# Obama announces he supports same-sex marriage



## smile72 (May 13, 2012)

Source:CNN
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-09/politics/politics_obama-same-sex-marriage_1_gay-marriage-civil-unions-word-marriage

Now I know this is a couple of days old, but nobody (from what I've seen is discussing this) while I'll agree no president has ever endorsed same sex marriage, his endorsement is pretty much nothing... it's the same shit we have now leave it up to the states......... I'm also posting this due to what Senator Rand Paul said (6000 years of tradition) http://www.latimes.c...0,7525076.story

And what that moron Bristol Palin said http://www.usatoday....iage/54912648/1

She said children do better with a mother and father (where's Levi?)


----------



## chains_of_androm (May 13, 2012)

Well there is the seperation of Federal and State government, so who knows..but good step nevertheless.


----------



## smile72 (May 13, 2012)

chains_of_andromeda said:


> Well there is the seperation of Federal and State government, so who knows..but good step nevertheless.


No with civil rights, under our 14th amendment (to a real liberal) this is a federal issue.


----------



## The Catboy (May 13, 2012)

I hope this gets the USA one step closer to finally allowing gay marriage, that way I can finally stop being the scapegoat for all the worlds problems.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (May 13, 2012)

Obama's "support" of gay marriage is nothing more than a calculated ruse in order to rake in campaign donations at a time when his re-election is on the line.


----------



## smile72 (May 13, 2012)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:


> Obama's "support" of gay marriage is nothing more than a calculated ruse in order to rake in campaign donations at a time when his re-election is on the line.


No, I believe he supports it, when he ran for the Illinois Senate he supported it, that was in 1996 I think, but this is as good, as saying I support civil unions, it's garbage.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (May 13, 2012)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:


> Obama's "support" of gay marriage is nothing more than a calculated ruse in order to rake in campaign donations at a time when his re-election is on the line.



Bullshit, he's supported same sex marriage since the beginning.


----------



## smile72 (May 13, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's "support" of gay marriage is nothing more than a calculated ruse in order to rake in campaign donations at a time when his re-election is on the line.
> ...


Not really, during his 2008 campaign he was against same sex marriage.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (May 13, 2012)

smile72 said:


> MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's "support" of gay marriage is nothing more than a calculated ruse in order to rake in campaign donations at a time when his re-election is on the line.
> ...


It's not a question of whether actually supports it or not; on that score I couldn't care less. What I wanted to point out is that his "support" was a display of opportunism (in the case of how many donations he's gotten since), not a genuine appeal for civil rights. An imperialist president who advocates indefinite detention and assassination of US citizens cannot be taken seriously as a beacon for any kind of democratic reform.

Edit: Initial statement was sloppy, had to clarify.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 13, 2012)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:


> Obama's "support" of gay marriage is nothing more than a calculated ruse in order to rake in campaign donations at a time when his re-election is on the line.



You see why political people usually keep their mouths shut?

Anyways, it's good he supports it. Everybody deserves love no matter of gender (species maybe an issue, but that's for another day :3). Maybe this will slowly help America move forward into the new world. I'm sorry to the Americans I upset, but you have to admit, America has a lot of problems still.


----------



## freaksloan (May 13, 2012)

Its nothing new, he has been for it all the time. He has just been a coward to stand up for what he believes in. He had no choice now, because the idiot VP ran off at the mouth.

Obama has been on record as far back as 1996 as being for same sex marriage.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (May 13, 2012)

freaksloan said:


> Its nothing new, he has been for it all the time. He has just been a coward to stand up for what he believes in. He had no choice now, because the idiot VP ran off at the mouth.
> 
> Obama has been on record as far back as 1996 as being for same sex marriage.


His support for gay marriage during his presidency has been wishy-washy at best. As smile72 said, he openly came out against it by using the typical conservative trope of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He has since used his personal "evolution" on the question to garner those supporters who became disillusioned with his continuation of the policies of his predecessor. Obama is cynically pandering to identity politics in order to disguise the anti-democratic policies that he himself has supported all along.

Oh well, I'm done with this. I gotta get to bed.


----------



## The Catboy (May 13, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> America has a lot of problems still.


We're a country that clams to have separation of church and state, but that's clearly a lie if we are still having a debate on gay marriage in the year 2012.
We claim to be free, but have a long history of oppression.
Congress is a joke.


