What the fuck is wrong with anti-same sex marriage people?

Christ, I hate these god damn people. How does two men or two women getting married "redefine" marriage? How does it HURT anyone? How can anyone buy into this bullshit that it will "ruin" everything? Of all the rabid right wing positions, this one makes the least sense to me.

Why can't they just let people marry who they want to marry? It takes nothing away from anyone.

Who the hell cares? I don't understand it myself but if two guys or gals wanna get married what business is it of anyone else's? Good for them, I say. How can you knock commitment? The right wing sexual hangup/obsession is very revealing I think.

They'd jump on the case of networks that air shows that trivialize marriage:
The Bachelor (ette)
Joe Millionaire
Who wants to Marry a Millionaire
Who wants to Marry My Dad
Who wants to Marry a Llama Herder

You get the picture. With the divorce rate over 50%, I don't think that same-sex marriage is the problem.

If we let two men or two women get married then what's next?? Why, someone could marry an ANIMAL!!!!! OH MY GOD!!!!!!

As Ellen Degeneres once said, "These people (rightwingers) scare me, and they think WE'RE weird."

for a member of the same sex. If I were a fundi woman I'd be worried. If I were a fundi man I'd worry too! They aren't known for their ability to please their partners. I think they are worried about giving themselves too many choices.

they are afraid someone, somewhere may be having fun. I wish I knew where that came from. Mark Twain? Anyone know the source of that exquisite quote?

...but I thought the original quote was meant to characterize the left (or whomever was saying was directing it towards the left)!

meant for the Calvinists, currently known as neocons or evangelicals. Don't know though. I'll surf around and see if I can find the source.

the legalization of masturbation!!!! If ever there was a victimless crime that one is it.

The most common argument I hear for keeping marriage a heterosexual-only institution is that marriage is a societal "ok" to have children. The special recognition married couples receive in society is supposed to represent that special role. My response to that is to ask why society should then allow infertile people or those too old to have children to marry. Marriage may have once been about raising children, but in today's society, it's much more than that. It's about making a commitment to love and care about someone else, to have someone with whom to enjoy life. I fail to see why conservatives can't be happy that a homosexual would want a permanent, stable relationship.

It's a legal contract also for one thing. You'd think the party of "personal responsibilty" would embrace same sex marriage.

My own views on marriage differ radically. I was married for about six years but we divorced :( I never did marry again and the mother of my two kids accepted the fact I would never again be subjected to the dictates of morally bankrupt religious institutions which at the time I considered marriage to be a part. I'm less intolerant now and support the institution as a protector of child and spousal rights, mostly as an economic factor. No one or group has the moral authority to grace a relationship with their imprimatur.

either that same-sex marriages would not tend to reproduce, and if they do, or adopt, many people have trouble with that. They might be concerned that children have a right to a father and mother.

DemEx

the better.

I will no longer be able to love my wife in the same way. My marriage will mean nothing, because all those in loving relationships can get married. Other then the bible defining marriage as between a man and a woman (and if a particular religon doesn't want to marry same sex couples, fine, but don't expect the state to be as blind and unaccepting) there is no reason to deny people the right of marriage based on anything other then one (or both) of the parties not yet having reached the age of majority.

If two people love each other, that is all that is important here. Let them get married if they want to. End of story.

Don

if it can be ok that two men or two women could marry and have a successful relationship, then a lot of what people assume to be true about the Bible, and conservative America, and the word of "moral" leaders falls to dust.

This is very much the same notion that keeps Americans in Iraq right now...we're committed and soldiers have died, so we must see it through. They will end up destroying this country.

They can NOT allow same sex marriages, because that would be admitting that gay people are humans. To them, gay people are sub human. Much like racists view other races.

You can't allow gay people to get married, because they are out to get me!

They also outlawed miscegenation (a phony concept if there ever was one) in many states for many years. They really are just self righteous arrogant assholes who want to control our thoughts and behavior.

