Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
761

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Gay marriage is a way for two committed, consenting adults to share in all the benefits that are reserved for married couples (insurance,medical decisions,SS benefits, Tax benefits, legal standing etc.).[/quote]

So let me see if I have this right. You actually think the state has any interest in recognizing the above arrangement simply to recognize it? To hold it above all other forms of human relationship and arrangement imaginable. Privileging it, titling it, providing it status in exclusivity, just for the arbitrary sake of doing it. To discriminate against all other forms of imaginable consenting adult human relationship and arrangement, just because? To say your homosexual love affair is more special and critical to the state and the public than the relationships of best friends, co-habitators, or polyamorous arrangements? Just to do it?

762

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Cortes,

Nope it (gay adoption) is your fallacious argument…[/quote]

He’s already told you that adoption originated from the other side. Anyone who had actually read this thread would know this…

763

sloth,

saying it doesn’t make it so. additionally i do not need to prove gay marriage is good for society, you need to prove it is bad, that is how this works.

764

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
sloth,

saying it doesn’t make it so. additionally i do not need to prove gay marriage is good for society, you need to prove it is bad, that is how this works.[/quote]

I don’t need to prove it’s bad. Just like I don’t need to prove a 4 person bisexual-household of-transgendered celibate-roommates is bad, therefore, not fit to file for a state issued marriage license. Or that even 3 heterosexual, but non-intimate, roommates are bad for society. The burden of proof is on you. Your position implies that homosexualtiy/homosexual relationships are so important, so critical, beyond those mentioned above (and any other imagineable human relationship/arrangement) that it should be privileged by the state, recognized by the state, and given status by the state, to the exclusion of all others (but one). This isn’t a discussion about the morality or fitness of homosexuality. This is a discussion about the state actively putting it on a pedestal, elevating it above your and my friendships, our work relations, and whatever other kind of relationships and arrangements we have.

You see, your support for homosexual marriage does zilch to end discrimination. You support a whopping one other form of human relationship/arrangement beyond the traditional institution. State recognized marriage can be nothing else but discriminatory. Period. That discrimination, that setting above with title, status, and privileges, is justified for the reproductive sexes in it’s present form. That, we’ve gone over.

765

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

Gay marriage is not gay adoption. Gay marriage is a way for two committed, consenting adults to share in all the benefits that are reserved for married couples (insurance,medical decisions,SS benefits, Tax benefits, legal standing etc.). Ifmarriage is good for the physical and emotional (and financial) well being of the straight community, it stands to reason that it would be the same for gays.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t and it has been said over and over - we don’t just hand out those benefits (tax breaks, etc.) to reward people for their relationships, we hand them out because that relationship does society good. What is that good? Providing for the best arrangement for procreating and raising chidlren. It’s a quid pro quo, not a handout.

Marriage isn’t simply beneficial for the physical and emotional and financial well being of the straight community - that’s just dumb as hell - it’s good for society at large because it helps order responsible procreation and helps raised society’s members (children) the best.

Here’s the thing - this has been covered, multiple times, multiple ways, in this thread and the other one. Just read the damn thread.

That is atrociously stupid. We don’t pass laws on the basis on the basis the behavi0r is not innately bad for society - we pass laws when we think the laws will generate some good for society.

Your examples are ludicrous - they involve restrictions on things people want to do. The government does not restrict gay couples from getting married, so it isn’t the same as booze or tobacco. What the government does not do (generally) is enact a public institution that does zero good for society.

C’mon, dude. You’ve been cut to ribbons six ways to Sunday and everyone can read it. Stop declaring victory.

766

He’s done it on three other threads as well TB. Puts his fingers in his ears whistles a happy tune and then claims victory. It is amusing though.

767

TB,

I am not sure you are following your own logic here.

