Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Cortes wrote:

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.

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]

Thank you Cortes for breaking this down into the crux of the matter. Throw out the moral reasons why you may agree or disagree and this statement is the dividing line of logic in my opinion. I do disagree with your statement and the paragraph above the question almost seems like an indictment of a child raised by a gay couple invariable leading to a non-productive, drain society kind of adult. If that is not the intent of that statement, so be it. If it is, well…you’re just plain wrong or drinking too much kool-aid.

Let’s deal with your statement though:
“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.”

Nope. but lemme re-phrase the correct one:
“The superior familial arrangement for a stable, healthy society, and the most beneficial environment for a child to be raised in, is that of one or more supportive, loving, stable adults that are committed to providing that child with a safe environment that fosters education, discipline, and room for development of their talents.”

Note this version can and is being fulfilled by not just same sex partners but also by grandparents, foster parents, single parents, adopted families, etc.

144

Not sure why it doubled that.

Anyway, is this thread really going to devolve into a dick waving “who’s got the more science-y research study” to back up their view?

Anyone that has been alive more than 20 years knows plenty of non-traditional families that produce stellar adults and plenty of seemingly perfect single mother and father, going to church, married for 20+ years families that produce train wrecks of human beings. Door swings both ways and simply being your church’s ideal family unit structure doesn’t make that reality.

146

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

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.

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]

Thank you Cortes for breaking this down into the crux of the matter. Throw out the moral reasons why you may agree or disagree and this statement is the dividing line of logic in my opinion. I do disagree with your statement and the paragraph above the question almost seems like an indictment of a child raised by a gay couple invariable leading to a non-productive, drain society kind of adult. If that is not the intent of that statement, so be it. If it is, well…you’re just plain wrong or drinking too much kool-aid.

Let’s deal with your statement though:
“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.”

Nope. but lemme re-phrase the correct one:
“The superior familial arrangement for a stable, healthy society, and the most beneficial environment for a child to be raised in, is that of one or more supportive, loving, stable adults that are committed to providing that child with a safe environment that fosters education, discipline, and room for development of their talents.”

Note this version can and is being fulfilled by not just same sex partners but also by grandparents, foster parents, single parents, adopted families, etc.
[/quote]

Cortes’ explanation is objective. Yours is entirely subjective.

His has millenia of proof. Yours has a few decades of conjecture.[/quote]

Yes, of course. Millenia of proof that gay marriage raised children will devolve into parasites of society. Tons of that evidence for that floating around on the interwebz somewhere I’m sure. His explanation is as subjective as the converse is. There is actuallt way more objective evidence through the millenia of children being raised in lots of different scenarios besides single father and single mother.

Nice try though. “The opinion I agree with is factual, yours is based in fantasy”

Sounds like the war on drugs thread.

and finally if you’re going to input how about addressing which exact part of my point has “decades of conjecture” because the whole point I made damn sure doesn’t fit in that neat little box.

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Not sure why it doubled that.

Anyway, is this thread really going to devolve into a dick waving “who’s got the more science-y research study” to back up their view?

Anyone that has been alive more than 20 years knows plenty of non-traditional families that produce stellar adults and plenty of seemingly perfect single mother and father, going to church, married for 20+ years families that produce train wrecks of human beings. Door swings both ways and simply being your church’s ideal family unit structure doesn’t make that reality.[/quote]

This is true when examining individual cases but I doubt its veracity generally speaking.[/quote]

See? Now there’s an honest statement on opinion. I can respect that.

149

dangit, why can’t I see the embedded pictures? Its not flash is it? Can’t see it in IE or Firefox?
Fingers crossed its one of those pictures of the missus but with her laying on top of some gold bars ;]

153

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

After the first few does it really matter? For practicality purposes 2 would be a good limit, I don’t mind discriminating against those who want more as we are already discriminating against them anyway I guess you could say.[/quote]

Are you really failing to see where your train of logic is going off the rails?[/quote]

Yes I am failing to see that, marriage is based on the commitment to 1 other person in an equal partnership. What you are talking about breaks that equality so there is no slippery slope as long as that is maintained.

154

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Yes, of course. Millenia of proof that gay marriage raised children will devolve into parasites of society. Tons of that evidence for that floating around on the interwebz somewhere I’m sure…

[/quote]

Exactly.

There hasn’t been ANY substantial numbers for gay marriage raised children for ANY time period in history because it’s never existed in substantial numbers.

My statement on conjecture stands.
[/quote]

Right, so his inclination that they would is based on conjecture as well.

My main point wasn’t even really about gay marriage but just refuting the original statement of single mother/father, living together = ideal fabric for producing offspring that will be meaningful members of society. The other examples I gave all show the inconsistency in his statement.

155

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
dangit, why can’t I see the embedded pictures? Its not flash is it? Can’t see it in IE or Firefox?
Fingers crossed its one of those pictures of the missus but with her laying on top of some gold bars ;][/quote]

Try this: ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9BNoNFKCBI

Add the ‘h’ in front of ‘ttp’ and copy and paste in a new link.[/quote]

ha, ha…awesome. Man haven’t seen that video in forever. That was back in the “pre-Roasters” Kenny Rogers days. Id it just me or is there a clear favor in the dudes with beards versus dudes without beards category?"

158

I’m curious as to whether or not the anti-gay-marriage crowd would be opposed to gay marriage even if their God didn’t oppose it.

159

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

After the first few does it really matter? For practicality purposes 2 would be a good limit, I don’t mind discriminating against those who want more as we are already discriminating against them anyway I guess you could say.[/quote]

Are you really failing to see where your train of logic is going off the rails?[/quote]

Yes I am failing to see that, marriage is based on the commitment to 1 other person in an equal partnership. What you are talking about breaks that equality so there is no slippery slope as long as that is maintained.[/quote]

I thought you said there was no maximum number? Now you’re back to just “1 other person?” Make up your mind.[/quote]

If there is a push for the polygamy movement that argument can come later but it is starting to get off topic so I am just trying to get back on track.

160

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Yes, of course. Millenia of proof that gay marriage raised children will devolve into parasites of society. Tons of that evidence for that floating around on the interwebz somewhere I’m sure…

[/quote]

Exactly.

There hasn’t been ANY substantial numbers for gay marriage raised children for ANY time period in history because it’s never existed in substantial numbers.

My statement on conjecture stands.
[/quote]

Right, so his inclination that they would is based on conjecture as well.

My main point wasn’t even really about gay marriage but just refuting the original statement of single mother/father, living together = ideal fabric for producing offspring that will be meaningful members of society. The other examples I gave all show the inconsistency in his statement.[/quote]

No…you wanted some opinion without all the science-y stuff, remember? I can look at history and make valid objective observations. Common sense as stated by Cortes’ posts can fill in the conjecture part of my argument.[/quote]

Oh wait, you’re right, I was combining two different responses, mea culpa.

But my point to the one you are referring to is that there isn’t going to be some holy grail of research that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt either side, so arguing as to the veracity of source a versus source b is kind of futile.