President Obama Re-Elected - Page 91

On May 10 2012 13:18 BluePanther wrote:
It's because it tears down social structures and intrudes on people's personal beliefs. Most importantly, it's not a requirement to give them marriage to give them equal rights.

On May 10 2012 13:18 BluePanther wrote:


It's because it tears down social structures and intrudes on people's personal beliefs. Most importantly, it's not a requirement to give them marriage to give them equal rights.

Religious people want marraige, gays want equal rights. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Yet both sides act like they are, for reasons that baffle me (and apparently the President too, based on his musings in that interview).

On May 10 2012 13:13 BluePanther wrote:



I'm not having that debate here, you can look up some of my other posts if you truly, deeply, actually care what I think. I think it's in the primary thread. I don't really need some haughty "you're wrong, you must prove personal opinions with studies" response here.

It's off-topic and quite frankly, irrelevant to the topic. And the past few posts have given a few of many answers which give some of the reasons you'd oppose for social reasons. Not that I hold the same view, but I was just making the point that the only reason to not support it is religion or bigotry.

On May 10 2012 13:18 BluePanther wrote:


It's because it tears down social structures and intrudes on people's personal beliefs. Most importantly, it's not a requirement to give them marriage to give them equal rights.

Religious people want marraige, gays want equal rights. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Yet both sides act like they are, for reasons that baffle me (and apparently the President too, based on his musings in that interview).

On May 10 2012 13:25 Mindcrime wrote:


Oh, so they should have something separate.... but equal?

On May 10 2012 13:40 BluePanther wrote:


Nope, that's not at all what I suggest.

I propose civil unions for everyone, equal under the law with the same rights and services for all. Perfect equality (except I have reservations about adoption, but that's another issue).

And make marriage a religious thing, whom they can exclude at will.

On May 10 2012 13:38 heliusx wrote:

Riddle me this, why should anyone care about you or his "personal beliefs". So beyond irrelevant. It's my personal belief and opinion that religion is dumb. Do I demand religion illegal? no, because i dont give a shit what people do as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. It's descrimination plain and simple. If you can't see that you're deluding yourself. love is love no matter what your little book says.

On May 10 2012 13:45 Mindcrime wrote:


"Make marriages a religious thing"? Why? Why do the religious deserve a monopoly on marriage?

On May 10 2012 13:45 Mindcrime wrote:


"Make marriages a religious thing"? Why? Why do the religious deserve a monopoly on marriage?

On May 10 2012 13:46 BluePanther wrote:


Why not?

On May 10 2012 13:45 BluePanther wrote:


Take your anger out on someone else kid.

I merely stated that people oppose gay marriage for reasons beyond religion.

I didn't say "I oppose" gay marriage. I'm not even remotely religious.

On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:


What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages?

At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage.

On May 10 2012 13:46 heliusx wrote:

hes playing semantics. alluding to him only being against gay marraige based on the word marraige. ya right

On May 10 2012 13:30 Velocirapture wrote:


"Tear's down social structures" is valid how? Infringes on people's personal beliefs? This is exactly what I was talking about. When interracial marriage was forced through by the courts 70%-90% (depending on which source you trust) of Americans thought it was wrong. This didn't matter because this belief is irrational. There is absolutely nothing inherent to the marriage contract that can not be done equally be all ethnicities. Dis people say it would destroy marriage and infringe on others beliefs then? Absolutely. Why does this logic hold sway with gay marriage and not interracial? Should interracial couple be given "interracial unions" instead of marriages?

On May 10 2012 13:51 naastyOne wrote:

You first fail here is that you view marriage as something fundamental without fundamental conditions.
For about 3-4 thousands of years of reasonably documented history mariage is man+woman=>family, children.

I would even say that the right to divorce is not fundamental at all because it is something that appeared for a very few time.
I would go ahead and question, why should we even change what traditionally marriage means, should we really extend marriage or let it be, and create the other things for gay-couples?

Than your argument is way biassed. The benefit of allowing gay to marriage is obviously beneficial for them, the others do not benefit, but loss due to the expanding benefits, and thus expanded price of sustaining it, as any other form of wellfare
increases.
It also means that the benefits of marriage, which are created for a reason, and they were created before the gay-marriage issue even existed, and existed for a specific purpose of encouraging something, may no longer encourage that something, and render marriage as we understand it useless.

I think it was proved long ago that demographics and birthrate is extremely important, right?

Disallowing gay-marriage certainly does decrease the attractiveness of gay-relations compared to straight relations.
That is true, useless to argue.

