Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What the hell is so special about homosexuals that they need government recognition of their private relationship? What absolutely critical function is met by recognizing their marriages, for the orderly propogation of our citizenry, beyond that of two best-friends? What is this bizarre faddish infatuation? IF homosexuality is biological, and a cure (prenatal hormonal care, gene therapy, etc.) was not only discovered, but also became routine-cheap medical care during pregnancy, it would for all intents and purposes vanish from developed nations. Liberal and conservatives moms alike would take the screening and the ‘cure.’ And you know what? The world wouldn’t even notice. That’s how pointless homosexuality is to public welfare. Put their relationship up above any and all other forms (excepting the present one) of relationships? Without any kind of critical justification? What kind of faddish weepy-eyed soft-bigotry is that?

One male and one female is the smallest unit capable of producing it’s own viable offspring within intact homes, with both biological parents present. Even those who can’t or won’t have children add to the incidence of encountering married heterosexual couples in daily life, therefore, still serving as a model–the orderly matching of the opposite sexes in committed households. Which, is PARAMOUNT to the continuing prosperity of our society.

Stop pretending you don’t get it. [/quote]

Once again, you summed up exactly what I’ve been trying to say more elegantly than I have been able to, Sloth.

It’s annoying sleeping while everyone else is posting and waking up to 50 new posts and having to go right to work, I’ll tell you. I’ll try and get back here later, but Sloth’s post above pretty much perfectly covers every avenue I intended to get to.

182

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What the hell is so special about homosexuals that they need government recognition of their private relationship? What absolutely critical function is met by recognizing their marriages, for the orderly propogation of our citizenry, beyond that of two best-friends? What is this bizarre faddish infatuation? [/quote]

Why does it require a critical justification? Any two adults can get married for any reason they want so long as they aren’t siblings and of the same sex. You’re already recognizing a whole host of relationships. You realize that right? It extends far beyond infertile couples.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

IF homosexuality is biological, and a cure (prenatal hormonal care, gene therapy, etc.) was not only discovered, but also became routine-cheap medical care during pregnancy, it would for all intents and purposes vanish from developed nations. Liberal and conservatives moms alike would take the screening and the ‘cure.’ And you know what? The world wouldn’t even notice. That’s how pointless homosexuality is to public welfare.[/quote]

With all restrictions the CC puts on reproduction, I would say it depends on the procedure.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

One male and one female is the smallest unit capable of producing it’s own viable offspring within intact homes, with both biological parents present. Even those who can’t or won’t have children add to the incidence of encountering married heterosexual couples in daily life, therefore, still serving as a model–the orderly matching of the opposite sexes in committed households. Which, is PARAMOUNT to the continuing prosperity of our society. [/quote]

And NONE of this is hindered by legalized gay marriage. Do you acknowledge that ? You also realize homosexual couples are just as capable as producing stable and nurturing households for children too right?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Stop pretending you don’t get it. [/quote]

Stop pretending like you have any good secular arguments because you don’t. Just say “God is against homosexuality so I cannot support gay marriage.”

183

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama is pure evil, no doubt – he hates freedom, intelligence, science, technology. Now the POS even betrays his religion. He is pure scum.[/quote]

Ohh look at you mr cherry picker.

Joke you are headhunter.[/quote]

Damn, I thought he was talking about me…then I re-read what he wrote because he said he betrayed his religion. I was like, wait us Catholics hate freedom, intelligence, science and technology. Then I was like, oh he’s talking about Obama…he probably hates freedom, intelligence, science, and technology because he hangs out with Catholics.

Lawls. We also genuflect and kneel in mass because we’re too drunk to stand up and we eat cookies.

184

Some of us see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two people who want to tether their lives together. If marriage disappeared tomorrow people would still couple, reproduce and rear children. State recognition and tax benefits wouldn’t make or break that. You see committed parents and monogamous relationships in non-rational animals as well.

