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

[Polk]

Immoral? Nah. Unnatural.. yes indeed.

Someone should let penguins know.

 

[logical4u]

logical4u, the 14th Amendment undermines all of your arguments. SCOTUS is not going to rule against universal marriage. The latest thing the hetero community will do is to try to get this issue in front of SCOTUS. The second that happens, if say Texas demands DOMA act be invoked, the issue is over. The overwhelmingly Catholic conservative court (that must tick you wack Christians on the far right that somehow believe Catholics are not Christians: what a bunch of stupids) will invalidate DOMA and guarantee universal marriage.

When that happens, say good bye to this great nation. At that point anyone with access to a lawyer will legislate what "they" want from the bench. The country will split and the nations will crumble. Bet you can hardly wait.

non sequitur. And you demonstrate a manifest inability to critically think.

When people ignore history, history repeats itself. When deceit is welcomed in society, corruption follows.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Immoral? Nah. Unnatural.. yes indeed.

Someone should let penguins know.

Uh... what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

When that happens, say good bye to this great nation. At that point anyone with access to a lawyer will legislate what "they" want from the bench. The country will split and the nations will crumble. Bet you can hardly wait.

non sequitur. And you demonstrate a manifest inability to critically think.

When people ignore history, history repeats itself. When deceit is welcomed in society, corruption follows.

Where is the deceit: homosexuals want to marry homosexuals.

Where is the history: please don't expose a lack of nuanced thinking by talking about Rome.

 

[Polk]

Immoral? Nah. Unnatural.. yes indeed.

Someone should let penguins know.

Uh... what?

Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate - SFGate

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When that happens, say good bye to this great nation.

Actually closer adherence to the original intent of the Framers of the 5th and 14th Amendments makes our Nation greater, stronger.

At that point anyone with access to a lawyer will legislate what "they" want from the bench. The country will split and the nations will crumble. Bet you can hardly wait.

Every American has the right to file a complaint in Federal court, whether that complaint has merit is a different matter altogether.

And the courts are reactive, not proactive; they merely review the constitutionally of legislative acts per citizens’ complaints. When a law is struck down as un-Constitutional, that’s not ‘legislating from the bench,’ that’s a failure on the part of the law-making entity to understand the current case law of a given issue, as it’s incumbent upon law-making entities to enact legislation in good faith that the law is indeed Constitutional.

When people ignore history, history repeats itself. When deceit is welcomed in society, corruption follows.

Indeed. And those who ignore the history of Brown v Board of Education and Hernandez v Texas with regard to equal protection for same-sex couples endanger the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic.

 

[logical4u]

non sequitur. And you demonstrate a manifest inability to critically think.

When people ignore history, history repeats itself. When deceit is welcomed in society, corruption follows.

Where is the deceit: homosexuals want to marry homosexuals.

Where is the history: please don't expose a lack of nuanced thinking by talking about Rome.

How do homosexuals start relationships with their victim's family? Do they come to the house and introduce themselves as a potential partner that wants to spend the rest of their life in intimacy with their child (adult or otherwise)? Do they act like heterosexuals in one situation and homosexuals in other situations?

As far as history goes, it is amusing that you would pick Rome. How about last century? Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Mao Se Tun (sp), etc. All of them came to power promising "groups" power. All of them encouraged the "youth" to turn away from the "supersttious beliefs" of their parents. Experiment, try new things, you have power over your own body, .... blah, blah, blah. Once they got power, they killed those that were unwilling to submit to their will (in many cases the leaders of the "groups"). Their governments were full of corruption, immorality, deceit, violence and death. In this country, I am watching the same thing. Politicians promising "groups" power, and dividing the population into smalller and smaller groups. Each group is encouraged to vote away another "groups'" rights. The sad part, they are doing it. Rather than look at this country as the greatest country for liberty in the history of the world, today the population is systematically giving the government/judges control of those rights. The voter ignores the corruption of their favorite politician, and society is being de-sensitized to deceit, sexual immorality, violence against others, committing fraud in the voting booth, etc. All the voter cares about, now, is hurting some one they think has something they don't. I've read the history, I have talked to some of the refugees, I know how this ends.
And your "group" is easily manipulated (you are not known for rational thought processes), all a politician has to do is use the buzz words: hate, bigotry, racist, and all the "little" groups fall into formation to become another legion (check the Bible reference on that one), or to be whipped into a lawless mob, at the drop of a "word".

