Arguments AGAINST gay marriage

And yet you have failed to provide one example of such proof.

Perhaps you need to reread what I wrote. Sodomy was a crime.

So it is the same to compare a criminal sexual activity to another criminal sexual activity, both felonies.

Fail.

Fail.

The above statement is so far over on the ignoramous meter there's hardly any point in replying. Churches and church owned businesses and adoption agencies, hospitals ect., have been forced out of business by current laws in many states because of abortion laws, and such. Your feable attempt to equate Jews and Catholics with the democrats terrorist wing known as the KKK is so out of line and only highlights your own ignorance of history.

The conspiracy theorists are the ones who believe that a heretofore unknown yet overlooked for centuries civil right now must be recognized regardless of the majorities civil rights and opinions, laws and precidents, legal procedures and processes and the consequences.

Do you know the difference between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative? Many democrats are in favor of the current marriage laws:

Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996
And most states have DOMA laws:


That includes liberal California which had to pass one a second time (Prop 8 ) the first attempt (Prop 22) having been overturned for no apparent reason by the courts.

 

The prop 8 case and recent DOMA rulings are several examples of such proof. They've all stipulated that the only reason these statutes exist is to discriminate and that they serve no other valid purpose and are, as such, unconstitutional.

Which was repealed because there was no valid reason for it to be so and enforcing such laws encroached on the privacy of individuals and was deemed unconstitutional.

Except one has valid reason to be a felony (because there is a perpetrator and a victim) and the other does not (because there are two consenting adults). This is settled law, the ship has sailed and you missed it.

Nope that's the law, like it or not.

So you'd be happy if humanity suffered a complete lack of progress then?

No you are the ignorant party here because you forgot to insert the phrase: "Churches and church owned businesses and adoption agencies, hospitals ect., who are in receipt of state funding have been forced out of business by current laws in many states because of abortion laws, and such."

See, that adds a degree of nuance I'm not sure you are capable of ingesting. None of these activities have been banned it's just the state will not subsidize them if they discriminate against a certain group. It would be the same if they discriminated on the basis of race or disability etc. They can still carry on their operations on their terms just not on the public purse.

You've also completely failed to address the point that a wedding "ceremony" is held completely at the whim of whomsoever is operating the service. A Humanist officiant can refuse to wed two Hindus, a Catholic Priest can refuse to wed two Muslims. Now, if those churches, synagogues mosques etc. were receiving public funding to provide those services you might have a point but, as they're not, you don't. Can you provide one single example of a non-public servant being successfully sued because they refused to officiate a wedding ceremony?

BTW, please don't call me an ignoramous when you are the one who is completely 360o in the wrong here.

I was just pointing out that any church can refuse to marry any couple for any reason. I wasn't attempting to equate anything with any one. Sometimes pointing out an extreme example makes a point more easy to absorb.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Yes because I consider myself the former and not the latter. You're the one who invoked President Obama so if you're looking for someone to blame for making this a partisan issue, then look in the mirror and blame yourself.

I've no doubt they are. Like I say there's no reason for this to be a partisan issue. Ted Olsen sees that very plainly and so does Dick Cheney.

Maybe you missed it but this was deemed unconstitutional at the District Court level; a ruling which was later upheld on appeal?

 

There is no such thing as one gender marriage. The sole purpose of the gay marriage movement is to destroy everyone's religious freedom. I am telling the truth, there are already lawsuites like that in England:

So you are the one not telling the truth about that.

What you consider arbitrary happens to be long held religious belief and tradition, your opposition to which makes you discriminate against people based on your arbitrary beliefs that have no substance in history or tradition. I've not tried to argue that molesting a child is fair or harmless to a child. I pointed out that it is a felony, just as sodomy once was. Homosexuals have long been considered mentally ill until the last few decades. Just stating the facts, I know libs hate it when I do that.

 

I think reasonable efforts should be made to allow churches and clergy to practice their beliefs, but restricting what everyone ELSE can do to accomplish this is not a reasonable solution.

 

The fact that you have stated that, "They've all stipulated", does not make it so. Rulings by activist judges do not count. Show us where the laws have any such stipulations, one example is all that is needed.

This is quite true regarding the privacy argument. That same argument is used by pedophiles BTW.

Except when there is not two consenting adults.

