world

Obama becomes first U.S. president to back same-sex marriage

183 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

183 Comments
Login to comment

Obama needs the gay vote this fall to beat Romney so he playing this card now and I bet at night when he and his wife are in bed talking, they don't approve but hey, this is politics and you do what wins votes regardless of what you really believe in your heart.

-11 ( +8 / -18 )

correct me if im wrong but didnt clinton support the gay rights activists too?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

This could easily lose him the presidency, but what a way to go, if so - with his head held high, on the side of equality and civil rights.

22 ( +28 / -6 )

I'm one of those people who supports gay marriage and I do admire Barack Obama, so I'm pleased he has shown the backbone to state his case on what is a highly contentious issue in conservative 'ol US of A. I've never really understood the opposition to it, to be honest. It isn't some deviant choice people make to spite anyone, or any kind of act of rebellion, it's simply who people are. Preventing marriage doesn't prevent or stop homosexuality and legalizing marriage won't suddenly create more homosexuality. It just allows people who already love each other and live with each other to formalize their union in the same way everybody else gets to.

26 ( +32 / -5 )

Silly to deny any adult the right to be married, but what is sillier is wanting to get get married and then get divorced. There is a huge problem with this institution and the evidence is clear that people do not respect it to begin with ... ahem over half of marriages fail. I hope gay people are ready for all the court battles over money and lawyer fees. My hope is people will embrace civil unions or common-law marriages thus omitting the religious and conservative bile that has hindered civil liberty for eons.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Religious conservatives will likely condemn Obama for his move..."

Always roll my eyes when I hear the religious right speak about the "sacred" institution of marriage between men and women. You know, that sacred institution which includes hign divorce rates, spousal abuse and cheating. Very sacred indeed.

6 ( +14 / -7 )

@jforce - so you're against marriage in general and sexuality doesn't come into it?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

America's politics is a puzzle, the "get US government out of our private life" party now stating that US government must protect the "sanctity of marriage." Moreover I believe America has bigger fish to fry than this issue.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

MARRIAGE (Oxford Dictionary):

The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

I have nothing against people of the same sex being together, but I don't see why they call it a marriage.

It's like calling a bicycle a fish.

It's got nothing to do with good, bad, right or wrong.

However you cut it, a bicycle just isn't a fish.

-27 ( +9 / -36 )

Interesting. Obama has sat on the fence with this for years. Anderson Cooper calls him out on it, it is getting close to election time.... he needs the support of gay voters. If he was so pro about this, why not have said this years ago? Something is rotten in the state of Washington.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Seems like an election-year gambit. Too bad he appears unlikely to soften up on his administration's strong stance against even medical marijuana. That would also pry loose a big chunker of votes.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Even if he approves of gay marriage. It doesn't mean he is going to back it or make any attempt to push it through the system. He will most likely play the "Yes I support gay marriage, but it's up to the people of each state to choose what is acceptable".

That would get him the gay vote and also give him a "small" leg to stand on in anti-gay states.

4 ( +5 / -0 )

I'm sure that gays will bring a more open idea to marriage than the repressed hetero christians who have dominated marriage up to now. How about the bathouse marriage ceremony with fun for all involved. And the honeymoon "cruise" will have an all new meaning!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Haven't they suffered enough?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

johninnahaMay. 10, 2012 - 09:00AM JST MARRIAGE (Oxford Dictionary): The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. I have nothing against people of the same sex being together, but I don't see why they call it a marriage. It's like calling a bicycle a fish. It's got nothing to do with good, bad, right or wrong. However you cut it, a bicycle just isn't a fish.

If you're living in the dark ages then this is a perfectly acceptable position, however these days a man can become a woman (and visa versa) and get their passport modified to reflect this, and we regularly fly around the place in massive metal planes defying God's laws of gravity... for goodness sakes, why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry? If your only objection is the gender of the participants and a dictionary definition (and dictionary definitions change every year!) then you really need to shift your thinking.

7 ( +11 / -3 )

I don't understand why people still quarrel about this. I mean, what's the big deal?! Why can't same-sex get married? It's their choice.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Even if he approves of gay marriage. It doesn't mean he is going to back it or make any attempt to push it through the system. He will most likely play the "Yes I support gay marriage, but it's up to the people of each state to choose what is acceptable".

In other news sources that information is already included. This is his personal conviction, he still supports the right of each state to decide for them selves. (Anything else would most likely had been political suicide.)

I think the mixup of state and religion in the US is what makes this so difficult for them. I mean why not say something like;

They should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the law. They should be allowed to be married in the eyes of any church which supports it. Any church( a church, being all about the beliefs of it's members) which do not support it, should not have to.

And for extra clown marks: I just do not think it is fair that the terrors of a nagging spouse should be reserved for heterosexuals only.

Or as someone jokingly said; -Give them the right to get married, just not to get divorced. That'll teach them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The government should not be involved in marriage at all. If people want to go to a lawyer and enter into a civil contract that binds them financially or otherwise with each other then they should be able to do so. That is - any people or group of people, male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, etc...

There is now a war over marriage whereby there will always be a large segment of the population that is agitated and for no good reason. When the government gets in the middle of an issue that is just the beginning of the problems - not the end of them. Expect the "war on marriage" as it is termed by some and the "war on homosexuals" as it is termed by others only to intensify so long as government gets to decree who is and who isn't eligible to be married.

Next up will be the "B" from the LGBT community. They will want the right to marry who they love as is innate to them. It just so happens that they love both sexes so now the definition of marriage will be argued over again to change the arbitrary definition of only between two people to include multiple people. Otherwise, society would be discriminating against bisexuals. Time to get the government out of business of defining marriage altogether all and leave it to the religions. If you want to bind yourself to another (or others), then get a lawyer and write up a contract. It's that simple.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Awesome. I'm proud of Obama for taking this stance. As a lesbian with American citizenship, this means a lot to me. Even after the disaster that was NC recently, it's nice to have a bit of good news.

PS - marriage has historically NOT been primarily a religious institution, it's been a political and legal institution to legally bind to people and their assets together. It's only been sanctioned by religion (thousands of different religions with different beliefs). Since the USA has separation of church and state, marriage legally has absolutely no religious connotation at all. Additionally, marriage has NOT historically been only "one man and one woman" - it's often been "one man and like six or seven women". So the argument of marriage's "definition" falls pretty shakily.

7 ( +10 / -4 )

Many gravely important economic and military issues are going to be ignored over the course of the upcoming presidential campaign while 300 million Americans haggle over the pros and cons of whether or not it's all right for two people of the same sex to wed. This is truly a case of fiddling while Rome burns.

2 ( +5 / -4 )

Gay couples should have all rights and benefits same as traditional married couples. If "civil union" does not satisfy them, how about issuing " same sex married" on the married certificate for them; since no offspring as result of their union. This compromise might satisfy both sides and clearly define the true nature of the UNION. Hey, on the bright side, it might reduce the over population on the planet earth a little bit; or shall we call them "GREEN MARRIED"!

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

badmigraineMAY. 10, 2012 - 09:18AM JST

Seems like an election-year gambit. Too bad he appears unlikely to soften up on his administration's strong stance against even medical marijuana. That would also pry loose a big chunker of votes.

Enough of man-made garbage like Crack, Cocaine, LSD, etc. Legalize Marihuana once for all!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

f "civil union" does not satisfy them, how about issuing " same sex married" on the married certificate for them; since no offspring as result of their union.

Speak for yourself, maybe. I'm gay but I have every intention of having children when I get married. And many, many same-sex couples do indeed have children. Just like many heterosexual couples choose not to have children.

4 ( +10 / -5 )

same sex married" on the married certificate for them; since no offspring as result of their union.

This is a great Idea!

Then perhaps we can put "Infertile marriage" on the marriage certificate of those who can not produce offspring for other reasons, that should satisfy that crowd as well.?

/Sarcasm

0 ( +4 / -4 )

He only did so after polls said that it would not hurt him in Nov.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Aliasis good on you.

I have no problem with same-sex relationships or same sex marriage at all. I am straight myself, but it is lovely to see a couple - ANY couple - happy and in love and parents regardless of gender raising happy children in a warm loving home. Some of the nicest people I have met have been gay - they dont want to cause trouble, they dont want to upset anyone, they just want to be free to live their lives how they choose to within the boundaries of the law. Dont see that that is asking too much myself.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

This issue is just a distraction from what is truly important in US politics:the economy, jobs, and improving foreign relations. He did just officially begin his re-election campaign, and this is just a ploy to secure more votes. Marriage laws are up to each individual state, 30 of which have voted to ban same-sex marriages/unions. NC strongly voted against it. It's also an economic issue.

-1 ( +4 / -6 )

Nice sentiment, stupid political move more likely motivated by Bidens blurt than any real desire to initiate change. The President is banking on the large hispanic population to help win the election, but the hispanic vote makes up a massive chunk of the Catholic vote which used to support Obama. I don't think this is a win for Romney but it's a double edged sword for the President, get support of the gay populaiton that he had anyway but threaten to turn off the nearly 80 million Catholic voters in the country.

I'm a Catholic. As far as I'm concerned if a couple wants to be considered married for tax and legal purposes its totally acceptable. My church doesn't recognize it so it's no skin off my nose. I still don't know why people care, I certainly don't. Heck, the revenues that it could bring in would be great. And maybe I can drink a frozen margarita at a wedding and not look out of place for once.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@hawkeye

Obama needs the gay vote this fall to beat Romney so he playing this card now

I believe you are wrong on that. 51% of Americans (all parties) are against same sex marriage, 48% for it (1% are still asleep!) according to a Gallup poll recently. He will possibly instantly lose many democratic anti gay voters, which, in a close run election is not a positive political move. Fair play to Obama for doing this now I say. On the downside, it has taken quite a long tme for this to come out, perhaps Obama chose the right word when he said his opinion was "evolving" in recent years. Evolution of humans has taken millions of years, so what is four years in forming an opinion??

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Anyhow, Obama plays politics as usual. Infertility is not the intention fort most opposite sex marriage couples. Also, most gay couples in poor nations might not have modern access to have children through insemination, in vitro, surrogate mother....The key word is to respect one another instead of bullying, and it will go a long way. Aside, gay rights movement will have a high hill to climb up against Muslim countries. Be marry and cheers....

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

If the marriage union is the same between a man and man, or a woman and woman, as it is between a man and a woman there would be no need to call it any different in the first place. Reality is same sex marriage is different than traditional marriage, the sex is different and that is what distinguishes it. I have no problem with same sex unions, if a piece of paper to sanctify the union is desired to show commitment to the union in the eyes of the law or in society at large is sought that is in my view a good thing, but the union is not the same as a traditional marriage between a man and woman, and raising a child in a same sex couple environment is also going to different for the child then in a traditional marriage environment. It is different and it is unique and distinguished in its own way. Civil unions no problem, same as a traditional marriage it is not as nature already made sure of the difference, same sex couples cannot have children with some sort of artificial intervention, be it a surrogate parent or a sperm donor and this starts to cross into the realm instead of just an equality and civil rights type of issue with same sex couples, that we are now granting extra privileges that were never granted or intended by nature in the first place.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

@johninnaha

MARRIAGE (Oxford Dictionary): The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

The dictionary changes and adjusts for us, WE do NOT change and adjust for the dictionary. Do you insist on using Elizabethan era English definitions for words? Of course not. Language changes. Definitions change. So do laws. And they never change better than when they are found to be unfair and discriminatory.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Ivan CoughanoffalotMAY. 10, 2012 - 10:09AM JST

Haven't they suffered enough?

well, haven't you?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Let the People decide ,on ElectionDay, by referendum-then it's Legal or NOT in the Entire U.S.-there are much more important things the people have to set straight #1 the economy #2 Illegal Immigration #3 Stopping Drugs,&so on & on to me this is more Smoke to cloud more important issues.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A smart move.

Advisors are saying public opinon on gay marriage has changed faster than that of any issue in their careers.

The divorce rate in the U.S. is over 50%. Traditional marriage is not working.

What makes proponents of traditional marriage think they have the right to deny gay/lesbian couples the right to get married?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great! What's even greater is seeing people getting really irate about this, makes for good comedy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why is this a US only issue? There are only about ten countries in the world that support gay marriage. I can almost guarantee that NONE of you live in one of them.. You are all hypocrites.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Let's face it - Christian beliefs about gay marriage should be forced on all Americans, regardless of race and religion, all in the name of "freedom."

Oh, hang on....

