Why are those that do not support gay marriage ostracized?!?!

wtfunny wrote:

It looks like.. wrote:

All these gay supporters have the dumbest arguments. Just because it doesn't affect you directly it means it's fine? Then why can't a father marry his daughter? After all it doesn't affect me or anyone else for that matter so why is this wrong but two gays getting married is ok?

No .. it's fine because you don't have a single argument to say it's not .. claiming that you think it's 'icky' doesn't mean sh*t.

If the daughter is 18 she is fully able to consent? Even at age 10 a girl can consent, all she has to do is say yes.

It looks like.. wrote:

wtfunny wrote:

No .. it's fine because you don't have a single argument to say it's not .. claiming that you think it's 'icky' doesn't mean sh*t.

If the daughter is 18 she is fully able to consent? Even at age 10 a girl can consent, all she has to do is say yes.

You don't appear to understand the legal term 'consent'.

Nor have you STILL given a single argument why marriage equality isn't fine.

umm wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Wrong. Biology says so.

I guess this explains why the anti-gay marriage lobby is led by prominent biologists and other scientific leaders

:)

POTD

baby boy wrote:

Anti-gay is like racism

_________________________

Bingo!

Teenager wrote:

Oh my gooooddd..how many idiots do I have to explain this to.... The slipper slope argument is bs. There is a difference betweent so condensing men and women vs non consenting children, objects and animals.

The example that you are responding to (man marrying daughter) never mentioned age, don't put words in his mouth. What if the father is 40 and the daughter is 20? Nobody said anything about children or animals, that's a straw man that people use to make anyone who is not in full support of gay marriage look foolish. If the two adults are consenting, why do you care if they're related or not?

Polygamy creates an economic question (as there is more than 2 people) so that is a different issue.

I love this. You've made a completely arbitrary decision that marriage between TWO adults is ok, but then you claim it's a "different issue" when it's between more than 2 consenting adults. Yet, the EXACT same logic that you use to justify it for 2 adults (two consenting adults, doesn't effect you, etc) could be used for polygamy.

For the record, I personally "support" gay marriage rights in that I don't really give a crap what other adults do. The point I am trying to make here is that your logic isn't any better than the anti-gay marriage folks, you just happen to be on the "right" side of the debate so you think you're right and they're wrong.

Also, it's absurd how much people are ostracized for being against it. Sure, some of them are bigots, and they deserve it. But some of them are not. Some of them have reasons (religious or not, where their beliefs come from is irrelevant) why they want marriage to remain as being defined between a man and a woman; as long as they aren't taking a position that prevents gay couples from attaining the same right as a married couple under some different term, it doesn't seem like they ought to be ostracized.

In closing, the heart of this problem is the damn government getting involved in personal matters that they should stay out of. If marriage was just a thing between two people that happened at the local church or courthouse, this wouldn't even be a discussion, people could just do it and nobody would care.

Many posters to this thread don't seem very clear on the difference between having a differing opinion and actively supporting legislation that denies people the legal benefits that everyone else is free to enjoy. There may be hostility between secular and religious America, but one group is not trying to push legislation through state and federal bodies to codify discrimination against one (or several) groups from the other side. Gay rights, gays in the military, new voting laws in the south, racial profiling bills in AZ, many of the women's health bills...this is all coming from only one side of the political spectrum. Even tolerant folks aren't naive enough to tolerate nonsense like this. This rebuke of this CEO wasn't a government action or even some giant uprising by LGBT groups, this was a group reaction by employees and customers of the business.

No one gets ostracized for not supporting gay marriage.

You're making that up to get attention.

They may get ostracized for opposing gay marriage, but not for not supporting it.

People are free to express themselves in their opinion against gay marriage.

Just as people are free to express their opinion that they don't like the people opposing it.

It's hate and disagreement that gets all of the attention.

Not love and unity.

Everyone who voted for Prop 8 should be forced to quit their jobs!

Also, if you are not taking it up the pooper 3x a week - you are homophobe! You're no better than the guy who openly doesnt support gay marriage or gay sex - in fact, you are the worst kind - you are no better than a closet racist!

Letsrun.com should be shut down as well - they do not have gay ads on their site and there is no sticky post at the top of the message board professing their support of gay marriage. Clearly, this site needs to be shut down once and for all!

I agree, marriage is all about reproduction. Let's ban sterile straight couples from marrying as well as straight couples who do not plan to have kids.

wtfunny wrote:

It's not simply the conservative position that is the problem; it's the absolute inability to present any cogent argument that supports your position, yet you folks cling to it like a child to his/her favorite toy.

Ok, I'll give my reason.

Marriage is between a man and woman. This is argued by thousands of years of tradition, nature, and the Bible. If we redefine what marriage is, we would need to come up with a new word for this special relationship between a man and woman, which is the foundation of the family unit, which in turn is the foundation of society.

