Obama finally comes out as pro gay marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alpha

Woodpecker
oldnemesis said:
speakeasy said:
When politicians make statements like this above, everything is carefully calculated and scripted. I wonder if he is doing this to shore up his flaccid core liberal support base going into the election? You might think that going into a tight race, he would avoid the gay marriage issue as it's extremely polarizing.

I think it is a winning move on his behalf. Gay communities are very active nowadays, and they make a lot of noise. Their approval will score him some points.

And it doesn't have even to be calculated. How many of the anti-gay crowd would vote for Obama anyway?

Unfortunately they are grossly in the minority.

My honest opinion: If I were Obama, I wouldn't want to get re-elected. The whole system is going to come crashing down under the next administration, and whoever is in office is going to get the blame.

Coming out as pro-gay marriage is honestly a losing move as a majority of this country's voters do not believe in gay marriage (as proven recently in north carolina).

But what do I know, I never went to college.
 

Keyser Söze

 
Banned
speakeasy said:
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirms-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

I'm not taking any pro/con position on his statement. I have my nuanced views gays and gay marriage, but that's not the point here.

When politicians make statements like this above, everything is carefully calculated and scripted. I wonder if he is doing this to shore up his flaccid core liberal support base going into the election? You might think that going into a tight race, he would avoid the gay marriage issue as it's extremely polarizing. I'm guessing his strategists figured that the support he would garner would out-weigh those he'd alienate. It may also mean that he feels so confident going into this election against Romney that he isn't worried about it. Thoughts?


Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?

This is not a gray issue. It's black and white. Stay the fuck out of other people's business and worry about your own life.

If you think the power of the state should be used to create a special class of rights for one particular group of citizens and then to deny equal protection under the law to another, you are a bad person.

If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, you are both a bad person and rather ignorant, see the video below.

 

Keyser Söze

 
Banned
Brian said:
Mr.GM said:
Caligula said:
We need a Needs more Brian emoticon


This ^^


This thread needs more Brian !

I'm really honored!

Here's the thing - I'm really not a hardcore Conservative. Those are the Santorum types you find in middle America. I haven't been to church in a very long time and am pro abortion. I just think you shouldnt keep spending more then you make. It never works out in the end. Unfortunately we're headed down that path and its not going to end well. It is what it is.


I think you are trolling, but in case not, I'll take the time to try and open your eyes.
The national budget is not the same as a personal/household budget.
All debt is not bad debt. For the clearest proof of this, I suggest you look at the borrowing costs of the USA and Japan on the open market. Both the USA and Japan are heavily indebted, yet they enjoy the lowest borrowing costs in the world.

For the best explanation I have ever seen on the subject, check out this 1790 piece by Alexander Hamilton:

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Public Credit

9 Jan. 1790Papers 6:67--72
In the opinion of the Secretary, the wisdom of the House, in giving their explicit sanction to the proposition which has been stated, ["That an adequate provision for the support of the Public Credit, is a matter of high importance to the honor and prosperity of the United States."] cannot but be applauded by all, who will seriously consider, and trace through their obvious consequences, these plain and undeniable truths.

That exigencies are to be expected to occur, in the affairs of nations, in which there will be a necessity for borrowing.

That loans in times of public danger, especially from foreign war, are found an indispensable resource, even to the wealthiest of them.

And that in a country, which, like this, is possessed of little active wealth, or in other words, little monied capital, the necessity for that resource, must, in such emergencies, be proportionably urgent.

And as on the one hand, the necessity for borrowing in particular emergencies cannot be doubted, so on the other, it is equally evident, that to be able to borrow upon good terms, it is essential that the credit of a nation should be well established.

For when the credit of a country is in any degree questionable, it never fails to give an extravagant premium, in one shape or another, upon all the loans it has occasion to make. Nor does the evil end here; the same disadvantage must be sustained upon whatever is to be bought on terms of future payment.