First of all, you don't know me, so don't call me ignorant. Secondly, my statement is true as I stated it. Thirdly, I see no need to add your false qualifying statements. I can write my own sentences without the need of your intentional lies whatever the degree of nuance being spun into them. Receipt of funding is not relevent and is not true in all cases. But with regard to funding, why is it you cannot see the bigotry in denying one group funding because of their religious beliefs? Receipt of funding should not be contingient on one's willingness to reject one's own long held religious beliefs and practices.

Because there is no point debating your strawman argument.

I am right. I didn't call you an ignoramous. Basic understanding of sentence structure will show that you are wrong on this one. Unlike you who violated the TOSS rules by calling me ignorant just a few lines up.

Equivocation.

How so?

I don't think you understand the difference then.

It is not a partisan issue. The DOMA laws have passed nationally with support of Republicans, democrats, and independents.

Right, I think I just pointed that out so, how is it you feel I missed it?

 

you being afraid of your religous freedom being taken away dose not make gay marrage a threat to religous marrage ther is no grounds to sue a church for not marrying you to any one tradition is no excuse for discrimination and your religous freedom dosent extend to making your faith law over others it violates are religous freedom

 

true im thinking about hear in the united states not england even their the fear is chuches wont be able to discriminate who can use their property they will not be forced to sanction any marrages let alone perfom then

im with you focing yourself on a church to use their buildings seems wrong

 

Court rulings are what count in a society based around law. So are you going to ignore any law you personally disagree with because it was set by an "activist" judge?

I gave you several you just contend the rulings don't count because they were made by "activist" judges. It's a merry-go-round.

In a relationship involving two gay adults there are two legally consenting gay adults. In a relationship involving a 40 year old man and a twelve year old child are there two legally consenting pedophiles?

This makes no sense.

Um! Excuse me, you said my statement was one of an "ignoramous" before stating a wholely fabricated point, what else do you expect me to do?

No it was not. Firstly it was sweepingly wide, incredibly vague and had no specific examples to back it up and where you could have stated a case, such as with regard to adoption agencies, you ignored a glaringly salient point with regard to funding.

They are not false statements. It is perfectly fair to withhold state funding from operations which refuse to comply with the law.

Except they don't make sense and you have shown nothing to back up your claims just made blanket statements which you expect everybody to agree without any proof or substance.

So you're good with your taxes going towards Pagan child sacrifice.

Well what are the cases, what is the context and where is the proof?

So if an Humanist organisation was receiving state funding to set up a library to educate people away from religion, you'd be fine with that and you would object to efforts to close them down or to picket their buildings or offices?

There's a big difference between rejecting your religious beliefs and expecting everyone else to comply with them.

Just because you can't successfully refute a point does not make it a strawman. Strawmaning is not the act of putting your hands over your ears and saying La La La! So, I'll ask you again:

"Can you provide one single example of a non-public servant being successfully sued because they refused to officiate a wedding ceremony?"

So what other kind of person makes a statement that is: "so far over on the ignoramous meter there's hardly any point in replying."

Not sure it will you know?

I think you're stepping into muddy waters here. Had you not been so arrogant and condescending with your "ignoramous" quote we probably wouldn't be arguing this point.

Nope they all consider themselves religious organisations, they can all limit membership to people who share their beliefs and ideals and none of them is forced to perform wedding "ceremonies" for people whose unions they do not condone. If you can prove otherwise then please do so.

Because your paragraph made no sense. In what way are people who agree with gay rights "conspiracy theorists"?

Well then explain it through your eyes then. I'm for limited government, minimal taxation, a minimal debt burden and staying out of the lives of people who's business does not concern me. I'm also for equality of opportunity for all citizens (which is not the same thing as guaranteed equality of outcome).

Indeed, and have been declared unconstitutional by judges appointed by Republicans, Democrats and (probably) independents.

You neglected to mention that Prop 8 has been deemed unconstitutional at the District Court level; a ruling which was later upheld on appeal?

 

Yes, you are right that less people tie children to marriage. And that is why we have so much more chaos today. Used to be when someone got pregnant---the overall response was---put it up for adoption into a committed family, or get married. Child focused. Now the response is--go to the government, get sustanence and then find a good man to co-habitate with. And if that doesn't work--get another man to move in. Not really child oriented eh? Oh....and now people don't lament the poor baby that has been created. They lament how the woman or man has "ruined" their future. It went from child-focused to adult focused. I see the child-focused philosophy as healthy. The adult focused philosophy as not. One buildson the concept of responsibility and puts family above the self. The other lives on self-gratification and selfishness.

