obama endorses same-sex marriage

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Lucrece » Mon May 14, 2012 3:25 pm UTC

And most Italians hold contempt for the mob culture, as it's associated with lower class representations of the culture (not to mention the mobs are oppressive assholes in Italy still). It's akin to telling African Americans that "gangsta" culture unites them. Irish Americans may not seem united, but in places like Massachusetts it was abundantly clear to me that people segregated socially often along the lines of people of their own ethnicities (and at the state universities, entires dorms were dedicated to different ethnic groups, creating ghettos).

Meanwhile, gay communities struggle because they're not ethnically similar. The black gay men were far and away isolated in their own social circles at the black-dominant dorms, while the Asian gay men did the same, as did the WASP gay men. Then you had divisions between lesbians and gay men -- lesbians even held their separate womens-only events. Then there were the transman circles, who didn't have anything to do with the transwomen circles.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby eran_rathan » Tue May 15, 2012 11:15 am UTC

Griffin wrote:From what I understand, the Irish used to have a HUGE amount of group solidarity, but success and intermingling breaks that down a lot. Groups are generally most united against opposition, and while the Irish had a really rough time of it at first, they basically won over a hundred years ago.

So it's mostly, at this point, tending to like the local Irish pub (though real ones are far and in between) and some interest in learning gaelic and litening to the occassional bit of "traditional" music and visiting Ireland someday. And that's... about it. The Irish Pride thing really does seem to be mainly pushed by the non-irish though.

At least the Italian's have the mob to give them their own unique dominantly Italian culture. :P


1916 was when the Easter Uprising happened. Not quite a hundred years ago. [/nitpick]
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Diemo » Tue May 15, 2012 2:09 pm UTC

1916 was when the Easter Uprising happened. Not quite a hundred years ago. [/nitpick]


The Irish actually won in 1921.[/nitpick of nitpick]
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Jave D » Tue May 15, 2012 3:16 pm UTC

Some right-wing sources are now saying that since Obama supports gay marriage... he must be gay.

From rightwingnews.com:
Let’s see, Barack Obama. Not that manly. Admits he used coke. Married to mannish wife with big, muscular arms (although in all fairness, she does have a nice behind). Could he have done coke and had gay sex with an ex-con Larry Sinclair? It doesn’t seem completely implausible. Still, in all fairness, without any further evidence and with just the Globe on the story, it’s hard to give Larry Sinclair’s story too much credence. However, if it does turn out to be true, well then Barack Obama — come on out of the closet, man.


Also, the "AIDS is a gay disease/caused by/affects mostly gay people" meme.

From VCY America:
Jim pointed to the incredible irony that while Michelle Obama has been stressing good health habits, at the same time she’s saying nothing about the unhealthy nature of the homosexual lifestyle. Dr. Cameron responded by noting that homosexuality may take up to 20 years off of a person’s lifespan and at the present time AIDS is costing us $700,000 per person infected.


And of course also the "homosexual extremist agenda to turn our kids all gay" meme.

From Paul Cameron of the Family Research Council (audio at VCY America):
But homosexuality is the one sin, or the one habit, that is 24/7. It is homosexuality all the time. And actually, while I’m not sure about the claims by the various people who have reported that Obama has at least participated at times with them in homosexual acts, this certainly lends some credence.

Mark my words clearly; the long term goal of the homosexual movement is to get every little boy to grab his ankles and every little girl to give it a try. They will not rest until every one of our children at least gets to try, has the opportunity and maybe is forced to at least once experience homosexual acts. There is no retreating from that, they made it very clear earlier on—now they don’t take about it—but that’s what they want, they will not be happy until they get it, marriage is just a step along the way.


Right wing America, never failing to disappoint and dismay.

induction
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby induction » Tue May 15, 2012 3:37 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:Also, the "AIDS is a gay disease/caused by/affects mostly gay people" meme.

From VCY America:
Jim pointed to the incredible irony that while Michelle Obama has been stressing good health habits, at the same time she’s saying nothing about the unhealthy nature of the homosexual lifestyle...


This is what confuses me the most about the hostility toward gay marriage. 'Those promiscuous gays and their homosexual lifestyles. How dare they want to make a commitment!'

