Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Ignorant, Bigoted, Or Just Flat-Out Stupid?

Some might see this as a loaded question (In which case I ask the same question but directed at them), but let's face the facts, there's no valid argument against gay marriage and i'll explain why by listing the arguments and criticizing each and every one of them:

1. It Will Lead To Pedo/Beast (Don't Know The Proper Term) Marriages. Well For One, Those Two Things Are Illegal Unlike Homosexuality, And Two I Don't Think An Animal Or A Child Is Capable Of Signing A Marriage Contract.

2. It Goes Against Christianity. Marriage (The One We're Talking About Anyways) Is A Legal Institution, So What Your Religion Says Doesn't Really Matter At All.

3. Gays Can't Procreate. Of Course To Say This Would Be Ignoring All Of The Married Couples Out There Who Can't/Won't Have Children

4. Homosexuality Is Unnatural/A Choice. This Argument Is Irrelevent, As Many Things Are Unnatural/Choice, But We Don't Decide Who Does/Doesn't Get Married Based On Those Things. Plus There's No Evidence That Homosexuality Is Unnatural/A Choice.

5. Tradition, Which Is Not Even An Actual Argument. It's Basically The Equivalent Of "Because I Said So".

6. They Can Already Get Married To Opposite Sex. This Would Be Like Saying That Blacks And Whites Can Get Married, But Not To Each Towards The Opposite Sex In Regards To Interracial Marriage. Also, Why Should Gays Have To Live A Loveless Relationship To Get The Same Legal Rights As Straights?

7. Civil Unions, Which Is Basically The Same As Above.

8. It's Going To Destroy The Institution Of Marriage. Well For One There's No Actual Evidence To Back That Assertion Up, Plus Just Take A Look At Novelty Marriages (24-Hour Marriages, Drive-Thru Marriages, etc.). Add The Divorce Rate To That List As Well. Can't Really Blame The Gays For Those Things.

If There Was Any Argument I Didn't Include Up There It Was Either Because They Were Too Stupid Or Becuase I Didn't Know About Them.

As For The Arguments Gay Marriage: There's No Actual Reason Why It Shouldn't Be Legal. Gays Pay Taxes Like Everyone Else, Plus What They Doing Isn't Illegal, So They Deserve The Same Rights As Everyone Else.

Im against Secular none religious people using "marriage"

Civil unions for all (separation of church and state)

And if your religion allows for same sex marriage than that's between you and your clergy.

I agree with benrl. To me personally, marriage has a religious connotation. Which is why I originally supported civil union but not gay marriage. However, I have since realized that if I go to the court house with a man I would be married no religion involved. I don't think gays should be able to get married in a church because it is against its teachings. (Don't get me wrong I don't believe being gay is a sin, but it would be extremely hypocritical). Sexual preference is like religion or politics to me. I have my beliefs, you have yours. As long as you don't try to push yours upon mine I respect you.

Yeah, you're wrong. I oppose gay marriage on the basis that I oppose marriage. It's farcical.

Why 2 gay non-religious men would want to be apart of a religious ceremony carried out by religious priests that despise them is beyond me

Im not homophobic or against gay marriage but I do think it should legally be different from a hetero marriage.

My understanding is that with a hetero marraige there are tax breaks that are included specifically to make it financially easier to support children (dont ask what they are as this is based on assumption and things Ive heard)

Its a mute point as far as Im concerned, if you love someone and plan on spending the rest of your life with them surely a ceremony with an exchange of vows in front of friends and family is all you need, I dont see how a piece of paper or recognition by the state strengthens your love or commitment in anyway.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Your argument is the reason gays should have the right to marry. Marriage is a legal status that has nothing to do with children. People who are not married can have children and they effect their taxes just the same. However, marriage does effect your insurance rates for whatever reason( maybe they interpret that as stability but im not sure) . Either way gays should have that right to a lower rate by being married. Besides cant gays adopt children? Also can an Atheist truthfully get married then? After all the only thing they are guilty of is sanity.

Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Ignorant, Bigoted, Or Just Flat-Out Stupid?

No, they are just people with a different opinion who happen to think in a way that you or others like you don't like it. So basically name calling won't make any one who is against this type of marriage change his or her opinion.

Why there is still an argument about this I don't even know.
Just like religious debates, it will go on forever.
I am totally for gay marriage, by the way.
I get that technically, marriage is a religious unison of a man and a woman, and in saying this, I wouldn't expect that a priest who was against such a unison would have to marry a gay couple,
BUT I totally believe every living thing on this planet has rights which should be respected.
Why shouldn't a same sex couple who love each other have the same rights as an opposite sex couple?

