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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How many communities are trying to prevent people from saying scriptures in public (particularly in reference to homosexuality)?

Link?

How many ACLU lawyers are working on suing anyone that says anything that not supporting homosexuality (recently, a comedian, and within the last year other celibrities)?

Cite the cases.

Please, explain how trying to live according to Christian beliefs is being a "bigot".

It’s not.

I don’t know about ‘bigotry’ but should Christians – or any religion – attempt to preempt the civil rights of others by conjoining church and State or otherwise advocate policies pursuant to such goals, then those efforts will be struck down as un-Constitutional per the Establishment Clause. What the faithful need to understand is that disallowing religious activity that violates the First Amendment doesn’t violate the First Amendment.

If it is so "silly", please tell us all a better way to live, that is not based on the Christian religion.

I don’t know about ‘better’ but Jews and Hindus live well, among many others, for example.

When I have asked for examples of "shining communities" based on homosexuality, none are willing to even enter that discussion, yet the homosexual extremists that want to "re-define" the longest standing institution of communities world-wide keep telling us, that nothing, nothing will change if this is re-defined. If they don't want it to change, then why do they want to change it?

‘Homosexual communities’? Oh brother – they live among us, your community is their community. They’ve been part of the human community since the beginning of humankind.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I don't understand the sense of your use of the term bigot, here. I believe homosexuality is immoral. Does that make me a bigot, and if so, why?

It's the liberal play book. They use buzz words vs their opposition to silence them. Libs also accuse their opposition of things they cannot prove but to them it is not proof that matters, only the seriousness of the charges.
People accused of racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia are usually not these things, but they must stop debate to defend themselves. That is the liberal game plan.
Do not play their game.
This is what I do....Let's take the gay marriage issue.
Ok Costanza because I oppose a union between two gay people being referred to as "marriage" does that make me a "bigot"? If so, I guess I am a bigot. So what. What you think of me does not matter. .....
The libs become indignant over this type of response because they are all about placing people into groups and categorizing them. They are aghast and ask "you mean you don't care what people think of you"?!!! My response is "No. I do not care what you fucking libs think of me or how you choose to label me."
Fuck George Costanza and everyone else who thinks the same way he does. His tactic is not anything but a means to demand compliance with his point of view.

 

[thereisnospoon]

..........

You are taking away another family's opportunity for a legacy thru blood (children). You are taking away "your" parents opportunity for a legacy. When it comes to care in our elderly years, family is still the most reliable resource. ...............

I'm sorry, your paranoid factless non-relevant ramblings don't need to be re-posted in order for me to respond to your baseless assumptions.

Gay people have children, many of them marry a member of the opposite sex and produce offspring BEFORE they find their true nature. That's a fact so many of those fearful of gay people refuse to think conceptualize.

Then there's the other "caring for the elderly" misstatement of facts in your ramblings.... try THIS fact on for size.

My gay nephew has three straight brothers and sisters, all of whom have brought fourth a total of 8 now young adult dchildren for the grandparents, all with the grandparents' "blood line"! My gay nephew now cares for his elderly mother, my older sister, outside of a nursing home, in his own home, with his male spouse, in Massachusetts. His straight brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews take care of my older sister on weekends, to give my gay nephew a break every now and then. My sister is very proud of ALL her children, and very well cared for. I don't know what your ramblings about "care in our elderly years, family is still the most reliable resource" has to do with reality, you seem very confused. Gay people are very capable of caring for the elderly. Oh, and by the way, my gay nephew is a geriatric nurse practitioner. So much for the myth that gay people can't deal with the elderly or that they will be incompetent.

Yeah ok.,..Now you're trying to compare what a heterosexual couple can do that is biologically impossible for same sex couples to do.
Don't push it.
Why do you refer to your nephew as your "gay nephew"? I bet you quantify his orientation every time you speak of him to a person not of your family.
"This is a picture of Ted. He's my gay nephew".....
Why is it every straight person who has a gay friend or gay relative place themselves on some level of nobility and must announce to anyone who will listen , how tolerant they are. Please. You people are fucking phony as a fake Rolex.

