Question for anti-gay marriage people.

[Coldkilla]

First off: I'm not gay, never was, never will be, and I would totally freak the F**k out if I was hit on.

What right do you have to impose your beliefs on other people? If they don't bother you, whats the harm? Look if your worried for their "souls", or if you believe its wrong according to your religion, heres some news for you: There's over 36,000 religions in the world, what do you say to the other 35,999 that consist of those billions of people? Thats right, if they're going to tell in your view, fine, let it be. If they are gay and want to get married, fine, let yourself believe that they will go to your hell, just back off.

Hey if I said it's against my religion for ANYONE have red curtains, what right do I have to come into your house, rip them down, burn them, say your going to hell, and fine you for thousands of dollars that you would have to pay?

Marriage is a tradition. So why does it have to me everyone's tradition? You have no right to impede on the privacy of other people. Thats written in the constitution. If you don't approve of the constitution, you can geeeeeetttttttt out, go live in Cuba or Russia... or something.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
First off: I'm not gay, never was, never will be, and I would totally freak the F**k out if I was hit on.

Man, your post turns me on. Are you single?

What right do you have to impose your beliefs on other people? If they don't bother you, whats the harm? Look if your worried for their "souls", or if you believe its wrong according to your religion, heres some news for you: There's over 36,000 religions in the world, what do you say to the other 35,999 that consist of those billions of people? Thats right, if they're going to tell in your view, fine, let it be. If they are gay and want to get married, fine, let yourself believe that they will go to your hell, just back off.

Many religions require their followers to proselytize. You won't get followers not to vote for their beliefs by an appeal to pluralism, very much.

Hey if I said it's against my religion for ANYONE have red curtains, what right do I have to come into your house, rip them down, burn them, say your going to hell, and fine you for thousands of dollars that you would have to pay?

Marriage is a tradition. So why does it have to me everyone's tradition? You have no right to impede on the privacy of other people. Thats written in the constitution. If you don't approve of the constitution, you can geeeeeetttttttt out, go live in Cuba or Russia... or something.

That's more the angle - show how religion may not be the only guide to use for a civil law system, and then why the specific issue doens't fit well for the law.

The thing is, what you're fundamentally (no pun intended) running into is a basic misunderstanding of homosexuality by the fundamentalists. Until you fix that, it'll be hard to have progress with them. It's why you see many talk in the same breath about opposing rape and opposing homosexuality. You're asking them condone the behavior they see as a choice for wrongdoing. The harm? The fact they think the bible condemns it.

You can argue well against that, but it's hard to get through - there's a lot of inertia in favor of their view on the issue. How can they face the congregation with another view?

This is why civil rights struggles are so hard to win - even if you can go from mobs of whites protesting the admission of blacks to a college, to agreement, in a few short years.

 

[gururu2]

lets be honest about a few things. does the institution of marriage get any respect nowadays? we have a 40% divorce rate and countless marriages in which the vows are continuously broken. very few married individuals have the credibility to claim who is or who is not fit for marriage. especially now, that marriage is so far removed from the church. marriage amounts to no more than a business contract in the eyes of society, and on that behalf, I think gays should be allowed to wed hands down. i get pissed though when i hear the church taking flack from gays because they refuse to wed them. that is an absolute contradiction in terms. i am also against gay couples adopting children, and though i concede in supporting the rights of gays to marry, i do so half-heartedly knowing that a legitimate marriage unfortunately presents them as 'suitable' adoptive parents.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: gururu2
lets be honest about a few things. does the institution of marriage get any respect nowadays? we have a 40% divorce rate and countless marriages in which the vows are continuously broken. very few married individuals have the credibility to claim who is or who is not fit for marriage. especially now, that marriage is so far removed from the church. marriage amounts to no more than a business contract in the eyes of society, and on that behalf, I think gays should be allowed to wed hands down. i get pissed though when i hear the church taking flack from gays because they refuse to wed them. that is an absolute contradiction in terms. i am also against gay couples adopting children, and though i concede in supporting the rights of gays to marry, i do so half-heartedly knowing that a legitimate marriage unfortunately presents them as 'suitable' adoptive parents.

