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

[Patrick2]

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.

It's a matter of what constitutes equality - there is disagreement on this.

 

[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.

It's a matter of what constitutes equality - there is disagreement on this.

Should all adult Americans who have committed no crime have equal access to the protections and benefits of the law? Does equality mean what we have been taught it means? Blind justice and an impartial hearing before disinterested, qualified judges?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

More sloganeering.

 

[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.

More sloganeering.

If you can provide one valid constitutional reason some American citizens, who have committed no crime, pay their taxes, and live sober responsible lives should be regarded as second class citizens and barred from the protections and benefits of the law, I would be interested in learning about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The rights of universal marriage are embedded in the Declaration of Independence and, more importantly, in the most classically liberal document of all time, the U.S. Constitution.

This is not an issue any more about whether. Only about when.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

More sloganeering.

If you can provide one valid constitutional reason some American citizens, who have committed no crime, pay their taxes, and live sober responsible lives should be regarded as second class citizens and barred from the protections and benefits of the law, I would be interested in learning about it.

More sloganeering.

You're insinuating that empowering the government to exert civil rights protections based on sexual behavior contrary to nature's physiology and biological reproduction against the concerns of private property and individual free association is legitimate nearly 250 years after the founding of the Republic.

You're a liar. You're not interested in learning anything. It's you who think to assert something new out of nowhere, something that has absolutely no legal or historical ground whatsoever. You wish to expand the power of the state, as is always the wont of leftists, without any legitimate basis in natural or constitutional law.

You're just another leftist thug, another statist, another brainwashed, politically correct space cadet.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The rights of universal marriage are embedded in the Declaration of Independence and, more importantly, in the most classically liberal document of all time, the U.S. Constitution.

This is not an issue any more about whether. Only about when.

Liar.

 

[Nosmo King]

More sloganeering.

If you can provide one valid constitutional reason some American citizens, who have committed no crime, pay their taxes, and live sober responsible lives should be regarded as second class citizens and barred from the protections and benefits of the law, I would be interested in learning about it.

More sloganeering.

You're insinuating that empowering the government to exert civil rights protections based on sexual behavior contrary to nature's physiology and biological reproduction against the concerns of private property and individual free association is legitimate nearly 250 years after the founding of the Republic.

You're a liar. You're not interested in learning anything. It's you who think to assert something new out of nowhere, something that has absolutely no legal or historical ground whatsoever. You wish to expand the power of the state, as is always the wont of leftists, without any legitimate basis in natural or constitutional law.

You're just another leftist thug, another statist, another brainwashed, politically correct space cadet.

In some circles, what you wrote might ne considered sound, logical and without a hint of prejudice. But those circles are void of logic and thrive on prejudice.

You managed to call me a liar without proof. You engaged in ad hominem attacks. You must be a Glenn Beck fan! Congratulations on figuring out how a computer works! You must be very proud. But you're not an American.

 

[Seawytch]

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



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.

MAY have been more than just Nero, but Nero DID...twice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The rights of universal marriage are embedded in the Declaration of Independence and, more importantly, in the most classically liberal document of all time, the U.S. Constitution.

This is not an issue any more about whether. Only about when.

Liar.

Yes, M.D., you are lying. Your era that blossomed on narrow-mindedness and injustice is ending with a self-pitying whimper.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Simple: gays already have the same rights as every other American. Gays want privileges, not rights. The fact the liberals call something a right doesn't make it a right. In fact, precisely the opposite is normally the case.

 

[bripat9643]

Should all adult Americans who have committed no crime have equal access to the protections and benefits of the law? Does equality mean what we have been taught it means? Blind justice and an impartial hearing before disinterested, qualified judges?

No one is swallowing your premise that gays don't enjoy equality before the law. If anything, gays get special treatment. Your gambit is just another example of the liberal tactic of calling things the same that aren't the same.

 

[bripat9643]

If you can provide one valid constitutional reason some American citizens, who have committed no crime, pay their taxes, and live sober responsible lives should be regarded as second class citizens and barred from the protections and benefits of the law, I would be interested in learning about it.

There are no such persons.

End of debate.

 

[bripat9643]

The rights of universal marriage are embedded in the Declaration of Independence and, more importantly, in the most classically liberal document of all time, the U.S. Constitution.

This is not an issue any more about whether. Only about when.

There you go taking the "conservative" side of the issue because you're such a true blue "conservative."

 

[bripat9643]

More sloganeering.
.

You're right about them: they're just repeating slogans. They are immune to facts and logic.

 

[oreo]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.

Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

I am a fiscal conservative and could really care less about gay marriage. If they want to marry--leave them alone--and live and let live.

Democrats and Republicans spend way too much time on this issue--and they have NEVER been sucessful at legislating personal behavior from Washington D.C. No one makes a choice to be gay. There has never been a straight male that woke up one morning and decided he was going to go out and have sex with another male--

We have a lot more issues that are much more important and EFFECT every American in this country--than who is going to marry who.

And for you social conservatives on both sides of the isle--STOP IT. Stop talking about it--stop answering questions about these NON-ISSUES that are only an issue with minority groups--and stop shooting yourselves in the foot over these dumb issues.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Simple: gays already have the same rights as every other American. Gays want privileges, not rights. The fact the liberals call something a right doesn't make it a right. In fact, precisely the opposite is normally the case.

Gays do not have the right of equal access to contract law.

 

[logical4u]

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.

MAY have been more than just Nero, but Nero DID...twice.

Are you holding "him" up as a good example for why homosexuals should be able to change the definition of marriage?

 

[Nosmo King]

If you can provide one valid constitutional reason some American citizens, who have committed no crime, pay their taxes, and live sober responsible lives should be regarded as second class citizens and barred from the protections and benefits of the law, I would be interested in learning about it.

There are no such persons.

End of debate.

You're a delusional, provincial ignoramus if you believe that. Homosexuality is not a crime. Homosexuals pay taxes. Homosexuals are being denied equal rights because of stupidity, prejudice, hate and unjustified fear. Commodities trafficked by delusional, provincial ignoramuses.

You must be very proud. But you cannot at all be proud of the way this nation, which bills itself as the Land of the Free represses civil rights due to ignorance. I know I'm not so proud. But I also know that in EVERY struggle for equality and freedom, there's a Conservative banking the fires of opposition.

 

[oreo]

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.

Simple: gays already have the same rights as every other American. Gays want privileges, not rights. The fact the liberals call something a right doesn't make it a right. In fact, precisely the opposite is normally the case.

Gays do not have the right of equal access to contract law.

When G.W. Bush called for civil unions--between gays--democrats had a coniption fit over that. Democrats--wanted NO union for gays including marriage.

But how does this affect YOU in your daily life. Is it your top issue in your life--or are there more important things that you believe the Federal Government should be doing right now?