2 ( +3 / -2 )

i guess he just lost the bible belt voters

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Its hard to understand what this debate has to do with religion. Most Christians and Jews don't obey half of what's in the Bible that is much, much more clear than anything concerning gay marriage. No slaves, no cloth of one weave, sacrifice of animals to be meat to God, eating of shellfish and pork, etc.

But there does not seem to by anything at all about lesbians. So why are not Christians saying they support lesbian unions instead of male gay unions? Well, the clear and obvious answer is that they only apply the Bible where and when it suits them.

I prefer not to hear the president talk about religion at all. His position is nothing to do with religion. America is supposed to be a secular country.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What seems evident is that the US is still a nation divided on social, humanitarian, democratic and freedom issues. Sad but unfortunately true.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"he was "evolving"

Another way to put it - he was twisting in the breeze.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I was curious about what yanee said, so I wiki'd, and indeed, only 10 countries have same-sex marriage so far (with proposals existing to introduce same-sex marriage in at least ten other countries):

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.

Not exactly a group of the most backward countries, is it. All with mostly a good record in human / civil rights, despite their religious history (e.g. Spain)

The way to go is forward, folks!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This entire "gay" issue is just another election year distraction brought to you by the Democratic Party. As a voter, I could care less what his "personal" views are about on anything. I care more about how he has continually failed as a leader of this country.

RR

-5 ( +6 / -10 )

What a candidate will do just to win the election with their votes..... geeesssshhhhhh same sex marriage...

-4 ( +3 / -6 )

yaneeMay. 10, 2012 - 01:04PM JST

Why is this a US only issue? There are only about ten countries in the world that support gay marriage. I can almost guarantee that NONE of you live in one of them.. You are all hypocrites.

Ummmm, what an absurd comment. So, are people hypocrites for living in a country that doesn't support gay marriage even though they support gay marriage? If they moved out of that country to a gay marriage country would they then NOT be a hypocrite? If they do then that country will never adopt gay marriage laws. Are people who are against gay marriage and live in a country that does not support gay marriage hypocrites? (You did say "all") I think if most people look at your statement logically they will find it quite illogical.

Anyway good on Obama. America is living up to its constitution. Someday everyone but the inbreeds will understand that being gay is just a normal, but different, portion of a functioning society. It is always difficult for me to understand why people would not choose the intellectual approach to every subject.

2 ( +5 / -2 )

Marie,

I was curious about what yanee said, so I wiki'd, and indeed, only 10 countries have same-sex marriage so far (with proposals existing to introduce same-sex marriage in at least ten other countries):

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.

I was curious also after your post and did a little research on this also. They do not have same-sex marriage they have civil unions with the same rights as marriage and treat it different from traditional marriage. Denmark was the first country to allow legal civil unions. Some excerpts from an article about the issue.

In Denmark, civil unions with the same rights as marriage have been around since 1989, and other Nordic countries followed suit in the 1990s.

In Portugal, and in Spain's Navarra and Basque regions, gay couples who live together long enough receive the same benefits as heterosexuals under common law unions. In Argentina's capital, Buenos Aires, gay couples can register for a civil union.

Henk Krol, editor of the magazine Gay Krant, argues civil unions are an intermediate stage on the way to full marriage rights for gays, which he says are inevitable.

"A civil union is a second-rate marriage," he says. "People want a honeymoon. Not a trip to celebrate a registered partnership."

It seems that even these countries are content with just civil unions and with recognizing the distinction between traditional marriage and a same sex union and aren't in any hurry to help Mr. Krant with a full fledge honeymoon trip after all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-604084.html

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I think the conservatives are right - this WILL have an impact on traditional marriage and family life. It will reduce the divorce rate, increase the proportion of children being raised in happy loving environments, raise peoples overall life-satisfaction levels and eventually through the process of normalisation decrease unfounded prejudice and bias. Or is this not something they want?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Actually, the most recent gallop poll shows that 50-51% of Americans support the recognition of gay marriage with 48-49% against it......Still it is pretty messed up how it is still nearly equally divided on this issue, though.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

To me marriage means union between a man and a woman. And this won't change.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama "personally" thinks same sex marriage is OK but then says the decision to legalize gay marriage should be left to individual states (which now stands at 31-0 against the proposal; i.e., the majority of Americans).

Heh, in a couple of days those applauding Obama for "making history" will come to realize The One they were waiting for has only voted "present" on the issue.

RR

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It's a very clever and very predictable move by Obama, and he will win the election with it. Simple.

All of Hollywood will get on his side, and his campaign will turn the whole election into a fight against the nasty anti-women, anti-gay hateful republican party.

Last time it was, "Will Americans overcome their racism and create history by electing a black man". Now it will be "Will Americans vote for women and gays and be brave enough to re-elect a black man".

And most of the young people will vote for him. And even the blacks who are against gay marriage mostly, still won't want to see the first Black President get voted out.

Obama will win. No problem.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Gay to go, Pres!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Crap, it should have been "Way to go, Pres!"

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The gay movement has been incredibly successful. Gay marriage was something people laughed about 20 or 30 years ago.

Now, through the influence of movies, dramas etc, a generation has been brought up that anyone who is against gay marriage is a hateful person similar to someone who supported slavery.

They've done well. And yes, it's just a matter of time before gay marriage is passed. And Japan, which has no Christian, religious problems against gay marriage, but just has been like most of the world in thinking it's a crazy idea, will quickly be pushed and bullied into become a civilized country like the US and accepting it.

So, no, it's not a brave move by Obama at all. He knew it would be a tough sell for his first campaign, but now is the time to do it. Obama's people have twice the brains of the various republican campaign people.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Predictably, I'll get the record for thumbs down. It's interesting to note that the polls re gay marriage are mostly against it, or even. But on the internet, you get the impression that 90% are for it. That makes a powerful impression on young people. iow, gay marriage supporters have and continue to use the internet extremely well.

In a few years, people will be writing books about this.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Heh, this is probably the final nail in the coffin for the anti-gay America haters. :-)

Amazing how the same individuals will support invading other countries in the name of "freedom" and yet do everything possible to clamp down on freedoms of their own people.

Conservatives have been proven wrong yet again.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"We are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others," he said.

He says he's a practicing Christian, yet his Bible condemns homosexuality.

Saying he's a practicing Christian gets him the Christian vote and saying he supports gay "marriage" gets him the gay vote.

Pick the logic out of that.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Finally. Hurry up and speed it through the lawmakers. Job done.

This is such a non-issue, I can't believe the hysterics it generates.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Where does it say in the Bible that gay people should be hated with the level of vehemency as that shown by typical American conservatives?

The Bible says 'Love thy neighbor.'

I just don't get it.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

All about getting votes now.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

on the internet, you get the impression that 90% are for it.

True dat. However, a poll involving actual votes on the issue legalizing same-sex marriages was conducted this week in North Carolina -- a state Obama carried in '08 . The result is one that counts.

RR

1 ( +3 / -2 )

God made people with freedom of choice, some choose this some that, God loves and forgives I'm told. But why are conservatives so anti this Black, closet Muslim, Gay, anti gun, death panel, foetus killing one? Most christain moral champions end up on their knees in truck stops...freedom of choice at work again!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Once again, liberals are forced to show conservatives that we are, in fact, living in the 21st century.

So embarrassing that gay marriage is actually still a touchstone issue for the homophobic anti-freedom crowd.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

When talking about christianity, then its not just about what the bible might or might not be saying. The reality is that many christians are homosexual, both in the protestant, orthodox, and catholic camp. There are furthermore muslim homosexuals. For a person that is raised as a christian, but also discovers being homosexual, of course it will feel as an act of discrimination not to be able to combine ones own religious beliefs with the sexual orientation. The true problem here is that too many people dont emphatize with other peoples feelings, but persists in only looking at themselves, and disregards other peoples narratives in society. Whether Obama is saying this for election reasons or not doesnt matter. Just by saying it, you have a huge symbolic, and for many also a historical, statement that will be a part of what his presidency will be remembered for. It will take decades before equality is reached, still after 5 decades there are still many racial issues in the US, even though segregation laws were abolished in the 1960ties, or more than 150 years after slavery were abolished, one could say. In Denmark, it is now being discussed whether homosexuals can marry in churches or not, as its only legal to marry in a town hall/on the paper. And looks like Denmark will join in on the liberal side. A step forward for equality.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Seems like Romeo is only for 'freedoms' when s/he likes it and is against freedoms when they don't gel with his/her biased religion-based worldview.

It's a very flakey view of 'freedom' and pretty typical of a conservative.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

They do not have same-sex marriage they have civil unions with the same rights as marriage and treat it different from traditional marriage.

So Sailwind, if they have the same rights, what is treated different from traditional marriage? Of course some people in the population are going to treat it differently, just as they will also treat inter-racial marriage differently. No reason why they government has to treat it differently, if they do.

If a civil union is the same as marriage, then there is no need for a different name. In fact, I think the government should just get out of the marriage business altogether, just call everything a civil union for purposes of the law and legal registration, and let marriage be defined by each segment of society.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why does everyone always get all hysterical about Christianity and gay marriage. China, Japan, etc etc have no interest or background with Christianity, but they aren't promoting gay rights.

On the contrary, the 10 countries listed are all countries with some level of Christian history. I don't see any countries without a Christian background pushing for gay marriage.

India, most of Asia, the Islamic world, communist countries - none of them are pushing for gay marriage.

So it's not just a Christianity vs gay marriage debate. And suffice it to say that Biden, Obama, the Clintons - all claim to be Christians.

The rest of the world just - don't even think about it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@closet queen RRU "mmmm: what an absurd comment" Not absurd at all. I laugh at all of the diatribes against the stance that some in the US hold on gay rights but say nothing at all about their own country. Take Japan for instance. Plenty of gay and transsexual people on the telly on various shows. You would think Japan would be one of the ten countries on that list. However all of the people I have ever talked with have stated emphatically that they would never support same sex marriage in this country. Do a poll here and you will probably get an overwhelming negative response. Why the bash on the USA only?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Good on Obama. I'm 100% with him and everyone else who supports gay marriage. The only people in the closet are the religious bigots and people who deny that homosexuality is biological in nature, and that EVERYONE deserves a chance at love and happiness. If that includes marriage in a person's books, who is any one person who group to deny another.

To all those who suggest it's just a political ploy -- shame on you. No president would go against his/her beliefs on the issue just for votes, as it is TOO risky. As some people will vote for him JUST for his stance on the issue, a whole lot more will not. I applaud the president for taking the USA one step forward.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

One of the knocks against Obama is that he rarely takes a tough stance on something he truly believes in his heart. This is one of those few times. Even Republicans who disagree with him think this is actually what he believes in his heart but couldn't express it explicitly before because it is politically risky - and they respect him for finally taking a stance, though they disagree with him.

They believe him because it is a big gamble in his Presidency. This will further alienate Democrats from older blue-collar Americans whom they're trying to court with protecting Social Security, especially in swing states like Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. Many pundits think Obama actually has more to lose than gain by announcing this; that's why they believe this is genuine, when ya say something even though ya have more to lose.

Instead, what this seems to be is re-aligning the Democrat Party for the votes of the future. The recent Gallup poll shows half of Americans support same-sex marriage while half do not. But it's been trending towards same-sex marriage. 20 years ago, support was in the 30%s. 10 years ago, it was in the 40%s. Now half. 7 states already passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, when a decade ago there was none. So, pundits think this is more for the future than present, akin to when Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson supported civil rights back in the 1960s, back when Americans were divided on civil rights. Obama is just trying to be ahead of the curve.

What's funny about this though is that Obama wants to leave this issue to individual states, while Romney wants it done in the federal government. Who wouldathunk they'd flip-flop on their stance! But Romney is trending the other way. When Romney was running for Massachusetts governor, he actually out-liberaled his Democrat opponent in this issue. Now Romney supports a national amendment banning not only same-sex marriage but even civil unions - that's further right than even Cheney (who has a lesbian daughter) and Bush who was fine with civil unions but not same-sex marriage. Strange times indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What took him so long to make up his mind on this?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Why the bash on the USA only?"

I don't know if you've caught on yet, but the thread is about an American president in the USA. Other countries positions on gay marriage have absolutely zip to do with it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

tmarie MAY. 10, 2012 - 09:14AM JST

Something is rotten in the state of Washington.

District maybe? Leave Shakespeare alone if you can't get the geography right...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Did Obama call for federal legislation to alter the way America views marriage?

Checking ..... Checking ...... Nope.

So, what he did was make a personal opinion. A lot like his annual personal opinions about who will be in the NCAA Final Four. With the same impact on the future of American society.

