Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ALternative headline: “Obvious Supporter of Gay Marriage FinallY Ends Long, Cynical Charade of Trying to Opportunistcally Having It Both Ways”.

This isn’t a revelation, it is a dog-bites-man story, really.

And the President continues to be dishonest about the issue. He says he’s a federalist on the issue - i.e., he thinks states should have the authority to decided for themselvs on the issues - but his administration no longer defends DOMA, which was put in place precisely to allow the states to decide for themselves and not have to have another’s state’s decision forced upon it.

There’s nothing courageous about this announcement, either - from all accounts, Obama didn’t jump, rather he was pushed by the actions of Biden and his SecEd taking resolute positions before Obama as well as the highly publicized NC vote. Some are even suggesting that people in his administration did it on purpose to force Obama’s hand to finally come out and admit it. So much of “leadership” on the issue.

In any event, in the recent NC vote on constitutionalizing a ban on gay marriage, blacks voted for the amendment 2-1. Wow.[/quote]Very VERY good indeed. He didn’t even look convincing at Warren’s church during the campaign and almost immediately after being elected he began speaking about “obscure passages” in the bible being used inappropriately to condemn others. I could be wrong, but I bet that even his theologically disastrous Marxist pastor Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright disagrees with him on this.

102

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Please, give us a list things that effect daily life.[/quote]

Read my above post, im saying it’s stupid for ppl to be opposed to gay rights.

Things people should get worked over include immigration, energy policies, economic policies, and our wars; not whether gays can visit each other in hospitals and file joint tax returns. [/quote]

So, you’re just being obtuse. Saying that if someone is opposed to gay rights (here’s a hint they have no more rights because they are gay, and marriage is not a right). They don’t have a stance immigration, energy policies, economic policies, and wars.

Oh, and gays can visit each other in hospitals. And, marriage is fundamental to a society, to pretend it’s not is ignorance.

103

[quote]optheta wrote:
Its funny all the republicans say whenever the issue of gay marriage comes up is “We have better things to talk about!”.

What a joke.[/quote]

So far I see several republicans in here.

104

[quote]Cortes wrote:

It’s only wishy washy if you do what you and raj are apparently doing and read into my original statement meanings that were never intended.

I am speaking in purely utilitarian terms, for the moment. In this case, “socially favored” would be that marriage arrangement that serves to replenish and regrow the population, provide new, productive taxpayers to support the upside down triangle of a welfare based infrastructure we have here, and has the highest likelihood of producing a child that will turn into a law-abiding, productive member of society who goes on to form a family of his own and not a criminal baby-daddy or similar who will tend to drain resources rather than augment them.

Speaking honestly, I really do not understand what you and raj are trying to demonstrate.

Is this society racist? Youbetcha. Do I care? Sure as hell do, particularly with a son being born into it. Does it have anything at all to do with my point? Not one thing. The nuclear family unit of a single mother and a father happens to be the most beneficial arrangement overall, for this society or America, racist or not racist. [/quote]

You’ve conveniently defined “socially favoured” in a manner to fit your argument. If we were to define the “greater good” as maintaining a homogeneous population and preventing the dilution of Japanese bloodlines, then your argument falls apart.

Why is it okay for you to acknowledge certain societal preferences while ignoring others?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Let’s turn this on its head for a second, you guys that are arguing for the “right” of gays to be married to be officially recognized, do you disagree with this statement:

The superior familial arrangement for a stable, healthy society, and the most beneficial environment for a child to be raised in, is that of a single mother and a single father, married and living together.

If not, how so?

[/quote]

Superior to a broken household? Sure. From what I’ve read children reared by gay couples do pretty well.

105

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
You should know better than to use the slippery slope argument, only a dull edge knife can do that.[/quote]

Why it’s a viable argument as long as it is not a fallacy.

106

.

107

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Is the slope really all that slippery if I come to you, society, and say, “I love these two women and they love me and each other. All we want are the same ‘rights’ afforded other consenting adults. After all, unlike gay marriage polygamy has a very long rich history of being socially acceptable as well as completely legitimate. Please don’t make us second class citizens. Please.”[/quote]

Then why aren’t people trying to do away with all marriage in the first place? Replace this thread with regular marriage and your quote above with gay marriage and you’ve got the same argument. The idea of marriage has already made its way into our laws so its a little to late to take that back, now its time to extend them to cover everyone.[/quote]

Why?

108

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
You should know better than to use the slippery slope argument, only a dull edge knife can do that.[/quote]

Why it’s a viable argument as long as it is not a fallacy.[/quote]

Yes I know in this 1 case its not a fallacy, traditional marriage IS a slippery slope that has opened the door for all types of other unconventional marriages.

111

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

…The idea of marriage has already made its way into our laws so its a little to late to take that back, now its time to extend them to cover everyone.

[/quote]

Yes, even for polygamists. Right?
[/quote]

I doubt any one objects to polygamy . I would bet the objection comes from cults that run off the young men and monopolize the young females for a perversely coerced lopsided marriage
[/quote]

I object to polygamy.

112

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Superior to a broken household? Sure. From what I’ve read children reared by gay couples do pretty well.

[/quote]

Source.

114

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Of course. We are encouraging a model, not trying to nitpick all law into anarchy.

A male and a female represent that model, a male and a male or a female and a female do not. [/quote]

So you’re saying that legalizing gay marriage would discourage straight couples from getting married? How does the legalization of gay marriage effect straight couples?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Talk about the logical repercussions of sticking to the standards you set. If you want to get silly, remember that it works the other way. I don’t want to ever hear another word from you about somebody exaggerating the slipperiness of the slope. Because that is EXACTLY what you are doing here. [/quote]

What slippery slope? I don’t see it.

115

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
You should know better than to use the slippery slope argument, only a dull edge knife can do that.[/quote]

Why it’s a viable argument as long as it is not a fallacy.[/quote]

Yes I know in this 1 case its not a fallacy, traditional marriage IS a slippery slope that has opened the door for all types of other unconventional marriages.[/quote]

Lol. Well, since there is only one kind of marriage, what you call “traditional” marriage, then there is no slippery slope to unconventional marriages. Just people that do not understand what marriage actually is in the first place.

116

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

…From what I’ve read children reared by gay couples do pretty well.

[/quote]

Tell us all about that. Let’s hear it.[/quote]

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]

Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.[10]

118

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

…From what I’ve read children reared by gay couples do pretty well.

[/quote]

Tell us all about that. Let’s hear it.[/quote]

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]

Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.[10]

[/quote]

I do believe you just cited Wikipedia.

AND the references cited by Wikipedia just happen to be from sources that SURPRISE! enthusiastically support gay marriage! Wa La and Presto! Instant credibility, huh?[/quote]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf

Secondly, Who do you want a study from? A guy with a degree in truthology from Christian Tech?

119

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION has a hidden agenda? Maybe they support gay marriage because they can’t find a reason not to.

120

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
You should know better than to use the slippery slope argument, only a dull edge knife can do that.[/quote]

Why it’s a viable argument as long as it is not a fallacy.[/quote]

Yes I know in this 1 case its not a fallacy, traditional marriage IS a slippery slope that has opened the door for all types of other unconventional marriages.[/quote]

Lol. Well, since there is only one kind of marriage, what you call “traditional” marriage, then there is no slippery slope to unconventional marriages. Just people that do not understand what marriage actually is in the first place.[/quote]

People do understand, and understand that there is no non-religious reason it cannot be changed. It will be eventually and unlike some others here you are young enough to be around when that time comes.