Why is opposition to gay marriage so strong?

[Genx87]

There is a large % of the population who still believe a marriage is between a man and a women. They want to keep the status quo and are prepared to vote in amendments or laws that keep the status quo. Whether you, me, or the next guy believes it is right, it is how it is for now.

I for one dont believe it is soley a social conservative issue either. Unless you believe some of these amendments in other states that passed with far more % of the population than CA are all social conservative. I think there is a lot of moderates and possibly even some liberals who still believe marriage should be between a man and a women.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, as usual we are stuck waiting for a non-bigoted, educated reason grounded in fact for opposing gay marriage. Several have tried on this forum, nobody has yet succeeded. Once people can provide such an argument, then maybe people will stop calling them uneducated bigots. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Sorry man, you tried that one before and it got shredded.

Ah, I didn't see it get shredded. For the most part I saw dismissal and subsequent silence.

Hrmm, you might want to read it again then.

Basically the fundamental flaw was the author trying to state that people have to prove the value of their union, declared a fundamental right by the USSC in order to have the government grant it. This is the direct opposite of how things really work in regards to fundamental rights granted by the Constitution, because with all of these the burden is on the government to prove that it must restrict the right.

Either way, there are 4 straight pages of this guys article getting owned from nearly every direction, it was poorly written and poorly reasoned.

Nonetheless, he made several well-reasoned points, namely that marriage is not a right, as it is regulated (in the case of incestuous and polygamous marriages). If marriage isn't a right, then the pro-gay-marriage argument collapses. Using one of his points as a basis to dismiss the entire paper is a dubious move. Marriage isn't a right, and it's bestowed at the state's interest.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" - US Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia, 1967

Although studies have shown that repeating a demonstrably false statement over and over has the effect of causing a listener to grant the statement more credibility than if it were uttered a single time, such a tactic still does not magically imbue the falsehood with truth.

So, does that count as shredding? All of his other points were similarly dismantled.

FYI: abortion, voting and free speech are also regulated, I don't think they lose their qualification as fundamental rights because of it.

 

[OrByte]

My parents voted yes on Prop 8 because the Knights of Columbus told them to.

"Protect the Family"

yeah....like the big gay boogeyman was gonna get us all in our sleep.

:roll:

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

It's nature's way of telling you something's wrong.:music:

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

It's nature's way of telling you something's wrong.:music:

Your point?

Are you trying to argue that sexual relations should be for the purpose of procreation and nothing else, not even cuddling?

And are you saying that humans should subject to to natural selection like you see in wild animals? We should stop making medicine, get rid of all guns and stop farming?

Homosexuality has a negative impact on individual animals in the wild (and when endangered the species), but that doesn't apply to humans. Homosexuals are still able to reproduce, and unlike animals in the wild they can still produce offspring with surrogate mothers/fathers. We are not going extinct any time soon either.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

It's nature's way of telling you something's wrong.:music:

Your point?

Are you trying to argue that sexual relations should be for the purpose of procreation and nothing else, not even cuddling?

And are you saying that humans should subject to to natural selection like you see in wild animals? We should stop making medicine, get rid of all guns and stop farming?

Homosexuality has a negative impact on individual animals in the wild (and when endangered the species), but that doesn't apply to humans. Homosexuals are still able to reproduce, and unlike animals in the wild they can still produce offspring with surrogate mothers/fathers. We are not going extinct any time soon either.

I was quoting a song lyric by a band called Spirit from a long time ago...probably well before you were born. My point is subtle and goes well beyond the issue of homosexuality. We live in a broken world full of broken people....homosexual/heterosexual...black/white...Rep/Dem...rich/poor...doesn't matter...all broken....something's wrong.

It's nature's way of telling you something's wrong
It's nature's way of telling you in a song
It's nature's way of receiving you
It's nature's way of retrieving you
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong
It's nature's way of telling you, summer breeze
It's nature's way of telling you, dying trees
It's nature's way of receiving you
It's nature's way of retrieving you
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong
It's nature's way, it's nature's way
It's nature's way, it's nature's way
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong
It's nature's way of telling you
In a song, oh-h
It's nature's way of receiving you
It's nature's way
It's nature's way of retrieving you
It's nature's way
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong, something's wrong, something's wrong

 

[Julius Shark]

I object to someone disrespecting marriage by sanctioning this freakish behavior. It's not a marriage by my definition. It's a couple of freeks getting it on.

Note that "freakish behavior" is not discriminatory in any way. My post does not advocate any illegal activity nor does it seek to insult any individual. It is my oppinion that you asked for.

I gave it to you.



PS I'm going to have to hire a lawyer to work full time writting disclaimers to keep the PC police off my back. We should thank Obama and the rest of his brownshirts for that!

PSS It's offensive to me that someone would want to put the pee pee in where the poo poo comes out. Just wrong on soooo... many levels. Dig?