RR

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Madverts: Sorry to have bothered you with international thought...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Serrano: "What took him so long to make up his mind on this?"

In case you missed it, the topic is hotter than ever of late, with Arizona only yesterday voting against same-sex marriage, and with California in the news about it as well. We know you're just trying to take a poke ot Obama and you seem to think for some reason he is indecisive (despite you loving flip-floppers in the GOP, I might add), but really when you don't take what's happening into account you only undermine your own comments.

Lostrune: "They believe him because it is a big gamble in his Presidency. This will further alienate Democrats from older blue-collar Americans whom they're trying to court with protecting Social Security, especially in swing states like Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. Many pundits think Obama actually has more to lose than gain by announcing this; that's why they believe this is genuine, when ya say something even though ya have more to lose."

EXACTLY my point earlier (just before your comment, in fact). It's funny to watch Republicans try to suggest it's not his real opinion, though.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

smith: "In case you missed it, the topic is hotter than ever"

I haven't missed that. Doesn't answer my question though. What took him so long?

"Many pundits think Obama actually has more to lose than gain by announcing this; that's why they believe this is genuine"

I don't doubt the pundits think this is genuine. I also don't doubt Obama said this because he believes he will gain politically.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I am very glad the President of the United States spoke out on this. It was great in February when a federal appeals court struck down California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, as unconstitutional.

Maria - May. 10, 2012 - 01:55PM JST , Of course you were correct and all of these countries passed laws concerning marriage; they had all previously passed civil union type laws but they ALL passed same sex marriage laws. Well Denmark will have a same sex marriage law by June 15th of this year; so that will be 11.

It is all a matter of record and each of the 10 countries uses the word marriage in the legislation that was passed and signed into law.

Same-sex marriage in Argentina has been legal since July 22, 2010. A bill for legalization was approved on May 5, 2010, by the Chamber of Deputies, and on July 15, 2010, by the Senate. President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner signed it on July 21.

The Danish government has proposed marriage equality legislation in parliament 14 March 2012. If parliament passes the bill, and royal assent is achieved on time, the law enters into force on 15 June 2012.

In Belgium, on May 28, 2002, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage was introduced in the Senate. It passed on November 28, 2002, with 46 votes to 15. On January 30, 2003, the bill passed the Chamber of Representatives by 91 votes to 22. King Albert II signed and promulgated the bill on February 13, 2003 and on February 28 it was published in the Belgian Official Journal and came into force on June 1.

In Canada, the Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. On December 7, 2006,

In Iceland, on 23 March 2010, the Government presented a bill to repeal the registered partnership law and allow couples to marry regardless of gender. On 11 June 2010 the Icelandic Parliament approved the bill 49 to 0, with 14 abstentions. The law took effect on 27 June 2010.

In the Netherlands, The main article in the Act changed article 1:30 in the marriage law to read as follows: (In Dutch of course) A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex. The law came into effect on 1 April 2001,

In Norway, The first parliamentary hearing, including the vote, was held on June 11, 2008, with the lower house approving by 84 votes to 41 a bill that allowed same-sex couples to marry. The new legislation amended the definition of civil marriage to make it gender neutral. Norway's upper house passed the bill with a 23–17 vote on June 17. The King of Norway, Harald V, granted royal assent thereafter. The law took effect on January 1, 2009.

In Portugal, On January 8, 2010, the Portuguese Parliament passed the bill establishing same-sex marriage in its first reading. The final parliamentary vote took place on 11 February, with the bill being approved. The President signed the bill. The law was published in Diario da Republica on May 31, 2010 and became effective on June 5, 2010.

The bill to allow same-sex marriage in Spain was short: it added a new paragraph to article 44 of the civil code, saying that Matrimony shall have the same requisites and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex. The king gave his Royal Assent to Law 13/2005 on 1 July 2005; and the law was gazetted in the Boletin Oficial del Estado on 2 July, and came into effect on 3 July.

In South Africa, the Civil Union Act (Act 17 of 2006) provides for opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriages, religious marriages and civil partnerships.

On 21 January 2009, a bill was introduced in the Swedish parliament to make the legal concept of marriage gender-neutral. The bill was passed on 1 April and took effect on 1 May.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There will always be people who believe marriage can be between two men or two women, and those who think marriage is only between a man and a woman.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

States are now 32-0 on how marriage is defined in America. Meaning, the majority of the country is against gay marriage. And now today, Obama guaranteed one the highest voter turn-outs of social conservatives in election history. Voters who are against gay marriage will now come out to vote when they otherwise would have stayed home due to Mitt's lack of popularity with them.

Heh, Obama just talked himself into putting every single social conservative in Romney's column.

Thanks, Barack, for making the single biggest U.S. political blunder of this century.

RR

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Madverts

I don't know if you've caught on yet, but the thread is about an American president in the USA. Other countries positions on gay marriage have absolutely zip to do with it.

Yanee was responding to some comments that came up concerning other countries. Why this sarcastic tone of yours?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@USNinJapan2

District maybe? Leave Shakespeare alone if you can't get the geography right...

Some people always value the form over the content. So you're limiting tmarie's rights because of a mistake on geography? How pretentious.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He may be a "practicing Christian", but apparently, Obama's teleprompter forgot to tell him Christianity opposes homosexuality.

RR

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

It is all a matter of record and each of the 10 countries uses the word marriage in the legislation that was passed and signed into law.

As Millions cheers his semantic achievement, next thing you know gay marriage will consist just of going to a courthouse and registering it for the record just to get a piece of paper saying Steve and Eve have shacked up legally.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Romeo:

And you also forget that half the Republicans are hypocrites or in the closet. How many times have we seen male Republican politicians caught with their pants down, having a nice time with other men? Family values? Ask Newt Gingrich - he'll tell you about the sanctity of marriage. Bwah ha ha!

Christianity opposes homosexuality.

Here are a few things that are also mentioned in the christian's little book: human sacrifice, rape, murder, slavery, ad nauseum.

Gay people should also be allowed to enjoy the miseries of marriage!

-1 ( +2 / -2 )

The Bible's view on the gay issue seems pretty clear:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I wish the President had real issues to deal with....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

He may be a "practicing Christian", but apparently, Obama's teleprompter forgot to tell him Christianity opposes homosexuality.

The government can not force any church to recognize or perform wedding ceremonies if a church's canon prohibits it. But not all Christian denominations prohibit it. But no denomination supports the rank hypocrisy, lying and self-righteousness exhibited by Obama's critics and their ilk. The gays will enter paradise long before those vermin.

The Bible's view on the gay issue seems pretty clear:

The Old Testament view on profaning the Sabbath day was just as clear -- as was the commandment to remember when it was. Something that 99% of "Christian" denominations would just as soon forget. The Bible is just as clear in saying the Mosaic laws foreshadowed Christ. When it came time for the self-righteous hypocrites to "execute" one of those laws by stoning a woman who committed adultery, they were told that the person who was completely without sin could cast the first stone.

Christ commanded us to love our neighbors and even our enemies, and to return evil with good. Ignorant people spouting bible verses to justify their hatred are committing some of the evil of all acts. Christ himself never minced any words when dealing with self-righteous hypocrites.

3 ( +5 / -1 )

In Genesis2:22-24, God already established marriage between a man and a woman . That is marriage. As a Christian , you should love your neighbour like yourself. But gay or not gay , we all have to answer to God in the end.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Obama is coming out with his support for the upcoming election,plain and simple. I like Chris Rock's comment/joke.Gay married couples have as much right to be miserable as straight ones.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

Heh, Obama seems to know as much about the religion he claims to follow as he does Constitutional law.

RR

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Heh, Obama seems to know as much about the religion he claims to follow as he does Constitutional law.

Heh. That statement reveals gross ignorance. The Constitution makes no requirement for knowing anything about religion. In fact, it specifically prohibits tests of religion. It is far better for the American people if their president is completely neutral as to matters of religious dogma. Such a position benefits both freedom of religious practice as well as government service.

0 ( +4 / -3 )

Obama tried to incite a "war on women" debate a while back that lasted for about 2 weeks before it was discovered women working in his White House earned less than their males counterparts.

Now, he's trying to do the same thing with the gay marriage debate. Problem is, gay marriage is a state issue. The feds do not issue marriage licenses; only states do that. He needs to man up and propose federal legislation to change the status quo. Now, that would be historic.

There is a word for what Obama's doing this election cycle: Distraction. He doesn't want the economy to be the main topic of the upcoming election. This is why he will continue to toss out one diversion bomb after the other until November.

And his lapdog in the MSM will continue to play along.

RR

0 ( +2 / -3 )

There is a word for what Obama's doing this election cycle: Distraction. He doesn't want the economy to be the main topic of the upcoming election.

Heh. Funny how the people spouting seemingly anti-gay messages from Leviticus in earlier posts quickly want to shift to some new, equally mendacious angle of attack.

Heh. The question is really how much the religious fundamentalists who spout Old Testament stuff can support the guy they have selected, as their champion, who wears magic underwear, and donates heavily to what some call a "cult" -- one that believes that God resides near Planet Kolob, and baptizes Jewish victims of the Holocaust. It is very comforting to anyone with a functioning brain to learn that Mitt Romney's thinking "will not evolve" as it regards same-sex marriage.

It is certainly rich, if not characteristically dishonest, for some Obama opponents to deflect attention from the fact that the economy was driven into the worst crisis since the Great Depression under the guidance of Republican "leadership" -- and then blaming the next guy for not getting it out of the hole they themselves drove it into fast enough. Heh.

1 ( +3 / -1 )

Not fair. Mitt "Etch-a-sketch" Romney evolves every day.

THEN: When asked if he would support legalized marriage for gay men and lesbians, Romney: I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it's a state issue as you know - the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.

THIS MORNING: Romney senior adviser said the campaign would make President Obama’s support for marriage equality an issue this November and that he would will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples.

Anyone know what Mr. "I'll be better than Ted for gay rights" is today? Lev 18:22? 20:13?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I spoke to a Dad yesterday of the traditional marriage type and he said it has been more than once that he as had to teach his children about how the world really was and not as taught in schools nor as portrayed by Hollywood. We have to teach God given values to our children and not allow the government and Hollywood to brainwash them. Obama is an opinion leader.

Obama means well and judgement should be reserved for God but marriage is a bit different from ... God made Adam and Eve and their love takes part in the creation of children. It is fruitful, naturally. Obama could have been traditional and compassionate by defining marriage as it is defined but shown compassion with civil unions (because it really is none of our business).

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I love the USA. There seems to be religious animosity growing because of this issue. A basic freedom of Religion may be lost. With it goes Speech, the Press and Assembly. Not a bright future should the churches be forced to silence because of "hate speech". Catholics will not be changing their position and neither will evangelicals because the bible is pretty clear on this subject. However, it is an issue that must be treated sensitively. A lot of gray here. Obama could have spoken with a little more wisdom.

I think, like Japan, underneath all the rhetoric is a kindhearted, tolerant and traditional people in the USA. Let us get out and vote and duplicate what the good Ladies and Gentlemen of the great state of North Carolina did. Let us fight for the next generation and leave them with the freedoms we have enjoyed. Also, treat all people with dignity and respect. God Bless everyone and I mean everyone. Obama and I probably agree on the last statement.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

Anyone else note the way the article is written? You could easily write it as, Obama becomes the only US President ever to back gay unions, instead he is somehow a pioneer because he the first to support them. Really does make me laugh.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How about saying as it is without over coating the paint over and over again. There should be two types of marriage certificates: Opposite sex marriage and Same sex marriage clearly define on it. Gay couples should have legal rights, civil rights....as traditional term of marriage since the world is evolving. If any other form of marriage is missing, we have to wait for Obama to pioneer the new concept.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I have no objection to people of the same sex having "Civil Partnerships" but please, marriage is between one man and one woman, among other things for the procreation of the human race. In that sense, "marriage" between two men or two women is unnatural, since they cannot procreate together. Its not only the Oxford Dictionary which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but also the Law of the Creator God of the Universe. Its really interesting that the Bible, and Christians in particular, are under severe attack over this issue. My understanding is that people of most religious persuasions are against it, not just Christians. I also beleive that the majority of people in most countries would also be against same sex marriage. I wonder why they feel they want to get married? Is a Civil Partnership not sufficient for them? Many heterosexual couples no longer wish to get married at all. is this not just another "in your face" approach by the GLBT communities? They are really doing themselves a disservice by pushing things like this so much.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"To all those who suggest it's just a political ploy -- shame on you."

