To those opposed to same sex Marriage.....

[LeftHander]

Explain to me WHY a two men or two women should not be married...

I really want to hear ONE good reason...why

:::crickets:::


I thought so.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Because it leads to box turtle raping!

Geez.

I thought you liberals loved animals more than our soldiers in Iraq.

[MrCoffee]

3. get out of my bedroom!

what happens between me and my box turtle in the privacy of our own home is none of your damn business, nazi.

[LostinVA]

19. Should I be worried?

Haruka has a pet box turtle, and it's female.

[MrCoffee]

23. i'd keep an eye on those lizards

[LostinVA]

24. Those things freak me out, especially the big ones

[MrCoffee]

27. i saw a pic of one once, that was more than enough.

freaky big ass dragon things.

[LostinVA]

28. One of them took a chunk out of my flip-flop once

I am not joking.

[MrCoffee]

35. that's it...

i resolve to welcome our new reptilian overlords.

tell her i said hi, if she even remembers me.

[JackBeck]

2. Because it would make baby Jesus cry.

And locust invasions, while bleeding frogs dropped from the heavens.

Or something like that.

[beastieboy]

4. LMFAO

[BOSSHOG]

5. I would suggest

that those who oppose Gay Marriage or oppose Gays serving openly in the Military should oppose gays paying taxes.

[valerief]

7. If that's the case I'll be a closet hetero and claim I'm gay, too! nt

[BOSSHOG]

12. I'd love to see about 50,000 troops in Iraq

report that they are gay and request immediate discharge.

[frogcycle]

16. hey, I wouldn't even lie about it!

Even as straight as I am, if I had to be gay to get out of there, well, watch out guys, here I come!
:rofl:

[valerief]

40. That would be a thing of beauty. nt

[NMMNG]

22. Amen

I'm sick and tired of paying full taxes and getting the short end of the stick.

[CT_Progressive]

30. Taxation without equal representation is illegal

Less Rights = Unequal Representation.

So, gays + lesbians should not pay taxes.

Right?

[BOSSHOG]

39. Welcome CT-Progressive

That's what I mean. Strange to think that the freedom loving patriotic conservatives don't catch on. Gosh and every day sean hannity's music tells us to Let Freedom Ring.

[valerief]

41. And women should pay less taxes, too, because they don't have

the right their body. In some states, they need their husband's permission for abortions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Because then anything could happen.

People would be wearing two different sorts of fabric.

Women would be going around menstruating all over the place.

People would start eating shellfish.

And you know what that means. Savage Henry has cashed his check.

[meegbear]

8. Because I said so!

That's why mister!

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Because marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution

Isn't it obvious? No marriage is legal unless it is done in a church by a clergyman, and the very act of having a religious ritual in a church is all that is needed to make a legal marriage. And because my church opposes same sex marriage, it is logical to conclude that same sex marriage can not be legal and will never be legal.

Jeeze, don't you read the Constitution? :eyes:

[Joe Fields]

10. you're preaching to the choir. You need to address Free Republic

[LeftHander]

13. Hehehe they read DU and this post wouldn't last 30 seconds in freepville....

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

11. Gay marriage is really messing with my marriage here in MA...

oops, no it's not...

Never mind...
:blush:

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. ...

:evilgrin:

[frogcycle]

14. there is none

zip
nada

legally, that is.

Bottom line is that government has NO BUSINESS making legal contracts based on religious practices. Were it not for the common practice in many religions of declaring two people to be a couple, I doubt that there ever would have been such a thing as "marriage" under the law.

People might have formed legal partnerships, to be sure, to deal with rights of survival and such.

The whole topic is bogus. Do away with state-sanctioned "marriage" and the argument is over. Then some form of legal contract could be available to those who want it, regardless of what their respective genitalia happen to be. Might not even be limited to twosomes.

As to "marriage" in the eyes of the various religions, well, that is a battle to be fought with the religions, not with government.

[terrya]

18. The Supreme Court decision of "Lawrence v Texas" eliminated the last legal roadblock.

Hell, even bigot Scalia said so, in his foaming at the mouth dissent in that decision.

I don't give a damn if it's called marriage or civil unions...as long as we gay and lesbian couples can get the SAME amount of legal benefits as heterosexual couples and as long as they are legally recognized, that's what's important.

[frogcycle]

29. agreed

and to a degree making an issue over semantics is pointless, except that as long as there are two legal institutions there is risk of their being handled differently.

So I can see the drive to make it "marriage" rather than a special case "civil union."

I just think that that battle will go on and on and on as the fundies insist that their 'holy matrimony" is somehow threatened by someone else's civil-law "marriage." So we should take that card away from them.

Let them have an "oh-so-holy-exclusively-heterosexual-missionary-position-with-the-lights-out-binding-marriage" declared in their church, with waving of chicken bones and whatever else they want. But if they want a legal contract, they have to execute the EXACT SAME CONTRACT as any two people do, regardless of genitalia.

[Lucinda]

50. Yup. I exactly feel the same way

Some may see it as a cop-out...to not demand the same terminlolgy be used regardless...but I am WAY more concerned about the immediate needs of my gay friends and family members. I want them to have the legal rights and protections NOW and if that means that a matter of semantics will mollify some idiots, I'll live with it. For now.

[Fresh_Start]

15. Why not eliminate marriage as a legal process for all

We should eliminate any discrepancies in rights for unmarried versus married people no matter what sex they are.
There's lots of other unmarried couples besides gays which are screwed under the current unequal laws.

If benefits and laws weren't at their heart inequitable to unmarrieds, there wouldn't be a gay marriage issue.

[Lilith Velkor]

21. Thank you!

I'm beyond sick and tired of people telling me that getting tax breaks, etc. that I don't get has any fucking thing to do with equality.