Originally posted by JailTales
Yeah, you're wrong. I oppose gay marriage on the basis that I oppose marriage. It's farcical.

Why 2 gay non-religious men would want to be apart of a religious ceremony carried out by religious priests that despise them is beyond me

Nice try, but I'm not wrong.

I'm referring to the legal institution of marriage for one (which I mentioned in the OP you ignored), and two if you're against marriage in general, then the question isn't directed at you. The title doesn't say opponents of marriage, it says opponents of gay marriage.

Originally posted by Telos

Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Ignorant, Bigoted, Or Just Flat-Out Stupid?

No, they are just people with a different opinion who happen to think in a way that you or others like you don't like it. So basically name calling won't make any one who is against this type of marriage change his or her opinion.

edit on 1-5-2012 by Telos because: (no reason given)

Yeah, that's a terrible defense. You could use that same lame excuse to defend anyone opposing a civil rights issue (but I guess it's ok because it's a gay rights issue).

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Im not homophobic or against gay marriage but I do think it should legally be different from a hetero marriage.

My understanding is that with a hetero marraige there are tax breaks that are included specifically to make it financially easier to support children (dont ask what they are as this is based on assumption and things Ive heard)

Its a mute point as far as Im concerned, if you love someone and plan on spending the rest of your life with them surely a ceremony with an exchange of vows in front of friends and family is all you need, I dont see how a piece of paper or recognition by the state strengthens your love or commitment in anyway.

What about gay couples who adopt or gay couples with surrogate mothers/fathers, or straight couples who can't/won't have children?

reply to post by technical difficulties


Being a traight confident male who is secure with is sexuality, I have a hard time figuring out why people are so prejudice towards homosexuals be it male or female. At fist I thought religion, religion being a huge part of the north american way of life. But I didn't hing that would be enough. I found people taking to this really personaly. So, instead of looking at it from a religious point of view; I started to look at it from a personal perspective and asking my self questions like "What would make me hate gay people?" Gay women...ramping up the compition and gay men...making pass at me? No, that didn't make sence. I don't make a pass at every woman walking around. Why would gay men do that. What if I wasn't sure about my sexuality. I'm sure alot of peopel asked them selves that. So I started to look in to that. Low and behold. I found numerous studies talking about exactlythat.

So if it is ok for two men to marry then why not a man and his dog? Why not a woman and her tree? Any 'no because...' reason will be no less arbitrary than saying 'marraige can be between only a man and a woman.'

Marriage is the foundation of the family. Children needs their mothers and their fathers. How come the only reason that really makes sense didn't even occur to you? Are you stoned? Maybe you should smoke less.

reply to post by dbarnhart


Dude... Srsly? A tree can not verbally consent... nor can a dog. We don't speak dog. :/ So how could you know for sure a dog was consenting? Can a dog can't sign a marriage contract, nor can a tree.
Gah. Such a stupid thing to say.
The unison of to women or two men in love is not even remotely similar to the unison of a dog and a man. >.<
People like you frustrate me so much.

Do you know any children of gay marriage? I know several, and none of them have their head on straight. The two boys particularly that I know (sons of different lesbians) have a seething rage against women.

As a matter of fact, most children of gay parents do not get along well with the gay or lesbian parent, regardless of the homosexual's relationship status. Why is that?

Gayness is too political for us to admit that children deeply crave a parent of each gender. Psychologically, they look to the parents as a guide for how to interact with the other gender. This is true even in single parent families where the lone parent is straight--the children experience stress for the absent parent. The stress is not from social expectation either, because single parent households are common enough to be considered within the sphere of "normal" experience.

Yet the children of "alternative" households often express deep regrets for their "lost" childhood. The offspring of gays have a much more intense hurt, in the direction of rage.


As you start screaming at me to cite sources, you need to realize that there ARE NO studies on verifiable numbers, like comparisons between rates of anti-depressants or suicide attempts between gay two-parent households v. straight two-parent households. The reason is simple: the numbers are so dismal that they are never published, and the potential study is abandoned. The researcher realizes that publishing the results is a career-ending event.

Every study either measures "reported sense of well-being," or else compares gay two-parent households with single parent households. The reason is pure and simple that the numbers are damning. If the numbers were good news for the gay community, they'd be published. Since the news is bad, it remains undiscussed.

Here's a research survey and summary; Do Homosexual Parents Pose Risks to Children?

