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

[logical4u]

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry someone of the opposite sex that is willing to marry them as long as neither has legal comittments.

They do not have the same rights as they may not marry someone of the same sex.

And aren't heterosexuals also limited in that matter?

Your argument is basically: we want it and it hurts no one else (not really, but that is what you say). Now, if that is the standard for re-defining words and changing laws, can't two consenting adults, one that is going to commit suicide and one that wants to eat the person after they are dead say they are having dinner together? It shouldn't be a problem because they are "consenting" adults and it will not hurt anyone else. Let's not be judgemental about this, they should be able to do .... whatever and everyone just ACCEPT it, because they waaaaaant it.

No, the argument is that excluding homosexuals from equal access to marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment:





Here:

Please tell me where it says people should be able to marry the person "of their choice".

Here:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Where does that say the same sex??????? Where does that say they get to marry "the" person they want to marry? That is specifically about race. Are you now saying that homosexuals are really a different race?
Loving v Virginia (1967)

This country was founded on "liberty". That liberty was originally tempered with "responsibility". Where does homosexual marriage display "responsibility" to the country?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"liberty" "freedom" "responsibility" are terms that some on the right here are throwing around without understanding what they mean.

Look up the definitions.

Look up the 14th Amendment.

 

[logical4u]

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

Proof?

or just more of the typical response to: I don't have anything rational to say so I will call them a bigot/racist/nazi/liar.

Yes, you are still a sad, little (your mentality) man.

The proof is in the hatred of your language, buddy. Your beliefs aren't facts, necessarily, and they are, by themselves, not the law. Law changes, time changes, and are understanding of matters eternal change. We are mutable, kiddo, and you best learn it.

Show me the hate, little man. I never said my beliefs were facts, I usually make a point to state if they are beliefs. Still no rational statements, why that is just "hateful". And please, show were I EVER displayed "hate" for homosexuals.
Using your techniques: If you can't it means you are a bigot, a racist, a nazi, and a liar (not really, just that is what you usually say).

 

[mattskramer]

Lie, lie, lie!!

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

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

Where is it written. The reality of the matter is that you do not have to be married in order to have children. Also, you do not have to have children to be married. Sterile couples can be married. Single peoples can have intercourse and have children without being married. People can adopt children. Gay couples can hire a surrogate mother or a sperm donor.

The old argument that marriage is so that couples can join their DNA together to produce / protect children is lame at best.

So the new argument is: I don't like the definition, so change it?

There have been, are, and likely forever will be different definitions of "marriage". It means different things to different people:

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.

Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

 

[logical4u]

Where is it written. The reality of the matter is that you do not have to be married in order to have children. Also, you do not have to have children to be married. Sterile couples can be married. Single peoples can have intercourse and have children without being married. People can adopt children. Gay couples can hire a surrogate mother or a sperm donor.

The old argument that marriage is so that couples can join their DNA together to produce / protect children is lame at best.

So the new argument is: I don't like the definition, so change it?

The real argument is that your definition, ipso facto, is not necessarily so. You have a right to your opinion but not to your own facts.

From dictionary.com

noun
1.

a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

Notice b. is not included with a, it is an "alternate" definition of "today"

World English Dictionary



marriage (ˈmærɪd&#658 .
— n
1.

the state or relationship of being husband and wife
2.

a.the legal union or contract made by a man and woman to live as husband and wife

b. ( as modifier ): marriage licence ; marriage certificate
3.

the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding
4.

a close or intimate union, relationship, etc: a marriage of ideas
5.

(in certain card games, such as bezique, pinochle) the king and queen of the same suit



Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

It appears that not all word experts agree with "you". And the one that does mention same sex unions has it as a "secondary" meaning (that would be after the primary meaning).

And really, that is what will happen or is happening with homosexuals living as married couples; they are treated as faux. They can pretend they are something they are not, all their lives, but it will not change the fact that they are not a man and a woman joined in marriage.

 

[mattskramer]

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry someone of the opposite sex that is willing to marry them as long as neither has legal comittments.
Your argument is basically: we want it and it hurts no one else (not really, but that is what you say). Now, if that is the standard for re-defining words and changing laws, can't two consenting adults, one that is going to commit suicide and one that wants to eat the person after they are dead say they are having dinner together? It shouldn't be a problem because they are "consenting" adults and it will not hurt anyone else. Let's not be judgemental about this, they should be able to do .... whatever and everyone just ACCEPT it, because they waaaaaant it.

Homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex

One of the dumbest arguments on the Internet

They are the ones saying they don't have the "same" rights, just pointing out that they do have the "same" rights. Are you admitting the homosexual activists are waaaaaaaanting "additional" rights?

It depends on how you define "rights". Does each human adult have the right to wed the human adult that he or she loves? Not necessarily: Heterosexuals may. Yet Homosexuals do not have that right. Yet, each may wed someone of the opposite sex.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So the new argument is: I don't like the definition, so change it?

The real argument is that your definition, ipso facto, is not necessarily so. You have a right to your opinion but not to your own facts.

From dictionary.com

noun
1.

a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

Notice b. is not included with a, it is an "alternate" definition of "today"

World English Dictionary



marriage (ˈmærɪd&#658 .
— n
1.

the state or relationship of being husband and wife
2.

a.the legal union or contract made by a man and woman to live as husband and wife

b. ( as modifier ): marriage licence ; marriage certificate
3.

the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding
4.

a close or intimate union, relationship, etc: a marriage of ideas
5.

(in certain card games, such as bezique, pinochle) the king and queen of the same suit



Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

It appears that not all word experts agree with "you". And the one that does mention same sex unions has it as a "secondary" meaning (that would be after the primary meaning).

And really, that is what will happen or is happening with homosexuals living as married couples; they are treated as faux. They can pretend they are something they are not, all their lives, but it will not change the fact that they are not a man and a woman joined in marriage.

Good. You have done your homework, as expected. Now "define" this: homosexuals will be marrying, regardless of your approval. Do call, though, on me if blackguard tries to make you marry person of your own sex. I will come protect you.

 

[logical4u]

Homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex

One of the dumbest arguments on the Internet

They are the ones saying they don't have the "same" rights, just pointing out that they do have the "same" rights. Are you admitting the homosexual activists are waaaaaaaanting "additional" rights?

It depends on how you define "rights". Does each human adult have the right to wed the human adult that he or she loves? Not necessarily: Heterosexuals may. Yet Homosexuals do not have that right. Yet, each may wed someone of the opposite sex.

"That depends on what is, is" Sound familiar?

Now, you want to re-define "rights" because it is clear that homosexuals have the same rights and limitations that heterosexuals do. What is next? Do we re-define woman as a person that wears a skirt, and man as one that wears a tie, because those with an agenda can't make a rational argument without deceptively changing the words?

You "choose" to be in love. Attraction may be a different story, but each person "chooses" to be "in love". Ask anyone that has been married over a few years if they "chose" to stay in the marriage (or for that matter if they "chose" to end the marriage). I have loved and do love a lot of people. That does not mean that I have the right (or would want) to marry any or all of them. Homosexuals want to say that they are dedicated to their same sex partner, yet some on this thread have said they have biological children. How is that possible? Did they "choose" to make a baby with the opposite sex? Because they did not make a baby with their same sex. Homosexuals "choose" their sexual partner. Some want to pretend that they (or their partner) can stand in as the opposite sex for marriage vows. It is a faux marriage. It is pretend.
I am not saying that they don't love each other. I am not saying that they are not willing to dedicate their lives to each other. I am saying that two people of the same sex as a couple are very different that two people of the opposite sex as a couple. Why must the homosexual activists make a mockery of marriage, by re-defining it to meet their agenda? Why can't they be honest about their intentions?

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry someone of the opposite sex that is willing to marry them as long as neither has legal comittments.

They do not have the same rights as they may not marry someone of the same sex.

And aren't heterosexuals also limited in that matter?



No, the argument is that excluding homosexuals from equal access to marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment:





Here:





Here:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Where does that say the same sex??????? Where does that say they get to marry "the" person they want to marry? That is specifically about race. Are you now saying that homosexuals are really a different race?
Loving v Virginia (1967)

This country was founded on "liberty". That liberty was originally tempered with "responsibility". Where does homosexual marriage display "responsibility" to the country?

It displays "responsibility" to the country as much as straight marriage does. Therefore the 14th amendment comes into play as to how the government has to treat both groups.

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex

One of the dumbest arguments on the Internet

They are the ones saying they don't have the "same" rights, just pointing out that they do have the "same" rights. Are you admitting the homosexual activists are waaaaaaaanting "additional" rights?

It depends on how you define "rights". Does each human adult have the right to wed the human adult that he or she loves? Not necessarily: Heterosexuals may. Yet Homosexuals do not have that right. Yet, each may wed someone of the opposite sex.

Ergo, gender discrimination.

