Why did Obama chose this time to announce support for same sex marriage??

[jesus marion joseph]

Isn't that Mike Adams piece being featured in Troglodyte Quarterly?

[tippy]

Let people be who they are. We don't care what you do with your privates. Why should you care what others do with theirs? That's way too much to keep track of in this life. Every release. Geeze louise. If people could accept that some people believe that physical pleasure is not a bad thing - God gave us our bodies to have that experience - that sexual desire is not something shameful that just men have to deal with - we'd be way better off. It would even be better for a lot of marriages.

Many caring adults are capable of raising children. We have singles - men and women - as well as two-parent families raising children to mixed effects, why not two parents of the same gender? The only negative thing is if you stigmatize those parents. What if you have a gay child in a Christian home? Oh lordy...I can tell you all about that; Utah happens to have a high teen suicide rate, and it appears to be a lot of gay teens taking their own lives. What if you were saddled with that? Would you rather your child take his own life, than accept that child you brought into the world for who they are? I KNOW that almost everybody of any religious belief would rather that their child stay in this world and that they could be together. This isn't politics; this is as personal and as intimate as it gets. Quit wreaking havoc on people's lives, especially where you have no idea what you are talking about. No idea whatsoever of the effects that this discriminatory evil eye brings upon people. It's real, and it can only be called bad.

[tippy]

Seriously, stop the fear and the hate. God did not create you to be fearful or to be hateful. If that's the God you believe in and want to have, okay. But that is not my God. If you believe only God can pass judgment and decide who a person is, trust Him to do His job and know, that among other things, not everything is for you to understand and you should mind your own business, take care of that much, and stay out of the business of others. This isn't just hurt feelings at stake here, it's people's lives and that's why discrimination is so bad and people practicing it have the heaviest of burdens on their shoulders and what's particularly frustrating is they haven't the first clue about it.

[baksheesh]

Three Views on Same Sex Marriage

By Mike Adams

5/21/2012

For conservatives, the issue is pretty simple. The institution of marriage predates any existing government or nation. So no government has a right to redefine marriage. But it is okay for the government to become entangled with marriage towards the end of promoting marriage. The institution is good. It tames men. It protects women. It is good for children. Therefore, it is worth promoting.

This is far and away one of the most abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous ideas I've ever heard trumpeted. I mean this logic would also have to apply to all other social institutions that predate 'existing governments or nations'.

Wonkiak you should be fucking ashamed of yourself for parading this dribble in front of us.



Conservatives are unimpressed with overly simplistic appeals to freedom. When evaluating the “freedom to marry” they refuse to stop at the question “Is it free?” They also ask the question “Is it good?” Same sex marriage does not tame men, it does not protect women, and it is not good for or even conducive to raising children. Hence, there is no need for government recognition of same-sex unions.

Using an ugly, ridiculous definition of marriage, which is antiquated and smacks of the fucking 'barbaric' age, does not do this argument any favours. The follow on argument regarding ability of same sex marriages to create a good environment in which to raise children, is not backed up by facts, and is merely an odious statement which sits there like a fresh hobo turd on the pavement.

Nor are conservatives impressed with overly simplistic appeals to equality. One cannot even say that male-male unions are equal to female-female unions. The former are much less stable than the latter. How could one possibly assert sameness between same-sexed and opposite-sexed unions?

How many 'opposite-sexed unions' are deeply unhappy, unstable and horrendously damaging for those involved? The answer: shed loads of them. One could make an argument for: 'Same sex marriage: source of untold misery over the millenia'.

When arguments for polygamy do arise, liberals will weigh them in conjunction with their effects on other groups. The argument that Mormons have been historically oppressed will have to be weighed against claims that polygamy advances the oppression of women. Regardless, the issue will be decided based on its presumed effects upon groups, rather than individuals. According to liberals, rights are not given to individuals by God. They are given to groups by government.

I would emphatically agree with this statement as the converse is fucking absurd, and extraordinarily dangerous to boot. To think numerous people are runnning around out there in the U.S. who believe that some arbitrary 'concept' termed 'God' gave rights to individuals. Terrifying thought.

Put simply, liberals reject the status quo on marriage because they see equality as a compelling reason for the government to promote same sex unions. And they accept the authority of the government to equate unequal things – even at the expense of redefining institutions that predate the existence of the government.

For libertarians, recognizing marriage in any form is problematic. The true libertarian considers both the conservative and the liberal to be misguided on the issue. Libertarians believe the conservative is wrong to think that government should be in the business of promoting a religious institution. Libertarians believe the liberal is even more misguided to believe that government should recognize and regulate an even broader range of relationships than it already does.

The last two paragraphs are unmitigated bullshit from beginning to end, not to mention full of a subtly expressed hatred for tolerance of difference.

In sum, Wonkiak, you should be fucking ashamed to be peddling this vomit here, as though it represents the kind of opinions a genuine human being would be capable of holding.

[Uli]

In sum, Wonkiak, you should be fucking ashamed to be peddling this vomit here, as though it represents the kind of opinions a genuine human being would be capable of holding.

.

haha; that woozie shit is deep, if marriage tames men they should at least allow same sex marrage between men. tame two in one swoop.

[LennyH]

Oh, Wozzie. What a mess that article is.

These are the types of arguments people make when they dig in on a position first and then look for every sorry argument they can find to justify it.

[Blue Train]

Why does anyone even bother when he get's like this?

[LennyH]

Why does anyone even bother when he get's like this?

I like Wozzie but normally don't read the articles he pastes (waste of time). I got sucked in here because I really have a bug up my ass when it comes to this issue.

However...we know it's just a matter of time and we're on the winning side of this issue. And so does Wozzie .

[jesus marion joseph]

.

haha; that woozie shit is deep, if marriage tames men they should at least allow same sex marrage between men. tame two in one swoop.

The Taming of the Two!!

[Dr Dave]

The Taming of the Two!!

LOL

I can't remember, did you ever hang out with Tom and Rob? The guys who had the baby with the lesbian couple, whose names I'm ashamed to say I don't remember? Anyway, Rob used to say he was just like me, except where I was into babes, he was into hunks. I remember thinking that seemed logical. Of course, it was at their house, which means I was probably drunk and high. You can get a lot past me when I'm in that condition.

[baksheesh]

.

haha; that woozie shit is deep, if marriage tames men they should at least allow same sex marrage between men. tame two in one swoop.

[jesus marion joseph]

A quick google search, which I realize does not equate to a formal study, turns up this:

"Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.
"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...der21_ST_N.htm

I don't see how you can call for serious study, though, when the positions taken in that article advocate a political approach to determining one's position relative to same sex marriages. I know nothing about the author, but I do know the article itself is pure crap.

Dave, I don't think I've Tom and Rob, I'm afraid.

[patricia]

LOL

I can't remember, did you ever hang out with Tom and Rob? The guys who had the baby with the lesbian couple, whose names I'm ashamed to say I don't remember? Anyway, Rob used to say he was just like me, except where I was into babes, he was into hunks. I remember thinking that seemed logical. Of course, it was at their house, which means I was probably drunk and high. You can get a lot past me when I'm in that condition.

I've been seeing your posts for a few years now, Dave, and, although many of them have made me laugh out loud, this is a classic. Love it. Love it!!