Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[Evil?]

I want to call bullshit on the posters saying people should take it easy on Ack. His beliefs are despicable and he deserves every ounce of scorn tossed his way. This issue always gets be pissed as fuck becasue it is so illogical and based in blind bigotry I am amazed it still is an issue as all. As was said very early in this thread, one day Homophobia will be right there with racism and sexism, unacceptable.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Gays have the exact same rights as straight people already. The right to marry someone of the opposite gender assuming they are both legal.

You don't have 'the right to marry who you love' anyway. There's no guarantee that who you love is legal or even human.

 

[Evil?]

Oh fuck off.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

I want to call bullshit on the posters saying people should take it easy on Ack. His beliefs are despicable and he deserves every ounce of scorn tossed his way. This issue always gets be pissed as fuck becasue it is so illogical and based in blind bigotry I am amazed it still is an issue as all. As was said very early in this thread, one day Homophobia will be right there with racism and sexism, unacceptable.

Hey, don't drag us sexist racists down to that level, mkay, you're doing us a huuuuge injustice!

 

[cannibal corpse]

Why marry? What's good about binding yourself to someone with no way out without risking 50% of your shit? Marriage for the suck.

 

[chuj666]

and yet poligamy is still alive in the west no wonder Mccain won in Utah...gay shmay..who cares? sacred bullshit? Most marriages are like this a guy has a wife,girlfriend and a lover

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

There's not much I can say here that hasn't been said, but of course I am pretty disturbed by this. There really is no legitimate reason for this, and it's sad that the election of our first black President has to come at the same time as the state sanctioned oppression of homosexuals. Intolerance still prevails.

It will start to be viewed as an option that is just as acceptable as the normal, natural option. People will begin choosing it, not based on feeling they can't seem to deny, but because it is just one of their choices. I don't want my kid (or anyone's kid) being indoctrinated in school that homosexuality is one of two valid choices.

Dude, I know I'm a little late on this, but what the fuck? Is this a joke? Am I reading wrong or do you honestly believe that is gay marriage were legal, people simply think "oh hey well same sex marriage is legal, so I guess I'll just go and become gay!".

That's just so painfully stupid. Homosexuality is not a choice.

 

[cookiecutter]

This whole thing is really too bad, and just utter nonsense. It's happening all over America. In Florida the people voted to pass Amendment Two which only further secures marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I voted against the Amendment. But the problem is that so many democrats are coming out to vote for Obama, but none of them are voting on these Amendments. They either don't understand what they're reading (the Amendments are worded very craftily) or they don't even know that an amendment condemning gay marriage is trying to be passed. I mean, congratulations on Obama's win democrats of America, but you guys really failed on voting for these amendments.

The reason it passed is that blacks and Hispanics, who are overwhelmingly democratic, are also some of the most homophobic cultures in America. Also think of all the independents that voted Obama.

I want to call bullshit on the posters saying people should take it easy on Ack. His beliefs are despicable and he deserves every ounce of scorn tossed his way. This issue always gets be pissed as fuck becasue it is so illogical and based in blind bigotry I am amazed it still is an issue as all. As was said very early in this thread, one day Homophobia will be right there with racism and sexism, unacceptable.

.

Gays have the exact same rights as straight people already. The right to marry someone of the opposite gender assuming they are both legal.

You don't have 'the right to marry who you love' anyway. There's no guarantee that who you love is legal or even human.

Fuck you. This is a stupid, smart ass argument. You should have the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice. Right now you are saying it's a coincidence that straight people have this right and gay people do not, just because you can only marry people of the opposite sex.

That's just so painfully stupid. Homosexuality is not a choice.

