What are people saying when trying to justify laws against gay marriage?

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
It also has to do with the fact that it would be much easier to abuse financially. There are far more same-sex people who share living quarters, and whats to stop them from getting a marriage for a few years to save some taxes, and then getting a divorce when they move out?

This is nothing more than an assumption. People use this argument with welfare all the time - saying that women will abuse the system by having more babies. There are abusers of every system - that's not going to change. The vast majority are getting help - The number of people who benefit greatly outnumbers those who abuse the system.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A lot of those Morons believe that Marriage is a religious institution. Their argument is sh!t because there are Religions that allow same sex marriages.

They believe that marriage is a *Christian* information. I guess we should keep in mind that these people live, breathe, eat, and sleep Christianity. To them, those Biblical characters like Abraham, Job, etc etc, are like celebrities that normal people read about in tabloids and see naked pictures of on the internet.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
It also has to do with the fact that it would be much easier to abuse financially. There are far more same-sex people who share living quarters, and whats to stop them from getting a marriage for a few years to save some taxes, and then getting a divorce when they move out?

I've never heard of a male and female roommate getting married for tax reasons. You just don't do that. Two men getting married for taxes would be even less likely because of social taboo. I sure as hell am not going to marry a man because I'm not gay!

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: bignateyk
It also has to do with the fact that it would be much easier to abuse financially. There are far more same-sex people who share living quarters, and whats to stop them from getting a marriage for a few years to save some taxes, and then getting a divorce when they move out?

I've never heard of a male and female roommate getting married for tax reasons. You just don't do that. Two men getting married for taxes would be even less likely because of social taboo. I sure as hell am not going to marry a man because I'm not gay!

Its only seems taboo because people see being gay as taboo, which is changing very fast. In a few years, especially if gay marriage is legalized, it wont be taboo at all anymore.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: bignateyk
It also has to do with the fact that it would be much easier to abuse financially. There are far more same-sex people who share living quarters, and whats to stop them from getting a marriage for a few years to save some taxes, and then getting a divorce when they move out?

I've never heard of a male and female roommate getting married for tax reasons. You just don't do that. Two men getting married for taxes would be even less likely because of social taboo. I sure as hell am not going to marry a man because I'm not gay!

Its only seems taboo because people see being gay as taboo, which is changing very fast. In a few years, especially if gay marriage is legalized, it wont be taboo at all anymore.

Again - what evidence do you have of this, other than your own assumption?

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: bignateyk
It also has to do with the fact that it would be much easier to abuse financially. There are far more same-sex people who share living quarters, and whats to stop them from getting a marriage for a few years to save some taxes, and then getting a divorce when they move out?

I've never heard of a male and female roommate getting married for tax reasons. You just don't do that. Two men getting married for taxes would be even less likely because of social taboo. I sure as hell am not going to marry a man because I'm not gay!

Its only seems taboo because people see being gay as taboo, which is changing very fast. In a few years, especially if gay marriage is legalized, it wont be taboo at all anymore.

Again - what evidence do you have of this, other than your own assumption?

Evidence of what? That being gay is becoming less taboo??

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: bignateyk
It also has to do with the fact that it would be much easier to abuse financially. There are far more same-sex people who share living quarters, and whats to stop them from getting a marriage for a few years to save some taxes, and then getting a divorce when they move out?

I've never heard of a male and female roommate getting married for tax reasons. You just don't do that. Two men getting married for taxes would be even less likely because of social taboo. I sure as hell am not going to marry a man because I'm not gay!

Its only seems taboo because people see being gay as taboo, which is changing very fast. In a few years, especially if gay marriage is legalized, it wont be taboo at all anymore.

Again - what evidence do you have of this, other than your own assumption?

Evidence of what? That being gay is becoming less taboo??

What evidence do you have that, once gay marriage becomes legal, single straight men who live together will flock to the court system demanding marriage licenses just to save a few bucks on their fscking taxes. You are making a gross assumption that they will do this, without any evidence.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
I've been wondering what people say against gay marriage in relation to the law.