Smith, Smith, Smith..... were you smiling while you wrote that?

Would you be surprised at the emails, and videos made the next day by his team?

This is just like the contraception red herring. Obama and his team are going to turn this into pro-women, pro-gay,pro-cool, against the hateful mainly white, old Republican party.

And, yeah, I think you'd have to be extremely naive to think the free contraception and this gay statement were just off the cuff things.

Combined with the power of the media and hollywood, Romney's got it tough.

I suggest the Republicans get some clever PR people in a hurry.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's okay to be pro-gay marriage, but can we stop with this game that Obama was sooo brave and risking everything. Unless you really are that easily fooled??

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Not a bright future should the churches be forced to silence because of "hate speech".

The church not getting to speak for us all is not the same as silencing the church. The church can speak all it wants to its flock. But I am a member of no church, therefore, I do not want any laws placed on me that is born of church dictates.

The church has had far too much influence in America on matters that are purely matters of belief. If you want to believe that a marriage is only between a man and a woman, and consider any other partnership to not be a "real" marriage, that is fine, and you are entitled to your opinion, even so far as to tell people they will go to hell. But when your religious opinion is enshrined in law, that is a massive problem. Its a clear violation of church and state.

So keep your religious opinion, but it better not carry over into discrimination in the workplace. You keep your religion near you and yours, and off of us. Okay?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Serrano: "I don't doubt the pundits think this is genuine. I also don't doubt Obama said this because he believes he will gain politically."

Yes, well, Republicans DO tend to make things up and believe whatever they want, without any rational reason for doing so. Obviously Obama has thought this for a while -- it doesn't mean he has to announce it publicly to pander to critics like yourself. But just like I said the other day when I pointed out how badly you whined when Obama said he would close Gitmo then complained how he hasn't lived up to his promise to do so, you'd be criticizing Obama if he didn't openly state he's for gay marriage -- you guys just want to criticize for the sake of criticism.

What's your stance on the issue, by the way? Are you for or against homosexuals being equals and finding happiness?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What I don't understand is, why do people say he's doing this for votes? There are two main political parties in the USA. Gay people rarely if ever vote Republican, so they would be voting for him anyway. What votes is he getting? Biden already gave his support, and a VP giving their support means a lot. By saying he supports gay marriage, at best he is getting a very small amount of people who support gay marriage and were on the fence (not that many). However, there are probably more Americans who would feel alienated by this move, and might vote Republican because of this. This is my opinion but I believe it was not a good idea politically to announce this (loses more votes than he gains) even though I do support gay marriage.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

realist

I have no objection to people of the same sex having "Civil Partnerships" but please, marriage is between one man and one woman, among other things for the procreation of the human race. In that sense, "marriage" between two men or two women is unnatural, since they cannot procreate together.

And so is marriage between a man and an infertile woman also unnatural?

Its not only the Oxford Dictionary which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but also the Law of the Creator God of the Universe.

So if atheists want to marry should that be banned too? Since they don't believe 'the Law of the Creator God of the Universe.'

I wonder why they feel they want to get married? Is a Civil Partnership not sufficient for them?

OK, answer me this: do you think that people in different sex marriages would be happy to be called in a civil partnership. I doubt it. And wondering why they feel they want to get married? Many, many people feel this way. Just because they are gay doesn't change this.

They are really doing themselves a disservice by pushing things like this so much.

Really? I can totally see why they are pushing it. It is not doing themselves a disservice.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

And so is marriage between a man and an infertile woman also unnatural?

Not at all, if an infertile woman woman wishes to attempt to try and become fertile through modern medicine so they can have a child together is that not just trying to help the couple fullfill what is a considered a normal natural thing for most straight marriages?

So if atheists want to marry should that be banned too? Since they don't believe 'the Law of the Creator God of the Universe.'

Atheists tend to be believe in cold blooded rational science without any mysticism involved. Cold blooded science states that same sex happening with members of our species will never ever produce a child, it is what it is no getting around it.

OK, answer me this: do you think that people in different sex marriages would be happy to be called in a civil partnership.

I really do not believe it's societies responsibility to ensure their happiness or for anybody else's for that matter. There is no happy, happy, joy, joy bureau in Washington, a civil partnership is a fine recognition of the relationship and its totally tolerant by the vast majority of U.S society and it does confers a legitmancy to the relationship that does mirror a traditional marriage between a man and woman with the exception of producing a child, I also fail to see the need to force it into anything different then this myself except for going for crass politics and wedge issues advantages.

-3 ( +2 / -4 )

sailwind

Not at all, if an infertile woman woman wishes to attempt to try and become fertile through modern medicine so they can have a child together is that not just trying to help the couple fullfill what is a considered a normal natural thing for most straight marriages?

Got it. So only if medicine fails the union is unnatural.

Atheists tend to be believe in cold blooded rational science without any mysticism involved. Cold blooded science states that same sex happening with members of our species will never ever produce a child, it is what it is no getting around it.

No, I was saying that atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry because they don't believe 'the Law of the Creator God of the Universe.'

I really do not believe it's societies responsibility to ensure their happiness or for anybody else's for that matter. There is no happy, happy, joy, joy bureau in Washington, a civil partnership is a fine recognition of the relationship and its totally tolerant by the vast majority of U.S society and it does confers a legitmancy to the relationship that does mirror a traditional marriage between a man and woman with the exception of producing a child, I also fail to see the need to force it into anything different then this myself except for going for crass politics and wedge issues advantages.

I have no idea what your point is here. My point is that most couples want to call their marriage just that and not a civil union. That makes no difference whether the couples are same sex or not.

1 ( +1 / -1 )

Got it. So only if medicine fails the union is unnatural.

The union is natural just unfullfilled when it comes to having a child, the right biology is in place to try and produce a child. Same sex union, always unfullfilled when it somes to having a child, the same biology is in place not to produce one.

No, I was saying that atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry because they don't believe 'the Law of the Creator God of the Universe.'

Of course they should be allowed to marry and in my opinion they are just as religious as any other group of believers they just call the Creator a different name, not "God" but "Science" instead is the top guy in their book.

My point is that most couples want to call their marriage just that and not a civil union.

Then let them call it that, makes no difference to me how they refer to themselves after being duly bonded in a civil union.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

sailwind

The union is natural just unfullfilled when it comes to having a child, the right biology is in place to try and produce a child. Same sex union, always unfullfilled when it somes to having a child, the same biology is in place not to produce one.

OK, let's put it another way - different sex marriage where the couple decides NOT to have kids. How is this different from a gay marriage?

Then let them call it that, makes no difference to me how they refer to themselves after being duly bonded in a civil union.

So you are OK with the state calling it a marriage as well?

0 ( +1 / -2 )

they just call the Creator a different name, not "God" but "Science"

No way. Science is not a replacement for religion. The two are unrelated, and it takes a foolish religion based mind to even try and equate the two.

What bothers me about the debate between Sailwind and 2020 is that gay couples can call their union whatever they want. If the state calls it a civil union, the couple can still call it a marriage. There is no law stopping them. There is no reason why the government should dictate terminology. Yes people, we really don't need to lick the government's boots. Even in a state which does not recognize gay marriage, two gay people can have a wedding and call their relationship a marriage. We are free, if we let ourselves be. Its just that that marriage cannot be registered with that state and they have no special rights. But they can still live as a married couple. To helll with the state.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It is interesting to note that most blacks seem to be against gay marriage. And it seems to be its because they don't want their own fight for civil rights to be in any way confused with the gay fight for civil rights. And I find it to be very unfortunate that anyone would want to deny civil rights to one group in a bid to protect their own. And so, I am happy to see the half black, but usually identified as just black, President Obama stand up and clearly support this civil rights issue for gays.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

OK, let's put it another way - different sex marriage where the couple decides NOT to have kids. How is this different from a gay marriage?

The different sex marriage is exercising an option that is available in the marriage and that choice is not to have kids after all. The option is not there for a same sex couple, it really is the whole basic difference between the two relationships and no matter how you view it the difference is not going to change. The love my be the same, the commitment may be the same, the intimancy may be the same but it is not the same as a traditional marriage between a man and woman when it comes to getting married and having children.

Shouldn't we just recognize that there is a difference based on unchangeable biology and just show mutual respect for any two people regardless of sexual orientation to commit to a realtionship, be it in a traditional marriage or in a civil union and celebrate that fact, instead of forcing views or beliefs to force a change and then demonizing those who have the termenity to disagree with the view that they are really100 percent the same, and then demonstrate the bad taste to actually state that in public forum.

No way. Science is not a replacement for religion. The two are unrelated, and it takes a foolish religion based mind to even try and equate the two.

A zealot that worships at the alter of a church and a zealot that worships at the alter of science is still a zealot. And Science does seek to replace religion by making it irrelevant based on science.law and physics, it then actuall becomes a "religion " in itself as the overall "creator" of things to a rational based mind if one really thinks about it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It is interesting to note that most blacks seem to be against gay marriage.

I think also this has a lot to do with deeply religious blacks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Science does seek to replace religion by making it irrelevant based on science.law and physics, it then actuall becomes a "religion " in itself as the overall "creator" of things to a rational based mind if one really thinks about it.

Its completely not true. Some people may label themselves scientific and believe what you wrote, but they do not represent science and they are not thinking straight. Science and religion are not at odds, but science does cast doubt on some religious beliefs, but no more than simple common sense.

What it boils down to is that people of faith really, really despise questions and doubt. The whole gay debate inspires questions and doubt and that is why the faithful hate it so much. Religion is taking a big hit because people are learning to think rationally. Science is just being used as a scapegoat and embodiment of all rational thought.

But science itself does not seek to debunk religion at all. Science cannot and does not even try to prove that God does not exist or that the events of the Bible did not happen. It does not speak against the religious ban on homosexual behavior. Religious people can keep their rules, but science will provide ways for gays to safely do their thing (creation of condoms, lubricants, STD fighting drugs, etc), and religious types misinterpret those as justifications for the behaviors, which they aren't. Science provides answers to problems. It does not justify anything or change rules.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I have many gay friends and many straight friends. A few of my straight friends argue that people should only be allowed to marry one another if they are able to conceive a child together. They would say that being married should be reserved for families.

Which I think is total nonsense, you don't have to be married to start a family. So whats the difference between that and getting married but not having children

They don't want the "sanctity" or marriage ruined - I would argue the sanctity of marriage was ruined long ago when every second person started getting divorced.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well put 2 jessebaybay!

They would say that being married should be reserved for families.

The thing I'd like to know is: where did they pluck this ludicrous idea from?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

What it boils down to is that people of faith really, really despise questions and doubt.

I'm not really sure of the basis for your thinking for this blanket statement. Most people that I've known that have an abiding faith in a God or creator as they view it in their lives are full of questions and doubt. It is why they pray for guidance when making hard difficult decisions and hope they have made the right call. They seek out a much higher authority then themselves to answer their prayers and many of those prayers had originated because of doubt and questions in the first place.

Science provides answers to problems

Science provides answers to problems that previous Science also had created in the first place.......Industrial Revolution......Air Pollution, Electrical power Generation......Fukushima melt down. Agriculture green revolution...deforestation, etc.

Science also evolves just as much as religion does with the times and both do not stay static and both do have time honored traditions. And both can be very compatable together, Gregor Mendel was a monk and if it wasn't for him the basis of modern genetics might not be here right now in the modern form that it is right now that benefits humanity

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sailwind

The different sex marriage is exercising an option that is available in the marriage and that choice is not to have kids after all. The option is not there for a same sex couple, it really is the whole basic difference between the two relationships...

Well the option not to have kids is there in a same sex marriage. And if they want kids they can adopt.

But, I agree it's a difference and a rather obvious one. It's also a completely irrelevant one.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sailwind

Shouldn't we just recognize that there is a difference based on unchangeable biology and just show mutual respect for any two people regardless of sexual orientation to commit to a realtionship, be it in a traditional marriage or in a civil union and celebrate that fact, instead of forcing views or beliefs to force a change and then demonizing those who have the termenity to disagree with the view that they are really100 percent the same, and then demonstrate the bad taste to actually state that in public forum.

So none are 100% the same. We have:

Different sex marriage - can't have kids

Different sex marriage - don't want kids

Different sex marriage - decide to adopt kids

Different sex marriage - have own kids

Same sex marriage - don't want kids

Same sex marriage - decide to adopt kids

Why are you saying that the Same sex marriages should be a civil union and the different sex ones are marriage?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

realist

Its not only the Oxford Dictionary which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but also the Law of the Creator God of the Universe. Its really interesting that the Bible, and Christians in particular, are under severe attack over this issue.