I pretty much never see gays give churches flack for gays refusing to wed them, but rather flack for churches opposing the law be changed to remove discrimination.

There is a case to be made that gay marriage is consistent with Christianity, so people (not just gays) are free to make that case to churches.

Why are you against gay couples adopting children?

On the level of principle, I'd point out that it's baseless discrimination that can only be attributed to bigotry - countless studies prove that children raised by gays do as well or better than children raised by heterosexuals (and that they are no more likely to be homosexual).

On a practical level (i.e., knowing you won't lose your bigotry soon), do you know the alternatives to gay couples for these children are usually pretty bad?

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I pretty much never see gays give churches flack for gays refusing to wed them, but rather flack for churches opposing the law be changed to remove discrimination.

There is a case to be made that gay marriage is consistent with Christianity, so people (not just gays) are free to make that case to churches.

Why are you against gay couples adopting children?

On the level of principle, I'd point out that it's baseless discrimination that can only be attributed to bigotry - countless studies prove that children raised by gays do as well or better than children raised by heterosexuals (and that they are no more likely to be homosexual).

On a practical level (i.e., knowing you won't lose your bigotry soon), do you know the alternatives to gay couples for these children are usually pretty bad?

i've studied the bible enough to know that sodomy is frowned down upon.
i've studied biology enough to know that there are natural, evolved conditions for raising the offspring of individual species.

i'm not a deeply religious man, but i'm not going to buy that any gay man carrying a bible is living by it.

as far as raising kids, does anything except the fact that 'it's not natural' matter?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
First off: I'm not gay, never was, never will be, and I would totally freak the F**k out if I was hit on.

What right do you have to impose your beliefs on other people? If they don't bother you, whats the harm? Look if your worried for their "souls", or if you believe its wrong according to your religion, heres some news for you: There's over 36,000 religions in the world, what do you say to the other 35,999 that consist of those billions of people? Thats right, if they're going to tell in your view, fine, let it be. If they are gay and want to get married, fine, let yourself believe that they will go to your hell, just back off.

Hey if I said it's against my religion for ANYONE have red curtains, what right do I have to come into your house, rip them down, burn them, say your going to hell, and fine you for thousands of dollars that you would have to pay?

Marriage is a tradition. So why does it have to me everyone's tradition? You have no right to impede on the privacy of other people. Thats written in the constitution. If you don't approve of the constitution, you can geeeeeetttttttt out, go live in Cuba or Russia... or something.

well #1 if homosexuality and the relationship between two men or two women are inconsequential why do you feel the need to preface your point with

First off: I'm not gay, never was, never will be, and I would totally freak the F**k out if I was hit on.

obviously by that statement alone you have show that it is something of importance in your mind.

You do care what other people think...even with the autonomy of the internet.

#2..for some it is about religion and their beliefs.

More importantly and by your statements you show your short sightedness....it is about business.

If gay marriage is recognized by government then business will be required to provide the same benefits as married couples.

The government will also be required to also offer the same benefits and considerations as a hereto sexual couple. And considering we are a democratic republic, people have the right and should have the right to vote on where they want their money to go.

Do I have a problem with same sex marriage?...not really as long as they don't slobber all over each other in public....I also feel the same way about heretosexual couples...I don't want so see a married man and woman swapping spit in the grocery store either.


But, having said that, I do not want my tax dollars providing benefits to homosexual benefits. It is my money and I have that right.

I have been living with my GF for 19 years...if gays have the same right as married couples then given the fact that we have been in a committed relationship for so long we should also receive some of the benefits that a married couple get as far as taxes etc. But we don't. Such is life and it ain't fair....we are not cry bitching about it because that is the choice we made.

