U.S. President Barack Obama Says 'Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal'

[MrRealDeal]

No .... I am saying that specifc regulations that apply to hetrosexuals and not to gay people like cousin marriage for one example need to be taken into account when making marriage regulations for gay people ..... it would be more of an exemption thing than an alternative institution ...... I am saying the regulations should be based on the individuals it adresses not other individuals.

I'm sure you know it's legal to marry your cousin in SC ....as long as you are NOT gay ! lol

Edited June 2, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

No .... I am saying that specifc regulations that apply to hetrosexuals and not to gay people like cousin marriage for one example need to be taken into account when making marriage regulations for gay people ..... it would be more of an exemption thing than an alternative institution ...... I am saying the regulations should be based on the individuals it adresses not other individuals.

Look dude, each state has its OWN marriage laws with details like that. The big picture is mandating ( ) them to allow same sex couples to marry as well. As far as details about cousins/siblings marrying (now I think I might see your point) that would be up to specific STATES. I'm not sure how I feel about gay siblings marrying, that's still INCEST isn't it? I consider this a trivial side issue of no political value to the bigger important picture at this time. It would be insane to push hot button issues like gay incest marriage at this time when we still may be 100 years from marriage equality to begin with. If I was hiring at a gay rights lobby and you applied, I would show you the door! Happily, I'm sure those who are hiring would do exactly the same thing. Sorry but that's how it is. Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

It's not important however it's something the Supreme Court will be thinking about, but yes it's a state issue. I don't really see any of this as very important because the Supreme Court has already decided to hear the overall issue in some form or another that allows them to adress it , so the importance or fight as it were is over until they make a decision that needs more of a fight or it's over.

I know you are a link person and I don't have a link to prove that but it is true .....they have decided to hear arguments and make a decision after the election.

[Jingthing]

You're not making any sense to me. The MAJOR case that we await, the one that has potential to mean marriage equality in all 50 states is not YET going to the court. The Bush vs. Gore lawyers want it sooner than the later, but it isn't happening yet. The Boston result is moving a more minor case to the court that would not mandate all 50 states to include same sex couples. Step by step. This is going along INCREMENTALLY.

[MrRealDeal]

Sorry about the brother thing here is a better example ...... Blood tests are required ( in most states) to make sure couples know the possible risk they are taking in reguards to disabled kids ...... what sense would their be for that requirement for gay people ? .... like I said the regualtions need to adress the specifc people not be a mirrior image of other people.

[Jingthing]

Sorry about the brother thing here is a better example ...... Blood tests are required ( in most states) to make sure couples know the possible risk they are taking in reguards to disabled kids ...... what sense would their be for that requirement for gay people ? .... like I said the regualtions need to adress the specifc people not be a mirrior image of other people.

But that is a STATE marriage and/or STATE civil union matter. I think states over the time can figure out those details but frankly I don't see any problem with requiring blood tests for all couples. I'm looking for EQUALITY. Not exceptions. Dude, we are NOT on the same page here.

[MrRealDeal]

What the court will do is take a whole basket of pretty much every an any case available and make a widesweeping ruling on the entire issue ...... You seem to not realise that the court can make same sex marriage legal with pretty much any case it wants to.

As a similar example ..... their was a gun case over handguns in NYC and if people should be allowed to have them bla bal bla ...... The court didn't just say yes you can have one in NYC , they said you can have one anyplace in the usa.

It really matters not what case they look at because any case involves gay "marriage" and all they need to do is put a line in the ruling that says something like ..... we find gay marriage to be a right protected under the constitution .... and then rule on some other sideline irelevant issue as well.

You seem to think that the case needs to be specific to the question of marriage in all 50 states ..... it most defenitly does not

You also seem to think the Court is required to have someone else bring them a case to rule on, rather than request one be brought to them ..... most of the time it works that way but it's not a requirement

[MrRealDeal]

I knew we wouldnt be on the same page , and that's ok ..... I will drop it , you get my line of thinking which is based on Law not based on principle.

What you miss is that it's not equality to make people do the exact same things when it makes no sense ...checking blood at a persons expense for reasons having to do with children for gay people.... means they are being forced to do something that makes no sense at all. Since hetrosexual people are not forced to take irelevant blood tests that make no sence they are not gaining equality by taking the tests they are actually losing equality .... because no one else is required to do things at their expense that are impossible to matter to them.

Edited June 2, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[endure]

You're an American. Unlike some, I'm sure you KNOW a civil union constitutional amendment is a total non-starter. You also know how many redneck states are in the US that would not only never legislate state gay marriage they also will not legislate state civil unions.

I would like to point out that Californians also rejected same-sex marriage so please don't frame this as a problem with just "rednecks". Or Mormons for that matter. Or Catholics. Or Protestants. Or Muslims. OR Blacks. or Hispanics. Or Asians. Is there any demographic that doesn't have a majority against same sex marriage? Other than the LGBT demo?

Quakers? Unitarians? Reform Jews? At least in the UK all three are in favour of gay marriage.

[transam]

You're an American. Unlike some, I'm sure you KNOW a civil union constitutional amendment is a total non-starter. You also know how many redneck states are in the US that would not only never legislate state gay marriage they also will not legislate state civil unions.