 

[logical4u]

..........

You are taking away another family's opportunity for a legacy thru blood (children). You are taking away "your" parents opportunity for a legacy. When it comes to care in our elderly years, family is still the most reliable resource. ...............

I'm sorry, your paranoid factless non-relevant ramblings don't need to be re-posted in order for me to respond to your baseless assumptions.

Gay people have children, many of them marry a member of the opposite sex and produce offspring BEFORE they find their true nature. That's a fact so many of those fearful of gay people refuse to think conceptualize.

Then there's the other "caring for the elderly" misstatement of facts in your ramblings.... try THIS fact on for size.

My gay nephew has three straight brothers and sisters, all of whom have brought fourth a total of 8 now young adult dchildren for the grandparents, all with the grandparents' "blood line"! My gay nephew now cares for his elderly mother, my older sister, outside of a nursing home, in his own home, with his male spouse, in Massachusetts. His straight brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews take care of my older sister on weekends, to give my gay nephew a break every now and then. My sister is very proud of ALL her children, and very well cared for. I don't know what your ramblings about "care in our elderly years, family is still the most reliable resource" has to do with reality, you seem very confused. Gay people are very capable of caring for the elderly. Oh, and by the way, my gay nephew is a geriatric nurse practitioner. So much for the myth that gay people can't deal with the elderly or that they will be incompetent.

If homosexuals are "true" to there "born that way", they would have no children outside of rape or adoption. So you ARE saying it is a choice.
I was not concerned with homosexuals being able to provide care for others. I was concerned for homosexuals that are elderly with no one to look after them (except the "nanny state"). I am really confused because this thread is about "homosexual marriage" (that would mean vows of faithfulness). Are the homosexuals being deceitful when they are "acting" straight to reproduce, or when they are "acting" like homosexuals?

 

[initforme]

Is it written in the constitution that two homosexuals cannot get married? If not, then what is the big deal? I really dont care if two people of the same sex want to get married or not. As long as I dont have to live in their house it is really no business of mine, nor the government.

 

[logical4u]

How many communities are trying to prevent people from saying scriptures in public (particularly in reference to homosexuality)?

Link?

videos police stop scriptures in public
Court Security Orders Christians to leave Public Area, Police Stop

How many ACLU lawyers are working on suing anyone that says anything that not supporting homosexuality (recently, a comedian, and within the last year other celibrities)?

Cite the cases.
It was Morgan's second public apology since his June 3 show ... He's tackled homosexual themes and characters before with ... Miley Cyrus Slams Rebecca Black, Also Says She is ...

today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43477341/ns/today-entertainment

..."The "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" allows federal prosecutors to file special charges for crimes in which a perpetrator is thought to be motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

“This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts,” said Robert Muise, the TMLC Senior Trial Counsel in charge of the case. “It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution.

"Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”
"... fromLawsuit Filed Challenging Constitutionality of Fed. Hate Crimes Law

It’s not.

I don’t know about ‘bigotry’ but should Christians – or any religion – attempt to preempt the civil rights of others by conjoining church and State or otherwise advocate policies pursuant to such goals, then those efforts will be struck down as un-Constitutional per the Establishment Clause. What the faithful need to understand is that disallowing religious activity that violates the First Amendment doesn’t violate the First Amendment.

If it is so "silly", please tell us all a better way to live, that is not based on the Christian religion.

I don’t know about ‘better’ but Jews and Hindus live well, among many others, for example.

When I have asked for examples of "shining communities" based on homosexuality, none are willing to even enter that discussion, yet the homosexual extremists that want to "re-define" the longest standing institution of communities world-wide keep telling us, that nothing, nothing will change if this is re-defined. If they don't want it to change, then why do they want to change it?

‘Homosexual communities’? Oh brother – they live among us, your community is their community. They’ve been part of the human community since the beginning of humankind.

Yes, that is the point. The homosexual extremists that want to define marriage to mean something completely different by touting their way of life is "equal", yet, they have no way to demonstrate it. They have no communities, example: Christian (some are church specific) community, the Omish community, the islamic community, ethnic communities etc. The "hang outs" for homosexuals are either novelty (tourists) trips or beds of depravity (all kinds of depravity, straight, too) Homosexuals do not want to "earn" a place in society, they want to "legislate" a place in society.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.

Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

The people who don't want gays to marry will argue that the state shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses at all.

That's one way to make sure gays don't have equal rights.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How many communities are trying to prevent people from saying scriptures in public (particularly in reference to homosexuality)?

Link?

videos police stop scriptures in public
Court Security Orders Christians to leave Public Area, Police Stop


Cite the cases.
It was Morgan's second public apology since his June 3 show ... He's tackled homosexual themes and characters before with ... Miley Cyrus Slams Rebecca Black, Also Says She is ...

today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43477341/ns/today-entertainment

..."The "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" allows federal prosecutors to file special charges for crimes in which a perpetrator is thought to be motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

“This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts,” said Robert Muise, the TMLC Senior Trial Counsel in charge of the case. “It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution.

"Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”
"... fromLawsuit Filed Challenging Constitutionality of Fed. Hate Crimes Law

It’s not.

I don’t know about ‘bigotry’ but should Christians – or any religion – attempt to preempt the civil rights of others by conjoining church and State or otherwise advocate policies pursuant to such goals, then those efforts will be struck down as un-Constitutional per the Establishment Clause. What the faithful need to understand is that disallowing religious activity that violates the First Amendment doesn’t violate the First Amendment.


I don’t know about ‘better’ but Jews and Hindus live well, among many others, for example.

When I have asked for examples of "shining communities" based on homosexuality, none are willing to even enter that discussion, yet the homosexual extremists that want to "re-define" the longest standing institution of communities world-wide keep telling us, that nothing, nothing will change if this is re-defined. If they don't want it to change, then why do they want to change it?

‘Homosexual communities’? Oh brother – they live among us, your community is their community. They’ve been part of the human community since the beginning of humankind.

Yes, that is the point. The homosexual extremists that want to define marriage to mean something completely different by touting their way of life is "equal", yet, they have no way to demonstrate it. They have no communities, example: Christian (some are church specific) community, the Omish community, the islamic community, ethnic communities etc. The "hang outs" for homosexuals are either novelty (tourists) trips or beds of depravity (all kinds of depravity, straight, too) Homosexuals do not want to "earn" a place in society, they want to "legislate" a place in society.

Homosexuals do not live in isolated communities. They are integrated into every class and walk of life.

Marriage equality is about equal rights, and about gay families being able to care for their loved ones just as well as bigoted hets can.

 

[logical4u]

Is it written in the constitution that two homosexuals cannot get married? If not, then what is the big deal? I really dont care if two people of the same sex want to get married or not. As long as I dont have to live in their house it is really no business of mine, nor the government.

The "laws" in this country require one man and one woman, not closely related, above the age of consent without "other" obligations to be "eligible" for marriage. (no such law has that wording, it is more like a summary). Marriage has a common definition. Do we change physical descriptions to match what those being described "want" their description to be? If you want to change the laws to be more inclusive for "legal dependents", then change the law. Don't re-define a term that best describes honorable vows to build a family (99.9% of the time with each others genetic materials (I just made that statistic up)).

Two homosexuals can get married, they would just be in two seperate marriages.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And your attitude reveals that you care nothing for history and lessons learned. That usually means repeating mistakes. Isn't that the definition of futility: doing the same thing and expecting different results?

Just show us where homosexuality "works". Where is it encouraged in families, communities, cultures, religions, countries where it is a cultural norm (not an entertainment moment)? Where can you demonstrate a trend that shows homosexuality improves the quality of life for the families involved? If it was a pillar of integrity, it would be held as a shining example for people to reach for, it has not been that, nor can it ever be that. It is based on deceit. Deceit over one's true identity and acceptence of who they are. Deceit for the families where the sexual predator stalks. Deceit for acceptance in 'straight' groups. etc, etc, etc.

