44 thoughts on “What Your Opposition To Gay Marriage Means”

  1. It can be a State’s issue because the federal government doesn’t have the right to decide what you do in your own home as long as it does not harm another person.

    And just because State’s are allowed to decide this sort of thing doesn’t mean they’ll go back to slavery.. that’s just stupid talk.

    I mean, sure this was meant to be clever, but it has some stupid points in it as well.

    Basically the argument should go a little something like: Allowing same sex to marry is the natural progression of marriage. 300 years ago people married to better themselves economically, marry someone of another family to better your own, etc…

    Then love entered into the equation – marrying people for love. If this is accepted belief in The West, then the next step would be to allow same sex to marry as well, but it is a state right – even though it’s not treated like one.

    1. I’m not convinced folks wouldn’t go back to the way things were given the constant fear people display of moving forward. Every social and technological advance has been met by a movement calling for a return to the past. I’m not saying folks would go to the “rule of thumb” and “seprate but equal” over night but such beliefs are long held in our country. In fact appealing to those long held beliefs has been the campaign strategy of a major political party for the past fifty years. Decades of exploitation of racial tension, willful ignorance on both sides, and coloring of history has turned the issue into a political gold mine for either side of the isle to rally the base at the expense of moving forward. Quite frankly the same thing is being deployed against the gay community as well with nascent fearmongers yelling “think of the children” whenever anything gay comes up. Simply put states rights was how they kept us black folk down and now it’s simply being redeployed.

  2. The civil war was never about slavery, nor was slavery ever justified by state rights. Slavery laws were first instituted to rally support from others who did not wish to see it abolished. Even at our founding, federal authority and the need to gain political support nurtured slavery. Over the course of decades politicians made a series of decisions to protect self-interest by imposing the moral desires of the majority. This drove a wedge between the southern states and the government as they felt the 10th amendment was being violated (and it was). Eventually this led to an all-out war that the north started by invading confederate territory. During the course of the war it became more evident that the federal government only wanted power. Many of the actions that Lincoln had a hand included the suspension of habeus corpus, assassinates, poisoning the water supply of towns, capturing and using slaves claiming them as confiscated property, and much more. Government only seeks to destroy by leeching off of society, it creates more division in society, and does not seek to protect our rights.

    1. Julian, The Civil War was all about Slavery, at least from the southern point of view, if you read the speeches and proceedings of the secession commissions you would see that the main reason the southern states seceded was their fear that the “Black Republicans” would end slavery and make the investment in slaves worthless. They also speak of a disgust at their former slaves becoming “equals” in the eyes of the law. The idea of states rights did not find its footing until after the south had lost the conflict and needed to make their folly seem noble. As for the north their main concern was saving the Union. When Lincoln made his Emancipation Proclamation there was great unrest in the ranks of northern soldiers because they thought they were fighting to preserve the Union not to free slaves.

      If the “Lost Causers” would actually study history they would find the truth instead of the lies their forebears constructed to help them sleep at night.

  3. In the UK, when I were a lad it was illegal to diddle with another man until I was 21.

    Now we have civil partnerships. To be frank, I do not give one flying shit about marriage – I care about the legal status of a partnership. I need to know that my will cannot be contested by family because my partner is seen as lesser. I need to know that insurance companies pay out to my partner. The list is endless.

    It is about not being the “second class” citizen – as for the for and against arguments (of which the above material is purile) I don’t care. LEGAL STATUS is all that matters.

    1. “Now we have civil partnerships. To be frank, I do not give one flying shit about marriage – I care about the legal status of a partnership.”

      U.S. VERSION: In theory, that’s a great statement and I would bet that most gays feel that way deep inside. But in reality, it doesn’t hold any water. Here’s why:

      Only a few states over here have civil/same-sex partnerships that even approach what legal marriage offers. And even those that do, don’t offer one of the most important benefits of legal marriage: Social Security benefits after death or other reasons. Only legal marriage offers that — in ALL 50 STATES.

      Also, legal marriage is just another wedge the religious right (over here) deliberately uses to legally separate “straight” from “gay.”

      I know this because I’ve personally experienced this because of my partner’s death (we were legal “Domestic Partners”). We need legal same-sex marriage to tell the idiot religious-right that we are just as good as they are and that “their” marriages are no fucking better than same-sex marriages.

      And, for the “bi” people — stop trying to single out “bi-sexuality” in marriage laws for the forseeable future — once same-sex marriages become law and recognized by the general public, anything that bisexuals want will automatically fall into place. Newsflash: The religious right doesn’t give a flying fuck about the differences between gay and bi in marriage (or other) laws. Once we get them to finally accept (even in the most basic legal sense) gays, then, again, “bi-sexuality” will fall into place. So, politcally, stop trying to argue the differences until you get a real foundation of laws to actually work with. You may argue this (prettyangelboi) until you’re blue in the face, but I’m right.