It's as simple as that, despite the smokescreens of rhetoric. It's just hatred.

gays will feel that the relationship of marriage will be 'cheapened' somehow....and then they'll feel even worse about their own marriage.

DemEx

...the man with the toilet paper is KING.

Sorry. It just popped into my head. NO, I cannot understand why anyone would care who married who (especially in a country containing HOLLYWOOD!); the only thing I can figure is that they want to penalize people who aren't "NORMAL."

It is almost as confusing to ME as "Log Cabin Republicans."

No need to apologize for that. Too funny.

And I know the difference between literally and figuratively.
:D

And for good measure, also the distinction between irony and coincidence.
heh

On edit: I accidentally a word out.
;-)

... for each child you're going to have, and then you have to have it under the covers, with the lights out, and you can NEVER, NEVER enjoy it, and of course you have to be married. They think anything else is evil and morally wrong, and they are so firmly convinced of this moral picture of the world that they cannot understand how anybody else could think differently. They think that whatever the rest of us SAY we think, we REALLY believe having sex and enjoying it is sinful, just as they do. And because EVERYBODY really secretly agrees with them that sex is sin, that justifies the government using the law to stick its nose into everybody's bedrooms.

This is the way these meddling, moralistic, nosy busybodies see the world. We can't change them, but we have to resist them.

Ron

Let me first state that I DO NOT oppose gay marriage. They have been warned as to the state of marriage in the US "marry at your own risk."

I think the reason so many people oppose it is that they look around and see marriage has become the new version of "going steady". A meaningless institution that people get in and out of without a care. They are of course wrong in this thinking as homosexual marriage has nothing to do with it.

I do agree with them that the dicorce rate and the frequency of single parent homes is disturbing.

My daughter was four, son two when my, um, here's an oldie, POSSLQ, (persons of opposite sex sharing same living quarters-gotta love that!) left us. I raised them myself with only the ocassional interference from the GFs. My little girl is now married, owns her own house, makes about 45k a year and is just about going to turn 22. What's so disturbing about that? My son is working on his HS diploma and plans to join the Army. I worry about the Army thing but I'm a Vet and I know it would be good for him as long as the BFEE is kicked out of power. So don't give me any crap about single family households.

But are you telling me that single parents provide an equal enviroment for children as two parents in equal conditions? As in two parents in a calm loving enviroments, compared to one parent in a calm loving enviroment?

I'm not by any means stating that single parents should lose their kids or they are bad parents. What I am saying is that too many children are being denied the chance of having mom and dad both around because mom and/or dad didn't place their family high enough on their priorities list.

what was I supposed to do..run out and grab some asshole in pants because they needed a father?


It only requires a LOVING adult or adults to raise children...a loving adult or adult in a SOCIETY that praises ALL FAMILIES, gay or straight, single parent or 2 parents, and allows for GOOD jobs, decent daycare, Headstart etc...

The only thing hurting kids THESE days is the Republican Party..

PERIOD.

I have issues with people that put their family last on the priorities list and thus result in it's destruction. I don't doubt the ability of single parents.

BTW - there is more then just the GOP hurting our kids. Sadly children are being hurt by both sides in politics since they are seen as the future each side wants to indoctrinate them or in some cases punish them for past injustices of their races, sex, or religion.

but a single parent can provide all that is necessary for children. I am living proof. So there! :p

My girlfriend of 3 years. So I bleive you.

Wrong. According to the best information I've been able to find, the incidence of single-parent households has always been fairly constant, and more or less plateaued in the 1920s. (See "Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History," the chapter on the family, Richard Shenkman.) The difference nowadays is mostly that people divorce instead of die, for the most part, although divorce and/or separation is hardly historically unknown.