Can you imagine how many bad marriages could be avoided if our society stopped coercing people into it?

[mondo joe]

26. But the rights and responsibilities of marriage are available to anyone

who wants them. No class is excluded (other than gays) at this point.

What you're saying is akin to "Eliminate driver's licenses so that drivers and non drivers will be equal".

[frogcycle]

31. no its not

"marriage" is a religious institution and should NOT be codified in law - for anyone. Driving and hunting licenses are a different animal. Replacing legal "marriage" available to some with a legal contract available to all makes sense.

[mondo joe]

33. Baloney. There is a religious institution called marriage, and a civil institution

with the same name.

The religious institution is not codified in law. A civil marriage does not constitute a religious one, and a religious marriage does not constitute a civil one.

[frogcycle]

37. my point is there should not BE a civil institution called marriage

the fundies can harp all they want about "defending" their religious institution. The civil institution should NOT discriminate, and the best way to make the fundies get off their high horse is to eliminate the confusion. When they talk about what marriage is/is not, it is ALWAYS based on religion - and thus off the mark for the discussion of what civil institutions should/should not be.

[mondo joe]

38. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. NT

[frogcycle]

49. bingo!

and pull the hypocritical rug out from under the bigots in the process

My wife and I would gladly rename our "marriage" to whatever the law wants to call it. Partnership works for me.

[Rabrrrrrr]

42. But those rights should not entail any kind of legal wrangling to have them.

If married people should get taxed less than singles, than that is bullshit. If the government can afford to lose those taxes, then the government can afford to lower taxes for everyone without requiring some kind of silly hoop be gone through.

Marriage should come with no extra rights attached - it's a purely religious invention, from a few particular religions as well. There is no reason to codify a few religious practices into law that benefit only certain people.

[mondo joe]

43. I can agree, to a point.

To my thinking, civil marriage should be simply this: An expedited and accessible form of a contract between 2 adults with some standardized language, giving them certain rights and responsibilities with regard to each other and to shared resources, but not special rights with regard to external parties (such as the federal government) unavailable to singles.

[Rabrrrrrr]

44. And I would agree with that, except for not calling it marriage

Call it "power of attorney" or "Supreme Caretaker" or "flow of inheritance" or something, so that it can be a man and a woman, two men, two women, a guy and his uncle - whatever. No sex or relationship need be applied.

All it should be is a way for one person to say to the government, "This is the person that I want making decisions for me should I be incapacitated; to whom my possessions shall go at death (outside of whatever is in a will)" and so on, as you said above.

And so, if a person finds a life partner whom they love, they would probably choose that person (and vice versa).

But, even those who are single, or those who find a life love but one whom they don't want to share medical or life or inheritance with, EVERYONE gets a chance to appoint someone, and it doesn't have to be assumed that if Person A chooses Person B, that person B necessarily must also therefore choose Person A.

We probably have that now with "Power of attorney", but I'm not sure.


(my God, I'm longwinded today - sorry everyone; my brain just isn't all there yet)

[mondo joe]

45. I'd still differ with you.

I would apply a relationship standard, because to my thinking marriage creates a third entity: the couple, which to my thinking includes shared rights and responsibilities over each other and resources.

While I would support an easy and fast power of attorney power for anyone regardless of relationship, I don't think other rights and responsibilities should necessarily be associatd, nor do I think they'd necessarily be welcomed. For example, I may want my friend to make decisions for me in the case I am incapacitated, but I don't think he should be accountable for my spending and so on.

[Fresh_Start]

52. No they are not

because if a reasonable person cannot get married due to those other constraints, marriage is not a real option.

There are lots of people who cannot get married because they literally cannot afford to.
They lose benefits which pay for their food, or medicine or housing.

[mondo joe]

54. There are people for whom it doesn't work. But they are not discriminated against

as a class.

[lligrd]

46. Because The Government Has To

keep track of who is sleeping with whom. (Sure hope I got that who and whom right.) {:

[Fresh_Start]

51. good job on those pronouns

eom

[blondeatlast]

20. Because then my husband of 11 years would divorce me! It keeps Mr. B and I from

um, uh, mmm, aaaah--give me a minute--um, well...

IT'S A THREAT TO MY MARRIAGE!

[TahitiNut]

25. It's the leading cause of divorce.

:dunce:

Oops! I'm trespassing in a thread where only those "opposed to same sex marriage" were invited. Sorry.
:blush:

[Stinky The Clown]

32. To those opposed to same sex Marriage.....

.... fuck you.

[CT_Progressive]

34. Banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional

• I despise the KKK.
  
• I think they are immoral, and lead an immoral lifestyle that is harmful to children and other citizens.
  
• I do not support the KKK lifestyle, or the KKK agenda, even though they try to push their lifestyle and agenda onto me and others.
  
• A member of the KKK is legally allowed to marry another member of the KKK, and raise little KKK babies.
  
• No one in America is trying to ban KKK-member to KKK-member marriage.
  
• I fully support the rights of KKK members to marry other KKK members, no matter how opposed I am to KKK members.
  

Substitute "same sex" for "KKK" and all of a sudden people want a ban, and somehow think its constitutional.

[slackmaster]

36. Gay people have just as much right to be miserable as straight people do

:shrug:

[lligrd]

47. Hear Hear - Why Do Repukes Insist On Protecting Gays

from the trials and tribulations of marriage? lol

[Xenotime]

48. Why are you so angry?

Not the best way to win an arguement.

[uppityperson]

53. As I told my kid, I'd be happy if you found someone you were good for, and they were good for you.

End of message.

[foreigncorrespondent]

55. Because...

...where all a bunch of perverts and love doing it with animals, so people like us just shouldn't marry. :sarcasm: