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

[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.

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.

I've conceded nothing. I was, however, not as precise as I could have been. So let's go backward.

I believe that two humans, irrespective of gender, race, and age, should be able to marry. I don't even think that brothers and sisters shouldn't be able to marry. (Let that fry your brain for a moment). That's not an attempt to skirt your little comment about the government being able to put restrictions on marriage. I do think that the government can restrict marriage.

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.

Government and culture is more than biology. Gay people can't reproduce. Big whoop. You haven't proven (or even explained very well) why gay people can't enter into a marriage relationship. You've given a reason...but you haven't justified it. You certainly haven't given a justification that overcomes such a massive, social restriction.

And by the way, your understanding of Biology is pitiful. Who are you to say that homosexuality isn't a biological control measure? You can't. That's to say, perhaps homosexuality is a % of humanity, in an attempt to control over-population on the planet? I'd love to see you try to disprove that little proposition. Perhaps its nature's way of making sure that orphaned offspring have an increased chance of surviving (via an increased parental base, who themselves don't have children).

There are simply too many variables for your little fact recitation to serve as "proof" against marriage.

Simply stating "gays can't reproduce" doesn't give a compelling governmental interest in restricting fundamental rights. Sure the government can pass laws. That's its job. But you haven't proven jack.

 

[shintao]

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.

So now your silly mind has finally rationalized that reproduction is not the reason, which I agree with.

And I don't agree that government has a right to oversee marriages, but should be out of the marriage business altogether. I believe it is a religious ritual of bonding two people.

I don't feel any religion should be forced to recognize a gay marriage, or cause any discrimination. Let gays go to a religion that recognizes them.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

It certainly did...had you actually taken the time to read it. Marriage started as nothing more than a business arrangement. It was about PROPERTY more than anything else...that property being women AND children as well as material goods. Marriage was not "about" reproduction.

So, because children came out of my vagina, I must be straight? Science is not a concept you've ever even considered is it? Were you aware the world is round?

 

[shintao]

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.

LMAO! As a polygamist with two wives, I would first have to be a homosexual you imbecile. Society "norms" is what seems to be your main point here, but norms and laws are reshaped all the time according to public opinion. ie. such as women voting, blacks as humans, age of consent, etc.

The times are changing. ie. Gay relationships legal. And that has nothing to do with either us, except your rejection of new societal views.

 

[rightwinger]

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.



>>>>

I'm not sure everything is an absolute. I think there may be a gray area where sexuality is concerned. You may be attracted to both sexes but suppress one attraction. Your sexuality may evolve over time. Or you may have no control over the sexuality you were born with

But legally, who cares?

It is not up to the Government to decide who an adult can love because some people are up-tight about it.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure everything is an absolute. I think there may be a gray area where sexuality is concerned. You may be attracted to both sexes but suppress one attraction. Your sexuality may evolve over time. Or you may have no control over the sexuality you were born with

But legally, who cares?

It is not up to the Government to decide who an adult can love because some people are up-tight about it.

It's not up to the government to decide who an adult can love, but it is up to the government to decide who is entitled to the legal privileges of marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

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

LMAO! As a polygamist with two wives, I would first have to be a homosexual you imbecile.

MY apologies. One of the proponents of gay marraige in here was claiming to be a homosexual. I misremembered who that was. However, if you're a polygamist, you're mind is even more fucked up than a homosexual's.

Society "norms" is what seems to be your main point here, but norms and laws are reshaped all the time according to public opinion. ie. such as women voting, blacks as humans, age of consent, etc.

The times are changing. ie. Gay relationships legal. And that has nothing to do with either us, except your rejection of new societal views.

I don't give a crap about "societal norms." The issue here is the social justification for marriage. Reproduction is the only reasons laws regarding marriage exist. Separate marriage from reproduction, and you eliminate the justification for its existence.

The fact that some disagree with "societal views," doesn't make their views "societal views." The vast majority of people will never view homosexual marriage as legitimate. They will always view it as a fraud and a con because that's what it is.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not sure everything is an absolute. I think there may be a gray area where sexuality is concerned. You may be attracted to both sexes but suppress one attraction. Your sexuality may evolve over time. Or you may have no control over the sexuality you were born with

But legally, who cares?

It is not up to the Government to decide who an adult can love because some people are up-tight about it.

It's not up to the government to decide who an adult can love, but it is up to the government to decide who is entitled to the legal privileges of marriage.

And that is why the religious right is so pissed off

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing in the article you posted disproves what I said.

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

It certainly did...had you actually taken the time to read it. Marriage started as nothing more than a business arrangement. It was about PROPERTY more than anything else...that property being women AND children as well as material goods. Marriage was not "about" reproduction.

It is still about reproduction. Property was only an issue because property distribution among spouse and children had to be determined by a consistent set of rules, otherwise anarchy would reign. Biology largely determines those rules. Marriage has always been about who has rights to property, and it always will be.

So, because children came out of my vagina, I must be straight? Science is not a concept you've ever even considered is it? Were you aware the world is round?

Unless you conceived through artificial means, or you were raped, you aren't a homosexual. That's especially true in the case of men, who can't reproduce without getting sexually excited.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So you concede his valid point via your dropping the discussion and replacing it in desperation with insults. Gotcha.