 

[Vanquish]

So we're back to the equally stupid "homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else" crap that Rabbi couldnt defend even after 9000 pages of him trying to do so.

Ok, let me explain it to YOU the way I explained it to HIM.

When you make that argument, you're comparing the wrong CLASS of person.

Yes, all Amercians have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's not in dispute. I'm restating your drivel for you. Let's state this another way. Males have equal rights with females. Both genders (the protected class in your little conversation) are equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I'll turn this up for you:

The problem is that the sexual orientation of homosexuality, as a class, is not being given equality when compared to people with the sexual orientation of straight people.

You know it. I know it. Stop being intellectually dishonest and realize that there is inequality going on here. Either you're being intellectually dishonest or you're completely stupid. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

As a straight man, I want my right to marry a gay man! I'll never exercise it...but I deserve it.

 

[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

Do you "choose" to have sex? Do you "choose" a sexual partner? Sounds like "choice" to me. Just sayin' ....

Do you read what you are replying to AT ALL? Sexual Orientation isn't a choice...the only choice is in ACTING upon your natural inclinations.

 

[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...

And unanswered goes the question: were you deceitful when you made the babies with the opposite sex, or were you deceitful when you decided you would "only" love the same sex?

Welcome to the 21st century...where sex is not required for procreation...just ask the millions of heterosexuals that seek assistance through artificial insemination or invitro fertilization. (Actually, the technology has been around for a while...even before the 21st century).

Marriage is based on "honor". Homosexuals can provide no evidence/facts that they are "honorable". Their whole life is based on deceit, hence: my homosexual partner and I are the "same" as heterosexual partners (how does that even begin to make sense?).

Do you believe your posts make sense? They don't.

So that 15 minute Brittany Spears wedding was more "honorable" than my 15 year commitment to my partner and our family?

Please explain how same sex relationships are different than opposite sex relationships (other than in the gender of their partners)

 

[logical4u]

They do not have the same rights as they may not marry someone of the same sex.

And aren't heterosexuals also limited in that matter?



No, the argument is that excluding homosexuals from equal access to marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment:





Here:





Here:

This country was founded on "liberty". That liberty was originally tempered with "responsibility". Where does homosexual marriage display "responsibility" to the country?

It displays "responsibility" to the country as much as straight marriage does. Therefore the 14th amendment comes into play as to how the government has to treat both groups.

What is next, the alcoholics declare they are a minority and demand "additional" rights to fit their lifestyle?

 

[logical4u]

They are the ones saying they don't have the "same" rights, just pointing out that they do have the "same" rights. Are you admitting the homosexual activists are waaaaaaaanting "additional" rights?

It depends on how you define "rights". Does each human adult have the right to wed the human adult that he or she loves? Not necessarily: Heterosexuals may. Yet Homosexuals do not have that right. Yet, each may wed someone of the opposite sex.

Ergo, gender discrimination.

If a person of the opposite sex agrees to marry without any other obligations, you may marry. That is equality. Because you decide that you are above others because of your choices and seek to legislate "respectibility" is discrimmination for all those that choose to live according to tradition.

It forces the laws to be inequitable; based on a person's choices, they can declare themselves a minority, and claim discrimmination where the law is changed to "force" acceptance of their choices. That would be against others' "rights", and they would claim discrimmination and "force" the law to be changed to protect their "special interests", and so on, and so on. The country would end up being taken back to a tribal state, because it would not be the law of the "land", it would be the law of the most powerful (wealthy, forceful, ruthless). Tell your children how you helped destroy the law for your own selfishness.

 

[logical4u]

So we're back to the equally stupid "homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else" crap that Rabbi couldnt defend even after 9000 pages of him trying to do so.

Ok, let me explain it to YOU the way I explained it to HIM.

When you make that argument, you're comparing the wrong CLASS of person.

Yes, all Amercians have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's not in dispute. I'm restating your drivel for you. Let's state this another way. Males have equal rights with females. Both genders (the protected class in your little conversation) are equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I'll turn this up for you:

The problem is that the sexual orientation of homosexuality, as a class, is not being given equality when compared to people with the sexual orientation of straight people.

You know it. I know it. Stop being intellectually dishonest and realize that there is inequality going on here. Either you're being intellectually dishonest or you're completely stupid. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

As a straight man, I want my right to marry a gay man! I'll never exercise it...but I deserve it.

Okay, now we are re-defining homosexuals as a "class"???????
What are homosexuals? Can you tell one from the color of their skin (that rules out racism)? Are they forced to live the same status as their parents (that rules out class)? Do they all belong to the same religion (that rules out creed)? Are they all the same sex (that rules out gender)?