The first thought was religion, but this shouldn't hold any power in the law making decision, right? Does it have any power even if it shouldn't?

Second, the other thought is that they're against gay couples having kids and not approving of it. Do they have any proof showing that there is something wrong with this?

I'm basically assuming they have some kind of backing and want to know what they could be saying. Any thoughts from AT'ers? Should I have posted in P&N?

What does it matter why?

Everyone was up in arms about the federal government passing a constitutional amendment which classified marriage as between a man and a woman.

"leave it up to the states" they said..."let the people decide for themselves"...they said

of course that was when the pro-gay marriage people thought that things would swing their way...and when it did not in a majority of the states...they are left scratching their heads wondering why.

What does it matter why people are against gay marriage?

It is their right to discount it for what ever reason they choose..irrational or not.

Why not ask them why they brush their teeth from left to right instead of right to left?

It is a personal preference that people may choose not to discuss.

Much like who they decide to vote for in an election.

Your incapability to understand why religion may guide so many peoples decision is equivalent to their incapability to understand gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.

The bottom line here is that all people, gay and straight, black or white, men or woman have the right to choose whatever they want for what ever reason they want regardless of how others feel about those choices. That is the beauty of this country.

What about cases like Brown V. Board of Education, even if the public wanted one thing, something else happened? I don't really remember many details, but IIRC, the south wanted one thing while the north wanted another. Maybe someone else can comment on this point?

This country is based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would one group be denied it and not the other? I suppose you may be right though, the power of voting in a democracy leaves the choice up the the public.

That's the problem - on issues that come down to the constitution, the public majority doesn't have the capacity to interpret the constitution and law without bias. If they were - we'd still have slaves, blacks and whites would still have different water fountains and schools, and women would still be treated as if they were property.

The Judicial branch of our government is there to interpret the Constitution, protecting the rights of a minority from being overtaken by the majority. I don't see the fight for gay marriage being any different - leaving the issue for people to decide lets prejudice win.

A careful scrutiny of the courts decisions would inform on that the court itself is incredibly activist. Rights to sodomize, privacy, abortion, hell even judicial review were born out of the author's ambitions and political motivations and not sound law. If, as you claim, the Judicial branch of our government is there to interprety the Constitution, please point to where it allows for protections of sodomy, abortion, personal privacy, and contraception. Also, if you read the Planned Parenthood v Casey opinion by Sandra Day O'Connor, it basically strikes down Roe v Wade but declares the "central holding" to be too ingrained in public conscience to revoke. Nothing more than a cop-out can be concluded from her opinion and Scalia's subsequent ENRAGED and rather inspiring dissent.

 

[Ramma2]

Let them do it, just call it something different. Like gayrriage.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
I've been wondering what people say against gay marriage in relation to the law.

The first thought was religion, but this shouldn't hold any power in the law making decision, right? Does it have any power even if it shouldn't?

Second, the other thought is that they're against gay couples having kids and not approving of it. Do they have any proof showing that there is something wrong with this?

I'm basically assuming they have some kind of backing and want to know what they could be saying. Any thoughts from AT'ers? Should I have posted in P&N?

What does it matter why?

Everyone was up in arms about the federal government passing a constitutional amendment which classified marriage as between a man and a woman.

"leave it up to the states" they said..."let the people decide for themselves"...they said

of course that was when the pro-gay marriage people thought that things would swing their way...and when it did not in a majority of the states...they are left scratching their heads wondering why.

What does it matter why people are against gay marriage?

It is their right to discount it for what ever reason they choose..irrational or not.

Why not ask them why they brush their teeth from left to right instead of right to left?

It is a personal preference that people may choose not to discuss.

Much like who they decide to vote for in an election.

Your incapability to understand why religion may guide so many peoples decision is equivalent to their incapability to understand gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.

The bottom line here is that all people, gay and straight, black or white, men or woman have the right to choose whatever they want for what ever reason they want regardless of how others feel about those choices. That is the beauty of this country.