Dictionaries are written by man in accordance with current law and understanding. The Greek dictionary in Aristotle's's time might have given a description of 'The Earth' as being thus; "A flat plane on which land sits and the oceans spill off. All fishermen must be careful of going too far out to prevent falling off the edge".The Bible, or more accurately, Bibles, were also written by man, as you are well aware. Not only were they written by man, but written at a time when the Earth was still flat and a fair and reasonable punishment for proclaiming yourself The Son of God was to be nailed to a cross, have your legs broken, get impaled by spears and left to die a very slow and very agonizing death over the course of a couple of days. Hardly an age of enlightenment and really not too relevent in informing an argument in a vastly, vastly different world some 2000 years later.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Different sex marriage - decide to adopt kids

Which is in fact a pretty darn extra special priviledge that has been granted to a same sex and is pretty benevolent of society since they can't naturally have children at all in the first place and nature put that marker there. In fact, that also highlights as to why the two are actually different.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Let them marry, they aren't harming anyone. Who cares what religous people think, there is a seperation between church and state in America.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It seems some/many people are missing the fact here that gays actually can have children naturally, just not with each other.

So that would give:

Different sex marriage - can't have kids

Different sex marriage - don't want kids

Different sex marriage - decide to adopt kids

Different sex marriage - have own kids

Same sex marriage - can't have kids (This one isn't too difficult to understand)

Same sex marriage - don't want kids

Same sex marriage - decide to adopt kids

Same sex marriage - have own kids (Just not with each other. This is not too different from many kids in 'normal' modern families who have parents that are remarried in new family configurations )

The only bad effect I see for these kids is the stigma that society might attach to them. So lets just avoid that, and there is nothing to worry about.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Almost forgot, here's the recent Gallup poll:

.

"For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

.

What's more important is the trend. As each succeeding generation becomes more open to same-sex marriage, eventually simply due to demographics, sooner or later it wouldn't be a surprise that it'll be the law of the land.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Which [the ability to adopt a child] is in fact a pretty darn extra special priviledge [sic] that has been granted to a same sex and is pretty benevolent of society since they can't naturally have children at all in the first place and nature put that marker there.

It depends upon the values professed by the society. Coming from a society which professes that all people have inalienable rights that are innate to their being, and that among those many rights is the pursuit of happiness, the above statement is extremely arrogant, bigoted and anti-social. (In the last word, replace "social" with "American" if the statement of values matches.)

The question is at what point a government entity feels it has its own right to step in and say "NO" to adult citizens of sound mind seeking to form mutually-agreed upon contracts that hurt no one and enable them to pursue their own happiness. As it relates to the topic, when a same-sex couple wants to raise a child, and they contract with a person of the opposite sex to either supply the sperm or the ovum/womb, only those of a controlling, freedom-hating mentality would believe that government has a right to intrude on their lives and prohibit them from doing so.

The genuine willingness to take on the responsibility to raise a child properly far outweighs the minor importance of the sperm or womb donation. Unless, that is, some religious dogma is working behind the scenes to force its will on everyone through government force. Again, only the most freedom-loathing mind would come up with the idea that two people doing nothing more than pursuing their happiness through their commitment to raise a child are being granted some "pretty darn special extra privilege."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As it relates to the topic, when a same-sex couple wants to raise a child, and they contract with a person of the opposite sex to either supply the sperm or the ovum/womb, only those of a controlling, freedom-hating mentality would believe that government has a right to intrude on their lives and prohibit them from doing so.

I hasten to add that the above also applies to those who believe that government would be right to withhold the same rights and privileges granted to children planned and raised by same-sex parents, as they would grant to those produced in what certain members of society would classify as a "traditional arrangement."

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Isn't it odd that so many people that claim to be for same sex marriage are themselves unwilling to even consider marrying another person of the same sex? If a white person were to tell you that I support black people marrying other black people but I wouldn't marry one myself, everyone would consider that racist - and rightly so. Logically therefore, if you are so utterly turned off by the thought of being intimate with another person of the same sex then you should rightly be considered a homophobe. Hey, if it's a civil rights issue why be a bigot? Looking at the issue with a clear eye (as opposed to a queer or straight eye), you would have to be bi-sexual in order not discriminate against one side or the other.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Isn't it odd that so many people that claim to be for same sex marriage are themselves unwilling to even consider marrying another person of the same sex?

Odd? To someone without the ability to think or reason beyond a very basic level, perhaps.

If a white person were to tell you that I support black people marrying other black people but I wouldn't marry one myself, everyone would consider that racist - and rightly so.

But when the question becomes one of having sexual relations with other races, it's amazing how even the most racist of whites can become color blind for the two to three minutes they're usually "good for."

Logically therefore, if you are so utterly turned off by the thought of being intimate with another person of the same sex then you should rightly be considered a homophobe.

Not that simple, chum. There is the conscious and then there is the subconscious. While males are often consciously repulsed by a thought, psychological studies have shown time and again that the more something consciously repulses someone to the point of obsessing over it, the greater it is longed for subconsciously. If this were not true, then the most popular erotic movies and art among males would only show females. There is a reason that movies of legendary porn-star John Holmes were extremely popular in the Deep South among the red-blooded males.

How many of them leave their wives at home to go out and spend quality time with "the boys?"

According to your crazy attempt at logic, which only views things in terms of pure sex, anyone who was unwilling to have sex with an animal would be termed an "animal hater." All I can say is: Keep voting Republican.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Odd? To someone without the ability to think or reason beyond a very basic level, perhaps.

So your ability to reason is so above everyone else you are going to ignore the point altogether? If as the President says, gay marriage is akin to a civil right then why won't you acknowledge that any person unwilling to have a relationship with a person of the same sex is a bigot? If you can say it about race why not about sexuality?

But when the question becomes one of having sexual relations with other races, it's amazing how even the most racist of whites can become color blind for the two to three minutes they're usually "good for."

I am married to someone of a different race so what is your point? Well, I guess you don't have one do you? This kind of statement is unreasoned and offensive. You shouldn't make assertions that you cannot substantiate.

According to your crazy attempt at logic, which only views things in terms of pure sex, anyone who was unwilling to have sex with an animal would be termed an "animal hater."

I didn't say "sex" I said intimacy. Intimacy includes sex of course but entails much more as well. But regardless, you are avoiding the issue. If it's not okay for a white man to to reject a relationship with a black women because she is black, then how can it be okay for a man to reject a relationship with another man just because of his gender? In the first case it's racist isn't it? My basic point is that based on the civil rights standard, any person unwilling to even date another person of the same sex is being discriminatory. That includes all of you who claim to be straight but support gay marriage.

I think too many people haven't even bothered to think about the issue before coming to a conclusion about it. Most seem to have reflexively jumped up in favor of something just so they cannot be called politically incorrect.

0 ( +2 / -3 )

If as the President says, gay marriage is akin to a civil right then why won't you acknowledge that any person unwilling to have a relationship with a person of the same sex is a bigot?

I mean, just look at that statement. If two people of the same sex want to be legally recognized as a married couple, then it is bigotry for anyone to deny them that right for reasons that go far beyond repulsive thoughts they likely have about the sex-part of such a relationship. It is the third party refusing that raises civil rights issues.

The game you are trying to play is an extremely childish and manipulative one, and so easily seen through. I note that you dropped the word "intimate" as an adjective to modify "relationship." So yes, in that case, I will acknowledge that a man who would refuse to have any kind of relationship with another man is likely a bigot -- and a very strange person indeed.

But as soon as physical intimacy leading to sex is brought into play, then a rather subjective quality known as attractiveness comes into the picture. And it is most certainly not bigotry to not be attracted by another individual, for whatever reason, as long as one is being truly honest with themselves. There is nothing inherently sexual about a racial, cultural or religious difference -- but one need only look at the words heterosexual and homosexual to realize that your childish response of creating this false bigotry is shattered by the very meaning of the words themselves.

But perhaps another real issue is inadvertently being raised here: As President Obama's efforts to repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell have been successful, and as he has lent his bully pulpit to advancing acceptance of same-sex marriage, the men (especially) who are so obsessed and fearful that they might actually be sexually attracted to other men but have repressed it through social conditioning are going to have to deal with their own cowardice sooner or later.

My basic point is that based on the civil rights standard, any person unwilling to even date another person of the same sex is being discriminatory.

Huh? How do dating preferences of an individual have anything to do with civil rights? You actually think you have a civil right to date anyone who refuses to date you, and to call them a bigot for refusing? Are you actually claiming that everyone has to be completely bisexual or be called a bigot for refusing either side, if they happen to support rights for homosexuals? If so, it's a completely nutso point.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I mean, just look at that statement. If two people of the same sex want to be legally recognized as a married couple, then it is bigotry for anyone to deny them that right

Fail! That is too simple of an interpretation of marriage. The fact of the matter is, the "right" to be married is not absolute to anyone. Marriage was designed for the advantage of society as a whole. Is it bigoted to prevent a bisexual person from marrying both a man and another woman? Based on the arguments for gay marriage it would be. Yet no one in the LGBT community is advocating for the rights of bisexuals to marry. I can come up with many more instances in which consenting adults are prohibited from marrying. Why is marriage limited to only two people? Why can't a sterile man marry his aunt? I just wish people would be thoughtful enough to not be so black and white and simple minded about social issues and think them through logically. The idea that gay marriage is somehow a civil right is plainly wrong.

The game you are trying to play is an extremely childish and manipulative one, and so easily seen through. I note that you dropped the word "intimate" as an adjective to modify "relationship."

I am in no way being manipulative - I have simply disproved your illogical point of view about homosexuality and the right to marry. It is as if people think that the guidelines for marriage were just invented 50 years ago with no historical or cultural context. Just because people are adults doesn't automatically qualify them for marriage. By the way, I dropped the word 'intimate' because you were attempting to minimize the issue by focusing solely on it. This is your quote:

But when the question becomes one of having sexual relations ...

My intention is not to focus solely on the sexuality part of homosexuality and it's subculture - though that is obviously the primary difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals (along with the ability to procreate).

So yes, in that case, I will acknowledge that a man who would refuse to have any kind of relationship with another man is likely a bigot --

I don't mean any kind of relationship, I mean an intimate relationship "gay" relationship with all that implies. A man can love his best friend, but that does not imply the intimacy of a homosexual relationship (except in the overactive minds of Liberals).

Huh? How do dating preferences of an individual have anything to do with civil rights?

That was a bad analogy on my part. I should not have referred to civil rights in the sense of being against the law. I was thinking of the social standard that has changed since the civil rights era. Nutso point taken.

Are you actually claiming that everyone has to be completely bisexual or be called a bigot for refusing either side, if they happen to support rights for homosexuals?

Yes, I am stating that those people who are not homosexual but say they support gay marriage are hypocrites and by their own definition - bigots. It's like a white person saying, "I like Japanese people; I could care less what they do behind close doors but I wouldn't date one." By that standard, it's straight up bigotry. If homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality why do the hypocrites reject it for themselves?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality why do the hypocrites reject it for themselves?

A good and valid point.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Wolfpack You have seriously confused sexuality and the laws of attraction with bigotry. In fact, the statements you are making are completely self-contradictory in nature.

Yes, I am stating that those people who are not homosexual but say they support gay marriage are hypocrites and by their own definition - bigots

That, simply stated, is called tolerance, or acceptance - the polar opposite to bigotry. I cannot find any logic whatsoever in the position that accepting someone else's sexual orientation is hypocritical or bigoted.

If homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality why do the hypocrites reject it for themselves

Homosexuality is entirely 'normal' and has been normal for as long as human have recorded history. It's well documented in all cultures. Secondly, being heterosexual means you are attracted to members of the opposite sex, so in my case for example, I am simply not interested in a sexual relationship with a man because I am not attracted to men. Period. That's not because I am 'intolerant' of men, or disapprove of men, I just don't want to roll in the hay with one. But I am entirely happy for other men to feel and behave differently to me because it is not my place to tell them they are 'queer' or 'sick' or 'unnatural' for doing so. That would be bigoted. And I'm also happy for them to be so madly in love that they want to promise themselves to each other at the exclusion of all others for the rest of their lives, and make a formal, legal promise to that effect in front of family and friends and the state. So, you either don't really understand the literal meaning of bigotry, or you are intentionally distorting the meaning to construct a self-serving argument on this topic. Either way, it's illogical.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Obama has shown he's a mature man and politician. While some outdated minds keep stating that same-sex marriage is not natural...the world moves on, leaving them behind.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Isn't it odd that so many people that claim to be for same sex marriage are themselves unwilling to even consider marrying another person of the same sex

Oh, I think most of us have considered it. Just because we rejected it or didn't do it does not mean we have not considered it. I imagine the sex would be more frequent and the nagging would be less.

If homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality why do the hypocrites reject it for themselves?

A better question is to ask why they don't dabble in bisexuality, since its pretty obvious they do like the opposite sex and are not just going to give them up one day. Well, why don't we? Because it comes with social stigma. The day there is no shame in being bisexual is the day you see droves of young people dabble in it (the old are set in their ways). If and when society no longer frowns upon same sex sex, you will see it everywhere, just as the ancient Greeks had it. But most societies have a stigma against it.

Just the other day I was watching a feature on TV about Thai ladyboys. There are so many! I don't know if there is a stigma against it in Thailand, but surely there must be less. When society loosens up, so will individuals. We are not hypocrites for guarding our reputations by avoiding homosexual relationships in our youth to become totally uninteresting in them later. Society did this to us. People like you, who frown on same sex marriage did this to us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack - you make a good point and I will remember it for future discussions. But you know, next on the agenda is exactly that: treatment for those who deny that gay behavior is normal and acceptable. Wolfpack, your on the list. Kidding.

Also, as freedom can trump another's rights as in terminated pregnancies, so will this gay agenda for freedom trump many rights of religion, speech and assembly in the USA . How about the right to raise your children with your values? Not acceptable perhaps in a few years. Evangelicals and the Catholic Church in America will have to be oppressed... or contained for a more PC term.

The world will not go for it though. The West's attempts to export the termination of pregnancies in other countries in the UN before were blocked by the Evangelicals, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, and Africans. They will do the same with the gay agenda. Defenders of marriage and traditional families are not alone. China may even be on board for this one.

But for the USA, Boy Scouts are evil and the Bible is hate literature. A bit scary for us all. What's next? Indoctrination of our children? If we try to protect our children will we be arrested? Starting to sound like Germany in the 1930s.

Our poor children. The two generation before them have terminated 25% of their peers, spent their future earnings to pay for their lavish lifestyle and pensions (public employees), burdened them with massive college loan debt, and they now have to steer our children toward same sex attractions through education and the media. I am sure they are saying thank you.

"Soyant Green" awaits us if we do help our children. It may be exactly what we have become anyway.

JAPAN should be OK. Thank God for the Japanese. A great people that questions any kind of change that differs from how things were done in the past. It is wise.

The people of North Carolina have spoken and so will we in November. Let's be tolerant but not rolled over. Obama miscalculated. And when we win no one will be bothering the gay community. Life will go on as usual.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Soyant Green" awaits us if we do not help our children. It may be exactly what we have become anyway.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"Soylant Green" awaits us if we do not help our children. It may be exactly what we have become anyway.

Golly -

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The genuine willingness to take on the responsibility to raise a child properly far outweighs the minor importance of the sperm or womb donation. Unless, that is, some religious dogma is working behind the scenes to force its will on everyone through government force. Again, only the most freedom-loathing mind would come up with the idea that two people doing nothing more than pursuing their happiness through their commitment to raise a child are being granted some "pretty darn special extra privilege."

Fail, no religious dogma is working behind the scenes, nature has already worked its 'dogma' far before any religion even came into being. To go around natures dogma requires that "minor importance of the sperm or womb donation".. Since a same sex marriage has to go outside of what nature had decreed was the standard to produce a child and society has no issue with going over natures "dogma" to allow it makes it a privilege. Nature's inalienable right states they can't reproduce children on their own. Society going around natural law to allow it is one heck of a privilege being granted. Or to put it another way, if there was no Government granting the privilege to a same sex couple to adopt, they aren't going to have children as they can't. Pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with it. Pursuit of a sperm donor or a womb for 9 month rental is much more apt.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That is too simple of an interpretation of marriage. The fact of the matter is, the "right" to be married is not absolute to anyone.

LOL!! FAIL!! The right to pursue happiness through means which do not hurt or infringe on the rights of other people is far closer to being an absolute right to genuine Americans any assumed right by an ever-decreasing percentage who believe their limited interpretation of marriage has to adhered to by everyone.

Marriage was designed for the advantage of society as a whole.

Nobody but some delusional conservative fanatics believe that they have the power to "design" marriage. With over 50% of marriages dissolving in divorce, their "design" has obvious flaws.

Is it bigoted to prevent a bisexual person from marrying both a man and another woman?

You are talking about a form of polygamy. My personal view is that as long as all parties are consenting adults, they have a right to engage in whatever arrangement they think best serves their pursuit of happiness without infringing on the rights of others. As to the division of property and such, that could become a real mess -- which is the real reason why the State bans polygamy: it's so much more convenient and easy when just two parties are involved.

Why can't a sterile man marry his aunt?

Sterile or not, if two adults want to enter into a contract, a society based upon freedom would not stand in their way.

It is as if people think that the guidelines for marriage were just invented 50 years ago with no historical or cultural context.

Everything changes over time. Get used to it. It's the real world.

Yes, I am stating that those people who are not homosexual but say they support gay marriage are hypocrites and by their own definition - bigots... If homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality why do the hypocrites reject it for themselves?

Anyone who believes in freedom would have to agree that it is the individual who is free to choose the partner who they think will help them best pursue and achieve happiness via marriage. Choosing one means also being free not to choose others. It is the mind of the oppressive tyrant -- and the real freedom-hating bigot -- that childishly asserts that a person's free choice that doesn't fit their exact, manipulated conditions must be a sign of hypocrisy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So, you either don't really understand the literal meaning of bigotry, or you are intentionally distorting the meaning to construct a self-serving argument on this topic. Either way, it's illogical.

Precisely.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

so will this gay agenda for freedom trump many rights of religion, speech and assembly in the USA . How about the right to raise your children with your values? Not acceptable perhaps in a few years. Evangelicals and the Catholic Church in America will have to be oppressed... or contained for a more PC term.

What paranoid nonsense! If having your children not associate with married gays means so damn much to you based on your values, then you are free to set up a private community with your own private schools. You can do as the Amish do.

Or you can just teach your kids your values as best you can and hope they will continue to abide by your values by their own choice, despite what they see outside, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US DO!

Quite simply, you are lamenting your loss of hegemony over people who do not share your faith or values and quite falsely claiming your loss of unfair hegemony is the same as a loss of fair rights. Its vile and does not endear any of us to you religious types. Its evil and makes us think you are evil. Knock it off please.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Tamarama: I can appreciate the distinction you are attempting to make. I am simply pointing out an inconsistency in the idea of intolerance/bigotry proffered by those that support same sex marriage. This article mentions that supporters consider Obama's flip-flop on gay marriage to be a 'historic moment in civil rights history.' I personally do not agree. However, many people are saying that homosexuality is no different from race or other protected civil rights categories. This is clearly not the case and an apple to oranges comparison.

Wolfpack You have seriously confused sexuality and the laws of attraction with bigotry. In fact, the statements you are making are completely self-contradictory in nature.

The race analogy shows clearly the difference between bigotry on the one hand and sexual attraction and/or preference on the other. I apologize if I have done a poor job in explaining my view in this way. It wasn't that long ago that interracial relationships were taboo in America. Today, if a white person were to say that they don't mind that black people date other black people and could care less what they do behind closed doors but that they are not attracted to them simply due to their race - that person would be considered a bigot - and rightly so. Yet many supporters of gay marriage can say this same exact thing about homosexuals and fail to see the irony.

So if sexuality is the civil rights struggle of our day, wouldn't it be inconsistent to say that it's okay for other people to have same sex relationships but at the same time find it so unappealing for ones self? In other words, they actually see homosexuality as just another sexual fetish and not a natural human behavior or characteristic like race or gender. Race and sexuality are not the same despite Obama's newly emerging effort to make it an election year wedge issue.

So, you either don't really understand the literal meaning of bigotry, or you are intentionally distorting the meaning to construct a self-serving argument on this topic. Either way, it's illogical.

What is illogical is to state on the one hand that homosexuality is normal human behavior and then turn around and categorically reject it for yourself. Refer again to the race analogy. I could be missing something but I have not heard anyone make a reasoned and logical case for why gay marriage should be considered a civil right. It is not significantly different in importance to polygamous marriage or any of the numerous potential pairings among different groups of consenting adults that are currently outlawed in most places in America and around the world.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

yabits:

The right to pursue happiness through means which do not hurt or infringe on the rights of other people is far closer to being an absolute right to genuine Americans any assumed right by an ever-decreasing percentage who believe their limited interpretation of marriage has to adhered to by everyone.

I agree - so long as you do it outside of the government. No one is stopping gays from living together as a couple or making private contracts with one another to secure their economic well being. This is why I think the government should not be involved in marriage at all.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Fail, no religious dogma is working behind the scenes, nature has already worked its 'dogma' far before any religion even came into being.

It is the freedom-hating mind that believes it speaks for all of "nature." If there is a child that requires parents to raise him or her, it is equally "natural" for him or her to be raised by a responsible same-sex couple, hetero couple or single adult. Period.

Since a same sex marriage has to go outside of what nature had decreed...

The same is true of the infertile hetero couple or the single adult who desires raising a child. The State should not be favoring one over the other in terms of the grandiose self-delusion of assuming it is the arbiter of what "nature has decreed."

Society going around natural law to allow it is one heck of a privilege being granted.

Only to those who believe it is society that grants people the right to freely choose, and not in the concept that each individual is inherently free to work out arrangements of this type with other consenting, responsible individuals. If a couple is unable to produce children for any reason, and they find a way to bring a child into their family to raise, it is the freedom-hating, tyrannical mind which believes it has the right to interfere, especially when it claims that it is acting on behalf of "nature."

Or to put it another way, if there was no Government granting the privilege to a same sex couple to adopt, they aren't going to have children as they can't.

Such a statement implies that it is the government that has the sole authority to dole out parent-less children to homes that it approves of. Therefore, if a single mother with a terminal illness decides she wants her child to be raised by the gay or lesbian couple she has come to respect and love, the statement asserts she is not free to make that choice. She has to bow to the wishes of the State (often termed as "society," when it's actually the State) in the matter. And if the State assents to her wishes and her free choice, she has been granted some "pretty darn special extra privilege." I assert that the State has no such authority that supersedes the right of individuals to choose for themselves.

Pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with it. Pursuit of a sperm donor or a womb for 9 month rental is much more apt.

Pursuit of happiness has everything to do with it. The sperm or womb donor may be pursuing their own happiness by bringing children to childless couples who want to raise them. Only the person who despises freedom would seek to interfere with the free choice of others.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Wolfpack I have to admit, I've read your post several times, and I have real trouble trying to follow your threads of logic. Firstly, in my opinion the 'race analogy' (your sexual attraction analogy, which is not to be confused with your black civil rights analogy) to which you so often refer, and on which you base most of your argument, is irrelevent. I can see no relevence whatsoever.

So if sexuality is the civil rights struggle of our day, wouldn't it be inconsistent to say that it's okay for other people to have same sex relationships but at the same time find it so unappealing for ones self?

Again, struggling with the logic, but my answer is; Of course not. People are one of three sexual orientations - hetero, homo, or bi. Hetero, as I pointed out to you in my previous post means you do not find people of the same sex sexually attractive. I don't know how to make that any simpler. It doesn't mean you can't be happy for those who do, though. And there is absolutely no inconsistency there whatsoever.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is the freedom-hating mind that believes it speaks for all of "nature."

Freedom hating mind? Quite the hyperbole there.

If a couple is unable to produce children for any reason, and they find a way to bring a child into their family to raise, it is the freedom-hating, tyrannical mind which believes it has the right to interfere, especially when it claims that it is acting on behalf of "nature."

The state interferes all the time even you have heard of foster parents when the child's welfare has been deemed at stake with the parenting they currently have has failed. I also think you would have no compunction or problem with a child who's parent turned out to be a pedophile of having the state remove the child from the home in a heartbeat.

Such a statement implies that it is the government that has the sole authority to dole out parent-less children to homes that it approves of.

Adoption agencies do have to be registered with the State and they do approve the homes that the children go to. The term is called a legal adoption.

Only the person who despises freedom would seek to interfere with the free choice of others.

