Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Why then did numerous religious organizations and activist groups along with their state representatives ban same sex civil unions in several states then?

Why did they ban marriage like contracts?

Gay people tried to let you keep your sacred word that heterosexuals had already devalued — but the religious right would not even allow that. They demanded zero recognition of a same sex unions — and you see the end result.

 

I didn't know there was states that banned civil unions, which states?

 

Sixteen states actually: Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Idaho Kansas Kentucky Louisiana North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Carolina Texas Utah and Wisconsin each banned civil unions or recognition of legal status outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Several of the statutes specifically named civil unions, others were more broad.

Michigan Nebraska South Dakota and Virginia added additional language that barred recognization of any relationship or contract that attempted to replicate an institution similar to marriage.

Anyone that says gay people should have just been satisfied with civil unions and that the fight was over the word “marriage” are either completely uninformed or outright lying. It has never been about the word or the institution for most people still angry about it — it was about them not wanting to legitimize same sex couples, and any legal recognition was too much in their mind.

Keep in mind when discussing this topic with people that act like they have “no issue with same sex civil unions”, that over 70% of the people that are against same sex marriage also want same sex relations criminalized according to Gallup.

 

Well, that certainly is interesting, I didn't realize that.

Then I guess the overfelt decision had to happen.

 

Just find another word for homosexual unions that is in no way offensive and then call it that. Those that practice it and their followers can deem it sacred and no one will be offended. That's an easy solution. My point is....there is a difference. Why shouldn't our language point that out? Any rationale for that?

 

Because the Christian right would not allow any type of homosexual union prior to OvH, now y’all want a do over and are trying to act like the issue is a single word.

To your request for us to “Just find another word for homosexual unions that is in no way offensive and then call it that”, we tried that.
Now the answer is simply “No”.

 

Why, marraige is sufficient.

people can choose not to take offense.

what does our language need to point that out?

 

That's what I thought. Y'all aren't interested in live and let live. Y'all just want us to "embrace" a deviation of what marriage was meant to be. What y'all do behind closed doors has never changed and can never be stopped we know that. Y'all just want to redefine marriage and change traditional family.

 

That marriage signifies the union between a man and women. The new word (that you choose) signifies a union between two men. You could even come up with a new word for a union between two women. Let's don't confuse the children as to what is what......unless that is the real issue. Some have already attempted to confuse the gender of the children. This may well be just another attempt along those lines.

 

Don't kid yourself. You've always enjoyed the "homosexual union" and you know it. You just want something else.

 

If that were true, they would never have gotten it passed to call homosexual unions "marriage". As far as criminalizing same sex relations.....that would never accomplish a thing. There will always be those that crave those types of things. They just want special treatment and to be recognized as the norm. That is the issue here.

 

As I wrote, I understand that some, like you have a different notion of the language. The issue was with the differentiation of how the law treats those two things separately causing the restriction of rights granted. I don't disagree that the SCOTUS was (very much like the case of Roe V Wade) acting perhaps outside of their lane. It does not, however, make me upset at the outcome. I doubt the case would be revisited, but like many SCOTUS rulings, it does keep the door open for a future challenge, and frankly I find that discomforting. I do, however, find that I don't agree with your assessment of there being a remarkable difference in homo or hetero relationships. I find that married gay and straight folks face the same challenges, make man of the same choices, and endure. And while having children is more difficult, it isn't insurmountable allowing for propagation to continue where desired. So, as stated, I understand that folks might not like what they feel only applies to them being generalized in a way they might find offensive. I find I endure many things that are offensive to me. I watch folks trod on our rights as citizens every day in the name of their ideology. But, because I understand the need for general application of rights, I don't then demand that those I find offensive are restricted from the use or the name of those rights. I expect this isn't popular, but I find it's necessary.

 

The courts and legislatures disagree with you, and your argument is therefor not worth the wasted pixels.

Gay people CAN marry. Gay people CAN adopt. Legally. That is reality. Why? Because they were American citizens first, gay second. And as such, under the Constitution, they are accorded all the rights and privileges of any other citizen. That is the real world.

 

The legal definition of marriage is as follows:
Definition
The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage#

Anything else is personal opinion and offers no value to anyone other than the person who holds it.

 

We tried playing by your rules which were basically no rights at all for gay people. And now you want to play victim.

No.

 

What do you mean “that that were true”?
It’s a poll that has been asked every year with similar (although decreasing) results — go look it up or click where i have sourced it.

 

I have never had a homosexual union so I do not know what you mean.
What else do “I” want?

 

what is the importance of that

so far I don't see why marriage isn't sufficient. Until that's explained there won't be a new word.

what children are confused how are they confused by two people of the same sex getting married explain please?

What does same-sex marriage have to do with transgenderism?

 

So you're a Trump fan I take it?

 

Children are not confused by this — bigots are.

 

To be treated as the norm is not special treatment.

Yeah they want to be treated like normal people why wouldn't they be?

 

I have a hard time with the children being confused thing I don't understand why people say that.

Are they confused than that they will think two men can marry each other? Well they can't that's not confusing that's reality.

 

Maybe they’re worried acceptance of homosexuality will lead their children or other loved ones into believing it’s okay to be gay? Maybe that person (child/loved one) will be more willing to accept their own orientation.
The worst nightmare of at least a few I’d imagine.

 

Well I don't think they want people to think that it's okay to be gay, they wanted to be weird they wanted to be strange, but these days it's so passe. Rex Lee run into gay people that miss having their communities and gay bars. But honestly I think the way it is now is better.

As far as children, part of me thinks they're saying that because they can't come up with a well-reasoned position as to why they oppose same-sex marriage. Are there a lot of these people don't really seem to they just don't like do use of the word. They want same-sex marriage to be seen as different. And it largely just isn't any more.

I think that's what it's about. Their views are becoming esoteric, and that worries them. I think there's room for everyone. But what it really boils down to is people think that should be frowned upon. That's why they're against using the word marriage

 

It’s a loss for the people that are against gay rights trying to indoctrinate their children of younger generations that gay = bad. Children are confused because there is no longer a legal distinction or legal disenfranchisement of gay people in this specific area so it damages the narrative.

I hope orientation has no relevance in the next few generations.

Treat people equally and most of these silly social issues go away.