When I was an unwed mother--I remember being proud of it--doing it on my own (with government to sustain me of course). Of course my attitude has changed dramatically now that I have raised children in the environment they deserve---mom, dad and committed relationship. My younger children have clear advantages over my older.

When I was an unwed mother and I met a guy and eventually he moved in---there was no condemnation from anyone on how this might affect my son. It was "normal".
I WONDER--if someone had told me how selfish and self-serving I was---if I might have had a bit of an attitude shake up.

How we can change marriage and how we view it is simply a matter of changing our views of what is "ok". Right now self-gratification, and selfishness at the expense of the children is pretty much "ok". So marriage is ripe to rip apart.

As a society we can expect better from our family, and friends--and help people understand that every act of sex brings a potential child and that adults should take full responsibility for raising that child in a committed home if that happens. Adoption is very much underused at this day and age.

Its the "me, me me" and self-gratification and selfishness of straight people that have led us to this sad point where children are simply baggage to destroy or sling along without thought. And that change in society has led to Gay Activists to be equal in marriage. But it is not a good move forward (for many reasons actuatlly) but mainly because it leads us away from improving the situation we have now.

 

I see it as going both ways. Consideration for children is important, but at the same time, unhappy parents in an unhappy marriage are not good for anyone (imo). Also, the circumstances that helped sustain marriages (i.e. the oppression of women) I would not describe as "all good" either, even though they did help achieve other goods (i.e. stable family units). It's a mixed blessing, and I don't think there's any going back. If marriage is to be used as a tool to support family units for children, it's going to need some major re-working, otherwise new mechanisms will have to be considered.

There's something to be said for support networks and 2 parent families of course.

Perhaps. I'd say this depends on the seriousness and frequency. My mother was married 3 times and divorced 2 times. The only "boyfriends" of hers that I EVER met were the ones she married. I honestly don't remember if I met them before or after they were married, but consideration for your children in the process is important.

Easy as pie, right?

On that note, though, I don't consider gay marriage (or "adult-orientated considerations" in general) to be necessarily at the expense of children. When people put their adult-oriented desires BEFORE children involved, that's a problem... but children are not always involved, and there's nothing that says the desires and needs of the adults can't or should not be considered as well. The difficulty comes when there are already children born (or at risk of being born). Gay couples don't produce this risk... rather the only risk they have with regard to children is coming into custody of one without the same advantages as a heterosexual couple. And as mentioned, I don't consider a miserable marriage to be good for children involved either, so it's sorta like picking the lesser of two evils.

Considering that marriage itself offers many rights and conveniences that have little regard to if there are children involved, and make sense for any committed couple, it makes sense that many consider marriage for the purposes of the adults... to an extent, it's a self-created problem that extends from all of the rights and benefits granted to ANY marriage without regard to children.
And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, as marriage itself doesn't have to serve just one and only one purpose. The problem only arrises when considerations for children come in conflict with considerations for the adults.

That said, just saying "if everyone just changed their views and put children first" does not fix the problem. What has changes is not a shift away from a focus on children, but rather a shift towards women's independence that has reduced the need to stay married, particularly when the women has children. I think people should be careful when getting married, to be sure (as much as possible) that they can be committed to it... it should not be something changed as often as you please. But as far as how you do this, I don't know. Birth control is meant to help fix this problem, allowing the adult to do what they want and only have children when they are ready. If you're old enough to have kids, you should be old enough to be ready and settle down with your partner and not just go for nightly flings. If you are divorced, there's no need to bring the boyfriend/girlfriend home every time to introduce them to the kid.

All and all, I really don't know how to fix the problem unless you want to return women back to second-class citizenship. Or men for that matter.

 

reason and a desire for freedom is whats leading to gay marrage thats all i get out of it a world wher you can do 1 more thing that happens to be fair and harmless

this is not an atack on children and it improve are nation by making it more just

 

You said, "They've all stipulated that the only reason these statutes..." You have failed to prove this statement. It doesn't matter what liberal judges "stipulate" is what I mean. You haven't proven these groups or laws stipulate what you say they do. You failed to give one example of any such stipulation, and continue to claim that you did...where?

