Why is opposition to gay marriage so strong?

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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?

The same exact standard by which every fundamental right is restricted. The government must show compelling cause. Polygamy is often associated with abuse (and would create a convoluted legal nightmare), and marriage between first cousins is associated with birth defects.

I personally am on the fence about polygamy in that I can see the argument against it but I'm unsure if it's valid enough, and from what I have read the ban against cousin marriage is on pretty shaky ground as well in terms of the likelihood of birth defects. All your argument really does here however is argue for the legalization of polygamy and cousin marriage, it does nothing to alter the validity of gay marriage.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 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.

Who are you chastizing? Dyna for saying homosexuality is against nature or zzzguy for demonstrating it is not? They're both using the yardstick. If you are saying that because man can reason we shouldn't be held to the standard of "nature" I agree.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: 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.

Who are you chastizing? Dyna for saying homosexuality is against nature or zzzguy for demonstrating it is not? They're both using the yardstick. If you are saying that because man can reason we shouldn't be held to the standard of "nature" I agree.

I'm chastizing the argument that legitimizes our behavior because animals do it.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 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?

The same exact standard by which every fundamental right is restricted. The government must show compelling cause. Polygamy is often associated with abuse (and would create a convoluted legal nightmare), and marriage between first cousins is associated with birth defects.

I personally am on the fence about polygamy in that I can see the argument against it but I'm unsure if it's valid enough, and from what I have read the ban against cousin marriage is on pretty shaky ground as well in terms of the likelihood of birth defects. All your argument really does here however is argue for the legalization of polygamy and cousin marriage, it does nothing to alter the validity of gay marriage.

What I'm demonstrating is the need to define what marriage is. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to everyone, regardless of their immoral lifestyle: polygamists, incestuous folks, and gays. We have no right to assume that all polygamist relationships are abusive. That's just as judgemental and reactionary as assuming that gay activity is strictly sexual.

I'm asking the pro-gay-marriage crowd to be consistent to their argument: that marriage is a fundamental right. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to polygamists and family members. Yet they shy away from this.

To me the answer is plain. Marriage is restricted. What is the argument for it being made available to gays?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: 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.

Who are you chastizing? Dyna for saying homosexuality is against nature or zzzguy for demonstrating it is not? They're both using the yardstick. If you are saying that because man can reason we shouldn't be held to the standard of "nature" I agree.

I'm chastizing the argument that legitimizes our behavior because animals do it.

Dyna was arguing that homosexuality was "wrong" because animals didn't do it. I take it you have the same objection to that mode of thought? (despite it being untrue)

 

[her209]

Can prisoners get married while in prison?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What I'm demonstrating is the need to define what marriage is. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to everyone, regardless of their immoral lifestyle: polygamists, incestuous folks, and gays. We have no right to assume that all polygamist relationships are abusive. That's just as judgemental and reactionary as assuming that gay activity is strictly sexual.

I'm asking the pro-gay-marriage crowd to be consistent to their argument: that marriage is a fundamental right. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to polygamists and family members. Yet they shy away from this.

To me the answer is plain. Marriage is restricted. What is the argument for it being made available to gays?

Im going off of memory here but I seem to recall that polygamy laws and incest laws against marriage are a result of an inability of the State to determine that parties seeking those marriage licenses were doing so of their own free will. Back when polygamists were getting married they were marrying people of relation. Mainly older family Patriarchs to younger children or young adults. A marriage is a union of consenting adults, in those instances, coercion played a role where the state could not determine that the younger party were being married of their own free will. Was the state assuming that all polygamist relationships were abusive? yes probably so. At least a majority of such unions involved some element of abuse so much so in fact that the state outlawed the practice.

States then limited their liability by outlawing such unions. Those laws are now on the books.

Now a days if you have two or more consenting adults vying for a marriage, I really don't see how a court can say no, unless you are talking about coercion or any other malicious intent. Ultimately though, those seeking such unions need to stand up for their rights and petition the court.

If you want to see Polygamist marriage, or Incestual marriage Atreaus, feel free to take up the cause. I really don't see incestuous marriage going anywhere...there is just too much opportunity for obvious abuse by Daddy or Mommy inappropriately influencing little brother or sissy into getting married.

In the meantime this is a dead horse and you all just keep on beating it. Its more of a greasy stain now than it is a dead horse

 

[justly]

Lets say all gays have the option for a civil union with all the legal advantages and disadvantages of a marrage. With the option of civil unions available, if an arguments still exist that gays should be allowed to get "married" then the arguement is more about the difference between the meaning of the words marrage and union (and not so much about rights).