From this constant necessity of borrowing and buying dear, it is easy to conceive how immensely the expences of a nation, in a course of time, will be augmented by an unsound state of the public credit.

To attempt to enumerate the complicated variety of mischiefs in the whole system of the social oeconomy, which proceed from a neglect of the maxims that uphold public credit, and justify the solicitude manifested by the House on this point, would be an improper intrusion on their time and patience.

In so strong a light nevertheless do they appear to the Secretary, that on their due observance at the present critical juncture, materially depends, in his judgment, the individual and aggregate prosperity of the citizens of the United States; their relief from the embarrassments they now experience; their character as a People; the cause of good government.

If the maintenance of public credit, then, be truly so important, the next enquiry which suggests itself is, by what means it is to be effected? The ready answer to which question is, by good faith, by a punctual performance of contracts. States, like individuals, who observe their engagements, are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those, who pursue an opposite conduct.

Every breach of the public engagements, whether from choice or necessity, is in different degrees hurtful to public credit. When such a necessity does truly exist, the evils of it are only to be palliated by a scrupulous attention, on the part of the government, to carry the violation no farther than the necessity absolutely requires, and to manifest, if the nature of the case admits of it, a sincere disposition to make reparation, whenever circumstances shall permit. But with every possible mitigation, credit must suffer, and numerous mischiefs ensue. It is therefore highly important, when an appearance of necessity seems to press upon the public councils, that they should examine well its reality, and be perfectly assured, that there is no method of escaping from it, before they yield to its suggestions. For though it cannot safely be affirmed, that occasions have never existed, or may not exist, in which violations of the public faith, in this respect, are inevitable; yet there is great reason to believe, that they exist far less frequently than precedents indicate; and are oftenest either pretended through levity, or want of firmness, or supposed through want of knowledge. Expedients might often have been devised to effect, consistently with good faith, what has been done in contravention of it. Those who are most commonly creditors of a nation, are, generally speaking, enlightened men; and there are signal examples to warrant a conclusion, that when a candid and fair appeal is made to them, they will understand their true interest too well to refuse their concurrence in such modifications of their claims, as any real necessity may demand.

While the observance of that good faith, which is the basis of public credit, is recommended by the strongest inducements of political expediency, it is enforced by considerations of still greater authority. There are arguments for it, which rest on the immutable principles of moral obligation. And in proportion as the mind is disposed to contemplate, in the order of Providence, an intimate connection between public virtue and public happiness, will be its repugnancy to a violation of those principles.

This reflection derives additional strength from the nature of the debt of the United States. It was the price of liberty. The faith of America has been repeatedly pledged for it, and with solemnities, that give peculiar force to the obligation. There is indeed reason to regret that it has not hitherto been kept; that the necessities of the war, conspiring with inexperience in the subjects of finance, produced direct infractions; and that the subsequent period has been a continued scene of negative violation, or non-compliance. But a diminution of this regret arises from the reflection, that the last seven years have exhibited an earnest and uniform effort, on the part of the government of the union, to retrieve the national credit, by doing justice to the creditors of the nation; and that the embarrassments of a defective constitution, which defeated this laudable effort, have ceased.

From this evidence of a favorable disposition, given by the former government, the institution of a new one, cloathed with powers competent to calling forth the resources of the community, has excited correspondent expectations. A general belief, accordingly, prevails, that the credit of the United States will quickly be established on the firm foundation of an effectual provision for the existing debt. The influence, which this has had at home, is witnessed by the rapid increase, that has taken place in the market value of the public securities. From January to November, they rose thirty-three and a third per cent, and from that period to this time, they have risen fifty per cent more. And the intelligence from abroad announces effects proportionably favourable to our national credit and consequence.

It cannot but merit particular attention, that among ourselves the most enlightened friends of good government are those, whose expectations are the highest.

