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

[Seawytch]

I agree Susan, but that is not limited to my wife and it's not necessary to solve with marriage. So trying to use marriage is overkill and only partially effective anyway.

What I just can't seem to understand is you think it's OK to deny marriage to some people. Maybe you can explain to me why it should cost our gay citizens thousands of dollars for benefits that you received for the cost of a marriage license. What's fair about that? Don't we all want the best for out beloved? That is what the gay community wants...simple fairness.

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

 

[Seawytch]

If so, we can assume you have NO PROBLEM with lesbians marrying then, right?
Well, that goes hand in hand with "same sex couples". And that is the language you are looking for.

Are you shifting the goal posts or is this a "United States of Tara" situation and you don't remember what your previous alter has posted?

You are making the argument that gays should not be allowed to have equal access to legal marriage because they would be able to get health benefits for their partners. Despite your ignoring the highest health risk in the country, obesity, you are contending that gays shouldn't be able to get legally married because gay men are at a higher risk for HIV and AIDS. What health risk is it that you are claiming should preclude lesbians from marrying? They are in the lowest risk category for HIV. Why should lesbians be denied marriage equality if health concerns are your barometer?

 

[Susan45]

What I just can't seem to understand is you think it's OK to deny marriage to some people. Maybe you can explain to me why it should cost our gay citizens thousands of dollars for benefits that you received for the cost of a marriage license. What's fair about that? Don't we all want the best for out beloved? That is what the gay community wants...simple fairness.

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

You know I honestly think that some married couples have never given any thought about the benefits they gain with a marriage license. And I keep thinking if I can only somehow say the words right they will see the error of their ways. Obviously I am living in a dream world.

 

[Lumpy 1]

What I just can't seem to understand is you think it's OK to deny marriage to some people. Maybe you can explain to me why it should cost our gay citizens thousands of dollars for benefits that you received for the cost of a marriage license. What's fair about that? Don't we all want the best for out beloved? That is what the gay community wants...simple fairness.

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

Okay.. I'm willing to accept my lack of knowledge on this subject..

What protections and benefits (other than a piece of paper) are you speaking of, that civil unions don't provide..

 

[Seawytch]

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This focuses on their fitness as parents. The fact is that children need both a mother's nurturing and a father's challenge. It's not that either is a better parent, it's that we evolved with that need. All else equal, the ideal situation is two parents, male and female. That doesn't mean kids can't grow up with two parents of the same sex or one parent and turn out fine. My father was gone from when I was five. I see clearly having my own kids how much better is is for them that they have both my wife and me and not one parent. My sister has a PhD, my brother went to the Naval Academy and also has a masters in math. I have two masters degrees, one in Computer Science and an MBA and I own two businesses. I never said kids with homosexual parents will fail. Our mother took care of us, but no one challenged us. Girls need a father for their self esteem in particular and boys need a role model. Reverse it and you get comparable diminishement.

Two mothers would not have replaced having a father. All else equal, hetero is the best scenario. But there are many factors, which is why I said "all else equal."

We don't raise our children in boxes. The children of gays and lesbians are not lacking role models of either sex. My children have daily contact with their grandparents, weekly contact with their uncle (who has chosen to not have children, but was still allowed to marry...imagine that) and have untold numbers of "uncles". We actually believe in the "in takes a village" concept.

Despite being raised by two women, my son rides a motorcycle, shoots guns and even learned how to pee standing up.

My daughter plays with dolls, likes to write and draw, shoots a gun and rides a quad (motorcycles make her nervous...quads make ME nervous).

The best scenario for children is parents who love them unconditionally. Children need good parents and that's all.

 

[Susan45]

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

Okay.. I'm willing to accept my lack of knowledge on this subject..

What protections and benefits (other than a piece of paper) are you speaking of, that civil unions don't provide..

* Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.

* Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian partners receive no Social Security survivor benefits — resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.

* Immigration. Americans in bi-national relationships are not permitted to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. As a result, they are often forced to separate or move to another country.

* Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay and lesbian employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.

* Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.

* Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.

* Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. The rights of elderly gay or lesbian couples are an uneven patchwork of state laws. Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

* Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

* Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.