This is where I believe the problem exists.

The meaning of marriage is commonly understood is a union between a man and a woman (in fact most dictionaries mention a man and woman in their definitions), it also has implications to god and a religious ceremony for many people.

A union on the other hand has a very similar meaning, just no reference (specific or implied) to gender, a religious ceremony or god.

So it would seem to me that anyone who insists a government issued paper with the word marrage on it is what gays want/need, are fighting for acceptance not rights.

The odd thing is this demand for "gay marriage" does not help their cause, in fact it makes people that believe marriage is between a man and woman, or that marriage is a religious ceremony more resistant.

IMO gays should fight for equal treatment under civil unions, they can still have a ceremony (to celebrate their union), they can even call themselves married if they like (I think most people will understand and accept the term married to describe a civil union, it may even provide an easier transition to a government acknowlaged gay marriage at a later date if gays still want to pursue it).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

What I'm demonstrating is the need to define what marriage is. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to everyone, regardless of their immoral lifestyle: polygamists, incestuous folks, and gays. We have no right to assume that all polygamist relationships are abusive. That's just as judgemental and reactionary as assuming that gay activity is strictly sexual.

I'm asking the pro-gay-marriage crowd to be consistent to their argument: that marriage is a fundamental right. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to polygamists and family members. Yet they shy away from this.

To me the answer is plain. Marriage is restricted. What is the argument for it being made available to gays?

No, I'm sorry, but what you are demonstrating is that you don't know what a 'fundamental right' is under US law. Seriously.

Go read up on fundamental rights, and strict scrutiny in particular. The government doesn't have to show that all polygamous relationships are abusive, the same as the government doesn't have to show that yelling 'fire' in a theater will always lead to injury or death. It has to show a compelling case for restricting it. You can argue that the case against polygamy does not reach the level necessary to restrict it, but arguing that because something is a fundamental right it cannot be restricted is once again, simply incorrect.

This is why gay marriage should be legal, as demonstrated in this thread and others, people are unable to come up with a compelling reason to restrict it. (Oh, and please read up on what the government is allowed to use as compelling reasons to restrict something)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: justly
Lets say all gays have the option for a civil union with all the legal advantages and disadvantages of a marrage. With the option of civil unions available, if an arguments still exist that gays should be allowed to get "married" then the arguement is more about the difference between the meaning of the words marrage and union (and not so much about rights).

This is where I believe the problem exists.

The meaning of marriage is commonly understood is a union between a man and a woman (in fact most dictionaries mention a man and woman in their definitions), it also has implications to god and a religious ceremony for many people.

A union on the other hand has a very similar meaning, just no reference (specific or implied) to gender, a religious ceremony or god.

So it would seem to me that anyone who insists a government issued paper with the word marrage on it is what gays want/need, are fighting for acceptance not rights.

The odd thing is this demand for "gay marriage" does not help their cause, in fact it makes people that believe marriage is between a man and woman, or that marriage is a religious ceremony more resistant.

IMO gays should fight for equal treatment under civil unions, they can still have a ceremony (to celebrate their union), they can even call themselves married if they like (I think most people will understand and accept the term married to describe a civil union, it may even provide an easier transition to a government acknowlaged gay marriage at a later date if gays still want to pursue it).

So you want them to fight for 'separate but equal'. No thanks.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

What I'm demonstrating is the need to define what marriage is. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to everyone, regardless of their immoral lifestyle: polygamists, incestuous folks, and gays. We have no right to assume that all polygamist relationships are abusive. That's just as judgemental and reactionary as assuming that gay activity is strictly sexual.

I'm asking the pro-gay-marriage crowd to be consistent to their argument: that marriage is a fundamental right. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to polygamists and family members. Yet they shy away from this.

To me the answer is plain. Marriage is restricted. What is the argument for it being made available to gays?

No, I'm sorry, but what you are demonstrating is that you don't know what a 'fundamental right' is under US law. Seriously.

Go read up on fundamental rights, and strict scrutiny in particular. The government doesn't have to show that all polygamous relationships are abusive, the same as the government doesn't have to show that yelling 'fire' in a theater will always lead to injury or death. It has to show a compelling case for restricting it. You can argue that the case against polygamy does not reach the level necessary to restrict it, but arguing that because something is a fundamental right it cannot be restricted is once again, simply incorrect.