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Garm » Tue May 15, 2012 3:51 pm UTC

induction wrote:
Jave D wrote:Also, the "AIDS is a gay disease/caused by/affects mostly gay people" meme.

From VCY America:
Jim pointed to the incredible irony that while Michelle Obama has been stressing good health habits, at the same time she’s saying nothing about the unhealthy nature of the homosexual lifestyle...


This is what confuses me the most about the hostility toward gay marriage. 'Those promiscuous gays and their homosexual lifestyles. How dare they want to make a commitment!'


Don't parse the internal logic of the statements of bigots. It's a losing game in the end.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby DSenette » Tue May 15, 2012 4:03 pm UTC

oh man....doing coke means you're gay>?
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Jave D » Tue May 15, 2012 5:34 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:oh man....doing coke means you're gay>?


No wonder Hollywood is spearheading the Extreme Gay Agenda!

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue May 15, 2012 9:36 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:From rightwingnews.com:
Let’s see, Barack Obama. Not that manly. Admits he used coke. Married to mannish wife with big, muscular arms (although in all fairness, she does have a nice behind). Could he have done coke and had gay sex with an ex-con Larry Sinclair? It doesn’t seem completely implausible. Still, in all fairness, without any further evidence and with just the Globe on the story, it’s hard to give Larry Sinclair’s story too much credence. However, if it does turn out to be true, well then Barack Obama — come on out of the closet, man.

Uhhh. "Look at his terribly unfeminine and masculine wife, with those huge manly arms! Although what a great ass!" Really? OBAMA'S gay for marrying her...but the writer is either female and not gay even though she's admiring a female's posterior, or the writer is male and not gay even though he thinks that totally mannish chick has a sweet ass.

The FUCK?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby mike-l » Tue May 15, 2012 9:52 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:From Paul Cameron of the Family Research Council (audio at VCY America):
But homosexuality is the one sin, or the one habit, that is 24/7. It is homosexuality all the time.

Nah, there's also bigotry and asshatery. Something Paul Cameron seems good at.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue May 15, 2012 10:19 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:oh man....doing coke means you're gay>?

They're both part and parcel of the Yale thing.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Shivahn » Tue May 15, 2012 10:20 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Jave D wrote:From rightwingnews.com:
Let’s see, Barack Obama. Not that manly. Admits he used coke. Married to mannish wife with big, muscular arms (although in all fairness, she does have a nice behind). Could he have done coke and had gay sex with an ex-con Larry Sinclair? It doesn’t seem completely implausible. Still, in all fairness, without any further evidence and with just the Globe on the story, it’s hard to give Larry Sinclair’s story too much credence. However, if it does turn out to be true, well then Barack Obama — come on out of the closet, man.

Uhhh. "Look at his terribly unfeminine and masculine wife, with those huge manly arms! Although what a great ass!" Really? OBAMA'S gay for marrying her...but the writer is either female and not gay even though she's admiring a female's posterior, or the writer is male and not gay even though he thinks that totally mannish chick has a sweet ass.

The FUCK?

Garm wrote:Don't parse the internal logic of the statements of bigots. It's a losing game in the end.


Garm has it right. Don't short your brain.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby IcedT » Wed May 16, 2012 4:42 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
Jave D wrote:From rightwingnews.com:
Let’s see, Barack Obama. Not that manly. Admits he used coke. Married to mannish wife with big, muscular arms (although in all fairness, she does have a nice behind). Could he have done coke and had gay sex with an ex-con Larry Sinclair? It doesn’t seem completely implausible. Still, in all fairness, without any further evidence and with just the Globe on the story, it’s hard to give Larry Sinclair’s story too much credence. However, if it does turn out to be true, well then Barack Obama — come on out of the closet, man.

Uhhh. "Look at his terribly unfeminine and masculine wife, with those huge manly arms! Although what a great ass!" Really? OBAMA'S gay for marrying her...but the writer is either female and not gay even though she's admiring a female's posterior, or the writer is male and not gay even though he thinks that totally mannish chick has a sweet ass.

The FUCK?

Garm wrote:Don't parse the internal logic of the statements of bigots. It's a losing game in the end.