Spoiler: this











America needs some real help. What our country really needs is a clear cut division between church and state. Religion should not play any role in government, once that happens America can finally move forward instead of being held back like we are now.


----------



## KingVamp (May 13, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> America has a lot of problems still.


Like everyone else in the world?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 13, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > America has a lot of problems still.
> ...



Except not everyone else in the world puts on a show that makes it seem like it's the greatest place ever. Like Catboy said, they're still behind a lot of countries in terms of moving forward for humanity basically.


----------



## smile72 (May 13, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > America has a lot of problems still.
> ...


Our politicians always say how great we are,yet we lack universal healthcare, we actually discuss same sex marriage (instead of it already being legal) people always cite 5000-6000 years of history (if you know what I mean) to deny same sex marriage.


----------



## Gahars (May 13, 2012)

Calculated political move or not, the fact that he is the first president in office to come out and support gay marriage is a pretty significant step forward. Hopefully this will lead to more action by his administration should he receive another term.


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 13, 2012)

I feel that coming out with this statement may do more harm than good with his re-election. He had said before that he was against it, and to now say he supports it could identify him among voters as a flip-flop.


----------



## smile72 (May 13, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> I feel that coming out with this statement may do more harm than good with his re-election. He had said before that he was against it, and to now say he supports it could identify him among voters as a flip-flop.


Not more damage than Mitt Romney has already done with his flip flops http://issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm


----------



## Gahars (May 13, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> I feel that coming out with this statement may do more harm than good with his re-election. He had said before that he was against it, and to now say he supports it could identify him among voters as a flip-flop.



I'm guessing that's why he placed a lot of emphasis on the "evolving" part of the statement. It would make sense to portray his new conclusion as the result of a long and thought out process, rather than a sudden shift.

To be entirely fair, Mitt Romney has had a record of "flip flopping" on the issue, too. If the GOP tries to paint Obama as a flip flopper, his campaign could just respond by citing those; it would probably come out as a stalemate.


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 13, 2012)

smile72 said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > I feel that coming out with this statement may do more harm than good with his re-election. He had said before that he was against it, and to now say he supports it could identify him among voters as a flip-flop.
> ...



*looks through list*
*finds "Mitt Romney on Drugs"*
*giggles a little*


----------



## The Catboy (May 13, 2012)

Off-topic, please ignore


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2012)

I find the concept of flip flopping and that it could be perceived as a bad thing quite amusing- if it is actually the result of new information (for instance my personal beliefs of the viability of research into certain areas on the occasions I ignore the blue sky research side of me can change and change often depending upon other things) even better although I can not really see a downside here.

Otherwise I think I will probably echo myself- I am not entirely sure of the need for marriage in general (although I should note the rather large difference in the ideas/perception of marriage between the US and much of Europe) but as long it affords legal benefits (although in the UK my accountant would tell me not to get married as the benefits are not that useful in many and maybe most situations* not to mention are few and far between) and other such things I do not see why it should not be allowed between members of the same sex.
Edit poor phrasing- even if marriage was a meaningless act I would still have no objection to it being between members of the same sex other than my objections to pointless paperwork.

*mainly that a married couple is only allowed one place of residence as far as tax on selling goes but two "single" people are quite free to have two places of residence with each having a primary residence.

Also somewhat unrelated link but I find it amusing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKftRlzh2RM


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 13, 2012)

i want to marry a dog now, also one of those my little ponies and my laptop. all at the same time

no seriously, i dont see why its even an issue, let them marry, shesh.
its not that hard to make marriage strictly between two human beings that are off age and love each other, for all those weird "gay marriage is a slippery slope leading to all kinds of weird shit." marriage itself is the slippery slope, why not just forbid that entirely then?

also, as far as gay parents go, there should be a general need for a parenting license for every single person becoming or wanting to become a parent. men and women, straight or gay.
cause seriously, theres so many kids growing up with unfit parents, its terrifying


also, on the note that this is calculated eleciontalk, say what? obviously, he held this back to use it for support issues, why would he not? it was supposed to be one of his aces. now, that vice president kinda ruined it, forcing obama to reveal it prematurely. thats sad. could have been used better. but oh well, now, why is that even an issue?
everything said in the months and years before an election is calculated. appart from the few times when they just fuck it up, or have it fucked up by a certain vice president. so its ironcal how republicans go and say "he's just saying that to get elected" cause they do just the same thing


----------



## Skelletonike (May 13, 2012)

My country has really strong ties with the church, I mean, the Prime Minister and President had to discuss a few holidays with our Head Bishop in order to see if some of those christian holidays could be cut (in the end two of them will be only suspended until 2016, and then they'll go back to being effective), however there was a vote like two years ago, if people accepted gay marriage to be legal or not, and it became legal.
Religion might influence things a bit, but it's mainly up to the people and tbh, the way the US deal with it's religions is really messed up and confusing to me.


