The President comes out in support of gay marriage!

Post Reply New Topic

I doubt it, for the simple reason that those opposed to gay marriage are likely already in the Republican column.

One exception: BO will still get 98% or whatever of the African-American vote, This despite the fact that it was (ironically) the high turnout of African-Americans in 2008 that sank California's gay rights law.

BTW, I thought he said he OPPOSED gay marriage in the 2008 election, rather than just keeping silent about the issue? Am I not remembering correctly?

If a constitutional amendment was proposed that said "heterosexuals cannot bear arms; the right to bear arms only extends to homosexuals" you see the ridiculousness of the argument...

Pretty much.

I don't see gay marriage as a moral issue-- although, being neither gay nor God, it's really none of my business what God thinks of gay people.

I see it as a civil rights issue, very cut and dried-- although I suppose you could argue that it's immoral to treat part of the population as lesser persons under the law simply because you, personally, are not comfortable with their personal lifestyle choices.

Kind of like certain other social minorities that find themselves being told they deserve to be s**t upon for being overtly different...

In the end, it's all about if there should be a box, how big it should be, what shape, and who gets to decide. I can't believe we're still fighting about this stuff. Humans suck.

Mitt Romney was one of those pricks who I hated back in school. He was doubtlessly the poster boy for NT bullies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It is a gender discrimination issue pure and simple, you don't even need to use the words "gay" and "straight" to make the argument.

If my friend can marry a man because she is a woman, but I cannot marry a man because I am a man, then I am being discriminated against because of my gender. It falls under the same category as women being allowed to vote, men being allowed paternity leave, etc.

I think the only reason people do not see it as a simple gender discrimination issue is that they are squeamish about the mechanics of gay sex and/or hung up on a couple of bible passages. Thus all the arguments about the "gay lifestyle," the "sanctity of marriage" and so forth, instead of simply coming out (no pun intended) and calling it what it is: telling Americans they must discriminate by gender when making the most important decision of their private lives.

I've always been bothered by this sort of thing. I mean, I can see how you might see it as a civil rights issue, but how can it seem cut and dried? I see people declaring it to be a right or a civil right all over the place, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to explain why.


Neither of those two things apply to me, but I can't see how it could be called a gender discrimination issue. No one gender is being forbidden anything.

I think you (and by 'you' I mean all the people who agree with you on this, not just you personally) should be careful when guessing other people's motivations. Especially people who you disagree with.

Apologies for putting words in other people's mouths... allow me to retract that and focus on explaining my own thoughts... it is tricky, but here it goes:

1) I don't really care about other people's prejudices and stereotypes. Changing how other people see the world is not my mission in life.

Likewise I expect to be left alone to believe what I want to believe and think what I want to think.

Many Americans discriminate by gender and/or sexual preference when they choose a spouse, for example a man might only marry a heterosexual woman, or a woman only marry a heterosexual man. They might even think it is "wrong" to be homosexual and marry someone of the same gender, and so they publicly speak out against it. That's OK with me!

What I do not appreciate is being legally required to adopt someone else's prejudice. Maybe I don't care whether my spouse is a man or woman; I just want to find someone nice who respects me. But if the law requires that I must discriminate against 50% of the population when choosing my spouse, then I believe my freedom, to be the type of person who does not discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, is being violated.

It is illegal for a landlord or employer to discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual preference. But it is also illegal to not discriminate by gender or sexual preference in the bedroom or wedding chapel??? That seems absurd to me!

2) If a woman has a legal right to do something (marry a man), but a man does not have the same right, then how is that not gender discrimination? How is that not in the same category as mandating that gender pre-determines one's education/career/voting rights/social status?

(edit to say that I live in a state where same-sex marriage has been legal for years, therefore I tend to agree with the "states' rights" argument here)

I honestly do not understand what the big deal is about gay marriage. I'm for it being legal, and even if I was against the idea I don't see how it being legal would hurt me. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't force people to be in one. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights for a gay couple to marry. Somebody on Fox (saw it at my Mom's) today was talking about how legalizing it would imfringe on people's religious rights. How? Exactly how? They are still free to think it's wrong, not do it themselves, be haters and sit back and smile because they believe the gay people will go to hell. Their rights aren't touched by it at all.

If you are against gay marriage, don't be in one. Simple as that.

If a religion sanctifies same-sex marriage (and lots of them do, these days) then it is an invasion of religious freedom for the government to interfere.

The fact is, I don't think homosexuals make up even three percent of the American population, but listening to gay marriage opponents, you'd think every other marriage would be same sex! I think they're starting to believe their own BS.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Fair enough.


I don't see what prejudice has to do with it.


It cuts both ways. The man is forbidden from something, but the woman is also forbidden something in an entirely symmetric way.


This is actually a very good argument for it, thank you. The first I've seen, IIRC.

I have yet to see any decent arguments against gay marriage.

It generally all comes down to, "It's against my religion," or "It will make heterosexual marriages less special."

All garbage.

Time to move into the 21st century.

That you don't see your belief as a prejudice, does not mean that I must adopt a belief I do not personally agree with.



Exactly. Your choice of the word "cuts" is an acknowledgment that discrimination causes pain and suffering to the victims.

Fascinating article:

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Calling it "my belief" wouldn't be accurate. I'm not sure whether you're assuming that my belief is that gay people are horrible or lesser beings or something (which I've never believed) or that my belief is that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. If it's the second, I've pretty much held that position as a default, since I hadn't seen any good arguments against it, and the rather good point you made above might well end up making me change my mind. In either case, "belief" is too strong a word.


The phrase "cuts both ways" just means that something works the same in either direction.

No, I do not get the impression you are a hateful person. My impression of your "position" (let's drop the word "belief") is "marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman" but I don't want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent you...