Obama finally comes out as pro gay marriage

[Keyser Söze]

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.

Your choice of the word "DESIGNED" seems to imply that a supreme being created everyone and everything.
Fine, believe whatever you want.
But if this supreme being created the earth and designed men and women to be exclusive and natural for each other, then why do gay people exist?

 

[Keyser Söze]

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.

I was speaking metaphorically, perhaps the point went over your head. Here is what I meant to say, in simple English:
You are very concerned about marriage. You want to keep it safe from homosexuals. There are also other things damaging marriage besides the homosexual menace. These include short marriages, divorces, infidelity, bigamy, swingers, etc etc. Are you also outraged at these attacks on the sacred institution of marriage? How are you going to combat them?

 

[teh_skeeze]

I've never heard of the Greek City-States giving benefits to married couples (not saying that they didn't). You have a problem when you start giving benefits to some, but others are denied the same benefits for whatever reason. In the case of gay marriage, nobody is losing out. The government isn't paying out of it's pocket like it does with single mothers on welfare.

In other words, either everyone can claim the benefits, or no one can. (I'm for the latter)

 

[j r]

How about we can just say you are for bigotry or against it?

Look cretin, you apparently flunked logic 101 class. Here is your remedial homework you jerk off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

It is kind of ironic that you just accused Keyser of being a woman, because he was coming across as hysterical and then you get real snippy here yourself.

It is also ironic that you bring up logical fallacies when your arguments are built of them.

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.

You are basically saying that marriage should not be redefined to include same sex couples, because marriage is about a man and a woman. That is a textbook example of begging the question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question

And then you say:

The fact is, that's what you were DESIGNED to do.

A perfect example of the Naturalistic Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

If you want to convince people that gay marriage is a bad thing, how about coming up with some actual proof.

 

[speakeasy]

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.

Your choice of the word "DESIGNED" seems to imply that a supreme being created everyone and everything.
Fine, believe whatever you want.
But if this supreme being created the earth and designed men and women to be exclusive and natural for each other, then why do gay people exist?

I'm agnostic/borderline atheist so that most certainly wasn't my implication. I have no idea if there is a God or not, but that doesn't preclude design. Just as I can say your eyes were designed by nature to allow you to see.

Gay people exist because for the same reason colorblind people exist, or dwarves, or albinos, or women with 2 vaginas(like in that other thread), or people that are born siamese twins, etc etc. It's essentially a genetic defect. Whatever genetic marker controls our sexual preference gets wrongly assigned in a small percentage or humans. Clearly homosexuality serves no more function than hermaphroditism. The difference however is that homosexuals unlike other groups of people have made their birth defect into a social class and present themselves as some sort of quasi-minority group with political demands. Think about it, why is it that if a person is born with both a dick and pussy, we can call that a genetic defect, but if a man is born without the ability to be attracted to women that is not a defect of birth?

At the heart of it, gay marriage is a way of the gay community forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm on par with heterosexuality. That's why even if you offered them "civil unions" with the same exact rights as marriage, they still reject that, because they want the word marriage itself. It's not about the rights to them, it's about the word. And when the word marriage can just as easily apply to two men as a man and a woman, then you can no longer make the claim that it's preferable for men to desire women without being the equivalent of a racist. You will then have a situation like you had in Massachusetts(where gay marriage is legal) a few years ago where a grade school teacher was reading homosexual love stories to children, and when parents fought it, the courts came down in favor of the teacher because that's now the law. There was another story about a school teacher than banned any Mother's Day celebration for her students because one of the kids had two gay dads. And the teacher didn't want to offend the kid of the gay parents. That's the kind of PC minefield we're going to have to navigate through on a daily basis.

 

[gringochileno]

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.

That's an interesting question. I'm no expert on the history of marriage but I wonder just how prevalent it really was among the non-property-owning classes back when its primary function was as a business arrangement between two families. Whatever the answer to that question is, that's definitely how it got started.