I would like to point out that Californians also rejected same-sex marriage so please don't frame this as a problem with just "rednecks". Or Mormons for that matter. Or Catholics. Or Protestants. Or Muslims. OR Blacks. or Hispanics. Or Asians. Is there any demographic that doesn't have a majority against same sex marriage? Other than the LGBT demo?

Quakers? Unitarians? Reform Jews? At least in the UK all three are in favour of gay marriage.

They are. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, referendum please. People vote.

[endure]

You're an American. Unlike some, I'm sure you KNOW a civil union constitutional amendment is a total non-starter. You also know how many redneck states are in the US that would not only never legislate state gay marriage they also will not legislate state civil unions.

I would like to point out that Californians also rejected same-sex marriage so please don't frame this as a problem with just "rednecks". Or Mormons for that matter. Or Catholics. Or Protestants. Or Muslims. OR Blacks. or Hispanics. Or Asians. Is there any demographic that doesn't have a majority against same sex marriage? Other than the LGBT demo?

Quakers? Unitarians? Reform Jews? At least in the UK all three are in favour of gay marriage.

They are. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, referendum please. People vote.

http://www.quaker.org.uk/news/quakers-liberal-judaism-and-unitarians-welcome-equal-marriage-consultation

[Colin Yai]

http://www.guardian....eo-gay-marriage Endure ,and so are many leading Tories including the PM , ya know those terrible Tories that JT hates so much, ain't that correct JT Edited June 2, 2012 by Colin Yai

[koheesti]

One point that I hope is not lost in the post, is that historicly and traditionally when people wrote or talked about Gays joining together, in acient rome or china, it was always reffered to a a gay marriage. It wasn't until recent more modern times that people wanted to try and change the historic and traditional meaning of the word as it refered to gay people of the present, and aparantly the past needs to be we written for these people as well because you won't find an old encyclopedia talking about civil unions in acient greek culture ! lol

If the argument is that people long ago did it so it must be ok today, does that mean we're going to bring back slavery next?

[koheesti]

I don't agree it needs to be the same at all ...... Gay's and hetrosexual people are different obviously , it's pretty sensible to not allow 1st cousins and I will even go the brother route..... but it's a little weird for me ..... not to marry, because the children are likely to have problems. What basis would you have to not allow gay 1st cousins to marry ? And weird as it might seem what medical basis for 2 brothers ?

Hmmm. Interesing questions. There would be no reason to restrict same sex cousin/sibling marriages.

Edited June 2, 2012 by koheesti

[endure]

http://www.guardian....eo-gay-marriage Endure ,and so are many leading Tories including the PM , ya know those terrible Tories that JT hates so much, ain't that correct JT

I post the fact that some religious in the UK support gay marriage and you manage to turn it into an attack on a US poster who probably doesn't even know what a Tory is? What a shabby post. How about discussing the subject rather than attacking posters?

Edited June 2, 2012 by endure

[MrRealDeal]

The "argument" was not about the act, it was that the word was used for marriage long ago so the traditional use of the word is in fact that same sex people joined was called marriage ..... I am not saying anything other than that. But on your point if people wanted to call slavery of people today something other than slavery of people long ago I would once again say it's not the traditional use of the word and not "ok".

[Ulysses G.]

Enough with revising history. There were almost no gay "marriages" in Greece and Rome and the few that took place were by royalty - (that no one could stop) and considered VERY strange. The emperor Nero had a boy named Sporus castrated and tried to transform him into an actual woman. He married him in a regular wedding ceremony, with a dowry and a bridal veil, took him home in front of a crowd, and treated him as his wife.

The definition of Roman marriage was strictly between a male and a female. The Latin verb matrimonium signified Roman marriage as “an inherently hierarchical institution structured around the pervasive power-differential between freeborn Roman men and everyone else" (in this case women). So, like modern America (until very recently) a symbolic “marriage” between two men would only have meaning in private, and a Roman marriage between males lacked the legal status of a marriage between a male and a female.

Now, there were gay UNIONS between men - something like CIVIL UNIONS today - but they had no legal status and were not "marriages." In most cases one older man was married to a woman and he would take on a very young boy for a few years for sex, but they were not married.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Please keep it civil and stay on the topic.

A discussion of gay marriage in other countries needs to be done in the context of this particular thread, otherwise it is off-topic. Discussion of blood relatives marrying is also an off-topic issue.

[Colin Yai]

I think I'll just "move on" from this subject as its a bit too "hot " for me, with so many different slants on it , but bear this in mind whatever those in the UK think either those in Govt or religious groups like Jews Quakers or Unitarians it has no bearing on events in the US so in essence IMHO (I take it I am allowed an opinion) it is "off topic"

Edited June 3, 2012 by Colin Yai

[GentlemanJim]

Well I reckon that if America has reached the stage where a member of a cult can run for President then what's the issue with Gay marriages? 90% of the people that get married in Church and swear vows of commitment in the name of God probably don't even believe in God and are certainly not religious, so whilst the Church continues to marry all those non believers (for considerable revenue I might add), it really can't gripe about the religious issues behind gays getting married. If gays want to commit themselves to a life of purgatory as most hetrosexuals do then why not. (if my wife reads this post I am a dead man walking )

[Jingthing]

Yep. Straight couples who met on one night stands get married at drive through fast wedding parlors in Vegas, complete with Elvis impersonators for a few dollars more. Gay couples who have been together 50 years, own property together, have raised children, etc. CAN'T get married at all except in a few states and the marriages mean nothing nationally. Sanctity of marriage? My arse.