----------



## Fibrizo (May 13, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's "support" of gay marriage is nothing more than a calculated ruse in order to rake in campaign donations at a time when his re-election is on the line.
> ...



Yes and no


At first he did but to get votes for a while he says no and now he needs votes again so he now supports it .

Is all politics.


----------



## Hitomi163 (May 13, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > America has a lot of problems still.
> ...



Anyone else hear banjos when they see that second pic?


----------



## Rogue_Syst3m (May 13, 2012)

im  sorry mitt is a tool, even if you dont like obama, really he's our best bet? pssh


----------



## Jakob95 (May 13, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > America has a lot of problems still.
> ...


Marriang your first cousin is disgusting.


----------



## Alaude (May 13, 2012)

*sigh..* another vote pooling decision....even though the decision could have been taken earlier/


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 13, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > ShadowSoldier said:
> ...



It's actually kind of odd, my aunt and uncle are like 8th cousins or something like that, and they got married. It was only years into the marriage that they found out.


----------



## digipokemaster (May 14, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > The Catboy said:
> ...


that about the same in my family i found that sick but they didnt know until a few year after they were married. and im hoping he doesnt flip flop again but im voting for him


----------



## Jakob95 (May 14, 2012)

Nah 8 cousins who cares really?  That's so so so far away.  I think 2nd cousins, 1st cousins, 3rd cousins, and maybe 4th cousins is disgusting.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2012)

I dunno how this got on marrying your cousins but one of our greatest presidents married his fifth cousin.

FDR was a major poonhound.

But yeah, what were we talking about again?


----------



## The Milkman (May 14, 2012)

Why is this even something that needs to be supported? I dont care what a friggn 4000+ Year old book says, no where in the constitution does it actually define what marrage is, if Gay people want to be married then so be it! Its not harming society as a whole anyway, and if we are finally over the fact that Gay people exist, why is it even a discussion of letting them get married.


----------



## Gahars (May 14, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I dunno how this got on marrying your cousins but one of our greatest presidents married his fifth cousin.
> 
> FDR was a major poonhound.



Seriously.

He was the NPH (Note: An entirely separate entity from the actor Neil Patrick Harris) of United States presidents.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (May 14, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S48uD-RFWBs&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (May 14, 2012)

Elections are coming, I'm hardly surprised.


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

Well now, Manny Pacquiao has now spoken out against Obama.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing/manny-pacquiao-congressman-pacquiao-rips-president-obama-stance-165741476.html


----------



## The Catboy (May 16, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Well now, Manny Pacquiao has now spoken out against Obama.
> http://sports.yahoo....-165741476.html


I have a few problems with this.
1. Why the fuck is a boxer in Congress?
2. Reading what he has to say, it's clear that he is just judgmentally quoting something he knows nothing about.
3. This is the biggest problem, who the fuck let him in congress?


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Well now, Manny Pacquiao has now spoken out against Obama.
> ...


The Philippines did, and if it makes you feel any better, he's kind of an asshole so his opinion is no better than Jerry Falwell or Jim Bakkar.
Edit: He represent Sarangani


----------



## Pablo3DS (May 16, 2012)

WHAT THE HELL ?! 2012 , THE END OF WORLD


----------



## The Catboy (May 16, 2012)

smile72 said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


But the fact that a boxer is part of Congress only makes me feel that we are one step closer to to becoming the movie Idiocracy
And I repeat



The Catboy said:


> Congress is a joke.


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > The Catboy said:
> ...


The Philippines Congress might be, but for right now ours isn't, it is close to becoming one. We keep electing crazy assholes who say I will only compromise if I get 100% of what I want. To Indiana's new Tea Party darling Richard Mourdock. May he never be a Senator.


----------



## exangel (May 16, 2012)

Pacquiao is a national hero in the Philippines and hearing his name on GMA & TFC all the time, I wasn't surprised to learn he represents a province in the Philippines.

but on topic:


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

exangel said:


> Pacquiao is a national hero in the Philippines and hearing his name on GMA & TFC all the time, I wasn't surprised to learn he represents a province in the Philippines.
> 
> but on topic:


Oh yeah, I also love it when they mention that marriage has always been between one man and one woman for 5000 years, thus meaning they are foolish and forgot Utah, and the United States's early years when our stance was one white man and one white woman.