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.

First of all, that's not true. But anyway, you're missing the point: whether or not gays have specifically been allowed to marry in the past, there are many other, more fundamental aspects of marriage that have undergone serious revisions over the years. Extending the present institution of marriage to same-sex couples without changing any of its characteristics is hardly more radical than stopping the treatment of women as chattel property, disallowing (then allowing, then disallowing again) polygamy, divorce, interracial marriage, etc.

I guess they were all bigots and homophobes too according to modern politically correct standards?

In the same sense that people who supported slavery in the early 1800s or Jim Crow laws in the early 20th Century were bigots. I'm not too keen on condemning people for following the morality of their day, but if the question is whether their society got it wrong, then I would answer yes. Most societies have.

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.

It's because there's no rational basis for denying gay people civil rights. Whether or not gay people can get married is not going to make the cunty, entitled American woman problem any better or worse. If you're not gay it probably won't affect you at all.

 

[speakeasy]

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.

I was speaking metaphorically, perhaps the point went over your head. Here is what I meant to say, in simple English:
You are very concerned about marriage. You want to keep it safe from homosexuals. There are also other things damaging marriage besides the homosexual menace. These include short marriages, divorces, infidelity, bigamy, swingers, etc etc. Are you also outraged at these attacks on the sacred institution of marriage? How are you going to combat them?

To me it's not about "protecting the sanctity of marriage". It's about gays trying to use marriage as a way of forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm and make one the equivalent of a racist if they state that it's preferable that men be with women.

 

[Keyser Söze]

I'm agnostic/borderline atheist so that most certainly wasn't my implication. I have no idea if there is a God or not, but that doesn't preclude design. Just as I can say your eyes were designed by nature to allow you to see.

Gay people exist because for the same reason colorblind people exist, or dwarves, or albinos, or women with 2 vaginas(like in that other thread), or people that are born siamese twins, etc etc. It's essentially a genetic defect. Whatever genetic marker controls our sexual preference gets wrongly assigned in a small percentage or humans. Clearly homosexuality serves no more function than hermaphroditism. The difference however is that homosexuals unlike other groups of people have made their birth defect into a social class and present themselves as some sort of quasi-minority group with political demands. Think about it, why is it that if a person is born with both a dick and pussy, we can call that a genetic defect, but if a man is born without the ability to be attracted to women that is not a defect of birth?

At the heart of it, gay marriage is a way of the gay community forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm on par with heterosexuality. That's why even if you offered them "civil unions" with the same exact rights as marriage, they still reject that, because they want the word marriage itself. It's not about the rights to them, it's about the word. And when the word marriage can just as easily apply to two men as a man and a woman, then you can no longer make the claim that it's preferable for men to desire women without being the equivalent of a racist. You will then have a situation like you had in Massachusetts(where gay marriage is legal) a few years ago where a grade school teacher was reading homosexual love stories to children, and when parents fought it, the courts came down in favor of the teacher because that's now the law. There was another story about a school teacher than banned any Mother's Day celebration for her students because one of the kids had two gay dads. And the teacher didn't want to offend the kid of the gay parents. That's the kind of PC minefield we're going to have to navigate through on a daily basis.

That's a fairly astonishing level of bigotry and ignorance that you managed to put in just a few sentences.
I guess the only way true bigots like you or Dick Cheney change is by a very personal experience like having a gay child.

 

[speakeasy]

It's because there's no rational basis for denying gay people civil rights.

Technically, gay people are NOT denied civil rights. They have the same right as everyone else. To marry one person of the opposite sex.

That would be like Mormon's claiming their civil rights are being violated because they are not allowed polygamous marriages. No, the law applies to everyone equally.

 

[gringochileno]

It's because there's no rational basis for denying gay people civil rights.

Technically, gay people are NOT denied civil rights. They have the same right as everyone else. To marry one person of the opposite sex.