      1. Apologies – we do have civil partnerships. Civil partnerships do not afford the same rights as marriage. In the same way that a heterosexual couple in a partnership are not afforded the same rights as a married couple in the UK.

        My point is that marriage affords significantly better rights those rights are legislated for by the state, (with a good deal of religious tradition thrown into the pot) – my point is that any person should be able to enter into a legal contract and have that contract recognised by the judicial system and humanity as a whole. Currently it is illegal to devise such a contract – marriage is a contract and with it comes additional rights.

        Until the rights of everyone who chooses to take a life partner (snigger) are protected then calls for gay marriage are a sham – it is not the act of marriage it is the passing on of the legal rights and also the pitfalls (divorce, alimony etc.)

        At least the USA invented palimony, which redressed some issues although as you will say, not in all states.

      2. “Gay rights” do not take precedence over equal rights. Suggesting that everything falls into place for OTHER people once gay people get their rights is indicative of a superiority complex. Bi people experience completely different stigmas compared gay people, so your argument is flat-out invalid. Gay people do not own the LGBT movement.

        It arrogance like yours that makes many transgender and bisexual people so often wish that we could secede from the LGBT movement. Stop trying to silence bisexual voices when it is simply “not convenient” for your gay interests.

        Fact: You are not better than me simply because you are gay.

        As a bisexual person, I’m not even concerned about the “religious right” because I experience more prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance from gay people than I ever do from any religious zealot.


        1. “Gay rights do not take precedence over equal rights. Suggesting that everything falls into place for OTHER people once gay people get their rights is indicative of a superiority complex.”

          WHERE do you read that bullshit? The problem is our political climate right now — that’s all. I agree, gay rights don’t take precedent. But if we can’t get gay rights passed, then I fucking guarantee that your “bi-rights” won’t get passed either.

          Just because you feel slighted in some way by gays, you think that “bi-rights” are “more neutral” and “politically correct.” You [politically] can’t be further from the truth as far as the voting public sees it.

          “As a bisexual person, I’m not even concerned about the “religious right” because I experience more prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance from gay people than I ever do from any religious zealot.”

          In my opinion, that’s pure bullshit — so you can think you’re making some point about bisexuals. You are constantly so hung up on “bisexuals” that you can’t see the forest for those trees. And we need to get through the [political] forest before we can do anything about each tree.

          “Fact: You are not better than me simply because you are gay.”

          I’ve never said or even hinted that [I was]/[we] gays are. You are making that silly and wrong assumption. You clearly don’t know jack about American politics.

          1. I’m bisexual..and I do see a lot of prejudice towards bisexuals from the ‘gay’ movement. BUT, I don’t understand anyone bisexual getting wrapped around the axle about “gay marriage”. What do you want? Bisexual marriage? What does that mean? There are only two kinds of marriage: homo, or hetero. If you are bisexual, and marry another guy then you are participating in the instituion of same sex marriage…if you marry a woman, voila…traditional marriage…

            1. “I just want MARRIAGE.”

              All of us (in here, at least) want that same thing. But, [politically] before we can get to that “neutral” marriage, we need to pass same-sex marriage laws. Then, in a short due time, it will be known only as marriage (for all).

              What Audaciter is completely correct — and the root of it all. So, stop quibbling over “bisexual” marriage words — it serves no [political] purpose to get through that “forest” and gain full rights for everyone.

            2. Funny how the mind works. I read that sentence that you corrected as if there was no flaw; my brain filled in some sort of appropriate word (said, stated etc). As a matter of fact, after reading your correction I had to go back and figure out what error you made in the original sentence. The brain really is an amazing thing to fill in the gaps like that. Total non sequitur but interesting none the less. Carry on. :)

            3. Marriage has no relationship to sexual orientation. I have friends who are asexual and who want to be married. They are neither homosexual or heterosexual. Marriage is about a loving committed relationship without prejudice.

              The term gay marriage implies that marriage of two same-sex partners are gay which really serves no point. Even Penboy’s vehement ranting has not proven why the term “gay marriage” has an unequivocal political advantage.


          2. “WHERE do you read that bullshit?”

            Probably in your statement “Once we get them to finally accept (even in the most basic legal sense) gays, then, again, bi-sexuality will fall into place.”

            I also never stated that bi rights are more neutral or politically correct. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I stated that bi people face different social challenges than gay people, and that I believe in social and political equity NOT “bi rights”.

            If you do not like the fact that I am outspoken about civil rights, then that is your loss not mine. You are the only person who is outraged that I am an advocate for sexual equality. My priorities are not the same as your priorities.

            I don’t understand your obsession and defensiveness over this one sticky issue. You even derailed the WHOF thread to make a drawn out point about “gay marriage.” I am well versed in the state of American politics. However, I also know that socio-political change requires persistence in the face of adversity.