What about cases like Brown V. Board of Education, even if the public wanted one thing, something else happened? I don't really remember many details, but IIRC, the south wanted one thing while the north wanted another. Maybe someone else can comment on this point?

This country is based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would one group be denied it and not the other? I suppose you may be right though, the power of voting in a democracy leaves the choice up the the public.

That's the problem - on issues that come down to the constitution, the public majority doesn't have the capacity to interpret the constitution and law without bias. If they were - we'd still have slaves, blacks and whites would still have different water fountains and schools, and women would still be treated as if they were property.

The Judicial branch of our government is there to interpret the Constitution, protecting the rights of a minority from being overtaken by the majority. I don't see the fight for gay marriage being any different - leaving the issue for people to decide lets prejudice win.

A careful scrutiny of the courts decisions would inform on that the court itself is incredibly activist. Rights to sodomize, privacy, abortion, hell even judicial review were born out of the author's ambitionw and political motivations and not sound law. If, as you claim, the Judicial branch of our government is there to interprety the Constitution, please point to where it allows for protections of sodomy, abortion, personal privacy, and contraception.

What about the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

 

[huberm]

I am against gay marriage, and here are my reasons:

1. I find homosexuality morally wrong. I think it damages society. Someday, when I have kids, I don't want them to grow up around that.

2. The sanctity of marriage. This is really hard for me to explain, so I won't even try.

Please keep in mind that I am not trying to offend anyone, nor am I trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs. I am simply stating what I believe to help the OP understand why many people are against gay marriage.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
It also has to do with the fact that it would be much easier to abuse financially. There are far more same-sex people who share living quarters, and whats to stop them from getting a marriage for a few years to save some taxes, and then getting a divorce when they move out?

Along these lines would be the position of weighing where the majority of tax payers want their money to go. Do the majority of Americans want their money giving tax breaks to married homosexuals, or giving tax breaks to families? Also, the legal rights of married couples can be attained by giving your life partner power of attorney to make decisions for you if you're incapacitated. IMO, the only inequality of married homosexuals vs. married heterosexuals is the one concerning tax breaks. Everything else can be handled by spending a few hundred dollars on a lawyer to get the power of attorney and willing of your estate in writing.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
I've been wondering what people say against gay marriage in relation to the law.

There's no way to argue it without upsetting someone, but the fact is homosexuality is plain wrong. It's unnatural. I don't know about the rest of you kids, but I figured out at an early age where the round block fits.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
I've been wondering what people say against gay marriage in relation to the law.

The first thought was religion, but this shouldn't hold any power in the law making decision, right? Does it have any power even if it shouldn't?

Second, the other thought is that they're against gay couples having kids and not approving of it. Do they have any proof showing that there is something wrong with this?

I'm basically assuming they have some kind of backing and want to know what they could be saying. Any thoughts from AT'ers? Should I have posted in P&N?

What does it matter why?

Everyone was up in arms about the federal government passing a constitutional amendment which classified marriage as between a man and a woman.

"leave it up to the states" they said..."let the people decide for themselves"...they said

of course that was when the pro-gay marriage people thought that things would swing their way...and when it did not in a majority of the states...they are left scratching their heads wondering why.

What does it matter why people are against gay marriage?

It is their right to discount it for what ever reason they choose..irrational or not.

Why not ask them why they brush their teeth from left to right instead of right to left?

It is a personal preference that people may choose not to discuss.

Much like who they decide to vote for in an election.

Your incapability to understand why religion may guide so many peoples decision is equivalent to their incapability to understand gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.

The bottom line here is that all people, gay and straight, black or white, men or woman have the right to choose whatever they want for what ever reason they want regardless of how others feel about those choices. That is the beauty of this country.

What about cases like Brown V. Board of Education, even if the public wanted one thing, something else happened? I don't really remember many details, but IIRC, the south wanted one thing while the north wanted another. Maybe someone else can comment on this point?

This country is based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would one group be denied it and not the other? I suppose you may be right though, the power of voting in a democracy leaves the choice up the the public.

That's the problem - on issues that come down to the constitution, the public majority doesn't have the capacity to interpret the constitution and law without bias. If they were - we'd still have slaves, blacks and whites would still have different water fountains and schools, and women would still be treated as if they were property.

The Judicial branch of our government is there to interpret the Constitution, protecting the rights of a minority from being overtaken by the majority. I don't see the fight for gay marriage being any different - leaving the issue for people to decide lets prejudice win.

A careful scrutiny of the courts decisions would inform on that the court itself is incredibly activist. Rights to sodomize, privacy, abortion, hell even judicial review were born out of the author's ambitionw and political motivations and not sound law. If, as you claim, the Judicial branch of our government is there to interprety the Constitution, please point to where it allows for protections of sodomy, abortion, personal privacy, and contraception.

What about the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Excellent point. This point was brought up by Justice O'Connor in (to be edited later when I find proper case) which she claimed that Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and also through selective incorporation of The Bill through the same Amendment, meant that different groups couldn't be treated differently. I believe in a more literal and narrow view of the constitution. Since there is no mention of said activities, I believe it should be up to each state to make it's own laws. To the argument that "a state can't be trusted to act in good faith" or "well, if a majority want to uphold x law which is immoral then it will be upheld since it was voted in," I'll point to Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas which he goes on about how Planned Parenthood v Casey essentially overturns Roe but declares the "central holding" to be true (nevermind that there is no precident or justification for Roe): "This falsely assumes that the consequence of overruling Roe would have been to make abortion unlawful. It would not; it would merely have permitted the States to do so. Many States would unquestionably have declined to prohibit abortion, and others would not have prohibited it within six months (after which the most significant reliance interests would have expired). Even for persons in States other than these, the choice would not have been between abortion and childbirth, but between abortion nearby and abortion in a neighboring State." This goes to my social darwinism theory that says on the best and most fit survive. If a state makes such laws that alienate its constituency and cause them to protest with enough vigor that it causes unrest in that state or if the population outright leaves in exodus, then that state, through the concept of the free-market and social darwinism, deserves to become less important in terms of taxes and revenue and status. Essentially, if anything cannot compete in the free-market then it's doomed to failure -- states of the Union shouldn't be exempt of held to any higher esteem.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Sraaz
I remember hearing some guy on tv say some bs about gay couples not being able to procreate and thus ending all human life.

IIRC the guy had a VERY thick southern accent.

He was probably a closet homosexual too. Bible thumpers are generally some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

 

[andy9o]

Originally posted by: huberm
I am against gay marriage, and here are my reasons:

1. I find homosexuality morally wrong. I think it damages society. Someday, when I have kids, I don't want them to grow up around that.

2. The sanctity of marriage. This is really hard for me to explain, so I won't even try.

Please keep in mind that I am not trying to offend anyone, nor am I trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs. I am simply stating what I believe to help the OP understand why many people are against gay marriage.

I absolutely respect and understand your opinion. And it is opinions like yours which make me want the term "marriage" stricken from all public documents, to be replaced by a civil union. Private groups have the right to select participants in their group. Churches, Boy Scouts etc.. The state should not have such a right to selectivity. Civil Unions should be blind to sex. My $.02

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: andy9o

Originally posted by: huberm
I am against gay marriage, and here are my reasons:

1. I find homosexuality morally wrong. I think it damages society. Someday, when I have kids, I don't want them to grow up around that.

2. The sanctity of marriage. This is really hard for me to explain, so I won't even try.

Please keep in mind that I am not trying to offend anyone, nor am I trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs. I am simply stating what I believe to help the OP understand why many people are against gay marriage.

I absolutely respect and understand your opinion. And it is opinions like yours which make me want the term "marriage" stricken from all public documents, to be replaced by a civil union. Private groups have the right to select participants in their group. Churches, Boy Scouts etc.. The state should not have such a right to selectivity. Civil Unions should be blind to sex. My $.02

I agree. I see marriage to be the cold, contractural part in which the state may regulate freely and civil union to be the more romantic, emotional part.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: huberm
I am against gay marriage, and here are my reasons:

1. I find homosexuality morally wrong. I think it damages society. Someday, when I have kids, I don't want them to grow up around that.

