Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

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]

So let me see if I have this straight. In order to make room for state recognized and privileged gay marriage you have to reduce marriage to ‘2 people hanging out together.’ What is the point?! To create recognition and privileging of ‘2 people hanging out together’ simply for the sake of recognizing ‘2 people hanging out together?’ Why?! Why not 3 people? Or 1 singular person. Why not define married to simply mean ‘adult citizen,’ regardless of relationship to others. Why recognize any status publicly? Why, why, why? And what’s with the discriminatory ‘2?’

[/quote]

Are you purposely trying to annoy me with this “2 people hanging out together” crap?

And again:

Lastly, the way marriage is setup currently, laws surrounding marriage can be easily adapted around two people regardless of sex. If marriages of 3, 5 or 7 people were to take place, many laws would have to change and you would literally have to overhaul the whole thing. Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where 2 people in a polygamous marriage of 7 want out? On Impracticality alone we can draw an argument that marriage should stay between two people.

242
243

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
OK I have a big ass rant, because Obummer decided to rub elbows with Clooney up the street from where I live.

45 minutes to go 3 miles, yes thank you Mr. Obama, NO ONE can do gridlock the way you can.

Hey Barack, did you know we have things like copters that can fly above highways, streets, and even buildings so that we-the-meager can make it to and fro without moving at a pace that would make a street sweeper laugh at us.

Oh yea, well done Joe Biden for another goof, forcing Obama’s hand with this issue. [/quote]

U mad bro?

Also gridlock happens whenever a president decides to go anywhere, its not a new phenomenon related to Obama.

245

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

…And why the 1st Amendment to the constitution states

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”…

[/quote]

No, the First Amendment does not state that.

C’mon man, at least get the most basic of quotes correct.[/quote]

Oops, you’re right, that is actually James Madison’s proposed amendment to the original text of the constitution which he presented to the congress on June 8th 1789.

The actual text reads

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first part is the “establishment clause” and prohibits the establishment of a national or state religion, or of preferential treatment towards one religion over another.

I agree with whoever said that this was largely due to the religious persecution in Europe prior to the creation of the US, but it nonetheless states pretty emphatically that the US is not a Christian nation. The US was created as an a-theistic nation (a-theistic meaning lacking a national religion, not that it is anti-theistic), even though many of the founding fathers were theists themselves. They did this to prevent any one religion from gaining too much power or influence over the others and oppressing others’ religions beliefs or civil rights.

So, if there is no national religion of the US (and never was), then we can’t use religious arguments to deny others rights that would otherwise be granted to them if they happened to share our religious beliefs, no matter how much we may disagree with them. That is pretty much what the bill of rights is all about, protecting the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

You can’t hold the constitution, bill of rights, and founding fathers up as the model we should all aspire to one moment and then ignore what they actually had to say the next, even if it means possibly going against what you as an individual believe to be “right or wrong”. That goes part and parcel with our right to believe, worship, and/or choose not to believe that we all hold dear and I doubt anyone in this thread would be willing to give up.

246

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Well according to some of your fellow theists it also acts as a mechanism to create intact homes for child rearing.

So no it’s not irrelevant. [/quote]

Yes, it is, because marriage serves to create intact homes for not just child rearing, but a specific kind of child rearing - rearing done by the biological parents of said child. That is the first mission of marriage. Adoption doesn’t fall into this category, and we don’t have a public policy of marriage in place to promote adoption.

That doesn’t mean adoption is bad, it’s just not the public policy problem marriage is in place to ameliorate.[/quote]

And the purpose can change. It can now be about promoting procreation while also maximizing the number of intact homes for children. As demonstrated earlier in the thread, LGBT couples are just as capable of rearing children as biological parents.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And enough with the “fellow theists” nonsense - your ad hominems aren’t getting you any where.[/quote]

Really wasn’t my intention - if you notice all arguing for are atheists while all arguing against are theists. [/quote]

What makes you think that all those on either side fit into those categories? Buddhism would be considered a theistic religion, as would Hinduism, but you don’t see too many of them arguing against gay marriage. Even some forms of Christianity don’t oppose gay marriage (not all Christianity is right wing; ever heard of Unitarianism, or The United Church of Christ?) I’m sure there are also some atheists who oppose gay marriage for non religious reasons.

247

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

This comparison to birth control makes absolutely no sense. There would be a whole HOST of benefits for gay people if they were given the right to marry. You would receive very little benefit if any at all from subsidized birth control.[/quote]

No, no, no, no, no - not benefits to me, benefits to the larger society. The government doesn’t hand out subsidized birth control for the fun of it - it hands it out because there is some perceived benefit to the larger society in providing subsidized birth control pills, i.e., bettwe women’s health outcomes, etc.

There is no reason for the government to give the “benefits” to me because it gets nothing worthwhile back from a policy standpoint - I am not a woman, and me being in the possession of birth control pills won’t lead to better women’s health outcomes.

It would serve no public policy purpose for the larger society, because I am not who the policy is designed to deal with.

There are drawbacks, but more importantly, society gains nothing in particular from publicly recognizing gay relationships. Nothing. Period. There is no glaring public problem that we “need” gay marriage to fix.[/quote]

What about the recent increase in suicide rates of young homosexual teenagers? Wouldn’t legitimizing their sexual orientation/feelings decrease that rate?

Or what about health care costs/decreasing the rate of bankruptcy due to not being able to afford/obtain health care on one’s own? Married couples can join their spouse’s health care plan, thus allowing them access to health care which they might have otherwise had no access to, or reducing their costs for such access. Or how about if a biological parent of a child does not have access to healthcare on their own (and therefore neither does the child), however their homosexual (potential) spouse does?

Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?

249

Let’s say it together. There is zero justification for publicly recognizing, exalting, and privileging homosexual relationships above all other imaginable human relationships and arrangements (except for the current one). It’s a thoughtless and emotional attachment to some activism-of-the-times fad. It serves absolutely no critical, irreplaceable, function. Again, if it (homosexuality) vanished tomorrow, humanity would scratch it’s head and then keep on keeping on. Homosexual relationships aren’t special. They offer nothing so absolutely critical as to be put on a pedestal. Your relationship? Then work it out within your relationship. You don’t deserve a pedestal above others. Not everything is equal.

Heterosexual relationships? Obviously. Pick up an A&P text if it isn’t obvious.

250

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]

No.

251

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let’s say it together. There is zero justification for publicly recognizing, exalting, and privileging homosexual relationships above all other imaginable human relationships and arrangements (except for the current one). It’s a thoughtless and emotional attachment to some activism-of-the-times fad. It serves absolutely no critical, irreplaceable, function. Again, if it (homosexuality) vanished tomorrow, humanity would scratch it’s head and then keep on keeping on. Homosexual relationships aren’t special. They offer nothing so absolutely critical as to be put on a pedestal. Your relationship? Then work it out within your relationship. You don’t deserve a pedestal above others. Not everything is equal.

Heterosexual relationships? Obviously. Pick up an A&P text if it isn’t obvious.
[/quote]

What about a heterosexual relationship where there is no chance of procreation then? If procreation is the only purpose of marriage, and the only form of relationship that should be “put on a pedestal”, then should married couples be forced to procreate (and stripped of their marriage rights should they fail to do so), or denied marriage rights if there is no chance of procreation?

252

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]

No.
[/quote]

Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.

253

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

What about a heterosexual relationship where there is no chance of procreation then? [/quote]

The higher the rate of marriage, the more it is encountered in daily living. The more it is encountered, the more it is reinforced as a norm. Non-procreative marriages still serve as a model. One man. One woman. The birds and bees over an entire society takes care of the rest.

If it wasn’t centered around the procreative abilities of the reproductive sexes, there would be no state recognized/privileged marriage. Why would we recognize your shacking up exclusively with some blonde chick, over me and my fishing buddy?

254

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]

No.
[/quote]

Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.[/quote]

Here’s an easy way to do this. Imagine homosexuality vanishing tomorrow. Now imagine heterosexuality vanishing. Enough said.

255

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

What about a heterosexual relationship where there is no chance of procreation then? [/quote]

The higher the rate of marriage, the more it is encountered in daily living. The more it is encountered, the more it is reinforced as a norm. Non-procreative marriages still serve as a model. One man. One woman. The birds and bees over an entire society takes care of the rest.
[/quote]

No, one fertile man and one fertile woman who produce offspring would be the “model” of procreation.

An infertile man and an infertile woman who do not is not the “model” of procreation. Just as two men or two women who enter into a committed relationship is not the model for procreation. Neither of those unions are any more or less procreative than the others.

Again though, shouldn’t that by extension mean that only couples of child bearing age and ability should be allowed to get married? Infertile couples or couples of non child bearing age could still be together in a committed relationship, but by your “model” should not be permitted to get married.

256

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]

No.
[/quote]

Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.[/quote]

Here’s an easy way to do this. Imagine homosexuality vanishing tomorrow. Now imagine heterosexuality vanishing. Enough said.
[/quote]

No, that’s not easy, that’s just oversimplified, and an extremely narrow view of what constitutes a social benefit.

257

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

No, one fertile man and one fertile woman who produce offspring would be the “model” of procreation.[/quote]

No, one man and one woman would be the model of the reproductive sexes pairing off into committed relationships. The infertility of any one couples does not change the reproductive nature of humanity. Male and female.

The above is a model of the reproductive sexes ordering their relationship into a committed one. The below isn’t.

258

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Would not those be legitimate potential “benefits” to society at a whole?[/quote]

No.
[/quote]

Really? Define benefits to society as a whole then.[/quote]

Here’s an easy way to do this. Imagine homosexuality vanishing tomorrow. Now imagine heterosexuality vanishing. Enough said.
[/quote]

No, that’s not easy, that’s just oversimplified, and an extremely narrow view of what constitutes a social benefit.[/quote]

It really is that simple. I’m not interested in putting a government stamp on your permanent shacking up, simply for the sake of your permanent shacking up. It’s a helluva lot more fundamental to basic human propagation than that. If heterosex didn’t produce offspring (they popped up spontaneously from the ground like watermelons) I’d have zero interest in the state recognition of ANY marriage.

259

Do we really have to argue this? Can’t you just admit they aren’t equal in function and form? Not even close. I’ll keep it saying it, and you folks know it’s true. The sudden disappearance of homosexuality (or the eventual cure, if biological) would be a curious news event. Heterosexuality? Panic, chaos, crashing entitlements, crashing economies, plummeting species, extinction.

260

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

No, one fertile man and one fertile woman who produce offspring would be the “model” of procreation.[/quote]

No, one man and one woman would be the model of the reproductive sexes pairing off into committed relationships. The infertility of any one couples does not change the reproductive nature of humanity. Male and female.
[/quote]

Reproductive “nature” changes with age and genetic/biological conditions though. A 60 year old woman, while perhaps having the external “equipment” to reproduce does not have the nature to do so.

And following your model, what about hermaphrodites? They are both male and female. Should they be denied marriage rights altogether because technically they would be in both a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship simultaneously and might lack the “nature” to reproduce altogether.