Total hyperbole and plain nonsense and suggests that it is you who would force a person to become a surrogate parent for a childless same sex couple if there were no "Volunteers wombs " available by the state so same sex couples can have children like any other straight sex couple who do not need outside "Volunteer wombs" to produce a child if they are both healthy and fertile.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Today, if a white person were to say that they don't mind that black people date other black people and could care less what they do behind closed doors but that they are not attracted to them simply due to their race - that person would be considered a bigot

Maybe on your planet, but not this one. You don't get to be a bigot by not being sexually attracted to a certain race. You get to be a bigot by demaning others may not be sexually attracted to a certain race.

Yet many supporters of gay marriage can say this same exact thing about homosexuals and fail to see the irony.

What surprises me is that you cannot see the ridiculousness of your statements. There is no irony in the fact that I support gay marriage but don't want to have homosexual relations. To make such a preposterous statement is the same as saying that I cannot support women's rights as I am not a woman. Our planet may be too advanced for you Wolfpack.

I support civil rights for blacks, but I am not black. I support women's rights, but I am not a woman. I support inter-racial marriage between all races, even though my inter-racial marriage is only white/asian. I support marijuana legalization, but I don't want to smoke it myself. I support your right to eat natto even though I hate that stinky garbage. I support gay rights, but I am not gay. I support gay marriage, but I don't want to marry a man. There is no irony or hypocrisy in any of that. My personal feelings, situation, race, etc. have absolutely no relationship to the freedoms and rights of others. But people thinking such stupid thoughts sure would explain a lot of oppression in the world.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Freedom hating mind? Quite the hyperbole there.

No hyperbole at all. There is no ambivalence for a real American when it comes to individual liberty. You either love it, deplore it, or are not American.

The state interferes all the time even you have heard of foster parents when the child's welfare has been deemed at stake...Adoption agencies do have to be registered with the State and they do approve the homes that the children go to. The term is called a legal adoption.

I am not saying that the state doesn't have a role to play. If an adoption agency receiving federal funds establishes a record of only approving adoptions by different-sex parents, the state would interfere to make sure that all applying couples have an equal opportunity to adopt.

Total hyperbole and plain nonsense and suggests that it is you who would force a person to become a surrogate parent for a childless same sex couple if there were no "Volunteers wombs " available by the state ...

Forcing? Ridiculous. I would not be opposed to generous subsidies to women to become surrogates for childless couples. But the actual decision to become a surrogate would be strictly voluntary.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I would not be opposed to generous subsidies to women to become surrogates for childless couples.

This would also include a free house and a taxpayer paid car for the women also to make sure Steve and Eve can have a kid with my tax dollars.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This would also include a free house and a taxpayer paid car for the women also to make sure Steve and Eve can have a kid with my tax dollars.

Amenities like that would be paid for by the prospective parents, upon agreement. As far as subsidies go, all payments and benefits to the surrogate mother would be tax-free, as well as deductible expenses on the parents' income taxes.

Your tax dollars are paying pretty heavily to incarcerate the millions of former abused and unwanted children, and that is only a tiny percentage of the damage to society they inflict with their crimes.

You simply don't know a bargain, or an investment, when you see one.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

ManBearPig:

Maybe on your planet, but not this one.

I am surprised that you would admit that. Where I am from- here on Earth - if a person were to state that another person's race makes you think differently about them in some way it would be considered discrimination if not outright bigotry. Especially if you said that you wouldn't date or have some kind of personal relationship with that person because they happen to be black, white, Asian, etc...

You don't get to be a bigot by not being sexually attracted to a certain race. You get to be a bigot by demaning others may not be sexually attracted to a certain race.

I disagree - I think. I'm not sure if you meant "demean" or "demand". Regardless, if your attraction is based on something that you believe is innate such as race, it is discrimination whether you admit it or not. If you automatically rule out dating someone of a different race, that is racist is it not? Are you really that narrow minded that you can't see people as individuals? If a person is only attracted to people of a certain race, then I see that as more of a fetish. What I think you are not seeing is that I am using the analogy of race to show a contradiction with respect to peoples view of homosexuality. I do not see same sex relationships in the same way that I see other types of relationships. Race and gender are innate - homosexuality is not - in my opinion and based on all evidence. To me it is more of a sexual fetish just like some people's fetish for people of a certain race.

Apparently both you and I are in a white/Asian relationship. However, prior to the onset of my relationship it I had not gotten to know my future spouse as a person instead of ruling her out of consideration due to race, we never would have been married. I would think that would hit home with you.

What surprises me is that you cannot see the ridiculousness of your statements. There is no irony in the fact that I support gay marriage but don't want to have homosexual relations. To make such a preposterous statement is the same as saying that I cannot support women's rights as I am not a woman. Our planet may be too advanced for you Wolfpack.

Well, in turn it surprises me that you are willfully refusing to see a blatant contradiction with respect to the way discrimination is being applied to homosexuality as opposed to every other form of discrimination.

I support civil rights for blacks, but I am not black. I support women's rights, but I am not a woman.

It is an apples and oranges example to say you would have to be a woman to support women's rights or black to support civil rights for blacks. You are misapplying the analogy. In the race analogy, I do not imply that a white person must become black so as not to discriminate against blacks. Nice try but your example misses the mark. Your examples fail to address how discrimination and bigotry are applied differently in the the case of race/gender as opposed to homosexuality. My point is that "if" homosexuality is innate and natural as we are being told, then those that believe that should not be so closed minded as to reject outright the idea of having a same sex relationship themselves.

The bottom line is, if you say you are for homosexual civil rights but are not willing to treat them the same way as other people in every aspect of life - including your personal life - then you are discriminating against them - you are homophobic. Personally, I do not see homosexuality as a civil right but as a lifestyle choice - a choice that is repulsive to me as a heterosexual.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tamarama:

Firstly, in my opinion the 'race analogy' (your sexual attraction analogy, which is not to be confused with your black civil rights analogy) to which you so often refer, and on which you base most of your argument, is irrelevent. I can see no relevence whatsoever.

Attraction is relevant when discussing the idea of discrimination. Attraction includes human instinct as well as conscious preference and choice. The issue here is sexuality (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual). I use race to put the discussion in the proper context. If a person knowingly resists attraction to a person based on something innate such as race, then in my opinion that would be considered discrimination. Logically then, any person believing that homosexually is natural would have to assume something negative about it to resist being attracted to a person of the same sex. If homosexuality is okay, then what's wrong with it to cause someone to avoid it? This goes beyond ones own sexuality just as the race analogy goes beyond ones own race. It is obvious that even people who say they support gay marriage are personally repulsed by the idea themselves. It's like an Asian man saying, I think black women are fine but I wouldn't date one.

I do not feel that homosexuality is innate. However, if you do, then you would have to treat homosexuals as individuals in every aspect of life - work, social, and personal. The logical conclusion of stating that all types of sexuality are natural, innate, or something that nature intended is that it would be wrong to treat them differently in any manner whatsoever - including personal relationships. People are not looking at the entire issue in the proper context. The focus has only be on gay marriage. Notice that the LGBT community never talks about bisexuals and their rights. To do so would broaden the context to sexuality and not just homosexuals.

Again, struggling with the logic, but my answer is; Of course not. People are one of three sexual orientations - hetero, homo, or bi. Hetero, as I pointed out to you in my previous post means you do not find people of the same sex sexually attractive. I don't know how to make that any simpler. It doesn't mean you can't be happy for those who do, though. And there is absolutely no inconsistency there whatsoever.

So with respect to homosexuals, you like them but don't think enough of them to have a relationship with one yourself. If you were to substitute "black" (or some other race) for homosexual in that last sentence it would sound very offensive. Again, the issue is sexuality and not just homosexuality.

You are purposefully avoiding consideration of the logical conclusion that follows from the assertions made in favor of gay marriage - that it is innate, natural, and a civil right. So what we are talking about is people with a different sexuality and the idea is that it is wrong to discriminate against people with a different sexuality. Just as racists discriminate based on skin color, those in favor of gay marriage want to end discrimination based on sexuality. Yet they are perfectly willing to discriminate on that basis themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'gay for pay'

as the washington free beacon (center for American freedom) put it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack Ok. You keep insisting that your position is locical, but to me, and I can see to several of the other posters as well, the extent to which your argument is completely illogical is quite staggering. So, I'm really not sure why I'm bothering. Perhaps I am disturbed by your level of bigotry. deep breath Here goes.

If a person knowingly resists attraction to a person based on something innate such as race, then in my opinion that would be considered discrimination

This discussion isn't about race, or racial discrimination or racial vilification. That isn't linked to sexuality and sexual preferences in any way and you have just created an imaginary link to help support your position. They are completely seperate issues. It is a complete nonsense.

Logically then, any person believing that homosexually is natural would have to assume something negative about it to resist being attracted to a person of the same sex.

Look at what you have written here. There is nothing logical about this statement whatsoever. It doesn't make sense. It's an oxymoron.

It is obvious that even people who say they support gay marriage are personally repulsed by the idea themselves

How is it obvious? Homosexuals who support gay marriage clearly aren't repulsed by it. They might be repulsed by a hetero marriage though. But I support gay marriage, as I've told you. But I also don't really think about what being in one would be like too hard because I am a heterosexual man married to a woman very happily - there is no need for me to consider it in great detail. It's just not relevent to me.

However, if you do, then you would have to treat homosexuals as individuals in every aspect of life - work, social, and personal. The logical conclusion of stating that all types of sexuality are natural, innate, or something that nature intended is that it would be wrong to treat them differently in any manner whatsoever - including personal relationships

And this statement is one of your most spectacularly logically impoverished of all. You seem to confuse the fact that if homosexuality exists in some, it must exist in all. And that becase you yourself are not homosexual, then nobody else 'really' is either. That, my friend, is the very definition of bigotry.

So with respect to homosexuals, you like them but don't think enough of them to have a relationship with one yourself My personal feelings about what kind of character they are have no link to my sexuality whatsoever. I know a number of gay people - men and women, who I consider to be outstanding individuals. But I'm not attracted to men, so I'm not going to date one, regardless of the caliber of his character.

Just as racists discriminate based on skin color, those in favor of gay marriage want to end discrimination based on sexuality. Yet they are perfectly willing to discriminate on that basis themselves

It's pretty clear you cannot really grasp the difference between sexuality and discrimination, which is kind of surprising, given that they are completely different concepts.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The bottom line is, if you say you are for homosexual civil rights but are not willing to treat them the same way as other people in every aspect of life - including your personal life - then you are discriminating against them - you are homophobic. Personally, I do not see homosexuality as a civil right but as a lifestyle choice - a choice that is repulsive to me as a heterosexual.

Two individuals who have not any relationship to you form a union based upon their love for each other. It is a very small-minded and self-centered individual who could not be happy for them. Admitting to being repulsed means that more than a fair amount of time is spent imaging the goings on in their private lives behind closed doors.

It also indicates that other peoples' sex represents some kind of threat. So much so, that they will spend time and effort trying to bait others into a totally illogical position that support for gay rights without choosing a gay partner is bigotry. Simply put: That's messed up.

And that becase you yourself are not homosexual, then nobody else 'really' is either. That, my friend, is the very definition of bigotry.

Indeed. Well said.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Tamarama:

You seem to confuse the fact that if homosexuality exists in some, it must exist in all. And that becase you yourself are not homosexual, then nobody else 'really' is either. That, my friend, is the very definition of bigotry.

Well that makes absolutely no sense. Because I am not homosexual does not mean that I do not believe that they do not really exist in the world. If I actually wrote something like that I wish you would quote it back to me. I think it is difficult for people that are not used to viewing the issue as merely a political tool to be able to step back and look at it as what it actually is about; which is the human characteristic of "sexuality". The fact that I choose to be heterosexual in no way implies that there are no homosexuals any more than saying that if I were Hindu that I somehow didn't believe that Muslim people existed in the world.

This and most all of your other arguments simply make assumptions and dance around the fact that most of the people that say they support gay marriage - including from a few days ago President Obama - are themselves homophobic by choosing to categorize themselves as heterosexual. Being a certain race or mixed race is not something you can choose. However, people can choose their sexuality. People choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. Some even choose to be both in the case of bisexuals. Rejecting homosexuality as a legitimate form of sexuality for yourself is a choice. And shows that you are intolerant of it. I'm not saying you are bad because of it, but that you are a hypocrite for denouncing people who are against gay marriage. It's just a different opinion and a matter of degree.

