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

[logical4u]

And far fewer than 4% of our population is in the military. We're not talking about the UCMJ here. We're talking about why American citizens who have committed no crime, are consenting adults and pay their taxes, why should those people be denied access to the benefits, protections and ease of access that the marriage license affords. What could be the reason gay people are actively discriminated against by legislation.

There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from being married as the majority of the population is. They want "special rights" (read above the law). Apparently where the law is being changed, it is for "same sex", no mention of homosexual (I thought this was all about equality). It is about scamming the system and mocking traditional marriage.

Hello? Homosexuals aren't interested in marrying someone of the opposite sex just because it's legal.

It is wrong to marry someone you don't genuinely love. Homosexuals marrying women they don't love (which according to you, is their "equal" right) is mocking traditional marriage.

Marrying the person you love and are faithful to, honors traditional marriage.

Look at the lesbian couple in the news, one in her seventies, the other in her eighties. They've been together over twenty years. This isn't "scamming the system", at all.

That is my point, homosexuals want "exclusions", not "inclusions".

 

[logical4u]

Marriage is a legal contract, whether you want it ‘redefined’ or not is immaterial, as is your hate toward homosexuals. As persons they’re entitled access to all laws, including marriage.


Which is why the Framers wisely ensured the separation of church and State.



If government officials they will if legally compelled to do so by a court.

Sounds like you are trying to "force" acceptance of homosexual lifestyle. I thought all you homosexual supporters were against having a "lifestyle" forced on you.

Nope. No one can force YOU to accept gays. You are free to be biased against them.

The NY marriage law allows them to marry.

Being gay isn't a lifestyle, it's what you are or aren't. Heterosexuality isn't a lifestyle either.

If you "choose" to live under a contract, you are living a lifestyle. Your preference does not "force" you into a "lifestyle". That is your "choice".

 

[logical4u]

Marriage is a legal construct, administered by the states. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal access to all law, including marriage, regardless of class or status.

No one cares what you do or don’t object to, all that matters is the law; ‘legal partnerships’ is not marriage, it doesn’t have the same legal framework as marriage. Unless everyone were subject to ‘legal partnerships,’ such contrivances would remain un-Constitutional.


There are no homosexual ‘terrorists,’ there is no homosexual ‘agenda.’ Homosexuality is not being taught in schools. To paraphrase Plyler, a homosexual is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term…guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

However much you may hate homosexuals, however ignorant you may be of the law, the simple fact remains that homosexuals are human beings, persons entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws. You can not deny them their humanity, and may not discriminate against them accordingly.

Please quote me where I displayed "hatred" for homosexuals.
Yes, homosexuality is being taught in schools, do an internet search on it.
Marriage definition has been in place for eons. There is no confusion when speaking of marriage. When homosexuals force the re-definition, there will be confusion and expenses for all community, state and federal governments, that will require more documentation, more information about each person to be kept on file. Legal partnership could ensure that same sex couples are legally, equal, without punishing the rest of society.
Before you go off into: that isn't the saaaaaame thiiiiing whine. Men and women are not re-defined as all men or all women. It would make society a mess, and yet, under the law, they are equal.
Also, homosexuals have the same "rights" to marry as heterosexuals. They don't like the rules and want to change the laws (that would give them exceptions, not equality).
What class are homosexuals?
What status are homosexuals?
How does that differ from any other activity that is "chosen"?
The 14th Amendment says nothing, nothing about sexual preference.

Satan is the great deceiver. There is nothing new here. Deception, deception, deception.

Homosexuality isn't being "taught in the schools". Tolerance is being taught in the schools. The facts are being taught in the schools. Facts are, some of the kids going to school have gay parents. Some of the kids in the school are gay.

It's a way to stop bullying.

You cannot choose to be heterosexual, or homosexual. It's just what you are.

If you are raped, does that make you hetero or homo (according to the rapist)? That is the only place there is "no choice". If you "choose" to have sex, you "choose" the sex of your partner. It is about what you "choose".

And yes, homosexuality is being taught in schools; it is one of the reasons so many people are "choosing" to home school their children. They do not believe school should be indoctrination for the immoral.

 

[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

Where is "sexual preference" listed in the fourteenth Amendment???????????

"nor deny any person Within it's jurisdiction, the equal protection of the law"

 

[logical4u]

So the Republican position is that they are OK with gays as long as they remain in the closet

The conservative position: don't make laws without knowing the consequences. This will end up being another GIANT (yes, related to the nephelim) handout by the gov't that will be unsustainable.

Oh really?

How does two people who are in love getting married impact you?

If those two people are the same sex, my tax burden will increase. The gov't will need more paperwork, more bureaucracy, more regulation to ensure "equality", while forcing information gathering to "define" same-sex couples, seperately from "traditional couples" (there will be so many "grants" to study the willing human guinea pigs), etc. That means more taxes.
If those two people are men, health costs will be increased as more are covered under their partner's insurance. Since the majority of the cost is not theirs, they will take advantage of anything covered by insurance, along with their health care (homosexuals males are more prone to physical and mental health issues). It will increase insurance costs for all covered by the company (because insurance companies spread the risk out to all policyholders). If the two people are women, they will increase my tax burden because women usually live longer than men (and without men to stress them, they will have even a longer life), which will be supported by medicaid and medicare (read tax dollars).

 

[logical4u]

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

Where is "sexual preference" listed in the fourteenth Amendment???????????

"nor deny any person Within it's jurisdiction, the equal protection of the law"

Are homosexuals not protected?

 

[rightwinger]

Please quote me where I displayed "hatred" for homosexuals.
Yes, homosexuality is being taught in schools, do an internet search on it.
Marriage definition has been in place for eons. There is no confusion when speaking of marriage. When homosexuals force the re-definition, there will be confusion and expenses for all community, state and federal governments, that will require more documentation, more information about each person to be kept on file. Legal partnership could ensure that same sex couples are legally, equal, without punishing the rest of society.
Before you go off into: that isn't the saaaaaame thiiiiing whine. Men and women are not re-defined as all men or all women. It would make society a mess, and yet, under the law, they are equal.
Also, homosexuals have the same "rights" to marry as heterosexuals. They don't like the rules and want to change the laws (that would give them exceptions, not equality).
What class are homosexuals?
What status are homosexuals?
How does that differ from any other activity that is "chosen"?
The 14th Amendment says nothing, nothing about sexual preference.

Satan is the great deceiver. There is nothing new here. Deception, deception, deception.

Homosexuality isn't being "taught in the schools". Tolerance is being taught in the schools. The facts are being taught in the schools. Facts are, some of the kids going to school have gay parents. Some of the kids in the school are gay.

It's a way to stop bullying.

You cannot choose to be heterosexual, or homosexual. It's just what you are.

If you are raped, does that make you hetero or homo (according to the rapist)? That is the only place there is "no choice". If you "choose" to have sex, you "choose" the sex of your partner. It is about what you "choose".

And yes, homosexuality is being taught in schools; it is one of the reasons so many people are "choosing" to home school their children. They do not believe school should be indoctrination for the immoral.

Whether it a biologic inclination or a choice, a person has a right to be with the person they love. Yes...you get to choose your partner

Now save me the bullshit about children, siblings and sheep

 

[rightwinger]

Where is "sexual preference" listed in the fourteenth Amendment???????????

"nor deny any person Within it's jurisdiction, the equal protection of the law"

Are homosexuals not protected?

In six states they are

 

[rightwinger]

Where is "sexual preference" listed in the fourteenth Amendment???????????

"nor deny any person Within it's jurisdiction, the equal protection of the law"

Are homosexuals not protected?

The conservative position: don't make laws without knowing the consequences. This will end up being another GIANT (yes, related to the nephelim) handout by the gov't that will be unsustainable.

Oh really?

How does two people who are in love getting married impact you?

