American politics and news thread 2.0

There shouldn't be a law giving Mothers the right to breast feed their babies in public! Why do people get so offended when they see a Mother breast feeding? Is it because they see a Nipple? Considering the little amount of fabric women of all ages are wearing at the swimming pool and on the beach; that's the only explanation I have for people not wanting to see a woman breast feed in public. After all, some of the swimsuits nowadays pretty much leaves the entire breast uncovered except for the nipple area. I bet these same men who don't want to see a woman breast feed in public have ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER to seeing a woman topless in public!!

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Texas-lawmaker-starts-breast-feeding-debate-on-Facebook/-/1735978/19325404/-/s3ay2i/-/index.html

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), once on the shortlist to be Mitt Romney's VP, now pro-gay marriage after revealing his son is gay.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/republican-rob-portman-supports-gay-marriage/story?id=18736731

On the one hand, I raise an eyebrow to this -- calling the press into your office to politicize your son's sexuality is a pretty shameless maneuver, IMO -- but on the other, one more Republican, and a big one at that, joining the 21st century on a major social issue is welcome.

Jack Wade wrote:

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), once on the shortlist to be Mitt Romney's VP, now pro-gay marriage after revealing his son is gay.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/republican-rob-portman-supports-gay-marriage/story?id=18736731

On the one hand, I raise an eyebrow to this -- calling the press into your office to politicize your son's sexuality is a pretty shameless maneuver, IMO -- but on the other, one more Republican, and a big one at that, joining the 21st century on a major social issue is welcome.

What about polygamy? Can we all get behind that as well? What about 4 people being married to one another? What's wrong with that? As long as they are adults and consent to the marriage, should not the government support that as well?

Except there's not so much support for polygomy as there are for gay people. Maybe in the future, perhaps that will be debated.

Python wrote:

Except there's not so much support for polygomy as there are for gay people. Maybe in the future, perhaps that will be debated.

But the same could be said for gay marriage as well. There was no "support" for gay marriage 20 years ago. The concept barely existed. I remember Oprah WInfrey telling Bob Paris and Rod Jackson (1990?) that she could never imagine that there would be legalized gay marriage in her life time, and that was just about 23 years ago. Now the roles have completely reversed. Now if you aren't in favor of gay marriage you are a "raging homophobe".

What about people who are currently in unrecognized polygamous relations? When will the states do away with this draconian law that prohibits a man from being married to two or more women at the same time?

It's a very fair, reasonable, and legitimate question. Ultimately it's a moot question, because the gay-marriage train has already left the station and there is no going back. However, everyone wants to raise the issue of gay marriage but not think it through to its next logical step. If you redefine what it means to be in a legally recognized and state-sanctioned marriage, then we're all bigots and intolerant if we don't allow every other permutation of relationship that people can come up with to not be defined as "married". Once the state sanctions two men being married, it has zero authority to tell 3 people they can't marry one another.

We used to have "common-law" marriage in my state; they may have gotten rid of it. It was where two people who "lived together" for 6 months or more were considered "married", but then with so many people living together it began to cheapen and devalue the commitment of marriage, so they got rid of it (plus a lot of people were considered "married" that didn't really want to be). Lesson is: states retain the right to define marriage for themselves, even among straight couples. There's no right to assume that a state should change its laws to accommodate gay and lesbian couples.

I've been reading some of the comments from people about Portman's announcement that his views have changed, and it's amazing the amount of people that referred to him pre-evolution as a "raging homophobe". Really? You disagree with gay marriage and that automatically translates into being disgusted and hating gay people?

I think gay people should have that right, that's all. I couldn't care less about the talk of "raging homophobes" or whatever derogatory. Polygomy could be next but I suppose we'll see how soon the tides roll onto that.

Ban marriage.

Everyone's happy. Really.

Control wrote:

Ban marriage.

Everyone's happy. Really.

Agreed.

But really, this is more a matter of equality than it is about marriage.