 

[Vanquish]

Another wall of zealot spew. Shame to see someone put their brain on pause really.

 

[Patrick2]

I wonder if the bisexual Greek city states used Patrick2's arguments to the new Christian religion.

There was no gay marriage in ancient greece - stop making yourself look foolish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Greek city-states kept their wives in "harem" (learned it from the Persians) and ran around with their men friends. You really don't know much, do you, and that which you think you know is often wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When people ignore history, history repeats itself. When deceit is welcomed in society, corruption follows.

Where is the deceit: homosexuals want to marry homosexuals.

Where is the history: please don't expose a lack of nuanced thinking by talking about Rome.

How do homosexuals start relationships with their victim's family? Do they come to the house and introduce themselves as a potential partner that wants to spend the rest of their life in intimacy with their child (adult or otherwise)? Do they act like heterosexuals in one situation and homosexuals in other situations?

As far as history goes, it is amusing that you would pick Rome. How about last century? Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Mao Se Tun (sp), etc. All of them came to power promising "groups" power. All of them encouraged the "youth" to turn away from the "supersttious beliefs" of their parents. Experiment, try new things, you have power over your own body, .... blah, blah, blah. Once they got power, they killed those that were unwilling to submit to their will (in many cases the leaders of the "groups"). Their governments were full of corruption, immorality, deceit, violence and death. In this country, I am watching the same thing. Politicians promising "groups" power, and dividing the population into smalller and smaller groups. Each group is encouraged to vote away another "groups'" rights. The sad part, they are doing it. Rather than look at this country as the greatest country for liberty in the history of the world, today the population is systematically giving the government/judges control of those rights. The voter ignores the corruption of their favorite politician, and society is being de-sensitized to deceit, sexual immorality, violence against others, committing fraud in the voting booth, etc. All the voter cares about, now, is hurting some one they think has something they don't. I've read the history, I have talked to some of the refugees, I know how this ends.
And your "group" is easily manipulated (you are not known for rational thought processes), all a politician has to do is use the buzz words: hate, bigotry, racist, and all the "little" groups fall into formation to become another legion (check the Bible reference on that one), or to be whipped into a lawless mob, at the drop of a "word".

Lack of a nuance AND deflection.

Please try something better. I can think of at least two arguments that you could use better then the vile spew above that relates to nothing about the topic.

I am hetero. I am GOP. I voted for McCain (threw up afterwards thinking of Sarah potentially so close to the office). I believe in the 14th Amendment. I know your side cannot carry this further and that universal marriage is inevitable.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, how you avoid. I asked you about how your children were conceived, since you wanted to tell us just how fertile you were. You still have not answered the question. One problem with "homosexual acts" is the absolute deceit that goes with "homosexual acts". In my experience, if someone lies about their sex life (I prefer: that is private and I do not speak of it), or wants to brag about how great their partner is, they are usually dishonest in most other aspects of their life also. I work in an industrial environment. If you are communicating, it had better be clear and concise. Another person's life may depend on getting to the point quickly, and truthfully.

What the fuck are you rambling about? I was quite clear on how my children were conceived? WTF?!?

Now you have "acted" like you are open and honest about your relationship, but when the hard question is asked, you just clam up. I probably would not have asked if you didn't go on about how homosexuals have children. You still have not given a "rational" answer on that either. If they are "the same" as heterosexuals, then they would want to have each other's children. It would be crystal clear going into the relationship that they could not do that. For a majority of heterosexuals, that would put an end to the relationship: if they knew the other person could not help procreate with them.

