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

[|electric|foxy|]

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.

No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Didn't read this thread , I only oppose gay marriage, civil unions and all the rest don't care

I am not big on the law on this subject, but.don't civil unions grant you the same financial protections.If your significant other dies ?

 

[Freewill]

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 fully support the rights of all men, and women as outlined in this document:

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

I am not sure what "rights" you are talking about. Maybe if you could delineate the source of these "gay rights" a conversation could develop. You do realize that as soon as you say "gay rights" YOU have divided the country.

 

[Freewill]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

That only holds true if one equates gay marriage to traditional marriage. Just because you apparently do does not make it so.

 

[Seawytch]

Didn't read this thread , I only oppose gay marriage, civil unions and all the rest don't care

I am not big on the law on this subject, but.don't civil unions grant you the same financial protections.If your significant other dies ?

No. Civil unions are not even separate but equal (which is unconstitutional I might add) but it's separate and unequal.

Now, if you want to make it "civil unions for all", I'm onboard...but I think it's a little late for that.

 

[Seawytch]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

That only holds true if one equates gay marriage to traditional marriage. Just because you apparently do does not make it so.

You do realize that it IS "so" in 37 states, right?

 

[Freewill]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

That only holds true if one equates gay marriage to traditional marriage. Just because you apparently do does not make it so.

You do realize that it IS "so" in 37 states, right?

how many of those states have laws stating as much?

People in PA are now getting married, not because it was made legal but because the law that defined marriage as it always was defined was overruled by one judge. So although it may no be legal by an act of the legislature it was made so by a judge's ruling. I am thinking that is the case in the other 37 states or most of them. Funny thing is it appears that those states that tried to define marriage are the ones where it is not legal, those who did nothing it remains illegal.

 

[Seawytch]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

That only holds true if one equates gay marriage to traditional marriage. Just because you apparently do does not make it so.

You do realize that it IS "so" in 37 states, right?

how many of those states have laws stating as much?

How many states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage?

People in PA are now getting married, not because it was made legal but because the law that defined marriage as it always was defined was overruled by one judge. So although it may no be legal by an act of the legislature it was made so by a judge's ruling. I am thinking that is the case in the other 37 states or most of them. Funny thing is it appears that those states that tried to define marriage are the ones where it is not legal, those who did nothing it remains illegal.

We are a desegregated society because of judges. Tradition was an argument used to keep it in place. Tradition fails as a legal argument.

 

[Freewill]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

That only holds true if one equates gay marriage to traditional marriage. Just because you apparently do does not make it so.

You do realize that it IS "so" in 37 states, right?

how many of those states have laws stating as much?

How many states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage?

People in PA are now getting married, not because it was made legal but because the law that defined marriage as it always was defined was overruled by one judge. So although it may no be legal by an act of the legislature it was made so by a judge's ruling. I am thinking that is the case in the other 37 states or most of them. Funny thing is it appears that those states that tried to define marriage are the ones where it is not legal, those who did nothing it remains illegal.

We are a desegregated society because of judges. Tradition was an argument used to keep it in place. Tradition fails as a legal argument.

Once again, interracial and gay marriage are not close to the same thing. How many states had laws making gay marriage illegal? I would say very few but they did try to pass laws defining marriage when the traditional defintion was being changed by the left.

We are desegregated because of laws passed or amended mostly on the federal level.

 

[Seawytch]

Equal protection of the laws.

That only holds true if one equates gay marriage to traditional marriage. Just because you apparently do does not make it so.

You do realize that it IS "so" in 37 states, right?

how many of those states have laws stating as much?

How many states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage?

People in PA are now getting married, not because it was made legal but because the law that defined marriage as it always was defined was overruled by one judge. So although it may no be legal by an act of the legislature it was made so by a judge's ruling. I am thinking that is the case in the other 37 states or most of them. Funny thing is it appears that those states that tried to define marriage are the ones where it is not legal, those who did nothing it remains illegal.

We are a desegregated society because of judges. Tradition was an argument used to keep it in place. Tradition fails as a legal argument.

Once again, interracial and gay marriage are not close to the same thing. How many states had laws making gay marriage illegal? I would say very few but they did try to pass laws defining marriage when the traditional defintion was being changed by the left.

We are desegregated because of laws passed or amended mostly on the federal level.

While race and sexual orientation are not the same, the discrimination faced by both groups is...oh, and the bigots are the same. Discrimination based on animus is still discrimination based on animus.

This is why you lose in court, because using a reasonable person standard you cannot come up with a societal harm in allowing it. Marriage is a fundamental right and so in order to deny it, you've got to come up with a good reason. You can't.

 

[Freewill]

That only holds true if one equates gay marriage to traditional marriage. Just because you apparently do does not make it so.

You do realize that it IS "so" in 37 states, right?

how many of those states have laws stating as much?

How many states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage?

People in PA are now getting married, not because it was made legal but because the law that defined marriage as it always was defined was overruled by one judge. So although it may no be legal by an act of the legislature it was made so by a judge's ruling. I am thinking that is the case in the other 37 states or most of them. Funny thing is it appears that those states that tried to define marriage are the ones where it is not legal, those who did nothing it remains illegal.

We are a desegregated society because of judges. Tradition was an argument used to keep it in place. Tradition fails as a legal argument.

Once again, interracial and gay marriage are not close to the same thing. How many states had laws making gay marriage illegal? I would say very few but they did try to pass laws defining marriage when the traditional defintion was being changed by the left.

We are desegregated because of laws passed or amended mostly on the federal level.

While race and sexual orientation are not the same, the discrimination faced by both groups is...oh, and the bigots are the same. Discrimination based on animus is still discrimination based on animus.

This is why you lose in court, because using a reasonable person standard you cannot come up with a societal harm in allowing it. Marriage is a fundamental right and so in order to deny it, you've got to come up with a good reason. You can't.

Marriage is only a right in that it can not be indiscriminately refused. But there are limitations to who can marry so it can't be a right for all or at all. Now I read where three people wish to marry, all of the same gender, is that too their right? Are Mormons, who believe in bigomy, being denied their rights?

Personally you folks have won, I don't give a crap anymore it is just more indication of the death spiral the country is in. I just engage in the argument because the winning side is just so damn disingenuous.

 

[Redfish]

there is no bet until both parties agree on all the terms and the meanings of all the words. The bet was not on how SCOTUS would rule, the bet was on whether your Ca marriage would become legal in all 50 states.

You then tried to change and terms and breached the contract. But I understand, its what libs do every day.

My wording has been the same from the beginning, Chickenfish and yes, my wording is that the SCOTUS is going to make my legal marriage legal and recognized in all 50 states. No nullification loopholes. You weren't careful and now you're weasleling. It's okay Chickenfish, I win either way.

No, you were and are a loser regardless of your failed attempt to lure me into a word game bet.

If you want to bet on how SC will rule, thats one thing, if you want to bet on whether gay marriage will be sanctioned by all 50 states, that is a completely different bet.

On the first I will not bet because SCOTUS has made many strange rulings recently. On the second I will bet, but you won't.

So lets move on to something important, like the fact that our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt and getting deeper every hour.

There was never a "word game", Chickenfish. I was clear from the start. I said that when the SCOTUS rules, my civil marriage will be legally recognized in all 50 states. Alabama illegally ignoring Federal law in a Wallace way does not create a loophole for you.

geez, grow up. You tried to play games and you got caught. I am simply smarter than you.

the bet was never about how the SC would rule, it was whether your Ca marriage would be considered legal in all 50 states. That is a state by state decision, not the feds.

You're the one throwing a temper tantrum because I didn't let you cheat. The words I used never changed, Chickenfish. Run along, your avatar is safe, poor dear.

Bullshit, you tried to set up a gotcha word game bet and I saw through it. Now you run along, you arrogant bitch.

 

[Redfish]

You do realize that it IS "so" in 37 states, right?

how many of those states have laws stating as much?

How many states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage?

People in PA are now getting married, not because it was made legal but because the law that defined marriage as it always was defined was overruled by one judge. So although it may no be legal by an act of the legislature it was made so by a judge's ruling. I am thinking that is the case in the other 37 states or most of them. Funny thing is it appears that those states that tried to define marriage are the ones where it is not legal, those who did nothing it remains illegal.

We are a desegregated society because of judges. Tradition was an argument used to keep it in place. Tradition fails as a legal argument.

Once again, interracial and gay marriage are not close to the same thing. How many states had laws making gay marriage illegal? I would say very few but they did try to pass laws defining marriage when the traditional defintion was being changed by the left.

We are desegregated because of laws passed or amended mostly on the federal level.

While race and sexual orientation are not the same, the discrimination faced by both groups is...oh, and the bigots are the same. Discrimination based on animus is still discrimination based on animus.

This is why you lose in court, because using a reasonable person standard you cannot come up with a societal harm in allowing it. Marriage is a fundamental right and so in order to deny it, you've got to come up with a good reason. You can't.

Marriage is only a right in that it can not be indiscriminately refused. But there are limitations to who can marry so it can't be a right for all or at all. Now I read where three people wish to marry, all of the same gender, is that too their right? Are Mormons, who believe in bigomy, being denied their rights?

Personally you folks have won, I don't give a crap anymore it is just more indication of the death spiral the country is in. I just engage in the argument because the winning side is just so damn disingenuous.

well said

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Define "gay rights"....Are these some sort of special rights created for a certain segment of society?

 

[Redfish]

RUBE: I demand government cash and prizes for being married!

GAY: I would like the exact same thing, please.

RUBE: You are demanding special rights! Those government cash and prizes need to be just for ME!

nice try, but irrelevant.

the issue is whether our society as a whole believes that homosexuality is a normal human condition. THAT is the issue, and society is divided roughly 60/40 against.

"The issue is whether our society as a whole believes the negro is subhuman."

Same bullshit, different decade.

not the same at all. at that time the law discriminated against blacks. there is no discrimination against gays in the laws of 2015.

Is gay marriage really the major issue of our times? WTF is going on?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm opposed to special rights for any group. Currently gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Nope. Married gays cannot collect all the same government cash and prizes protected by law for married straights.

That's bull .Then what would be the point of getting married?
I think you are wrong. Marriage is marriage.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

Those aren't "rights".....That's legislation

 

[thereisnospoon]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment takes care of that.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So...in your mind people who have decided to engage in intimate conduct with people of their own gender are deserving of their own special set of "rights"?
Quite frankly I think everyone should be treated the same. However, such is not the case.
For example, if a gay person is attacked by a non white, hate crimes laws are never applied. If the attacker is a Caucasian, hate crimes are usually attached.
If the gay person yes "STRAIGHT BASTARD!!! and then sinks a knife into a Caucasian person, it is doubtful if hate crimes charges would be applied.
If a gay couple is denied housing by some bible thumping redneck, the lawsuits will fly...If a gay landlord is caught excluding all others accept gays, the word attached is "progress"..
So you see, these people are demanding "special" rights.
They want to be treated "equally different"...or "more equal"

 

[thereisnospoon]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

Gays have all the protections straight people do. Please cite a law that does not protect a gay person.

Social Security survivor benefits, as established by law.

That was easy!

Prove it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

Ok, so gays don't have equal protection under the law? How so?

Married gays are not given the same government cash and prizes protected by law for married straight people.

Did I not already says this?


Yes. Yes, I did say this already.

Where?

Page one