Obama Endorses Gay Marriage

[Extreme]

Originally Posted by fansince62

1) I support 1000% the idea that each of us as atomic entities have the right to decide what are moral and immoral acts. I reject any notion that just because the full force of government and the media propaganda machine operate to force acceptance through relativizing all values...that those who hold contrarian views are unfair, unjust, etc.

My news channels must be broken, because I'm seeing the opposite of everything you just said. You very, very rarely ever see or hear anybody in support of gay marriage on tv. The government and media have done more to push against it than tote it along toward acceptance as you claim. And I could provide 32 reasons why my argument is valid

Originally Posted by fansince62

2) In the grand scheme of things the affinity of some to unfurl the gay rights flag doesn't even matter to me. I'm looking at a society that uses the same mechanisms and thought processes to sequentially undermine and eliminate all moral distinctions. If you don't think that is happening...and if you don't think that much of the friction observed in the political realm these days isn't a reaction to this unfolding grab by ONE group of interests and values over others, then you are mistaken.

Like.......? You know how it works around here, examples man, examples

Originally Posted by fansince62

If you don't think actions like the current one under discussion are INTENTIONALLY pursued precisely because they are polarizing....because they speak to fundamental notions of right/wrong that underly much of how society manages its interactions and bounds the freedoms and choices for all....you are wrong.

Oh. Nevermind. I see we've regressed back to the "I'm the one who's right." argument. I thought we were past that.

Originally Posted by fansince62

3) What you have conveyed to me is that in your value system this is a minor matter. I'm responding that for others it is not. From my specific vantage point, as I have stated, I don't really care. I do care very much about the overall logic, its costs, and the reluctance by some to acknowledge that no matter how you cut it....these inherently moral problems involve using the force of government to impose the values of some segments of society on others. I note how little many in this blog care about competing equities - understanding all along that is the cynical game being played on the grand political stage we occupy. I adduce as evidence the irrefutable fact that when there isn't a mike stuck in someone's face...34 states have voted against gay marriage.

My morals aren't compromised because I support gay marriage. I'm morally against things that actually do damage.....like pedophilia. There is nothing morally wrong with something somebody does that does not affect others. It only affects you, because you make it affect you.

[Boone]

Let's get a handle on the language and sexual references in this thread guys. This is a moderated forum and we have minors who are members here.

[Burgundy Burner]

I said it on the other site and have said it here on a couple of occasions. Let them be as they wish - it won't have any impact on my life whatsoever. Like I'm going to have any kind of power to keep two people apart? It's not my fight. Live and let live.

[Extreme]

Exactly. Well put.

[fansince62]

Originally Posted by Extreme

My morals aren't compromised because I support gay marriage. I'm morally against things that actually do damage.....like pedophilia. There is nothing morally wrong with something somebody does that does not affect others. It only affects you, because you make it affect you.

let's approach this from a differnt perspective: why is it...you imagine...that the Left and Democrats reacted so violently to the Tea Party at its inception? it's because the Tea Party is an arrow pointed directly at the nanny state and the entirety of the moral agenda of the Left - what the heck do you think the Left finds so threatening in the Tea Party's focus on reducing the size/scope of government (the adjunct to controlling budgetary/spending excess)? the point is that the canvas for morality has many more brush strokes on it than just the affect on you. I have been laboring throughout this thread to connect the dots on what is really going on...and actually refrained from ever asserting whether I personally find homesexualtiy immoral or not.

you miss my point. what you are morally against is irrelevant. the logic that has been presented does not admit of any moral assertions. it's all relative to the standing social objective of the moment - known in less polite quarters as Utilitarianism.

btw...just wondering.....you believe the AIDS epidemic did not "affect" others? you are oly concerned with affects on you directly? or are there temporal aspects to your morality? this gets more intersting by the hour!

the metaphysics of moral assertions include more than "does it ruin my day". clearly...a morality based on whether any one individual is affected has some problems...for instance..is one and the same act moral/immoral if it affects (your word) one person and not another? back to relativism....or contradiction...take your pick.

[fansince62]

Originally Posted by Burgundy Burner

I said it on the other site and have said it here on a couple of occasions. Let them be as they wish - it won't have any impact on my life whatsoever. Like I'm going to have any kind of power to keep two people apart? It's not my fight. Live and let live.

wanna bet?!!!