Marriage is flawed, it fails 50% of the time, the social cost of divorce is steep for adults and worse for their children, parents who are divorced have higher rates of alcoholism, suicide, unemployment, bankruptcy…you get the idea.
Children of divorce have the same issues with even more elevated rates of suicide plus incarceration, plus higher rates of abuse (of all kinds).

If a program that fails 50% of the time generates these sorts of outcomes for its “losers” how does it merit special incentives?

Obviously gay marriage will have no impact on straight marriage statistics, but if gay marriage creates the same benefits for its winners as straight marriage (more financial security, lower rates of abuse, alcoholism, suicide, depression, bankruptcy etc. as well as the more difficult to measure “perceived quality of life” that married couples feel, then by its very nature it has to be deemed a societal positive doesn’t it? If it improves society (and using marriage as the standard it does seem to do that) then it must be given the same protection and standing as straight marriage right?

768

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey Brian, do us a favor and go ask your wife real quick if she agrees that another man could step in and replace her as mother to your children and do just as good as she could, maybe even better. Let her know that “children raised by LGBT couples have very similar (and depending on region of the country) often superior outcomes.”

Make sure you record the reaction and post it to youtube, if you are still able to at that point. [/quote]

Hey Brian you should also ask your wife if another woman could fill her shoes[/quote]

that’ll end well

769

Cortes, Pitbull and Makavali,

Thank you all for missing the point. It isn’t that adoption (gay or straight) is ideal, it is that it is sometimes necessary. There are still hundreds of thousands of children in foster care and awaiting adoption correct? That problem hasn’t been solved yet has it?

770

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Cortes, Pitbull and Makavali,

Thank you all for missing the point. It isn’t that adoption (gay or straight) is ideal, it is that it is sometimes necessary. [/quote]

Adoption by a gay couple is never necessary. At least not until there are enough studies to demonstrate that there is no long-term damage done to children placed in such a home. Do we really want to experiment with our children…All in the name of political correctness?

Let’s see your proof that there are hundreds of thousands of children waiting to be adopted. and if that is the case I wonder how many are old enough to make a decision as to what type of home they should be adopted into. I’m sure that a 12 or 13 year old would NOT want to be adopted into a homosexual home. Obviously, such an ugly trick is better played on a little baby who knows no better.

771

ZEB,

Clearly your prejudice against gays is well known, no need to continue hammering that point home. Please feel free to answer my gay marriage question above.

772

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

I am not sure you are following your own logic here.

Marriage is flawed, it fails 50% of the time, the social cost of divorce is steep for adults and worse for their children, parents who are divorced have higher rates of alcoholism, suicide, unemployment, bankruptcy…you get the idea.
Children of divorce have the same issues with even more elevated rates of suicide plus incarceration, plus higher rates of abuse (of all kinds).

If a program that fails 50% of the time generates these sorts of outcomes for its “losers” how does it merit special incentives?

Obviously gay marriage will have no impact on straight marriage statistics, but if gay marriage creates the same benefits for its winners as straight marriage (more financial security, lower rates of abuse, alcoholism, suicide, depression, bankruptcy etc. as well as the more difficult to measure “perceived quality of life” that married couples feel, then by its very nature it has to be deemed a societal positive doesn’t it? If it improves society (and using marriage as the standard it does seem to do that) then it must be given the same protection and standing as straight marriage right?[/quote]

Let’s unpack this statement.

Marriage fails 51% of the time and is inherently flawed in that it produced many social Bads.

Marriage creates benefits for its “winners” and therefore produces social Goods.

Which is it, Einstein? If marriage as “flawed” as you claim and fails more than half the time, it ain’t a good thing for society, so there is no reason to extend the franchises to others…we should be trimming it back and getting rid of it entirely.

But most importantly, you’re trying to have it both ways - marriage is “awful” and full of social Bads when we try and say it is something special that should be preserved, but marriage is suddenly “good” when you want gays to experience all the benefits of it.

So, you are self-contradicting without batting an eye.