Does increase in attractivnes of straight marriage increases birth rate?
Well while it is not that distinguishable from other factors, there are simple facts:
1. Birthrate is always more in rural aerias, than in urban, where the number of potential partners is lower, and the chance of finding a "better partner"/risk or divourse is also way lower.
2. maried people statistically have more children and do better.
3. the number of gay-couples is lower in places where there is no allowance for gay marriages.

Now if we assume that at least some of the people who otherwise would be in gay mariage actually marry straight, then there will be some amount of children born that there would otherwise be not.

On May 10 2012 13:51 naastyOne wrote:

You first fail here is that you view marriage as something fundamental without fundamental conditions.
For about 3-4 thousands of years of reasonably documented history mariage is man+woman=>family, children.

I would even say that the right to divorce is not fundamental at all because it is something that appeared for a very few time.
I would go ahead and question, why should we even change what traditionally marriage means, should we really extend marriage or let it be, and create the other things for gay-couples?

Than your argument is way biassed. The benefit of allowing gay to marriage is obviously beneficial for them, the others do not benefit, but loss due to the expanding benefits, and thus expanded price of sustaining it, as any other form of wellfare
increases.
It also means that the benefits of marriage, which are created for a reason, and they were created before the gay-marriage issue even existed, and existed for a specific purpose of encouraging something, may no longer encourage that something, and render marriage as we understand it useless.

I think it was proved long ago that demographics and birthrate is extremely important, right?

Disallowing gay-marriage certainly does decrease the attractiveness of gay-relations compared to straight relations.
That is true, useless to argue.

Does increase in attractivnes of straight marriage increases birth rate?
Well while it is not that distinguishable from other factors, there are simple facts:
1. Birthrate is always more in rural aerias, than in urban, where the number of potential partners is lower, and the chance of finding a "better partner"/risk or divourse is also way lower.
2. maried people statistically have more children and do better.
3. the number of gay-couples is lower in places where there is no allowance for gay marriages.

Now if we assume that at least some of the people who otherwise would be in gay mariage actually marry straight, then there will be some amount of children born that there would otherwise be not.

On May 10 2012 13:57 BluePanther wrote:


Lol, i'm personally not against marriage, read what I say before ridiculing please.

I'm just giving reasons others might be, and my suggested solution.



You would do well to open your views up a little and actually consider what people who disagree with you have to say. Your condescending attitude is not needed. You are instantly grouping your images of me with things not even remotely close to what I believe simply because you think that's what I am supposed to believe because I'm not "like you".

On May 10 2012 14:02 BluePanther wrote:



I think this post sums up a few of the potential arguments. There are more arguments out this should be enough to satisfy the demands for reasons that aren't based on religion.


Yes, I have concerns about it. But I was convinced a while back that the benefits of equality are more important than these longer term effects. Do I like gay marriage? No. But if put to a vote on it, I would support it.

On May 10 2012 13:51 naastyOne wrote:

You first fail here is that you view marriage as something fundamental without fundamental conditions.
For about 3-4 thousands of years of reasonably documented history mariage is man+woman=>family, children.

I would even say that the right to divorce is not fundamental at all because it is something that appeared for a very few time.
I would go ahead and question, why should we even change what traditionally marriage means, should we really extend marriage or let it be, and create the other things for gay-couples?

Than your argument is way biassed. The benefit of allowing gay to marriage is obviously beneficial for them, the others do not benefit, but loss due to the expanding benefits, and thus expanded price of sustaining it, as any other form of wellfare
increases.
It also means that the benefits of marriage, which are created for a reason, and they were created before the gay-marriage issue even existed, and existed for a specific purpose of encouraging something, may no longer encourage that something, and render marriage as we understand it useless.

I think it was proved long ago that demographics and birthrate is extremely important, right?

Disallowing gay-marriage certainly does decrease the attractiveness of gay-relations compared to straight relations.
That is true, useless to argue.

Does increase in attractivnes of straight marriage increases birth rate?
Well while it is not that distinguishable from other factors, there are simple facts:
1. Birthrate is always more in rural aerias, than in urban, where the number of potential partners is lower, and the chance of finding a "better partner"/risk or divourse is also way lower.
2. maried people statistically have more children and do better.
3. the number of gay-couples is lower in places where there is no allowance for gay marriages.

Now if we assume that at least some of the people who otherwise would be in gay mariage actually marry straight, then there will be some amount of children born that there would otherwise be not.