[transam]

Yep. Straight couples who met on one night stands get married at drive through fast wedding parlors in Vegas, complete with Elvis impersonators for a few dollars more. Gay couples who have been together 50 years, own property together, have raised children, etc. CAN'T get married at all except in a few states and the marriages mean nothing nationally. Sanctity of marriage? My arse.

Raised children. Explain.

[Jingthing]

Yep. Straight couples who met on one night stands get married at drive through fast wedding parlors in Vegas, complete with Elvis impersonators for a few dollars more. Gay couples who have been together 50 years, own property together, have raised children, etc. CAN'T get married at all except in a few states and the marriages mean nothing nationally. Sanctity of marriage? My arse.

Raised children. Explain.

So you have no imagination? OK, I'll humor you then:

1. Children form a previous relationship (many gay people especially lesbians have produced children in the usual heterosexual way in previous relationships)

2. Relative dies and an arrangement was made for the gay relative to be the new guardian

3. ADOPTION (Duh)

4. Sperm banks (lesbians)

Next ...

[transam]

Yep. Straight couples who met on one night stands get married at drive through fast wedding parlors in Vegas, complete with Elvis impersonators for a few dollars more. Gay couples who have been together 50 years, own property together, have raised children, etc. CAN'T get married at all except in a few states and the marriages mean nothing nationally. Sanctity of marriage? My arse.

Raised children. Explain.

So you have no imagination? OK, I'll humor you then:

1. Children form a previous relationship (many gay people especially lesbians have produced children in the usual heterosexual way in previous relationships)

2. Relative dies and an arrangement was made for the gay relative to be the new guardian

3. ADOPTION (Duh)

4. Sperm banks (lesbians)

Next ...

Do you think that is good for a straight kid learning about his/her future life, don't you think confusion will perhaps domineer. ?. I do, but that's my way of thinking.

[endure]

Gay couples who foster are often given the 'difficult' children that straight couples aren't interested in

[Jingthing]

Yep. Straight couples who met on one night stands get married at drive through fast wedding parlors in Vegas, complete with Elvis impersonators for a few dollars more. Gay couples who have been together 50 years, own property together, have raised children, etc. CAN'T get married at all except in a few states and the marriages mean nothing nationally. Sanctity of marriage? My arse.

Raised children. Explain.

So you have no imagination? OK, I'll humor you then:

1. Children form a previous relationship (many gay people especially lesbians have produced children in the usual heterosexual way in previous relationships)

2. Relative dies and an arrangement was made for the gay relative to be the new guardian

3. ADOPTION (Duh)

4. Sperm banks (lesbians)

Next ...

Do you think that is good for a straight kid learning about his/her future life, don't you think confusion will perhaps domineer. ?. I do, but that's my way of thinking.

Do you think that is good for a gay kid being raised by heterosexuals, learning about his/her future life, don't you think confusion will perhaps domineer. ?. I do, but that's my way of thinkin (NOT REALLY)

Anyway, that is PART of marriage for SOME couples, gay or straight.

Some want to or need to raise children. Some don't. Yes that is part of the EQUALITY we are seeking, like it or not.

You also might consider, when INTERRACIAL marriage was banned in some US states, that was exactly the same argument used against those couples to rationalize the bans. Not good for the children. Of course they would also argue racist things like we don't want what they would call "mongrel" children, a very fascist position.

Another thing which someone like you who is clearly an opponent of equality may want to consider. I have already explained that some gay couples ALREADY raise children as part of their relationship. Without the marriage contract only ONE of them is the official parent or guardian, typically anyway. If they are able to marry, the child at least gets the additional stability of being in family with two married parents.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Is Tolerance the same as Acceptance?

[Jingthing]

Is Tolerance the same as Acceptance?

I'm not really sure and I guess I might be interested in such semantic details if I was a debate club geek.

The point is when gay people get married, and in some countries, they DO get married, it's not as if society can micromanage whether they cuddle on the sofa, or not, nor should they, any more than they would for straight couples. Obviously if any kind of couple crosses certain lines, it's a matter for social services or something.

This kind of seems a real side issue to the bigger topic about legalizing gay marriage in the United States.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Off-topic, homophobic posts removed and a poster, as well as replies, have been suspended. Please stick to the topic, which is not about child-rearing practices.

[folium]

This thread seems to have thrashed through every possible red herring and irrelevant side-issue whilst ducking the key, overriding question.

The OP stated that the US President thinks that single-sex marriage should be legal in the USA.

Could someone please give me a coherent, supported reason why single-sex marriage should not be legal in the USA. Thank you.