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

[shintao]

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.

According to bi, the baby should be produced in the first 9 months, or disolve the marriage, if marriage is based on reproduction. And every 9 months after that, until the women gives it up, and then end that relationship.

Bi is running on silly today..............

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You've already conceded that you don't agree with that. You don't believe a man should be allowed to marry his sister. Now that we all agree that government has the authority to determine who can marry, the only remaining issue is to determine what the rules should be. No one has presented a single credible reason for allowing gays to marry.

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.

Biology is what shapes my opinion. Gays can't reproduce. Hence, we have no reason to extending the marriage franchise to them.

 

[shintao]

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?

Why ten years?????? IF reproduction is the only reason, we should expect immediate results in 9 months. Otherwise, gays should be afforded 10 years as well.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

According to bi, the baby should be produced in the first 9 months, or disolve the marriage, if marriage is based on reproduction. And every 9 months after that, until the women gives it up, and then end that relationship.

Bi is running on silly today..............

If a marriage hasn't produced a child within ten years, it is an obvious failure. For the good of society, it should be disolved so they can move on to a childbearing spouse

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If you want to propose such regulations, feel free. I wouldn't object. However, leftwingers would be the first to whine about fertility tests as a prerequisite for marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

This is just MHO of course, but...

The argument that homosexuality is a "choice", is a "behavior", is a conscious "act" (even though homosexuality is not an "act" it is a gender preference) - is very ingrained and a fundamental part of the justification of the arguments of those opposed to equal treatment of homosexuals. They complain bitterly when a comparison is made to the structure of the arguments used against blacks and other racial minorities - they have driven a stake in the ground that race is a biological condition and that it impossible for homosexuality to be biological. The premise being that we as a society recognize discrimination as a function of biology is wrong, however they feel that discrimination based on their perception that homosexuality is a "choice" is perfectly reasonable.

They choose to ignore scientific inquiries that may show a biological (either genetic or hormonal) which may act as a biological "trigger" to homosexuality because scientific validation of the relationship between biology and homosexuality would place it squarely into the same realm as racial discrimination - that being biology.

See evidence of a biological cause of homosexuality places them on the same place on advocates of racial discrimination.



>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

Why ten years?????? IF reproduction is the only reason, we should expect immediate results in 9 months. Otherwise, gays should be afforded 10 years as well.

All you're proving is that idiocy is no barrier to the rationalizations for gay marriage.

Anyone with a brain understands that if it wasn't for the fact of reproduction, marriage wouldn't exist.

 

[shintao]

Biology is what shapes my opinion. Gays can't reproduce. Hence, we have no reason to extending the marriage franchise to them.

So you would start and end marriages based on reproduction. Once they have their baby the marriage is disolved. Wouldn't that create a 100% divorce rate? Your parents should be divorced.

 

[bripat9643]

Biology is what shapes my opinion. Gays can't reproduce. Hence, we have no reason to extending the marriage franchise to them.

So you would start and end marriages based on reproduction. Once they have their baby the marriage is disolved. Wouldn't that create a 100% divorce rate? Your parents should be divorced.

You're obviously an idiot. Your dreck is worth a substantive response.

 

[shintao]

Why ten years?????? IF reproduction is the only reason, we should expect immediate results in 9 months. Otherwise, gays should be afforded 10 years as well.

All you're proving is that idiocy is no barrier to the rationalizations for gay marriage.

Anyone with a brain understands that if it wasn't for the fact of reproduction, marriage wouldn't exist.

Oh, your silly irrational mind is working overtime today bi. I have already noted that people marry for many reasons. What part of companionship don't you understand? LMAO!

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Guess again big fella...

History of Marriage in Western Civilization

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 reproduced plenty...more than most I'd say...

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Or for my widowed grandmother to remarry.

If you hate gay people that's one thing. But to deny them the right to access contract law based on your silly fears and hate is an absolute wrong.

 

[shintao]

Biology is what shapes my opinion. Gays can't reproduce. Hence, we have no reason to extending the marriage franchise to them.

So you would start and end marriages based on reproduction. Once they have their baby the marriage is disolved. Wouldn't that create a 100% divorce rate? Your parents should be divorced.

You're obviously an idiot. Your dreck is worth a substantive response.

I think you are imbecile bi, and your silly mind is really fucked up when it comes to logic or practicality. Maybe you go join the circus, they need a confused juggler for the main event.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, your silly irrational mind is working overtime today bi. I have already noted that people marry for many reasons. What part of companionship don't you understand? LMAO!

I have already pointed out to you that individual motives are irrelevant to the reasons that a social institution exists.

"Companionship" may be the excuse people give, but that's obvious bullshit. You don't need to get married for "companionship." The only reason for marriage is the set of legal rights that go along with it.

 

[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.

Guess again big fella...

History of Marriage in Western Civilization

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 reproduced plenty...more than most I'd say...

Nothing in the article you posted disproves what I said.

If you reproduced in the normal fashion, you aren't a homosexual.

 

[bripat9643]

Or for my widowed grandmother to remarry.

If you hate gay people that's one thing. But to deny them the right to access contract law based on your silly fears and hate is an absolute wrong.

They are "denied access" because there is no social justification for granting it.

 

[bripat9643]

I think you are imbecile bi, and your silly mind is really fucked up when it comes to logic or practicality. Maybe you go join the circus, they need a confused juggler for the main event.

A homosexual accusing someone else of having a "fucked up mind" is the ultimate irony. Homosexuality is a mental aberration.

 

[shintao]

It's just hard to find a reason why gays should not be allowed to marry, and that is because logical minds reached conclusions that favor their unity in marriage. They actually help heterosexual marriages out by adopting and raising the children for the hetro-flawed relationships. Their numbers are so insignificant in our population as to make this debate of justification to marriage seem completely foolish.

Government has no business in marriages, and laws should be restructured on an individual basis, not based on couples.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Or for my widowed grandmother to remarry.

If you hate gay people that's one thing. But to deny them the right to access contract law based on your silly fears and hate is an absolute wrong.

The fact that we haven't riddled the marriage laws with all sorts of complications to handle every special case proves nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

It's just hard to find a reason why gays should not be allowed to marry, and that is because logical minds reached conclusions that favor their unity in marriage. They actually help heterosexual marriages out by adopting and raising the children for the hetro-flawed relationships. Their numbers are so insignificant in our population as to make this debate of justification to marriage seem completely foolish.

Government has no business in marriages, and laws should be restructured on an individual basis, not based on couples.

I've already posted the one indisputable reason: They can't reproduce. It would make as much sense to extend the marriage franchise to goldfish as to gays.