IMHO, most heterosexuals are married and trying to have children long before they find out that they can't. Because "family" is so important, they will go thru some tough measures to have children of their own. In many instances, a heterosexual couple will adopt after years of trying to have children, and once there is a child in their home, they conceive. That, again is impossible with homosexuals.

There are roughly 6 million couples that are infertile. Male sperm count is dropping at a rate of 1.5% every year. These couples do EXACTLY what gay couples do to have children. They use SCIENCE (which is obviously a concept you are unfamiliar with) or they ADOPT. Not being able to have each OTHERS children isn't a "deal breaker". If it is for some heterosexual couples, I guess they didn't love, honor and cherish THEIR partners as much as they claim they did.

While my partner may not share genetic material with our children, they are still OUR children. She is their parent legally and emotionally.

As far as "immoral" goes: if you have multiple sex partners, and deceive to get them, you are acting immorally. As far as "you are not hurting anybody", spy on "your" children some time when they are venting to a friend, you might be surprised at how much you are hurting others. If you do not want to deal with the fact that you and your partner, being the same sex are extremely different from a heterosexual couple, then you might not be considering the damage your lifestyle is doing to your children's mental health, either.

Multiple sex partners is not unique to any one sexual orientation. You did not describe ANY way in which heterosexual couples are different than gay or lesbian couples other than YOUR personal response to gays and lesbians.

Our "lifestyle", whatever that is supposed to mean, is not doing anything to the "mental health" of our children. I realize you are about 50 years behind the times and may not know of the studies that have been conducted regarding the children of gays and lesbians. Perhaps the policy statement from the American Physiological Association might help...

Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

You know, sexual orientation isn't a choice, but bigotry is...

 

[Seawytch]

Immoral? Nah. Unnatural.. yes indeed.

Unnatural? As in not found in nature? Guess again...

According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others.

Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild

Also in the same article:

One thing that does seem to be exclusive to humans is homophobia.

 

[Seawytch]

I wonder if the bisexual Greek city states used Patrick2's arguments to the new Christian religion.

There was no gay marriage in ancient greece - stop making yourself look foolish.

The Greeks, maybe, maybe not...but how about medieval Europeans?

Gay Marriage Goes Way Back

And we know the Romans did...Nero himself was "gay married".

Or how about the United States in the 19th Century?

Every hear of a Boston Marriage?

 

[Patrick2]

The Greek city-states kept their wives in "harem" (learned it from the Persians) and ran around with their men friends. You really don't know much, do you, and that which you think you know is often wrong.

Read my lips:

There - was - no - gay - marriage - in - ancient - greece. Stop - making - an - idiot - of - yourself.

 

[Patrick2]

The Greeks, maybe, maybe not...but how about medieval Europeans?

Gay Marriage Goes Way Back

I read the link - it's equivalencing of "befrerement" and marriage is unconvincing.

And we know the Romans did...Nero himself was "gay married".

That homosexuality was common in ancient times is well known, but there wasn't gay marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

The Greeks, maybe, maybe not...but how about medieval Europeans?

Gay Marriage Goes Way Back

I read the link - it's equivalencing of "befrerement" and marriage is unconvincing.

And we know the Romans did...Nero himself was "gay married".

That homosexuality was common in ancient times is well known, but there wasn't gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Read the part about Nero.

 

[logical4u]

Oh, how you avoid. I asked you about how your children were conceived, since you wanted to tell us just how fertile you were. You still have not answered the question. One problem with "homosexual acts" is the absolute deceit that goes with "homosexual acts". In my experience, if someone lies about their sex life (I prefer: that is private and I do not speak of it), or wants to brag about how great their partner is, they are usually dishonest in most other aspects of their life also. I work in an industrial environment. If you are communicating, it had better be clear and concise. Another person's life may depend on getting to the point quickly, and truthfully.

What the fuck are you rambling about? I was quite clear on how my children were conceived? WTF?!?

