Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]therajraj wrote:

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.[/quote]

What a lame and puny example of hem-hawing from a guy who just got done throwing around ‘bigot.’ Then you either support changing the law to accommodate them, or abolishing the laws that recognize marriage at all, equalizing every human relationship. You threw around ‘bigot,’ Mr. Equality. Now you’re going to live up to it, or be shown as the faddish, irrational, and emotional fraud you are. Mr. I-support-a-whole-whopping-one-other-form-of-marriage because I siiiiimply can’t be bothered to support the efforts involved with accommodating others, or making a level playing by doing away with state-recognized marriage completely. You pulled out the bigot card and then play this lame excuse?

A homosexual home isn’t intact. One biological parent isn’t living there.

If it’s biological, not really. It’ll be as rare as polio one day.

You? You guys haven’t even begun to try to address my points.

  1. State recognized marriage isn’t about equality. It’s necessarily discriminatory–only (a whopping two for you Mr. Tolerance) one form of human relationship above others is elevated for a specific kind of recognition, title, and privileges. It discriminates from sheer existence. The state recognizes and makes laws to define and accommodate one (you, a great big generous two) form of human relationship/arrangement, therefore, discriminating.

  2. Heterosexual marriages, and the discrimination that necessarily follows in it’s recognition, is justified by it’s reproductive nature. Homosexuality? Yeah, that’s the part where I point out again…Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow, curious news story. Heterosexuality, disaster. A homosexual relationship is not superior to that of Sally and her best friend. Stop discriminating against them, bigot.

342

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Thanks for the response. I don’t think we’ll ever really agree on this, but it is good to try to understand your points. So thanks again. If I understand you, you believe state-sponsored marriage is ideal and necessary because it promotes the survival of society and the species. It does this by providing a model for the “best” method of raising children. Where I am confused is why you say this is not, in your opinion, an ideal but the law itself is ideal. I get more confused when you talk about homosexuality disappearing and being “only a blip.” To me, this sounds like an impossible dream.

I guess maybe I see myself as being a “realist” in that we as society(ies) have to deal with the reality that the “best” way to raise children OFTEN cannot be for a lot of reasons. And thus, “lesser goods” ARE good and have value to society that should be recognized.

To exemplify, a close family member work for a large southern state to place children in foster homes (and sometimes adopted homes). According to her, this job is extremely difficult, especially with abused children and children with other “issues” (mental/physical). She has had to send children to sort of institutions or out-of-state in order to place them at all. IMO, a homosexual married couple, even if you are correct and they are not “ideal” (or whichever word you would prefer), would be superior to institutionalization or abusive parents. Bluntly, IMO, in some cases, “two dads” or “two moms” might actually be superior for some children: A girl who was abused, for example; or a “large” 15 year old boy with mental and anger issues for a converse example. I hope I’m making sense here. WHile this is only a small example of what I see to be a number of societal benefits to the legalization of gay marriage, I hope I’m being clear.

Also, to continue the tangent a little further, this is one of the reasons I get so angry when “the left” attacks Michelle Bachmann (sp?) personally or calls her a bad person. She deserves a LOT of respect and admiration for what she has done with foster children. I don’t want her to be president, but I’m glad she has done all the good she has done.

–

I can’t remember if I deleted this above or not, but I’m not sure the state should be involved in marriages beyond property issues. But given that it is and how strongly it is now involved, I think marriage or civil unions (with equal rights…which may be difficult to obtain) are necessary.

Oh well, I’ve been off on a tangent for awhile now, my thoughts seem pretty scattered here, and the wife’s alarm clock just went off so I have no time to order them. I’m going to run over to the pow-wow thread quick before all my time is up. lol. Have a good one. [/quote]

In my formative years, my best friend’s dad was an openly gay man living with another man. He had weekend custody and my friend and I would often stay at his house. He was a caring, loving, generous, kind guy whom I truly loved. He died of AIDS when I was in college and I was very broken up about his passing. I miss him to this day. I say this to let you know that I am not removed from the situation. But the issue is beside the point.

It’s nice that they can take care of kids, particularly abused ones. But this is not some national crisis screaming out for a solution that is being blocked by atavistic Republican statesmen and their bible-thumping constituency.

In fact, it’s not even the reason that homosexuals want to get married AT ALL.

That’s the thing.

343

[quote]orion wrote:

Now that is just nonsense.

If you have an aim, offer a way to achieve it.

If your vision does not serve a purpose in todays reality, it will be discarded. [/quote]

Already have, no one has provided a plausible alternative. Certainly not navel-gazing libertarians.