DOT. People make it seem like your sexuality is like your favorite baseball team or something. No straight person ever goes "I want to like boobs so I'll be straight". You just do or do not. It's unclear if it's caused genetic or social factors (probably both), but it's still not a choice.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Well they should have the right to a civil partnership type thing that should be recognised but calling it marriage is asking for the KKK and Taliban types to kick off. Marriage is specifically a man and a woman. It doesn't get more obvious.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I want to call bullshit on the posters saying people should take it easy on Ack. His beliefs are despicable and he deserves every ounce of scorn tossed his way. This issue always gets be pissed as fuck becasue it is so illogical and based in blind bigotry I am amazed it still is an issue as all. As was said very early in this thread, one day Homophobia will be right there with racism and sexism, unacceptable.

Agreed. I am intolerant of religion tbh.

 

[King Richard]

Why marry? What's good about binding yourself to someone with no way out without risking 50% of your shit? Marriage for the suck.

Because married couples see significant tax and insurance breaks.

 

[AchrisK]

Actually humans are not infinitely more complex in most every way. True our intelligence and self-conscious are larger than any other species... but there are other animals who are way more developed in other ways than we are... sense of smell, vision, etc.

True, not in every way. But the fact that we are having this conversation speaks libraries, on so many levels, about the difference between humans and ANY member of the non-human animal kingdom.

Homosexuality is quite common amongst higher mammals... thus it is not at all surprising that it exists amongst humans (who are after all also mammals). There are even some species where homosexual activity is the PREFERED mode of sexual activity (I believe there is a species of Walrus that does this... don't qoute me on that). Thus it is OBVIOUS that homosexuality is in fact a part of nature.

The fact that homosexual behavior exists in nature does not change that fact that it is not the norm by any stretch (especially when taking the animal kingdom as a whole) and is not the optimal situation for any species. It is counter-intuitive to nature, based on biology. But again, humans are different and more complex than animals, and we have rights. People can choose homosexuality. They have the right to, and I don't have the right to try and stop them.

Should all married couples be required to reproduce? After all that is only 'natural'. Should vaginal intercourse be the only sexual activity a man and a woman engage in? After all those parts are clearly the one's designed for each other... etc.

Yes, those "parts" are clearly "designed" for each other. But as I said, humans are not just animals, and sex is not just procreation (preemptively, I am not implying that some animals don't have sex for reasons other than procreation). I do not believe that "what we do in the bedroom" should be subject to legislation until it crosses lines that infringe upon the rights or wellbeing of others (rape, etc).

Back to intolerance vs disagreement vs opposition.

The very idea of tolerance and intolerance is based in the fact that there is a disagreement. With no disagreement, tolerance and intolerance don't even exist. Opposition implies an active or passive action based on a disagreement, but also does not have to imply intolerance. Just action based on disagreement.

Let's look at the definition of intolerance:

intolerance
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerance
–noun
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

I am not intolerant of homosexuality or homosexuals, but I disagree that homosexual relationships should share the same status as the traditional family. It is an alternative lifestyle. What homosexuals (and apparently all of you) want is for me put my stamp of approval on something I disagree with. Whether or not that is the real agenda of the gay marriage issue, I cannot judge for each person. But I believe that is the agenda of some. Regardless, I will not put my stamp of approval on it.

I feel the same way about sex outside of marriage. If there was a proposition that wanted to make a law that said, "Sex outside of marriage is a good thing and we approve it", I would vote no. I disagree with the statement, so I don't put my stamp of approval on it. I do not hate people who do it. I am not intolerant. They are not breaking laws. They have the right to do it. Many of them are nice people who contribute to society. They are all valuable individuals. I have no desire to control people. I think imposing my will on people is of no use and has absolutely no value. This applies to how I feel about homosexuals as well.

As long as I am presented with choices, I will make mine based on my views. This is America right? I have that right.

The intolerance comes most often from those who cry intolerance, like many of you, and many in the gay community. They see the disagreement and hate me for it. You feel I have no right to have this view. You may say I have the right to have any view I like, but how many of you would be willing to literally brainwash me to agree with you on this issue, if that was legal?

 

[Omni]

I don't really understand how homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, solely because it's less common than heterosexuality. It's not like the people involved had choices and they chose the alternative choice that happened to be homosexuality. Using that as justification makes no sense.

 

[arg]

let them live together and fuck their hairy male buttholes, that's their business. but DO NOT desecrate the holy sacrament and label it "marriage".

 

[skeptik]

I am not intolerant of homosexuality or homosexuals, but I disagree that homosexual relationships should share the same status as the traditional family.

This is intolerance my friend. If you would vote for an amendment that bans gay marriage, you are being intolerant, because you are electing to not tolerate an action for which there is no solid basis to be opposed to. I posted the definition of religious intolerance earlier. Here it is again:

Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (a society, a religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds.

This is what a ban on gay marriage does, which is an act of intolerance, and supporting this amendment is an act of intolerance. You are being intolerant. Stop trying to turn the table around and call everybody else intolerant for being opposed to intolerance. Intolerance of intolerance, so to speak, is on the same level as minority racism. It is a reactive behavior, of a marginalized class reacting to the oppression received from the class in power, for example, "reverse racism," or more clearly understood, racial prejudice of the majority class. Intolerance of intolerance would be the equivalent of reverse-intolerance in its defense of minority rights and its reactionary nature.

It is an alternative lifestyle.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It is a biological disposition. This is the only thing directly related to sexual orientation that separates homosexuals from heterosexuals.

What homosexuals (and apparently all of you) want is for me put my stamp of approval on something I disagree with.

If you disagree with it and vote against it, you are being intolerant of it for religious reasons, by definition. If you didn't like the concept of gay people getting married but were not intolerant of the act, you would vote in favor of it being allowed.

I feel the same way about sex outside of marriage. If there was a proposition that wanted to make a law that said, "Sex outside of marriage is a good thing and we approve it", I would vote no. I disagree with the statement, so I don't put my stamp of approval on it. I do not hate people who do it. I am not intolerant. They are not breaking laws. They have the right to do it. Many of them are nice people who contribute to society. They are all valuable individuals. I have no desire to control people. I think imposing my will on people is of no use and has absolutely no value. This applies to how I feel about homosexuals as well.

Voting against it is imposing your will on people.

As long as I am presented with choices, I will make mine based on my views. This is America right? I have that right.

Let's let the Supreme Court decide that. I think it's pretty clear that this amendment is unconstitutional and needs to be reverse as soon as possible.

The intolerance comes most often from those who cry intolerance, like many of you, and many in the gay community. They see the disagreement and hate me for it. You feel I have no right to have this view. You may say I have the right to have any view I like, but how many of you would be willing to literally brainwash me to agree with you on this issue, if that was legal?

Do you feel that people have the right to be intolerant of people who are causing no harm to the extent that it causes the people who are the subject of intolerance actual harm? Because that is what you are doing.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Actually I posted the definition of religious intolerance earlier you arse.

 

[AchrisK]

Where is the line between tolerance and agreement? Obviously there must be disagreement for their to be tolerance, correct? Must tolerance = approval?

 

[skeptik]

V5: Weird. I didn't even notice that.

Where is the line between tolerance and agreement? Obviously there must be disagreement for their to be tolerance, correct? Must tolerance = approval?

Tolerance is not preventing people from doing what they should legally be allowed to do simply because you disagree with the action. If you prevent a gay couple from getting married, you are not simply disagreeing with their right to get married, you are being intolerant of it.

I disagree with Christianity and Christian parents who homeschool their children to make sure they don't learn what they don't want them to know. I disagree with the mandatory celibacy of Catholic priests. I disagree with people handing out Bibles on the streets. I disagree with Mormons going door to door trying to convert people. But would I have any of these things outlawed if I was in such a position? No.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Ack, I'm not exactly sure but I THINK it has something to do with you denying something on illogical terms.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I say we take away rights for people of all religions other than Christianity in the U.S. since they're not normal here and those people live alternative lifestyles such as observing kosher laws and wearing burkas.

Seriously Ack, your view on this is despicable. If you want to shelter your child from homosexuality then send him to some private Christian school, but don't impose your bigotry on everyone else by opposing equal rights for homosexuals.