That would be like Mormon's claiming their civil rights are being violated because they are not allowed polygamous marriages. No, the law applies to everyone equally.

Please tell me you can see the blatant sophistry of that statement.

 

[speakeasy]

I'm agnostic/borderline atheist so that most certainly wasn't my implication. I have no idea if there is a God or not, but that doesn't preclude design. Just as I can say your eyes were designed by nature to allow you to see.

Gay people exist because for the same reason colorblind people exist, or dwarves, or albinos, or women with 2 vaginas(like in that other thread), or people that are born siamese twins, etc etc. It's essentially a genetic defect. Whatever genetic marker controls our sexual preference gets wrongly assigned in a small percentage or humans. Clearly homosexuality serves no more function than hermaphroditism. The difference however is that homosexuals unlike other groups of people have made their birth defect into a social class and present themselves as some sort of quasi-minority group with political demands. Think about it, why is it that if a person is born with both a dick and pussy, we can call that a genetic defect, but if a man is born without the ability to be attracted to women that is not a defect of birth?

At the heart of it, gay marriage is a way of the gay community forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm on par with heterosexuality. That's why even if you offered them "civil unions" with the same exact rights as marriage, they still reject that, because they want the word marriage itself. It's not about the rights to them, it's about the word. And when the word marriage can just as easily apply to two men as a man and a woman, then you can no longer make the claim that it's preferable for men to desire women without being the equivalent of a racist. You will then have a situation like you had in Massachusetts(where gay marriage is legal) a few years ago where a grade school teacher was reading homosexual love stories to children, and when parents fought it, the courts came down in favor of the teacher because that's now the law. There was another story about a school teacher than banned any Mother's Day celebration for her students because one of the kids had two gay dads. And the teacher didn't want to offend the kid of the gay parents. That's the kind of PC minefield we're going to have to navigate through on a daily basis.

That's a fairly astonishing level of bigotry and ignorance that you managed to put in just a few sentences.
I guess the only way true bigots like you or Dick Cheney change is by a very personal experience like having a gay child.

I don't care if you think I'm a bigot or not. This is a real talk forum and we are men here. If I had a gay child, I would accept him just the way I'd accept that was born a midget or with Down's syndrome or born asexual or with any other number of genetic defects. I'd prefer that my children if I had any would be born straight, but if not, I would not reject them for their sexuality.

That's the problem with you guys. You think anybody that isn't pro gay marriage hates gays. I don't hate anyone. I just call shit for what it is.

Now here's a purely hypothetical question for you. If your wife was pregnant and the doctor ran a test saying the kid would be born gay, but had a pill your wife could take that would turn the kid straight, would you want your wife to take the pill?

I love asking this question to pro gay people and seeing their hamster wheel spin.

 

[Luvianka]

Obama is doing it because he wants to get two things: a) to lock up the liberal vote, also in states like California, New York and Florida; b) he wants to divert the attention on the big issues such as economy and the Mexican question.

As for gay marriage itself, it's a non sense. Marriage is an institution created to raise children in an environmente of stability, and gay people, by definition can't have children. Yes, I know that now medicine and adoption can solve this 'problem', but if such it's the case, gay couples can have civil agreements to have something similar to marriage.

And for you, hetero guys, if you don't want to get children any time soon, don't you get married, that simple.

 

[Moma]

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.

Can't you marry him in California as well? Do you have to prove that you love him to get married? Or can any two legally consenting adults do so?

Proof in a court of law involves: Pictorial evidence of you taking him up the Gary Glitter.

 

[oldnemesis]

Right, but some people are moderates who aren't anti-gay per se but yet aren't all ideologically wrapped up in the gay movement either. A lot of the more moderate people in the bible belt have this position.

My opinion is that so few people in America are moderate that they don't really count. Really, Bible Belt, how many of them gonna vote for Obama?

 

[oldnemesis]

I just think you shouldnt keep spending more then you make.