185

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

No, children are not a requirement. When did I say that? I said “allows” and has the “form.” Now, you’re just making shit up since I never said that children are a requirement, being as allowing for children and children are not the same thing.[/quote]

And Adoption?[/quote]

What about adoption? I have several adopted brothers and sisters and a lot of adopted cousins.

186

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What the hell is so special about homosexuals that they need government recognition of their private relationship? What absolutely critical function is met by recognizing their marriages, for the orderly propogation of our citizenry, beyond that of two best-friends? What is this bizarre faddish infatuation?

Therajraj
Why does it require a critical justification?..[/quote]

Er, to justify the discriminatory singling out of one relationship above others for government recognition and privilege. I stated my critical function for the pairing of the reproductive sexes.

Male and female, in other words. And, only two.

[quote] Therajraj:
You’re already recognizing a whole host of relationships. You realize that right? It extends far beyond infertile couples.[/quote]

Male and female. Two. Model.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

IF homosexuality is biological, and a cure (prenatal hormonal care, gene therapy, etc.) was not only discovered, but also became routine-cheap medical care during pregnancy, it would for all intents and purposes vanish from developed nations. Liberal and conservatives moms alike would take the screening and the ‘cure.’ And you know what? The world wouldn’t even notice. That’s how pointless homosexuality is to public welfare.[/quote]

[quote] Therajraj:
With all restrictions the CC puts on reproduction, I would say it depends on the procedure.[/quote]

Actually, modern secularism places restrictions on REPRODUCTION through it’s cultural norms. You meant to say, sex. Anyways, the RCC would have no objection that I can foresee. Prenatal care is prenatal care.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

One male and one female is the smallest unit capable of producing it’s own viable offspring within intact homes, with both biological parents present. Even those who can’t or won’t have children add to the incidence of encountering married heterosexual couples in daily life, therefore, still serving as a model–the orderly matching of the opposite sexes in committed households. Which, is PARAMOUNT to the continuing prosperity of our society. [/quote]

[quote]therajraj:
And NONE of this is hindered by legalized gay marriage.[/quote]

It needn’t even hinder it (it’s more of symptom). It’s just that it’s bigotry to recognize homosexual marriages. Their relationship is no more special than a friendship. Than a polyamorous relationship. Oh, you cuddle and sleep with the same same-sex individual every night? Cookie? He’s single. She’s in a relationship with a guy and a girl. They’re straight best friends, life long bachelor roommates. If reproduction was completely detached from heterosexual sex (the stork makes his deliveries), I WOULDN’T EVEN want it recognized by the state. Why would it be? A pat on the damn back?

[quote] Therajraj:
Do you acknowledge that ? You also realize homosexual couples are just as capable as producing stable and nurturing households for children too right? [/quote]

All I know is that I’ve even seen gay researchers caution about using such small sample sizes–gay, with children, over a reasonable time frame (a small percent, of a small percent, of a small percent)–in the studies you’re referring too. And, they will never be as ‘capable’ unless ovaries begin growing in rectums. The male and female relationship is irreplaceable to our society, to the species. Stop pretending.

187

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What the hell is so special about homosexuals that they need government recognition of their private relationship?
[/quote]

What is so special about heterosexuals that they need government recognition? It is really a matter of differentiating between the 2 groups that is the problem, regardless of what is or isn’t recognized.

189

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

  1. Women who can’t have children due to medical or some other issues.
  2. Old people, my grandfather just got re-married at 85 and both of them are functionally unable to have children.[/quote]

Sorry, I guess the better word would be “form.” The general function or form, of a marriage allows for children, though it does not require it. After all that is the primary purpose of marriage, the raising and protecting biological children.[/quote]

Your next post is basically this same idea so I am only replying to this one. I mentioned at least 1 case that has no primary purpose according to you that is still a valid marriage. Marriage is “based” on a man and women but that doesn’t limit it to that. So I have yet to hear a good reason why it MUST be limited to a man and women.[/quote]

Because it’s the only match that can produce children…the purpose of marriage. Exceptions just prove the rule.[/quote]

Now we are going in circles. I gave you 2 examples of a “match” that cannot produce children yet is still a valid marriage. So children are not a requirement so lets not bring it up anymore.[/quote]

No, children are not a requirement. When did I say that? I said “allows” and has the “form.” Now, you’re just making shit up since I never said that children are a requirement, being as allowing for children and children are not the same thing.[/quote]

What exactly do you mean by “allows” and has the “form”? And please show me an agreed upon secular definition of marriage that says it MUST “allow” and have the “form” or it fails to meet the definition.

