President Obama Re-Elected - Page 93

On May 10 2012 14:38 overt wrote:


No, it doesn't. We have laws to prevent behavior that is harmful to others. Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. Making it illegal does though.

On May 10 2012 14:41 BluePanther wrote:



Ok, not that i agree with him, but that's apples and oranges. Having a personal relationship legally recognized is not the same as freedom of speech. Gay couples are already allowed freedom of relationship, and laws agaisnt it were struck down in Lawrence v. Texas.

On May 10 2012 14:50 Kiarip wrote:


Well, then let's dissect what marriage is. It's a legally binding contract between two persons, which brings with itself some state supported benefits.

Are you against the state supported benefits part? Should it be ok for a homosexual couple to sign a similar contract without the state benefits? I would certainly think so, after all we have the freedom and protection of contracts under our constitution.

Now let's look at the benefits that the state gives, how many of them are there to assist a couple's ability to raise kids? We know for a fact that homosexual couples can raise kids, so why can't they get those benefits too if they intend to raise kids?

Personally I'm against state marriage in the first place, but I'm a libertarian so yeah... I think that the spiritual aspect of marriage should be the responsibility of a church/synagogue/temple/mosque or whatever other religious affiliation you might have, or none at all, but the legal aspect of marriage should be a contract between two people without state involvement, unless there's infringement, in which case you use the court system. A church, however, should be allowed to refuse to marry whoever the hell they want for whatever discriminatory, or non-discriminatory reason they like. EZPZ no state induced discrimination.

On May 10 2012 14:34 BluePanther wrote:



It also makes it impossible to justify nearly every single criminal law we have on our books, but we still have them. Why is marriage not allowed until 18? Science? No. It's because of morality. Why is rape not allowed? Science? No, it's because it tears apart social constructs. I could go on and on about why this argument is flawed, but I think these will do.

Laws aren't science, they are emotions and preferences that embody what we as a culture want to tolerate.


Remember that your stance is also a personal opinion. There is no raw data that says "humans are better off if gays are allowed to carry the title of 'marriage'". It just doesn't exist, nor am I even capable of understanding how it could exist. Everybody, on every side of this issue, has a personal opinion. And not every opinion is formed under the guise of "relgion told me to" or "science told me to".

On May 10 2012 15:03 BluePanther wrote:


I think you completely missed my point. I'm saying comparing free speech to marriage is not analogous.

In free speech, the government is permitting something to happen without intervention. The government allows gays to do what they do free of intervention. Just as they allow westboro to do what they do free of intervention. This is government INACTION.

But there is a significant difference when you talk about gay marriage. In this case, the state is TAKING an action. It is granting something. There is ACTION.

Therefore, you can't compare gay marriage to freedom of speech, it's just not the same. There are significant differences in a legal sense. Maybe emotionally it makes no difference to you (which I totally understand), but you can't say that they are equivalent.


I'm not disagreeing with your opinion per se. What I'm saying is that not permitting gay marriage is not the same as outlawing gay relationships. It's apples and oranges.

On May 10 2012 09:57 ghrur wrote:
Lol, I don't understand how it's a "fertility encouragement program" when sterile people can get married. How does that argument even hold water?

On May 10 2012 15:10 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah, I agree that it IS government ACTION, that's why I'm trying to break the ACTION into pieces, as to isolate the issue of why someone would think that homosexuals shouldn't be granted the right to marry.

I'm working under the assumption that the government can not discriminate without reason both by ACTION or INACTION.

On May 10 2012 15:08 Velocirapture wrote:


You are being willfully ignorant here. There are LOTS of great objective reasons why crime is generally bad. There are also LOTS of great objective reasons as to why young people can't enter into legally binding contracts on their own. You act as if I am saying that every problem is black and white which I never asserted. I also never said that you shouldnt have opinions. I simply stated that you should have really good reasons for having opinions.

Once you accept that marriage should exist (as I have stated I feel that opposition to marriage for anybody is a valid view) we need to find a logic based on facts by which its benefits can be applied. I am looking for this logic that includes infertile men and women, menopausal women and willfully childless couples but does not include gays. Meaning there has to be something unique to having two penises or two vaginas physically present in the marriage that makes them unsuitable for the institution.

On May 10 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:


I don't mean to shatter your dreams, but that's just impractical to assume that.

