Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
781

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

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. [/quote]

They do better if they stay married, and you said slightly more than half the time, they don’t. So, no, I am not “restricting gays to a negative outcome,” because of your own math, over half will wind up with bad outcomes.

You can’t keep trying to have it both ways. You keep saying “we need to give gays the opportunity to be happy by being married” - but by your own standards, over half of them will wind up being less happy, because they won’t stay divorced.

Not so good at this, I see?

Further, you misunderstand “marriage” and the “marriage happiness” quotient - people are happy because they are married, not because the state lets you file a piece of paper recognizing a legal status of marriage. Married people are happy because of their commintment, mutual love and support, etc. which is all inherently personal and private…the state has nothing to do with that aspect of marriage.

If there are people who can’t achieve this level of “married happiness” on a personal level until the state intervenes, then they have bigger problems than state-recognized marriage will fix.

782

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
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.[/quote]

It could be because you only look at and listen to liberal media. And liberal pc media reject anything that would even question homosexuality being anything but genetic. Yet, no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Don’t you find that just a bit odd? No…probably not as it fits your world view.

Anyway, you never posted a link explaining how throwing money at the poor has helped them through the years. When you post that link, or even give me a reasonable explanation, and when you post a link proving that homosexuality is in fact genetic I will post my link.

783

TB,

either your need to find no value in gay marriage is the sole driving force here or you are incapable of understanding the basic concepts in front of you.
Since married is a category and divorced is a category and never married is a category (which includes never married but co-habitating) the data is pretty straightforward. There is a social value that comes with marriage (a “prestige” is the best fit I guess) a value that is not transferred without the umbrella of marriage as an overarching theme (living together is not the same as marriage, at least in the studies). Why are you trying to play word games, accept the data for marriage, apply it to gay couples and assume the same statistics, you get a societal benefit. Disliking gay marriage is your decision, but seriously at some point you will have to accept what the data says.

784

ZEB,

Outside of a few fringe publications with religious group funding and a few doctors (with the same baggage) most people in the scientific community think gay is genetic, it doesn’t come from being abused, not liking your dad, having a bossy mom etc. feel free to respond (civilly I would hope), but these are the facts as they currently stand.

785

ZEB I don’t think I’m becoming part of the PC police by saying being gay is generally accepted as being genetic. But there could be many factors, most likely a middle ground, combination of nature and nurture. I guess when it comes down to it I believe gay marriage should be legal because it falls under the absolute right to privacy I believe people should have in regards to any issue whether it be sexuality, gun rights, recreational drug use or even seatbelt/helt laws. Government doesn’t need to step in and make laws as a “nanny state” or “morality” laws.

786

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
ZEB I don’t think I’m becoming part of the PC police by saying being gay is generally accepted as being genetic. But there could be many factors, most likely a middle ground, combination of nature and nurture. I guess when it comes down to it I believe gay marriage should be legal because it falls under the absolute right to privacy I believe people should have in regards to any issue whether it be sexuality, gun rights, recreational drug use or even seatbelt/helt laws. Government doesn’t need to step in and make laws as a “nanny state” or “morality” laws.[/quote]

If you believe people should have the absolute right to privacy you should ask for the abolition of heterosexual marriage, not for the legalization of gay marriage.

787

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

either your need to find no value in gay marriage is the sole driving force here or you are incapable of understanding the basic concepts in front of you. [/quote]

Already have, a thousand times over. Gay marriage is a solution in search of a problem. We don’t need it. There’s no value in it. We don’t have a public policy problem that has gay marriage as the fix. Never have, and I can’t imagine we ever will.

We don’t have a public policy problem of “unhappy” unmarried people. We don’t have publicly-recognized marriage - the legal institution - to make adults feel lots better about themselves. We have to organize society’s birthing and raising of children.

You won’t recognize this basic point, and you keep talking around it. Not my problem to fix. Marriage exists as a public institution to steer the members of society that procreate and raise children into the best and most natural arrangement and the one that…wait for it…best benefits the children.

