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

[M.D. Rawlings]

And what minister is going to marry two men or two women in their church. This homo marriage business is absurd!

Many.

Otherwise a civil wedding.

What’s absurd is your irrational fear of same-sex marriage.

What's absurd is your shallowness.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Homosexuality is a choice, no more. You cannot equate it with race discrimination. Because I quoted out of the Bible doesn't mean I am shoving anything down anybodies throat, unlike the gay crowd does. The first time my kids school tells her gay is normal I will pull her out and homeschool her the truth.The Bible will be the text book.

Well, get ready to pull your child out then and pay twice for education because the likes of the leftists thugs on this thread certainly will not support universal educational choice and the queer nation certainly will use the schools to impose its morality.

We are not deceived.

 

[logical4u]

No...but if you try to use the law to prevent equal rights for law-abiding, tax-paying fellow citizens because they are gay, then I would say yes you are.

So I suppose if I oppose empowering the government to enforce civil rights protections against the fundamental rights touching on private property and free association on the basis of sexual behavior inconsistent with biological physiology and reproduction, I'm a bigot.

Now, let's flip that coin over: what label should we put on those who support the notion of the government imposing the homosexual's morality on private interests? Can we say fascist or tyrant or thug?

I'm just saying.


HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Is Suppressing Religious Liberty the Point of SSM Bills?

Conservative Activists Argue Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty

Give examples...and make sure you do not move the goal posts you have set....you said PRIVATE INTERESTS...you said IMPOSING HOMOSEXUAL MORALITY (maybe you should define that as if you think it's in some way different than HETEROSEXUAL MORALITY)

Edited to add: I would say that there is as much chance of the government forcing homosexual marriages onto churches as when the government forces interracial marriages onto churches....which was about the time the government forced interfaith marriages onto churches.[/QUOTE]

Isn't "homosexual morality" already being forced on many families in public school systems? Where a children "indocrinated" to believe that heterosexual sex "is perfectly natural and acceptable"? Where are any "traditional morals" taught? Yes "homosexual morality" is different than "traditional marriage morality". Traditionally, "mates" are introduced to families as "possibles". The families (most of the time), accept that this is a person their child is considering building a life with in the future. Compare that to early homosexual courting morals: deceive the person you are interested in so they think you just want to be a "friend". Get them emotionally attached. Make them rely on you for support. Seduce them, and then tell them it would not have happened if they didn't want it to happen. Make it uncomfortable for them not to see you. Force your way into their family, as something that has to be endured.
Turn your sexual preference off and on to mislead and manipulate others. Be inconsiderate of your prey's parents. Pretend that you care about society, when all you really want is to prove you are "smarter" than all of them by fooling them. Yes, you are just like a person that wants to build a life with the other parent of "their" children, and make the world a better place so their children will have a better life, than they did. Yep, no differance!

 

[logical4u]

Same here. I'm gay, was born this way and have a daughter.....

But people like "logical" want to relegate us and our families to the 2nd tier of rights as tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.

I wish for you that one day you are happy being yourself and don't need the validation or money of others to feel that way.

That validation that you enjoy, right? Oh, I forgot that validation was "forced" on you.

Is it just "envy"?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

New York has not done the "Right Thing". This issue was not put to a popular vote of the People of New York State. This Homosexual Sodomy marriage law was activated by
New York State politicians, not by its citizens!. Sodomy is Sodomy, it is abnormal and unnatural. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. The institution of marriage, throughout history has been between a man and a woman, not man and man or woman and woman.

What New York State and other states have done, is morally corrupted the institution of marriage. The New York State Homosexual Sodomy marriage law must be repealed,
and then put to a popular vote by the People.!

We as citizens of New York should not have Sodomy forced upon us, in the form of Homosexual marriage by elected politicians. This issue must be put on the ballot, and voted on by the citizenry of New York State.
Sodomy is a sin, and a crime in many countries throughout the rest of the world.!!
Homo marriage is wrong!!

Its not intolerance or bigotry, its standing up for whats morally right in the world.!

