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

No True Gaelic accepted that definition!

No TRUE Gaelic did, and I say "Good day!"

I think it's time for the N-E states to grab the west-coast states and back slowly away.

We're not ALL backwards down here...

not all...

Not my issue. The only thing that will make me feel better is if the government stays out of it altogether. Since that's not likely to happen because too many knob-gobblers think marriage could define them, I'll resolve myself to too much government in the bedroom, yet again.

It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?

Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?

I don't know, the jury is still out on Mary Magdalene.

Wouldn't be a proper cult wandering in the wilderness, advertising miraculous healing powers, and living off of donations if there weren't at least a couple of orgies.

You're so evolved.

I will never be able to think of communion the same way again.

Oh **** no. West Coast can go play with themselves. I'm not even interested in the rest of the Northeast. New York can stand alone as a sovereign nation.

Canada was right to kick out Tare.

I don't know about the war part, but I am definitely in favor of splitting up the country into regions and letting each region essentially become its own country. We can still do free trade between regions, and ease of immigration/emigration and tourism, etc. But each region should have its own government and laws. I think most people in the US would be a lot happier in that sort of situation.

Do you think marriages between same-*** couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?

Well! If that's the star you want to hitch your wagon of ideology to...

Newsflash gbaji, "marriages between same-*** couples" = "*** marriage." If people are too stupid to figure that out, then I have little hope for our future. The poll may not have used the specific phrase, but it still was quite clearly talking about *** marriage.

I suppose "marriages between same-*** couples" is more accurate since not all same-*** couples are, well, ***.

More to the point, Gbaji was trying to imply that the number included people who only want civil unions which the question doesn't represent at all. I'm sure it sounded like a great talking point when he heard it though since he obviously didn't glean this tidbit from actually, you know, reading the survey question.

I wish my mom was at least that open. She deals with me and my sister's bisexuality by pretending it doesn't exist. ****, she's more comfortable with me being kinky and polyamorous than she is with me being bisexual. She's weird.

I feel that way about furries sometimes.

Nah. That's what I get for not actually checking myself. It was something I heard Medved say on the radio yesterday, and he's usually pretty good at fact checking, so I didn't check it. My bad (or he was talking about a different poll, dunno).

That's a strawman though. Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are not intended to be "separate but equal". They're intended to be two separate legal statuses for two different types of couples, and *should* be unequal. In the exact way that hundreds of other legal statuses are not equal either. I don't hate people who aren't poor and I don't hate people who aren't handicapped. Yet, magically, I don't think those groups should qualify for food stamps or be able to park in the blue spaces, respectively.

Do you see how excluding people from a legal status and therefore not giving them some benefit that another group gets isn't wrong? It's at the heart of creating those statuses in the first place. You wouldn't create them if everyone could qualify for the benefits. Same deal here. The legal status of marriage exists to deal with procreation. It's therefore quite logical to restrict the group to which that status applies to those couples who may procreate. In the same way that it makes sense to limit food stamps to those who may not be able to afford food, and handicapped stickers to those who may not be able to easily walk from a more distant parking space.


You're getting caught up in rhetoric and failing to see the issue for what it is. Again, do you honestly believe that 60% of voters in California and North Carolina just hate *** people? Or do you think that maybe there's more to it than that ridiculously simplistic strawman argument?

I feel that way about ALL people. Get a room, folks.

I haven't seen, nor looked for, crosstabs but I recall CA's vote was propped up in a notable part by African-Americans. I wouldn't be surprised (but again, haven't looked) if the same was true for NC. In my unresearched and untested opinion, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the (typically very Democratic) African-American vote against *** marriage isn't one born from strident conviction in conservative principles. Rather, there's a dislike of homosexuals in the black community. In other words, many blacks haet teh gheyz. I won't play amateur sociologist and guess at why but it's well enough documented for anyone who wants to pull out the Google-machine.

As I said upthread, I don't think this will affect Obama's share of the black vote in November. But hearing that 60% of the vote in NC was against *** marriage doesn't immediately shock me or make me think "All these people must have reasons that aren't at all related to good ole homophobia".

Edited, May 10th 2012 5:53pm by Jophiel

Coming up with a blanket reason for 40 states would be simplistic and, well, stupid. Especially given that public perceptions on the issue have been rapidly shifting in the last few years so guessing that motives in 2002 apply to 2012 would be even more stupid.