You don't want me or other people to judge others for their beliefs and ideas regarding the acceptability of homosexual marriage?...don't be a hypocrite and judge me because I don't want to pay for it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: gururu2
lets be honest about a few things. does the institution of marriage get any respect nowadays? we have a 40% divorce rate and countless marriages in which the vows are continuously broken. very few married individuals have the credibility to claim who is or who is not fit for marriage. especially now, that marriage is so far removed from the church. marriage amounts to no more than a business contract in the eyes of society, and on that behalf, I think gays should be allowed to wed hands down. i get pissed though when i hear the church taking flack from gays because they refuse to wed them. that is an absolute contradiction in terms. i am also against gay couples adopting children, and though i concede in supporting the rights of gays to marry, i do so half-heartedly knowing that a legitimate marriage unfortunately presents them as 'suitable' adoptive parents.

I was adopted by lesbian mothers as an infant. I was raised well, I studied, did well in school, graduated from a well-rated liberal arts college, have a good job and am involved in a long-term (five years now) relationship with a woman I love. According to you, I should never have had the chance to be adopted into this loving family (who were together for 23 years, though never married because the law wouldn't allow it, until one of my mothers died from breast cancer). Who knows who I would have ended up with had my mothers not had the legal right to adopt? It may have been some perfectly qualified straight couple, it may have been a couple who divorced after two years, it may have simply been with my birth parents, who were too young to properly care for a child.

The point I'm trying to make here is that by coming out against gay couples being given the right to adopt, you are coming out against my entire upbringing. My mothers had to work their ass off to qualify as an adoptive family in the early 80s, and I wasn't legally adopted by one of my mothers until age 10 because the state wouldn't allow multiple people of the same sex to legally adopt someone simultaneously. They worked their ass off because they wanted children (well, a child anyway, one of my mothers had a son through a previous marriage), and they were damn good parents because of it, much better than most. I watched my friends' families crumble through divorces and single parent homes, and I thanked my lucky stars that I didn't have to go through that. And you think gays and lesbians are unfit to be parents?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Craig234
I pretty much never see gays give churches flack for gays refusing to wed them, but rather flack for churches opposing the law be changed to remove discrimination.

There is a case to be made that gay marriage is consistent with Christianity, so people (not just gays) are free to make that case to churches.

Why are you against gay couples adopting children?

On the level of principle, I'd point out that it's baseless discrimination that can only be attributed to bigotry - countless studies prove that children raised by gays do as well or better than children raised by heterosexuals (and that they are no more likely to be homosexual).

On a practical level (i.e., knowing you won't lose your bigotry soon), do you know the alternatives to gay couples for these children are usually pretty bad?

i've studied the bible enough to know that sodomy is frowned down upon.

But not enough to understand the context of Leviticus and other such passages, to understand the context in which sodomoy is 'frowned' upon.

There's no 11th commandment against homosexual sex, only against adultery. Jesus never condemned homosexuality specifically, as he did many sins; while He did refer to marriage as one man and woman, He also made clear the need for the spirit of the bible to be followed, such as the proscriptions against eating certain foods not lying in the foods - that He 'made all foods clean' with his words, in effect - and that there's certainly some room for understanding the meaning both in terms of how the small exception cases are often left out of general statements (there's a command to go forth and multiply, yet some are born infertile - are they sinners for not complying any more than those born gay?), and for the times (the Bible condones, even commands, some slavery, for example). Do you really want to follow the biblical rule that if a man rapes a woman, his punishment is to marry her with some silver paid to her family (she has no say)? If the spirit of the teaching were really against homosexual sex, you would see the things I mention are missing above, IMO. But read further on the arguments, they need more space.

i've studied biology enough to know that there are natural, evolved conditions for raising the offspring of individual species.

Your point?

i'm not a deeply religious man, but i'm not going to buy that any gay man carrying a bible is living by it.