To justify and preserve their confidence; to promote the encreasing respectability of the American name; to answer the calls of justice; to restore landed property to its due value; to furnish new resources both to agriculture and commerce; to cement more closely the union of the states; to add to their security against foreign attack; to establish public order on the basis of an upright and liberal policy. These are the great and invaluable ends to be secured, by a proper and adequate provision, at the present period, for the support of public credit.

To this provision we are invited, not only by the general considerations, which have been noticed, but by others of a more particular nature. It will procure to every class of the community some important advantages, and remove some no less important disadvantages.

The advantage to the public creditors from the increased value of that part of their property which constitutes the public debt, needs no explanation.

But there is a consequence of this, less obvious, though not less true, in which every other citizen is interested. It is a well known fact, that in countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and an object of established confidence, it answers most of the purposes of money. Transfers of stock or public debt are there equivalent to payments in specie; or in other words, stock, in the principal transactions of business, passes current as specie. The same thing would, in all probability happen here, under the like circumstances.

The benefits of this are various and obvious.

First. Trade is extended by it; because there is a larger capital to carry it on, and the merchant can at the same time, afford to trade for smaller profits; as his stock, which, when unemployed, brings him in an interest from the government, serves him also as money, when he has a call for it in his commercial operations.

Secondly. Agriculture and manufactures are also promoted by it: For the like reason, that more capital can be commanded to be employed in both; and because the merchant, whose enterprize in foreign trade, gives to them activity and extension, has greater means for enterprize.

Thirdly. The interest of money will be lowered by it; for this is always in a ratio, to the quantity of money, and to the quickness of circulation. This circumstance will enable both the public and individuals to borrow on easier and cheaper terms.

And from the combination of these effects, additional aids will be furnished to labour, to industry, and to arts of every kind.

But these good effects of a public debt are only to be looked for, when, by being well funded, it has acquired an adequate and stable value. Till then, it has rather a contrary tendency. The fluctuation and insecurity incident to it in an unfunded state, render it a mere commodity, and a precarious one. As such, being only an object of occasional and particular speculation, all the money applied to it is so much diverted from the more useful channels of circulation, for which the thing itself affords no substitute: So that, in fact, one serious inconvenience of an unfunded debt is, that it contributes to the scarcity of money.

This distinction which has been little if at all attended to, is of the greatest moment. It involves a question immediately interesting to every part of the community; which is no other than this--Whether the public debt, by a provision for it on true principles, shall be rendered a substitute for money; or whether, by being left as it is, or by being provided for in such a manner as will wound those principles, and destroy confidence, it shall be suffered to continue, as it is, a pernicious drain of our cash from the channels of productive industry.

The effect, which the funding of the public debt, on right principles, would have upon landed property, is one of the circumstances attending such an arrangement, which has been least adverted to, though it deserves the most particular attention. The present depreciated state of that species of property is a serious calamity. The value of cultivated lands, in most of the states, has fallen since the revolution from 25 to 50 per cent. In those farthest south, the decrease is still more considerable. Indeed, if the representations, continually received from that quarter, may be credited, lands there will command no price, which may not be deemed an almost total sacrifice.

This decrease, in the value of lands, ought, in a great measure, to be attributed to the scarcity of money. Consequently whatever produces an augmentation of the monied capital of the country, must have a proportional effect in raising that value. The beneficial tendency of a funded debt, in this respect, has been manifested by the most decisive experience in Great-Britain.

The proprietors of lands would not only feel the benefit of this increase in the value of their property, and of a more prompt and better sale, when they had occasion to sell; but the necessity of selling would be, itself, greatly diminished. As the same cause would contribute to the facility of loans, there is reason to believe, that such of them as are indebted, would be able through that resource, to satisfy their more urgent creditors.

It ought not however to be expected, that the advantages, described as likely to result from funding the public debt, would be instantaneous. It might require some time to bring the value of stock to its natural level, and to attach to it that fixed confidence, which is necessary to its quality as money. Yet the late rapid rise of the public securities encourages an expectation, that the progress of stock to the desireable point, will be much more expeditious than could have been foreseen. And as in the mean time it will be increasing in value, there is room to conclude, that it will, from the outset, answer many of the purposes in contemplation. Particularly it seems to be probable, that from creditors, who are not themselves necessitous, it will early meet with a ready reception in payment of debts, at its current price.
 

