Why I oppose gay marriage

Why I oppose gay marriage

There are 74 comments on the www.washingtonpost.com story from Sep 21, 2012, titled Why I oppose gay marriage. In it, www.washingtonpost.com reports that:

Full disclosure: I am gay. A few years ago, I was on the other side of the fence on this topic. But the more I read, thought, investigated and attempted to defend my position, the more I realized that I couldn’t. I feel very strongly that gay relationships should be supported by society. I have grown convinced, however, that the term “marriage” should not be altered or adjusted in any way.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.washingtonpost.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#74 Sep 23, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Confirmation of your estimation is easily found in the history of legislation against us long before the marriage issue was ever broached.
I recall seeing a 60s info-video about how all gay people are pedophiles and have a "contagious mental disease."
So yes, I agree.
(I found the video on YouTube and have shown it to many of my friends, who laughed incredulously at how stupid people were back then, and now)

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#75 Sep 23, 2012
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. That's why so many of the bans on same-sex marriage include explicit statements to also ban anything that might give legally equivalent standing regardless of the name. If it was just about the word marriage we'd already have legal civil unions with full legal equivalence to marriage across the continent but that is clearly not the case.
It's all about keeping uppity LGBT people in their place and preserving special rights for heterosexuals.
This is why I don't understand the gay individuals that say "well, the fight for marriage is taking too long and it's hard, let's just make civil unions." They don't understand what you just explained and this saddens me. Civil unions wouldn't even give us all the benefits we would get if we were to get married.

On top of all that, I find the majority of gay individuals who are against gay marriage are weak. They sit there saying "it's too hard to fight for equality" or "it's taking too long, why don't we just give up?" If you want to stop fighting, go ahead, you don't believe in gay marriage, go ahead. Don't say that you're going to vote against gay marriage though because then you're just like the bigots out there not respecting the fact that everyone should be able to choose whether they want to get married or not.

I just think of these people as whiney little babies, the used-to-be gay people, as in the people who used to sit idly by and watch as their rights are torn apart. Not everyone's a pushover. I'm definitely not a pushover, and I don't think you are either, but people like the person I replied to are.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#76 Sep 23, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that creating an equal item to marriage would cost a lot of time, money and effort. There are lots of difficulties with creating new things like a gay equivalent of marriage. It's much easier to just include gay people in marriage than to create an entirely different rule set.
No it doesn't. People confuse how couples actually marry. There are in fact two seperate, though related, institutions of marriage. One religious, the other civil.

Religious marriages are sacred. This type of marriage comes with no rights, benefits or responsibilities.

Civil marriages are legal. This marriage grants all of those benefits, rights, and yes, responsibilities.

What PSRich wants is a legal marriage which he can get by going to his city/town/county clerk's office, filing for a license, then going before a Justice of the Peace, and getting civilly married. All perfectly legal and no religion involved.

Being married 'in a church' actually has couples being married twice. Once religiously according to the rites of their faith, and again civilly when the certificate is signed. Some churches have stopped doing the civil component as a protest to the ban on gay civil marriage by their state. Prop 8 in California only stopped the civil marriages of gay couples. Churches are still free to marry gay couples religiously.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#77 Sep 23, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I recall seeing a 60s info-video about how all gay people are pedophiles and have a "contagious mental disease."
So yes, I agree.
(I found the video on YouTube and have shown it to many of my friends, who laughed incredulously at how stupid people were back then, and now)
The 1950s "educational" films were horrific.

Mike Wallace's CBS report on gay people in the mid-'60s was just as bad.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#78 Sep 23, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1950s "educational" films were horrific.
Mike Wallace's CBS report on gay people in the mid-'60s was just as bad.
"There might be a HOMOSEXUAL about!"

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#79 Sep 23, 2012
George wrote:
How do we know nature, God, science, or whatever you believe in did not intend the same sex to fornicate? simple, if all of society was gay we would be wiped off the face of the planet within 60 years, same sexes of the human race CANNOT reproduce!
Considering the planet is on the verge of a major population explosion, if this generation does NOT slow down, the planet will be far too outstretched and crowded for resources, time to slow it down a bit anyway.

Don't worry. Your scenario about the world going gay and no one reproducing is nothing to worry about yet. Besides, even if the world WERE 100%, there is still artificial insemination, or procreation sex. I know a lot of guys and gals who WERE married before they came to their senses and stopped denying who they really were and they all have multiple children. Guess what, Cletus, all my gay pals and gals who have kids old enough, ALL their kids turned out straight. They all have grandchildren already too.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#80 Sep 23, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. People confuse how couples actually marry. There are in fact two seperate, though related, institutions of marriage. One religious, the other civil.
Religious marriages are sacred. This type of marriage comes with no rights, benefits or responsibilities.
Civil marriages are legal. This marriage grants all of those benefits, rights, and yes, responsibilities.
What PSRich wants is a legal marriage which he can get by going to his city/town/county clerk's office, filing for a license, then going before a Justice of the Peace, and getting civilly married. All perfectly legal and no religion involved.
Being married 'in a church' actually has couples being married twice. Once religiously according to the rites of their faith, and again civilly when the certificate is signed. Some churches have stopped doing the civil component as a protest to the ban on gay civil marriage by their state. Prop 8 in California only stopped the civil marriages of gay couples. Churches are still free to marry gay couples religiously.
Actually, one doesn't have all the benefits. Just look it up, particularly the parts about buying houses.
Even if they came up with a way to give gay people equal benefits and all, as it has been explained before, the anti-gay and religious nuts would still fight against us.
As Gay and Proud said:
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. That's why so many of the bans on same-sex marriage include explicit statements to also ban anything that might give legally equivalent standing regardless of the name. If it was just about the word marriage we'd already have legal civil unions with full legal equivalence to marriage across the continent but that is clearly not the case.
It's all about keeping uppity LGBT people in their place and preserving special rights for heterosexuals.
They want to get rid of all the gay people, they don't simply want us to leave the word "marriage" alone.
Dr Ramrod

