Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dalton said:
I spent most of last night stumbling from bar to bar telling every two men or two women I met that I was on their side. Fact: most dudes do NOT want you to think that they're gay.
Click to expand...

Tonight, go to a more gay friendly area so you'll know any two dudes you speak to are gay :)
 
Dalton said:
I spent most of last night stumbling from bar to bar telling every two men or two women I met that I was on their side. Fact: most dudes do NOT want you to think that they're gay.
Click to expand...

That ends up being a serious issue, at least down here. It's such an apathetic topic outside of the few batshit crazy extremist religious people. Nobody wants to be labeled as gay.

Something I noticed yesterday on Facebook was the fact that everyone who changed their profile picture on my friends list with the whole red HRC logo was either gay or a married woman over 30.

There's a lot more "silent" or apathetic support out there.
 
I'd like to change my profile picture to that logo. Too bad my radically conservative family will go batshit insane on me. To be safe, I'll just post articles. I won't be silent but I don't want to stir up anything because I am not exaggerating about my family.
 
this was good:

Jim DeMint’s Misfire on Marriage
By DAVID BOAZ SHARE

Jim DeMint, former senator and future president of the Heritage Foundation, writes a column for USA Today opposing gay marriage. But like so many social conservatives, he supports his position with a sleight of hand. DeMint writes:

Without strong families grounded in marriage, we cannot hold back the ever-expanding power of government. As the marriage culture weakens, Big Government grows. Just look how the welfare state has expanded as the unwed childbearing rate has grown from single digits in the 1960s to more than 40% today.
Click to expand...

Marriage policy exists to encourage a man and a woman to commit to each other permanently and exclusively as husband and wife and to be father and mother to any children. Sound marriage policy strengthens civil society and reduces the role of government.

The erosion of marriage costs taxpayers. And it’s not just conservatives who say this. Even the left-leaning think tank, Brookings Institution, attributed $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970 and 1996 to the breakdown of marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Stable families are less likely to be on welfare. As Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill of Brookings write,

Our research shows that if you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to complete high school (at a minimum), work full time and marry before you have children. If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent, and your chances of joining the middle class or above rise from 56 to 74 percent.
Click to expand...

But DeMint and other social conservatives make a logical leap when they connect that point to gay marriage. Gay people making the emotional and financial commitments of marriage is not the cause of family breakdown or welfare spending.

When DeMint says that “family breakdown” is causing poverty – and thus a demand for higher government spending – he knows that he’s really talking about unwed motherhood, divorce, children growing up without fathers, and the resulting high rates of welfare usage and crime.

So why raise the problems of broken families and then propose to prevent gay people from getting married? Why all the focus on issues that would do nothing to solve the problems of “family breakdown” and what DeMint has elsewhere called “the high cost of a dysfunctional society”? Well, solving the problems of divorce and unwed motherhood is hard. And lots of Republican and conservative voters have been divorced. A constitutional amendment to ban divorce wouldn’t go over very well with even the social-conservative constituency. A legal ban on premarital sex would address the problem, but even social conservatives realize that it would be an imprudent exercise of state power. Far better to pick on a small group, a group not perceived to be part of the Republican constituency, and blame them for social breakdown and its associated costs.

But you won’t find your keys on Main Street if you dropped them on Green Street, and you won’t reduce the costs of social breakdown by keeping gays unmarried and not letting them adopt orphans.

Jim DeMint's Misfire on Marriage | Cato Institute
Click to expand...
 
Pearl said:
I'd like to change my profile picture to that logo. Too bad my radically conservative family will go batshit insane on me. To be safe, I'll just post articles. I won't be silent but I don't want to stir up anything because I am not exaggerating about my family.
Click to expand...

Well Im from the same/similar situation. At some point I just stopped caring. Gotta love life ya know?
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
Well Im from the same/similar situation. At some point I just stopped caring. Gotta love life ya know?
Click to expand...

I know I should care less about what my family thinks of me. But I've been mocked and ridiculed before for openly supporting SSM and it sucked. And I wouldn't be surprised if they think I'm gay because I'm also single at the moment. Can you imagine the ridicule then?

But, meh. What can you do? Screw them, you know?
 
Pearl said:
I know I should care less about what my family thinks of me. But I've been mocked and ridiculed before for openly supporting SSM and it sucked. And I wouldn't be surprised if they think I'm gay because I'm also single at the moment. Can you imagine the ridicule then?

But, meh. What can you do? Screw them, you know?
Click to expand...

Where I come from they still think converting you is an option.

Can I imagine the ridicule? Yeah I live it. That's my point from before though. It shouldn't matter. I know that's not easy though.

Effectively, yes. Screw them. They can think whatever they want. Soon they'll be dated and so will their bigoted views.
 
It's tough to do, not care what anyone thinks, especially family. And you do run the risk of losing them, or alienating them with your views. But would you rather hold your feelings in and pretend to be something just to appease a select few? Live your life, and let those who don't agree with you stand aside.

But back to the SSM. I still don't get what children have to do with this issue? Not every couple that gets married are going to have kids. If that is a requirement, then no female over the age of 45 or so should be allowed to marry or get remarried. Same thing with any male who's been fixed (I would fall into this).

Broken families are a straight couple issue. Let's put the focus as to why families are breaking down. It has nothing to do with Steve marrying Steve.
 
BEAL said:
But back to the SSM. I still don't get what children have to do with this issue? Not every couple that gets married are going to have kids. If that is a requirement, then no female over the age of 45 or so should be allowed to marry or get remarried. Same thing with any male who's been fixed (I would fall into this).
Click to expand...

Well then you just can't meet INDY's definition of "ideal".
 
The only thing that makes me sad about this is that, in a few years time, we'll probably never here the acronym "DOMA" anymore. Does anyone else find it ironic that they gave their anti-gay-marriage act such a phallic sounding name?
 
Come on! We all know that studies have conclusively shown that children are negatively affected by having gay parents.**


(** Sadly, I can't reference these studies because the articles claiming this never actually link to said studies.)
 
Justice Kagan:

“If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage,” she said. “So why is that different?”

Cooper:

“Even with respect to couples over the age of 55,” he said, “it is very rare that both parties to the couple are infertile.”
Click to expand...

F in biology.
 
Why is this so difficult? The issue is: Should two consenting adults be allowed to sign a legally binding contract that states they are entering into a union/marriage?

If we are all equal, then the answer is a simple yes. It's when people start using their own prejudices to try and deny others the same rights.

There is no slippery slope here, there is no moral disaster waiting to happen. It's a simple right that specific people are being denied.

Marriage has changed before, and it will change again.
 
BEAL said:
Why is this so difficult? The issue is: Should two consenting adults be allowed to sign a legally binding contract that states they are entering into a union/marriage?

If we are all equal, then the answer is a simple yes. It's when people start using their own prejudices to try and deny others the same rights.

There is no slippery slope here, there is no moral disaster waiting to happen. It's a simple right that specific people are being denied.

Marriage has changed before, and it will change again.
Click to expand...

There is ALWAYS a slippery slope! The usually end with old people being used as food or the necessary colonization of Mars.
 
INDY500 said:
Typical of "debate" on this forum which more and more reads like just another Left-wing hate blog.
Click to expand...
Look man, I get that you're 1-against-100 on this forum, but to act like you have tried and failed to elevate the debate is laughable. You pick and choose what posts you respond to and are guilty of many of the same thing you criticize the liberals on the forum for.
 
PhilsFan said:
Look man, I get that you're 1-against-100 on this forum, but to act like you have tried and failed to elevate the debate is laughable. You pick and choose what posts you respond to and are guilty of many of the same thing you criticize the liberals on the forum for.
Click to expand...


Shut the hell up, PhilsFan! You and your other lefty-elitists do nothing but blather on and on about giving everyone basic human rights, affording children food and education and helping the poor. The whole lot of you are fucking pricks.
 
Dalton said:
Shut the hell up, PhilsFan! You and your other lefty-elitists do nothing but blather on and on about giving everyone basic human rights, affording children food and education and helping the poor. The whole lot of you are fucking pricks.
Click to expand...
I just do what they tell me at the Gay Agenda Conferences. It makes me seem sensitive and progressive, you know, for the ladies!
 
anitram said:
I frankly don't need to inquire into the reasoning as it's offensive no matter how much lipstick you slap on that pig.

You were not the first/only anti-SSM person this week to make comments about biological children. It is interesting that it came on the heels of comments about the Chief Justice.
Click to expand...

You've changed my mind!! I now totally get that ideals are antiquated and that any belief that Kin altruism benefits children is off-the-chart offensive.


One question however. As we phase out biological parenting in our new progressive utopia should we go the route of designer babies from anonymous highly-selected donors or the conformity route of uniform citizens from "bokanovskified" embryos?
 
INDY500 said:
You've changed my mind!! I now totally get that ideals are antiquated and that any belief that Kin altruism benefits children is off-the-chart offensive.


One question however. As we phase out biological parenting in our new progressive utopia should we go the route of designer babies from anonymous highly-selected donors or the conformity route of uniform citizens from "bokanovskified" embryos?
Click to expand...


This logic really holds up. I was a strait man for 34 years of my life, but the day that CO legalized gay marriage I've been jonesing for some schlong.

In fact, I've been doing a lot of yoga so I can start practicing my blow job skills.
 
PhilsFan said:
I just do what they tell me at the Gay Agenda Conferences. It makes me seem sensitive and progressive, you know, for the ladies!
Click to expand...

you can make jokes about the 'gay agenda' all you want


queer-eye.jpg


imagine if 5 straight guys took some gay guy and ...,

well, there would be lawsuits all over the place
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
Hello, hello!
Replies
2
Views
890
Ralph_Sutter
R
M
Ticketmaster app
Replies
3
Views
501
rosephile
R
R
Help a MacPhisto out! - Night #2 (9/30) at the Sphere (pics and videos)
Replies
3
Views
746
Ralph_Sutter
R
U
Hello, From Dallas, Texas
Replies
3
Views
541
TheFlyZooTV
T
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
748
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom