How does gay marriage hurt you ?

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: espressoman

Originally posted by: TravisT

You may believe that homosexuality is part of someone when they are born. It has yet to be proven and I don't believe it that way. Am I going to tell you that it is always someone's choice that they will be gay? No. But I have heard numerous gay people say that they were raised by a single parent, molested, or raped as a young child. This also does not mean that everyone who is gay has encountered one of those three things. It may not be a full choice, but God does not make mistakes.

That is why race and sexual preference can not be compared. We all know you are either born black, we also have statistics out there showing that childhood encounters affect the way people interact and feel later in life as well.

Without understanding the subject, you should not be allowed to make a decision.

This is a very poor arguement. You say that we should deny gay marriages because people choose to be gay, while we can accept interracial marriages because no one chooses to be green.

You ignored my statement:

These characteristics (race, gender, sexuality, disability) are a part of our human subsistence that cannot be easily ignored or tossed aside as something seemingly insignificant. Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. If you truly believe that sexuality (not to be confused with sex) is private and that you never illustrate your sexuality in your everyday life, you should take your blinders off. It's a part of all of us and whether you agrees with its homosexuality's normalcy

So, by your judgement, because you've never been in space, and can't see the world, you can assume that the world is flat? That the earth is at the center of the universe, and the sun rotates around it?

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

By your judgement, because you've never "seen" a God... is there one?

This statement gets me too:

"But I have heard numerous gay people say that they were raised by a single parent, molested, or raped as a young child. It may not be a full choice, but God does not make mistakes. "

Who are you to argue that God made us? What about the people that don't believe that way? If there is a God, he's made plenty of mistakes (and if you read the Bible it says women were a mistake!).

All I am trying to do is remove you from your un-objective, closed minded way of thought. You'll find that life is much better when you can see the things around you instead of what is just in front of you.

I'll leave it at this, God does not make mistakes, it is blatant that God does not like homosexuality and never created us as one.

Just because I have never seen a million dollars does not mean that it does not exist.
Just because I have not been to space does not mean that I must assume it is flat.
Just because I am not gay, does not mean I must assume they were born that way.

Your argument is apples and oranges at best.

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I'm curious if all the people in here who are so 'tolerant' of gays, and supportive of Gay Marriage, support the banning of the 10 commandments from courthouses? After all, how do they HURT you?

I would expect an answer along the lines of "because ignorant bigoted Evangelicals are trying to force their religion down my throat and anyways church and state have to be seperated." if you even get an response.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Snagle
I am opposed to denying gays the same rights as heterosexuals have.

I (seriously) would LOVE to hear some rational arguments for why gay marriages should not be allowed. And by rational I dont mean

1. In the bible it says....
2. Well if we let gays get married, next people will want to marry there dog!
3. It's not natural!
4. It's not for reproduction!

etc etc

anyone, please?

Financial reasons.

(It's too tiresome to type guys/women etc. So I'll just use the male gender)

Example. One gay person at work, with a gay spouse stay-at-home (non-working) partner.

If treated the exact same way as married hetero couples this would mean:

1. Non working gay partner will recieve Social Security retirements benefits paid for by taxpayers. Why should we pay for for this guys non working boyfriend to hang out and do nothing. SS is gonna go broke as it is now. You wanna have a non-working boyfriend. Fine, go ahead. I'm unaware of anything stopping them. Just don't ask the rest of us to pick up the tab.

2. Complete exemption from estate taxes. Spousal transfers are exempt. Why should they be allowed this tax break. Does a father not love his son as much as a gay man loves his partner? Is it only sex that should be used for the tax exemption? Her again taxpayers bear the cost for someone elses lifestyle choices. I beleive we are guaranteed many lifestyle choices (unless of course you wanna get high, why is that illegal in my own home?). But there's no "right" to have society financially support your choice.

3. Health care benefits. If you wanna buy it for your partner nothing is stopping you. Employers w/b forced to pay for your live-at-home boyfriend. All at a public cost via increased product prices (no free lunches). Geez, we have many children who are not covered. Before we paid for someones boyfriend, I'd prefer poor children be covered.

AFAIK, nothing is stopping anyone from expressing their love, having sex, making a comitment to or living with another gay person. IIRC this was settled by the SC some time ago, perhaps via a Texas case.

Should you have rights to see your partner in the hospital etc. IMO, sure. Gay marriage isn't the only solution to this problem. This could be done through legislation and I doubt there w/b a outcry against it. Who cares who gets to see their ill "friend".