And what minister is going to marry two men or two women in their church. This homo marriage business is absurd!

The crazy imagery this conjures up...wild rampant in the streets homos chasing innocent victims "forcing sodomy"...get real.

Morally right in the world? who the hell are you to determine such a position?

Keep your GOD and BIBLE out of my bedroom and I'll keep my SEX out your CHURCH.

Liar! You have no intent of honoring the principle of live and let live.

I am not deceived.

 

[DiamondDave]

because government is in yet another area where it does not belong

get government out of marriage or whatever else you wish to call a family unit of whatever kind, except for in the legal sense... I.E. where legal matters apply... inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, taxation, etc....

What someone else chooses to do between them as consenting adults is their business... BUT... I should not be forced by the government to accept the choices of others... I do not have to accept someone who commits crimes, or curses like a sailor, or hates dogs, or chews with their mouth open, or wears hot pants, or whatever else... in public I must tolerate the actions of others I may not agree with, BUT I should not and will not be forced to accept choices by law... even though I personally have the utmost respect for my gay friends, enjoy having them over for parties and visits, etc... I do not agree with a law that forces that acceptance upon the entire citizenry

 

[logical4u]

Since I don't throw the word bigot out, my answer would be - it depends. Are you classifying a group (race, age, gender, sexual orientation, left handed pipefitters, fake pirates, etc.), do you demonstrate intolerance to that group, and are you obstinately or intolerantly devoted to your own opinion?

Then yes you might be a bigot. If not then no you are not a bigot.

Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

Well, I'm none of those things, so I'm not a bigot.

You are also unaware, M.D., as well as a bigot. Pray and become aware that you meet the definition of bigotry. That is why your thinking is so dangerous to the American dream.

Is that the "original" American dream where you work hard, you invest, you build a family and reap the rewards? Or is that the modern "liberal" dream, where you suck the life out of your neighbors, your community, and your country because you like the taste of blood?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You are also unaware, M.D., as well as a bigot. Pray and become aware that you meet the definition of bigotry. That is why your thinking is so dangerous to the American dream.

American dream? Uh-huh. This nation was founded in 1776. Suddenly, mostly leftists have discovered a new principle alien to the Lockean tradition of classical liberalism upon which this nation was founded. I wonder where this new principle leads. Not. I know where it leads and that its nature is essentially collectivistic. While I, like Locke and the Founders, intuitively understand the matter in terms of real-world imperatives, one only need take a close look at the Western European nations that have officially asserted homosexual marriage to know that their governments have essentially abolished ideological liberty and free association with regard to sexual morality and religious decision in the private and public sector.

Those who love liberty, eh? Those who would ordinarily love liberty, which leaves lefty out of the equation, need to stop drinking the Kool-aid and wise up to what lefty is actually after and start thinking things through to real-world outcomes, beginning with the observation that lefty never imposes civil rights protections in anything but a collectivist fashion.

In any event, I am not deceived.

On other hand, being a true classical liberal, one who understands what is at stake and ultimately does believe in the principle of live-and-let-live, I would that the government got out of the marriage business altogether in a changing society moving toward the acceptance of homosexuality. But if it must be involved, as a conservative-libertarian, I sure as hell am not going support the government expanding its power in that regard on the basis of sexual behavior beyond that of nature and political natural law. Hello!

Very Orwellian Post of yours.

Shut up! Leftist, thy name is Orwellian all day long.

 

[ShackledNation]

I don't think government should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Marriage is not a government granted privilege, it is a private social practice. Thus it should be left to churches, individuals, and private contracts.

 

[logical4u]

But if it must be involved, as a conservative-libertarian, I sure as hell am not going support the government expanding its power in that regard on the basis of sexual behavior beyond that of nature and political natural law.

Marriage is contract law, and the states must write the law and ensure it’s consistently applied – so government will never ‘get out’ of marriage, nor should it.

