Obama Endorses Gay Marriage

[Matt231]

Well, there is no advancement to be gained by allowing gays to marry.
And I'd generally speak for myself when evaluating the role of women in society. In our society, women have worked and have gone to war with men.
But never ever have we allowed such ridiculous ideas like allowing homosexuals to resurface and get married throughout our 2000 years of history. Meaning, there are some norms around the earth, that do not change.
Like for example, not sleeping with your close relatives, that is a norm and a taboo in most societies, yes? Let's move beyond that one?
IF you are going to challenge one norm, challenge each and everyone of them, limitless one!
I think that this blind devotion you people have to this cause causes you to speak of things that really makes no sense.
Rainbow crusaders, a fitting name.

Ridiculous? Gay marriage is not ridiculous in any way. If two people love each other and want to commit to a relationship, why can't they get married? There's no reason to ban it.

Incest is a completely different issue. It actually HAS consequences. Each norm is an independent issue. There's no rule that says you need to challenge all of them if you want to change one.

I don't make sense? You're the one who thinks it's right to abort babies who might turn out to be gay. THAT makes no sense.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, there is no advancement to be gained by allowing gays to marry.
And I'd generally speak for myself when evaluating the role of women in society. In our society, women have worked and have gone to war with men.
But never ever have we allowed such ridiculous ideas like allowing homosexuals to resurface and get married throughout our 2000 years of history. Meaning, there are some norms around the earth, that do not change.
Like for example, not sleeping with your close relatives, that is a norm and a taboo in most societies, yes? Let's move beyond that one?
IF you are going to challenge one norm, challenge each and everyone of them, limitless one!
I think that this blind devotion you people have to this cause causes you to speak of things that really makes no sense.
Rainbow crusaders, a fitting name.

Ridiculous? Gay marriage is not ridiculous in any way. If two people love each other and want to commit to a relationship, why can't they get married? There's no reason to ban it.

Incest is a completely different issue. It actually HAS consequences. Each norm is an independent issue. There's no rule that says you need to challenge all of them if you want to change one.

I don't make sense? You're the one who thinks it's right to abort babies who might turn out to be gay. THAT makes no sense.

I think I've said about everything I had to say about the concept of marriage and the role of "love" in marriage in another thread. I'm not going to explain anything a second time.
Besides, you don't have to have children with your sister to be in a relationship. You just need the consent of both parties. I guess if both would be sterile, you would have no moral objections to any incestious relationships. Why not give them the right to marry aswell. Besides it's not like each and every child born from incest is going to be mentally or physically retarded, right?
So why don't you fight for their rights aswell, while you fight for the rights of homosexuals to get married and adopt children?

I think that this whole thing is nothing more than a bad joke. Marrige is between a man and a woman. It has always been this way.

[C Rod]

We are humans, we like to do things just for the hell of it. And these norms you speak of are old and outdated. They are norms because you accept what someone told you is normal but we have to agree that is subjective then. Norms should be challenged by sentient understanding beings with the right of purpose equal to all. You can have your close relatives marrying each other if they want to, make a stand and inform me of their purpose but i doubt that will ever take off. Gays are making a stand and there is a lot of them, dont participate in what they do because you dont agree, thats fine, but should you really stop them. Anyway marriage is a sham merely for tax purposes, but love is something entirely different and doubt you can ever stop one from doing that.

[kılıç_mehmet]

We are humans, we like to do things just for the hell of it.

Speak for yourself, friend. I like to think before I do something. I weigh it's consequences and it's liabilities to me and to the people around me.

And these norms you speak of are old and outdated.

Old and outdated? Just like Newton's laws, just like crocodiles. But they exist. There certainly must be a reason why they still do exist. Perhaps they are correct. This must be it.

They are norms because you accept what someone told you is normal but we have to agree that is subjective then.

I'm sure that people told you about the same norms on homosexuality as people have told me about in my home country. It can't be really that different.
Subjective? If you like to lie to yourself, maybe.

Norms should be challenged by sentient understanding beings with the right of purpose equal to all.

Well, you can challenge the norms all you want to. But they are still there, friend.
They won't go anywhere.

You can have your close relatives marrying each other if they want to, make a stand and inform me of their purpose but i doubt that will ever take off.

Hell if I would. If such a disgusting thing would take place within my family, I'd probably do everything in my power to write off their names from family records.

Gays are making a stand and there is a lot of them,

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a lot of them in this forum. But I've seen a lot of people who tell me they're not gay and support gay marriage and adoption rights.
Yeah. There are lots of them, obviously, not enough to change public opinion, though.

dont participate in what they do because you dont agree, thats fine, but should you really stop them.

Well, it's not up to me to stop them alone. I am nothing without society.
Society stops them. Norms, handed down by generations stop them.
The nature of marriage, the purpose of marriage stops them.
Obviously, such demands were not even voiced in the country I live in, because the homosexuals here have learned to live with the norms of the society around themselves. They do not set up the tyranny of the minority over the majority as they do there, obviously, not that they could.
But there, people of the majority are their most fervent supporters.
They support the king more than the king supports himself, so to speak.

Anyway marriage is a sham merely for tax purposes, but love is something entirely different and doubt you can ever stop one from doing that.