Samseau

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member
Hamilton was a retard; the country was saved by his execution.

Obama is whoring himself out to the gays; a new low for Obama.


American politics are pathetic; issues like gay buttsex make national headlines.
 

ElJefe

Pelican
Keyser Soze, you're a total moron and you're the one trolling by clogging this thread with a massive post. Link to the original text if you must, include the essentials in your quote.

Now I have to skip your stupid post, and I like to read the essentials.

What makes your first post really dumb is that you in seriousness link to a Hollywood show as if Hollywood ever was an authorative source on anything, especially with a man with the opinions of Martin Sheen.

As for precluding certain groups from certain rights. What argument is there that everyone should have exactly the same rights on all matters?

Most of the time, people in here complain that we have become a society of people demanding rights. Rights to entitlements, to what is not theirs. Privileges they have not earned.

I cannot see why gays feel the need to get married. Why do they care? So they can have a party and wear white stuff? What is that seperates marriage from cohabitation that makes them feel so inadequate? I smell major inferiority complexes.

Unless it's to destroy the institution of marriage. Marriage is a contractual relationship designed to beget children, with duties and responsibilities and a solemn vow to forever remain true. Marriage as an institution is on the way out anyways, but gays are not interested in saving marriage by insisting on the important of duty and responsibility, unconditional love and loyalty that a wife's main job should be to take care of her children and keep her fat ass hot and fuck the shit out of her husband when he brings home the bacon. Instead they are bitching about rights.

In 1995, civil unions (secular marriage) were legalized in DK. The government has now made it legal to marry gays in Churches. Priests who refuse may do so (many will carry it out though... Danish christianity is a joke). For now. I do not doubt for a second the next step will be requirement that a priest who wants to keep his job may not refuse to wed a gay couple, seeing how these people will stop at nothing.

Gay movement activists are of the same brand as feminists and only care about destroying the nuclear family and traditional Western society. Fair enough. But if you're like 90 percent of the other guys on here, you can't bitch about the demise of the West and at the same time think supporting this stuff is a good idea.
 

Keyser Söze

 
Banned
ElJefe said:
Keyser Soze, you're a total moron and you're the one trolling by clogging this thread with a massive post. Link to the original text if you must, include the essentials in your quote.

Now I have to skip your stupid post, and I like to read the essentials.

What makes your first post really dumb is that you in seriousness link to a Hollywood show as if Hollywood ever was an authorative source on anything, especially with a man with the opinions of Martin Sheen.

As for precluding certain groups from certain rights. What argument is there that everyone should have exactly the same rights on all matters?

Most of the time, people in here complain that we have become a society of people demanding rights. Rights to entitlements, to what is not theirs. Privileges they have not earned.

I cannot see why gays feel the need to get married. Why do they care? So they can have a party and wear white stuff? What is that seperates marriage from cohabitation that makes them feel so inadequate? I smell major inferiority complexes.

Unless it's to destroy the institution of marriage. Marriage is a contractual relationship designed to beget children, with duties and responsibilities and a solemn vow to forever remain true. Marriage as an institution is on the way out anyways, but gays are not interested in saving marriage by insisting on the important of duty and responsibility, unconditional love and loyalty that a wife's main job should be to take care of her children and keep her fat ass hot and fuck the shit out of her husband when he brings home the bacon. Instead they are bitching about rights.

In 1995, civil unions (secular marriage) were legalized in DK. The government has now made it legal to marry gays in Churches. Priests who refuse may do so (many will carry it out though... Danish christianity is a joke). For now. I do not doubt for a second the next step will be requirement that a priest who wants to keep his job may not refuse to wed a gay couple, seeing how these people will stop at nothing.