----------



## exangel (May 16, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Oh yeah, I also love it when they mention that marriage has always been between one man and one woman for 5000 years, thus meaning they are foolish and forgot Utah, and the United States's early years when our stance was one white man and one white woman.


I got one better for you:




(please spoiler if you quote it XD)

edit: accidentally the wrong (less legible) resolution.


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

exangel said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah, I also love it when they mention that marriage has always been between one man and one woman for 5000 years, thus meaning they are foolish and forgot Utah, and the United States's early years when our stance was one white man and one white woman.
> ...


The bible is so romantic.


----------



## insidexdeath (May 16, 2012)

No offence to anyone gay here, but I don't see anything natural in gay marriage.

You don't get to have children of your own, so it's basically just pointless.


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> No offence to anyone gay here, but I don't see anything natural in gay marriage.
> 
> You don't get to have children of your own, so it's basically just pointless.


To be fair, then women who can't get pregnant and men who are infertile are useless, and also shouldn't be allowed to marry either, they can't procreate, what purpose does their marriage serve?


----------



## insidexdeath (May 16, 2012)

smile72 said:


> insidexdeath said:
> 
> 
> > No offence to anyone gay here, but I don't see anything natural in gay marriage.
> ...



That's something that naturally happened, homosexuality isn't natural. You're not getting my point here.


----------



## The Catboy (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> No offence to anyone gay here, but I don't see anything natural in gay marriage.
> 
> You don't get to have children of your own, so it's basically just pointless.


But that poses a greater question on people who marry and either don't want or can't have kids. Does that not make their marriage pointless?


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > insidexdeath said:
> ...


----------



## insidexdeath (May 16, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> insidexdeath said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...



Because biologically, you don't get anything out of gay marriage.


----------



## The Catboy (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > insidexdeath said:
> ...


Why do you feel it's not natural? I know what you are saying, but it still doesn't make much sense to use that as an argument.



insidexdeath said:


> But sooner or later, they will have kids. I've seen people with the same problem saying that they don't plan on having kids as apparently they're not ready for it, but as time passes, they'll have children.


I have seen too people who didn't want kids not have kids. The argument that marriage should be about procreation is flimsy at best.


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > insidexdeath said:
> ...


----------



## Deleted-188346 (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > insidexdeath said:
> ...


Your original point was clearly "they can't have children, therefore it's not natural".
Now you're backpedaling and reverting to an even stupider argument of "homosexuality isn't natural/is a choice".

Please don't imply that smile72 isn't getting your point, because he did.


----------



## The Catboy (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> Because biologically, you don't get anything out of gay marriage.


Whatever happened to happiness and love? Marriage is not about just having  children.
I get what you are saying, it's just a flimsy weak argument.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 16, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> insidexdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Because biologically, you don't get anything out of gay marriage.
> ...



its a crazy world

its not about having children.
doesnt stop them to keep trying just incase 

divorce rate would drop tho i think


----------



## insidexdeath (May 16, 2012)

Puppy_Washer said:


> insidexdeath said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...



Actually he didn't, what I've been trying to say is when a guy marries another guy, they don't get anything out of their marriage as in having children, forming a family etc.... They only get satisfaction out of it.

And if you got anything nicer to say, I'm welcome to comment on it, so let's stop the tough Internet acting on the Internet.


The Catboy said:


> insidexdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Because biologically, you don't get anything out of gay marriage.
> ...



I understand that, but let's give it a deep thinking... Do you get to have children? Do you guys form a family that you care about? I know that you'll obviously look after each other.

Not trying to be offensive here, it's just my opinion.


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> Puppy_Washer said:
> 
> 
> > insidexdeath said:
> ...


Yes, gays can form a family by adopting children or using a surrogate.


----------



## exangel (May 16, 2012)

Politics controlling the taxation or recognition of a relationship is the opposite of natural, so why is there any need to define marriage as requiring any conceivable notion of what's natural?

And I was going to cite a species of monkey that participates in bisexual partnerships (females procreate with a male but partners for pleasure (literally, for climax) with another female) but I couldn't find the specifics of it.  -- but that's where I go about thumb-upping smile72's assertion


----------



## insidexdeath (May 16, 2012)

smile72 said:


> insidexdeath said:
> 
> 
> > Puppy_Washer said:
> ...