"I'm not a bigot, I just don't want these people to have the same rights as me." <paraphrase> He also used the B*sh tactic of "We're not bigots. We've got black people here. Some of them are my best friends." What a :puke:

on edit: It was CNN, not MSNBC.

liberals have a reputation for being hostile to the religious

I believe in freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion if such is the case. I think the state should be secular, and this is what protects religion actually.

think that liberals are hostile to religion. Maybe it has something to do with the way some liberals call them names, like "bad in bed", "stupid", "assholes", etc

Does that sound vaguely familiar?
:eyes:

And I wish more DUers and liberals would consider doing the same instead of calling those they disagree with "ASSHOLES"

...many liberals would be more inclined to be friendly toward them?

I'm sorry, but as a gay person, 95% of the shit I have to put up with is generated directly from the so-called religious right. Everytime they make an effort to limit my rights to freedom and happiness they open their Bible up and start quoting it.

I am not naturally hostile toward toward religion, but I sure as hell ain't gonna put up with being repeatedly kicked in the nuts by a bunch of people who want to shove their God down my throat.

On edit: as far as calling them stupid, assholes, bad in bed, etc.... It's a hell of a lot better than the names I have been called by people claiming to be followers of Christ. I have had my relationship called repugnant, evil, disgusting, been told I will burn in hell for all eternity. I have been compared to people who screw animal and corpses and rape children. I have even been told I deserve to get a terrible disease and die.

nor is it hostile to you, or any other liberal. CONSERVATIVE XTIAN CONSERVATIVES may be hostile to you, but CONSERVATIVE XTIAN CONSERVATIVES are not "religion"

And FYI, many Christians, Christ included, are very freindly towards liberals.

I'm sorry, but as a gay person, 95% of the shit I have to put up with is generated directly from the so-called religious right. Everytime they make an effort to limit my rights to freedom and happiness they open their Bible up and start quoting it.

If you ever come to NY City, I can introduce you to people who don't need a Bible to kick your ass. Does that make you feel any better?

Obviously the original poster in this was referring to those theocra-nazis who are trying to screw people over based on the gender of the person they love.

Instead of understanding why this person might feel some anger and hostility, you basically criticised the person for having feelings he not only has a right to feel, but quite probably, based on his topic, has a legitimate reason to be angry with those people.

In taking his message out of context to criticise him, is it any wonder that your message wasn't well received?

and I have rejected it for the simple reason that it's wrong to blame a whole group (ie. everyone who is religious) for the actions of a few members (ie. the religious right)

Instead of understanding why this person might feel some anger and hostility, you basically criticised the person for having feelings he not only has a right to feel, but quite probably, based on his topic, has a legitimate reason to be angry with those people.

Get ahold of yourself! I never criticized anyone for having any feelings. I never said that they have no right or legitimate reason to be angry with anyone, and I certainly don't need you to explain what I *really* meant.

I pointed out how the words we use to describe the people who are doing things we don't like have led many people --and I'm not just talking about Freepers here-- to believe that liberals are hostile to (all) religion. If you don't believe me, go and re-read this thread, and see if those who used derogatory terms made any effort to single out the XTian Freepers, as opposed to anyone who is religious.

In taking his message out of context to criticise him, is it any wonder that your message wasn't well received?

I didn't take any one person's message out of context. In fact, I didn't even refer to any one person's message. I was referring to most of the comments in this thread.

Just like when I refer to religious assholes, I am speaking of those who specifically use their faith as a reason to interfere with the freedom of others regardless of the harm it personally causes them.

Taking it personally because the overwhelming voice of religion in our society has left a bad taste in many people's mouths is something I cannot help with.

In other words, why look for reasons to nitpick people's posts? Because you were offended that posters generalized a bit instead of saying "I specifically hate the membership of Our Lady of Perpetual Agony and Suffering Catholic Church in Waukegan, Illinois?

when the words are repeated outside of DU, and outside of DU is where most of the talk is happening. IOW, I understand where the talk is coming from. I'm just pointing out that while there is a justifiable reason for getting angry, we should be careful about how we discuss this issue, and make clear exactly who it is we're angry about, and why, instead of misportraying a group of people that includes a majority of Americans. I don't understand why you would object to a call for clarity.