This is why gay marriage should be legal, as demonstrated in this thread and others, people are unable to come up with a compelling reason to restrict it. (Oh, and please read up on what the government is allowed to use as compelling reasons to restrict something)

The government does have compelling reasons for disallowing polygamous and incestuous marriages. What I don't understand is why you disagree with its compelling reasons for disallowing gay marriages.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

What I'm demonstrating is the need to define what marriage is. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to everyone, regardless of their immoral lifestyle: polygamists, incestuous folks, and gays. We have no right to assume that all polygamist relationships are abusive. That's just as judgemental and reactionary as assuming that gay activity is strictly sexual.

I'm asking the pro-gay-marriage crowd to be consistent to their argument: that marriage is a fundamental right. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to polygamists and family members. Yet they shy away from this.

To me the answer is plain. Marriage is restricted. What is the argument for it being made available to gays?

No, I'm sorry, but what you are demonstrating is that you don't know what a 'fundamental right' is under US law. Seriously.

Go read up on fundamental rights, and strict scrutiny in particular. The government doesn't have to show that all polygamous relationships are abusive, the same as the government doesn't have to show that yelling 'fire' in a theater will always lead to injury or death. It has to show a compelling case for restricting it. You can argue that the case against polygamy does not reach the level necessary to restrict it, but arguing that because something is a fundamental right it cannot be restricted is once again, simply incorrect.

This is why gay marriage should be legal, as demonstrated in this thread and others, people are unable to come up with a compelling reason to restrict it. (Oh, and please read up on what the government is allowed to use as compelling reasons to restrict something)

The government does have compelling reasons for disallowing polygamous and incestuous marriages. What I don't understand is why you disagree with its compelling reasons for disallowing gay marriages.

Still waiting for those compelling reasons.

Please be sure to check up on what sorts of things constitute 'compelling reasons' as well.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: justly
Lets say all gays have the option for a civil union with all the legal advantages and disadvantages of a marrage. With the option of civil unions available, if an arguments still exist that gays should be allowed to get "married" then the arguement is more about the difference between the meaning of the words marrage and union (and not so much about rights).

This is where I believe the problem exists.

The meaning of marriage is commonly understood is a union between a man and a woman (in fact most dictionaries mention a man and woman in their definitions), it also has implications to god and a religious ceremony for many people.

A union on the other hand has a very similar meaning, just no reference (specific or implied) to gender, a religious ceremony or god.

So it would seem to me that anyone who insists a government issued paper with the word marrage on it is what gays want/need, are fighting for acceptance not rights.

The odd thing is this demand for "gay marriage" does not help their cause, in fact it makes people that believe marriage is between a man and woman, or that marriage is a religious ceremony more resistant.

IMO gays should fight for equal treatment under civil unions, they can still have a ceremony (to celebrate their union), they can even call themselves married if they like (I think most people will understand and accept the term married to describe a civil union, it may even provide an easier transition to a government acknowlaged gay marriage at a later date if gays still want to pursue it).

So you want them to fight for 'separate but equal'. No thanks.

how is it anymore "seperate but equal" than inviting a catholic, a jew, a christian, a muslim, a budist, agnostic and athiest to the same non-religious gathering?

Maybe you should be arguing to make all government recognized couples "civil unions" to make everyone equal, then marriges can be strictly religious ceromonies (talk about seperate but equal, lol).

Wait, wait...I know how to solve the problem with making marriages strictly religious ceremonies, we could force a national religion on the country that acknowlages gay marriage, yea that will do it (talk about depriving people of their rights).

Government doesn't have the right or ability to change religious beliefs, and like I said before by forcing the term marriage on people that dont believe the term applies to gay couples you are promoting opposition to your cause, making seperate but equal seem like an improvement.

If you have a real solution lets hear it, otherwise dont waste your time or mine.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: justly

how is it anymore "seperate but equal" than inviting a catholic, a jew, a christian, a muslim, a budist, agnostic and athiest to the same non-religious gathering?

Maybe you should be arguing to make all government recognized couples "civil unions" to make everyone equal, then marriges can be strictly religious ceromonies (talk about seperate but equal, lol).

Wait, wait...I know how to solve the problem with making marriages strictly religious ceremonies, we could force a national religion on the country that acknowlages gay marriage, yea that will do it (talk about depriving people of their rights).