Garm has it right. Don't short your brain.

Just remember that bigots don't have that big a problem with group A so long as the members of that group allow them to feel superior. So they can just roll their eyes and say something condescending when they're confronted with promiscuous, coked-up gays but show them gays who are in committed relationships and loving families and they'll foam at the mouth. Kinda like how Jim Crow was targeted at blacks who were seeking education, good work or political involvement. The better you act the more you wound the bigot's ego.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Ghostbear » Wed May 16, 2012 5:57 am UTC

My google-fu is failing me on finding the actual study, but I recall reading one that indicated that people, when proven to be logically inconsistent or that their prior beliefs are factually wrong (I think there was a recent mini-study with Obama as a muslim, even?), will actually double down on that opinion. If we try to point out all the logical inconsistencies to these people, they'll believe them even more! Instead, it should be done in an attempt to prevent other people from buying into it.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Greyarcher » Wed May 16, 2012 7:24 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:My google-fu is failing me on finding the actual study, but I recall reading one that indicated that people, when proven to be logically inconsistent or that their prior beliefs are factually wrong (I think there was a recent mini-study with Obama as a muslim, even?), will actually double down on that opinion. If we try to point out all the logical inconsistencies to these people, they'll believe them even more! Instead, it should be done in an attempt to prevent other people from buying into it.
--wait, some people were so rationality-impaired that their beliefs become stronger as they were shown errors in them? If that were actually, strictly true I would just have to facepalm and sigh.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby iamspen » Wed May 16, 2012 7:27 pm UTC

Greyarcher wrote:--wait, some people were so rationality-impaired that their beliefs become stronger as they were shown errors in them? If that were actually, strictly true I would just have to facepalm and sigh.


Ever watched Fox & Friends?

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Wed May 16, 2012 7:45 pm UTC

Becoming defensive and clinging tighter to something you value which seems like it is about to be taken away is an all too human response.

Pointing out errors doesn't make them wrong, it makes you the enemy.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Ghostbear » Wed May 16, 2012 7:49 pm UTC

Greyarcher wrote:--wait, some people were so rationality-impaired that their beliefs become stronger as they were shown errors in them? If that were actually, strictly true I would just have to facepalm and sigh.

If I understood the study correctly, yes. I really wish I could find it again, but I just can't figure out the magical search-combo for it. Also, if I remember correctly, this wasn't just "some" people -- it applied to people in general; it's a human flaw. I think the effect was strengthened the more irrational the belief was, but I'm wary of interposing more statements to it without having found it again. Also, what Griffin said.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Garm » Wed May 16, 2012 7:54 pm UTC

One of the things you might be looking for is a study by Festinger that's mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Doomsday Cults. It mentions dissonance reduction.

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

Social scientists have found that while some group members will leave after the date for a doomsday prediction by the leader has passed uneventfully, others actually feel their belief and commitment to the group strengthened.[31] Often when a group's doomsday prophesies or predictions fail to come true, the group leader will simply set a new date for impending doom, or predict a different type of catastrophe on a different date.[31] Niederhoffer and Kenner attribute this motivation of the charismatic leader to maintain a consistent belief structure as due to a desire to save sunk cost: "When you have gone far out on a limb and so many people have followed you, and there is much "sunk cost," as economists would say, it is difficult to admit you have been wrong."[32] In Experiments With People: Revelations from Social Psychology, Abelson, Frey and Gregg explain this further: "..continuing to proselytize on behalf of a doomsday cult whose prophecies have been disconfirmed, although it makes little logical sense, makes plenty of psychological sense if people have already spent months proselytizing on the cult's behalf. Persevering allows them to avoid the embarrassment of how wrong they were in the first place."[33] The common-held belief in a catastrophic event occurring on a future date can have the effect of ingraining followers with a sense of uniqueness and purpose.[31][34] In addition, after a failed prophesy members may attempt to explain the outcome through rationalization and dissonance reduction.[25][35][36] Explanations may include stating that the group members had misinterpreted the leader's original plan, that the cataclysmic event itself had been postponed to a later date by the leader, or that the activities of the group itself had forestalled disaster.[25] In the case of the Festinger study, when the prophecy of a cataclysmic flood was proved false, the members pronounced that their faith in God had prevented the event.[28] They then proceeded to attempt to convert new members with renewed strength.[28]
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Lucrece » Wed May 16, 2012 10:43 pm UTC