Taking it personally because the overwhelming voice of religion in our society has left a bad taste in many people's mouths is something I cannot help with.

It has nothing to do with taking it personally. I'm talking about a political reality, and that is that a lot of people think that liberals are hostile to religion. It's something that can be countered simply by being careful with how we describe those who have been hostile to *US*.

In other words, why look for reasons to nitpick people's posts? Because you were offended that posters generalized a bit instead of saying "I specifically hate the membership of Our Lady of Perpetual Agony and Suffering Catholic Church in Waukegan, Illinois?

Just as I don't need you to tell me what I mean when I say something, I don't need you to tell me *WHY* I've said something.

The reason why I raise this issue is because liberals (and Democrats) are perceived by many as being hostile to religion, and this costs us votes on Election Day. My "personal feelings", and what I get "offended" about, have nothing to do with this. I'm posting about this because this costs us votes.

Losing elections is not a trivial matter like "Our Lady of Perpetual Agony and Suffering Catholic Church in Waukegan, Illinois", so please stop trying to trivialize my opinion by misportraying it.

Liberals and democrats are seen as being hostile toward religion because of how the right wing and fundamentalist sects have portrayed us, not because of how we ourselves have acted.

And sadly, playing nice with these people and allowing them to treat us as doormats has historically never worked to changed their minds. Too many of churches use the church to push a political agenda and part of that agenda means portraying us in the worst possible light just for existing.

Liberals and democrats are seen as being hostile toward religion because of how the right wing and fundamentalist sects have portrayed us, not because of how we ourselves have acted.

I'm sorry, but it's not quite so one-sided. People wouldn't believe the right-wing fundies if liberals hadn't done anything to help confirm the fundies accusations. IMO, calling Christians, ALL Christians, "ASSHOLES" might lead some to believe that a hostility to religion does exist.

The right-wing fundies also said that feminists and homosexuals were responsible for 9/11, but no one believed that because the feminists and homosexuals had NOT given anyone any reason to believe it's true. Many liberals have given people a reason to think that they are hostile to religion by characterizing the religious in a derogatory manner.

is based on anything you would consider "legitimate"?

...a christian conservative is mean to a liberal it translates into "Christians are mean to us"

but conservative is mean to a liberal we don't look for anything other then the fact that they are conservative on which to place blame?

Liberal Christians are certainly not hostile towards you. I certainly am not. I support equal rights for all because I find it to be common sense and more conducive to peace. Why the hell should I care what you do? As long as you don't harm children or society, which I don't think gays do, I am more then happy to live side by side.

BTW teaching kids that homosexuality is ok is NOT harming them. Just felt I should throw that out there.

NAMBLA and people of their ilk that seek to sexualize our entire culture to the point where any and all sexual behavior is fine bother me. They seek to justify the corruption of children for the sake of personal pleasure.

Yes, there are liberal religions and sects of Christianity.

Unfortnately, where the issue of homosexuality is concerned, that list of allies grows noticably thinner.

Even you, in your oh-so-infinite understanding of all things gay, would have to agree that the overwhelming majority of the challenges gay people face in life and the obstacles placed in front of us are driven primarily by the mainstream religions of this society primarily Christianity.

If you cannot admit that simple fact, then I see no way we can come to an understanding.

If I recall correctly, you are a convert to catholicism and your church (not you, let's be clear) says that I am okay only if I choose to be celibate and that gay sex is a sin. Now you may consider that enlightened and liberal, but I consider it openly hostile.

Even you, in your oh-so-infinite understanding of all things gay

I claim no such understanding.

If you cannot admit that simple fact, then I see no way we can come to an understanding.

And Islam, but in terms of the US you are correct.


I am okay only if I choose to be celibate and that gay sex is a sin.

I don't know about the OK part. After all my church does not cliam that homosexuality is a greater sin then any other. Thus my living with my girlfriend prior to marriage (and all that comes with that) places me right next to you on the sin-o-meter.

I do however see how you would find such an accusation hostile.