HRC | Questions about Same-Sex Marriage

 

[Seawytch]

Have fun. When your friends see you coming they're going to say look, here comes the witch...

Is there a reason for you to say such things besides proving the OP right?

If you read the discussion, she said I was required to ignore my wife/partner's feelings and divorce her and live with her because I don't think marriage should be a government function. She also said she had a 15 year partner.

I kept asking her if she ignored her partner's values as she demands I ignore mine, and she repeatedly refused to. It is that I was referring to.

And I was pointing out that it is highly hypocritical to want to deny to other people the benefits you enjoy.

As far as my values and my partner's values are concerned, it would depend on the weight of each's convictions. Your "value" of thinking the government should stay out of marriage isn't as strong as your wife "value" of wanting that government smack. I get it. You consider it a compromise and I would normally agree with you (compromise is necessary in a lasting relationship, it's what my spouse and I do)...if you didn't favor keeping gays and lesbians from those same benefits that you wouldn't take if your wife didn't make you.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

Okay.. I'm willing to accept my lack of knowledge on this subject..

What protections and benefits (other than a piece of paper) are you speaking of, that civil unions don't provide..

* Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.

* Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian partners receive no Social Security survivor benefits — resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.

* Immigration. Americans in bi-national relationships are not permitted to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. As a result, they are often forced to separate or move to another country.

* Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay and lesbian employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.

* Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.

* Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.

* Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. The rights of elderly gay or lesbian couples are an uneven patchwork of state laws. Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

* Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

* Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.

HRC | Questions about Same-Sex Marriage

Thank you for providing this.. it's an eye opener I obviously needed...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

It has nothing to do with ‘expanding’ one’s mind but the fact that states write the marriage laws, which is also contract law. Binding contracts must conform to a given state’s law. Marriage is therefore a specific kind of contract. So yes, they’re not married unless the government says they are, in that the marriage contract conforms to state law.

It’s really not that difficult to understand.

This focuses on their fitness as parents. The fact is that children need both a mother's nurturing and a father's challenge. It's not that either is a better parent, it's that we evolved with that need. All else equal, the ideal situation is two parents, male and female. That doesn't mean kids can't grow up with two parents of the same sex or one parent and turn out fine. My father was gone from when I was five. I see clearly having my own kids how much better is is for them that they have both my wife and me and not one parent. My sister has a PhD, my brother went to the Naval Academy and also has a masters in math. I have two masters degrees, one in Computer Science and an MBA and I own two businesses. I never said kids with homosexual parents will fail. Our mother took care of us, but no one challenged us. Girls need a father for their self esteem in particular and boys need a role model. Reverse it and you get comparable diminishement.

Two mothers would not have replaced having a father. All else equal, hetero is the best scenario. But there are many factors, which is why I said "all else equal."

Read the testimony in the Perry case, the evidence is abundant and clear that children of same-sex parents are as developmentally healthy as those of opposite sex. No difference whatsoever.

 

[Susan45]

[

* Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.

* Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian partners receive no Social Security survivor benefits — resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.

* Immigration. Americans in bi-national relationships are not permitted to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. As a result, they are often forced to separate or move to another country.

* Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay and lesbian employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.

* Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.

* Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.

* Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. The rights of elderly gay or lesbian couples are an uneven patchwork of state laws. Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

* Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

* Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.

HRC | Questions about Same-Sex Marriage

Thank you for providing this.. it's an eye opener I obviously needed...[/QUOTE]

See what I mean when I said I thought most hetero couples had probably never thought about it? I mean why would they? But when you see the inequities in black and white that way, it's very thought provoking.

One of the reasons that more and more people are saying they can support gay marriage is I think that as more and more gay people have come out their families have finally seen what they have been facing. And it ain't been pretty.

 

[Seawytch]

There was no "religious opinion". There was the reasons that most people get married. I noticed that you did not address those, but go on to declare your reasons are the same while, physically, impossible to achieve. Wouldn't that be superstitious or silly to believe (hence bigoted)?

People want to get married for a myriad of reasons, but it is usually because they have found a partner with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives. They get legally married because they want the legal and financial protections that are associated with civil marriage. That is the exact same reason that gays and lesbians get married. No difference at all. This might be a news flash to anyone living under a rock, but we have kids too and would like to protect our families just like you do.