Why do you say "shame on you"? This thread asked for input. When you don't like what is said, you want to bully others into silence thru name calling and humiliation. You do not present a valid argument without "re-defining" a word that has been used across the world with one meaning for thousands of years. Are you Bill Clinton: that depends on what is, is.
Most people do not have a problem with changing the legal system to accomodate a variety of "dependents". The homosexual extremists will not accept that. They want to "force" their view of the world onto every person that wants nothing to do with their way of life or the choices they have made. They say they are the same when we can take "traditionally married people" and same sex partners into a room and pull down our bottoms and physically see that it is not the same. It is not the same, physically, emotionally, or mentally. Men and women are not the SAME. We are very different with strengths and weaknesses that are pretty much typical to our sex.
If homosexuals want to "pretend" they are the same, the rest of us, do not have to play.

Homosexual unions are working now, have worked in the past, and will work in the future.

You project when you accuse others of bullying, which is what you have done from square one.

You have a right, no matter how wrong, to your view.

Your view is wrong, out of step with reality, and by all means, I encourage you to be a voice crying in the wilderness. The difference, of course, is you are not a prophet, and your words will drift away with the wind.

A "homosexual union" is not a "marriage" (you might play "dress-up" and say it is, but it isn't, anymore that someone "legally" changing their name to Napolean Bonapart and declaring themselves emperor).

BTW, do you see me trying to have people arrested for saying things that are against "my beliefs"? Do you see me physically attacking old ladies that are declaring how wonderful homosexuality is? Do you see me petitioning congress because I am not happy on how "my choices" turned out and I want "equal" outcome without "equal" input? What a sad little person you are.

Matthew Shepherd? Google violence against homosexuals. See what you come up with.

You can't carry an argument, so you start lying about it? Your civil and religious liberties are not being violated (no one will force you to marry a person of your own sex, no one will force your church to marry homosexuals to each other).

You are the pathetic one, indeed. You project your inner vomit on others. For shame.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The "laws" in this country require one man and one woman, not closely related, above the age of consent without "other" obligations to be "eligible" for marriage.

Actually in this country there are a mixture of "laws" and in 7 legal entities it does not require a man and a woman to enter into Civil Marriage, it only requires two consenting, not closely related, consenting, adults.

Two homosexuals can get married, they would just be in two seperate marriages.

In those places two homosexuals (of the same gender) can get a Civil Marriage and in addition if they find a religious institution to perform the wedding they can have a Religious Marriage also.



>>>>

 

[logical4u]

Link?

videos police stop scriptures in public
Court Security Orders Christians to leave Public Area, Police Stop


Cite the cases.
It was Morgan's second public apology since his June 3 show ... He's tackled homosexual themes and characters before with ... Miley Cyrus Slams Rebecca Black, Also Says She is ...

today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43477341/ns/today-entertainment

..."The "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" allows federal prosecutors to file special charges for crimes in which a perpetrator is thought to be motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

“This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts,” said Robert Muise, the TMLC Senior Trial Counsel in charge of the case. “It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution.

"Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”
"... fromLawsuit Filed Challenging Constitutionality of Fed. Hate Crimes Law

It’s not.

I don’t know about ‘bigotry’ but should Christians – or any religion – attempt to preempt the civil rights of others by conjoining church and State or otherwise advocate policies pursuant to such goals, then those efforts will be struck down as un-Constitutional per the Establishment Clause. What the faithful need to understand is that disallowing religious activity that violates the First Amendment doesn’t violate the First Amendment.


I don’t know about ‘better’ but Jews and Hindus live well, among many others, for example.



‘Homosexual communities’? Oh brother – they live among us, your community is their community. They’ve been part of the human community since the beginning of humankind.

Yes, that is the point. The homosexual extremists that want to define marriage to mean something completely different by touting their way of life is "equal", yet, they have no way to demonstrate it. They have no communities, example: Christian (some are church specific) community, the Omish community, the islamic community, ethnic communities etc. The "hang outs" for homosexuals are either novelty (tourists) trips or beds of depravity (all kinds of depravity, straight, too) Homosexuals do not want to "earn" a place in society, they want to "legislate" a place in society.

Homosexuals do not live in isolated communities. They are integrated into every class and walk of life.

Marriage equality is about equal rights, and about gay families being able to care for their loved ones just as well as bigoted hets can.