190

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What is so special about heterosexuals…[/quote]

The propagation of the citizenry. Hell, the species.

The next person that asks this gets put on ignore. I will not pretend you’re actually this stupid. You’re not. So, stop stalling the discussion, and act like an adult. If this has to be argued (yet again, so soon), it’s going to be an honest argument this time. I’m tired of the emotional blabbering, with zero justification, over state recognized homosexual marriage. Stop pretending.

191

And if someone is really so dense as not to be able to grasp the difference between the non-willful consequences of nature, and the premeditated willful human act of creating multiple embryos which will be destroyed or put in stasis…

192

[quote]Sloth wrote:
IF homosexuality is biological, and a cure (prenatal hormonal care, gene therapy, etc.) was not only discovered, but also became routine-cheap medical care during pregnancy, it would for all intents and purposes vanish from developed nations. Liberal and conservatives moms alike would take the screening and the 'cure.
[/quote]

Yes we know what people do when doctors are able to find “defects” in their children, there is another active thread about just that on here even.

193

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
IF homosexuality is biological, and a cure (prenatal hormonal care, gene therapy, etc.) was not only discovered, but also became routine-cheap medical care during pregnancy, it would for all intents and purposes vanish from developed nations. Liberal and conservatives moms alike would take the screening and the 'cure.
[/quote]

Yes we know what people do when doctors are able to find “defects” in their children, there is another active thread about just that on here even.[/quote]

Yes, they will abort them. But what I brought up was hormonal/gene therapy that would undoubtedly and eventually wipe out homosexuality in developed nations.

194

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
IF homosexuality is biological, and a cure (prenatal hormonal care, gene therapy, etc.) was not only discovered, but also became routine-cheap medical care during pregnancy, it would for all intents and purposes vanish from developed nations. Liberal and conservatives moms alike would take the screening and the 'cure.
[/quote]

Yes we know what people do when doctors are able to find “defects” in their children, there is another active thread about just that on here even.[/quote]

Yes, they will abort them. But what I brought up was hormonal/gene therapy that would undoubtedly and eventually wipe out homosexuality in developed nations.
[/quote]

And it makes this tragically hilarious, if it’s biological. Screwing with marriage, unjustifiably discriminating against other human relationships (by elevating, unjustifiably, homosexual relationships to a state recognized and privileged status)…for something (homosexuality) that will be a rare as a white buffalo with two heads, if biological.

195

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Male and female, in other words. And, only two. [/quote]

Best friends who cuddle with each other at night, business partners, lifelong bachelor roommates, two strangers who that met yesterday, or 2 people who just want tax benefits. Stop pretending.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

It needn’t even hinder it (it’s more of symptom). It’s just that it’s bigotry to recognize homosexual marriages. [/quote]

You have that backwards

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Their relationship is no more special than a friendship. Than a polyamorous relationship. Oh, you cuddle and sleep with the same same-sex individual every night? Cookie? He’s single. She’s in a relationship with a guy and a girl. They’re straight best friends, life long bachelor roommates. If reproduction was completely detached from heterosexual sex (the stork makes his deliveries), I WOULDN’T EVEN want it recognized by the state. Why would it be? A pat on the damn back? [/quote]

I already explained why polygamy is illegal and why you don’t have to legalize polygamy if you legalize gay marriage.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

All I know is that I’ve even seen gay researchers caution about using such small sample sizes–gay, with children, over a reasonable time frame (a small percent, of a small percent, of a small percent)–in the studies you’re referring too. And, they will never be as ‘capable’ unless ovaries begin growing in rectums. The male and female relationship is irreplaceable to our society, to the species. Stop pretending.
[/quote]

"Michael J. Rosenfeld, associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, wrote in a 2010 study published in Demography that “[A] critique of the literatureâ??that the sample sizes of the studies are too small to allow for statistically powerful testsâ??continues to be relevant.” Rosenfeld’s study, “the first to use large-sample nationally representative data, shows that children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school. The core finding here offers a measure of validation for the prior, and much-debated, small-sample studies.”[33]

So we have several studies with small sample size and one big study that contains THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of kids.

“In the United States, studies on the effect of gay and lesbian parenting on children were first conducted in the 1970s, and expanded through the 1980s in the context of increasing numbers of gay and lesbian parents seeking legal custody of their biological children.[35] The widespread pattern of children being raised from infancy in two-parent gay or lesbian homes is relatively recent. This no doubt contributes to the fact that prior to the early 2000s many of the initial studies in this area suffered from problems with sample size, development over time, and sampling concerns. However, more recent research have been far more rigorous.”

So it’s been studied since the 70’s

Heck set aside gay couples for a second. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters - there’s been all sorts of different household makeups that have resulted in positive results. What matters is a nurturing and stable household for children.

196

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
IF homosexuality is biological, and a cure (prenatal hormonal care, gene therapy, etc.) was not only discovered, but also became routine-cheap medical care during pregnancy, it would for all intents and purposes vanish from developed nations. Liberal and conservatives moms alike would take the screening and the 'cure.
[/quote]

Yes we know what people do when doctors are able to find “defects” in their children, there is another active thread about just that on here even.[/quote]

Yes, they will abort them. But what I brought up was hormonal/gene therapy that would undoubtedly and eventually wipe out homosexuality in developed nations.
[/quote]

And it makes this tragically hilarious, if it’s biological. Screwing with marriage, unjustifiably discriminating against other human relationships (by elevating, unjustifiably, homosexual relationships to a state recognized and privileged status)…for something (homosexuality) that will be a rare as a white buffalo with two heads, if biological.
[/quote]

I actually think if a “cure” was found a good percentage of people wouldn’t even use it. In the near future this percentage will be even smaller as opinion polls are showing a trend towards accepting gay marriage faster than any other controversial issues. I know its hard for you to understand as your religious views are strongly against homosexuality but its really not that big of deal for everyone else, you would be surprised of how many (hint: not 0) people would even prefer a gay child.

197

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I actually think if a “cure” was found a good percentage of people wouldn’t even use it. [/quote]

Drop the emotional wishful thinking. It would be one of the most routinely requestedscreens and treatments. Atheist, liberal, conservative, religious alike.

198

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…you would be surprised of how many (hint: not 0) people would even prefer a gay child.[/quote]

‘Not zero.’ There’s a confident statement. And, you’d be shocked at how many “I’m cool with homosexuality” folks would opt for a hormonal therapy that would align their child-in-the-womb’s reproductive organs with reproduction. Greater likely hood of grandchildren in an intact home is a mighty powerful incitement for expectant moms and dads already daydreaming about what kind of father or mother their offspring will be. As they think about what it will be like to watch their future grandchildren playing in the yard, from their rocking chairs. I don’t have to meekly state “not zero.” By the droves. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

199

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

I actually think if a “cure” was found…[/quote]

If it’s biological it’s pretty much a given, eventually. If it’s related to hormonal environment while in utero, probably almost as soon as they identify that as the mechanism. Expectant mom receives hormonal therapy = births a hetero child.

200

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama is pure evil, no doubt – he hates freedom, intelligence, science, technology. Now the POS even betrays his religion. He is pure scum.[/quote]

Ohh look at you mr cherry picker.

Joke you are headhunter.[/quote]