Government doesn't have the right or ability to change religious beliefs, and like I said before by forcing the term marriage on people that dont believe the term applies to gay couples you are promoting opposition to your cause, making seperate but equal seem like an improvement.

If you have a real solution lets hear it, otherwise dont waste your time or mine.

Your mistake is thinking that by allowing other people to get married, you are somehow forcing it on other people.

My 'real solution' is to watch the CSC invalidate prop 8, and then watch the USSC and/or congress invalidate DOMA. I don't really need to do anything.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
...

What I'm demonstrating is the need to define what marriage is. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to everyone, regardless of their immoral lifestyle: polygamists, incestuous folks, and gays. We have no right to assume that all polygamist relationships are abusive. That's just as judgemental and reactionary as assuming that gay activity is strictly sexual.

I'm asking the pro-gay-marriage crowd to be consistent to their argument: that marriage is a fundamental right. If marriage is a fundamental right, then we must grant it to polygamists and family members. Yet they shy away from this.

To me the answer is plain. Marriage is restricted. What is the argument for it being made available to gays?

That's a stupid argument, because marriage IS a de facto fundamental right available for a certain broad segment of the population. You are drawing the line in an equally arbitrary place, yet you seem to think it makes more sense than allowing what we do now plus gay couples who are unrelated. Your argument isn't internally consistent either, all the more so because THAT is your complaint about pro-gay marriage arguments.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 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?

What basis is it allowed to all straight couples who aren't first cousins? There is no difference between these positions except where you arbitrarily draw the line. Allowing straight marriage only is NOT a special status, it's just as random as any other restrictions. Try writing a law barring a straight couple who aren't related from getting married (for whatever reason you like), so how "not a right' it really is...

 

[Rainsford]

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.

If what the gay couple two doors down is doing and what they are calling it can drastically affect your relationship with your wife, then there is something really wrong with you two that no amount of anti-gay legislation is going to fix.

I like women, and I don't feel like my relationships with the girls I date, or the eventual relationship with the girl I end up marrying, is even remotely affected by whether or not some men like other men or women like other women, any more than my relationships are affected by a married couple who don't really love each other. What's your problem?

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
you cant fit a square peg in a round hole.

Then how did your post fit into a forum for the ratinal discussion of issues?

Your 'point' is nothing more than an argument that 'homosexuality doesn't exist'. Neat.

Ok, craig it's ratinal.

The only thing I oppose in gay marriage is the entitlement of adoption and ivf.
you wannabe a gay/lesbo, good for you, but don't try to propagate is my only gripe. Because others have to pick up the pieces and live with the mess.
The jilted gay lover here in Australia is a common murder scenario.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=VuU9smHwtJU

 

[Julius Shark]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

If what the gay couple two doors down is doing and what they are calling it can drastically affect your relationship with your wife, then there is something really wrong with you two that no amount of anti-gay legislation is going to fix.

I like women, and I don't feel like my relationships with the girls I date, or the eventual relationship with the girl I end up marrying, is even remotely affected by whether or not some men like other men or women like other women, any more than my relationships are affected by a married couple who don't really love each other. What's your problem?

It makes a big difference to millions of us. Don?t ask me to post links, back up and all that other crap that people on this board fall back on every time they get a direct answer form a passionate and wise man like myself.

What?s my problem? That sounds inflammatory to me. Don?t worry. I know the score here. You won?t hear what I really think on this forum. You people (thanks Ross) have managed to remove the balls from most of the posters on this form.

When are you gay crusaders going to settle down and be happy? Good lord, the time you take to ram through legislation that will absolve you of the guilt that perverted lifestyle causes.

Be happy with the civil union and STFU about marriage.






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 allow me to express my views on a highly charged subject, then FU.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

If what the gay couple two doors down is doing and what they are calling it can drastically affect your relationship with your wife, then there is something really wrong with you two that no amount of anti-gay legislation is going to fix.

I like women, and I don't feel like my relationships with the girls I date, or the eventual relationship with the girl I end up marrying, is even remotely affected by whether or not some men like other men or women like other women, any more than my relationships are affected by a married couple who don't really love each other. What's your problem?

It makes a big difference to millions of us. Don?t ask me to post links, back up and all that other crap that people on this board fall back on every time they get a direct answer form a passionate and wise man like myself.

What?s my problem? That sounds inflammatory to me. Don?t worry. I know the score here. You won?t hear what I really think on this forum. You people (thanks Ross) have managed to remove the balls from most of the posters on this form.

