Can opponents of gay marriage give a single way that it interferes in their lives?

I suspect he is referring to the majority of pregnancies that occur to couples who had no intention of procreating.

 

I think "free exercise" of religion involves more than just worship and I don't think declining to bake some ones wedding cake is a desire to harm them.

 

I want to legally define marriage, in the constitution, to a social contract between consenting adults. There would not be "gay marriage" there would just be marriage, and the government would be barred from dictating whether any consenting adults would be allowed to marry each other.

 

'

Well people who sue a private business for refusing them service cause he does not like them is an idiot.

But that is about the person sueing them and has nothing to do with gays getting married.

And by the way, there are several religions that do not have bans on gay marriage. I doubt anyone gives a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) how Christians feel about it. Plus there are plenty of secular ways to get married that has nothing to do with religion, such as a judge or justice of the peace.

There is not a single way that a gay couple getting married directly interferes with your ability to live your life. Anymore than you being a bigot interferes in mine, so I can not ban you from exercising free speech on those grounds.

 

If a homosexual couple decides not to use the Christian lady who bakes wedding cakes because they disagree with her opposition to gay marriage, have they forced their beliefs regarding gay marriage upon the christian Baker? To me that is no different than the Christian baker declining to do a wedding cake for the gay couple.

 

You think teenage mom's are going to get married instead of having sex? You think the existence of marriage will prevent people from becoming teenage mom's? No. What prevents teenage mom's is adequate birth control. Marriage does absolutely nothing to prevent teenage mom's. However, if you care about the unwanted kids of teenage moms, you would allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt them. And since we don't want the kid to be raised by a single parent, it makes all the more sense to offer marriage benefits to gay and lesbian couples, as well as couples who do not have children, because those are the couples more likely to adopt the kids of teenage mom's who can't raise them.

No it doesn't. People have sex and have unwanted kids regardless of the existence of marriage license. What is the problem? People having unwanted children. Offering marriage licenses exclusively to heterosexual couples does absolutely nothing to address the problem...which is why we still have so many unwanted children born to "black teenage single moms."

You don't have a right not to be taxed. Nobody does. The comparison is completely false. Furthermore, saying you don't care about gay marriage but you care about the debate is completely nonsensical.

 

If you weren't so obsessed with promoting homosexuality, you would allow any two consenting adults who chose to join together, to adopt them.

 

There is not a single way that a couple made up of any two consenting adults getting married directly interferes with your ability to live your life. But your all about promoting homosexuality, not equality.

 

Sooooo whats all this "gay marriage" in the title of your thread and every post?

 

Strawman

- - - Updated - - -

Red herring/strawman

 

Promoting homosexuality?? Really So by promoting gay rights we will what, produce more gays???

 

Yep- that's what he thinks. People will magically become gay all of a sudden.

 

Breaking: Hawaii House Passes Same-Sex Marriage, To Become 16th Equality State.....http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...2#.Un6LLEko6tU

OMG The end is near!!

 

I'm not sure how, exactly, your response really has much to do with my comment. Nor am I sure why you called me a bigot based on what I said. If you feel I said something bigoted, could you please define the offending words? I would very much like to know what made you think that.

I think I responded to the question you asked in your very first post. And it seems the answer is that you want gay marriage to interfere in everyone's life. I ask nothing of gay couples, but apparently they potentially can ask a great deal from me. Any service they request from me I must provide or find myself hauled before some sham "human rights" commission. I can see where this legal path is going, and it looks like gays intend for gay marriage to provide a great deal of interference in other people's lives.

 

That is a massive exaggeration. Do you have 1 or 2 practical examples of what you're talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

YAY!!! Ha!!

Once gays are allowed to marry in all 50 States, I wonder what the 'regressives' will be fussing about then.

 

See post 112

 

I see a claim that may or may not be true. I'm sure in some cases things can be pushed too far, but I don't see anything that justifies prohibiting gay couples from marrying.

Time for the homophobia and closed mindedness to end; really.