That is the public policy of marriage. It’s been explained a thousand times. Wishing it was something else won’t change it. Creating some phoney public policy problem of “unhappy gays in need of a big hug from society, and that big hug is publicly recognizing their marriage” is just therapeutic nonsense. That is a fantastically bad idea that undermines the core message of the mission of publicly-recognized marriage - that one (and only one) arrangement is better than the rest, and society should treat it as such for the best interests of society.

The enactment of gay marriage says that traditional/rational marriage has an equal. That is, of course, ludicrous - society has never thought that nd shouldn’t think that now. If you think that is true, then you are challenging the most basic premise of society viz-a-viz children: that children belong and should belong to their parents.

Enough. I’ve entertained enough silliness from you.

788

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

Outside of a few fringe publications with religious group funding and a few doctors (with the same baggage) most people in the scientific community think gay is genetic, it doesn’t come from being abused, not liking your dad, having a bossy mom etc. feel free to respond (civilly I would hope), but these are the facts as they currently stand.[/quote]

Outside of the MSLM, and the politically correct those who have a mind toward science know that thus far there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Therefore, those assuming that it is such are simply playing the game. Dismissing various environmental possibilities only makes you look like you’re willing to gobble up all the PC talking points.

The FACT is no one really knows whether it is nature or nurture. And until we find out I think it’s a very nasty trick to play on children to allow homosexuals to adopt.

789

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
ZEB I don’t think I’m becoming part of the PC police by saying being gay is generally accepted as being genetic[/quote]

It may be generally accepted in many circles, what does that mean? Why don’t you post a link which definitively proves that homosexuality is in fact genetic. And if you can’t do that then why do you follow a crowd which has no solid proof to back up their claim.

Want me to tell you why?

Yes, there could be many factors, or it could just be nurture over nature. The fact is we don’t know so you and the politically correct liberals need to take a step back.

Here’s a little secret for you, it has NOTHING to do with privacy. Didn’t know that did you? No one is preventing two men from having sex in the privacy of their own home–Certainly not society. Therefore, they have their privacy. What they want is for society to change the institution of marriage.

Society does however have the right to discriminate against gay couples by not allowing them to marry. As there is no societal benefit in giving homosexuals that right. Marriage is inherently an institution which is predicated on child rearing.

Society discriminates against those over 40 by not allowing them to join the armed services.

Society discriminates against those who have not yet reached their 21st birthday by not allowing them to drink.

Society discriminates against those under 16 years of age by not allowing them to drive.

Now why do you suppose society does such things? Because laws are just mean and unfair? No, it’s because there is a greater good to society by keeping such boundaries.

Without those boundaries around marriage there is no limit as to what odd combinations of people could claim that right. Starting with two people of the same sex (which has no benefit to society) and moving right into polygamy, incestual marriage, marriage to your pet, your lamp shade etc.

It is incumbent upon those whining about gay marriage to prove the benefit to society and the greater good. I have never read anything which is compelling in that direction. Hence, there should be no “gay marriage.”

Simple really.

Also, if you had read this thread from the beginning you would have read this argument put forth many times and perhaps even more articulately

790

[quote]ZEB wrote:[quote]Mtag666 wrote:But there could be many factors, most likely a middle ground, combination of nature and nurture.[/quote]Yes, there could be many factors, [/quote]OR… it makes no difference.

791

ZEB I understand your point that there isn’t necessarily a “societal benefit” of allowing gay marriage, but I look at this from a different angle. I don’t buy into the belief that freedoms should only be allowed if there is a benefit to society. Freedom should only be restricted when there is a benefit to society. So there’s a burden of proof so to speak on restricting rights. If you’re familiar with the Harm Principle that is what I’m basing my beliefs of off.

792

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
Freedom should only be restricted when there is a benefit to society.[/quote]

Yes.
But then, why do you want to restrict my freedom to NOT recognize, to NOT support, to NOT fund and to NOT privilege homosexual relationships ?

Again :
marriage is not some kind of “special relationship”.
marriage is a social institution.
IE : it’s not something two people do with their own freedom.
It’s something a whole society do (with its own sovereignty).

Gays can already do whatever they want to do with their indidivual freedom.
We do not care, as long as they do not try to FORCE us to actively support them.
Which is the whole point of the legalization of gay mariage.