And marriage has never been more important - what, with the growing legions of “left behind” kids, abandoned by fathers (and sometimes mothers); adults who can’t seem to break out of adoloscence and refuse to grow up and take care of the kids; so-called “adults” who think they need to pursue their own desires and pleasures ahead of sacrificing for the betterment of the children’s home. The list goes on.

We need marriage now more than ever. Especially in the inner cities.

Signature Orion incoherence.

So what? There have always been all kinds of habitation arrangements, and there will neverending new ones. That’s irrelevant - just because someone concocts a new habitation “arrangement” doesn’t mean the larger society has an interest in continuing/encouraging it.

Just because someone thinks of something new doesn’t mean we are required to recognize it and privilege.

And, your comment on conservatism is again incoherent - conservatives aren’t moral or cultural relativists, and when something good in human nature comes along to deal with inherent flaws of human nature, conservatives - no, it’s broader than that…sane people - try with all their might to preserve it against feckless and airheaded “experimentation”.

No, my strong opposition to libertarianism is based in libertarianism’s inherent idiocy and inability to understand basic human nature.

344

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I have read the thread, you’re just choosing to ignore points.[/quote]

Nope, you’ve been handed argument after argument, and you haven’t made a dent in refuting them.

And this is how we all know you are a complete imbecile - rather than address the arguments, you try to impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with you as a “bigot”.

We’ve been there, done that. It’s nothing more than a signal of your weakness.

Hilarious. I think I might simply start doing that - declare everyone who disagrees with me as a “bigot” and save myself the trouble of actual having a rational debate. It’s intellectually bankrupt, but hey, think of the time I would save.

Pitiful.

345

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Here’s a good test for arguments against gay marriage. If it can be used as an argument against interracial marriage it’s not a good argument.[/quote]

Smart.

If gay marriage is just like interracial marriage, then the people who oppose gay marriage are the moral equivalent of those who opposed interracial marriage.

So, American blacks - who overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage, and even voted 2-1 against in North Carolina - are the moral equivalent of the racists they fought against during the Civil Rights Movement.

Well done, Rajraj.

346

[quote]Sloth wrote:

For cripe’s sake.[/quote]

It’s enough to make your hair hurt.

347

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Here’s a good test for arguments against gay marriage. If it can be used as an argument against interracial marriage it’s not a good argument.[/quote]

Smart.

If gay marriage is just like interracial marriage, then the people who oppose gay marriage are the moral equivalent of those who opposed interracial marriage.

So, American blacks - who overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage, and even voted 2-1 against in North Carolina - are the moral equivalent of the racists they fought against during the Civil Rights Movement.

Well done, Rajraj.[/quote]

That, and based on the justification for even recognizing hetero marriage through the state, interracial marriage would naturally be included. Race plays no part in natural reproduction. A black woman and white man, or vice versa, is clearly a reproductive unit. I would hope we don’t need to go into the science of it…

The secret is, state recognized marriage is ALWAYS discriminatory. Well, unless we were to define ‘married’ as ‘adult US citizen.’ It elevates one–or in the case of the enlightened among us, a whopping two–human relationship, singling it out, bestowing title, status, and privilege. The reasons we have given for state recognized hetero marriage, justify this intrusion. This discrimination, or choosing from.

They, though, provide emotionalism and a whopping one extra relationship/arrangement (which somehow erases their ‘bigotry’ for continuing to support a state recognized institution that would still discriminate against other consenting adults and their arrangements (every humanly imaginable one).

348

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

For cripe’s sake.[/quote]

It’s enough to make your hair hurt.[/quote]

Heh.

349

[quote]Razorslim wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Razorslim wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[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.[/quote]

So we need state recognized marriage and tax breaks in order to propagate the species?

As I said earlier:

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.[/quote]

Maybe your focus should be on fixing the tax code and not on redefining marriage.
[/quote]

Maybe you should come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage. 13 pages in and still none that haven’t been refuted.
[/quote]

Because a cogent argument against gay marriage would require an understanding that the marriage covenant is based on the JudeoChristian belief system which this country was founded on and you reject.

Without that underlying absolute understanding of what marriage fundamentally is, you have chosen to redefine it to suit your liberal agenda of removing that belief system from the public domain
[/quote]

Actually marriage pre-dates the JudeoChristian belief system by over a thousand years. Marriage is NOT a religious institution.

Secondly, the United States was not founded on Christian values, the founding fathers were not all Christian and not all of mind on this issue. Lastly, why does it even matter what the founders think for matters concerning today? What about their stance on slavery? Do we have to take that stance into consideration as well?