You may not understand the bible enough.

as far as raising kids, does anything except the fact that 'it's not natural' matter?

Homosexuality *is* natural. It's existed for the duration of the human race, in all societies (however much covered up). Are albino people natural? Are redheads natural? Something existing as a natural condition among a minority of a species doesn't make it unnatural, and a very limited understanding of biology leading to assumptions that lack of procreation means it's 'unnatural' is not a proof. I return to the example of people born infertile for one analogy. And yes, countless species of animals, including mammals, have homosexuals.

So, why are you claiming gays are unfit to be parents, without any evidence of the harm whatsoever? You want to discriminate, to treat 5% of your fellow human beings as defective and legally second-class people denied the joy everyone else is offered of raising children, is it too much to ask for a reason to do so?




[/quote]

 

[BradAtWork]

Read your bible friend.

Chapter 4 Verse 2.

"And God said unto the israelites, I hate fags."

---

Your homophobic bigotry in this and other threads has won you a week elsewhere.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator

 

[BradAtWork]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Craig234
I pretty much never see gays give churches flack for gays refusing to wed them, but rather flack for churches opposing the law be changed to remove discrimination.

There is a case to be made that gay marriage is consistent with Christianity, so people (not just gays) are free to make that case to churches.

Why are you against gay couples adopting children?

On the level of principle, I'd point out that it's baseless discrimination that can only be attributed to bigotry - countless studies prove that children raised by gays do as well or better than children raised by heterosexuals (and that they are no more likely to be homosexual).

On a practical level (i.e., knowing you won't lose your bigotry soon), do you know the alternatives to gay couples for these children are usually pretty bad?

i've studied the bible enough to know that sodomy is frowned down upon.
i've studied biology enough to know that there are natural, evolved conditions for raising the offspring of individual species.

i'm not a deeply religious man, but i'm not going to buy that any gay man carrying a bible is living by it.
as far as raising kids, does anything except the fact that 'it's not natural' matter?

Hahahaha. No one carrying a bible is living by it!

Ya fruit loop.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Craig234
I pretty much never see gays give churches flack for gays refusing to wed them, but rather flack for churches opposing the law be changed to remove discrimination.

There is a case to be made that gay marriage is consistent with Christianity, so people (not just gays) are free to make that case to churches.

Why are you against gay couples adopting children?

On the level of principle, I'd point out that it's baseless discrimination that can only be attributed to bigotry - countless studies prove that children raised by gays do as well or better than children raised by heterosexuals (and that they are no more likely to be homosexual).

On a practical level (i.e., knowing you won't lose your bigotry soon), do you know the alternatives to gay couples for these children are usually pretty bad?

i've studied the bible enough to know that sodomy is frowned down upon.
i've studied biology enough to know that there are natural, evolved conditions for raising the offspring of individual species.

i'm not a deeply religious man, but i'm not going to buy that any gay man carrying a bible is living by it.

as far as raising kids, does anything except the fact that 'it's not natural' matter?

Homosexuality happens in nature, ergo, it is natural. It may not be usual, but that's not the same at all.

You know what isn't natural? Artifical limbs. Lots of animals become amputees for one reason or another (generally not on purpose). Only humans create artificial limbs to replace the missing ones. Generally, they're made of plastic and metal, completely inorganic material, highly unnatural. So, by your logic, amputees who wear artificial limbs shouldn't be allowed to adopt. After all, we don't want kids growing up with an unnatural idea of how the body works.

Or here's one. I think a strong belief in any one religious text is unnatural. You don't find it in nature. You won't run across a group of buffalo reciting the Quran. I think it's a sign of mental instability to leave your life in the hands of words written by men thousands of years ago who claimed they knew the son of God (or a prophet or a messiah). To me, it shows an inability to use logic and reason in your daily life, and doubles as a cop out excuse to never accept blame because your sins can be absolved. I don't want these people raising children.

