Obama comes out in support of *** marriage...Follow

I can think of at least three or four times in the last 500 years where the "definition" of marriage changed either legally or socially in the western world alone.

Probably my favorite variant is traditional handfasting, where in some Gaelic cultures the marriage was not considered legit until the lady was pregnant.

The ones that wanted to have twenty children did.

Well, yes I get how it works, but not why. Why give states rights if the Fed is just going to trump it? Why leave somethig as important as a couple's legal status variable and inconsistent? Why stay united if the states can't agree on such things?

You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!

I've still got mah Rebel flag around here somewhere... let's do this!

Before the ubiquitous instant communications of the 20th century, individual regions and states tended to develop much more unique personalities. For a country as large as the US (where a single state's individual counties are often larger than some individual nations in Europe), it made sense to allow locals to tweak laws to their own personal preferences.

These days, with the US a lot more homogeneous within regions than anyone wants to admit, it does seem a bit archaic.

Edited, May 10th 2012 1:54pm by catwho

Careful what you wish for. Rednecks can shoot better than hippies.

I fail to see the moral argument against polygamy or same-*** marriage, especially from the Christian right. Their own Christ defines his relationship with the church as a marriage, and there are billions of women and men in there. So how can a man marrying many women, or men, be bad when t3h sabior does it?

That's not what Tom Hanks taught me!

See? SEEEEEE?????

"Take and eat; this is my body."

That doesn't mean he hates gays. He may have just been a rich, entitled pathetic little asshole of a person.

Gotta give someone the benefit of the doubt, you know.

It's ok, we'll want to drop in on you for some mint-julep down-time in the Winter sun.

Why do you think they serve wine also? They need to get you good and drunk!

Ya well who needs you. Canada was right about you! ABOUT EVERYTHING!

The issue isn't about whether *** people are citizens, but whether a relationship between two people of the same *** can qualify for a specific legal status. That's it.




Wrong. Opposing the use of the word "marriage" in anything other than a legal context is meaningless. No one cares what a *** couple calls their relationship (ok, some people may, but that's their personal opinion and has nothing at all to do with the legal conflict at hand). They care about what legal status the state grants to it.



Yeah. Many of those polls that get reported as "what percentage support/oppose *** marriage" actually do ask that question in a way which includes civil unions. For example, the recent Gallup poll, broadly touted in the news as saying that 50% support *** marriage, while 48% oppose it, didn't actually specify "*** marriage" in the question. There's a lot of spin about this issue.



Really? Your best understanding of this issue doesn't allow you to notice that while only a teeny tiny percentage of the US population goes around beating up gays on the street, several states have passed laws limiting the legal definition of marriage to exclude same *** couples with 10+ point majority margins. And you honestly can't noodle out that maybe, just maybe there's some reason beyond "*** people are icky" behind that?


Seems like you're deliberately clinging to a simplistic strawman reason. Maybe you should think a bit harder and expand your understanding of the issue?

Right, because that's a reasonable measure of whether or not people disapprove of homosexuality: how many of them beat people up in the street in roving gangs.

Seems like you're deliberately clinging to a simplistic overstatement. Maybe you should think a bit harder and expand your understanding of the issue?

I can verify that at least two people in this country don't want gays getting married because of the word marriage. My parents. My step-dad is perfectly fine with civil unions, but doesn't think they should use "our" word. In his opinion, they should call it something else. My mom is just a bigot in general when it comes to *** people, but she too is a big believer that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and that *** people shouldn't be allowed to get married at all.

My mom is in the same boat. She's on record as saying, in reference to women kissing in public: "I'm totally fine with homosexuals. I just don't think I should have to see it."

See, that just sounds like we're going through the motions of the whole "Separate but Equal" shenanigans all over again. A thing which I had thought we'd already sorted out.

I might give weight to the Civil Union only argument from the people against same *** marriage if the majority of laws on the books didn't also ban Civil Unions.

This has to be the most confusing statement I've ever read today:



Source

Edited, May 10th 2012 2:53pm by Olorinus

As I said, you parroted the talking point without bothering to look.

Good on you for admitting it, though.

N. Carolina? Sure

That's the point... Do you get that the whole "separate but equal" thing stemmed from the segregated schools in the south, because that was what was claimed and later found out to be completely untrue? The "colored" schools had significantly lower quality books, buildings, and resources in general than the white schools did. That was the primary reason people pushed to desegregate schools, because black students were at an extreme disadvantage and a lot of people thought that was wrong.

Those of us who support *** marriage do so because we don't agree that civil unions are enough, specifically because they DON'T offer the same protections and rights that marriage does. Civil unions are better than nothing, but they're just today's version of the "separate but equal" garbage that existed during the civil rights movement.

And the other 40 states that either have constitutions or statues which limit marriage licenses to opposite *** couples? There's a point at which when you have such an overwhelming percentage of the population voting a given way on this issue that simply dismissing their opinions with a simplistic strawman assumption is maybe not helping.