I have been with my same gender partner for 13+ years and I can't tell you the number of times I have been shit upon one way another by someone claiming that I shouldn't take it personally, because it's just their faith.

For example. I have a neice and nephew I have never met and they don't know I exist because I have a so-called Christian brother who doesn't "want his children exposed to my reprobate lifestyle"

Or perhaps my mother who after ending a ten year affair with another woman up and decided that she was no longer a lesbian, joined the Catholic church and wrote me a 5 page nastygram telling me I was going to hell for being gay.


So if you detect some hostility where the issue of homosexuality and Christianity meet, just realize that it's because I so very rarely know that people are Christians by their love...it's usually because I know they are using their faith as excuse for doing terribly meanspirited and hateful things.

descrimination....CHRISTIANS?

I have no issue with the religious and have defended them on this board and in life. Those members of the religious community who beliee they were sent here to take God's place and judge are quite another story and open themselves to mockery.

BTW, I DO NOT lead a sheltered life, my CHRISTIAN friends hold their noses when they see these ideologues and their hatred coming...

"What do you call homophobes who use their religion to spread hatred and discrimination"

For short, I call them Fundamentalists. Even shorter "Fundies"

and as rational people we, well me anyway, are opposed to superstition as a guiding force in our lives. As far as I'm concerned, your neighborhood Palmist is as reliable as your neighborhood Psalmist. Hey, I just made that up! Yay me!

All religions are bunk, not just the three big'uns. They are all just speculation drenched in fantasy. I'll take the scientific method as a basis for considering the universe over philosophy anyday. I know it can't answer everything but anything it can't answer is probably not worth asking or possible to know. Opinion will never outweigh evidence.

post to induce religion as an issue.

but you are welcome to ignore the context.

a disagreement over the nature of mankind in his relation to God. For those who believe that man is composed of two natures - divine and mortal, tied together in the disharmony caused by man's disobedience and awaiting resurrection and reharmony through God's grace of Christ, they see gay marriage as a bastardization of the spiritual foundation of marriage, as a union between 2 souls and 2 bodies in a sacred union. In Christianity, this sacred union only takes place with the 2 genders -- male and female.

To those who disbelieve or are apathetic about the question of the soul, then many things become acceptable because it is only a matter of chemical impulses and bodily desires (the question of the soul is ignored or rejected). I think this also pretty well applies to the abortion issue imho.

So, the root difference is the belief in the soul -- and since people tend to be conditioned by the society in which they live, if the law and society backs up the non-soul approach to morality, then people will be more readily conditioned to disbelieve in God and the eternal soul. That's why Christians who actually think about it are worried, and of course many others are just frieking out because of hate or prejudice.


Please note: imho, Being a homosexual does not mean one cannot be a Christian, but rather that that person must reconcile himself/herself before God -- I feel it is an issue beyond human judgment, and if it must be seen as a sin it is just one sin among a multitude and not to be singled out as defining that person's relationship with God.

Personally, I'd like to see a social distinction in marriage between those joined by the State, and those joined in the Christian sense. That way, everyone could have their cake.

I personally support legalization of same-sex marriages, but I do understand the opposite viewpoint on this one. Or, actually, I should say, I understand the "mainstream America" viewpoint.

With the Texas sodomy case, we were fundamentally dealing with the gov't punishing someone for doing what I consider a private act. Many Americans who feel that homosexuality is wrong are still against sodomy laws because their belief in a person's right to privacy is greater than their belief that homosexuality is wrong.

With same-sex marriages, we are fundamentally talking about extending a gov't benefit to a certain class of people that weren't intended to receive this benefit. Obviously, marriage is more than just a gov't benefit, but from a gov't point of view it is a legal and economic benefit.

I, along with most everyone here, think that the gov't benefits of marriage SHOULD be extended to same-sex couples. However, I also realize that I am very open to new points of view. I know a lot of older people (and some younger ones, too) who aren't mean spirited or hateful, but just take a while to open themselves up to an idea that was once unthinkable.

