?

Your argument is idiotic.

 

[bripat9643]

So now you are stating that you have a right to prevent consenting adults to pursue happiness just because you don't like it.

As I have said, they cannot marry.

Who's preventing them from pursuing happiness? All I'm trying to do is prevent them from getting government benefits just because they are shacking up together.

 

[logical4u]

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

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

It would promote monogamy in a section of society where promiscuity has been the norm. Increases in log term monogamy would reduce STD transmission through promiscuity and unsafe sex.

Simplified parental rights for same-sex parants raising a child.

It prevents even futher complication of beneficiary, tax, and medical decision laws instead of adding a new category for "Civil Unions".

Increased economic advantages to the tourism and wedding section of the economy.



>>>>

Do you have links/evidence where this has happened in the states that legalized 'same sex unions'?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

A lot more people getting government benefits for no social benefit whatsoever. Since homosexual behavior spreads STDs, we would be promoting the transmission of those. Also, homosexuals would have a better chance of adopting a fucking up a lot of innocent children.