I don't mean to be a dick, but I can think of several ways to absolutely shatter that logic, or provide reasons to discriminate (that you simply would disagree with). Like, for example, it's ok for the government to do that to promote population growth.

It's ok to do that to promote social ease. etc. etc.

You may think they're bullshit, but I'm sure I could argue for days on end defending one if I put my mind to it. And I'm sure I'd be able to convince some random person listening that I have a valid point. But it doesn't make me "right".

The second you take a step into ACTION, you're left with a situation where there are opinions on what is the "right" way to deal with something and whether government should even be taking any ACTIONS.

Social morality isn't a science, and you can't ever distill it into black and white. All you can do is try and figure out which solution is the least wrong.

On May 10 2012 15:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:
The one thing that I'm happy about with all this is that Obama has shifted the debate forward. I truly look forward to the day when most of the anti-gay group have died out and such views are no longer held.

Edit: Just like how probably in the 1950s there were still a significant number of people who were against interracial marriage, nowadays you would be labeled a racist. Today there are a lot of homophobes but sadly they aren't progressive thinking enough to see how this is all going to end up.

On May 10 2012 15:40 Kiarip wrote:
You are either for state discrimination without reason, or against it. If you are against state discrimination but also against equal rights in a particular case you should provide a reason for it.

On May 10 2012 15:35 BluePanther wrote:


To the first paragraph: What about stand your ground? Is that objectively good or objectively bad? Or is it subjective? What does it mean to "intentionally" kill someone? Is that objective? Or subjective? What constitutes perfect self-defense compared to imperfect self-defense? Look, I'm a criminal defense lawyer... there are plenty of criminal laws that are not "objectively" right. Hell, decriminalization of marijuana makes objective sense beyond belief... but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with that idea. There is not a crime on the books where a legislature or house did not look at and say "well, there are the negatives of housing the criminal and restricting their rights, but I think the benefit of having them in jail if they did this would outweigh this cost". Everything is laced with opinion, and those opinions are built upon social norms for what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

As to the second, I think you answered your own question. That's exactly WHY some people consider them to be unsuitable for the institution. They are basically arguing that the institution was created to allow one man and one woman to bind themselves, as "it promotes child-bearing culture even if they themselves cannot bear children". Logically, it's not flawed. But we can disagree with it. Why? Because we have an opinion that the positives of gay marriage outweigh the negatives such as the one I just stated.

On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
To the first paragraph, here you go again claiming I go on about absolutes. Never did I say that all issues are black and white. In fact I very specifically stated that they are not. In many cases it is very easy to fall on one side or the other of an issue. My assertion is that the way you should get to that point is not, "i believe in X so Y is bad", it should be a logical process that takes consideration of the facts.

On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
And again to the second paragraph, "promoting a child-bearing culture" is nowhere in the contract of marriage. None of the mandates or preconditions of marriage are related in any way to having biological children.

On May 10 2012 16:01 Velocirapture wrote:
This is simply people imposing their unqualified belief systems. I guess what this whole conversation boils down to is me saying that we need to be as objective and rational as possible in our distribution of benefits and you saying we can deny them "just because". In the end I think my rationale wins thankfully.

On May 10 2012 15:53 BluePanther wrote:

Inaction != Action, I was just saying you can't say the two are the exact same when you analyze it. You're right when you say there's another step in there. But that step makes a huge difference in process, if not in substance. Forget it, it's just me being a lawyer, I think the real disagreement is below:



There are reasons, you just disagree with them. That's called an opinion. And until the date where someone can prove that legally sanctioned gay marriage has nothing but positive affects in every human civilization that has ever existed, it will remain just that -- an opinion.

On May 10 2012 16:37 Kiarip wrote:


What are they? The ones you listed are counter-productive...

You're acting like these reasons aren't important.. They are, as far as I see there are no logical reasons in existence, if there are no reasons, that means that same sex marriage should be allowed, as not allowing it would be discrimination without a reason.

On May 10 2012 16:38 ZenithM wrote:
2 Baracks, always better than just one.

On May 10 2012 16:51 SgtSlick wrote:
The fact America doesn't have free and universal health care and instead has this huge defense budget is a disgrace. Its because you vote in too many conservatives. Seriously you guys need to look to the future, a more green and socialist future. Im not saying A green and socialist, but more of one for sure!