What married couple have the "EXACT same love, EXACT same commitment"? You are being deceptive. You cannot possibly have the EXACT same emotions as ANY other person on this earth. (Let me go religious on you: you are unique in all the world and your emotions, as such are as unique as you). You have legal protections, you just want "special" legal protections to reward you for making risky decisions. You make the choice, don't try to force the rest of us to "support" your choices. Live with it.

Oh for god’s sake…now you want to argue semantics?

There are over one thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage, granted automatically to a heterosexual couple with a $65 piece of paper. How is wanting the same exact legal protections for our families with the exact same $65 legal contract, “special rights”?

It would be "silly" to give fertility tests, not to mention expensive (what are the chances of a homosexual couple procreating, with each other). You said your reasons were the same. I showed they are not. Most hetero couples that are married have children. There are exceptions. Some elderly marry out of want for companionship. They make a comittment to the children of the previous marriages (there is a tiny percentage that have no children). Show me "scientifically" how a homosexual couple can have each other's children?

Yes or No, children are a requirement for legal marriage? The answer is no and therefore your argument is a strawman and has no bearing on the discussion. We do not prevent those that cannot have children from legal marriage.

Gays and lesbians DO have children, whether through a previous heterosexual marriage, through adoption, through surrogacy or, like my partner and I, through artificial insemination.

Why are our children and our families not “worthy” of the protections of civil marriage?

Oh, and it may be possible in the very near future for lesbians to "have each other's children"

Technologies already in use make it possible for single people and same-sex couples to produce children. For a single woman or a lesbian couple, only a sperm donor is necessary. Using either in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, one or both partners could have their own offspring. At the current level of technology, a single man or a gay couple would need to hire an egg donor and/or a surrogate mother. However, if embryo fusion becomes available in the future, it would become even easier for homosexual couples to produce their own children together. In this procedure, the sperm from two different men could be fused together and then implanted into a surrogate mother. Alternatively, the egg nuclei from two different women would be fused together to form one egg, to be fertilized with donor sperm using in vitro fertilization.​

The Splice of Life: Sex in the 21st Century

Are they children from "your union", or is there a donor parent in the mix? You chose to do things differently. You were well aware of the issues you would have. You chose that path, anyway. Now, you want others to give you sympathy? You chose to make the lives of those children harder?

We aren’t asking for sympathy, we are demanding equality. I noticed that you couldn’t answer the question as to why my family should be denied those protections. That’s why your “side” keeps losing in court. (‘cause it’s the WRONG one )

What religious aspect? Society benefits from "traditional marriage". Let's take it to a community level: where do homosexuals "buy" houses? How many family oriented people choose to buy a house in a homosexual community? Why do you think that is? Are the homosexuals that are purchasing homes bigoted? Why don't they support the homosexual community by purchasing a house in the homosexual community? Why don't they invite their family, their boss, their co-workers into the homosexual community?

Society benefits from marriage, traditional or otherwise. If there is a benefit to heterosexuals being married, the benefit of gays and lesbians being married is the same.

OMG…have you never heard of a “gay ghetto”? It’s where ‘the gheys’ come in, fix up a bad neighborhood and the next thing you know, families are popping up everywhere. Do you have any census data to back up your claims about “homosexuals communities”? Do you even know where any of these “communities” are?

Do you, by chance, live in Alabama in the 1950s? Gays live next door to everyone and everyone lives next door to gays. We are in ALL communities. Did you know that there are more straight people with children living in the Castro than there are gays and lesbians? Rumple, it’s the 21st century.

Is this like the health care bill: we have to legalize homosexual marriage before we can examine it (it will be too late to do anything to stop the corruption at that point). And no, the burden is on those that want "new laws" to provide evidence that those laws will be beneficial to the citizens of the country (still waiting). The reason the "courts" keep using the homosexual agenda is because the judges are homosexual or sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. There is no where in the Constitution that declares homosexual deserve "special" benefits.

Good, cause we aren’t asking for special ones, just the same ones.

This sounds a lot like those supporting Shariah law in this country. The reality: either will be destructive to our society. I am not worried about being on the wrong side of history. I didn't vote for the current President either. That put me on the wrong side of history, but if others had joined me, the country would probably be in a lot better condition, now.