Gay movement activists are of the same brand as feminists and only care about destroying the nuclear family and traditional Western society. Fair enough. But if you're like 90 percent of the other guys on here, you can't bitch about the demise of the West and at the same time think supporting this stuff is a good idea.

For the same reason that straight people usually decide to get married: they fall in love.
I highly suggest you talk to a gay person in a committed relationship.
I used to be fairly prejudiced against gays. I would never say so in public, but in my mind I judged them and thought it was disgusting.
That changed when I had a colleague several years back who is gay. He lived with his boyfriend, they had been together a couple of years, and they loved each other (phone calls, vacations, etc) It sounds weird, but I never really understood it until then. When you are a gay man you are wired in a way that you can fall in love with another man, in the same way my brain is wired so that I fall in love with women.

Gays should be able to marry, I should be able to have a forest of pot growing in my backyard, etc etc.

Don't tread on me. I am an old school Yankee, and I believe in freedom. As long as your exercise of your freedom doesn't harm me, then it is none of my business what you do.

5.5x3.5_donttreadonme.png
 

speakeasy

Peacock
Gold Member
Keyser Söze said:
speakeasy said:
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirms-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

I'm not taking any pro/con position on his statement. I have my nuanced views gays and gay marriage, but that's not the point here.

When politicians make statements like this above, everything is carefully calculated and scripted. I wonder if he is doing this to shore up his flaccid core liberal support base going into the election? You might think that going into a tight race, he would avoid the gay marriage issue as it's extremely polarizing. I'm guessing his strategists figured that the support he would garner would out-weigh those he'd alienate. It may also mean that he feels so confident going into this election against Romney that he isn't worried about it. Thoughts?


Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?

This is not a gray issue. It's black and white. Stay the fuck out of other people's business and worry about your own life.

If you think the power of the state should be used to create a special class of rights for one particular group of citizens and then to deny equal protection under the law to another, you are a bad person.

If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, you are both a bad person and rather ignorant, see the video below.

Is Keysor a woman? Because he comes across as rather hysterical.

No, it is not a black and white issue. There are people that are not gay bashers or hostiles to gays, yet at the same time don't believe in redefining marriage away from what has always been it's biological and social function...to unite a man to a woman for the purpose of creating a family unit. This does not make one a homophobe or bigot. If you cannot see that, then you've swallowed so much bullshit that you don't up from down.
 

Keyser Söze

 
Banned
I'm actually kind of surprised by some of the responses. None of my educated, international friends think twice about any of this. It just isn't an issue, just go pursue your own happiness instead of trying to limit or control what other people do.

So I'm being accused of being a woman or something just because I support equal rights?

What does it matter to me if two people I have never met and will never meet get married, even if they are the same sex?

Also, let's cut the "pro gay marriage" crap. How about we can just say you are for bigotry or against it?
 

soup

Owl
Gold Member
Considering the higher probability of getting AIDS for them, If I were a gay guy, I would have died out a long time before this. If gay guys don't cheat as much as women (they are men with logic), then maybe this will be good for them.

Anyway, all I care about is how this will affect me as a player-man.

I wonder if gay guys having some same in the marriage laws will actually benefit straight guys because gays won't tolerate being discriminated against as men.

I'd say that feminism has a had a lot more to do with making marriage a raw deal for men than gay marriage will.

Are the 'fem/bottom' gay guys all hypergamous like women are? There are a lot of gay guys who make a ton of money, and they don't have kids etc.
 

Keyser Söze

 
Banned
speakeasy said:
Keyser Söze said:
speakeasy said:
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirms-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

I'm not taking any pro/con position on his statement. I have my nuanced views gays and gay marriage, but that's not the point here.

When politicians make statements like this above, everything is carefully calculated and scripted. I wonder if he is doing this to shore up his flaccid core liberal support base going into the election? You might think that going into a tight race, he would avoid the gay marriage issue as it's extremely polarizing. I'm guessing his strategists figured that the support he would garner would out-weigh those he'd alienate. It may also mean that he feels so confident going into this election against Romney that he isn't worried about it. Thoughts?


Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?

This is not a gray issue. It's black and white. Stay the fuck out of other people's business and worry about your own life.

If you think the power of the state should be used to create a special class of rights for one particular group of citizens and then to deny equal protection under the law to another, you are a bad person.

If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, you are both a bad person and rather ignorant, see the video below.

Is Keysor a woman? Because he comes across as rather hysterical.

No, it is not a black and white issue. There are people that are not gay bashers or hostiles to gays, yet at the same time don't believe in redefining marriage away from what has always been it's biological and social function...to unite a man to a woman for the purpose of creating a family unit. This does not make one a homophobe or bigot. If you cannot see that, then you've swallowed so much bullshit that you don't up from down.


That is a very interesting position.
What about infertile couples? What about couples who are childless by choice? What about the elderly? Should they be allowed to get married even though they can't or don't want to procreate?

Should there be criminal penalties for 55 hour sham marriages like Britney Spears, since they clearly go against "traditional" marrriage? How about adultery too? There are plenty of people in the southern USA who would vote for that.
 
speakeasy said:
Keyser Söze said:
speakeasy said:
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirms-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

I'm not taking any pro/con position on his statement. I have my nuanced views gays and gay marriage, but that's not the point here.

When politicians make statements like this above, everything is carefully calculated and scripted. I wonder if he is doing this to shore up his flaccid core liberal support base going into the election? You might think that going into a tight race, he would avoid the gay marriage issue as it's extremely polarizing. I'm guessing his strategists figured that the support he would garner would out-weigh those he'd alienate. It may also mean that he feels so confident going into this election against Romney that he isn't worried about it. Thoughts?


Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?

This is not a gray issue. It's black and white. Stay the fuck out of other people's business and worry about your own life.

If you think the power of the state should be used to create a special class of rights for one particular group of citizens and then to deny equal protection under the law to another, you are a bad person.

If you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, you are both a bad person and rather ignorant, see the video below.

Is Keysor a woman? Because he comes across as rather hysterical.

No, it is not a black and white issue. There are people that are not gay bashers or hostiles to gays, yet at the same time don't believe in redefining marriage away from what has always been it's biological and social function...to unite a man to a woman for the purpose of creating a family unit. This does not make one a homophobe or bigot. If you cannot see that, then you've swallowed so much bullshit that you don't up from down.

Marriage's original social function was to ensure the intergenerational transfer of property. We've moved pretty far from the idea of marriage as a purely economic arrangement; in fact, if you study the history of marriage in various cultures, you'll realize that the institution has gone through numerous redefinitions over the years, many of them much more radical than extending it to same-sex couples. There really isn't any bright line being crossed here that hasn't already been crossed many times.

Besides, even if that weren't the case, appealing to "how things have always been" is a really weak argument for keeping them that way. Unless you can give concrete, defensible reasons why allowing gay marriage would have overall negative consequences, I can't see how being opposed to it is based on anything more than a simple prejudice.
 

kosko

Peacock
Gold Member
I don't care if Gays get married that ship sailed along time ago here in Canada. My issue is calling a horse a chicken. Gay marriage and strait marriage are two different things. Affording the same rights to a pro-creative mother and income earning husband can't be equally applied to two Suzies and two Pauls. They need to set up their own standards of rights which protect their differences.

Plus the issues of children 20yrs down the road when the hidden studies that show that the only benefit of same sex parents is income and that the rest of negative will shine a dark light on all of this. You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.
 

Evgenius

Woodpecker
those who do not endorse homosexual marriage are less 'evolved,' i.e. primitive, backwards, archaic, narrow-minded.

But that's pretty much the case. The anti-gay marriage crowd is entirely religious. And to deny a human being civil rights for a religious reason is primitive, backwards, archaic and narrow-minded. This reminds me of the old Bill Hicks quip, "You ever notice how people that don't believe in evolution look really unevolved?"