Please, please, read. Homosexuals "claim" they are the same as "traditional marriages". They have no way to "prove it". They DO NOT LIVE IN SHINING EXAMPLES OF HOW GREAT HOMOSEXUAL LIFE CAN BE. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY, ANY COMMUNITIES TO SHOWCASE HOW UPSTANDING AND WONDERFUL HOMOSEXUAL RUN FAMILIES CAN BE. THEY LIVE IN CAMO., IN "STRAIGHT" NEIGHBORHOODS (yes, I know that many neighbors are aware if people in the neighborhood are homosexual).
How can homosexual extremists declare they are just the same without any evidence, any proof? They want to change the very foundation of our society: the family (and yes, I am aware that there are exceptions to "normal" or "average"). Since the great liberal experiments of running off fathers and introducing a more powerful "nanny" state, how have children fared? Are more children in two parent, loving homes? Are children getting a better education, now the feds have taken over the schools? Are there less children living in poverty? We were promised all that would be fixed if we agreed to go with the liberal "agenda". It did not pan out. Now, homosexual extremists, some that have admitted their main goal of marriage is to "scam the system" for gov't monies (remember, liberals believe ALL the money is the gov'ts), are telling us that "homosexual marriage" isn't going to "change marriage" (then why do they want to change it?), and won't harm anyone. They give no evidence, no stats, just emotional demands that their lives end with more out of a poor investment than those that lived according to societal "norms" and invested heavily for returns. Sorry, history has showed when a special group of people is asking for "equal", it means: disproportionately: more (that would be greater than equal, on other peoples' dimes). I am against it.
Change the dependency laws. Do not change the definition of marriage.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yes, that is the point. The homosexual extremists that want to define marriage to mean something completely different by touting their way of life is "equal", yet, they have no way to demonstrate it. They have no communities, example: Christian (some are church specific) community, the Omish community, the islamic community, ethnic communities etc. The "hang outs" for homosexuals are either novelty (tourists) trips or beds of depravity (all kinds of depravity, straight, too) Homosexuals do not want to "earn" a place in society, they want to "legislate" a place in society.

Homosexuals do not live in isolated communities. They are integrated into every class and walk of life.

Marriage equality is about equal rights, and about gay families being able to care for their loved ones just as well as bigoted hets can.

Please, please, read. Homosexuals "claim" they are the same as "traditional marriages". They have no way to "prove it". They DO NOT LIVE IN SHINING EXAMPLES OF HOW GREAT HOMOSEXUAL LIFE CAN BE. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY, ANY COMMUNITIES TO SHOWCASE HOW UPSTANDING AND WONDERFUL HOMOSEXUAL RUN FAMILIES CAN BE. THEY LIVE IN CAMO., IN "STRAIGHT" NEIGHBORHOODS (yes, I know that many neighbors are aware if people in the neighborhood are homosexual).
How can homosexual extremists declare they are just the same without any evidence, any proof? They want to change the very foundation of our society: the family (and yes, I am aware that there are exceptions to "normal" or "average"). Since the great liberal experiments of running off fathers and introducing a more powerful "nanny" state, how have children fared? Are more children in two parent, loving homes? Are children getting a better education, now the feds have taken over the schools? Are there less children living in poverty? We were promised all that would be fixed if we agreed to go with the liberal "agenda". It did not pan out. Now, homosexual extremists, some that have admitted their main goal of marriage is to "scam the system" for gov't monies (remember, liberals believe ALL the money is the gov'ts), are telling us that "homosexual marriage" isn't going to "change marriage" (then why do they want to change it?), and won't harm anyone. They give no evidence, no stats, just emotional demands that their lives end with more out of a poor investment than those that lived according to societal "norms" and invested heavily for returns. Sorry, history has showed when a special group of people is asking for "equal", it means: disproportionately: more (that would be greater than equal, on other peoples' dimes). I am against it.
Change the dependency laws. Do not change the definition of marriage.

You don't make much sense, sir.

 

[logical4u]

Homosexual unions are working now, have worked in the past, and will work in the future.

