Are There Any LIBERALS AGAINST Gay Marriage/Adoption?

[EINAH PETS]

All prejudice I've heard so far on this issue seems to come from conservatives(No, I'm not saying all conservatives are prejudice, so before you yell at me, listen). I'm just wondering if there are any liberals who are to the right on one/both of these issues and why do you feel that way?
Sean are you 12? And Delay, it's not a choice. EVERY gay person will tell you that so I think they know better then you. Also, why would someone choose to live with such hatred and discrimination towards them? It's just not a choice, I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
Wow Knuckles...you're hilarious. Are you really serious?

[Delay]

I'm not liberal or anything and hate the taking sides thing. I am gay friendly but I am apposed to gay marriage. It's kind of like, choose that path then you forgo the right to marry, have kids, etc. Sack up and quit whining and deal with your choice I say.

[gcbtrading]

This conservative applauds and encourages adults to enter into loving lifetime commitments, and is always pleased to learn that a child has been given the warmth and security of a home and caring loving parents...(or parent in the case of a single person doing the adopting)

[Patrick G]

My in laws are union member, tree huggin', social program lovin' liberals and are 100% against gay marriage and adoption.

So yes there are some.


Edit---- commentary for Christopher H below me: Liberals are accepting of everyone except conservatives and Christians.

[T C]

i'm a liberal and i oppose gay marriage. i think civil unions for gays are fine but marriage is a religious institution.

[What is?]

Against it legally, or against it personally?

I'm personally all about both, but someone who goes beyond personally being against those things and thinks the government should have a say in either is, by definition, not a social liberal--- or perhaps, an inconsistent one.

Aaron Forr: Untrue, a conservative would want to "conserve" tradition, which would state that marriage is a legal status beyond a contract, and, traditionally between a man and a woman.
A classical liberal-- better known as a libertarian-- would want to eliminate marriage as legal standing beyond the stipulations of the marital contract (thus leaving it open to exist between any consenting adults, regardless of gender).


Knuckles36: explain to me how a child being fostered or adopted by an abusive or psychologically unstable straight couple would be better than a loving gay couple?
Actually, explain to me how-- other than guaranteeing no criminal record/recorded history of mental instability and stable financial situation, a home-- the government has a say in the viability of who can raise kids based on unproven claims and speculation? There's no determined criteria to be a parent (other than the ones mentioned), and a double standard or the government trying to play psychologist would be a logical fallacy in the face of the law.

Justagrandma: I totally agree with you, but just to clarify: giving gay "marriage" legal status wouldn't be forcing religious institutions to do anything (the government really doesn't have that power). "Marriage" vs. "civil union" is really just a matter of terminology, unless the union for gay couples is contractually different from heterosexual marital unions (which, in its legal terms, it shouldn't be-- there's no reason a hetero marriage should entail anything a homo marriage doesn't). Considering that a marriage being performed by an ordained minister means nothing to the state without a certificate, performing the religious ceremony itself would be up to the descretion of the individual church. Legalizing gay unions/marriages would just make sure the union/marriage was valid under the Full Faith and Credit Clause-- meaning that every state has to recognize the marriage as legitimate. Churches are free to reject the validity of the "marriage" or "union".

[NW Trapper]

I'm a middle-of-the-road democrat and all my friends are repukicans. All of them (including me) find homosexual lifestyles repugnant. But what's weird is they embrace the same Jews who ridicule and repudiate their messiah.

[justagrandma]

I like the idea of civil unions, for both gays and straights.
I don't like the idea of somehow forcing religious institutions to marry gay people, that, to my mind would be forcing them to do something that goes against their religion, and I think government should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of government.
But the reality of life demands that committed relationships have a way to be legally binding.
Being gay has nothing to do with being sexually drawn to children, and it doesn't rub off, in some way onto a child, so no, I'm not against gay adoptions.

There is no special way to teach reproduction to children of homosexual couples, they don't question what they grow up with, and they learn it take two sexes to reproduce at the same time the children of heterosexuals do.

[Shaneladd]

I am a reformed liberal, and while a liberal I was against gay marriage (of course I stll am). I don't think that gays should be discriminated against, but we do need standards of behaviors. A society where everything goes will not last long.

Look at the Roman Empire; their moral weakness caused them to become weak militarily and they were conquered by barbarians. The same thing could happen to the USA.

[aaron.forr]

thats the thing with labels, they are usually wrong. a true conservative government would recognize marriage as something not affiliated with government and has right to say what people can and cannot do.