Alpharetta, GA

#81 Sep 23, 2012
Elle baise aux pede wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, native american, me alien will slow down to your clock rate: Mixing DNA from individual whose characteristics are specialized for a given condition or conditions, the chances for the next generation to survive a wider range of challenges are much better than getting inheritance from the same family (a brother and sister marriage) or from the same community. Similarly, the bad genes from heterocouple can also transfer so the risk for a bad offspring is likely but not probable.
.
Two fking homo can not yield offspring and the attitude, expectation and behavior the homo can still on somebody else offspring can put a stop to humanity plans for continued survival. Already, high living of standards is already slowing down birth rates in Japan, US, and in some countries in Europe. Now add fking homo ideas to the mix, and those countries will be forced to allow immigration or face extinction!
Malarky!
.
1. Purchase turkey baster from grocery store
http://www.quitecurious.com/wp-content/galler...
.
2. Gay male skeet viable sperm into turkey baster
.
3. Gay female skeet sperm to target
.
4. Return turkey baster to grocery store for cheerful refund
http://rlv.zcache.com/turkey_baster_cards-p13...

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#82 Sep 23, 2012
George wrote:
How do we know nature, God, science, or whatever you believe in did not intend the same sex to fornicate? simple, if all of society was gay we would be wiped off the face of the planet within 60 years, same sexes of the human race CANNOT reproduce!
Gays have been in existence since early humans and homosexuality has not affected population growth. Our planet is overpopulated, which proves no effect.
Je baise le cule

AOL

#83 Sep 23, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
"[...] if all of society was gay [...]"
Stop right there, that's just plain stupid. It's IMPOSSIBLE that everyone would be gay just like it's IMPOSSIBLE that everyone would be straight. On top of this, if in an alternate universe everyone was gay, we wouldn't be wiped off the "face of the planet" for the simple fact that gay men are not sterile. There's sperm donations, surrogate mothers and everything.
You are an example of pure stupidity.
So now you are saying we are all hermaphrodites? We are not! Nature gave us the equipment and hormones to do heterosexual activities! Period! End of discussion! Everything else is a disease!

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#84 Sep 23, 2012
Je baise le cule wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are saying we are all hermaphrodites? We are not! Nature gave us the equipment and hormones to do heterosexual activities! Period! End of discussion! Everything else is a disease!
Bigots have used that same crackpot "natural law" argument to supposedly prove that non-whites are inferior, and that women are only good for keeping house and having babies.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#85 Sep 23, 2012
Je baise le cule wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are saying we are all hermaphrodites? We are not! Nature gave us the equipment and hormones to do heterosexual activities! Period! End of discussion! Everything else is a disease!
Je te trouve vraiement drole, merci pour ca.:)
A Bureaucrat

Minneapolis, MN

#86 Sep 23, 2012
PSRich wrote:
What I DO want is my government to support my life... No one can stop you from saying you're married if it's so in the EYES OF THE LAW!
OK, so Government is your god.

The government of today may issue you and other homosexuals 'certificates of normalcy' for political purposes, the government of tomorrow may rescind, if it exists in current form at all.
How people can derive all their sense of self-worth at the prospect of being issued a piece of paper from a government demonstrates a complete lack of any sense of individual autonomy. Some government imprimatur arrived at politically that is favorably disposed towards homosexual behavior can confer only an artificial normalcy upon it.
Those rejecting the government opinion on this issue for whatever reason can expect all manner of 'unpleasantness' to follow.

All that said, nor can a government strip one of his own sense of self-worth, if any, without his own consent.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#87 Sep 23, 2012
Je baise le cule wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are saying we are all hermaphrodites? We are not! Nature gave us the equipment and hormones to do heterosexual activities! Period! End of discussion! Everything else is a disease!
Nature gave us cholera. Fortunately, we can overcome the obstacle.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 1 min NoahLovesU 2,980
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 min NoahLovesU 25,649
News Rowan County clerk closes office ahead of gay r... 1 min Wondering 25
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 1 min Wondering 1,088
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 1 min NoahLovesU 1,435
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 min NoMo 7,212
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 1 min Jonah1 224
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 1 min xerox 300
More from around the web