You project when you accuse others of bullying, which is what you have done from square one.

You have a right, no matter how wrong, to your view.

Your view is wrong, out of step with reality, and by all means, I encourage you to be a voice crying in the wilderness. The difference, of course, is you are not a prophet, and your words will drift away with the wind.

A "homosexual union" is not a "marriage" (you might play "dress-up" and say it is, but it isn't, anymore that someone "legally" changing their name to Napolean Bonapart and declaring themselves emperor).

BTW, do you see me trying to have people arrested for saying things that are against "my beliefs"? Do you see me physically attacking old ladies that are declaring how wonderful homosexuality is? Do you see me petitioning congress because I am not happy on how "my choices" turned out and I want "equal" outcome without "equal" input? What a sad little person you are.

Matthew Shepherd? Google violence against homosexuals. See what you come up with.

You can't carry an argument, so you start lying about it? Your civil and religious liberties are not being violated (no one will force you to marry a person of your own sex, no one will force your church to marry homosexuals to each other).

You are the pathetic one, indeed. You project your inner vomit on others. For shame.

Matthew Shepherd was on the street declaring how great homosexuality was? Is that what happened to him? Silly, right back at you.
What happened to him was an absolute crime. Crime is usually committed in fits of hate. Adding "hate" to the wording does not ease the suffering of the victims or their families.

Aren't lawyers representing homosexuals suing religous charities/orphanages because their faith doesn't permit them to give children (that are being cared for) to homosexual parents? Are those homosexuals going to adopt all the children in those orphanages? Are they going to provide for all children that would have used that orphanage in the future? Is that an example of how homosexual extremist "won't force" their lifestyle onto others? Or is that just another example of how petty and vindictive homosexual extremists can be?

The question had to do with "liberty". If my tax dollars have to go to support those that "chose" not to have children (or killed them before they were born), isn't that reducing my opportunity? Won't the taxes be increased because there are less people to pay them? Won't my children have to bear more of the burden to support them? Isn't that "enslaving" the future population for your selfish desires?

 

[theHawk]

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

Intolerance and bigotry would be making homosexuality illegal and throwing faggots in prisons for doing it. Kind of like how they do things in the Middle East.

That is not happening here and it won't happen here, so you're entire premise is false.

Gay Marriage is completely legal in all 50 states already. Not one person has been thrown in jail for performing or being in a gay marriage.

State recognition on the other hand, is forcing all of society to accept "gay marriage" when most people do not accept it as such. The only people shoving their religion down the throats of others are the homosexuals and their liberal enablers who want all of society to accept and condone their religious ceremony knowns as "gay marriage".

 

[logical4u]

Homosexuals do not live in isolated communities. They are integrated into every class and walk of life.

Marriage equality is about equal rights, and about gay families being able to care for their loved ones just as well as bigoted hets can.

Please, please, read. Homosexuals "claim" they are the same as "traditional marriages". They have no way to "prove it". They DO NOT LIVE IN SHINING EXAMPLES OF HOW GREAT HOMOSEXUAL LIFE CAN BE. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY, ANY COMMUNITIES TO SHOWCASE HOW UPSTANDING AND WONDERFUL HOMOSEXUAL RUN FAMILIES CAN BE. THEY LIVE IN CAMO., IN "STRAIGHT" NEIGHBORHOODS (yes, I know that many neighbors are aware if people in the neighborhood are homosexual).
How can homosexual extremists declare they are just the same without any evidence, any proof? They want to change the very foundation of our society: the family (and yes, I am aware that there are exceptions to "normal" or "average"). Since the great liberal experiments of running off fathers and introducing a more powerful "nanny" state, how have children fared? Are more children in two parent, loving homes? Are children getting a better education, now the feds have taken over the schools? Are there less children living in poverty? We were promised all that would be fixed if we agreed to go with the liberal "agenda". It did not pan out. Now, homosexual extremists, some that have admitted their main goal of marriage is to "scam the system" for gov't monies (remember, liberals believe ALL the money is the gov'ts), are telling us that "homosexual marriage" isn't going to "change marriage" (then why do they want to change it?), and won't harm anyone. They give no evidence, no stats, just emotional demands that their lives end with more out of a poor investment than those that lived according to societal "norms" and invested heavily for returns. Sorry, history has showed when a special group of people is asking for "equal", it means: disproportionately: more (that would be greater than equal, on other peoples' dimes). I am against it.
Change the dependency laws. Do not change the definition of marriage.