The sooner most people realize that a large part of the world doesn't speak rationally--but rather emotionally-- the better the strategies we'll device to persuade people instead of trying to speak to them in a foreign language.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Ghostbear » Wed May 16, 2012 11:56 pm UTC

Garm wrote:One of the things you might be looking for is a study by Festinger that's mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Doomsday Cults. It mentions dissonance reduction.

That wasn't the one I was thinking of -- what I read was in much broader terms. That study does relay the same type of information though, so thanks for finding & sharing it! :)

Lucrece wrote:The sooner most people realize that a large part of the world doesn't speak rationally--but rather emotionally-- the better the strategies we'll device to persuade people instead of trying to speak to them in a foreign language.

The important thing to remember here is that everybody thinks that they are rational. Everybody is capable of doubling down on irrational beliefs when proven wrong. If we start to presume our own rationality, we're probably more likely to encounter this issue.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu May 17, 2012 12:01 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:The sooner most people realize that a large part of the world doesn't speak rationally--but rather emotionally-- the better the strategies we'll device to persuade people instead of trying to speak to them in a foreign language.
The advertising industry is ON IT, worry not.
IcedT wrote:Kinda like how Jim Crow was targeted at blacks who were seeking education, good work or political involvement. The better you act the more you wound the bigot's ego.
This is one of those things I feel I should already have internalized given how obvious it is. How many whites from that era professed that they had no problem with blacks, none at all, zero - as long as they knew their place?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Sockmonkey » Thu May 17, 2012 2:34 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
IcedT wrote:Kinda like how Jim Crow was targeted at blacks who were seeking education, good work or political involvement. The better you act the more you wound the bigot's ego.
This is one of those things I feel I should already have internalized given how obvious it is. How many whites from that era professed that they had no problem with blacks, none at all, zero - as long as they knew their place?

Yep, just like how if you have a different lifestyle and beliefs people will be cool with it if you're miserable. If you're different and happy people flip the fuck out because it call into question their assumption that their way is the best and right way. It's kind of an offshoot of the sour grapes thing. I may not have X yadda yadda but I have Y which is better and people with Y can't possibly have X too because that wouldn't be fair.

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Cathy » Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
IcedT wrote:Kinda like how Jim Crow was targeted at blacks who were seeking education, good work or political involvement. The better you act the more you wound the bigot's ego.
This is one of those things I feel I should already have internalized given how obvious it is. How many whites from that era professed that they had no problem with blacks, none at all, zero - as long as they knew their place?

Exactly! It drives me crazy when people say that they'd be totally fine with those gay people if they'd just do it somewhere else.

:shock: Excuse me?
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby DSenette » Thu May 17, 2012 12:19 pm UTC

Cathy wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
IcedT wrote:Kinda like how Jim Crow was targeted at blacks who were seeking education, good work or political involvement. The better you act the more you wound the bigot's ego.
This is one of those things I feel I should already have internalized given how obvious it is. How many whites from that era professed that they had no problem with blacks, none at all, zero - as long as they knew their place?

Exactly! It drives me crazy when people say that they'd be totally fine with those gay people if they'd just do it somewhere else.

:shock: Excuse me?

it's called "hate the sin not the sinner".....it's a great tool that religion has come up with to explain away abject intolerance. i'm not intolerant of YOU, per se, just the things that you do....you know...all the stuff that makes up "you" but not you specifically.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 17, 2012 12:45 pm UTC

induction wrote:This is what confuses me the most about the hostility toward gay marriage. 'Those promiscuous gays and their homosexual lifestyles. How dare they want to make a commitment!'


The traditional religious purpose of marriage is for procreation. If you aren't doing it for procreation, then you're doing it wrong.

Obviously, there's a level of "love" that marriage entails, but procreation strikes at the purpose of traditional religious marriage. And if you subscribe to this traditional viewpoint, it is possible to be against homosexual marriage on basic biology alone without much prejudice against gays. (Granted, a lot of people are bigots. But I've talked to a few friends of mine who are this traditional about things.)

