"Why I Oppose Gay Marriage" - Washington Post Opinion Article

  • Thread starter Thread starter bzkoss236
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A large fraction of the respondents think he’s must be a self-hating gay. Big surprise, there.

Unless the Supreme Court invents another civil right and forces the acceptance of gay marriage down the throats of the voters like it did with the “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade, I think the electorate in most states will oppose gay marriage when it comes to putting ballots in ballot boxes. Civil unions, as he points out, might fare better.
 
The author recognizes what will someday be identified as the fatal flaw in the ‘gay marriage’ argument. Proponents base their entire argument on sentiment and a vague, unexamined notion of fairness. They never pause to examine just what marriage really IS and why government came to recognize it and incentivize it in the first place.

Think about this for a second. If marriage is really just a public celebration of feelings, then why on earth should the government be involved in licensing it??? But if marriage truly is something deeper, something that civilization literally depends on for its long term survival, perhaps we’d better think a bit harder about it first before leaping to a decision based on emotion.
 
manualman said:
But if marriage truly is something deeper, something that civilization literally depends on for its long term survival, perhaps we’d better think a bit harder about it first before leaping to a decision based on emotion.
Click to expand...
Emotion is all these people have to go on. They don’t have a leg to stand on so far as reason is concerned, so they rely on language to make opponents look hateful and irrational, full of spite for anything different.

Rationality is a poison to them, which is why they never use it, and berate those who do.
 
Not our ally.
I feel very strongly that gay relationships should be supported by society.
We should welcome the opportunity to christen a new tradition, beginning a new chapter in the history of gays and lesbians within American society. Same-sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships, and gay men and lesbians need to accept that and design their own tradition.
Click to expand...
Just as deleterious to society under any other name or “tradition” and should be opposed just as vigorously as the USCCB has explained.
 
EasterJoy said:
A large fraction of the respondents think he’s must be a self-hating gay. Big surprise, there.

Unless the Supreme Court invents another civil right and forces the acceptance of gay marriage down the throats of the voters like it did with the “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade, I think the electorate in most states will oppose gay marriage when it comes to putting ballots in ballot boxes. Civil unions, as he points out, might fare better.
Click to expand...
IMHO if Obama gets re-elected, he will get to nominate at least 2 Supreme Court Justices, which will almost guarentee a creation of the “right” to gay marriage and the demise of the 1st (morphing Freedom of Religion into Freedom of Worship) and 2nd Amendments.
 
Honestly the article really didn’t say much and didn’t really have any real argument against gay marriage. He just pretty much said, there shouldn’t be gay marriage because historically it has been a m/f institution. I am not saying I am for gay marriage, honestly I don’t think the government should have any legal marriage, but that is another story. Anyways, for a long time they didn’t allow inter-racial marriage, and history was on the wrong side there. The article just wasn’t well thought through and had a very weak argument.
 
CNN is reporting that the Supreme Court will likely choose either a case dealing with DOMA or the Prop 8 case from California this fall,which means that it will be likely that the current court will deal with gay marriage.
 
TrixieMcGee said:
Honestly the article really didn’t say much and didn’t really have any real argument against gay marriage. He just pretty much said, there shouldn’t be gay marriage because historically it has been a m/f institution. I am not saying I am for gay marriage, honestly I don’t think the government should have any legal marriage, but that is another story. Anyways, for a long time they didn’t allow inter-racial marriage, and history was on the wrong side there. The article just wasn’t well thought through and had a very weak argument.
Click to expand...
Anybody who can’t see the difference between interracial marriage and gay “marriage” should have been flunked in their biology courses. The notion that Homo sapiens is separated into biologically distinct species is false, while the notions that it takes one of each sex to reproduce is undeniably true. Is it possible to* have *a bigger difference than that?
 
EasterJoy said:
Anybody who can’t see the difference between interracial marriage and gay “marriage” should have been flunked in their biology courses. The notion that Homo sapiens is separated into biologically distinct species is false, while the notions that it takes one of each sex to reproduce is undeniably true. Is it possible to* have *a bigger difference than that?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t saying they were the same. You didn’t understand what I was saying. I was saying the writers reasoning didn’t make sense because by that reasoning you could say inter-racial marriage is wrong too. Think what you want though. I was not justifying gay marriage and my stance is not to legalize gay marriage. I have seen much better thought out arguments then his which was pretty much, it should be such and such a way because that is how it has always been.

Honestly I don’t think there should be legal marriage at all because it gives the government some control over religious ceremonies and practices. I think that the government should only give out civil unions which are just legal contracts.

By the way your wording is rude and condescending. I am not stupid and I do not appreciate being talked to as if I am. You didn’t understand what I was saying at all and made me say what you wanted to think I was saying. I can agree with someones point of view and recognize their arguments for why they believe it are not valid or don’t make sense.
 
TrixieMcGee said:
I wasn’t saying they were the same. You didn’t understand what I was saying. I was saying the writers reasoning didn’t make sense because by that reasoning you could say inter-racial marriage is wrong too. Think what you want though. I was not justifying gay marriage and my stance is not to legalize gay marriage. I have seen much better thought out arguments then his which was pretty much, it should be such and such a way because that is how it has always been.

Honestly I don’t think there should be legal marriage at all because it gives the government some control over religious ceremonies and practices. I think that the government should only give out civil unions which are just legal contracts.

By the way your wording is rude and condescending. I am not stupid and I do not appreciate being talked to as if I am. You didn’t understand what I was saying at all and made me say what you wanted to think I was saying. I can agree with someones point of view and recognize their arguments for why they believe it are not valid or don’t make sense.
Click to expand...
My apologies: I did not mean to imply that you don’t see any difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage! I’m very sorry I offended you. I am just very frustrated with the specious arguments being used to support changing the definition of marriage.

I still say that those who are saying the two are the same are either being disingenuous or they’ve totally taken leave of their understanding of what marriage is. It is an arrangement that even the most secular person ought to be able to see is rooted in biology! The invention of the Pill did not change that, but I think some want to believe it did. Others, well, they are seeing what they want to see, not what is there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top