You don't make much sense, sir.

Maybe we are the "same", afterall ;-)

 

[JakeStarkey]

A "homosexual union" is not a "marriage" (you might play "dress-up" and say it is, but it isn't, anymore that someone "legally" changing their name to Napolean Bonapart and declaring themselves emperor).

BTW, do you see me trying to have people arrested for saying things that are against "my beliefs"? Do you see me physically attacking old ladies that are declaring how wonderful homosexuality is? Do you see me petitioning congress because I am not happy on how "my choices" turned out and I want "equal" outcome without "equal" input? What a sad little person you are.

Matthew Shepherd? Google violence against homosexuals. See what you come up with.

You can't carry an argument, so you start lying about it? Your civil and religious liberties are not being violated (no one will force you to marry a person of your own sex, no one will force your church to marry homosexuals to each other).

You are the pathetic one, indeed. You project your inner vomit on others. For shame.

Matthew Shepherd was on the street declaring how great homosexuality was? Is that what happened to him? Silly, right back at you.
What happened to him was an absolute crime. Crime is usually committed in fits of hate. Adding "hate" to the wording does not ease the suffering of the victims or their families.

Aren't lawyers representing homosexuals suing religous charities/orphanages because their faith doesn't permit them to give children (that are being cared for) to homosexual parents? Are those homosexuals going to adopt all the children in those orphanages? Are they going to provide for all children that would have used that orphanage in the future? Is that an example of how homosexual extremist "won't force" their lifestyle onto others? Or is that just another example of how petty and vindictive homosexual extremists can be?

The question had to do with "liberty". If my tax dollars have to go to support those that "chose" not to have children (or killed them before they were born), isn't that reducing my opportunity? Won't the taxes be increased because there are less people to pay them? Won't my children have to bear more of the burden to support them? Isn't that "enslaving" the future population for your selfish desires?

A crime is a crime, and you mistake your 'liberty' for 'freedom.' You are claiming that because your side is losing to the forces of liberty and freedom that you and your children are being "enslaved."

Horseapples. Whine all you want, but tuff luck.

 

[Seawytch]

So it boils down to: I could have made acceptable choices, but I didn't want to, so now, I want you to make exceptions for me, and my children, so we can belong to the "nanny state".

How is wanting the exact same legal contract that heterosexuals get, asking for "exceptions"? What "acceptable choices" are you even talking about?

BTW, my point about where homosexuals purchased a home was about them considering the home an investment, therefore, they would be more likely to purchase a home in a stable, family oriented neighborhood. If homosexuality was such a great role model for society, there would be respectable homosexual communities that all people would try to move into (since the house is such an investment). That is not the case. Those that are for homosexual marriage use deceit to get what they want. Marriage is about "honor". How can you "honor" another person when you hide their true relationship when it is convenient? How can you claim that your parenting skills are "just as good" when you start with deceit?

Your point about "homosexual communities" was bogus and idiotic. Gays live in ALL communities. Can you name some of these communities where all the straight people are afraid to live?

 

[Seawytch]

That is the kind of reasoning that makes even those sympathetic to "homosexual marriage" say: absolutely not; they have no idea what marriage is.

Civil Marriage is a legal contract. What else it means to the individual is the business of the individual, not you or anyone else.

Religious marriage is the business of the religious institution and they can discriminate against anyone they want to. If a church doesn't want to marry an interracial couple, they don't have to...same thing goes for a gay couple. My government should not be able to so discriminate.

 

[Seawytch]

If homosexuals are "true" to there "born that way", they would have no children outside of rape or adoption. So you ARE saying it is a choice.

So your "logical" screen name is really just you being ironic? Being gay does not make you sterile. Welcome to the 21st century where sex is not required for procreation.

I'm gay, was born this way and have kids.