What I'm trying to say is that you'll always have your hard liners who hate gays and hate minorities or hate whatever. Primarily, though, I think that we just have a large collection of people who are confused by this whole concept because they didn't grow up with it and they have only recently been exposed to it. With time will come increased understanding, and then after that, increased acceptance.

to "legitimize" a relationship marriage was the "moral, responsible" thing you do. Isn't that what they want? Accept responsibility and all that?

I don't get the (il)logic here.
:wtf:

Marriage was never about a relationship between two people. Marriage was developed as it exists today to give control of property through inheritance to men and men alone. Women who are independent and own property cannot be sold as chattel into marriage.

Women are still sold into marriage today, literally in some parts of the world and emotionally in others.

Please, folks, the bit about children and commitment and health and the good of society is window dressing to keep people in line. Monogamous marriage is about knowing EXACTLY to whom your property will pass when you do.

Can't have gay folks controlling their futures like that, can we?

Of course, if you are in a relationship and are committed to that one person and making the relationship last, that's a wonderful thing, and I'm sure there are many rewards for many to staying the course.

To insist on that model for everyone, though, is, in my opinion, just plain wrong. However, couples of any orientation who wish it should be able to participate.

Just my two cents.

marriage has always been a contract, and, if nothing else, gays should claim NAFTA chapter 11 becuase they're denied the same rights and it results in a personal financial setback.

They took down Capone with taxes.

By default a man's property goes to his widow by default, and because women tend to outlive men there are a lot of widows who have inherited money and real estate without paying inheritance tax.

Community property laws (in most states) give spouses equal rights to each other's earned income, serving as an equalizer against gender discrimination in wages; an inequality that still exists everywhere and is legally sanctioned in many states.

In my personal experience marriage gave my now-ex-wife a lot of power over me that she never would have had otherwise. I dodged a bullet this year by discovering that my last girlfriend was a gold-digging psycho before I got myself too deeply committed to bail out with my finances and sanity intact.

Monogamous marriage is about knowing EXACTLY to whom your property will pass when you do.

Can't have gay folks controlling their futures like that, can we?

How about joint tenancy on bank and brokerage accounts, establishing a trust, and writing a will? Married people do all of those things and there's nothing stopping gay couples from doing the same.

On edit: I don't want to give the impression I'm against gay marriage. I am not.

If homosexuals are allowed to marry then we can do away with providing "benefits" to ANY couples, gay or straight, that haven't entered into a marriage contract.

I am straight btw, it doesnt hurt me personally physically or emotionally if two gays were to get married. This makes no sense to me either.

Particularly a religious one. Here is the secret. They believe they own the concept of marriage. It is holy, divine, sanctified, and entirely given by god. They tolerate secular unions because they mirror the standards they apply to marriage and thus do not present a threat to their ideas of it. But homosexual weddings are a direct affront to the notion that they would have marriage represent.

Perhaps the right wingers should look at it from that perspective? I support the government sanctioning gay marriages. Churches are free to deny them. Mine won't, as the ministers already do religious commitment ceremonies. UU, UCC, Episcopalian and Unity denominations will have no problems with performing gay marriages. The UMC and Presbytarian USA may come along at some point in the future, once all the old people die off. The UMC is barely holding off a split over gay ordinations.

how stupid is it to deny any two people the legal right to marry?

as a straight religious pro-separation of church and state Democrat:

The best way to settle this is to make all state-sanctioned unions "civil unions" (open to everyone, gay and straight couples.) This can be done through a lawyer or going to city hall and filing papers.

And leave "marriage" to religious demoninations and sects - a separate marriage ceremony, according to what the congregation believes. This way people can define for themselves what a marriage is or is not.

And a request to those who might feel inclined to do so - please don't lump in all religious people with the so-called "Christian Right." My choice is to believe in God, but that doesn't make me "one of them." Can we not show each other respect for our choices? Some of us think Jesus is pretty cool, but we have nothing to do with these fools and what they are practicing - because Christianity, it ain't.