You just said it! "Adopting children"

Meaning they're not really their own, they're just kids from a different family. Sometimes I get the feeling when you have your own child, it feels like it's your own, you created this human being and you're responsible for it. Same goes for adopting the children, you need to be responsible, but you don't really feel like you've created it and you don't really feel like they're your own.


----------



## The Catboy (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> I understand that, but let's give it a deep thinking... Do you get to have children? Do you guys form a family that you care about? I know that you'll obviously look after each other.
> 
> Not trying to be offensive here, it's just my opinion.


I actually don't want kids, even if I were with a women, I still wouldn't want kids. Not everyone on the planet is programmed to want to reproduce. Personally I feel the planet has enough people, me not having kids is doing the world a favor.
Still marriage is personal thing, it's a personal bond between people who love each other enough to want to make a full commitment to other. This relationship should not effect the lives others outside of the two who made this commitment. Saying that a marriage should only be about kids, truly ruins the this "sanctity of marriage" people go on about. Honestly people should even care what people do in their own private lives as long as it's not hurting anyone, who cares?



insidexdeath said:


> You just said it! "Adopting children"
> 
> Meaning they're not really their own, they're just kids from a different family. Sometimes I get the feeling when you have your own child, it feels like it's your own, you created this human being and you're responsible for it. Same goes for adopting the children, you need to be responsible, but you don't really feel like you've created it and you don't really feel like they're your own.


What's so bad about adoption? There are kids out there who need a family and want a family. Just because a kid wasn't born to you, doesn't make it any less your child


----------



## Gahars (May 16, 2012)

@*insidexdeath*

How does committing yourself to another human being equate to satisfaction? If homosexuals were only after satisfaction, why bother with the legal hassles of marriage?

Plus,  if you see "starting a family" as the only purpose behind marriage, gay couples could form families, too. They could adopt orphaned children and provide them with a caring home environment.


----------



## exangel (May 16, 2012)

Sanctity in a marriage is love, commitment, and willingness to deal with difficult problems.  The sacred bond is what the couple finds in each other.
All I really want for this country is for domestic partnerships to be marriage and for marriage to be politically equivalent to domestic partnerships.  The definition of marriage from the point of the government's involvement needs only to be for the point of how taxation and living arrangements keep the economy intact.  There really shouldn't be such a big deal about it but the political/media machine and the influence of evangelical/conservative republicans is really strong in this country.  As Skelletonike said, even in Portugal, where there is a strong Catholic influence on the state, the public voted to let gays marry.

As Clint Eastwood so eloquently put it,


			
				Clint Eastwood said:
			
		

> "These people who are making a big deal about gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of ... Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."



edit:



insidexdeath said:


> You just said it! "Adopting children"
> 
> Meaning they're not really their own, they're just kids from a different family. Sometimes I get the feeling when you have your own child, it feels like it's your own, you created this human being and you're responsible for it. Same goes for adopting the children, you need to be responsible, but you don't really feel like you've created it and *you don't really feel like they're your own.*


What a second here, have *you* ever adopted a child?  Can you honestly tell me that spending years nurturing, financially supporting, teaching, and worrying about a child would take a backseat to the fact they aren't actually your biological offspring?  I know people who are adopted and their parents are just as committed IF NOT MORE SO to the fact these individuals are their child.  Especially those who were adopted because their parents had infertility..
And my uncle has zero custody over a girl who treats him 100% as her father because he was there for her throughout her secondary school when her mother and sister got into trouble with the law -- when she stopped calling him by his name and started simply calling him her father, he told me his life was fulfilled in a way he never expected.


----------



## smile72 (May 16, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > insidexdeath said:
> ...


I don't think you know how ignorant you sound, there are so many children without a family that would want one, they don't care if they are gay or straight it's still their family. They feel the same attachment to the children because they want children, they love them like any other parent. That goes for both gay and straight couples that adopt.


----------



## Sterling (May 16, 2012)

Bah, just because homosexuality isn't natural, doesn't mean the government can tell you that you can't marry. Then again, the government has no right in telling you who to marry. The government should have no say on this matter. Period. Marriage is only a really strong bond (any relationship really). I can see nothing but good things from bonding with people. Besides, the Bible is incredibly outdated. Feelings and opinions change vastly over the course of a century, and the Bible is much, much older.