 

[bodecea]

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

LMAO! As a polygamist with two wives, I would first have to be a homosexual you imbecile.

MY apologies. One of the proponents of gay marraige in here was claiming to be a homosexual. I misremembered who that was. However, if you're a polygamist, you're mind is even more fucked up than a homosexual's.

Society "norms" is what seems to be your main point here, but norms and laws are reshaped all the time according to public opinion. ie. such as women voting, blacks as humans, age of consent, etc.

The times are changing. ie. Gay relationships legal. And that has nothing to do with either us, except your rejection of new societal views.

I don't give a crap about "societal norms." The issue here is the social justification for marriage. Reproduction is the only reasons laws regarding marriage exist. Separate marriage from reproduction, and you eliminate the justification for its existence.

The fact that some disagree with "societal views," doesn't make their views "societal views." The vast majority of people will never view homosexual marriage as legitimate. They will always view it as a fraud and a con because that's what it is.

Interestingly weak point considering these two facts:

People don't need marriage to reproduce

People don't need to reproduce to marry.

Dance your way around those facts.....or feel free to give up and start insults again.

 

[Vanquish]

Brit's been outfoxed and he knows it.

The government must have some control of marriage as the biological and social consequences of this union also have LEGAL ramifications. The government should stay out as much as possible, but not entirely.

Once you get to that stage, it's a question of what minimal controls are necessary in order to insure the most basic protection of society. Deciding what gender can marry what gender offers no reasonable protection from anything immediately harmful....at least none that outweigh someone's free will to love whomever they want.

 

[bripat9643]

Brit's been outfoxed and he knows it.

The government must have some control of marriage as the biological and social consequences of this union also have LEGAL ramifications. The government should stay out as much as possible, but not entirely.

Once you get to that stage, it's a question of what minimal controls are necessary in order to insure the most basic protection of society. Deciding what gender can marry what gender offers no reasonable protection from anything immediately harmful....at least none that outweigh someone's free will to love whomever they want.

You just contradicted yourself. First you admit that marriage exists because of the biological and social consequences of reproduction, then you deny that reproduction has anything to do with marriage.

Idiocy seems to be the chief source of all arguments in favor of gay "marriage."

 

[bripat9643]

Interestingly weak point considering these two facts:

People don't need marriage to reproduce

People don't need to reproduce to marry.

Dance your way around those facts.....or feel free to give up and start insults again.

You also don't need a license to drive, but the government has decided you have to get one anyway. And people who never drive may still posses a license.

Your argument is obvious horseshit.

 

[Vanquish]

Brit's been outfoxed and he knows it.

The government must have some control of marriage as the biological and social consequences of this union also have LEGAL ramifications. The government should stay out as much as possible, but not entirely.

Once you get to that stage, it's a question of what minimal controls are necessary in order to insure the most basic protection of society. Deciding what gender can marry what gender offers no reasonable protection from anything immediately harmful....at least none that outweigh someone's free will to love whomever they want.

You just contradicted yourself. First you admit that marriage exists because of the biological and social consequences of reproduction, then you deny that reproduction has anything to do with marriage.

Idiocy seems to be the chief source of all arguments in favor of gay "marriage."

I contradicted nothing. You really need to be more secure before making statements like that.

I said there were biological ramifications, but not that "marriage exists solely and primarily for and because of reproduction."

God you have your head up your ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Brit's been outfoxed and he knows it.

The government must have some control of marriage as the biological and social consequences of this union also have LEGAL ramifications. The government should stay out as much as possible, but not entirely.

Once you get to that stage, it's a question of what minimal controls are necessary in order to insure the most basic protection of society. Deciding what gender can marry what gender offers no reasonable protection from anything immediately harmful....at least none that outweigh someone's free will to love whomever they want.

You just contradicted yourself. First you admit that marriage exists because of the biological and social consequences of reproduction, then you deny that reproduction has anything to do with marriage.

Idiocy seems to be the chief source of all arguments in favor of gay "marriage."

I contradicted nothing. You really need to be more secure before making statements like that.

I said there were biological ramifications, but not that "marriage exists solely and primarily for and because of reproduction."

God you have your head up your ass.

bripat has real trouble with critical thinking skills, but if he is not completely mental, he will benefit from your guidance if he is willing to learn.

 

[bripat9643]

I contradicted nothing. You really need to be more secure before making statements like that.

I said there were biological ramifications, but not that "marriage exists solely and primarily for and because of reproduction."

God you have your head up your ass.

If I accused you of saying "marriage exists solely and primarily for and because of reproduction," then you might have an argument. However, that is the essential fact of marriage. It wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the biological and social implications of reproduction. Anyone who denies that is either an imbecile or a lying demagogue.

And you did contradict yourself. I'll leave it to the rest of the forum to decide who is telling the truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

britpatfascist sounds like the nazis on racial ideology and aryan birthrates. Such as pustule.

 

[bripat9643]

britpatfascist sounds like the nazis on racial ideology and aryan birthrates. Such as pustule.

Your lies are getting positively histrionic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

BriPatFascist sounds hysterical.