Okay?

Try again. You are claiming "discrimmination" based on choice. There is no protection under the Constitution for choosing, poorly (for something that cannot be given).

 

[logical4u]

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

Do you "choose" to have sex? Do you "choose" a sexual partner? Sounds like "choice" to me. Just sayin' ....

Do you read what you are replying to AT ALL? Sexual Orientation isn't a choice...the only choice is in ACTING upon your natural inclinations.

That would be my point. You "choose" to act on your natural inclinations.
Only the "natural inclinations" of sexual immorality are encouraged. You are discouraged to act on "natural inclinations" of: stealing, doing physical harm to others, overeating, under exercising, smoking, murdering, etc.
Please, explain why "natural instincts" of sexual attraction are the only ones to which you should completely surrender.

 

[logical4u]

Guess again big fella...

History of Marriage in Western Civilization



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

And unanswered goes the question: were you deceitful when you made the babies with the opposite sex, or were you deceitful when you decided you would "only" love the same sex?

I did not ask about "millions" (though I doubt the number is that high). I specifically asked about you. I do not have access to those "millions". You told us you had five. Were they all made artificially (since you brought it up)?

Welcome to the 21st century...where sex is not required for procreation...just ask the millions of heterosexuals that seek assistance through artificial insemination or invitro fertilization. (Actually, the technology has been around for a while...even before the 21st century).

Marriage is based on "honor". Homosexuals can provide no evidence/facts that they are "honorable". Their whole life is based on deceit, hence: my homosexual partner and I are the "same" as heterosexual partners (how does that even begin to make sense?).

Do you believe your posts make sense? They don't.

So that 15 minute Brittany Spears wedding was more "honorable" than my 15 year commitment to my partner and our family?

Please explain how same sex relationships are different than opposite sex relationships (other than in the gender of their partners)

Gee, where to go with that one. You are physically, emotionally and mentally different than the opposite sex. Each brings strengths from their gender to the partnership. People of the same sex have individual strengths, but they are not the same.

You want to commit yourself to another, that is fine. To claim you are married is a falsehood. You can pretend the definition includes "same sex" couples all day long, but most will reject your "pretend" marriage outright. And those that you think support you will use the "slurs" used to describe you as insults against heterosexuals of their opposing political party.
And you, will just pretend it doesn't bother you and smile, like you agree with them at your own expense, because the enemy of your "enemy" (those that speak the truth) is your "friend". It is how islam will take the country, because people like you will "choose" to hurt others freedom, rather than "tolerate" the truth.

BTW, I have used no hatred against homosexuals. I have not petitioned for their elimination. I have just stated that they are not the same in a legal partnership and should not have "marriage" re-defined to fit their personal agenda.

That is very different than the homosexual activists that are actively seeking to silence those with religious beliefs. The activists are seeking to "ruin" anyone that publicly, disagrees with them.

 

[Polk]

So we're back to the equally stupid "homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else" crap that Rabbi couldnt defend even after 9000 pages of him trying to do so.

Ok, let me explain it to YOU the way I explained it to HIM.

When you make that argument, you're comparing the wrong CLASS of person.

Yes, all Amercians have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's not in dispute. I'm restating your drivel for you. Let's state this another way. Males have equal rights with females. Both genders (the protected class in your little conversation) are equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I'll turn this up for you:

The problem is that the sexual orientation of homosexuality, as a class, is not being given equality when compared to people with the sexual orientation of straight people.

You know it. I know it. Stop being intellectually dishonest and realize that there is inequality going on here. Either you're being intellectually dishonest or you're completely stupid. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

As a straight man, I want my right to marry a gay man! I'll never exercise it...but I deserve it.

It's even more simple than that. It's sex discrimination. Saying a man can't marry another man is sex discrimination, since he would be able to do so if he were a woman.

 

[Steelplate]

Ok... I've waited 70 pages to weigh in here....

As a Christian... Homosexuality is a sin to me... as is Abortion, as is Greed, as is(most important to me... JUDGMENTALISM).

Now... as Christian... I am not supposed to judge anyone... because I am not without sin myself...right fellow Christians? So... If I am not supposed to JUDGE anyone else... then I have to abide by the laws of the land(pay unto Caesar).

So... If homosexuals...work in this country... pay their taxes in this country, and do all of the things necessary for them to be productive citizens of this country... who am I to say that they can't have a relationship. IF GOD WANTS to punish them in the afterlife.... that's up to him... isn't it?