Hell yeah. Do we really need to spend more on military than the rest of the world combined? Do we really need those wars? Do we need to provide corn subsidies? I hope you already talked to your Representatives about those high-spending issues which need to be cut down significantly.

 

[oldnemesis]

My issue is calling a horse a chicken. Gay marriage and strait marriage are two different things.

Two courts (District and 9th Circuit) just said they're the same thing.

Affording the same rights to a pro-creative mother and income earning husband can't be equally applied to two Suzies and two Pauls.

Then the union between a 70yo man and woman cannot be called marriage either, since she's not pro-creative mother and he's not earning income. Correct?

You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.

The studies show that it will not. But I'm sure you never heard of them, since you spend all your time reading some conspiracy.

 

[speakeasy]

You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.

The studies show that it will not. But I'm sure you never heard of them, since you spend all your time reading some conspiracy.

You can cook up a study to prove anything if you shop it to the right research team. There are "studies" that both say that illegal immigration is great for America and there are some that say the opposite, depending on what criteria you use. Most studies are driven by an agenda.

I think all of you in here can verify the veracity of these studies by asking yourself if you had rather been raised by a mother and father as opposed to two mothers. I doubt I'll find a person that prefers they'd been raised by two dads or two moms over having both. Despite what any study says.

 

[oldnemesis]

To me it's not about "protecting the sanctity of marriage". It's about gays trying to use marriage as a way of forcing society to accept homosexuality as a social norm and make one the equivalent of a racist if they state that it's preferable that men be with women.

I wonder if you actually realize that just fifty years ago exactly the same things were said about the interracial marriage - that it is just a way of making socially acceptable such a filthy thing like having your White daughter marrying a colored guy, and that the people who say they prefer to be with the people of different race must be sick and need psychotherapy. And there were laws against that. You probably do not remember how bad it was, so look here:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix

You probably think this was said by some retarded redneck KKK pastor in 1920? No, that was the verdict of the United States court in Eastern Virginia from 1963. And Virginia Supreme Court upheld that. It took SCOTUS to drop it. Google "Loving v Virginia"

 

[oldnemesis]

You can cook up a study to prove anything if you shop it to the right research team.

Please show us the studies which prove that "having two moms or two dads will fuck things up for the child down the road". There are a lot of anti-gay people in this country with a lot of money, so surely there should be a lot of studies about that.

I think all of you in here can verify the veracity of these studies by asking yourself if you had rather been raised by a mother and father as opposed to two mothers.

I wonder if you really understand that it proves NOTHING in your statement? Same way sure I'd prefer to have a rich parents. Does it mean that anyone who has poor parents would suck?

 

[j r]

You can't tell me having two moms or two dads will not fuck things up for the child down the road.

The studies show that it will not. But I'm sure you never heard of them, since you spend all your time reading some conspiracy.

You can cook up a study to prove anything if you shop it to the right research team. There are "studies" that both say that illegal immigration is great for America and there are some that say the opposite, depending on what criteria you use. Most studies are driven by an agenda.

I think all of you in here can verify the veracity of these studies by asking yourself if you had rather been raised by a mother and father as opposed to two mothers. I doubt I'll find a person that prefers they'd been raised by two dads or two moms over having both. Despite what any study says.

Forget about empirical verification and just go with your gut? Is that your argument? Let's sat that I went around and asked a bunch of white people if they were they to be reincarnated, if they would rather be born white or born black, and almost all of them said white. Does that "verify the veracity" of white supremacy?

And it isn't that hard to do an honest study on this sort of thing. All you do is compare a sample of children raised by same sex couples with a sample of children raised by different-sex couples and see if there is any statistically significant differences in outcomes like education, mental illness, criminal convictions, etc. If you corrected for demographic variables, you'd likely find no differences. If you didn't correct for demographics, I bet you'd find better outcomes with the children of gay couples. A gay couple needs to be somewhat together to get in a position to raise kids; whereas, just about any two straight deadbeats can make a baby.