This is what it comes down for you people, actually. You generally have no real respect for what really creates the basis of any society.
Love? No. Love is merely but a word that you create in your mind.
I can claim to love my bike. Can I get married to my bike? By your words, I should be.

[C Rod]

Norms are normal because they are the acceptance of ideas of the past, in the present we should observe them and change them for our future, not just live in the past.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."JFK

As for love:
Neo: I just have never...
Rama-Kandra: ...heard a program speak of love?
Neo: It's a... human emotion.
Rama-Kandra: No, it is a word. What matters is the connection the word implies. -Matrix Revolutions
You are equating love to marriage. I believe people who love might marry but not that all who marry ,love.
We have basis because we like rights, but they must be for all or your basis for society is a lie.

[Autumnlicious]

This is what it comes down for you people, actually. You generally have no real respect for what really creates the basis of any society.
Love? No. Love is merely but a word that you create in your mind.

I can claim to love my bike. Can I get married to my bike? By your words, I should be.

If you can't differentiate between love of two or more individuals and the love of the possession, you've lost all sense in this debate and should take a break.

No, really. Take a break.

Because you seem to think that two people who spend a shit load of time around each other, feel bad when the other is feeling bad, etc, etc is identical to me polishing my bicycle.

Either that, or you've stuck your head so far up your arse that you really think the above quote is a valid point held by the opposition.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You are equating love to marriage. I believe people who love might marry but not that all who marry ,love.
We have basis because we like rights, but they must be for all or your basis for society is a lie.

I do the exact opposite.
And I believe many people in the modern world do so.
Your "rights" are nothing but illusions. Real rights are those which are actually relevant to your society. Food, air and water, basic necessities, and health care, education. These are what I consider to be "rights".
Everything else are privilages.

"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."JFK

If you change a certain thing beyond a point, it won't have a future.

If you can't differentiate between love of two or more individuals and the love of the possession, you've lost all sense in this debate and should take a break.

No, I do not mean it like the love for a possession. If I maintain that my car is an individual, and want to get married to it, I should be able to, yes?
Marriage is not your or my toy to play with it. Gays cannot change things they way they want to.
This sexual minority thing is ridiculous, but fools are generally blind to facts.

[Autumnlicious]

No, I do not mean it like the love for a possession. If I maintain that my car is an individual, and want to get married to it, I should be able to, yes?

If your car can:
- Feel pain
- logically articulate self-generated desires, goals, plans
- feel an attraction for/longing for another car and is capable of receiving the same


Then you'd have a point.

But you don't.

Comparing a human being to a car is the laziest form of bullshittery, Mehm. Can't you even be arsed to try something much, much more similar?

How about something that is alive and thus has the qualifier of 'living' and human-level intellect?

Marriage is not your or my toy to play with it. Gays cannot change things they way they want to.

North Carolina 'played' with Marriage. They decided to speak for everyone who has done a marriage in their state, and perhaps, have attempted to speak for others.

So much for a 'toy' to play with. It very much is open to political monkey wrenching.

And as to "Gays cannot change things":

Courageous men and women worked to end slavery. So much for "abolitionists cannot change things"...

[kılıç_mehmet]

- Feel pain
- logically articulate self-generated desires, goals, plans
- feel an attraction for/longing for another car and is capable of receiving the same

Why is that really so important for you anyways?

Comparing a human being to a car is the laziest form of bullshittery, Mehm. Can't you even be arsed to try something much, much more similar?

The car is simply a form of example so that I don't have to use examples that I do not want to use here.
As I said, there is the example of incest. What are you going to tell me?

How about something that is alive and thus has the qualifier of 'living' and human-level intellect?

Maybe it has human-level intellect, but is not "alive". Hypothetically, a robot. It's a very sci-fi type of story, obviously. But I'm just trying to see how far you can go.

North Carolina 'played' with Marriage. They decided to speak for everyone who has done a marriage in their state, and perhaps, have attempted to speak for others.

And well, according to this post, North Carolina would still do the same if they did actually legalize gay marriage.

So much for a 'toy' to play with. It very much is open to political monkey wrenching.

Only in America.
Not here.

And as to "Gays cannot change things":

Courageous men and women worked to end slavery. So much for "abolitionists cannot change things"...

Abolitionists did, not the slaves themselves. Likewise, the gays seem to be acquiring their so called rights by the deeds of those who do not identify themselves as gay.
Besides, the abolition of slavery led to a civil war. I hope for a new one after you take this to the extremes.

---

I still maintain the view that this is not really a measure of human rights whatsoever. It's about normalizing and publicizing homosexuality.
As I said, if gays want the privilages granted by marrige, they can always take a middle path, where both sides could participate in a negotion for a seperate existence for homosexuals, as the profess themselves that they are a seperate minority from the normal majority, not me.
For a false impression of "civil liberties" you are destroying the foundations of your society. Be my guest, it is not up to change the things in your country, I can only tell you my honest opinions on how you should not act when it comes to this subject.

[C Rod]

You should not want war, war brings only death, and death brings only pain. Should we do what we know is wrong to stop something we think is wrong?
Our society is based on freedom but you have no idea what that is, you will never know of something you do not experience or share.