Should a partner have the right to continue a residential lease? Sure. Here again Gay mariage isn't the only solution. See above.

In general, I find that the things gays complain about bear little relationship to the neccessity of marriage.

You can't legislate acceptance, or people w/b prohibited from bashing Southerners, religeous fundamentals etc. And we shouldn't legislate financial support of other's lifestlyes'.

Yeah, it's done for hetero's cuz the government/society knows/assumes that hetero's will likely make little taxpayers that grow up to be big taxpayers.

Yeah, I'm a libertarian. I don't like laws that try to make me accept or support others belief. There's already waay too much of that now. And it won't be cured or remedied by making more of such laws.

 

[espressoman]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I'm curious if all the people in here who are so 'tolerant' of gays, and supportive of Gay Marriage, support the banning of the 10 commandments from courthouses? After all, how do they HURT you?

Because by putting the 10 commandments in a Government or State courthouse, you are saying that the Goverment is promoting religion. The country is not governed by one unified religion. The United States is a melting pot of everyting... from Atheists to Zionists. What is good for one person, may not necessarily be good for another. Even though you may not "morally" agree with one's sexuality... it is a part of our human subsistence that cannot be easily ignored or tossed aside as something seemingly insignificant.

 

[espressoman]

Originally posted by: TravisT

I'll leave it at this, God does not make mistakes, it is blatant that God does not like homosexuality and never created us as one.

Just because I have never seen a million dollars does not mean that it does not exist.
Just because I have not been to space does not mean that I must assume it is flat.
Just because I am not gay, does not mean I must assume they were born that way.

Your argument is apples and oranges at best.

How does God not like homosexuality? Hah... if you read the bible it's full of it... in fact, it's even been encouraged. And who is to say your Christian God is right? What about Allah, or Buhda, or Zeus?

 

[piasabird]

No such thing as Gay Marriage!

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: espressoman

Originally posted by: TravisT

I'll leave it at this, God does not make mistakes, it is blatant that God does not like homosexuality and never created us as one.

Just because I have never seen a million dollars does not mean that it does not exist.
Just because I have not been to space does not mean that I must assume it is flat.
Just because I am not gay, does not mean I must assume they were born that way.

Your argument is apples and oranges at best.

How does God not like homosexuality? Hah... if you read the bible it's full of it... in fact, it's even been encouraged. And who is to say your Christian God is right? What about Allah, or Buhda, or Zeus?

That is why this is democracy. Sounds like someone is still sore about getting his point of view thrown in the toilet. No one shoved anything down your throat. You feel it is okay, I and many people around the United States feel it is wrong. Unfortunately for you, you stand corrected on whether it should be legal or not.


Also, I'm aware of what the bible says. Where does God say he favors homosexuality? I sure would be interested in reading it.

 

[espressoman]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Snagle
I am opposed to denying gays the same rights as heterosexuals have.

I (seriously) would LOVE to hear some rational arguments for why gay marriages should not be allowed. And by rational I dont mean

1. In the bible it says....
2. Well if we let gays get married, next people will want to marry there dog!
3. It's not natural!
4. It's not for reproduction!

etc etc

anyone, please?

Financial reasons.

(It's too tiresome to type guys/women etc. So I'll just use the male gender)

Example. One gay person at work, with a gay spouse stay-at-home (non-working) partner.

If treated the exact same way as married hetero couples this would mean:

1. Non working gay partner will recieve Social Security retirements benefits paid for by taxpayers. Why should we pay for for this guys non working boyfriend to hang out and do nothing. SS is gonna go broke as it is now. You wanna have a non-working boyfriend. Fine, go ahead. I'm unaware of anything stopping them. Just don't ask the rest of us to pick up the tab.

2. Complete exemption from estate taxes. Spousal transfers are exempt. Why should they be allowed this tax break. Does a father not love his son as much as a gay man loves his partner? Is it only sex that should be used for the tax exemption? Her again taxpayers bear the cost for someone elses lifestyle choices. I beleive we are guaranteed many lifestyle choices (unless of course you wanna get high, why is that illegal in my own home?). But there's no "right" to have society financially support your choice.

3. Health care benefits. If you wanna buy it for your partner nothing is stopping you. Employers w/b forced to pay for your live-at-home boyfriend. All at a public cost via increased product prices (no free lunches). Geez, we have many children who are not covered. Before we paid for someones boyfriend, I'd prefer poor children be covered.