2. The sanctity of marriage. This is really hard for me to explain, so I won't even try.

Please keep in mind that I am not trying to offend anyone, nor am I trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs. I am simply stating what I believe to help the OP understand why many people are against gay marriage.

Translation: I am regurgitating talking points I have heard and have no substance to back my position.

How excactly does homosexuality damage society? Give me some concrete examples, though I doubt you will be able to. Do teh gays break into your home, use up all the ice without refilling the trays and leave the toilet seat up or something?

I laugh my ass off every time the old "sanctity of marriage" line is used. Go check out he divorce rates in the US than come back and tell me with a straight face just how sacred marriage is.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: hjo3
The justification I've heard the most is the "slippery slope" argument. (I.e., "If you expand marriage to include same-sex couples we'll have to expand it to include polygamists, or humans that want to marry animals, etc.")

this is my main reason, i am either for keeping marriage between one man and one woman, or else open it up completely, one man and one dog or one woman and three men, or one 11 year old boy and a horse and two cows, etc etc

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: hjo3
The justification I've heard the most is the "slippery slope" argument. (I.e., "If you expand marriage to include same-sex couples we'll have to expand it to include polygamists, or humans that want to marry animals, etc.")

this is my main reason, i am either for keeping marriage between one man and one woman, or else open it up completely, one man and one dog or one woman and three men, or one 11 year old boy and a horse and two cows, etc etc

Er...none of those other examples can be bound in a legal manner as some of them aren't human or of majority age, just as a man and woman can't be married before 18 unless with parental consent.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: hjo3
The justification I've heard the most is the "slippery slope" argument. (I.e., "If you expand marriage to include same-sex couples we'll have to expand it to include polygamists, or humans that want to marry animals, etc.")

this is my main reason, i am either for keeping marriage between one man and one woman, or else open it up completely, one man and one dog or one woman and three men, or one 11 year old boy and a horse and two cows, etc etc

Adequate consent between both parties is the next issue in the slippery slope......

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A lot of those Morons believe that Marriage is a religious institution. Their argument is sh!t because there are Religions that allow same sex marriages.

Those morons are right. Marriage is a religious institution that government has insinuated itself into for tax and social engineering reasons. Marriage as a religious ceremony is far older than government's involvement in it.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A lot of those Morons believe that Marriage is a religious institution. Their argument is sh!t because there are Religions that allow same sex marriages.

Those morons are right. Marriage is a religious institution that government has insinuated itself into for tax and social engineering reasons. Marriage as a religious ceremony is far older than government's involvement in it.

Changing the term to "civil union" does little to placate the sanctity of marriage/fundie/moral crusader crowd, even though I support that course of action on the part of the gov. They don't want to see gays together period and are just using the most convenient justifications.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: hjo3
The justification I've heard the most is the "slippery slope" argument. (I.e., "If you expand marriage to include same-sex couples we'll have to expand it to include polygamists, or humans that want to marry animals, etc.")

this is my main reason, i am either for keeping marriage between one man and one woman, or else open it up completely, one man and one dog or one woman and three men, or one 11 year old boy and a horse and two cows, etc etc

Er...none of those other examples can be bound in a legal manner as some of them aren't human or of majority age, just as a man and woman can't be married before 18 unless with parental consent.

there are plenty of people that consider animals equal to humans, read the threads on OT by the PETA types and read all the threads about how wrong it is that a 16 year old got in trouble for having sex with a 14 year old. many people are fine with chaos in regard to human behavior including things like marriage

if a 14 and 15 year old can have sex, then why prohibit them from getting married? what is the difference?

 

[DougK62]

The religious run the country and don't like gays. It's the only reason, although they'll try to dance around it and make it seem that there are other legit reasons when there are none.