EDIT: I'm still not voting for Obama.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (May 16, 2012)

Whether or not someone "supports" gay marriage...why would you want to put a stop to someone's happiness, just because THEY are doing what YOU don't like? Whatever happened to live and let live? You want to hear it from the Good Book? *sigh* fine.



> *	1 Thessalonians 4:11*
> 
> New International Version (NIV)
> 11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you,





> *	Matthew 7:1-5*
> 
> New International Version (NIV)
> 
> ...





> *	Romans 2:1*
> 
> New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.





> *	Romans 14:10-13*
> 
> New International Version (NIV)
> 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.  11 It is written:
> ...


----------



## Anon10W1z (May 17, 2012)

So, he lets people do what they want to when it comes to marriage. Good job to him (It's not wrong or anything).


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 17, 2012)

He wants some more votes! I'd do the same.


----------



## Densetsu (May 17, 2012)

@[member='insidexdeath']


----------



## tatripp (May 17, 2012)

Hey Densetsu, how about this one? Gays can't get married because it is not possible for them to get married. Even if the government passes a law that all squares only have three sides, that doesn't make it so.


----------



## Densetsu (May 17, 2012)

tatripp said:


> Hey Densetsu, how about this one? Gays can't get married because it is not possible for them to get married. Even if the government passes a law that all squares only have three sides, that doesn't make it so.


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.  

You didn't say why gay people _*shouldn't*_ get married.  You merely stated a fact that gays can't get married because the government doesn't allow it.  What you said is neither an argument for nor against gay marriage.


----------



## Rockhoundhigh (May 17, 2012)

Incoming shitstorm, oh boy :/


----------



## Fear Zoa (May 17, 2012)

This is turning into the biggest hot button issue since the abolition of slavery, its kinda similar if you think about it


----------



## BlueStar (May 17, 2012)

tatripp said:


> Hey Densetsu, how about this one? Gays can't get married because it is not possible for them to get married. Even if the government passes a law that all squares only have three sides, that doesn't make it so.



Says who?  The church?  The Christian church that didn't even exist whent he concept of marriage was invented?  Anyway, if we're looking to the Bible for what a marriage should be then we're not exactly going to have 'traditional' marriages, are we?  Adam and Eve weren't married and a lot of Gods favourite dudes in the bible had like 200 wives.  It baffles me that religions act like they invented or own marriage. Indeed *gay marriage* was around in Greece before Christianity came along.

Anyway, back in the real world, this article sums up the GOP stance on marriage quite well - especially on how, after deliberately making it a wedge issue when it suited them, they're now trying to sweep it under the carpet and act like it's unfair to even mention it at the moment.

http://www.slate.com..._divisive_.html

As for this argument about how it's just about having children and procreating the species (wow, how romantic), on top of the valid points made about infertile couples if you want to be popping babies out as your numebr one priority monogamous marriage is the worst thing you can do.  You can only get one woman pregnant every 9 months.  Best to stay single and just sleep with as many people as you can.

I don't think anyone who says they're against marriage equality seriously thinks that in 50 years time people will look back and say they were on the right side of history.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 17, 2012)

insidexdeath said:


> But sooner or later, they will have kids. I've seen people with the same problem saying that they don't plan on having kids as apparently they're not ready for it, but as time passes, they'll have children.



Just because you ran into examples like that, doesn't mean everybody is like that. My older sister is 30, and she's been with her boyfriend for close to ten years now. They're not getting married, and they don't want children. Not everybody wants little shits running around the house and everything. Some people just want to make it officially exclusive because the person they are with make them more than happy. Now, if two people, a guy and a woman can get away with that, why can't two gay people get married to the person that makes them feel more than happy?

Both instances have it where kids won't be in the future. Both are with people they love and are loved back. The only difference is one group has two dongs, while the other has one.


----------



## BlueStar (May 17, 2012)

Also, presumably if it's all about procreation, a person who finds out that the love of their life is infertile should go marry someone else instead?  You know, because they're doing it for stupid reasons like love rather than flooding the planet with excess people like good little worker bees?

I'm yet to see anything even approaching a coherent argument against gay marriage in this thread, I'm afraid.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> insidexdeath said:
> 
> 
> > But sooner or later, they will have kids. I've seen people with the same problem saying that they don't plan on having kids as apparently they're not ready for it, but as time passes, they'll have children.
> ...