793

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
Freedom should only be restricted when there is a benefit to society.[/quote]

Yes.
But then, why do you want to restrict my freedom to NOT recognize, to NOT support, to NOT fund and to NOT privilege homosexual relationships ?
[/quote]

So wait, are you saying you support everything the government uses your tax dollars for?

There are a ton of people who had their freedom “restricted” after being forced to support a war in Iraq.

794

Your freedoms are not being restricted by paying taxes that support gay marriage. They are being encouraged as you now have the option to marry a person of the same sex.

795

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
Freedom should only be restricted when there is a benefit to society.[/quote]

Yes.
But then, why do you want to restrict my freedom to NOT recognize, to NOT support, to NOT fund and to NOT privilege homosexual relationships ?
[/quote]

So wait, are you saying you support everything the government uses your tax dollars for?

There are a ton of people who had their freedom “restricted” after being forced to support and a war in Iraq.
[/quote]

What “I” support or not is irrelevant here.
What “a ton of people” support or not is irrelevant here.

What matters is what “we the people” support or not.
I’m speaking about an institutionnal principle (namely : popular sovereignity) not about a number of people.

796

[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< There are a ton of people who had their freedom “restricted” after being forced to support and a war in Iraq.
[/quote]Support AND a war in Iraq?!?!?!?!? Outrageous!!! It’s one thing being forced to support, but AND a war in Iraq too?!?!? Waaaay toooo much.

797

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
Freedom should only be restricted when there is a benefit to society.[/quote]

Yes.
But then, why do you want to restrict my freedom to NOT recognize, to NOT support, to NOT fund and to NOT privilege homosexual relationships ?
[/quote]

So wait, are you saying you support everything the government uses your tax dollars for?

There are a ton of people who had their freedom “restricted” after being forced to support and a war in Iraq.
[/quote]

What “I” support or not is irrelevant here.
What “a ton of people” support or not is irrelevant here.

What matters is what “we the people” support or not.
I’m speaking about an institutionnal principle (namely : popular sovereignity) not about a number of people.
[/quote]

Huh?

798

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< There are a ton of people who had their freedom “restricted” after being forced to support and a war in Iraq.
[/quote]Support AND a war in Iraq?!?!?!?!? Outrageous!!! It’s one thing being forced to support, but AND a war in Iraq too?!?!? Waaaay toooo much.
[/quote]

I’m 4 1/2 weeks into a keto diet.

Expect many spelling and grammatical errors. I’m borderline proud of them.

799

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
Freedom should only be restricted when there is a benefit to society.[/quote]

Yes.
But then, why do you want to restrict my freedom to NOT recognize, to NOT support, to NOT fund and to NOT privilege homosexual relationships ?
[/quote]

So wait, are you saying you support everything the government uses your tax dollars for?

There are a ton of people who had their freedom “restricted” after being forced to support and a war in Iraq.
[/quote]

What “I” support or not is irrelevant here.
What “a ton of people” support or not is irrelevant here.

What matters is what “we the people” support or not.
I’m speaking about an institutionnal principle (namely : popular sovereignity) not about a number of people.
[/quote]

well according to the latest polls, the majority of Americans support gay marriage.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/03/poll_growing_pu.html

800

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
Freedom should only be restricted when there is a benefit to society.[/quote]

Yes.
But then, why do you want to restrict my freedom to NOT recognize, to NOT support, to NOT fund and to NOT privilege homosexual relationships ?
[/quote]

So wait, are you saying you support everything the government uses your tax dollars for?

There are a ton of people who had their freedom “restricted” after being forced to support and a war in Iraq.
[/quote]

What “I” support or not is irrelevant here.
What “a ton of people” support or not is irrelevant here.

What matters is what “we the people” support or not.
I’m speaking about an institutionnal principle (namely : popular sovereignity) not about a number of people.
[/quote]

Huh?
[/quote]

My private interest and my personnal opinion doesn’t matter.
The sum of the private interests and personnal opinions of “a ton of people” (or even a majority of people) doesn’t matter.

In a republic, what matters is the “common good”.