The breakdown of the family unit is behind a lot of our societal problems (check out Detroit). One of the reasons the family is breaking down is that people have gotten away from the idea that sex should only be within marriage, and so there are a lot more births out of wedlock. Since marriage has an implicit sexual component, the recognition of gay unions is equivalent to recognizing the legitimacy of sex outside marriage, which in my view would be a bad thing.

That is about to change buddy! If you don't openly support gay marriage, then clearly, you don't support it and you need to be outed with all of the other homophobes! I hope that you loose your job!

L L wrote:

No one gets ostracized for not supporting gay marriage.

You're making that up to get attention.

They may get ostracized for opposing gay marriage, but not for not supporting it.

People are free to express themselves in their opinion against gay marriage.

Just as people are free to express their opinion that they don't like the people opposing it.

It's hate and disagreement that gets all of the attention.

Not love and unity.

coach d wrote:

The USA is roughly 75% christian and about 4% gay. The problem is that you have a small number of loudmouths and the liberals in the media have made them cause celebre.

What BS. What also is BS is that Republicans are the party of letting Americans do with their lives what they want. Well, unless of course it goes against what Republicans want!

There is no reason other than ignorance to not support gay marriage.

"It's unnatural". Well, so is that polyester blend shirt you're wearing.

"It's weird". Well, so is the dude who works at Hot Topic with the piercings and the gauges in his ears, but do you want to make that illegal?

"It's counter culture." So are Harley riders and extreme tattoo people and people who go to Burning Man. Should all of that be illegal?

"The Bible is against it." If you go by the Bible, then you are to kill any child who curses their parents; you are to not "approach" a woman when she is "unclean" (on her period); you are to not eat shellfish; you are to cut the hand off of any woman who, in the midst of helping her man in a fight either accidentally or on purpose grabs the genitals of the male assailant; you are to be put to death if you work on the Sabbath.

"It's tradition." Women not being able to vote until 1920 was tradition too as were many other things that have since gone by the wayside. Please sit wherever you'd like Ms. Rosa Parks.

"It legitimizes the gay lifestyle." What the hell is this supposed to even mean? You are either gay or not gay. IF you think that more acceptance of a gay lifestyle will make more people gay (and who would give a crap if it did anyway), then you yourself MUST have some gay feelings. As a heterosexual male, I can tell you that the object of my attraction is clear and strong. Since that is the case, I can IMAGINE that it would be for other people yet perhaps attracted to the same sex. For me it was not a choice. Why would anyone think it would be for gay people? For those who think that, did you decide one day if you would be gay or not? I sure didn't.

Why in the freakin' world would anyone have a problem with adult people deciding to marry each other? Do we have TOO MUCH love in this world?

People SHOULD be ripped for being against gay marriage. Only the biggest idiots on our planet have such an opinion, and it is NOT just gay people who say so.

If a consenting father and a consenting daught want to marry, I don't have a problem with that. They should receive genetic counseling though before having children. However it should not be illegal.

Excellent post Flagpole

Thanks.

Ok let's go at it: I didn't put words in his mouth, e should have specified. Marriage between two consenting adults dosent necessarily lead to people wanting investigation marriages, I have no idea where people get this from. And I wasn't saying he implied that it lead to beastialty, but I was just striking down that argument anyway. With the polygamy, I am not saying whether I care or not, I am just saying it creates an economic question (unlike gay marriae), you clearly couldn't follow that. My logic is leaps and bounds better than that of te opposing side, your logic in criticizing me was extreme flawed. Lastly, those who actively try to operas others of rights (when they know that there are no valid studies that say gay marriage is detrimental and when they know that America is not a theocracy) are to some extent diluted and misled.

... We wouldn't need to come up with a new word, and definitions have hanged and always do...this is a stupid argument. And the problem with Detroit isn't sex outside of marriage, it is bad parenting. There hasn't been one valid study (mark regenerus's study was a fraud and he and his own organization even said so) that shows that gay parenting alone has a negative impact on children. Again, you are either misled (I hope now you see the light) or just a liar.

genuine random a hole wrote:

I don't think anybody gives a fvck if you don't "support" gay marriage.

On the other hand, if you oppose allowing gays to marry then you do risk being ridiculed. You will get lumped in with all the wingnuts that believe that allowing gays to marry will somehow diminish their own hetero marriage. Or maybe gay marriage will lead to somebody marring their pet hamster or a favorite tree.

A position of "eh, let em do what they want, doesn't hurt me" if perfectly acceptable and probably would not be considered supporting gay marriage.

Thanks - I really appreciate you outlining what a reasonable valid opinion is for me to have. In the future I'll be sure & inquire here before deciding what I'm allowed to believe & advocate..