Are you high Clarice? Saying that gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states is like supporting Sharia law? Seriously, come back when you jump off the hyperbole horse.
Our children will look back on the people opposed to marriage equality the same way we look back on the racists that were opposed to interracial marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Where is the "right to marry" listed in the Constitution (you know, the original law of the land)?

Ask the SCOTUS...they are the ones that have declared it a fundamental right.

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

 

[Seawytch]

Marriages are sacred, let the faggots have civil unions, they will have all the financial benefits so they have no excuses, leave marriages to churches and God.

Thanks...awfully big of you...especially since we already have equal access to marriage in a church before god.

 

[Seawytch]

Given that a gay marriage does nothing to affect my own marriage, I see no reason to object to it

The 14th amendment says the law has to be applied equally to all, it's either marriage for all or civil union for all

So do you support incest marriage and polygamy? After all the 14th Amendment supports it, right????????

Actually, the 14th amendment supports equal treatment under the law UNLESS the government can find a compelling reason to restrict that treatment....now....if the government cannot find compelling reasons to restrict incest and polygamy, I guess you would be right.

Doesn't affect me and my marriage...so, if someone can make such a case....more power to them.

I hear ya...I'd even march in a polygamists rights parade. I loved Big Love.

 

[Si modo]

Marriages are sacred, let the faggots have civil unions, they will have all the financial benefits so they have no excuses, leave marriages to churches and God.

Thanks...awfully big of you...especially since we already have equal access to marriage in a church before god.

Not in the church where I was raised, you don't.

 

[Seawytch]

One of the reasons that more and more people are saying they can support gay marriage is I think that as more and more gay people have come out their families have finally seen what they have been facing. And it ain't been pretty.

Susan, that is exactly it. It is really hard to look a loved one in the face and say "I love you, but I don't think you deserve the same rights as me".

 

[logical4u]

What I just can't seem to understand is you think it's OK to deny marriage to some people. Maybe you can explain to me why it should cost our gay citizens thousands of dollars for benefits that you received for the cost of a marriage license. What's fair about that? Don't we all want the best for out beloved? That is what the gay community wants...simple fairness.

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

Do you think that could be, because even the bureaucrats know that there is nothing beneficial for "society" with "homosexual marriage"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So do you support incest marriage and polygamy? After all the 14th Amendment supports it, right????????

Actually, the 14th amendment supports equal treatment under the law UNLESS the government can find a compelling reason to restrict that treatment....now....if the government cannot find compelling reasons to restrict incest and polygamy, I guess you would be right.

Laws banning ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy are Constitutional because they apply to everyone equally; there is no suspect class or fundamental right violation – the state is free to legislate as it sees fit.

Do you think that could be, because even the bureaucrats know that there is nothing beneficial for "society" with "homosexual marriage"?

No, it has more to do with the fact that ‘bureaucrats’ neither make nor interpret the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I want marriage to not be a government function. So seriously, anything that is not a government function is denying people of it? They aren't married unless the government says they are? Expand your mind.

I'd like nothing better than to have heterosexuals have to jump through the legal hoops that gay couples have to in order to get a fraction of the protections and benefits that are automatically granted heterosexuals when they marry hours after meeting each other in Las Vegas, but that clearly is never going to happen. You will never get rid of "government involvement" with legal, civil marriage.

So, since your libertarian fantasy world is never going to come to pass, what compelling state reason can you provide for denying those benefits to non-familial, consenting adult gay and lesbian couples?

Do you think that could be, because even the bureaucrats know that there is nothing beneficial for "society" with "homosexual marriage"?

That attitude of yours clearly reveals you have no business teaching in schools, serving in government, or a myriad of other public activities. Shame on you!

 

[Susan45]

One of the reasons that more and more people are saying they can support gay marriage is I think that as more and more gay people have come out their families have finally seen what they have been facing. And it ain't been pretty.

Susan, that is exactly it. It is really hard to look a loved one in the face and say "I love you, but I don't think you deserve the same rights as me".

Yup...heteros have thought they didn't know any gay folks until they started coming out. Then they realized they had family and friends who are gay. Life is supposed to have a certain amount of discovery but some families found out they had more then they were expecting.