Just saying you support gay marriage is all fine and good but doesn't come close to meaning that you accept homosexuality as legitimate in your own heart. I can say that I am not a racist but if I were not at least willing to consider marrying someone outside my race (which actually happened) then I cannot truly say that I am not racist. You do not have to be in a gay relationship to be open to it. People who choose to be heterosexual are not open to it and are by definition homophobic. If does happen that people who initially believe they are heterosexual or homosexual change their sexuality or become bisexual. If you cannot be open to having a relationship with a person of the same sex then you must admit that you have a problem with homosexuality. That is just a reality that you must accept whether you actually believe your are accepting of gay people or not. If you think that homosexuality is really something people just are, then why are you so against it in your own heart? You were able to get past race and obviously do not discriminate on that basis. Is it the intimacy aspect of homosexuality that makes you prefer to be heterosexual?

I think that people that get all indignant about those who oppose gay marriage - just as the President did until he felt he could turn it into a political advantage - should not throw stones from their glass houses.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's pretty clear you cannot really grasp the difference between sexuality and discrimination, which is kind of surprising, given that they are completely different concepts.

I am not claiming they are the same thing. What I am claiming is that discrimination based on sexuality should be viewed in the same manner in which race discrimination is viewed. Do you see race and sexuality as being different conceptually from one another?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Wolfpack, what you're arguing is clearly a logical fallacy. You're saying that if A = B then A must be C. They have no correlation whatsoever.

Not being a homosexual is NOT the same thing as being homophobic... face palm. Just like not being a Christian is not necessarily being anti-religion... Although you CAN be anti-religion as well as not be a Christian, but they are not related to each other in any way.

To make it perfectly clear:

Not being a homosexual = not being a homosexual Being homophobic = being homophobic

And most pro-homosexual people are arguing that sexuality for the most part is NOT choice, while you're arguing that it IS a choice.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

but it's okay if you are. I am not against people being homosexual.

No. From a very young age I found myself attracted to the opposite sex. There was never a time I had to make a choice. Any more than being right or left-hand dominant was a "choice." (Although there have been societies in history that have physically oppressed left-handed people as evil.) That's why I think you are full of it when you claim hetero is your choice.

"Not being against" people being homosexual is a bit different from accepting that a person's attraction to a certain gender is as innate as left or right-hand dominance. Nevertheless, many people ARE against other people "being homosexual." You seem to line up with that group despite your pronouncement to the contary.

Because an admission that people really can't decide who they are attracted to -- they may find themselves attracted exclusively to the opposite sex, exclusively to the same sex, or to both sexes -- would mean that each is free as an American to pursue happiness in the most fundamental way: To fall in love, choose a consenting life partner, and set up a home.

If government is treating all Americans equally under law, then one "marriage" would not be subject to any more special treatment than another.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Thomas Anderson:

what you're arguing is clearly a logical fallacy. You're saying that if A = B then A must be C. They have no correlation whatsoever.

I'm saying that discrimination is discrimination. If it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of race then it is wrong to discriminate on the basis on sexuality. I could just as easily say that if it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of gender then it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of race. I'm not saying you have to marry a person of the same race to prove you are not racist. However, if you consciously decide that you cannot marry a person on the basis of race, then you are racist. Why shouldn't sexuality be held to the same standard?

Not being a homosexual is NOT the same thing as being homophobic... face palm. Just like not being a Christian is not necessarily being anti-religion... Although you CAN be anti-religion as well as not be a Christian, but they are not related to each other in any way.

How is an aversion to homosexuality not homophobic? Can you be averse to a person of a different race and not be racist? Religion is different because you are not born with your religion as a physical trait as is the case with race or gender. People have argued that sexuality is not a choice but there is no science to back up that claim. There is no gay gene. There is no heterosexual or bisexual gene either. Sexuality is psychological and can be expressed in many different ways other than the so called traditional one man one women ordinary sexual relationship. Other examples range from the odd (S&M) to the criminal (pedophilia). Why would you believe that homosexuality is not a choice when there is no evidence to the contrary other than the political motivations of the gay community? I doubt anyone would believe that people are born with a sexual predisposition for latex - yet there are people that express their sexuality that way.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@yabits:

No. From a very young age I found myself attracted to the opposite sex. There was never a time I had to make a choice. Any more than being right or left-hand dominant was a "choice." (....) That's why I think you are full of it when you claim hetero is your choice.

When I was very young I had no interest in an intimate relationship - because I was a child. When I got older and saw that people were in opposite relationships it seemed natural to me want the same. I think that just on Darwinian survival terms people choose to be heterosexual. But it isn't as if people cannot think and express their sexuality if different ways. How do bisexuals come into being - are they also born that way?

Nevertheless, many people ARE against other people "being homosexual." You seem to line up with that group despite your pronouncement to the contary.

You may not believe me but I do accept that homosexuals exist and that there will always be gay people. I don't understand it but it is what it is. What I am against is the elevation of a sexual choice to a civil right. Obviously I am against gay marriage. Sexuality is not something I would put on the same plane with race or gender as something that should be protected by the government. In fact, if I had my wish the government would not be involved in marriage at all. People should be allowed to make a contract with each other that is recognized by the government with respect to assets, power of attorney, inheritance, visitation rights, etc. I don't understand why the government needs to be the arbiter except for when there is a dispute.

I don't mean to equate this with homosexuality but I don't believe that pedophiles are born to be attracted to children. I am not making a moral comparison so don't get me wrong on this. However, pedophiles make a choice to do what they do. Honestly, I cannot tell you why those that are found guilty of pedophilia have such a high recidivism rate, but they make the claim that they are born that way. There is evidence of this sexual practice going back to at least Roman times and there are examples in nature of mature animals attempting to mate with adolescent ones. However, if I were to accept that homosexuality is not a choice, then I might also have to seriously consider that pedophilia is also not a choice. At this point, I don't see any scientific evidence that either are anything other than free will and personal choice.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Do you have to consciously have to compel yourself not to give in to a sexual attraction, or is your lack of attraction second nature? That is: natural...

Do you only act on natural instinct and never choose what you do? To be human, it is natural to choose.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"same-sex marriage"

When a man and a woman marry, they become husband and wife.

If two men marry... weird.

If two women marry... weird.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yasukuni may well be on to something. I still think that politically, Obama has made a huge mistake, but Romney may be about to make one every bit as big if he starts pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I will be honest. My support for gay marriage is lukewarm at best. However, if traditional marriage advocates intend to protect their position by enshrining discrimination in the US Constitution, that, I (and I suspect many others) have a real problem with. Leave it to the states, Mitt. If you over react, you may well lose most of those votes Obama just handed you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack

However, if you consciously decide that you cannot marry a person on the basis of race, then you are racist.

That's ludicrous. Somebody could not at all be attracted to people of a particular race. To say that I don't want to marry a black person because I am not attracted to them is not racist at all. If I say a white person should not marry a black person then that is racist.

So If I am not attracted to persons of the same sex it isn't sexist to say that I do not want to marry someone of the same sex.

That's just commonsense.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Thomas Anderson says:

Not being a homosexual is NOT the same thing as being homophobic...

Wolfpack paraphrases:

How is an aversion to homosexuality not homophobic?

Two different things Wolfpack. Not being homosexual and having an aversion to homosexuality. The former is not homophobic and later is. Unfortunately you changed what Thomas said. I guess it makes it easier to win the argument.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why would you believe that homosexuality is not a choice when there is no evidence to the contrary...

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it isn't a choice just as heterosexuality isn't a choice either. Ask most heterosexuals would they entertain an intimate relationship with the same sex and you'll often get expressions of revulsion. It is the same for homosexuals. They don't just choose...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Once you leave the simple and natural formula of "1 man + 1 woman" (which is required to make a child) to include "2 men" or "2 women" why stop there? Then why not 3 men, or 2 men + 1 women, or 2 men + 2 women, or 2 women and a goat... polygamy, of course, is a given; that would be brutally unfair to exclude that. So, once the definition means "everything", then of course it means "nothing".

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

newsweek magazine:

barack obama, the first gay president

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Fact is, if he advocates calling two women or to men a "marriage", he has no logal reason to be against polygamy (and polyandry, of course).

But don´t expect the media to take him up on that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No matter what happens now -- well done, Mr. Obama. It's about time for all of us to realize that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Can't believe homophobia's still such a big thing in 2012, but it is, all around the globe, regardless of nation, religion or political views ... It seems to be even worse than, let's say, 50 or even 30 years ago :/

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Fact is his stance is a, "Nobody really cares" aspect to it. In a poll 60% of the people said that Obama's statement made absolutely NO difference as to whether they would vote for him or not. 26% said it would make them not vote for him, and only 13% said it would make them more likely to vote for him. Sad to say it like it is but the only reason he said it was for political pandering, not like the LGBT lobbyists didn't line his pockets to push their own agendas specifically. Hate to say it but the majority of us really don't give a damned what they do with their lives as long as both are consenting adults. I'm more worried about our countries economic woes, unemployed graduates, and exceedingly wealthy people that seem to have the power to move the politicians with their money.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wolfpack,

You say in one breath:

"I think that just on Darwinian survival terms people choose to be heterosexual."

Then you say in the next:

"What I am against is the elevation of a sexual choice to a civil right. "

Then what precisely is marriage between a "man and woman", with all its assorted financial, social, and civil benefits, if not the elevation of a sexual choice to a civil right?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

LFRAgain:

"I think that just on Darwinian survival terms people choose to be heterosexual."

I was suggesting that one - if the not the - most significant reasons why people choose to be heterosexual is due to the survival imperative. If most where to chose homosexuality then that would threaten the ability of the human species to survive. I didn't say that there was no such thing as homosexuals.

Then what precisely is marriage between a "man and woman", with all its assorted financial, social, and civil benefits, if not the elevation of a sexual choice to a civil right?

Is polygamy a civil right? No it isn't - and neither is gay marriage - in my opinion of course. State governments can decide what they believe a civil right is and isn't. That is what has been happening all around America for the last dozen years or so. Most states have said no. Some have said yes. I do not think this is a good thing because it is just the camels nose under the tent. There is no real rationale now to deny marriage to polygamists, or people in the same family as-long-as their is no possibility for pregnancy. If they are consenting adults and they love one another, who are we to say then cannot marry now that same sex marriage has broken the hold of traditional marriage? Why then shouldn't a bisexuals be able to marry another man and another woman? The family in America has already been under assault by the Left for the last half century and it isn't doing very well. A large number of the social ills we have are a result of this assault. I just think gay marriage and the other changes that are bound to occur as a result will have a devastating effect on society. American society is already falling apart. It's pretty sad that we are voluntarily deciding to make it worse.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

2020hindsight:

That's ludicrous. Somebody could not at all be attracted to people of a particular race. To say that I don't want to marry a black person because I am not attracted to them is not racist at all. If I say a white person should not marry a black person then that is racist.

So basically you are saying that you don't care about people as individuals. What is more important is that they have a skin color that you find more attractive than other skin colors. Sounds racist to me. I'm not saying people must prove they are not racist by marrying someone of a different race. What I am saying is that if you judge people on their skin color, that is racist.

I ended up marrying someone of a different race but race wasn't the issue for us. I was marrying a woman, not a race.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@HonestDictator

Agreed 100%

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wolfpack

So basically you are saying that you don't care about people as individuals.

No. Can't see where you got that from.

What is more important is that they have a skin color that you find more attractive than other skin colors. Sounds racist to me.

What I find attractive cannot in any terms be called racist.

I'm not saying people must prove they are not racist by marrying someone of a different race.

Happy about that.

What I am saying is that if you judge people on their skin color, that is racist.

Actually you aren't say any such thing. I agree that if you judge people on their skin color, that is racist.

I don't agree not being attracted to someone is racist.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

2020hindsights:

I don't agree not being attracted to someone is racist.

Simply not being attracted to someone is not racist - I agree. Not being attracted to someone because of their race is ... well, racist. I'm not saying you don't have the right to not like someone because of their race. However it isn't very minded minded of you. Likewise with sexuality. If you proclaim yourself to be open minded about sexuality, then an aversion to homosexuals is also intolerant.

What I find attractive cannot in any terms be called racist.

Why not? If in some way your feelings about other people - say a willingness to be intimate with another person - is influenced by that persons race, then yes it is racist. What else could it be?

You - and apparently President Obama - need to face up to the reality of your half heart support for people of a certain type of sexuality. You harbor an intolerance to them. Sure they are nice people. But you wouldn't want to get caught in the back of a movie theater with one.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Very simple, either you think Gays and Lesbians are gross, freaks of nature, or you think it is just another life style, let me take a wild guess at what Mitt Romney thinks about Gays and Lesbians, oh he is courting the hard core Christian Evangelicals so...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites