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

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage is of man, marriage between man and woman is of God, its that simple, thats all that Christians are arguing, it is firstly support by scriptures and lastly our constitutional religious right so stop being bigoted towards Christians.

What fundamental right is being denied Christians by allowing gay and lesbian citizens equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Gays can have civil unions, marriage is between a man and woman, all the same property rights are given under civil unions, no need for a marriage, marriage should be for churches only.

How about everyone can have civil unions? When you set one thing up for one group of people and something else for another group, you get into that pesky little thing called "separate but equal". I don't know if you realize this, but we tried separate but equal before. It didn't work.

Currently, civil unions do not grant anywhere NEAR the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with legal, civil marriage.

What is the difference between a Civil Union and Marriage?

Again I will ask, what Constitutional right of yours is infringed upon when gays and lesbians LEGALLY marry?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What fundamental right is being denied Christians by allowing gay and lesbian citizens equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Gays can have civil unions, marriage is between a man and woman, all the same property rights are given under civil unions, no need for a marriage, marriage should be for churches only.

How about everyone can have civil unions? When you set one thing up for one group of people and something else for another group, you get into that pesky little thing called "separate but equal". I don't know if you realize this, but we tried separate but equal before. It didn't work.

Currently, civil unions do not grant anywhere NEAR the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with legal, civil marriage.

What is the difference between a Civil Union and Marriage?

Again I will ask, what Constitutional right of yours is infringed upon when gays and lesbians LEGALLY marry?

No constitutional right is infringed upon if you marry a goat either. What's your point?

 

[rightwinger]

Gay marriage is of man, marriage between man and woman is of God, its that simple, thats all that Christians are arguing, it is firstly support by scriptures and lastly our constitutional religious right so stop being bigoted towards Christians.

What fundamental right is being denied Christians by allowing gay and lesbian citizens equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Gays can have civil unions, marriage is between a man and woman, all the same property rights are given under civil unions, no need for a marriage, marriage should be for churches only.

You are allowed to hold whatever religious beliefs you have about gays and about marriage. What you don't have a right to is insist that government affirm your beliefs and institute different treatment for Americans you do not approve of

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What you don't have a right to is insist that government affirm your beliefs and institute different treatment for Americans you do not approve of

Backatcha. Anyhoo, whatever.... homosexuality is abnormal, and will always be regarded as such no matter how much some insist otherwise.

 

[Vanquish]

What you don't have a right to is insist that government affirm your beliefs and institute different treatment for Americans you do not approve of

Backatcha. Anyhoo, whatever.... homosexuality is abnormal, and will always be regarded as such no matter how much some insist otherwise.

Are you kidding? You're on the losing side of history, bub. As today's youth grow up...the more homosexuality is being accepted.

Television shows like Glee, Queer as Folk, The L Word, The Real L Word, the freaking LOGO channel...I could go on and on and on...television isn't reality, but it definitely influences it.

Homosexuality is absolutely natural, no matter how much you protest...and it will become more accepted no matter how much you protest.

It's fine to inform one's conscience with religion and vote accordingly....but instituting religion is totalitarian.

 

[Flaylo]

What fundamental right is being denied Christians by allowing gay and lesbian citizens equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Gays can have civil unions, marriage is between a man and woman, all the same property rights are given under civil unions, no need for a marriage, marriage should be for churches only.

How about everyone can have civil unions? When you set one thing up for one group of people and something else for another group, you get into that pesky little thing called "separate but equal". I don't know if you realize this, but we tried separate but equal before. It didn't work.

Currently, civil unions do not grant anywhere NEAR the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with legal, civil marriage.

What is the difference between a Civil Union and Marriage?

Again I will ask, what Constitutional right of yours is infringed upon when gays and lesbians LEGALLY marry?

Thats because marriage was intended to be betwen man and woman, civil unions gives gays all the same rights as a marriage, thats a fact, its not some separate but equal, don't even start with those shameful comparisons. Churches should do marriages because they are scared ceremonies, no different than any other sacred ceremony. If civil unions give all the same rights as marriage I see no reason for gay marriage.

 

[Flaylo]

What fundamental right is being denied Christians by allowing gay and lesbian citizens equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Gays can have civil unions, marriage is between a man and woman, all the same property rights are given under civil unions, no need for a marriage, marriage should be for churches only.

You are allowed to hold whatever religious beliefs you have about gays and about marriage. What you don't have a right to is insist that government affirm your beliefs and institute different treatment for Americans you do not approve of

You still don't understand do you. Marriage is a sacred church act that has been adopted by government when it should be separate and done by churches, this has nothing to do with beliefs, if gays want all the same legal and property rights as a marriage they can be got union a civil union since civil unions are civil and not sacred.

 

[Flaylo]

What you don't have a right to is insist that government affirm your beliefs and institute different treatment for Americans you do not approve of

Backatcha. Anyhoo, whatever.... homosexuality is abnormal, and will always be regarded as such no matter how much some insist otherwise.

Are you kidding? You're on the losing side of history, bub. As today's youth grow up...the more homosexuality is being accepted.

Television shows like Glee, Queer as Folk, The L Word, The Real L Word, the freaking LOGO channel...I could go on and on and on...television isn't reality, but it definitely influences it.

Homosexuality is absolutely natural, no matter how much you protest...and it will become more accepted no matter how much you protest.

It's fine to inform one's conscience with religion and vote accordingly....but instituting religion is totalitarian.

The more something is accepted doesn't mean its more right, you liberals can't have it both ways. Today for example, bashing Islam and Muslims is becoming more accepted, they're even banning head scarves in some places, does that mean it should become a right to do so?


And homosexuality isn't absolutely natural, scientists still haven't figured what causes it.

 

[rightwinger]

Gays can have civil unions, marriage is between a man and woman, all the same property rights are given under civil unions, no need for a marriage, marriage should be for churches only.

You are allowed to hold whatever religious beliefs you have about gays and about marriage. What you don't have a right to is insist that government affirm your beliefs and institute different treatment for Americans you do not approve of

You still don't understand do you. Marriage is a sacred church act that has been adopted by government when it should be separate and done by churches, this has nothing to do with beliefs, if gays want all the same legal and property rights as a marriage they can be got union a civil union since civil unions are civil and not sacred.

Churches have the right to deny religious marriage to anyone they want. They do it all the time. However, they do not have a monopoly on the term marriage. If the government is going to accept a binding partnership between two people and call it marriage, they have to apply the terms and benefits equally to all people. That is in the 14th Amendment

Either marriage for all or civil union for all.....Its your choice

 

[Flaylo]

You are allowed to hold whatever religious beliefs you have about gays and about marriage. What you don't have a right to is insist that government affirm your beliefs and institute different treatment for Americans you do not approve of

You still don't understand do you. Marriage is a sacred church act that has been adopted by government when it should be separate and done by churches, this has nothing to do with beliefs, if gays want all the same legal and property rights as a marriage they can be got union a civil union since civil unions are civil and not sacred.

Churches have the right to deny religious marriage to anyone they want. They do it all the time. However, they do not have a monopoly on the term marriage. If the government is going to accept a binding partnership between two people and call it marriage, they have to apply the terms and benefits equally to all people. That is in the 14th Amendment

Either marriage for all or civil union for all.....Its your choice

I don't see whats the big deal, all the same rights as far as legal and property rights can be got under a civil union for gays, the rest is just semantics and as Charlie said legitimatizing homosexuality to be equally on par with heterosexuality, the goalposts can't keep getting shifted.

 

[Vanquish]

Flaylo...you're the one who said "it will never be accepted." Now you didnt say by whom...but I think I pretty much proved, for the populace in general, your notion was wrong.

For Christians, I'm sure it won't ever be accepted. One of the many reasons I struggle with whether I'm a Christian or not.

 

[Flaylo]

Flaylo...you're the one who said "it will never be accepted." Now you didnt say by whom...but I think I pretty much proved, for the populace in general, your notion was wrong.

For Christians, I'm sure it won't ever be accepted. One of the many reasons I struggle with whether I'm a Christian or not.

If you struggle that is a problem you have not any problem that the bible has.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Gays want gay marriage for one thing and for one thing only, to further legitimatize their sinful lifestyle, not because of so called equal rights. Those that do it are doomed with them.

Riiiiight. And that's why so many gays and lesbians between 50 and 95 are first in line.

What does age have to do with anything? Sin is sin.

 

[Vanquish]

Gays want gay marriage for one thing and for one thing only, to further legitimatize their sinful lifestyle, not because of so called equal rights. Those that do it are doomed with them.

Riiiiight. And that's why so many gays and lesbians between 50 and 95 are first in line.

What does age have to do with anything? Sin is sin.

The thought behind the post, I believe, is that older people are less likely to commit acts of wild abandon (i.e. sin), much less have insanely sinful lifestyles...they're old.

But heck, old people sin just like young people.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gays want gay marriage for one thing and for one thing only, to further legitimatize their sinful lifestyle, not because of so called equal rights. Those that do it are doomed with them.

Riiiiight. And that's why so many gays and lesbians between 50 and 95 are first in line.

What does age have to do with anything? Sin is sin.

There's no "sin" in the eyes of the law. Otherwise, homosexuality itself would be illegal. Fortunately, we do not govern based on sin and redemption here in the United States. We are NOT Iran.

 

[bodecea]

Gays can have civil unions, marriage is between a man and woman, all the same property rights are given under civil unions, no need for a marriage, marriage should be for churches only.

How about everyone can have civil unions? When you set one thing up for one group of people and something else for another group, you get into that pesky little thing called "separate but equal". I don't know if you realize this, but we tried separate but equal before. It didn't work.

Currently, civil unions do not grant anywhere NEAR the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with legal, civil marriage.

What is the difference between a Civil Union and Marriage?

Again I will ask, what Constitutional right of yours is infringed upon when gays and lesbians LEGALLY marry?

No constitutional right is infringed upon if you marry a goat either. What's your point?

And how do you get that goat to consent and say "I do"???? I really want to know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Soggy, universal marriage is inevitable.

I will fly to your rescue if anyone tries to make you marry one of your own sex or even a goat.

 

[rightwinger]

You still don't understand do you. Marriage is a sacred church act that has been adopted by government when it should be separate and done by churches, this has nothing to do with beliefs, if gays want all the same legal and property rights as a marriage they can be got union a civil union since civil unions are civil and not sacred.

Churches have the right to deny religious marriage to anyone they want. They do it all the time. However, they do not have a monopoly on the term marriage. If the government is going to accept a binding partnership between two people and call it marriage, they have to apply the terms and benefits equally to all people. That is in the 14th Amendment

Either marriage for all or civil union for all.....Its your choice

I don't see whats the big deal, all the same rights as far as legal and property rights can be got under a civil union for gays, the rest is just semantics and as Charlie said legitimatizing homosexuality to be equally on par with heterosexuality, the goalposts can't keep getting shifted.

It's not a big deal to you because nobody is telling you that your love or your relationship is not as good as someone else. Who you love is a personal choice not the governments or your religion

 

[logical4u]

Logical, I have explained this to you time and again from a legal standpoint.

You fail to listen.

You fail to understand.

You can't accept being wrong and won't concede even the slightest bit.

There's nothing that can be done for you. You fail, miserably.

Just to explain it again...

It IS an equality question. Homosexuals don't want "special rights". They want all people...straight and gay...to be able to marry the person of their choice regardless of gender.

The comparison you continue to make...between straight males and gay males...who currently have the same rights...is the WRONG comparison.

The comparison is between groups of sexual orientation. GAY people are unable to marry the person of

And as far as your vapid, corny, emotional argument about gays wanting to "mock traditional marriage" - you're on crack. Gay people have much better things to do than mock marriage. They'd rather be polite...not cause a fuss...and get treated fairly.

It's all these Christians imposing their religious views on the population of America. You've got a right to vote however you want, but the argument behind your hatred of homosexuality, even if it is religiously-based, is bullshit.

That isn't "marriage" (at least as how it has been defined for EONS). It is a legal partnership. I have stated that I have no objection to "legal partnerships". I have an objection to re-defining a word to please a small percentage that will do nothing to improve communication. It will cause more confusion (read more expensive legal documents, higher government fees, more paperwork to "clarify" the differences in "marriages" without actually saying that is what is being done", more stress, more medical problems brought on by more stress, etc, etc, etc).

The homosexual terrorists are just "starting" with the re-definition of "marriage". Now they are actively placing homosexual agenda teachings in school. How is that "equal"? Where do schools "teach" that heterosexual is normal and important in society (Hint, it isn't and never will be because you can't promote heterosexuality AND homosexuality as "normal"). How is that equal?

Keep drinkin' the koolaid.

There would be no confusion. Dictionaries already say that marriage can mean that between people of the same sex. There would be no additional stress - except possibly for you. It seems like you would not be able to handle the reality of it. In fact, there would be less legal trouble - fewer hurdles for homosexual couples to leap through.

Dictionaries also say that "gay" is "happy". How many people use that definition?
Yes, "fewer hurdles for homosexual couples to leap through" and a nightmare of hurdles for everyone else. Will you say you are married or single when a job is looking for someone "unattached" to travel for the company and willing to take risks? Will you be honest when filling out company paperwork as you are being hired, or will you wait until you think the company has enough resources invested where you will not be "released" when they discover your true "self". How many questions do you think will be added to job applications for small businesses that pay health insurance to discover if you are a homosexual male that is claiming a marriage dependent (read way higher insurance costs)? How many businesses that deal with the public will go thru even more intensive "screenings" for employees, so they don't get a homosexual "self-expressionist" (after they are hired of course), that wants to dress in drag and chase away traditional families (still the main customers for many businesses)? How many churches will be sued (read community loses a support/shelter) because they refuse to hire out to homosexual faux ceremonies? How many of those homosexuals that will be suing anyone that doesn't give them their respect they imagine they are due will be willing to put up the resources to replace those that will be put out of business, simply for disagreeing with the homosexual agenda?

Yet another socialist/communist/liberal/islamist/elitist that wants to say how things should be, and want to implement something that does not work in society, without ever considering how they will "fix it" if it doesn't work.

 

[logical4u]

There would be no confusion. Dictionaries already say that marriage can mean that between people of the same sex. There would be no additional stress - except possibly for you. It seems like you would not be able to handle the reality of it. In fact, there would be less legal trouble - fewer hurdles for homosexual couples to leap through.

"There would be no confusion." I have heard this before. Please site evidence where this will not "damage" society, increase gov't cost (taxes), or infringe on religious rights of others.

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American Anthropological Association stated in 2005:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

Please, list the examples where ..."families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies".
The only place this works is as a novelty (a freak show where tourist go and pretend they understand) or when there are not enough men or women (like after a war), and then more of community support than sexual support. There was an article today about Boystown having problems as a "homosexual" community.
If homosexual "couples" are so great, why don't they have their own communities?