If you don't understand my arguments regarding sodomy, perhaps you should review them. I haven't the time to explain basic logic. Sodomy is still against the law when concent is not given.

"you said my statement was one of an 'ignoramous'"...exactly. I was addressing your statement, not you personally. Personal attacks such as yours are against TOS rules.

When you take an argument from funding to child sacrafice then you are probably losing the argument. Comparing Jews and Catholics to the democrat's terrorist wing the KKK is outragious and now you are just back-peddling. Your Humanist argument is yet another strawman.

No one is attempting to impose their religious beliefs onto anyone else and is yet another strawman argument. They are trying to protect their own religious beliefs.

Another strawman argument.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. People who think there is are conspiracy theorists.

Prop 8, Prop 22, doesn't matter. The US Supreme Court will overturn the liberal lower court judges. Until then, we Californians will just have to keep passing more propositions protecting marriage.

 

It does matter because their rulings are "law". They may be held in abeyance pending appeal but they are still law. If the Supreme Court declines to hear appeals those rulings will be entered as statute.

Just read the rulings in Golinski or Gill (DOMA) or Perry (Prop they have all stipulated that the only reason these laws exist is to promulgate irrational discrimination. I'm not making this up.

I have reviewed them, they make no sense

Most likely because you can't

ANY sexual act is against the law when consent is not given. What the heck are you talking about?

Except my statement was 100% factually correct so the use of the term "ignoramous" could easily be construed as the knee-jerk, emotional reaction of someone who's just been whooped and knows it all to well.

Saying you are "the ignorant party' when this refers to a specific fact you plainly do not understand is not an insult. You may not be ignorant of the fact that ice cream is cold or that the sun is hot but that does not mean that you are not ignorant of the fact that nobody can be forced to perform a wedding ceremony that runs contrary to their religious or secular philosophical views. If I am the ignorant party and you can prove otherwise then please provide an example of this actually happening.

Nope I stand by my point. Again pointing out a far reaching comparison is a way of focusing down on a point. There's a good reason for government not to endorse any particular religion or philosophy and that's because doing so may encroach on the rights of others. Recognising same-sex couples right to marry does not force your church to endorse or perform same-sex wedding "ceremonies" or any of the members therein to marry partners of the same sex. It just doesn't. Fact!

No I am not. All these groups consider themselves as religious organisations. You may not like them , you may not agree with their viewpoints but their members do. My only point, and the one you are not getting, is the government can't be seen to be picking favorites when it it comes to providing money to groups whose stated purpose is to ignore the law.

Again you can say it but why not, for once, try to back it up with an actual argument rather than a petulant dismissal? Why should the government advance monies to a church and not to a humanist or athiest group? What do you contend makes one more worthy than the other in the supposedly "neutral" eyes of secular law?

If, for example, you are running an adoption agency which is in receipt of state funding and you refuse to provide adoption services to a gay couple in a state where SSM or Civil Unions are the law, the state has every right to refuse to subsidise you financially. Just as it would if you refused the same service to Jews or blacks or anyone else.

Nonsense, you said same-sex civil marriage would lead to clergy being forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Look at it this way. Your argument is that the recognition of same sex marriage would, by default, lead to a legal right to demand a religious wedding "ceremony". If this is the case then for all the years it's been legal, why is there not one single case of an heterosexual couple of any race, religion or creed successfully suing a church or other religious organistion for not performing their wedding? You'd think with the millions of weddings that have taken place you'd be able to point to just one.

In many jurisdictions homosexual persons of the same sex are recognised in marriage law so your statement is incorrect.

No they are not, this makes no sense. Do you know what a conspiracy theorist is. It is someone who imagines all sorts of stuff is happening when it isn't actually happening (like churches being forced to wed ANYONE they don't want to wed).

Is anyone who disagrees with anything you say a "liberal"? Maybe for some people being a "liberal" is not such a bad thing when it comes to social issues affecting the rights of innocent people.

I wouldn't be so confident of an USSC overturn. The arguments in these cases have been compelling and the defenses woeful. Cases have to be judged on merit, not just to conform with your prejudices.

Once such propositions have been deemed unconstitutional, they won't even make it to the ballot.