350

[quote]Sloth wrote:

What a lame and puny example of hem-hawing from a guy who just got done throwing around ‘bigot.’ Then you either support changing the law to accommodate them, or abolishing the laws that recognize marriage at all, equalizing every human relationship. You threw around ‘bigot,’ Mr. Equality. Now you’re going to live up to it, or be shown as the faddish, irrational, and emotional fraud you are. Mr. I-support-a-whole-whopping-one-other-form-of-marriage because I siiiiimply can’t be bothered to support the efforts involved with accommodating others, or making a level playing by doing away with state-recognized marriage completely. You pulled out the bigot card and then play this lame excuse?[/quote]

Well I can honestly I’m glad you finally responded to my rebuttals to your arguments.

I am not against polygamy per se (undecided really), but I am against integrating it into the current form of marriage as it would require marriage to be completely overhauled. Again on impracticality alone it wouldn’t work. And oh look you completely disregarded the part of my argument about creating stopping points.

You’re a bigot because you hide behind these weak arguments that hold no water.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

A homosexual home isn’t intact. One biological parent isn’t living there.[/quote]

This is just a wording issue. Homosexuals increase the amount of stable households for children.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

If it’s biological, not really. It’ll be as rare as polio one day.[/quote]

I don’t know how you came to this conclusion but it’s besides the point.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

  1. State recognized marriage isn’t about equality. It’s necessarily discriminatory–only (a whopping two for you Mr. Tolerance) one form of human relationship above others is elevated for a specific kind of recognition, title, and privileges. It discriminates from sheer existence. The state recognizes and makes laws to define and accommodate one (you, a great big generous two) form of human relationship/arrangement, therefore, discriminating.[/quote]

And as stated earlier we make stopping points in society ALL THE TIME. Polygamy must have a case made for it on it’s own just like gay marriage.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

  1. Heterosexual marriages, and the discrimination that necessarily follows in it’s recognition, is justified by it’s reproductive nature. Homosexuality? Yeah, that’s the part where I point out again…Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow, curious news story. Heterosexuality, disaster. A homosexual relationship is not superior to that of Sally and her best friend. Stop discriminating against them, bigot.[/quote]

And if blacks turn white tomorrow no problem, curious news story.

351

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Nope, you’ve been handed argument after argument, and you haven’t made a dent in refuting them.[/quote]

What your argument that gay marriage serves no public purpose? It was pointed to you that’s incorrect. What else you got?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

We’ve been there, done that. It’s nothing more than a signal of your weakness.

Hilarious. I think I might simply start doing that - declare everyone who disagrees with me as a “bigot” and save myself the trouble of actual having a rational debate. It’s intellectually bankrupt, but hey, think of the time I would save.

Pitiful.[/quote]

No what’s pitiful are your constant blind assertions.

352

[quote]Cortes wrote:

In fact, it’s not even the reason that homosexuals want to get married AT ALL.

That’s the thing. [/quote]

And yet it doesn’t negate the side effect of LGBT couples providing stable homes for children.

353

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

So, American blacks - who overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage, and even voted 2-1 against in North Carolina - are the moral equivalent of the racists they fought against during the Civil Rights Movement.

Well done, Rajraj.[/quote]

Yeah okay and?

354

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

So, American blacks - who overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage, and even voted 2-1 against in North Carolina - are the moral equivalent of the racists they fought against during the Civil Rights Movement.

Well done, Rajraj.[/quote]

They sure are homophobia/hatred of gays (whatever term you want to use) is rampant in the African American community. This is no surprise and they sure do have bigoted attitudes towards homosexuals.

355

[quote]therajraj wrote:

What your argument that gay marriage serves no public purpose? It was pointed to you that’s incorrect. What else you got?[/quote]

No, you didn’t. We don’t just want any old “intact home” - we want a certain kind.

And, such an effect would be de minimus even if we suddenly decided all new kinds of “intact homes” were desirable (and we don’t) - why? These relationships don’t produce children, and would impact a tiny fraction of so-called “intact homes”.

You haven’t demonstrated anything worthwhile, except for one thing - you’re intellectually limited. Why else would you label everyone who disagrees with you on this subject motivated by bigotry?

Poor Rajraj. Hey, by the way, how does it feel to slander nearly the entire African-American communit as the moral equivalent of the KKK?

356

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Homosexuals increase the amount of stable households for children. [/quote]

This is your funniest line among a group of funny lines which culminates in calling Sloth a bigot…LOL that’s the fall back line whenever the left is losing an argument. Anyway, there have been no long-term studies which have proved that two homosexuals provide a stable household environment for a child.

However, there are tons of studies from the CDC which demonstrate that homosexuals are far more emotionally unstable than the national average.