Now, I'm being facetious in the above examples (I don't care if amputees or religious people raise children, provided they raise them in a way that teaches tolerance). But the point is using the excuse that homosexuality is "unnatural" is not only demonstrably false (many species in the animal kingdom can be observed engaging in these "unnatural" acts), it is a shoddy justification for deciding an entire class of people is unfit to be parents. Move beyond your bigotry and see it for what it is.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I'm not against gay/lesbian marriage, if they feel like it, who am I to stand in between.

It's the idea of children being raised by a gay/lesbian couple that makes me uncomfortable. I doubt that would be a healthy environment for a kid.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Read your bible friend.

Chapter 4 Verse 2.

"And God said unto the israelites, I hate fags."

That's only in the King George translation.

 

[BradAtWork]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Craig234
I pretty much never see gays give churches flack for gays refusing to wed them, but rather flack for churches opposing the law be changed to remove discrimination.

There is a case to be made that gay marriage is consistent with Christianity, so people (not just gays) are free to make that case to churches.

Why are you against gay couples adopting children?

On the level of principle, I'd point out that it's baseless discrimination that can only be attributed to bigotry - countless studies prove that children raised by gays do as well or better than children raised by heterosexuals (and that they are no more likely to be homosexual).

On a practical level (i.e., knowing you won't lose your bigotry soon), do you know the alternatives to gay couples for these children are usually pretty bad?

i've studied the bible enough to know that sodomy is frowned down upon.
i've studied biology enough to know that there are natural, evolved conditions for raising the offspring of individual species.

i'm not a deeply religious man, but i'm not going to buy that any gay man carrying a bible is living by it.

as far as raising kids, does anything except the fact that 'it's not natural' matter?

Homosexuality happens in nature, ergo, it is natural. It may not be usual, but that's not the same at all.

You know what isn't natural? Artifical limbs. Lots of animals become amputees for one reason or another (generally not on purpose). Only humans create artificial limbs to replace the missing ones. Generally, they're made of plastic and metal, completely inorganic material, highly unnatural. So, by your logic, amputees who wear artificial limbs shouldn't be allowed to adopt. After all, we don't want kids growing up with an unnatural idea of how the body works.

Or here's one. I think a strong belief in any one religious text is unnatural. You don't find it in nature. You won't run across a group of buffalo reciting the Quran. I think it's a sign of mental instability to leave your life in the hands of words written by men thousands of years ago who claimed they knew the son of God (or a prophet or a messiah). To me, it shows an inability to use logic and reason in your daily life, and doubles as a cop out excuse to never accept blame because your sins can be absolved. I don't want these people raising children.

Now, I'm being facetious in the above examples (I don't care if amputees or religious people raise children, provided they raise them in a way that teaches tolerance). But the point is using the excuse that homosexuality is "unnatural" is not only demonstrably false (many species in the animal kingdom can be observed engaging in these "unnatural" acts), it is a shoddy justification for deciding an entire class of people is unfit to be parents. Move beyond your bigotry and see it for what it is.

Oh Snap!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
I'm not against gay/lesbian marriage, if they feel like it, who am I to stand in between.

It's the idea of children being raised by a gay/lesbian couple that makes me uncomfortable. I doubt that would be a healthy environment for a kid.

Every credible study proves your doubt unfounded. Do you want to listen to facts?

 

[Coldkilla]

Well I don't care about other people and their heterosexual relationships so why the hell should I pay the government for that ether?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Well I don't care about other people and their heterosexual relationships so why the hell should I pay the government for that ether?

Huh?

I'm concerned about *you* having the right to raise children now🙂

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: gururu2

as far as raising kids, does anything except the fact that 'it's not natural' matter?

Yes. It matters if it has any detrimental effects on the kid whatsoever. None have been shown.

