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

[WorldWatcher]

marriage promotes monogamy

That is too funny.

I'm sorry Sally, I WOULD bang you.



I would, but I have a piece of paper from the government that says I'm married to someone else.

Actually what you have is a legal contract, adultery is cause when applied for to resolve the contract which places the blame on the party who breached the contract and making them subject to significant property and financial law (including the payment of long term alimony) for being the cause of the breach.


So is the piece of paper the motivator or is it the fact that as a proven adulter you are going to get you ass handed to you in divorce court the motivator? The second is a possibility. (Of course, allso don't discount the honor of those who give their word and then choose to live by that word.)


>>>>

 

[brono921]

So name them. What are they? Betcha dollars to donuts they won't stand up in court. The FACT is that NONE of the anti-marriage equality arguments are standing up in court..which is why bigotry is LOSING. [/QUOTE]

I've already cited economic reasons for opposing a group of people who engage in dangerous acts from being recognized by the people of any given state as having any legal right to employer funded medical benefits that will ultimately double the current rate of insurance premiums.
And actually, it can stand up in court.

 

[Seawytch]

homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. What they want are special rights.

So it was a "special right" when we let blacks marry whites...good to know.

 

[kaz]

why is it you guys always think opposition to gay marriage is due to religious reasons only....? there are plenty of non-religious reasons....

So name them

#1) Gays can live how they want now. Why do they need gay marriage? You have to convince people why you need it, you haven't. You don't get to announce you get it unless they convince you that you get it, you don't.

#2) Our courts are already clogged with endless complexity and lawsuits, why add another reason for people to sue each other?

#3) Why add another reason and more people that politicians can use to divide people?

#4) Why do gays need government to validate people exactly? I want government to leave me alone.

#5) Why do gay couples need government to validate their union? Is it seriously less meaningful to them because government didn't issue them a piece of paper?

#6) Why make our tax code all the more complex?

The fact is there is only one religious reason, and that is intolerance. There are many non-religious reasons and they are all based on asking gays why they give a fuck if government validates them or not.

 

[brono921]

I'm gay and I've had five babies. Now please explain your compelling state reason to deny my family the exact same rights, benefits and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't aware that homosexuals were able to procreate?
By the way, have you ever wondered about the homosexual gene on an evolutionary scale?
It turns into an evolutionary dead end.
So, whatever science you claim to reinforce that you are "born with it", died millions of years ago.
Homosexuals, by their nature, don't have kids.
You've just proven that your sexual preference is by choice.
Thanks for playing.

 

[kaz]

I'm gay and I've had five babies. Now please explain your compelling state reason to deny my family the exact same rights, benefits and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy?

What exactly can't you do?

 

[Seawytch]

WE will tell you that we did not make a choice to be attracted to members of the same sex...it is simply how we have ALWAYS felt

I have no problem with that. But I don't see why you need a government piece of paper to validate it

Are you married? If so, why do you?

 

[brono921]

So it was a "special right" when we let blacks marry whites...good to know.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm......who is "we"?

Could it be the same democrats that stood in the way of civil rights in the first place?
Or just you and a group of friends?

 

[kaz]

marriage promotes monogamy

That is too funny.

I'm sorry Sally, I WOULD bang you.



I would, but I have a piece of paper from the government that says I'm married to someone else.

Actually what you have is a legal contract, adultery is cause when applied for to resolve the contract which places the blame on the party who breached the contract and making them subject to significant property and financial law (including the payment of long term alimony) for being the cause of the breach.


So is the piece of paper the motivator or is it the fact that as a proven adulter you are going to get you ass handed to you in divorce court the motivator? The second is a possibility. (Of course, allso don't discount the honor of those who give their word and then choose to live by that word.)


>>>>

Get real. Does that really stop people from cheating or just make them work harder to not get caught? We both know the answer to that.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Every American can marry, they just can't marriages specific to their lifestyles, so no American can say they can't marry, if gays want property right and all that crap that can be done without gay marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

You seem to be misinformed. Studies of children raised in single parent homes show that those children have more problems that children raised with two loving parents. The gender of those parents IS irrelevant

Now see, you can't stick with facts. The fact is that men and women have different personalities. My children would not have been nearly as adjusted with two of me or with two of my wife, they need both personalities not just two adults. Your best argument is the freedom to live your own life, I support that. But lame arguments like that just kill your credibility.

I have studies to back up my points...do you?

Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

I'll happily stack my kids up against any of ya'lls any old day.

 

[kaz]

homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. What they want are special rights.

So it was a "special right" when we let blacks marry whites...good to know.

You read their list and that was the only one you saw on why not to compare gays today with blacks?

If Seawytch were in the fifties: Oh shut the fuck up and stop whining Rosie, you can marry your black man. That's the only issue that matters.

 

[xsited1]

WE will tell you that we did not make a choice to be attracted to members of the same sex...it is simply how we have ALWAYS felt

I have no problem with that. But I don't see why you need a government piece of paper to validate it

The main reason is to obtain the same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages. I've seen situations where a partner in a gay relationship of 25 years dies and the other partner is left with nothing. That's not right.

 

[logical4u]

I guess around half of all Americans (including democrats) are biggots

National (US) Poll * July 17, 2008 * American Voters Oppose Same-Se - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut

CNN poll: Generations disagree on same-sex marriage - CNN

Oh, I suspect the MAJORITY of Americans are bigots when it comes to this issue.

Thank God we live in a country whose laws and constitution protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority in matters of fundamental right.

Calling someone a "bigot", implies they are believing "wrong". Do you have an example of a homosexual community that is a magnet for a stable society? Do you have an example of where a homosexual community improved society? Otherwise, it is just a difference of opinion, and those that reject "homosexual marriage" and embrace "traditional marriage" have history on their side (see civilizations formed on stable families).
Homosexual unions have always been people rejecting the societies that gave them their partner in the first place. Isn't that "bigoted"?

 

[Seawytch]

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....

No, you are. People aren't comparing "plights", but discrimination and that, sir, is exactly the same.

I'm sorry, apparently I missed all the signs...

Gays sit at the back of the bus?
Gays have different drinking fountains?
Gays not allowed to vote?
Gays hanged on a regular basis?
Gays voices not allowed to publicly be heard?
Gays property rights in question?

I believe your so called discrimination pale's by any standard. In no way is this comparable to what blacks were subjected too.

If gays and lesbians did not have the ability to hide their orientation, all of those things would have been attempted, and you know it.

Compare the current fight for marriage equality to the fight for interracial marriage and the parallels are stunning. There's even a test you can take...

Marriage Quiz

 

[kaz]

You seem to be misinformed. Studies of children raised in single parent homes show that those children have more problems that children raised with two loving parents. The gender of those parents IS irrelevant

Now see, you can't stick with facts. The fact is that men and women have different personalities. My children would not have been nearly as adjusted with two of me or with two of my wife, they need both personalities not just two adults. Your best argument is the freedom to live your own life, I support that. But lame arguments like that just kill your credibility.

I have studies to back up my points...do you?

Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

I'll happily stack my kids up against any of ya'lls any old day.

The ideal situation for kids is two parents, a man and a woman. I never said kids can't grow up and function without that, but it's not ideal. If you took kids who didn't have that, then you certainly performed a great service for them. But to say it makes no difference? Wow, a liberal study saying the sky isn't blue. Yet I look up and it is. You're a dogmatic wacko. That makes it entertaining to listen to you but no one's going to take you seriously. I support leaving you alone, yet you can't tell the difference between me and someone who condemns you to hell. 1% against me, you are 100% against me!

Are you one of those nut jobs who says anyone who thinks men are taller or stronger then women on average is a sexist?

 

[Seawytch]

If we were intended to mate with the same sex we would have evolved that way. It is unnatural to say the least. Apparently mother nature, god, or just plain ole evolution is the biggest bigot of all.

Homosexuality has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species...some of whom even mate for life with same sex partners and yet it is somehow inconceivable to you that there is a natural basis for it? There are animal species that can change their gender, but in your narrow mind, gays and lesbians have a mental disorder?

Seriously people, pick up a fucking book every once in a while...

So you want to equate gays to wild animals with uncontrollable sexual urges?

Do you attempt to discuss things anywhere beyond a base 5th grade level?

 

[kaz]

WE will tell you that we did not make a choice to be attracted to members of the same sex...it is simply how we have ALWAYS felt

I have no problem with that. But I don't see why you need a government piece of paper to validate it

The main reason is to obtain the same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages. I've seen situations where a partner in a gay relationship of 25 years dies and the other partner is left with nothing. That's not right.

It's also not necessary. They could have had a will which is a far easier solution then marriage. BTW, if a married person dies without a will then it's also more expensive and complicated depending on where they live as well. Using marriage as a will is like hammering in brads with a sledge hammer.

 

[logical4u]

And what is the compelling legal reason for that parameter?

historical law, societal structure, social mores...not to mention citizen votes....

historical law has been changed all the time....let us remember that slavery was law...women not being allowed to vote was law...child labor was law...throwing Japanese Americans into internment camps was law...separate drinking fountains was law....forcing Indians onto reservations was law...

Societal structure includes gay couples now.

Social mores include support of gay couples and gay people in general now. I know you hate this, but we are not pariahs of society anymore. We are not going back into the closet for you.

Citizen votes are progressing. But let us remember that citizens vote for the stupidest things some time (as is frequently pointed out by those who can't believe that Obama won the Presidency in 2008)

No "societal structure" does not include gay couples. If there were no gay couples tomorrow, "societal structure" would not be affected. That would be like saying that "societal structure" includes: practicing alcoholics, cleptomaniacs, drug addicts, etc. They are choices that work against "societal structure". No one is asking you to go back to the closet. Many of us just don't want to see poor choices elevated and celebrated.

 

[Seawytch]

So name them. What are they? Betcha dollars to donuts they won't stand up in court. The FACT is that NONE of the anti-marriage equality arguments are standing up in court..which is why bigotry is LOSING.

I've already cited economic reasons for opposing a group of people who engage in dangerous acts from being recognized by the people of any given state as having any legal right to employer funded medical benefits that will ultimately double the current rate of insurance premiums.
And actually, it can stand up in court.[/QUOTE]

And your "argument" was soundly beaten by logic. You don't want to deny other people in high risk categories from marrying so your "argument" is moot and ridiculous.

Your "argument" (I put it in quotes because it really isn't an argument and is just a clever way to spin your homophobia) also only focuses on gay men and completely ignores the FACT that lesbians are in the LOWEST risk category for STDs.

And no, actually, it won't stand up in court...which is why anti-gay legislation keeps LOSING.

Bigotry ALWAYS loses eventually.