When are you gay crusaders going to settle down and be happy? Good lord, the time you take to ram through legislation that will absolve you of the guilt that perverted lifestyle causes.

Be happy with the civil union and STFU about marriage.






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 allow me to express my views on a highly charged subject, then FU.

Ok I will bite..

I would like to see the links.

But honestly if you cannot make love to your wife because you saw a gay couple earlier in the day...

Well you either have too much hatred or real curious.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your mistake is thinking that by allowing other people to get married, you are somehow forcing it on other people.

My 'real solution' is to watch the CSC invalidate prop 8, and then watch the USSC and/or congress invalidate DOMA. I don't really need to do anything.

Your solution (if it happens) will give gays a paper issued from the government with the word married on it, but all that will do is give gays a "feel good" piece of paper.

If a feel good piece of paper is all gays want they can get it online.


If gays want recognition that they are in a loving and commited relationship a piece of paper wont do. A piece of paper doesn't prove love in a hetosexual couple, so what makes you think it will work for a gay couple?

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't acknowlagment, acceptance, and equal treatment in a gay relationship what gay couples really want?

They might get acknowlagement with a piece of paper (but it will be a hollow victory without acceptance and equal treatment).

Equal treatment (under the law) can be achieved without the word marrage, but equal treatment (respect/courtesy) and acceptance by the general population can't be expected without mutual respect. So if gays want their relationship to have real meaning outside of their own home they must first understand that respect and acceptance are earned.
By trying to force gay marriage on a significant portion of the population that understands or intreprets marrage to be a religious ceremony between a man and a woman is not respectfull of their views, and those people will return the favor, by providing opposition.

Go ahead and fight for that piece of paper if you want, I'm just trying to answer the OP question, and warn those that want that paper that it may not be what they really want.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: justly

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your mistake is thinking that by allowing other people to get married, you are somehow forcing it on other people.

My 'real solution' is to watch the CSC invalidate prop 8, and then watch the USSC and/or congress invalidate DOMA. I don't really need to do anything.

Your solution (if it happens) will give gays a paper issued from the government with the word married on it, but all that will do is give gays a "feel good" piece of paper.

If a feel good piece of paper is all gays want they can get it online.


If gays want recognition that they are in a loving and commited relationship a piece of paper wont do. A piece of paper doesn't prove love in a hetosexual couple, so what makes you think it will work for a gay couple?

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't acknowlagment, acceptance, and equal treatment in a gay relationship what gay couples really want?

They might get acknowlagement with a piece of paper (but it will be a hollow victory without acceptance and equal treatment).

They want to not be discriminated against under the law.

The same issue existed for ending slavery - the institution vould be outlawed but it did not end racism. The same issue existed for segregation - it could be ended legally but it did not end racism. You don't seem to understand that just because ending legal wrongs doesn't change the culture, that's not a reason not to fix the law. You fix the law because it's right, and you do what you can with the culture.

Equal treatment (under the law) can be achieved without the word marrage, but equal treatment (respect/courtesy) and acceptance by the general population can't be expected without mutual respect. So if gays want their relationship to have real meaning outside of their own home they must first understand that respect and acceptance are earned. [/quote]

This is where you have it ass-backwards. Blacks don't have to 'earn' the right not to be slaves, to eat at the same restaurants, to ride anywhere on the bus.

That's your arrogant, bigoted attitude - that you're doing them some big favor by ending discrimination. 'We'll let you sit at the front of the bus IF you earn it by showing respect'.

Wrong and tha that's the blindness that power can bring, that you think they owe you something for equal rights, they have to kiss your ass.

By trying to force gay marriage on a significant portion of the population that understands or intreprets marrage to be a religious ceremony between a man and a woman is not respectfull of their views, and those people will return the favor, by providing opposition.

It's the people who have the bigotry who are in the wrong, just as they were on slavery and segregation. Sorry, but not a lot of 'respect' needs to be shown by slaves for slave owners in the process of demanding an end to slavery. Imagine the phrase 'trying to force an end to slavery on a population that understands slavery to be a good institution' - what's wrong with that phrase? It's that you are being overly 'respectful' of people who are doing wrong.

Go ahead and fight for that piece of paper if you want, I'm just trying to answer the OP question, and warn those that want that paper that it may not be what they really want.

Thanks for your concern, but I'll go with what gays say they want and common sense tells me they *deserve* - not a privilege - equal treatment under the law for marriage.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
you cant fit a square peg in a round hole.