A bit dated; but again, it's a taboo subject for researchers.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Telos

Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Ignorant, Bigoted, Or Just Flat-Out Stupid?

No, they are just people with a different opinion who happen to think in a way that you or others like you don't like it. So basically name calling won't make any one who is against this type of marriage change his or her opinion.

Yeah, that's a terrible defense. You could use that same lame excuse to defend anyone opposing a civil rights issue (but I guess it's ok because it's a gay rights issue).

Is not a defense, is a line of reasoning. I don't have to defend myself while I'm expressing a personal opinion. Is funny how some people try to impose their mindset on others. This world is becoming to perverted and twisted and yet voicing a personal opinion is judged as discrimination and against civil rights. You're hypocrite and your hypocrisy is so clear when asking for your choice in life (if you're gay) to be accepted while you refuse to accept a different opinion. I can understand where you might come from and I'm ok with it as long is it doesn't affect me. But you cannot ask me to accept it, cherish or embrace it only because you wanna be accepted and only because you chose to be unnatural. I don't discriminate people who chose to be gay, I don't hate them, (got some friends gay) I don't fight them but I won't stop expressing my view point against homosexualism and gay marriage only because whoever made that choice thinks has the rights to impose their decision on other people. That's crossing the line and in the moment you violate my right of free speech and free thinking, then we've got a problem.

Originally posted by Telos

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Telos

Are Opponents Of Gay Marriage Ignorant, Bigoted, Or Just Flat-Out Stupid?

No, they are just people with a different opinion who happen to think in a way that you or others like you don't like it. So basically name calling won't make any one who is against this type of marriage change his or her opinion.

Yeah, that's a terrible defense. You could use that same lame excuse to defend anyone opposing a civil rights issue (but I guess it's ok because it's a gay rights issue).

Is not a defense, is a line of reasoning. I don't have to defend myself while I'm expressing a personal opinion. Is funny how some people try to impose their mindset on others. This world is becoming to perverted and twisted and yet voicing a personal opinion is judged as discrimination and against civil rights. You're hypocrite and your hypocrisy is so clear when asking for your choice in life (if you're gay) to be accepted while you refuse to accept a different opinion. I can understand where you might come from and I'm ok with it as long is it doesn't affect me. But you cannot ask me to accept it, cherish or embrace it only because you wanna be accepted and only because you chose to be unnatural. I don't discriminate people who chose to be gay, I don't hate them, (got some friends gay) I don't fight them but I won't stop expressing my view point against homosexualism and gay marriage only because whoever made that choice thinks has the rights to impose their decision on other people. That's crossing the line and in the moment you violate my right of free speech and free thinking, then we've got a problem.

Maybe you should try writing that again, but make it actually coherent.

Originally posted by Hillarie
Marriage is the foundation of the family. Children needs their mothers and their fathers. How come the only reason that really makes sense didn't even occur to you? Are you stoned? Maybe you should smoke less.

I was going to critcize you for not reading the OP, but it turns out I forgot that reason in the OP. So, by your own logic, should people who adopt and couples with stepchildren not be allowed to get married either?

reply to post by technical difficulties


Christian mindset about marriage...
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
G-d made Adam and Eve,not Adam and Steve.

Secular mindset...why not,let them be as miserable
as the rest of us!

Oh, I see, children need a male and a female parent... Hmm...
Okay then, then divorce should be totally illegal. By the same reasoning, single parenting is a sin. If you are a single mother or father, you should NOT be able to keep your children, as you children will grow up all backwards becaise they need two parents, one with a cock and one with a pussy.
??? Srsly? This doesn't even make any sense. >.

Originally posted by breakherlegs
Oh, I see, children need a male and a female parent... Hmm...

single parenting is a sin.

Get real. No one is saying that but you, who are trying to build a straw man you can knock down.

Sometimes single-gender parenting is better than the upheaval of creating an ersatz family simply to mimic the norm. And yes, single parents can be successful parents. But that doesn't mean by any measure that single or "alternative" parenting is the same as a two parent, two gender household.

The state has an interest in supporting parents doing a good job of raising healthy, well-adjusted members of society. Intervention would cause more harm than good.



On the other hand, the the state currently encourages family systems that are less likely to succeed at raising children, for the sake of the politically correct fiction that people's sex choices have no impact on the larger society.

If gay marriage should be legal, then so should polygamy for mormons and muslims. And that's a ridiculous notion that will only oppress the "sister-wives" under a male patriarch.

But hey, what they do in the bedroom is nobody's business, right?