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

It's nature's way of telling you something's wrong.:music:

Your point?

Are you trying to argue that sexual relations should be for the purpose of procreation and nothing else, not even cuddling?

And are you saying that humans should subject to to natural selection like you see in wild animals? We should stop making medicine, get rid of all guns and stop farming?

Homosexuality has a negative impact on individual animals in the wild (and when endangered the species), but that doesn't apply to humans. Homosexuals are still able to reproduce, and unlike animals in the wild they can still produce offspring with surrogate mothers/fathers. We are not going extinct any time soon either.

I was quoting a song lyric by a band called Spirit from a long time ago...probably well before you were born. My point is subtle and goes well beyond the issue of homosexuality. We live in a broken world full of broken people....homosexual/heterosexual...black/white...Rep/Dem...rich/poor...doesn't matter...all broken....something's wrong.

It's nature's way of telling you something's wrong
It's nature's way of telling you in a song
It's nature's way of receiving you
It's nature's way of retrieving you
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong
It's nature's way of telling you, summer breeze
It's nature's way of telling you, dying trees
It's nature's way of receiving you
It's nature's way of retrieving you
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong
It's nature's way, it's nature's way
It's nature's way, it's nature's way
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong
It's nature's way of telling you
In a song, oh-h
It's nature's way of receiving you
It's nature's way
It's nature's way of retrieving you
It's nature's way
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong, something's wrong, something's wrong

Ah.

Well, the world has always been broken one way or another. There is no point in time you can go back to where everyone is happy. People have said man kind should abandon technology and go back to hunter gather existence because we are unhappy, but that is a very harsh existence and they only see the simplicity of it.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
I object to someone disrespecting marriage by sanctioning this freakish behavior. It's not a marriage by my definition. It's a couple of freeks getting it on.

Note that "freakish behavior" is not discriminatory in any way. My post does not advocate any illegal activity nor does it seek to insult any individual. It is my oppinion that you asked for.

I gave it to you.



PS I'm going to have to hire a lawyer to work full time writting disclaimers to keep the PC police off my back. We should thank Obama and the rest of his brownshirts for that!

PSS It's offensive to me that someone would want to put the pee pee in where the poo poo comes out. Just wrong on soooo... many levels. Dig?

So homosexuals can't love?

Are you afraid that if we accept them that they will sneak up on you and have surprise but secks?

No one is forcing you to watch, no one is making you smoke a big one, it is all in your head.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
It's offensive to me that someone would want to put the pee pee in where the poo poo comes out. Just wrong on soooo... many levels. Dig?

So the gf said not in the butt eh? Don't take it out on us pal.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
I object to someone disrespecting marriage by sanctioning this freakish behavior. It's not a marriage by my definition. It's a couple of freeks getting it on.

Note that "freakish behavior" is not discriminatory in any way. My post does not advocate any illegal activity nor does it seek to insult any individual. It is my oppinion that you asked for.

I gave it to you.



PS I'm going to have to hire a lawyer to work full time writting disclaimers to keep the PC police off my back. We should thank Obama and the rest of his brownshirts for that!

PSS It's offensive to me that someone would want to put the pee pee in where the poo poo comes out. Just wrong on soooo... many levels. Dig?

So homosexuals can't love?

Are you afraid that if we accept them that they will sneak up on you and have surprise but secks?

No one is forcing you to watch, no one is making you smoke a big one, it is all in your head.

you see? he has these....offensive thoughts....he can't stop thinking about it.

But its offensive to him...so he has to condemn others. Because other people do it but not him.

And he doesn't do it, because it IS offensive....yet.....he thinks about it.

probably alot.



just my opinion.

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
It's offensive to me that someone would want to put the pee pee in where the poo poo comes out. Just wrong on soooo... many levels. Dig?

So the gf said not in the butt eh? Don't take it out on us pal.

Hey, this isn't ATOT! This internet place is serious.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
I object to someone disrespecting marriage by sanctioning this freakish behavior. It's not a marriage by my definition. It's a couple of freeks getting it on.

Note that "freakish behavior" is not discriminatory in any way. My post does not advocate any illegal activity nor does it seek to insult any individual. It is my oppinion that you asked for.

I gave it to you.



PS I'm going to have to hire a lawyer to work full time writting disclaimers to keep the PC police off my back. We should thank Obama and the rest of his brownshirts for that!

PSS It's offensive to me that someone would want to put the pee pee in where the poo poo comes out. Just wrong on soooo... many levels. Dig?

Thanks for your opinion! Now we know exactly how stupid your opinions are.

There's no way you can be real. A gag posting account?

 

[Julius Shark]

First of all, you people (homos) have made tremendous strides in getting your behavior accepted by some of society. Listen, I know the end game here and so do you. You are trying to get some sort of governmental absolution or sanction that you will never get from God. Dig?