  4. I’m am opposed to marriage on any grounds for anyone, straight, gay, whatever. Why continue to observe an institution that is totally bankrupt in every regard? Shit man!

  5. My opposition is that, personally I think gays could create something better than marriage and I hate to see people sink to such low standards of what straight people hold so valuable.

    but thats just my opinion, that I know a lot of people don’t agree with.

    1. Spot on “darkshadow6921″. You are absolutely right! Why the hell are gays so anxious to repeat the mistakes of and emulate the behavior of our straight fucking oppressors? Fuck them and all their sick institutions. Let’s chart a new and better path.

    1. Must we waste our time quibbling over words? Colloquially I’m pretty sure most people have an understanding that “gay marriage” includes LBT people, too.

      1. As long as we continually promote class prejudice within our own movement, then I will “quibble” over words.

        1. Okay, fine. Let’s say non-denominational secular ceremony of two people with like gametes in a union with an organization of authority controlling the establishment of a sovereign nation.

          I must have said SOMETHING politically incorrect in there.

          1. Actually, might I suggest “bi marriage” and call it a day. Bi marriage is far more accurate. A non-gender specific right to wedlock is bi marriage. But imagine the ire that bi marriage would provoke from gay rights activists. Gay people would feel like their right to marry was ceded, and suddenly semantics would become a legitimate hot button issue.

            When it’s about validation of gay people it’s always a top priority. When it’s about validating anybody else in the LGBT movement, then it’s just not really that important right now.

            1. Bi marriage is even less accurate.

              “It’s stupid how gay marriage is known as gay marriage and not just “Marriage”. Just because you have lunch doesn’t mean you have ‘gay lunch’. Just because you park your car doesn’t mean you ‘gay parked’, amirite?”

            2. Observational comedy at its very best.

              Because straight is the norm, then adding “gay” to things makes it better/ or worse or whatever.

              I went to a “very gay lunch with gay friends and apparently a straight guy. the straight guy we raped and tortured, which is how we roll – when of course us gays are not being effeminate and wilting at the mere smell of a ‘real straight man’ who has a wife and children.”

            3. As I point out in my comment, the issue of “marriage” is a universal problem and not confined to the LGBT community.

              If I am asked by the hardcore het males that I know, I assure them that

              a) I do not desire them
              b) I have never been bi – my sexuality is what it is
              c) No, i do not understand people who change sex and then change sexuality at the same time – yes it is an annoying paradox. I fully understand transgender people who remain true to their sexuality

              because of course sexuality is fixed, or is that gender.

              Come on transexuals, keep on being traitors to the gay cause. I love it.

              Or hang on our fag tails, et tu brutus

              Oh and BTW – bisexuality is not about any of the “little middle classness” descibed so ineloquently by the bi in a post the other week on this site, bisexuality on the whole is just the gateway drug to great gay sex.

    2. “Ahem, “same-sex marriage” not gay marriage”

      Hence, in my above post, I always referenced it as “same-sex marriage” and not “gay marriage.” I and others here are aware of the “differences,” but unfortunately, the general public doesn’t give a damn between them. Again, hence my post for “your types” to stop politically differentiating between “gay” and “same-sex” — it serves no real purpose in today’s political climate. We need right now to be united against the religious right — not quibbling over words the general public uses.

    1. The muslims will never take over, because the majority of muslims are tolerant, law abiding people who have deep religious and spiritual convictions.

      However, the problem for white/black/muslim gay people is religious fundamentalism and irrational haters.

      My thoughts are of the famous poem, “first they came for the. . .”

      The reason you cannot hijack a plane now is that people will never comply with the hijackers demands, it is the same with all situations it is not possible to subjugate people like in the good old days.

      But thanks again Derek for your exceptional insight into the situation.

  6. Clint Eastwood Said: I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War. And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, Let’s spend a little more time leaving everybody alone. These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don’t give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We’re making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of. They go on and on with all this bullshit about “sanctity”—don’t give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.

  7. Sorry to interrupt the flow of all the intellectual posts, but has anyone noticed that the priest looks like a ZOMBIE? I hope I don’t sound like too much of a 12 year old simpleton. xD

  8. Mass has = marriage & the walls of Jericho havent fallen. Gay marriage has become so accepted, the gay part has been essentially dropped. People ( I know ) just offer congratulations as if such things have been accepted for 100s of years.

    1. “Gay marriage has become so accepted, the gay part has been essentially dropped.”

      That’s exactly what I was trying to tell prettyangelboi, but he just won’t relent in his pursuit of “bi” laws and “rights.” Just as I said above, the “bisexual” elements just fall into place when we can at first recognize and legalize gay rights. It’s just the way politics and society are in this vocal religious climate that we have to endure.

Leave a Reply