I obviously agree that gay marrage is eh-oh-kay, it doesn't particularily matter which genders are involved. If they want to be "married", meaning, make their union legally binding and "on paper", thus taking care of all the iheritence issues, tax issues etc. then hell, they're entitled to - _they're not hurting anyone and they love eachother_.

What I don't agree is the statement that some couples don't want children, to be precise, I don't like the _some_ part of it. Humans have a natural drive towards procreation, especially women, which kicks in sooner or later. Rarely do people lack this drive or experience it so mellowly that it doesn't lead towards trying for a child, even rarer do two people who don't have this drive meet - it's a _one in a million situation_. "Some" doesn't exactly cut it, I'd say "a handful" at best.



BlueStar said:


> Also, presumably if it's all about procreation, a person who finds out that the love of their life is *infertile *should go marry someone else instead?


Adoption. It would be extremely beneficial, so many children are suffering without a mother or a father they could turn to, if a couple can accept that "their child didn't exactly try to rip the mother into two", it should be the default option in this case.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 17, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > insidexdeath said:
> ...



Well you can count my older sister in that handful then, same with her BF. They don't want children at all. They don't mind them, they just dont want any to call their own.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Well you can count my older sister in that handful then, same with her BF. They don't want children at all. They don't mind them, they just dont want any to call their own.


Oh, sure - I'm not saying _"you're wrong"_, that would be stupid (yes, I'm writing this before someone says "_No, your sister is lying to you!" _or something like that), it's your sister - you know her better. What I meant was that it's a extremely small minority of people - for most procreation's not even a choice per say, it's just something they start feeling that they should do at some point in their life and feel uneasy and incomplete if they don't.


----------



## Alaude (May 17, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > ShadowSoldier said:
> ...



Thats what all new couples feel but then as time goes by they will change their mind i guarantee it


----------



## BlueStar (May 17, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which is exactly what homosexual couples can do.

But I agree with ShadowSoldier, I know plenty of people who aren't interested in having kids.  And yes, I sure some of them get the patronising "Oh, you MUST do, you will eventually" but getting your tubes snipped kind of indicates this isn't the case.  It's very presumptious to pretend you know what people will feel later.

Do you at least agree that there are people who can't have kids who aren#t bothered enough about it to want fertility treatment or to adopt, but just accept that's the way it is and deal with it?  Are they in any way 'less married' or less of a person because they're not selfishly spurting out excess people into an already populated planet?


----------



## Sicklyboy (May 17, 2012)

_Oh, hey, another one of these threads._

May as well say what I say in every one of these threads.

--If you're straight and want to get married, get married.
--If you're straight and don't want to get married, don't get married.
--If you're gay and don't want to get married, don't get married.
--If you're gay and want to get married, why the fuck should anyone be allowed to stop you?

I'm pro-same sex marriage.  Me and my girlfriend will some day get married and live happily ever after, and if two gay guys or two gay girls want to do the same thing, then for fucks sake they should be allowed to.  Me and my girlfriend shouldn't have any special privileges because we're in a heterosexual relationship, and in the same light, a same sex couple shouldn't have any more or any less right than my girlfriend and I do.

We're all human, we all bleed the same color, we all pay taxes, and we all die.  That should be all there is to it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2012)

Alaude said:


> Thats what all new couples feel but then as time goes by they will change their mind i guarantee it


Except they're not a new couple - they've been together for 10 years (right? I think I read so...). It's entirely possible that their drive just didn't kick in at all, albeit it's quite rare, it's a possibility.



BlueStar said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > BlueStar said:
> ...


...and this is where the real discussion starts,

Many people are eh-o-kay with gay marriage, but they're not exactly on-board with gay couples adopting children, for various reasons.


----------



## Alaude (May 17, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Alaude said:
> 
> 
> > Thats what all new couples feel but then as time goes by they will change their mind i guarantee it
> ...



I have seen many people like that even when their drive just doesn't kick in, they will regret it in the future when its too late


----------



## BlueStar (May 17, 2012)

And some people are the opposite - Mitt Romney is against gay marriage but thinks gays should have the right to adopt.

I think it's immoral to deny homosexual couples to do either and I think it's inevitable in western society they'll eventually get those rights.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Do you at least agree that there are people who can't have kids who aren#t bothered enough about it to want fertility treatment or to adopt, but just accept that's the way it is and deal with it?  Are they in any way 'less married' or less of a person because they're not selfishly spurting out excess people into an already populated planet?


Of course I do, it would be _stupid_ not to. Getting married is not means towards having children - you can have children without that. Getting married is exchanging vows in a relationship and legalazing it for various benefits, to which they should be entirely entitled to because "why the hell not"?


----------



## BlueStar (May 17, 2012)

Alaude said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Alaude said:
> ...



No, not always they won't.  They might, however, get sick of busybody little twats pitying them and thinking they're only pretending they're perfectly happy without kids.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> I think it's immoral to deny homosexual couples to do either and I think it's inevitable in western society they'll eventually get those rights.


I often get bashed for my views on adoption, but I can't exactly make an exception from my beliefs just because the issue concerns gays and lesbians. As a strong believer in behaviourism, I can't say I support adoption by gay couples, but I'm perfectly okay with them marrying. That is all, I'd rather not get dragged into a longer discussion on why I think so - it always leads to flamewars anyways.


----------



## Alaude (May 17, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's immoral to deny homosexual couples to do either and I think it's inevitable in western society they'll eventually get those rights.
> ...



I agree with your point. its not that i'm against gay and lesbians couples adopting children but i don't think its appropriate. think about it, the child will not know the essence of having a mother or a father.


----------



## BlueStar (May 17, 2012)

The whole "natrual" thing is a bit daft in general, the 'natural' thing for men to do is to have sex with as many women as possible to give their genes the best chance of being passed on, monogomous heterosexual marriage is a very unnatural constraint.

EDIT FOR ABOVE: If the child grows up with two loving parents, they've got a huge advantage on a massive number of children born to heterosexual couples.  Or would it be better for a chidl to live in a care home or be shunted between foster parents than to have a permanent, loving home with parents who are a same-sex couple?  If gay people can marry, they have all the rights married couples have, including adoption.  People are going to ahve to learn to deal with these things sooner or later.


----------



## Sicklyboy (May 17, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Alaude said:
> 
> 
> > Thats what all new couples feel but then as time goes by they will change their mind i guarantee it
> ...


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2012)

Before people jump other people simply because they're not on-board with gay couples child-rearing, I'd like to add that in my ranking it's still a better deal than raising children in toxic environments like abusive, agressive families, families with extremely radical views, families with a history of drug or alcohol abuse and so on.

Adoption or having children in general is not a right of hetero couples, it's everyone's right. There are simply better and worse environments to do so. I would sooner deny the right to have children to a nazi couple than to a gay one, but the theoretical ideal environment is a male and a female example, loving atmosphere and satisfactory living conditions.


----------



## Sicklyboy (May 17, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Before people jump other people simply because they're not on-board with gay couples child-rearing, I'd like to add that in my ranking it's still a better deal than raising children in toxic environments like abusive, agressive families, families with extremely radical views, families with a history of drug or alcohol abuse and so on.
> 
> Adoption or having children in general is not a right of hetero couples, it's everyone's right. There are simply better and worse environments to do so. I would sooner deny the right to have children to a nazi couple than to a gay one, but the theoretical ideal environment is a male and a female example, loving atmosphere and satisfactory living conditions.



If that was directed towards me, I hope it wasn't coming off that I was trying to put down your opinion.

I do agree that adoption by a same sex couple might not be the _ideal_ environment, but I don't necessarily think it would be a _bad_ or harmful one (emotionally nor physically) either.  I think (hope, at least) the kid could grow up knowing that love doesn't necessarily have to mean a man and a woman, and that that kind of a relationship should be okay if that's their thing; that theyothers shouldn't need to feel any sort of societal pressure to feel some way that they don't actually feel.

Granted, _that's just my opinion, and everyone is rightfully entitled to their own, and I respect that._


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2012)

Oh no, it was not directed at you. You are civilized members. I love you to bits man, Blue also a great person to talk to since he's a learned guy who knows his stuff and isn't one to childishly squabble. You both have my respect, it's just that I know that at some point someone might read those opinions as ambiguous and turn this thread into a flame pit for no reason.


----------



## BlueStar (May 17, 2012)

This guy can talk about gay marriage and adoption with more authority than me (Zach, the second guy - not the low functioning bloke beforehand)


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 17, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > Well you can count my older sister in that handful then, same with her BF. They don't want children at all. They don't mind them, they just dont want any to call their own.
> ...



But as Catboy I think said it, if gay people want to have kids, they can adopt.


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2012)

Alaude said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > BlueStar said:
> ...


That would be the same with single parents.


----------