Don?t devalue what my wife and I have (male/female) by calling what you have marriage.

Think of another name. We will still give you the same legal rights, K?



Disclaimer: If the opinions in this post violate any terms of service or and law I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

If the above is not sufficient, cover, to be able to express my views on a highly charge subject, then FU.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
First of all, you people (homos) have made tremendous strides in getting your behavior accepted by some of society. Listen, I know the end game here and so do you. You are trying to get some sort of governmental absolution or sanction that you will never get from God. Dig?

Don?t devalue what my wife and I have (male/female) by calling what you have marriage.

Think of another name. We will still give you the same legal rights, K?



Disclaimer: If the opinions in this post violate any terms of service or and law I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

If the above is not sufficient, cover, to be able to express my views on a highly charge subject, then FU.

God made homosexuals so he can reject them?

And what if a religion decides that god accepts gays and starts marrying them, what right do you have to tell them they can't do that?

You do not hold the patent for marriage.

 

[ZzZGuy]

You also didn't tell me if homosexuals can't love.

 

[Julius Shark]

"God made homosexuals so he can reject them?"

I am going to need some proof on that one. God didn't make homos.








Disclaimer: If the opinions in this post violate any terms of service or and law I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

If the above is not sufficient, cover, to be able to express my views on a highly charge subject, then FU.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
"God made homosexuals so he can reject them?"

I am going to need some proof on that one. God didn't make homos.








Disclaimer: If the opinions in this post violate any terms of service or and law I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

If the above is not sufficient, cover, to be able to express my views on a highly charge subject, then FU.

Homosexual animals exist in nature, both wild and captive animals. You can not argue that a pigpen chose to be a homosexual.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.../02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

So god makes homosexuals, it is not a choice you make.

 

[Julius Shark]

We aren't going to agree on that one.

I have given some good strong reasons why there is objection to gay marriage. I know people might not like it, but I have been very clear.

I am not inclined to follow the party line even though the Gay lobby is as strong as the Nazi's were in Germany.






Disclaimer: If the opinions in this post violate any terms of service or and law I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

If the above is not sufficient, cover, to be able to express my views on a highly charge subject, then FU.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
We aren't going to agree on that one.

I have given some good strong reasons why there is objection to gay marriage. I know people might not like it, but I have been very clear.

I am not inclined to follow the party line even though the Gay lobby is as strong as the Nazi's were in Germany.






Disclaimer: If the opinions in this post violate any terms of service or and law I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

If the above is not sufficient, cover, to be able to express my views on a highly charge subject, then FU.

Quoted for future reference.

You just compared gays to nazis. There is no excuse for this, you are a hateful bigot.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Bigotry aside, you have not presented one reason, and refuse to discuss evidence that contradicts you.

Until you address why god makes people and animals gay, there is no more to discuss with you.

 

[Julius Shark]

?You just compared gays to nazis. There is no excuse for this, you are a hateful bigot.? ZzZGuy

Congratulations. Your points weren?t making any headway so now it appears you are going to accuse me of something illegal, like hate speech.

At least you didn?t call me a troll like so many other spinless weasels on this forum.

Did you read my disclaimer above?

I see no need to revise my remarks at this time. Be very carful here ZzZGuy, read what I said again and see if I compared gays to Nazis. I did not.

People and animals engage in gay activity against the will of God. God did not "make" them engage in this behavior. Does that answer your question?







Disclaimer: If the opinions in this post violate any terms of service or and law I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

If the above is not sufficient, cover, to be able to express my views on a highly charge subject, then FU.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Hrmm, you might want to read it again then.

Basically the fundamental flaw was the author trying to state that people have to prove the value of their union, declared a fundamental right by the USSC in order to have the government grant it. This is the direct opposite of how things really work in regards to fundamental rights granted by the Constitution, because with all of these the burden is on the government to prove that it must restrict the right.

Either way, there are 4 straight pages of this guys article getting owned from nearly every direction, it was poorly written and poorly reasoned.

Nonetheless, he made several well-reasoned points, namely that marriage is not a right, as it is regulated (in the case of incestuous and polygamous marriages). If marriage isn't a right, then the pro-gay-marriage argument collapses. Using one of his points as a basis to dismiss the entire paper is a dubious move. Marriage isn't a right, and it's bestowed at the state's interest.

I'm sorry but you are simply factually incorrect. The US Supreme Court declared marriage a 'fundamental right' in Loving v. Virginia. Therefore it is a right, same as all the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, period.

That makes it two threads wherein that dumb article gets shredded.

Lets try for the hat trick Atreus! :thumbsup:

Alright, then if it's a fundamental right, on what basis is it allowed to gays, straights, and interracials, and denied polygamists and first cousins?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

So are incestuous and polygamous relationships. Animals also eat their young.

What a yardstick to measure by.