 

[Craig234]

By the way, Guru, the fact you are even asking the questions puts you well ahead of many who oppose gay marriage/gay adoption. If you listen to the responses, you're way ahead of many.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

I was adopted by lesbian mothers as an infant. ..... be parents?

i respect your upbringing and it sounds like you have had a terrific life. i also acknowledge the fact that many, many dysfunctional marriages exist between heterosexual partners, resulting in kids with severe physical or psychological problems. i won't begin to speculate on whether there is a larger percentage of heterosexual couples living healthier lifestyles than homosexual couples, because i don't know.

however, i am not here to twist truths or make an argument. i am simply saying its not natural. people will argue for days about how fit gay parents can be. but at the end of the day, biologically speaking the fact remains...its not natural.

as well, i am not going to cherry-pick verses from the bible in an attempt to argue that sodomy is unholy. understanding this only requires one to consider the strong religious front against gay unions. if you believe that these large religious institutions have interpreted the bible incorrectly, that is your right....but at the end of the day you still don't represent these institutions.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
I'm not against gay/lesbian marriage, if they feel like it, who am I to stand in between.

It's the idea of children being raised by a gay/lesbian couple that makes me uncomfortable. I doubt that would be a healthy environment for a kid.

Every credible study proves your doubt unfounded. Do you want to listen to facts?

No, he's absolutely right. I grew up with a slew of children raised by lesbians, and we're all totally fucked up. Naturally we're all gay, and we molest children and small animals because we don't know any better. Amidst our satanic practices involving ritual slayings and drinking the blood of virgins, we find time for a good scat orgy. Most of my friends shoot meth into their penises (even the women), and I know at least one mass murderer. Also, one of my oldest friends is a werewolf and voted for Pat Buchanan.

Arrrrr, scary lesbian-raised men-beasties abound!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Hey if I said it's against my religion for ANYONE have red curtains, what right do I have to come into your house, rip them down, burn them, say your going to hell, and fine you for thousands of dollars that you would have to pay?

Marriage is a tradition. So why does it have to me everyone's tradition? You have no right to impede on the privacy of other people. Thats written in the constitution. If you don't approve of the constitution, you can geeeeeetttttttt out, go live in Cuba or Russia... or something.

Marriage is not a house. It is, as you said a tradition. A tradition between a man and a woman. For it to possibly apply to gays means the tradition is being re-written to anew meaning. Second, there is nothing private about dealings with the state. It's the state's recognition of a marriage that defines it, not weather you're capable of living together privately in your house.

What right does the state have to force us to recognize their re-designed and shoved down our throats version of marriage?

Originally posted by: gururu2
lets be honest about a few things. does the institution of marriage get any respect nowadays?

Yes, we need to kick people when they're down. Finish them off for the good ol'KO.

 

[Vic]

Not to break up the fun here, but there are several mainstream churches that are accepting of gays and/or gay marriage.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Vic
Not to break up the fun here, but there are several mainstream churches that are accepting of gays and/or gay marriage.

as long as the vatican and the muslims forbid it....

 

[BradAtWork]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

I was adopted by lesbian mothers as an infant. ..... be parents?

i respect your upbringing and it sounds like you have had a terrific life. i also acknowledge the fact that many, many dysfunctional marriages exist between heterosexual partners, resulting in kids with severe physical or psychological problems. i won't begin to speculate on whether there is a larger percentage of heterosexual couples living healthier lifestyles than homosexual couples, because i don't know.

however, i am not here to twist truths or make an argument. i am simply saying its not natural. people will argue for days about how fit gay parents can be. but at the end of the day, biologically speaking the fact remains...its not natural.

as well, i am not going to cherry-pick verses from the bible in an attempt to argue that sodomy is unholy. understanding this only requires one to consider the strong religious front against gay unions. if you believe that these large religious institutions have interpreted the bible incorrectly, that is your right....but at the end of the day you still don't represent these institutions.

Infertile couples having IVF is unnatural. Why is that fine?

"A child should have a mother and a father" - What about the millions of single mothers raising children?