 

Are you one of those who assumes everyone isgay until you are offered visual proof? Does punching you in the nose give evidence of straightness or gayness?
I seem to remember posting the challenge in 1987 that convinced some coworkers I was straight.
I would appreciate your input on the relevant scenes from my 64-day Glee fanfiction saga (on my Tumblr blog (Phillipcole),especially day 41 insert Life in the Closet.
You might also answer another important question: do lesbians like gay men? That is to say, if a woman has decided she doesn't want to talk to talk to women about fashion, interior design and making a man happy, does she want to talk to men whose favorite subjects are fashion, interior design and making a man happy?

 

You don't seem too get how the US works. A business that serves the public cannot say, "We won't serve you because you're gay." Just like no business can say they won't serve people because they are black, Jewish, women, men, Christian, Muslim or anything else. That's how things work here in the United States.

Now, I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that is the country we live in. And I'm quite proud of it. Apparently, you are not.

 

Lots of lesbians like gay men. I'm a hockey player and I have a lot of lesbian friends as a gay man- lots of gay male friends and straight male friends. Why do you assume all gay men are into fashion and interior design? We come in all shapes and sizes, and we like all kinds of things.

 

So do you talk to them about hockey strategy, NHL history, curved sticks, arena sizes, division names, zamboni mechanics, Manon Rheaume, uniform colors or which players might be gay?

 

A lot of the above, but who cares who is gay?

Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*)? Not me.

What is wrong with you that you do care. BTW, I am a goalie and use a PP33 curve, LeClaire. Not that you would have a clue what that means.

I am the only gay player on my team. And now that same sex marriage is legal in Illinois, they are all bugging me about getting married.

And you know what? That is awesome. My team is waiting for me to find a good person to marry. That is really cool that they care that much.

 

Is that so? What the SCOTUS rules isn't necessarily in line with an originalist interpretation of course. I'm not speaking of what the SCOTUS deemed it to be, but rather what it ought to be from an original reading.

Not in detail, but in principle. Young hetero couples can and do procreate spontaneously. Children fare better if raised in a stable relationship. Therefore a policy aimed at keeping them in a relationship is justified.

You're still missing the point. Some one said that gay marriage affects homosexuals personally (which it can do) and therefore they get personal about it. I said that taxes affect me personally, but I don't get personal about it.

You felt like that last part of the quoted sentence was irrelevant I suppose?... Brilliant example of taking something out of context.

I never said it affected me. Read above.

Yes, I understand you are interested in lgtb issues by virtue of being a member of that group yourself. I'm not saying that you shouldn't participate in the debates, you are free to. But I am saying that you should refrain from taking things personally. It is not personal lee, it really isn't.

Imagine I am a high income earner, and it's rasing taxes on those that are discussed. Now it affects me more personally than other people who pay taxes. Anyways, my example was just about something that affected me personally. I could find some example that would be a better analogy to gay marriage, but I think that's unneeded as you get my point.

Why is it that some people have such difficulty to understand -or maybe it's even a difficulty to read in the first place- my posts? I really shouldn't be responding to this because you're actually replying to your strawman rather than my post..

Read above, re-read what you quoted. Perhaps I should add, understand what you read also.

I'm not against same-sex couples adopting.

I'm talking about a policy aimed at these people, not marriage. Read above, and re-read my posts.

I've already explained my example with taxes, read above. You don't understand that caring about the debate whilst being inddiferent to wheter gay marriage is allowed or not is possible? Well, it is, and I am.

 

It seemsto me that gaysare obsessed with putting as many people as possible in their category: Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, Eleanor Roosevelt,Plato, Socrates, and-someone once told me-every man in ancient Greece. They try to out every suspect in current sports, politicsand pop culture, as well as people they meet. (The earlier post was for Colombine who might not answer having been identified too clearly.)
Let'sget to the point: when you meet a young single male who fits your desired profile in a neutral place (work, church, library, hotel) how do you assess the prospects and how do you use the limited opportunity to proceed?

 

Wonderful testimony! It's the way many more Americans are beginning to see things; thank goodness.