AFAIK, nothing is stopping anyone from expressing their love, having sex, making a comitment to or living with another gay person. IIRC this was settled by the SC some time ago, perhaps via a Texas case.

Should you have rights to see your partner in the hospital etc. IMO, sure. Gay marriage isn't the only solution to this problem. This could be done through legislation and I doubt there w/b a outcry against it. Who cares who gets to see their ill "friend".

Should a partner have the right to continue a residential lease? Sure. Here again Gay mariage isn't the only solution. See above.

In general, I find that the things gays complain about bear little relationship to the neccessity of marriage.

You can't legislate acceptance, or people w/b prohibited from bashing Southerners, religeous fundamentals etc. And we shouldn't legislate financial support of other's lifestlyes'.

Yeah, it's done for hetero's cuz the government/society knows/assumes that hetero's will likely make little taxpayers that grow up to be big taxpayers.

Yeah, I'm a libertarian. I don't like laws that try to make me accept or support others belief. There's already waay too much of that now. And it won't be cured or remedied by making more of such laws.

What if it's too really really hot chicks ?

You libertarian's are all a bunch of silly anarchists. You don't believe in anything!

It's not just about acceptance... it's about simple rights. Gays, Blacks, Jews, Zany Libertarians, Wack-o Christians, all should have the same rights....

 

[sdgserv]

We create laws to help victims. Where and who is the victim in a gay marriage?

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: sdgfish
We create laws to help victims. Where and who is the victim in a gay marriage?

The same logic could be used for drug addicts. They sure don't feel like the victims of the drugs in their cases either.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Also, I'm aware of what the bible says. Where does God say he favors homosexuality? I sure would be interested in reading it.

Matthew 13:5
"And God said, Moses you will blow every man in town, for it is the way of the Lord, and in the kingdom of seed, you shall find your reward, as in my heart."

 

[13rian]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Homosexuality is like a virus. It's very existence is a threat that could harm our country if unchecked.

That's similar to how my old roommate thought when I was living with him (in the case of those who are unreasonably quick to descredit homosexuals, we're both heterosexual). IF I look at it that way, essentially it's just a disability that hardly benefits them (but in reality it's simply who they are), where they are unable to have children other than possibilities such as donating sperm. I don't see how this would be dissimilar to heterosexual couples not having the ability to have children.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the source of homosexuality come from both genetic and exterior experiences, although doesn't necessarily need to be both.

I'm not sure what the difference of some people's views are towards this issue as racial integration in schools were a few decades ago. If that is the way they see it without further reasoning, I don't see how they can really be taken seriously.

Also, I think gay marriages would effect the economy through benefits and such; I just don't know by how much...But should this issue really be based economicly? When everyone knows it's on the subject of human rights, how can money be incorporated into the discussion at all? This is why I can respect Bush's decision on stem cell research even though I don't necessarily agree with it. It's a moral issue rather than economical, at least officially, that juggles potential lives with potential research that could save lives.

Gay marriage is really a case of clashing constitutional rights. There's freedom of expression, which applies for both viewpoints, but for a legal ban on gay marriages, there's a confrontation of religious and legal human rights. Just the other day, my professor broke it down that governments and laws are ultimately created and influenced by religion. Through his logic, the intent of religion is generally for the good of the society. The question for this case is if THIS is. I don't think these decisions can be made by those who don't fully understand the opposing parties situation. All outlets of viewpoints need to be seen and I don't see this happening on those who advocate marriage "sanctity," which, in itself denotes a religious aspect, but predominantly of reference to only one. In a pluralistic society, there cannot be one dominant group whose beliefs are more important merely of the fact that it does not follow along their religious doctrine (and especially not for economic reasons). Bush, unfortunately, does not really see this issue with room to debate and therefore completely lose respect for him on this issue.

BTW: There are different ways to get married. Many are through the church, which I think many people are confused that it's the only way. There is also another legal way, which is directly through the government in a city hall that doesn't need flowers and a wedding gown. This dissociates between the two very distinct ways, but Bush is trying to unify (message to Bush: this isn't the unification many of us wanted) only one type.

 

[sdgserv]

The same logic could be used for drug addicts. They sure don't feel like the victims of the drugs in their cases either.

-------------------------
-Travis
Vote like a terrorist, vote for Kerry!