Your fixation on sexual behavior is pointless and irrelevant; equal access to the laws applies regardless of sexual conduct. There are gay men who are celibate, for example – it is disingenuous to try to identify homosexuals by sexual activity alone, just as it is not the only defining factor of heterosexuals.

And there is no ‘government expansion of power,’ indeed, the 14th Amendment restricts government power when it attempts to preempt a citizen’s civil rights, something a 'conservative-libertarian' should support.

Egads! If you want to change laws so that you can marry your ailing parent and get them on your health insurance, will that make us all "bigots" if we disagree with that? It will force our premiums higher, but hey, you got what you wanted. Marriage is word. It has a definition. If you want a "dependency union" then work thru your legislature to get it made into law. Do not change the definition of a word that has been in place for thousands of years to feed you personal, selfish interests.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I don't think government should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Marriage is not a government granted privilege, it is a private social practice. Thus it should be left to churches, individuals, and private contracts.

Well, actually, the sanctity of human life and heterosexual marriage are the first principles of private property in Lockean political theory, the construct of natural law on which this nation was founded. On the other hand, if American society is drifting toward the calamity of formally recognizing queer "marriage" then it would be best that the government got out of the marriage business altogether.

But lefty's not about equal treatment and live and let live at all. His agenda is to tyrannize, to impose, to force, to shove, to bully, to demand.

 

[ShackledNation]

I don't think government should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Marriage is not a government granted privilege, it is a private social practice. Thus it should be left to churches, individuals, and private contracts.

Well, actually, the sanctity of human life and heterosexual marriage are the first principles of private property in Lockean political theory, the construct of natural law on which this nation was founded.

Just because John Locke thought something does not necessarily make him right. John Locke is not God. However, you will have to give me a quote from Locke that would prove he would outlaw any type of marriage between consenting adults. Locke seemed to talk in his first treatise more about outlawing practices that violated life, liberty, or property. He gave the example of banning the practice of sacrificing babies, even if a religion supported it.

On the other hand, if American society is drifting toward the calamity of formally recognizing queer "marriage" then it would be best that the government got out of the marriage business altogether.

Government should get out of the marriage business no matter what society deems to be marriage. As I said, it is a private societal practice, not a government privilege.

But lefty's not about equal treatment and live and let live at all. His agenda is to tyrannize, to impose, to force, to shove, to bully, to demand.

Replace lefty with "government." Then your above statement is 100% correct, and is exactly why government should get out of marriage. Marriage licenses turn a private social practice into a privilege granted by the state. That is grotesque.

 

[logical4u]

If homosexuals cannot reproduce (which by their "preference", they cannot), aren't they relying on the generosity of other citizens to provide and care for them in their infirmatory? Isn't that a "burden" on society, instead of their "children" (because they cannot reproduce if they are "true" to their nature)?

And heterosexuals who have no children, are they as much of a burden? Or do they get a pass because they’re straight?

You are truly the master of the straw man fallacy, however – and inconsistent as well.

Are those "straight" people out there demanding that other people validate them and pay tribute to their choices?
Have you ever been to Hershey, PA? It was a community built by a "traditional" couple that could not have children. They worked to make it a place where people would want to move to and work for Hershey. There are quite a few of those places: where a "traditional" couple that could not have children made the world a better place for those that could have children. There are even more that volunteer for community building and donate large amounts of monies to churches, communities, and charities.
Where are the monuments (built and paid for by homosexuals) that homosexuals donated to communities? Where do they (homosexuals) give back to the community that they so willingly feed?

Sorry, lost track. Yes heterosexual couples that don't have children get a pass. They are a very small percentage of "traditionally married" couples, and since there is no inexpensive, easy way to sort them out, they get to slide thru. Homosexual extremists tell us the percentage of homosexuals to the main population is ~12 percent. That is a whole lot of support for very little return (even if you do consider adoption and veternarian type fertilization). I know that burns your butt, but, those are conclusions that are obvious, if you really "care about the children" (of the future).