If those two people are the same sex, my tax burden will increase. The gov't will need more paperwork, more bureaucracy, more regulation to ensure "equality", while forcing information gathering to "define" same-sex couples, seperately from "traditional couples" (there will be so many "grants" to study the willing human guinea pigs), etc. That means more taxes.
If those two people are men, health costs will be increased as more are covered under their partner's insurance. Since the majority of the cost is not theirs, they will take advantage of anything covered by insurance, along with their health care (homosexuals males are more prone to physical and mental health issues). It will increase insurance costs for all covered by the company (because insurance companies spread the risk out to all policyholders). If the two people are women, they will increase my tax burden because women usually live longer than men (and without men to stress them, they will have even a longer life), which will be supported by medicaid and medicare (read tax dollars).

Oh...just as I thought

Giving homosexuals the same rights and privileges as other Americans will cost more because you will no longer be able to charge them double.

Try that one in court

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sure he is. That's what democracy is all about, inflicting the view of the majority on the minority.

Yet polls showed that the majority of New Yorkers supported passage of the legislation granting Civil Marriage to same-sex couples.

You should be happy that the majority view prevailed.



>>>>

Then why is the state being sued for not following proceedure? More deception?

Same reason liberals in Wisconsin filed suit over the labor law. A law was passed via a vote of the legislature and the minority doesn't like it so they run to the courts to block it.

In this case it's the conservatives seeking an activist judge to block the law instead of the liberals.



>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

National Oganization for Marriage wants a 'Do-Over" in NY state.

They want to ignore the Constitutional freedoms guaranteed and protected for all and make rules by a tyranny!

Forgetting that votes to restrict the right of minorities went out with the 13th and 14th Amendments, these religious bigots just want to run a steam-roller over them.

A "Do-Over" is exactly what homosexuals got when the California Supreme Court threw out Proposition #8.

No one is trying to re-implement slavery, so the 13th Amendment is irrelevant.

No one is depriving homos of their due process rights, so the 14th Amendment is also irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

Whether it a biologic inclination or a choice, a person has a right to be with the person they love. Yes...you get to choose your partner

Now save me the bullshit about children, siblings and sheep

who is stopping homosexuals from being with whoever they want to be with?

 

[bripat9643]

Are homosexuals not protected?

In six states they are

They are protected in all 57 states!

 

[bripat9643]

Oh...just as I thought

Giving homosexuals the same rights and privileges as other Americans will cost more because you will no longer be able to charge them double.

Try that one in court

Who's charging them "double" for anything?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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.

Yup. Here's yours.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

By the same measure with which you judge, you will be judged.

He that is without sin, cast the first stone.

Apply that to yourself because as I've said for the upteenth time I judge nobody and when I quote scripture as proof that a given lifestyle is sinful it is the Word of God and by extension God Himself that is the judge, not me. It doesn't matter what I think about gay marriage and homosexuality, its what the scriptures say that matter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

National Oganization for Marriage wants a 'Do-Over" in NY state.

They want to ignore the Constitutional freedoms guaranteed and protected for all and make rules by a tyranny!

Forgetting that votes to restrict the right of minorities went out with the 13th and 14th Amendments, these religious bigots just want to run a steam-roller over them.

Yes, the rule of law was acknowledged by the Framers to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority.

Same reason liberals in Wisconsin filed suit over the labor law. A law was passed via a vote of the legislature and the minority doesn't like it so they run to the courts to block it.

In this case it's the conservatives seeking an activist judge to block the law instead of the liberals.

Wrong.

There is no such thing as an ‘activist judge.’ What you mistake as ‘activism’ is a judge striking down an un-Constitutional law based on precedent and established case law. Indeed, a judge often has little latitude in many cases, given the preponderance of relevant precedent. To do otherwise would be unethical, and eventually overturned by a higher court.

No one is depriving homos of their due process rights, so the 14th Amendment is also irrelevant.

Ignorance and hate all in one moronic sentence. Well done.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

National Oganization for Marriage wants a 'Do-Over" in NY state.

They want to ignore the Constitutional freedoms guaranteed and protected for all and make rules by a tyranny!

Forgetting that votes to restrict the right of minorities went out with the 13th and 14th Amendments, these religious bigots just want to run a steam-roller over them.

Yes, the rule of law was acknowledged by the Framers to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority.

Same reason liberals in Wisconsin filed suit over the labor law. A law was passed via a vote of the legislature and the minority doesn't like it so they run to the courts to block it.

In this case it's the conservatives seeking an activist judge to block the law instead of the liberals.

Wrong.

There is no such thing as an ‘activist judge.’ What you mistake as ‘activism’ is a judge striking down an un-Constitutional law based on precedent and established case law. Indeed, a judge often has little latitude in many cases, given the preponderance of relevant precedent. To do otherwise would be unethical, and eventually overturned by a higher court.

No one is depriving homos of their due process rights, so the 14th Amendment is also irrelevant.

Ignorance and hate all in one moronic sentence. Well done.

Flaylo said it well, gays can have civil unions and get all the same legal, property rights etc, as a marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament symbolizing the union of two becoming one flesh and cannot be legislated, what's nexts, legislating that bar mitzvahs are an equal right that everyone should be able to perform and not just Jews?


You have to do better than that same old "ignorance, hate" BS, you're sounding just like those Republitards who keep calling Democrats socialists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Yup. Here's yours.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

By the same measure with which you judge, you will be judged.

He that is without sin, cast the first stone.

Apply that to yourself because as I've said for the upteenth time I judge nobody and when I quote scripture as proof that a given lifestyle is sinful it is the Word of God and by extension God Himself that is the judge, not me. It doesn't matter what I think about gay marriage and homosexuality, its what the scriptures say that matter.

Since the Bible is not the Literal Word of God, but man's interp of what God wants for man, I am not too concerned with your testimony of scripture, Bass.

What I am concerned with is making sure that we all understand that we are not going to return to the old ways on this issue.

 

[BDBoop]

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

Yup. Here's yours.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

By the same measure with which you judge, you will be judged.

He that is without sin, cast the first stone.

Apply that to yourself because as I've said for the upteenth time I judge nobody and when I quote scripture as proof that a given lifestyle is sinful it is the Word of God and by extension God Himself that is the judge, not me. It doesn't matter what I think about gay marriage and homosexuality, its what the scriptures say that matter.

My conscience is clear.

You on the other hand. Google "Woe unto you, scribes, pharisees, hypocrites." You'll have an entire chapter. And now, because all good ignorant nasty bigots must be placed on ignore as quickly as humanly possible; I bid you adieu (That's French for good-bye. Stupid is as stupid does, sir.)

 

[shintao]

National Oganization for Marriage wants a 'Do-Over" in NY state.

They want to ignore the Constitutional freedoms guaranteed and protected for all and make rules by a tyranny!

Forgetting that votes to restrict the right of minorities went out with the 13th and 14th Amendments, these religious bigots just want to run a steam-roller over them.

Yes, the rule of law was acknowledged by the Framers to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority.



Wrong.

There is no such thing as an ‘activist judge.’ What you mistake as ‘activism’ is a judge striking down an un-Constitutional law based on precedent and established case law. Indeed, a judge often has little latitude in many cases, given the preponderance of relevant precedent. To do otherwise would be unethical, and eventually overturned by a higher court.

No one is depriving homos of their due process rights, so the 14th Amendment is also irrelevant.

Ignorance and hate all in one moronic sentence. Well done.

Flaylo said it well, gays can have civil unions and get all the same legal, property rights etc, as a marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament symbolizing the union of two becoming one flesh and cannot be legislated, what's nexts, legislating that bar mitzvahs are an equal right that everyone should be able to perform and not just Jews?


You have to do better than that same old "ignorance, hate" BS, you're sounding just like those Republitards who keep calling Democrats socialists.

I would say a cock down the poop-shooter symbolizes a union of two in flesh, heh?