Then how did your post fit into a forum for the ratinal discussion of issues?

Your 'point' is nothing more than an argument that 'homosexuality doesn't exist'. Neat.

Ok, craig it's ratinal.

Your lead argument is to note a typo. How impressive.

The only thing I oppose in gay marriage is the entitlement of adoption and ivf.
you wannabe a gay/lesbo, good for you, but don't try to propagate is my only gripe. Because others have to pick up the pieces and live with the mess.
The jilted gay lover here in Australia is a common murder scenario.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=VuU9smHwtJU

First, we're off to partial agreement if you support gay marriage other than those two things.

Now, what's your problem with gay people having equal rights to raise children? What igorant myth do you believe? That they harm the child, that they turn the child gay?

I don't even have to argue that they're just as good of parents as others, just that they're adequate. Otherwise, why don't we break people into whatever groups, say race, and say the ones who are measured adequate but not equal to the other groups are no longer allowed to adopt? But as it turns out, studies show gays *are* just as good in parenting, and a lot better than the alternatives for those children. Defend your discrimination.

Second, what's your problem with ivf? The sexual attraction to the opposite gender is not what makes a good parent, and you need to show good reason to deny parenting rights.

You can't. So stop the bigotry.

 

[Craig234]

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.

People like dyna get it so wrong, out of ignorance. They think homosexuality isn't normal for a few basic reasons, all wrong:

- "If everyone were gay, the species wouldnt reproduce, and die out so it's unnatural".

Well, then people being born impotent is 'unnatural', people being born blind is unnatural; homosexuality can be viewed as a 'nautral defect' by this logic as any natural condition that has a negative impact can be, but since homosexuality has seemed to always hold at about 3% and doesn't threaten the human race, and other than societal bigotry doesn't seem to clearly harm the individual, with some wishing they weren't gay and some happy they are, with some positive traits being above average in homosexuality as well... even calling it a 'natural defect' like blindness or shortness (which can also limit reproductive options for men, it seems) etc., is debatable. Bottom line, it *doesn't* threaten the species, and so the argument based on if it did, is wrong.

- Few people (perhaps 3%) are gay, so it's unnatrual

These people confuse unusual with unnatural. People born with webbet feet, people born blind, people born looking as good as (fill in your flavor), albinos, are all rare and natural.

As if that weren't enough, there's zero proof of any unnatural cause - there's no "river of Gay" gay people drink from, there's no "cult of Gay" they all attend. It Just Happens.

- The vagueries of human sexuality

Human sexuality is a complex blend of the natural and, well, other things.

How well do we really understand the impact of childhood associations that lead to adult obsessions and fetishes, the impact of conditioning, emotional association, fantasy?

It's easy enough to find anecdotal evidence for just about any situation - and to commit the fallacy of generalizing from it. "I knew this one girl who thought she was gay but then she had a bad relationship and after that she only dated men" proves to that person that all homosexuals chose their orientation. But that's wrong; it only shows that that person's makeup, their experiences, their degree of orientation to one gender, were unusual. There is such a variety of human sexual experience, influenced by so many factors.

But the fact is that for most people, their basic sexual orientation is clearly determined for them, with varying degrees and flavors. Most men cannot choose same-sex attraction.

Now, put that same man into a situation as a boy - molested, dominated, etc. - and you will see an effect in his adult sexualilty. But that doesn't change how 'gay' works.

Homosexuality is a natural and normal condition of the human species in a small percentage of people, like many other traits in a small percentage of people.

While sexuality is complex, and it involves many behavioral choices on how you handle the sexual feelings, gay is natural - in the small percentage who are gay.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

It makes a big difference to millions of us. Don?t ask me to post links, back up and all that other crap that people on this board fall back on every time they get a direct answer form a passionate and wise man like myself.

What?s my problem? That sounds inflammatory to me. Don?t worry. I know the score here. You won?t hear what I really think on this forum. You people (thanks Ross) have managed to remove the balls from most of the posters on this form.

When are you gay crusaders going to settle down and be happy? Good lord, the time you take to ram through legislation that will absolve you of the guilt that perverted lifestyle causes.

Be happy with the civil union and STFU about marriage.






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 allow me to express my views on a highly charged subject, then FU.

Hahaha, awesome. "Don't ask me to back up what I say".

This explains everything anyone needs to know about this retard.