 

[JakeStarkey]

The facts are simple. (1) The issue of universal marriage has become personal: all of us have friends and family who have invested us in their desire to have happy lives. (2) The votes and popular polling increase for universal marriage. (3) Those opposed are losing the battle, and they know it. (4) They have every right to oppose it. (5) They know they will lose. (6) No one here has noticed any dangers by homosexuals in terms that John Locke would exclaim, "The horror."

M. D. and the rest of you: I know you sincerely believe in your cause. That simply means you are sincerely wrong.

 

[ShackledNation]

Have you ever been to Hershey, PA? It was a community built by a "traditional" couple that could not have children. They worked to make it a place where people would want to move to and work for Hershey. There are quite a few of those places: where a "traditional" couple that could not have children made the world a better place for those that could have children. There are even more that volunteer for community building and donate large amounts of monies to churches, communities, and charities.
Where are the monuments (built and paid for by homosexuals) that homosexuals donated to communities? Where do they (homosexuals) give back to the community that they so willingly feed?

Ya know, I can't think of a single monument donated by a married gay couple to any community. Of course, that must have nothing to do with the fact that few gay married couples exist because gay marriage is illegal.

That is a whole lot of support for very little return (even if you do consider adoption and veternarian type fertilization). I know that burns your butt, but, those are conclusions that are obvious, if you really "care about the children" (of the future).

Exactly how is homosexual marriage or childless marriage an economic burden? (I presume by support you are referring to economic support).

 

[bodecea]

I don't think government should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Marriage is not a government granted privilege, it is a private social practice. Thus it should be left to churches, individuals, and private contracts.

Well, actually, the sanctity of human life and heterosexual marriage are the first principles of private property in Lockean political theory, the construct of natural law on which this nation was founded. On the other hand, if American society is drifting toward the calamity of formally recognizing queer "marriage" then it would be best that the government got out of the marriage business altogether.

But lefty's not about equal treatment and live and let live at all. His agenda is to tyrannize, to impose, to force, to shove, to bully, to demand.

ah the take my ball home approach

We see a lot of that from them...anyone remember anybody talking about taking the government out of marriage BEFORE the gay marriage issue came up? I don't.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't think government should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Marriage is not a government granted privilege, it is a private social practice. Thus it should be left to churches, individuals, and private contracts.

Well, actually, the sanctity of human life and heterosexual marriage are the first principles of private property in Lockean political theory, the construct of natural law on which this nation was founded. On the other hand, if American society is drifting toward the calamity of formally recognizing queer "marriage" then it would be best that the government got out of the marriage business altogether.

But lefty's not about equal treatment and live and let live at all. His agenda is to tyrannize, to impose, to force, to shove, to bully, to demand.

Which is exactly what you are trying to do to gay people...go figure....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of the polygamous Mormon sects have talked about it for decades, but that would be far, far off the normal American cultural radar.

 

[DiamondDave]

Well, actually, the sanctity of human life and heterosexual marriage are the first principles of private property in Lockean political theory, the construct of natural law on which this nation was founded. On the other hand, if American society is drifting toward the calamity of formally recognizing queer "marriage" then it would be best that the government got out of the marriage business altogether.

But lefty's not about equal treatment and live and let live at all. His agenda is to tyrannize, to impose, to force, to shove, to bully, to demand.

ah the take my ball home approach

We see a lot of that from them...anyone remember anybody talking about taking the government out of marriage BEFORE the gay marriage issue came up? I don't.

Hear people complaining about steroids in baseball before steroids were used in baseball?? Nope... Does not change the fact that there should not be steroids in baseball..

Fucking douchewagon

 

[kaz]

That validation that you enjoy, right? Oh, I forgot that validation was "forced" on you.

It was forced on my by a private party, my wife. That government recognizes anything is meaningless to me. And I wish you also to be content based on your own situation without caring who thinks it or what "benefit" you get for it

Ah, what an interesting relationship you have.....FORCED to civilly marry. You are a victim in all this then.

So do you and the seahag ignore your partners as you demand I do or are you hypocrites? What about answering a simple question for once instead of shucking and jiving.