What are you smoking?????????????? Look at your sig... The man u voted for was a drug addict.

When was the last time a gay couple hurt you? or anybody u know?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: polm
I can respect the will of the majority, but NOT when it comes at a cost of civil rights to the minority.

Please, explain to me how gay marriage rights infringe on the rights of others ?

Because if it doesnt, and I firmly beleive this to be true, then there is absolutely no difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on inter-racial marriage.

For those of you opposed to gay marriage, are you opposed to inter-racial marriage ?

Science will eventually put an end to this bigotry.

Just be patient, most people have irrational fear of something they don't understand.

well said :beer:

Sok cause regardless of what you homosexual ACLU types the People have voted and SPoken! We don't want it. By a 2:1 and 3:1 margins in some as well the country is growing more not less conservative. The Republicans gains seats in the Senate the House retained the Whitehouse. We are going to appoint conservative judges (although I doubt Roe VS. Wade will be overturned. Or if they really want it overturned) that will put the fear of Bible thumpper in NeoLiberals everywhere! 😀😀😀

The bigotry crap is getting old. You all are biggoted toward Christians so are you any better NO. STFU and open your eyes to what happened on Nov 2nd.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: polm
I can respect the will of the majority, but NOT when it comes at a cost of civil rights to the minority.

Please, explain to me how gay marriage rights infringe on the rights of others ?

Because if it doesnt, and I firmly beleive this to be true, then there is absolutely no difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on inter-racial marriage.

For those of you opposed to gay marriage, are you opposed to inter-racial marriage ?

Science will eventually put an end to this bigotry.

Just be patient, most people have irrational fear of something they don't understand.

well said :beer:

Sok cause regardless of what you homosexual ACLU types the People have voted and SPoken! We don't want it. By a 2:1 and 3:1 margins in some as well the country is growing more not less conservative. The Republicans gains seats in the Senate the House retained the Whitehouse. We are going to appoint conservative judges (although I doubt Roe VS. Wade will be overturned. Or if they really want it overturned) that will put the fear of Bible thumpper in NeoLiberals everywhere! 😀😀😀

The bigotry crap is getting old. You all are biggoted toward Christians so are you any better NO. STFU and open your eyes to what happened on Nov 2nd.

Also Our Mayor is taking our Money and paying for insurance for gays. Money that definately needs to go to our underpaid police officers.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: polm
I can respect the will of the majority, but NOT when it comes at a cost of civil rights to the minority.

Please, explain to me how gay marriage rights infringe on the rights of others ?

Because if it doesnt, and I firmly beleive this to be true, then there is absolutely no difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on inter-racial marriage.

For those of you opposed to gay marriage, are you opposed to inter-racial marriage ?

Science will eventually put an end to this bigotry.

Just be patient, most people have irrational fear of something they don't understand.

well said :beer:

Sok cause regardless of what you homosexual ACLU types the People have voted and SPoken! We don't want it. By a 2:1 and 3:1 margins in some as well the country is growing more not less conservative. The Republicans gains seats in the Senate the House retained the Whitehouse. We are going to appoint conservative judges (although I doubt Roe VS. Wade will be overturned. Or if they really want it overturned) that will put the fear of Bible thumpper in NeoLiberals everywhere! 😀😀😀

The bigotry crap is getting old. You all are biggoted toward Christians so are you any better NO. STFU and open your eyes to what happened on Nov 2nd.

Just bigoted against the Evanwhacko Fund A Mental Cases who insist on pushing their archaic mythical beliefs on others.

 

[assemblage]

"Just bigoted against the Evanwhacko Fund A Mental Cases who insist on pushing their archaic mythical beliefs on others."The same can be said about homosexuals pushing their belief's. Are you saying that it's ok for you to be a bigot?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: assemblage
"Just bigoted against the Evanwhacko Fund A Mental Cases who insist on pushing their archaic mythical beliefs on others."The same can be said about homosexuals pushing their belief's. Are you saying that it's ok for you to be a bigot?

Yes as long as I am bigoted against bigots like you.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Now, please enlighten me as to how a ban on Gay Marriage will help deal with STD's among gay males ?

Do you truly not believe that Gay Marraige is promoting homosexual behaviour?

Wouldn't encouraging the gay community to stay with one parter help to slow these diseases spread rates?