I don't care what two folks do in the privacy of their bedrooms either. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. but there is a political dimension to the movement. there's been a political dimension to just about all these social causes celebre. and there...the agenda extends well beyond who/what one sleeps with or whatever the initial claim happened to be. that's been one of the core activities of government since we on this blog have all been alive!!! example: the leap from women have the right to contraception to women have the right to expect government/organizational entities (e.g., Jesuit law schools) to fund said contraception.

so you have no problem/moral attitude with self mutilation/dismemberment and suicide either? live and don't live?

I'll consider your pov next time I'm forced to spend my time sitting through yet another sensitivity/awareness training..lecture......indoctrination session....for the latest normalization agenda.

on a less truculent note: I listened in on an interesting radio program today focused on the President's evolution in thinking. I was surprised by the number of gays (mostly lesbians) who called in to state they thought the gay marriage heat was a distractor. each one claimed that...beyond being accorded the privacy to do what they wanted in their bedrooms (i.e., none of your or my business)...their focus was on the economy...not gay marriage. obviously, the money Obama is raking in from gay bundlers suggests otherwise...but it was an interesting and unexpected series of calls just the same.

[Extreme]

Originally Posted by fansince62

let's approach this from a differnt perspective: why is it...you imagine...that the Left and Democrats reacted so violently to the Tea Party at its inception? it's because the Tea Party is an arrow pointed directly at the nanny state and the entirety of the moral agenda of the Left - what the heck do you think the Left finds so threatening in the Tea Party's focus on reducing the size/scope of government (the adjunct to controlling budgetary/spending excess)? the point is that the canvas for morality has many more brush strokes on it than just the affect on you. I have been laboring throughout this thread to connect the dots on what is really going on...and actually refrained from ever asserting whether I personally find homesexualtiy immoral or not.

Do you not realize how comical it is that you're trying to hide your hatred of the idea of gay marriage, for whatever reason you do, behind the veil of not wanting the government to be involved in our lives and making these decisions, etc.........when the laws the way they currently are on the matter is actually representative of the type of government you're against?

Originally Posted by fansince62

btw...just wondering.....you believe the AIDS epidemic did not "affect" others? you are oly concerned with affects on you directly? or are there temporal aspects to your morality? this gets more intersting by the hour!

For starters, the average person claiming to be of high moral character would never have to worry about AIDS. But aside from that, you just revealed what your biggest problem is - you're living under the assumptions from 1984. The fears that have been proven unfounded. AIDS is far more prevalent in the heterosexual community than it is in the gay community. Far more. I know you'll twist this to say you never mentioned anything like that, but it has certainly been implied, so I won't argue that aspect.

[Extreme]

Originally Posted by fansince62

I don't care what two folks do in the privacy of their bedrooms either. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. but there is a political dimension to the movement. there's been a political dimension to just about all these social causes celebre.

The funny thing is, supporting gay marriage is not a political movement. Explicity banning it is. They would have to put laws on the books that explicity forbid it, they would have to take states to court that have legalized it, and it's a never ending cycle of money and paperwork. There is nothing in the constitution or any amendment that states men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women. That means a Constitutional amendment would have to be created to explicitly ban it. More money, more time, more paperwork, more government. For someone claiming to be Conservative, you sure do favor the expensive route

Originally Posted by fansince62

and there...the agenda extends well beyond who/what one sleeps with or whatever the initial claim happened to be. that's been one of the core activities of government since we on this blog have all been alive!!! example: the leap from women have the right to contraception to women have the right to expect government/organizational entities (e.g., Jesuit law schools) to fund said contraception.

That is the worst analogy I have ever seen in my life, and I've used some bad ones myself. Using that analogy is like saying we went from driving vehicles, to expecting the government to fund roads to drive our vehicles on.

[Lanky Livingston]

Where is the outrage over Kim Kardashian getting married for only 72 hours? For those of you who are so desperate to maintain the sanctity of marriage, shouldn't you be in the streets of LA protesting farce celebrity weddings?

Just curious...

[tshile]

Originally Posted by Boone

You aren't implying you think all Republicans hate gays or the idea of gay marriage, are you?

No, I'm telling you that the Republican party has put itself out there as being anti-gay. The people who claim to represent the party, and the people that republicans seem to rally behind, are overwhelming anti gay.

I'm also telling you that most of the people I know in real life that are hateful towards gays are republican. They echo the same sentiments people on TV do - the difference? They don't have to censor themselves so they tend to be much more hateful in their speech.

No, I don't think all republicans hate gays or the idea of gay marriage. I don't hate gays or the idea of gay marriage, and for the most part I'd consider myself a republican in terms of how I vote and what I believe the government should do (well, true republican, not what today's 'republicans' seem to believe in).

But if you don't think the opinion of the republican party is that its (in general) anti-gay, to the point of literally 'hating' gays, then you're being a bit oblivious to whats going on...

The same is applied to 'Christians'.

On a side note:
I watched CNN over the weekend and they did a segment where they went to black churches in the south to see how black people are dealing with the idea of a black president endorsing gay marriage.
The entire segment was (in my opinion) the epitome of what is wrong with our society today... a group of people debating whether gay marriage was more important than the color of a person's skin when deciding who to vote for.

Martin Luther King Jr. is rolling in his grave.

[Extreme]

Originally Posted by Lanky Livingston

Where is the outrage over Kim Kardashian getting married for only 72 hours? For those of you who are so desperate to maintain the sanctity of marriage, shouldn't you be in the streets of LA protesting farce celebrity weddings?

Just curious...

Don't waste your breath on the millions of other examples like that. I've tried, all you'll hear is it isn't the same.

Originally Posted by tshile

No, I'm telling you that the Republican party has put itself out there as being anti-gay. The people who claim to represent the party, and the people that republicans seem to rally behind, are overwhelming anti gay.

Which I've always found hilarious, since it's always Republicans caught in public having gay sex

Originally Posted by tshile

I'm also telling you that most of the people I know in real life that are hateful towards gays are republican. They echo the same sentiments people on TV do - the difference? They don't have to censor themselves so they tend to be much more hateful in their speech.

It's because the average people are sheep when it comes to their views when they intertwine with politics. Status quo. Fewer and fewer people interested in politics have their own opinions anymore. Especially the younger generation.

Originally Posted by tshile

Martin Luther King Jr. is rolling in his grave.

A little tidbit I've always found interesting to share with Republican hating blacks, is that MLK was a Republican. Of course, they never believe me and accuse me of trying to start ****, but it is indeed a fact.

With that and Lincoln, makes you wonder why they vote Democrat. We all know why, but of course they deny it.

[MikeSr619]

this thread has derailed back in to what has happened in past threads.

republicans hate gays
christians hate gays
off topic
bitter, angry posts.

come on!

[tshile]

they aren't the only ones, but yea, that seems to be the general consensus

no one said you have to like everything.

[Henry]

You know what? Nevermind.

[fansince62]

Originally Posted by Extreme

Don't waste your breath on the millions of other examples like that. I've tried, all you'll hear is it isn't the same.

no. the response you get is that the typical ruse of equivocating on discrete examples as representative of classes of actions is seen for what it is. as an aside...it's also comical when viewed in the illumination of "you always ask questions no one is going to answer".

"millions of examples". bahaha. what....is this self deprecation day? I missed the notice.

still waiting for the proof that gay marriage is not associated with a political agenda that is much broader than what the deeply philosophic "as long as it doesn't affect/impact me" crowd marshals as prima facie evidence. this thread alone is remarkable for its intellectual dishonesty. it's not quite clear how one gets from private acts that don't affect anyone to acts on institutions (i.e., laws that implement "justice") that most certainly have impacts in terms of obligations beyond just the immediate actors. and I have provided examples...you just chose to ignore them because they are inconvenient to the cherished sense of goodness.

the political agenda obviously includes changing the perception and moral assignment of the acts themselves. and this affects any of a number of belief systems and the people who live inside them - including religion. may be good or bad, needed or superfluous...don't know. I simply detest the hypocrisy of denying or dissembling these larger implications - which have been an obvious part of the social justice landscape for a long, long, long, costly, time.

and I also find the "philosophy" that underlies almost all of it...Utilitarianism...to be bankrupt in key ways - certainly on the moral plane. but what the heck..in these days of gender/idea bending, language shape shifting...anything goes! yahoo! look at the black hat boys and girls. I'll slip a terrorist into it and...magically....I'll pull a socially challenged law breaker out of it! it's that simple! it's that deep. it's all about "rights". heck any right. line em up - time for the 6% to rule the 94%!!!!!! Occupy Castro Street!

Just don't any of you ever make any gay jokes in private or publicly...that would reveal a certain insensitive, non-conformist mindset...wouldn't it? and we know that will never, ever happen among the righteous.