You guys are a broken record of pro homosexual talking points.

Better give it a rest.

357

[quote]Sloth wrote:

That, and based on the justification for even recognizing hetero marriage through the state, interracial marriage would naturally be included. Race plays no part in natural reproduction. A black woman and white man, or vice versa, is clearly a reproductive unit. I would hope we don’t need to go into the science of it…[/quote]

Well said. And of course, the endgame of a ban on interracial marriage - its purpose was to effectuate racial supremacy, not to “protect” or otherwise do anything to marriage. By contrast, the case against gay marriage isn’t to promote “hetero” supremacy, and never has been. It’s complete apples and oranges, but the gay marriage proponents who attempt this analogy haven’t bothered to learn about the differences.

[quote]The secret is, state recognized marriage is ALWAYS discriminatory. Well, unless we were to define ‘married’ as ‘adult US citizen.’ It elevates one–or in the case of the enlightened among us, a whopping two–human relationship, singling it out, bestowing title, status, and privilege. The reasons we have given for state recognized hetero marriage, justify this intrusion. This discrimination, or choosing from.

They, though, provide emotionalism and a whopping one extra relationship/arrangement (which somehow erases their ‘bigotry’ for continuing to support a state recognized institution that would still discriminate against other consenting adults and their arrangements (every humanly imaginable one).[/quote]

And, Raraj’s foolish statement about drawing “arbitrary” lines demonstrates your point precisely:

-Line drawn on traditional marriage, excluding everyone else = “bigotry!”

-Line drawn on traditional marriage and gay marriage, excluding everyone else = “just an arbitrary line, no worries there!”

Why the difference? What makes the first line excluding gays “bigotry!” and the next one perfectly acceptable as “arbitrary!”? Shouldn’t the first line be just as “arbitrary!”?

No one else ever explained why this is so, and I understand perfectly why - they can’t.

358

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I am not against polygamy per se (undecided really), but I am against integrating it into the current form of marriage as it would require marriage to be completely overhauled. Again on impracticality alone it wouldn’t work. And oh look you completely disregarded the part of my argument about creating stopping points.

You’re a bigot because you hide behind these weak arguments that hold no water.[/quote]

What a transparent dodge. Do you or do you not support non-bigoted laws to include all those other relationships. Are is it too hard for you sign a petition or something to support such a thing? I see you now vacillating on polygamy. If I press hard you’ll be supporting the redefinition of state recognized marriage status to all-inclusively mean ’ consenting US adult citizen.’ You have to, to avoid your own stupid bigotry cry-babying. And speaking of weak arguments, yours has been one of the weakest participation I’ve seen in a recent thread. You’ve become an emotional wreck, grasping at silly comparisons, and failing to even understand basic points.

[quote] Me:
If it’s biological, not really. It’ll be as rare as polio one day.

You:
I don’t know how you came to this conclusion but it’s besides the point.[/quote]

How did I come to that conclusion? Well, if it’s biological then there’s this thing we call medical science. And sorry, liberal or not, the vast majority would screen for signs indicating development of a homosexuality, and opt for the treatment. Moms, even the accepting ones, are going to prefer the far higher likely-hood of grandchildren (viable offspring producing viable offspring) with both biological parents present.

‘Black’ is an arbitrary physical characteristic as far as the anatomical and physiological nature of sexual reproduction is concerned. Did you have a point about sunburning you wanted to try to squeeze in here? And being that the orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes has been my argument for state recognized hetero marriage…yeah.

359

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

No, you didn’t. We don’t just want any old “intact home” - we want a certain kind. [/quote]

YOU want a certain kind.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And, such an effect would be de minimus even if we suddenly decided all new kinds of “intact homes” were desirable (and we don’t) [/quote]

Great and if the effect in the minimal then you should have no reservations in legalizing it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

  • why? These relationships don’t produce children, and would impact a tiny fraction of so-called “intact homes”.

You haven’t demonstrated anything worthwhile, except for one thing - you’re intellectually limited. Why else would you label everyone who disagrees with you on this subject motivated by bigotry? [/quote]

Apparently increasing stable households isn’t ‘worthwhile’ because… well… they can’t reproduce. LOL. Great logic. Apparently improving the welfare of children in foster homes is of little interest to you.

360

[quote]ZEB wrote:

This is your funniest line among a group of funny lines which culminates in calling Sloth a bigot…LOL that’s the fall back line whenever the left is losing an argument. Anyway, there have been no long-term studies which have proved that two homosexuals provide a stable household environment for a child. [/quote]

Yes there is, I provided one. Go back a few pages.