If they can't stay monogamous now, what makes you believe they will be able to instantly become monogamous once married? The rampant adultery among homosexual couples would be further destructive to the state of marraige.

Being monogamous shouldn't require encouragement in the first place. Perhaps homosexuals should question their commitments to each other before demanding that they get married.

ahh yes, I forgot that Heterosexuals were so good at that whole monogamy thing.

W'ere certainly much better at it.

Even assuming your assertion here is true, we're talking about a monogamous relationship here (marriage) so your data is completely pointless.

No, we are talking about what is supposed to be a monogamous relationship. Big difference.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I'm curious if all the people in here who are so 'tolerant' of gays, and supportive of Gay Marriage, support the banning of the 10 commandments from courthouses? After all, how do they HURT you?

poor analogy. The 10 commandments are not people. The 10 commandments are not being denied anything.

You may be denied the right to have them displayed in a house of justice, but that in no way denies you from life liberty or the prsuit of happiness.

A Ban on Gay Marriage is in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM similiar to a Ban on the 10 Commandments being displayed in a Courthouse.

You have to stop looking at this like it's the "saved" vs. the "sinners" . It's not . You are not our path to salvation.

 

[13rian]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: assemblage
"There is absolutely no evidence that gay marriage leads to a negative impact on society." It's not difficult to find studies discussing the negative impact of homosexuality.

please enlighten me with some data from these studies.

STD transmission and sexual abuse are more prominent among homosexual relationships, for example.

please show me those statistics, because as far as I can tell STDs are a problem that arrives from UNPROTECTED SEX.

Shall we impose a constitutional ammendment to ban unsafe sex ?

Text
80% of AIDS patients are found in the 2-3% of homosexuals in this country.

Text
Male Homosexuals commit a disproportionate number of child sex abuse cases.

good job on your sources. About FRC: "Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society." I can't check the other source b/c it's predominantly in another language, but the 2nd source descredits this post pretty good.

 

[raildogg]

it doesnt hurt me much, but it hurts society as a whole. its just plain immoral, not the way marriage was meant to be

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 13rian

good job on your sources. About FRC: "Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society." I can't check the other source b/c it's predominantly in another language, but the 2nd source descredits this post pretty good.

It must be an Evangelical Christian site as it even blasts the Catholic Church.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: raildogg
it doesnt hurt me much, but it hurts society as a whole. its just plain immoral, not the way marriage was meant to be

i say we go back to the way marriage is supposed to be: fathers selling their daughters to the richest suitors.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: polm
I can respect the will of the majority, but NOT when it comes at a cost of civil rights to the minority.

Please, explain to me how gay marriage rights infringe on the rights of others ?

Because if it doesnt, and I firmly beleive this to be true, then there is absolutely no difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on inter-racial marriage.

For those of you opposed to gay marriage, are you opposed to inter-racial marriage ?

I'm coming in late, but I'm going to post what I've already posted on another thread:

Would someone please show me what right is taken away? In my VERY VERY Democrat and liberal state of Maryland, one requires a license to get married, just like you need one to drive. It has always been my understanding that anything which required a license was a PRIVILEDGE which you might or might NOT be given based on qualifications set by the state you are in... or the federal government for some licenses.

Marriage is a priviledge in most states, not a right. For instance, if I'm already married, I do NOT qualify to marry again; I can only be married to one person at a time. What if I want to have 3 wives? TOO BAD, that is neither my right NOR my priviledge because one of the qualifications for marriage is that you are not already married. An Arabian Sultan might feel that was unfair to him that we would only recognize his first wife if he moved here, but those are our laws and those are the breaks.

We don't have a Bill of Priviledges in the Constitution, we have a Bill of Rights and marriage isn't listed. Since it isn't listed, the 10th Amendment says that the power to decide goes to the states. All of this is legal, constitutional and in order.

But I have a question for all the people saying that someone's rights are being taken away... do you believe that society has NO RIGHT to decide its own environment? There are laws in most places that keep porn shops and strip joints out of neighborhoods. Does that mean that the people that passed those laws hate people or simply that they think those things are wrong and don't want their children exposed to it? You guys act like people have no right to govern their own communities or to shape the society in which they live. Actually, that's not true... you DO believe in those things, but only if they conform to what you think is right. If they conform to another viewpoint, then those people are bigots and intolerant; if they conform to yours then they are enlighted. Quite a double standard there and quite an exhibition of being blind to one's own shortcomings.

Joe