conservatives want gay marriages banned because ...

[unblock]

because it's far better to have gays being unattached and highly promiscuous than in stable, committed relationships, right?

no, that doesn't sound right.

conservatives want gay marriages banned because the want proper male-female marriages where one of the parties is sexually attracted to 50% of the population, but not the spouse. that sounds healthy.

ah, i know! they want gays to be single so that there's always plenty of available gays for them to cheat on their spouses with, because they want it, too, it's just that they want it hush-hush, on the side and on the sly!


well, of course, sadly, we all know the real answer. they want gay marriage banned because they can't kill 'em. since they can't kill 'em, they want to be visciously mean to them every possible way. why ban gay marriages? because gays want them, that's why.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Which just supports the entire Gay Agenda

http://cronus.com/agenda

"FUCK Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[salinen]

2. Because in order to become

a theocracy, somebody must be evil.

[Snappy]

3. Tax Breaks

Tax breaks and inheritance laws. The Neo Fascists don't want Gays to have those.

[sweetheart]

6. yep

.

[Virginian]

4. Because civil rights laws

keep them from being mean to everyone else except gays.
They have to have some one to pick on.

[ozymandius]

5. Ths is important to Republicans because

this issue invigorates their bigot base. Bush is vulnerable, very vulnerable, on every substantive issue. So a debate on gay rights is their retreat to the "god, guns and gays" hallmark of the Republican party. It is an issue of the lowest common denominator among their faithful uninformed populus.

[rustydog]

7. Because it is bad enough when your wife leaves you...

But these a-holes can't take it when she leaves you for your secretary!

Seriously...This is just a campaign ploy to deflect Iraq heat from Bush..and he'll gladly supprt this because it solidifies his racist constituency.

If he gave a rats-ass about saving the sanctity of marriage, he'd outlaw divorce. Of course, then Neil Bush would be in a bit of hypocritical trouble, wouldn't he?

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Because the bible says gays = bad...

And the religious fundamentalists get their say in writing the platform and thus 99% of the people in the party follow every word of the platform.

[buckeye1]

9. Its a terrific wedge.

They have another political catalyst to gain more power. When I was in the 5th grade our teacher Mrs. Euneck taught us that "might makes right" is the wrong way to go.

Republicans love the "hey,why don't you and them fight" model to gain more power.

"Gay Marriage" is a Republican wedge term. It confuses the real issue of human rights. Marriage has nothing to do with it.
Marriage is a religious term. From the earliest texts until now I find it to be selfserving and of little use now.

[Sapphocrat]

10. Because...

In order to stay on top of the heap, you need somebody at the bottom of the heap, and it's illegal to take a crap on racial and ethnic minorities -- so we're all that's left.

[tedoll78]

11. From what I've seen..

Straight people are on no moral high ground from which to judge. If conservatives want to protect marriage, maybe they should ban heterosexuals from entering into such an institution.

hehe.. :P

[unblock]

12. in truth,

it's just one of those simplistic, cheap, political ploys. it's an opportunity to come out (he he) against homosexuality. period.

just as a flag-burning constitutional amendment is an opportunity to come out in favor of the flag. the thinking doesn't go beyond that. cheapening the constitution, weakening our freedoms, wasting valuable time and effort solving problems that doesn't exist, all for the sake of a quick personal political boost. disgusting.


i just think that when republican call it the 'defense of marriage' act, we should call it the 'promotion of gay promiscuity' act.

[sweetheart]

13. its a widening of the war on minorities

The war is currently waged on all minority groups, who are unlikely to group together and return fire.

1. Women
2. Veterans
3. People who have promiscuous sex
4. Foreign people
5. Black people
6. Cannabis smokers
7. MS sufferers
8. Elderly people
9. Children
10. Gay people
11. Educated people
12. Non-christian religious groups
13. Military service people
14. Working class people
15. Disabled people

This is how hitler on to the holocaust. People don't realize that it was MORE than just jewish people. The bush holocaust is against anyone who's minority is unlikely to be republican.

The funny thing is these "minorities" are actually the vast majority... and if they get smart, the criminals who are perverting the constitution will be out of office in a heartbeat.

Gay is just another minority in this context. Reading more in to it works along the lines of the divisiveness already in play.

[Snappy]

14. The camps

Gipsies, Communists, Gays, Jehova's Witnesses and anti-Nazis are among the groups sent to the Concentration camps, as well as Jews.

[Lone_Wolf]

15. IMHO They are anti-gay because...

It brings up religious questions they would rather not face. It makes them uncomfortable because they have to explain why did God, in his infinite wisdom and supposedly perfect design, create people who are attracted to the same sex?

Also I believe propagation was one way that religions increased the number of people who practiced it. Thus male/female relationships were the only ones encouraged by religions and same sex relationships discouraged. Marriage was just a formal institution of this practice.

[Lexingtonian]

16. Oh, their ads and articles are such give-aways

For male homosexuals it boils down to that they find male gay sex horrifying and imagine it's a contagious behavior.

But in matters of marriage, they're actually far more terrified about lesbians getting the right. All their propaganda boils down to whining about the lack of 'fathers' to such families and wierd, emotionally loaded, insinuations of imminent doom upon the whole of society as a result. Details about how exactly this doom is going to unfold are very vague, but they use a lot of off-topic statistics to say that they are trying very hard to keep themselves convinced of it happening.

So, on bottom line on GM is that it taunts the latent homosexuals among them personally into the unbearable thought that maybe it's worth living outside the closet after all, that their rigid clinging to an outdated ordering of life isn't worth it after all.

But the biiiig political deal to GM to them is that the de facto sanctioning of lesbian-headed families knocks out yet another pillar out of the rigid patriarchy dogma that is the center of conservative Christian politics. All their writing on GM ultimately revolves around this- they can forgive their relatives and friends for being gay, they can get over their aesthetic difficulties with gay sex, but their sense of being safe individually is so tied to their dependence on the patriarchy they are subjugated by that they don't dare imagine its power getting broken down.

It's inner slavishness, really, of people who are afraid of what happens when the rigid and quite abusive, but conversely secure, patriarchal arrangement in which they are quite inextricably bound, gives way to freedom. They fear it will be chaos, will increase the abuses, and lead to responsibilities they won't feel competent to assume. It would force them to think, feel, and get outside a stereotyped approach to others. It would force them to impose their own sense of order on their own lives, rather than have it done by others. Liberation can be unbearable, it takes creativity to make it worthwhile, and that creativity is often not there.