And let's not mince words, human beings are being denied civil rights afforded to heterosexuals. In terms of tax savings, hospital visitations and immigration status.

Religious beliefs should be private. If you don't believe in gay marriage - don't get married to someone of the same sex. It's that simple.

This also has nothing to do with morality. Sexual preference and morality are mutually exclusive except when one views the world through the lens of religious dogma.

And if anyone has redefined the institution of marriage it is Christians. Historically and throughout most of our evolution the main family unit has been one man and several women, not one man and one woman.
 
kosko said:
You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.

People say this a lot, as if it's a matter of personal opinion. In fact, whether or not children raised by gay parents have different outcomes from children of straight parents is one of the most well-researched questions in social science. The uniformity of the findings is striking: studies consistently find no evidence that having gay parents makes you turn out worse by a variety of different measures.
 

speakeasy

Peacock
Gold Member
Keyser Söze said:
That is a very interesting position.
What about infertile couples? What about couples who are childless by choice? What about the elderly? Should they be allowed to get married even though they can't or don't want to procreate?

So let me see, you deny that there is any significance to man pairing with women? It doesn't matter if one elects not to have kids. The fact is, that's what you were DESIGNED to do. And up until just a few decades ago, it was an extreme rarity that any couple even got married with no intention of procreating. Of course you do realize that society's that start to eschew procreation will simply vanish off the face of the earth as they will not reproduce at replacement level. This is what is currently happening across the West. So we could all be witness darwinism at work as we tinker with traditional male/female roles.

Should there be criminal penalties for 55 hour sham marriages like Britney Spears, since they clearly go against "traditional" marrriage? How about adultery too? There are plenty of people in the southern USA who would vote for that.

And how the hell would you realistically stop Britney Spears from getting married? Pass a law that celebrities are not allowed to marry? So because some idiot like Britney Spears divorces we are supposed to completely redefine marriage? Think about the stupidity of what you're saying.
 

speakeasy

Peacock
Gold Member
Farmageddon said:
those who do not endorse homosexual marriage are less 'evolved,' i.e. primitive, backwards, archaic, narrow-minded.

But that's pretty much the case. The anti-gay marriage crowd is entirely religious.

That's your biased view as someone who supports same-sex marriage. What pisses me off about the pro SSM crowd is that they seem to have little understanding of the arguments on the other side and revert to caricatures and mockery. If you want to see a serious anti-gay marriage essay that invokes no religions, no moralizing and comes from a perspective of pragmatism, I'd suggest you read this blog piece:

http://xenlogic.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/the-homosexuality-conundrum/
 

teh_skeeze

Pelican
If people are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, why not outlaw divorce?

I hope they make gay marriage legal in New Jersey. I will marry my best friend for the benefits and then I can tell lizards I can't get married because legally I can't have two spouses.
 

speakeasy

Peacock
Gold Member
gringochileno said:
Marriage's original social function was to ensure the intergenerational transfer of property.

How could that be given that few people in history have actually even owned any property? Most wealth and land has always been held by a very few. That never stopped the poor and landless from marrying.


We've moved pretty far from the idea of marriage as a purely economic arrangement; in fact, if you study the history of marriage in various cultures, you'll realize that the institution has gone through numerous redefinitions over the years, many of them much more radical than extending it to same-sex couples. There really isn't any bright line being crossed here that hasn't already been crossed many times.

I don't think it's been redefined as much as you claim it has. It certainly has always been between men and women. That is one radical line that has NEVER been crossed. Even ancient Greeks who were arguably the most gay tolerant society in history didn't allow gay marriage. They viewed sex with men as being for pleasure but marriage was for procreation with a woman. I guess they were all bigots and homophobes too according to modern politically correct standards?

Frankly, given this forum's general hostility towards feminism, gender-bending, androgyny and tampering with male/female roles, I'm surprised so many in here are this rah-rah over homosexual marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top