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

[rightwinger]

I have talked straight to you haters. Everyone of you are entitled to your opinion, and if you have the numbers and the law you can dictate what others have to do. But you don't anymore, and that is simply the way it is. You have a right to your interpretation of the Bible, but what you have trouble with is that others do as well.

Oh, who ever set up the false analogy of murder and homosexuality, do yourself a favor and go take a course in logic.

People have the right to hate anyone they want

They do not have the right to force Government to accommodate their hatred

 

[Seawytch]

Hmm, basically the media shapes religious belief, and has you females mascared up, scarfless, eating meat on fridays, shaving yourself all over, wearing sexy clothes, etc. so seems you don't mind taking it in the ass, your just worried about two guys doing the same.

And lying psychiatrists?? LMAO! What do you know about that? Obviously there has been years of scientific sudy on the subject, and because you don't like the conclusions, you try to use your god and your lack of sense to say its all a lie??

There actually has been no "scientific" study of the matter. There has only been quackery.

The quackery has been on the "gay is a choice" side. There are no peer reviewed studies that come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is chosen.

Tim Pawlenty says scientists are “in dispute” over whether being gay is a choice

Politifact Rated:

Most agree that sexual orientation is fixed: it's behavior that's choice

 

[rightwinger]

Hmm, basically the media shapes religious belief, and has you females mascared up, scarfless, eating meat on fridays, shaving yourself all over, wearing sexy clothes, etc. so seems you don't mind taking it in the ass, your just worried about two guys doing the same.

And lying psychiatrists?? LMAO! What do you know about that? Obviously there has been years of scientific sudy on the subject, and because you don't like the conclusions, you try to use your god and your lack of sense to say its all a lie??

There actually has been no "scientific" study of the matter. There has only been quackery.

The quackery has been on the "gay is a choice" side. There are no peer reviewed studies that come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is chosen.

Tim Pawlenty says scientists are “in dispute” over whether being gay is a choice

Politifact Rated:

Most agree that sexual orientation is fixed: it's behavior that's choice

Who really cares whether being gay is a choice or not?

As an American you have the right to love anyone you choose.

 

[Seawytch]

There actually has been no "scientific" study of the matter. There has only been quackery.

The quackery has been on the "gay is a choice" side. There are no peer reviewed studies that come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is chosen.

Tim Pawlenty says scientists are “in dispute” over whether being gay is a choice

Politifact Rated:

Most agree that sexual orientation is fixed: it's behavior that's choice

Who really cares whether being gay is a choice or not?

As an American you have the right to love anyone you choose.

I agree 100%...although I will amend your statement to read "non-familial consenting adult you choose".

 

[Vanquish]

61 pages and Costanza's original proposition still stands - there's no justification for the laws disallowing homosexual marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

If you have been reading, then you know. If you haven't, I won't do it for you.

Thanks for proving, once again, that you're a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

61 pages and Costanza's original proposition still stands - there's no justification for the laws disallowing homosexual marriage.

All you and Costanza have demonstrated is the fact that you're immune to facts and logic.

 

[bodecea]

61 pages and Costanza's original proposition still stands - there's no justification for the laws disallowing homosexual marriage.

All you and Costanza have demonstrated is the fact that you're immune to facts and logic.

You have been a shining example of what GC has been talking about in his OP. Thank you for your demonstration.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree 100%...although I will amend your statement to read "non-familial consenting adult you choose".

Why should "familial" be ruled out?

Gay apologist are hypocritical when it comes to the marriage issue. Reproduction isn't an issue when gays want to get married, but it is whenever anyone else does.

 

[bripat9643]

People have the right to hate anyone they want

They do not have the right to force Government to accommodate their hatred

Marriage laws are about reproduction. Gays can't reproduce.

End of story.

"Hate" is just a leftwing pejorative for facts they dislike.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat, can you be anymore confused than now?

 

[Vanquish]

61 pages and Costanza's original proposition still stands - there's no justification for the laws disallowing homosexual marriage.

All you and Costanza have demonstrated is the fact that you're immune to facts and logic.

I'm not immue. You are. (see how kindergartener that sounds?)

There's not been one valid justification given in 61 pages. That's a fact for you.

 

[bripat9643]

Do all straight people get married for the exact same reasons? No, they don't. It will be the same for gays and lesbians. They will get married for all the same, different reasons st8s do. So, when you boil the "issue" down, it is about equality, plain and simple.

Whatever the motives of the people who do it, the laws were created because of the fact of reproduction.

Gays can't reproduce. we therefore have no justification for extending the marriage franchise to them. It would make as much sense to let our pets marry.

 

[bripat9643]

The quackery has been on the "gay is a choice" side. There are no peer reviewed studies that come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is chosen.

Most agree that sexual orientation is fixed: it's behavior that's choice

Their "agreement" is based on total ignorance. Currently there is no way to prove it one way or the other since we can't read people's minds.

Most psychiatric theories are pure quackery.

 

[bripat9643]

61 pages and Costanza's original proposition still stands - there's no justification for the laws disallowing homosexual marriage.

All you and Costanza have demonstrated is the fact that you're immune to facts and logic.

You have been a shining example of what GC has been talking about in his OP. Thank you for your demonstration.

What is that, someone who rejects quackery and moonshine?

 

[Vanquish]

Marriage laws have been shaped in part in an attempt to keep families stable, which keeps the country stable. I won't argue differently. The problem comes when you look at the right/ability/choice to marry. Everyone should get to marry the human of their choice. Period.

If religion informs your opinion, that's fine. Lots of different influences shape people's opinions. But that doesnt make a religious opinion right. At the end of the day, it's whichever side can get the most votes. Time is on the side of the homosexuals. Eventually people will become liberal enough to pass these laws that should, in my opinion, already be passed - allowing them to marry.

 

[shintao]

Do all straight people get married for the exact same reasons? No, they don't. It will be the same for gays and lesbians. They will get married for all the same, different reasons st8s do. So, when you boil the "issue" down, it is about equality, plain and simple.

Whatever the motives of the people who do it, the laws were created because of the fact of reproduction.

Gays can't reproduce. we therefore have no justification for extending the marriage franchise to them. It would make as much sense to let our pets marry.

I see. So people who cannot reproduce, such as sterile women, should not be allowed to marry. People who wish to marry for legal reasons and companionship, such as old seniors, should not be allowed to marry.

I think you lost your marble on this one.

 

[Seawytch]

I agree 100%...although I will amend your statement to read "non-familial consenting adult you choose".

Why should "familial" be ruled out?

Gay apologist are hypocritical when it comes to the marriage issue. Reproduction isn't an issue when gays want to get married, but it is whenever anyone else does.

Because incest is currently illegal. If you and your inbred friends want to fight to overturn incest restrictions, it would be up to you to convince a court that there is no overriding societal harm in your relationship. There must be a compelling state reason to deny you and your sister the fundamental right to marry.

Can you come up with any to keep gays and lesbians, whose relationships are currently LEGAL in all 50 states, from legal marriage?

 

[Vanquish]

Hell, there are lots of couples who marry without any intention to reproduce. By his logic, there should be a requirement that after X amt of years a baby must be produced! LMAO.

 

[rightwinger]

People have the right to hate anyone they want

They do not have the right to force Government to accommodate their hatred

Marriage laws are about reproduction. Gays can't reproduce.

End of story.

"Hate" is just a leftwing pejorative for facts they dislike.

So do you support a law that if a couple doesn't reproduce in ten years their marriage should be disolved?