Hilarious. At this point, I am just having a good belly laugh at your posts.

773

TB,

Unlike your posts I am trying to lay out both sides of the argument. If you think we should do away with marriage for all that is your right.

Fact- marriage fails half the time

Fact- marriage succeeds half the time

Fact- failed marriage provides numerous societal ills

Fact- successful marriage provides numerous societal goods (even w/out children)

Fact- adult, never been married over 60 adults have higher rates of substance abuse, depression, suicide, bankruptcy etc than their successfully married counterparts.

Conclusion- Gay marriage would prove beneficial to society, since successful marriage breeds better outcomes than failed marriage or never married it is logical to conclude that gay marriage is a societal plus.

Is that clear enough for you? Please just argue the issue, that is what I am doing.

774

ZEB, I hate political correctness and how it’s dominating our society as much as anybody. But on the subject of gay adoption, what would your arguement be for how having gay parents could cause long term damage? It’s widely accepted among anyone with intelligence that being gay is genetic not a choice (altough yes i’m sure some people “experiment” or what have you) so are you scared the gay would rub off on the kids or what?

Also it scares me how so many people in this thread think the role of government is to control so many things in society, liberals and conservatives today are equally authoritarian, just on different issues, and this is why American politics dissapoints me.

775

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

Gay marriage is not gay adoption. Gay marriage is a way for two committed, consenting adults to share in all the benefits that are reserved for married couples (insurance,medical decisions,SS benefits, Tax benefits, legal standing etc.). Ifmarriage is good for the physical and emotional (and financial) well being of the straight community, it stands to reason that it would be the same for gays.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t and it has been said over and over - we don’t just hand out those benefits (tax breaks, etc.) to reward people for their relationships, we hand them out because that relationship does society good. What is that good? Providing for the best arrangement for procreating and raising chidlren. It’s a quid pro quo, not a handout.

Marriage isn’t simply beneficial for the physical and emotional and financial well being of the straight community - that’s just dumb as hell - it’s good for society at large because it helps order responsible procreation and helps raised society’s members (children) the best.

Here’s the thing - this has been covered, multiple times, multiple ways, in this thread and the other one. Just read the damn thread.

That is atrociously stupid. We don’t pass laws on the basis on the basis the behavi0r is not innately bad for society - we pass laws when we think the laws will generate some good for society.

Your examples are ludicrous - they involve restrictions on things people want to do. The government does not restrict gay couples from getting married, so it isn’t the same as booze or tobacco. What the government does not do (generally) is enact a public institution that does zero good for society.

C’mon, dude. You’ve been cut to ribbons six ways to Sunday and everyone can read it. Stop declaring victory.[/quote]

So, should straight couples who get married but, decide to not have children/can’t not be given benefits?

776

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

Unlike your posts I am trying to lay out both sides of the argument. If you think we should do away with marriage for all that is your right.[/quote]

Well, then you’ve change your position - when you first blew in here, you said there was no argument on the other side. Good to see you’ve changed your mind.

[quote]Fact- marriage fails half the time

Fact- marriage succeeds half the time[/quote]

So, assuming this is true and “marriage” is what is failing, then it is net no-benefit. The Good cancels out the Bad. So there is no reason to extend it to anyone else, and we should probably get rid of it - it is accomplishing nothing.

(Do I believe this? No. I am pointing out the conclusions of your positions.)

[quote]Fact- failed marriage provides numerous societal ills

Fact- successful marriage provides numerous societal goods (even w/out children)

Fact- adult, never been married over 60 adults have higher rates of substance abuse, depression, suicide, bankruptcy etc than their successfully married counterparts.[/quote]

Again, see above - if these Bad and Good outcomes are basically 50% apiece, then there is no net benefit. So, no need for marriage in any form.

It does not follow. Since the chance of a successful marriage is the same as an unsuccessful marriage, there is no net social benefit.

It’s clear, and it’s wrong, even if I agree with your assumptions (and I don’t). You haven’t made the case for gay marriage - you’ve made the case against any kind of marriage.

You other (fatal) flaw is that you ignore the social good of marriage (a certain kind of marriage) on non-daults (that being children). If that social good - which is the primary social good of marriage, we don’t just enact marriage because it makes people happy, that’s ludicrous (and not true - private marriage makes people happy, not public) - is compromised by the weakening of the kind of marriage that helps children the best, you’ve made things worse.

Your problem? You think marriage is all about adults. You have it backwards, and unless you consider the impact on children first and foremost, your utilitarian scenarios of “maximum happiness for society” are flawed from the outset.

And give me a break with this “please, just argue the issue”. You blew in here slandering anyone who was against gay marriage as a bigot, etc., and now, having been exposed as someone who has piss-poor arguments, you want to be reasonable and just “argue the issue”?

The issue has been argued, chief, read the thread.

777

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

So, should straight couples who get married but, decide to not have children/can’t not be given benefits?[/quote]

Yes, read the thread. Your side has run of of “reset” and “do over” requests.

778

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

Clearly your prejudice against gays is well known, no need to continue hammering that point home. Please feel free to answer my gay marriage question above.[/quote]

I have no prejudice against gays as human beings. Nor, do I have a prejudice against polygamists in that same way.

However…

I do have an issue with either raising children. As there have been no long-term studies which demonstrate children raised by either grow up to be normal healthy human beings.

Can you wrap your 1990’s liberal mind around that basic position, or is it just too much for your fragile little self?

Here, let me say it this way, why do you have a prejudice against children?

779

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
ZEB, I hate political correctness and how it’s dominating our society as much as anybody. But on the subject of gay adoption, what would your arguement be for how having gay parents could cause long term damage? [/quote]

I’m not sure, but here’s the really sad part, NO ONE IS! Now let me ask you a question, do you know why people are gay to begin with? They’ve tried many times to show that it is genetic, yet they’ve failed every time. So, what is it? Nurture? Nature? Who knows?

And in fact there are credible studies which demonstrate that most gay men had one or more of the follow occur to them as children:

1- Molested

2- Poor relationship with father

3- Ostracized from their peer group at an early age

But of course, similar to the argument that they are “born that way” none of this can be proven.

And if the above is true (and it is) why would we want to expose children to a home with two gay men? There have been no long-term studies which prove that children grow up into normal healthy adults in such an environment.

It’s sad that we live in an age when the politically correct could have such a possibly damaging effect on children.

Yes, that’s so clever, “the gay could rub off” everyone laugh ha ha ha…You are PC (pats head) good for you! You gobbled up one of the lefts lines. They said that over and over and now you’re here on T Nation spitting it back out.

Too bad the facts don’t back up your erroneous claims. No one has proven that homosexuality is genetic. P E R I O D. But keep listening to the left and they’ll convince you it must be.

Why? Because of faulty logic. It goes something like this “Since no one chooses to be gay they then must be born that way.” What utter nonsense.

Things may happen in childhood as I addressed above which can cause someone to have certain sexual inclinations. That doesn’t make it a choice does it? They feel a certain way, no one is questioning that. But WHY do they feel this way? But…shhhhh the PC left does not want you talking about such things.

780

ZEB,

The "studies’ you cite are not in line with any credible science that I have seen. Please provide a link to an impartial scientific group that has provided this information.

TB,

Actually you might be a little fuzzy on the math. Married couples do better than their unmarried (or divorced) peers, that means by denying marriage to gays you are actually restricting them to a negative outcome (unmarried adults over 60) regardless of what % of the population is actually gay you are denying society the benefit of a committed relationship and all of the economic, social, and cultural stability it brings, you are instead relegating them to increased rates of the aforementioned issues. Gay marriage is, in theory, a societal plus. you tasked me with explaining how it helps society, the information available supports my claim.