People who oppose Gay Rights, why do you oppose them?

[Cecilie1200]

Serious replies only!!
I do not want to offend anyone, so keep your rude comments to yourself. I just want to understand why someone would oppose gay marriage and such, so I figured this was the best way to go about it.
Why are gays hated in America?

Oh, yeah, you're ALL about a fair, evenhanded inquiry into what people think. No offensive biased content HERE.

 

[Cecilie1200]

my apologies to the op conservative are just as confused about human rights as they are about basic science.

. . . says the representative of the people who think "personhood" is a scientific designation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't oppose gay rights.

There, that was easy.

If they want to get pretend married let them, just keep it the hell away from children

My point being, they have the same rights as everybody else.

No extra-special rights, or "let's rename things so we can get in on this action that has nothing to do with who we are or what we do" rights.

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

 

[g5000]

I oppose them because they think that living in modern society means that they can break laws and traditions and i don't think so!

"We've always done it that way" is the last and most stupid argument of an oppressor as their reason for continuing their oppression. "We've always had slaves. There were slaves in the bible." Blah blah blah.

Tradition is one thing, long term oppression is another. The bogus "tradition" argument is just an excuse to keep oppressing a minority. Simple as that.

The oppressors have no rational basis for continuing that "tradition".

 

[g5000]

I don't oppose gay rights.

There, that was easy.

I am so glad I was not eating or drinking anything when I read that.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't oppose gay rights.

There, that was easy.

I am so glad I was not eating or drinking anything when I read that.

She just wants gays to stop being all uppity and to know their place........

 

[Political Junky]

In some states one can be fired for being gay.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't oppose gay rights.

There, that was easy.

If they want to get pretend married let them, just keep it the hell away from children

My point being, they have the same rights as everybody else.

No extra-special rights, or "let's rename things so we can get in on this action that has nothing to do with who we are or what we do" rights.

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

No worries...the SCOTUS won't miss it. And it does have qualifiers...the bigots just haven't been able to assign them to gay unions.

See, in order to deny a fundamental right, you have to have an overriding societal harm to ascribe to it. The bigots can't.

 

[Michelle420]

Serious replies only!!
I do not want to offend anyone, so keep your rude comments to yourself. I just want to understand why someone would oppose gay marriage and such, so I figured this was the best way to go about it.
Why are gays hated in America?

Good question, not sure if anything has been learned from it.

 

[Seawytch]

I oppose them because they think that living in modern society means that they can break laws and traditions and i don't think so!

"We've always done it that way" is the last and most stupid argument of an oppressor as their reason for continuing their oppression. "We've always had slaves. There were slaves in the bible." Blah blah blah.

Tradition is one thing, long term oppression is another. The bogus "tradition" argument is just an excuse to keep oppressing a minority. Simple as that.

The oppressors have no rational basis for continuing that "tradition".

The courts have already laughed at the "tradition" argument.

NWF Daily News

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't oppose gay rights.

There, that was easy.

If they want to get pretend married let them, just keep it the hell away from children

My point being, they have the same rights as everybody else.

No extra-special rights, or "let's rename things so we can get in on this action that has nothing to do with who we are or what we do" rights.

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

No worries...the SCOTUS won't miss it. And it does have qualifiers...the bigots just haven't been able to assign them to gay unions.

See, in order to deny a fundamental right, you have to have an overriding societal harm to ascribe to it. The bigots can't.

Yeah, leftist judges never miss what they want to see, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth. I've noticed how convenient you lefties find that sort of thing.

See, in order to recognize a fundamental right, it first has to exist. And in the case of privileges, the burden of proof is actually on overriding societal GOOD in creating it. You can't show that. All you can do is scream, "It's bigotry to disagree with me! You're a bad person! Stop talking!"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If they want to get pretend married let them, just keep it the hell away from children

My point being, they have the same rights as everybody else.

No extra-special rights, or "let's rename things so we can get in on this action that has nothing to do with who we are or what we do" rights.

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

No worries...the SCOTUS won't miss it. And it does have qualifiers...the bigots just haven't been able to assign them to gay unions.

See, in order to deny a fundamental right, you have to have an overriding societal harm to ascribe to it. The bigots can't.

Yeah, leftist judges never miss what they want to see, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth. I've noticed how convenient you lefties find that sort of thing.

See, in order to recognize a fundamental right, it first has to exist. And in the case of privileges, the burden of proof is actually on overriding societal GOOD in creating it. You can't show that. All you can do is scream, "It's bigotry to disagree with me! You're a bad person! Stop talking!"

Rights are created by men. Now you know.

 

[Syriusly]

If they want to get pretend married let them, just keep it the hell away from children

My point being, they have the same rights as everybody else.

No extra-special rights, or "let's rename things so we can get in on this action that has nothing to do with who we are or what we do" rights.

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

No worries...the SCOTUS won't miss it. And it does have qualifiers...the bigots just haven't been able to assign them to gay unions.

See, in order to deny a fundamental right, you have to have an overriding societal harm to ascribe to it. The bigots can't.

Yeah, leftist judges never miss what they want to see, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth. I've noticed how convenient you lefties find that sort of thing.

See, in order to recognize a fundamental right, it first has to exist. And in the case of privileges, the burden of proof is actually on overriding societal GOOD in creating it. You can't show that. All you can do is scream, "It's bigotry to disagree with me! You're a bad person! Stop talking!"

So.....you think every judge who has ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional are all 'leftist judges'- even though a large percentage were appointed by Reagan, Bush or Bush?

Fascinating

 

[Seawytch]

If they want to get pretend married let them, just keep it the hell away from children

My point being, they have the same rights as everybody else.

No extra-special rights, or "let's rename things so we can get in on this action that has nothing to do with who we are or what we do" rights.

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

No worries...the SCOTUS won't miss it. And it does have qualifiers...the bigots just haven't been able to assign them to gay unions.

See, in order to deny a fundamental right, you have to have an overriding societal harm to ascribe to it. The bigots can't.

Yeah, leftist judges never miss what they want to see, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth. I've noticed how convenient you lefties find that sort of thing.

Really? Do you know how many were appointed by Republicans and how many by Democrats?

See, in order to recognize a fundamental right, it first has to exist. And in the case of privileges, the burden of proof is actually on overriding societal GOOD in creating it. You can't show that. All you can do is scream, "It's bigotry to disagree with me! You're a bad person! Stop talking!"

Really? Explain Turner v Safley, please.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point being, they have the same rights as everybody else.

No extra-special rights, or "let's rename things so we can get in on this action that has nothing to do with who we are or what we do" rights.

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

No worries...the SCOTUS won't miss it. And it does have qualifiers...the bigots just haven't been able to assign them to gay unions.

See, in order to deny a fundamental right, you have to have an overriding societal harm to ascribe to it. The bigots can't.

Yeah, leftist judges never miss what they want to see, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth. I've noticed how convenient you lefties find that sort of thing.

See, in order to recognize a fundamental right, it first has to exist. And in the case of privileges, the burden of proof is actually on overriding societal GOOD in creating it. You can't show that. All you can do is scream, "It's bigotry to disagree with me! You're a bad person! Stop talking!"

So.....you think every judge who has ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional are all 'leftist judges'- even though a large percentage were appointed by Reagan, Bush or Bush?

Fascinating

Yeah, you halfwits always blather about "appointed by" like you think that makes some huge difference. Truth is, Republican Presidents tend to appoint more centrist judges than Democrat Presidents do to start with, and "leftward drift" is a well-documented phenomenon among lawyers in robes.

You have really got to learn to think independently and analytically, instead of desperately grabbing for labels and pigeonholes. It's the sign of a very lazy mind.

 

[Syriusly]

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

No worries...the SCOTUS won't miss it. And it does have qualifiers...the bigots just haven't been able to assign them to gay unions.

See, in order to deny a fundamental right, you have to have an overriding societal harm to ascribe to it. The bigots can't.

Yeah, leftist judges never miss what they want to see, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth. I've noticed how convenient you lefties find that sort of thing.

See, in order to recognize a fundamental right, it first has to exist. And in the case of privileges, the burden of proof is actually on overriding societal GOOD in creating it. You can't show that. All you can do is scream, "It's bigotry to disagree with me! You're a bad person! Stop talking!"

So.....you think every judge who has ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional are all 'leftist judges'- even though a large percentage were appointed by Reagan, Bush or Bush?

Fascinating

Yeah, you halfwits always blather about "appointed by" like you think that makes some huge difference. Truth is, .

As if you bigots could tell what the truth is if it slapped you in the face with a tuba.

You made up claims about the judges and now you make up claims about Republicans.

Almost every state and federal judge to have reviewed these cases has agreed that State laws against same gender marriage- whether they were against the State's own constitution or against the U.S. Constitution.

You of course cannot fathom how all of those judges could be reaching the same conclusion- except for them all of course being 'Leftist'- rather than they all are coming to the same conclusion of law regardless of their political leanings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

No worries...the SCOTUS won't miss it. And it does have qualifiers...the bigots just haven't been able to assign them to gay unions.

See, in order to deny a fundamental right, you have to have an overriding societal harm to ascribe to it. The bigots can't.

Yeah, leftist judges never miss what they want to see, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth. I've noticed how convenient you lefties find that sort of thing.

See, in order to recognize a fundamental right, it first has to exist. And in the case of privileges, the burden of proof is actually on overriding societal GOOD in creating it. You can't show that. All you can do is scream, "It's bigotry to disagree with me! You're a bad person! Stop talking!"

So.....you think every judge who has ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional are all 'leftist judges'- even though a large percentage were appointed by Reagan, Bush or Bush?

Fascinating

Yeah, you halfwits always blather about "appointed by" like you think that makes some huge difference. Truth is, Republican Presidents tend to appoint more centrist judges than Democrat Presidents do to start with, and "leftward drift" is a well-documented phenomenon among lawyers in robes.

You have really got to learn to think independently and analytically, instead of desperately grabbing for labels and pigeonholes. It's the sign of a very lazy mind.

Ignorant nonsense.

Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were/are in no way 'centrist justices,' nor would have Bork had his appointment been successful. Kennedy's appointment was a demonstration that the process works, a conservative but not an ideologue, his was a fallback nomination after the Bork fiasco, not Reagan's first choice.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Serious replies only!!
I do not want to offend anyone, so keep your rude comments to yourself. I just want to understand why someone would oppose gay marriage and such, so I figured this was the best way to go about it.
Why are gays hated in America?

I oppose gun rights for gays...

 

[Seawytch]

When they are allowed to marry the person that they want to- like my wife and I were- then they do have the same rights.

If they are not allowed to marry the person that they want to marry, then they no more have the same rights than those who were attracted to people of the opposite race.

I must have missed the "person you want to" clause in the laws.

No worries...the SCOTUS won't miss it. And it does have qualifiers...the bigots just haven't been able to assign them to gay unions.

See, in order to deny a fundamental right, you have to have an overriding societal harm to ascribe to it. The bigots can't.

Yeah, leftist judges never miss what they want to see, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth. I've noticed how convenient you lefties find that sort of thing.

See, in order to recognize a fundamental right, it first has to exist. And in the case of privileges, the burden of proof is actually on overriding societal GOOD in creating it. You can't show that. All you can do is scream, "It's bigotry to disagree with me! You're a bad person! Stop talking!"

So.....you think every judge who has ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional are all 'leftist judges'- even though a large percentage were appointed by Reagan, Bush or Bush?

Fascinating

Yeah, you halfwits always blather about "appointed by" like you think that makes some huge difference. Truth is, Republican Presidents tend to appoint more centrist judges than Democrat Presidents do to start with, and "leftward drift" is a well-documented phenomenon among lawyers in robes.

You have really got to learn to think independently and analytically, instead of desperately grabbing for labels and pigeonholes. It's the sign of a very lazy mind.

Speaking of lazy, you didn't explain how Turner v Safley meets with this statement of yours:

See, in order to recognize a fundamental right, it first has to exist. And in the case of privileges, the burden of proof is actually on overriding societal GOOD in creating it.

So, how does Turner v Safley square with the above statement?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?

There is a difference you know.