Now you have "acted" like you are open and honest about your relationship, but when the hard question is asked, you just clam up. I probably would not have asked if you didn't go on about how homosexuals have children. You still have not given a "rational" answer on that either. If they are "the same" as heterosexuals, then they would want to have each other's children. It would be crystal clear going into the relationship that they could not do that. For a majority of heterosexuals, that would put an end to the relationship: if they knew the other person could not help procreate with them.

IMHO, most heterosexuals are married and trying to have children long before they find out that they can't. Because "family" is so important, they will go thru some tough measures to have children of their own. In many instances, a heterosexual couple will adopt after years of trying to have children, and once there is a child in their home, they conceive. That, again is impossible with homosexuals.

There are roughly 6 million couples that are infertile. Male sperm count is dropping at a rate of 1.5% every year. These couples do EXACTLY what gay couples do to have children. They use SCIENCE (which is obviously a concept you are unfamiliar with) or they ADOPT. Not being able to have each OTHERS children isn't a "deal breaker". If it is for some heterosexual couples, I guess they didn't love, honor and cherish THEIR partners as much as they claim they did.

While my partner may not share genetic material with our children, they are still OUR children. She is their parent legally and emotionally.

As far as "immoral" goes: if you have multiple sex partners, and deceive to get them, you are acting immorally. As far as "you are not hurting anybody", spy on "your" children some time when they are venting to a friend, you might be surprised at how much you are hurting others. If you do not want to deal with the fact that you and your partner, being the same sex are extremely different from a heterosexual couple, then you might not be considering the damage your lifestyle is doing to your children's mental health, either.

Multiple sex partners is not unique to any one sexual orientation. You did not describe ANY way in which heterosexual couples are different than gay or lesbian couples other than YOUR personal response to gays and lesbians.

Our "lifestyle", whatever that is supposed to mean, is not doing anything to the "mental health" of our children. I realize you are about 50 years behind the times and may not know of the studies that have been conducted regarding the children of gays and lesbians. Perhaps the policy statement from the American Physiological Association might help...

Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

You know, sexual orientation isn't a choice, but bigotry is...

You have already displayed you unwillingness to see the biological difference between men and women. And you say I am not with science. You have already denied there are emotional and personality characteristics that are predominate in each gender. You find the studies that only back your "emotional needs" without looking at the other point of view.

I have no problem with homosexuals doing a legal arrangement if it is supported by the country. I do have a problem with homosexuals "re-defining" words to push a political agenda, and "mock" traditional marriage.

As far as "bigotry" goes, honey that door swings both ways, and your side is probably more bigoted than those that you "accuse" (falsely, I might add) of being bigots to silence them and their points of view.

I have been accused of that before, and I will ask you what I asked them without getting a rational response: How are my views backwards? How is my way of life hurting anyone? Can you explain a better way to live?

Even your avatar is bigoted; Justice is suposed to be impartial. How can some one judge fairly when in the embrace of another. You might think it was convenient to show two women statues, but there is a "bigoted" message there too. Maybe you will consider that?

 

[Patrick2]

The Greeks, maybe, maybe not...but how about medieval Europeans?

Gay Marriage Goes Way Back

I read the link - it's equivalencing of "befrerement" and marriage is unconvincing.

And we know the Romans did...Nero himself was "gay married".

That homosexuality was common in ancient times is well known, but there wasn't gay marriage.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the part about Nero.

There may[14] have been, at least among the Romans, marriage between men

MAY have been?

It seems there is a politicization of scholarship in support of gays and other liberal causes - too many liberal scholars trying to make their political points by employing "presentism" - ie, trying to shoehorn ancient practices in to something they weren't.

 

[Nosmo King]

MAY have been?

It seems there is a politicization of scholarship in support of gays and other liberal causes - too many liberal scholars trying to make their political points by employing "presentism" - ie, trying to shoehorn ancient practices in to something they weren't.

Why is Gay rights a Liberal issue? Shouldn't the equal rights of every American citizen be an issue of bi-partisan, National interest?

One would hope that personal prejudices would never interfere with equality before the law.