EDIT: I have trouble with the full traditional definition. (ie: What about an infertility?). I'm just trying to inject some other viewpoints into this dicussion.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu May 17, 2012 12:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby iamspen » Thu May 17, 2012 12:50 pm UTC

Even so, the question remains; how does legally restricting marriage for gays help straight people better procreate, and how does allowing gays to marry damage that ability? The answer is little more than the chirping of crickets, so, IMO, that's not really a good argument.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 17, 2012 12:53 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Even so, the question remains; how does legally restricting marriage for gays help straight people better procreate, and how does allowing gays to marry damage that ability? The answer is little more than the chirping of crickets, so, IMO, that's not really a good argument.


Because gays can't procreate with each other. Its kind of a biological fact. If they aren't marrying for the purpose of procreation, then you've changed the definition of marriage for the traditionalists.

EDIT: I've had a discussion with one of my traditional friends btw. He became aware of the fact that marriage entails rights (such as taxes, property rights, etc. etc.) that really strikes at the root of the problem. For him, he only cares about the traditional viewpoint of marriage, and wants to protect that definition. He was more open to creating "Civil Unions" and abolishing the legal definition of marriage as a matter of fairness to homosexuals. (ie: Both Gay and Straight Couples could seek a Civil Union, and then we all leave the word "marriage" to the religious institutions)

What irks traditionalists is that people are messing around with their definition of marriage, a definition that has been around for a very long time.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu May 17, 2012 12:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Sytri
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:00 am UTC
Location: Reading, UK

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Sytri » Thu May 17, 2012 12:58 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
iamspen wrote:Even so, the question remains; how does legally restricting marriage for gays help straight people better procreate, and how does allowing gays to marry damage that ability? The answer is little more than the chirping of crickets, so, IMO, that's not really a good argument.


Because gays can't procreate with each other. Its kind of a biological fact. If they aren't marrying for the purpose of procreation, then you've changed the definition of marriage for the traditionalists..


But they could find surrogates in the case of males and sperm donors for females. Having not looked into it, I'd think you could say that if you have a FF and MM couple they could both lend a hand, both females carry the children of one of the males and then they can each have a child.* How is that any different from a family constructed from one partner bringing in their own offspring from a previous relationship?

And if you are arguing against it for procreation purposes should you then not allow infertile people to marry? Should women who have gone through the menopause and don't wish to go on HRT be forced to divorce because their male partner can still father children?

edit:* really have no clue on this subject and how that would affect both partnerships but just a thought off the top of my head.
Apathy will kill us all. Or not. Whatever.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 17, 2012 1:04 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
iamspen wrote:Even so, the question remains; how does legally restricting marriage for gays help straight people better procreate, and how does allowing gays to marry damage that ability? The answer is little more than the chirping of crickets, so, IMO, that's not really a good argument.


Because gays can't procreate with each other. Its kind of a biological fact. If they aren't marrying for the purpose of procreation, then you've changed the definition of marriage for the traditionalists..


But they could find surrogates in the case of males and sperm donors for females. Having not looked into it, I'd think you could say that if you have a FF and MM couple they could both lend a hand, both females carry the children of one of the males and then they can each have a child.* How is that any different from a family constructed from one partner bringing in their own offspring from a previous relationship?


Which is encouraging adultery. When you choose a sexual partner, you are to never select another. Allowing something like this would be damaging the sanctity of marriage innately to the traditionalist.

And if you are arguing against it for procreation purposes should you then not allow infertile people to marry? Should women who have gone through the menopause and don't wish to go on HRT be forced to divorce because their male partner can still father children?

edit:* really have no clue on this subject and how that would affect both partnerships but just a thought off the top of my head.


I'm not "arguing for it". I've already made my viewpoint clear a page ago. However, I think its important for yall to understand where the Right-Wingers are coming from. I'm just trying to give you their argument while filtering out the bigotry.

As for your specific example, a women and man who were once fertile and have children are expected to remain together if they become infertile later. However, if a man marries a woman who later happens to be infertile, then that would be grounds for divorce to the traditionalists.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby iamspen » Thu May 17, 2012 1:06 pm UTC

But again, the fact is, changing the definition of marriage has no affect whatsoever on those who have or will enter into straight matrimony. It's not like that gay couple next door is going to do the opposite of procreation and start eating other couples' children should the(ese peoples') definition of marriage change. With or without marriage, they're still living together, they'll still live next door, and the number of children they eat will remain constant. It has literally no bearing on the lives of others.
Last edited by iamspen on Thu May 17, 2012 1:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby eran_rathan » Thu May 17, 2012 1:09 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:But again, the fact that changing the definition of marriage has no affect whatsoever on those who have or will enter into straight matrimony. It's not like that gay couple next door is going to do the opposite of procreation and start eating other couples' children should the(ese peoples') definition of marriage change. With or without marriage, they're still living together, they'll still live next door, and the number of children they eat will remain constant. It has literally no bearing on the lives of others.


Precisely. Its just that bigots get to say, "Nyah nyah nyah, you don't get to have the tax breaks we get, when your partner is seriously ill you get no rights as next-of-kin, you have to jump through a bunch of loopholes to get power of attorney, etc."
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby DSenette » Thu May 17, 2012 1:14 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Sytri wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
iamspen wrote:Even so, the question remains; how does legally restricting marriage for gays help straight people better procreate, and how does allowing gays to marry damage that ability? The answer is little more than the chirping of crickets, so, IMO, that's not really a good argument.


Because gays can't procreate with each other. Its kind of a biological fact. If they aren't marrying for the purpose of procreation, then you've changed the definition of marriage for the traditionalists..


But they could find surrogates in the case of males and sperm donors for females. Having not looked into it, I'd think you could say that if you have a FF and MM couple they could both lend a hand, both females carry the children of one of the males and then they can each have a child.* How is that any different from a family constructed from one partner bringing in their own offspring from a previous relationship?


Which is encouraging adultery. When you choose a sexual partner, you are to never select another. Allowing something like this would be damaging the sanctity of marriage innately to the traditionalist.

And if you are arguing against it for procreation purposes should you then not allow infertile people to marry? Should women who have gone through the menopause and don't wish to go on HRT be forced to divorce because their male partner can still father children?

edit:* really have no clue on this subject and how that would affect both partnerships but just a thought off the top of my head.


I'm not "arguing for it". I've already made my viewpoint clear a page ago. However, I think its important for yall to understand where the Right-Wingers are coming from. I'm just trying to give you their argument while filtering out the bigotry.

As for your specific example, a women and man who were once fertile and have children are expected to remain together if they become infertile later. However, if a man marries a woman who later happens to be infertile, then that would be grounds for divorce to the traditionalists.

except that you're not filtering out the bigotry.

it's still unwarranted discrimination based on someone's identity, which is totally bigotry. it's the same argument that was used by the religious right to try to prevent interracial marriage. they pulled all kinds of biological and genetic "evidence" out of the woodwork to prove that blacks and whites where biologically different and letting them interbreed was against nature.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 17, 2012 1:17 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
iamspen wrote:But again, the fact that changing the definition of marriage has no affect whatsoever on those who have or will enter into straight matrimony. It's not like that gay couple next door is going to do the opposite of procreation and start eating other couples' children should the(ese peoples') definition of marriage change. With or without marriage, they're still living together, they'll still live next door, and the number of children they eat will remain constant. It has literally no bearing on the lives of others.


Precisely. Its just that bigots get to say, "Nyah nyah nyah, you don't get to have the tax breaks we get, when your partner is seriously ill you get no rights as next-of-kin, you have to jump through a bunch of loopholes to get power of attorney, etc."


Marriage is a contract between society and the couple... wherein society accepts the love between the two people. The power of marriage is derived from the public nature of it, and the consistent expectations society has on the couple. If you just willy nilly let anyone get married, then the word loses its meaning.

IE: I'm still fine with homosexuals getting married, but I expect of them the same things from straight couples. That they do not seek divorce, that they live together, and that they remain loyal together in sickness / health, etc. etc. Its an exclusive bond between two people.

However, some people expect more from a marriage than even that. These traditionalists also expect procreation as part of marriage. Its a matter of standards, and protecting what makes "marriage" a powerful word and concept. IMO, I don't think homosexuals getting married really damages that (because I don't personally expect procreation in there). But due to the procreation issue, traditionalists don't want to bless a gay couple with the word "marriage".

DSenette wrote:except that you're not filtering out the bigotry.

it's still unwarranted discrimination based on someone's identity, which is totally bigotry. it's the same argument that was used by the religious right to try to prevent interracial marriage. they pulled all kinds of biological and genetic "evidence" out of the woodwork to prove that blacks and whites where biologically different and letting them interbreed was against nature.


Strawman. If this stance is as easy to dismantle as interracial marriage, you're welcome to attack the argument.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Sytri
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:00 am UTC
Location: Reading, UK

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Sytri » Thu May 17, 2012 1:20 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Sytri wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
iamspen wrote:Even so, the question remains; how does legally restricting marriage for gays help straight people better procreate, and how does allowing gays to marry damage that ability? The answer is little more than the chirping of crickets, so, IMO, that's not really a good argument.


Because gays can't procreate with each other. Its kind of a biological fact. If they aren't marrying for the purpose of procreation, then you've changed the definition of marriage for the traditionalists..


But they could find surrogates in the case of males and sperm donors for females. Having not looked into it, I'd think you could say that if you have a FF and MM couple they could both lend a hand, both females carry the children of one of the males and then they can each have a child.* How is that any different from a family constructed from one partner bringing in their own offspring from a previous relationship?


Which is encouraging adultery. When you choose a sexual partner, you are to never select another. Allowing something like this would be damaging the sanctity of marriage innately to the traditionalist.


I didn't mean they both sleep together but they use IVF for both women using both men's sperm. Unless this is viewed as adultery then I apologise.

And if you are arguing against it for procreation purposes should you then not allow infertile people to marry? Should women who have gone through the menopause and don't wish to go on HRT be forced to divorce because their male partner can still father children?

edit:* really have no clue on this subject and how that would affect both partnerships but just a thought off the top of my head.


I'm not "arguing for it". I've already made my viewpoint clear a page ago. However, I think its important for yall to understand where the Right-Wingers are coming from. I'm just trying to give you their argument while filtering out the bigotry.

As for your specific example, a women and man who were once fertile and have children are expected to remain together if they become infertile later. However, if a man marries a woman who later happens to be infertile, then that would be grounds for divorce to the traditionalists.


Sorry I understand you aren't arguing from your personal standpoint but you were playing devils advocate so for that purpose I said arguing against it.

Apologies for the quote tree, I tried trimming it but made it worse so reverted to this.
Apathy will kill us all. Or not. Whatever.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby DSenette » Thu May 17, 2012 1:21 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
DSenette wrote:except that you're not filtering out the bigotry.

it's still unwarranted discrimination based on someone's identity, which is totally bigotry. it's the same argument that was used by the religious right to try to prevent interracial marriage. they pulled all kinds of biological and genetic "evidence" out of the woodwork to prove that blacks and whites where biologically different and letting them interbreed was against nature.


Strawman. If this stance is as easy to dismantle as interracial marriage, you're welcome to attack the argument.

pardon? in your mind, what makes this different than opposition to interracial marriage?
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 17, 2012 1:23 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:I didn't mean they both sleep together but they use IVF for both women using both men's sperm. Unless this is viewed as adultery then I apologise.


Hmm, that's one I haven't brought up to my traditional friends yet. I'll do some research and I'll try to get back to you on it. For now, I really don't know.

EDIT: I know that the Catholic Church is against artificial insemination however.

DSenette wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
DSenette wrote:except that you're not filtering out the bigotry.

it's still unwarranted discrimination based on someone's identity, which is totally bigotry. it's the same argument that was used by the religious right to try to prevent interracial marriage. they pulled all kinds of biological and genetic "evidence" out of the woodwork to prove that blacks and whites where biologically different and letting them interbreed was against nature.


Strawman. If this stance is as easy to dismantle as interracial marriage, you're welcome to attack the argument.

pardon? in your mind, what makes this different than opposition to interracial marriage?


The procreation issue. That is, people who expect procreation out of a married couple.

Its not an important concept to me, but if it were an important concept to someone... I can see why they would be against same-sex marriage. We all know that a racially mixed child is possible, but a MM or FF couple will never have each other's child.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu May 17, 2012 1:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Heisenberg » Thu May 17, 2012 1:28 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:If they aren't marrying for the purpose of procreation, then you've changed the definition of marriage for the traditionalists.

The government has already changed that definition of marriage. A justice of the peace won't ask if you're planning on having babies before you sign your marriage license. The government's definition of marriage involves sharing all of your stuff and getting visitation rights and inheritance rights and lots of other things unrelated to procreation.

So while I believe that marriage is God joining two people together forever, I don't really care that the government's definition is all about rights and responsibilities, and doesn't mention God at all. I do care that the government provides equal rights to every person in this country, though, so if there are rights associated with government marriage, those rights should not be denied to any citizen of this country.
KnightExemplar wrote:Marriage is a contract between society and the couple... wherein society accepts the love between the two people. The power of marriage is derived from the public nature of it, and the consistent expectations society has on the couple. If you just willy nilly let anyone get married, then the word loses its meaning.

First of all, no, I disagree with your concept of marriage. Society is not a requirement of marriage. The power of marriage is not related to the public nature of it. The power of religious marriage is derived from the grace of God. The power of government marriage is derived from the rights it grants which are protected by law and by law enforcement.

Finally, if I was worried about the word 'marriage' losing its meaning, I'd be pushing to outlaw divorce. People getting married and divorced every year damages the meaning of the word more than two dudes professing their love before a judge. Luckily, society's perception of the word marriage will never change my perception of marriage, so nothing you can do can devlaue marriage for me.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby DSenette » Thu May 17, 2012 1:29 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Sytri wrote:I didn't mean they both sleep together but they use IVF for both women using both men's sperm. Unless this is viewed as adultery then I apologise.


Hmm, that's one I haven't brought up to my traditional friends yet. I'll do some research and I'll try to get back to you on it. For now, I really don't know.

DSenette wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
DSenette wrote:except that you're not filtering out the bigotry.

it's still unwarranted discrimination based on someone's identity, which is totally bigotry. it's the same argument that was used by the religious right to try to prevent interracial marriage. they pulled all kinds of biological and genetic "evidence" out of the woodwork to prove that blacks and whites where biologically different and letting them interbreed was against nature.


Strawman. If this stance is as easy to dismantle as interracial marriage, you're welcome to attack the argument.

pardon? in your mind, what makes this different than opposition to interracial marriage?


The procreation issue. That is, people who expect procreation out of a married couple.

Its not an important concept to me, but if it were an important concept to someone... I can see why they would be against same-sex marriage. We all know that a racially mixed child is possible, but a MM or FF couple will never have each other's child.



so.....that's different than the people who argued that procreation between a black man and a white woman wasn't human procreation how?

an MM or FF couple could indeed have a child that was biologically theirs, technologically speaking. it's not exactly something that happens right now, but it is indeed possible.

of course, you still have the whole problem of infertile couples STILL not being able to do the exact same thing (i.e. have a child). so, the fact that these same people completely ignore that topic goes even further to prove that it's still a bigoted stance.

adding to that that procreation is not the only reason for pair bonding. and it's by far NOT the only reason that the legal framework for LEGAL marriages was created.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 17, 2012 1:32 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:so.....that's different than the people who argued that procreation between a black man and a white woman wasn't human procreation how?

an MM or FF couple could indeed have a child that was biologically theirs, technologically speaking. it's not exactly something that happens right now, but it is indeed possible.


I'm not aware of this. Citation please.

of course, you still have the whole problem of infertile couples STILL not being able to do the exact same thing (i.e. have a child). so, the fact that these same people completely ignore that topic goes even further to prove that it's still a bigoted stance.

adding to that that procreation is not the only reason for pair bonding. and it's by far NOT the only reason that the legal framework for LEGAL marriages was created.


Yes yes yes. I know. I've brought up these points already.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vo2max and 17 guests