Can't remember which comedian it was who said 'I support gay marriage ... they've every right to be as miserable as the rest of us' ... but yeah. Basically that.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Can't remember which comedian it was who said 'I support gay marriage ... they've every right to be as miserable as the rest of us' ... but yeah. Basically that.

What's next? After legalizing gay marriage, will they be allowed to vote? Drive cars? Run for political office? Play sports?

Is anyone old enough to remember when it used to be called an "alternative lifestyle"? Now people are calling it a fight for "equality".

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Can't remember which comedian it was who said 'I support gay marriage ... they've every right to be as miserable as the rest of us' ... but yeah. Basically that.

What's next? After legalizing gay marriage, will they be allowed to vote? Drive cars? Run for political office? Play sports?

Who? Comedians???

Largo's Shark wrote:

Who? Comedians???

We're talking about gay people; not comedians. There aren't any gay people in show business.

And what happens when a man tries to marry an illegal alien/boyfriend? Will the alien be allowed to stay in the country? They're sneaking across the border, taking jobs from hardworking Americans, and now they're trying to take men away from the all-American girl next door.

Come for the free health care, stay for the men!

What's wrong with the idea of letting gays marry?

Python wrote:

What's wrong with the idea of letting gays marry?

Jesus would be super pissed.

You'd have thought the widespread paedophilia in Catholicism would bother him more, or those starving to death in Africa maybe.

Church teaching on marriage is very straightforward. It's never going to change. It's solidly rooted in scripture and sacred tradition and will ever be thus.
If you understand the theology underpinning Christian-Catholicism, Christ (the divinity) is present in each of the 7 sacraments. The sacrament of marriage is what it is. It comes with a divine stamp. Other orthodox Christianity proclaims the same divine imperative but minus the sacramental element, which is Catholic. Judaism proclaims the same divine imperative.
Seeing as we are suddenly having a discussion on two millenia plus of the Judeo-Christian marriage tradition. :study:
And yes I'm sure Christ and all the angels in heaven do weep for all those who have been sexually abused, starved for food or have endured any other injustice a fallen world might throw at them, but there is also that whole notion of salvation/redemption through Christ, the disposition of one's immortal soul (which Fleming does briefly reflect on in DN) and a perfect divine judgement to come, but I don't want to get deep into theological musings on a U.S politics thread. The likes of Aquinas, Augustine, even Chesterton, Tolkien or C.S. Lewis expound much better.
Happy St. Patrick's Day and God Bless Obama!

The "sacrament of marriage" doesn't really hold up when you see couples get divorced left and right. Letting gays marry isn't going to bring the apocalypse.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. From what I know, it's a depressing state of affairs and there's no gaiety involved whatsoever.

Sarah Palin discusses her rack.

Admit it, you'd go there.

How many months till her porn debut?

My people are hammering something out with her people.

If anyone knows a well-endowed Latino who wants to make a quick 50 bucks, please give me a ring. Sarah wants to get some Hispanic outreach on tape before her 2016 run.

CJB wrote:

Sarah Palin discusses her rack.

Admit it, you'd go there.

A blow-job, certainly ... better to lessen her chances of saying something stupid, I feel.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/highschool--steubenville-high-school-football-players-found-guilty-of-raping-16-year-old-girl-164129528.html

Guaranteed to become a really bad TV movie.

Python wrote:

The "sacrament of marriage" doesn't really hold up when you see couples get divorced left and right. Letting gays marry isn't going to bring the apocalypse.

You miss the point. If people can't honor their marriage vows, that doesn't reflect on marriage, that reflects on the individuals that can't honor their vows. A good marriage is a wonderful thing. As a society I think we should be looking at social policy that makes it tougher to get a divorce, not to prevent couples that actually might need a divorce from getting one, but more to prevent couples from getting married in the first place, that aren't really serious, that figure they can just wriggle out of it when they don't like it anymore, which plays havoc with any kids that are caught in the crossfire. Family breakdown is not good for society.
As for the theology underpinning the sacramental nature of Catholic marriage, that's a topic I think better left for a religious forum ie for persons that actually believe there might be such a thing as a divine will.
From a purely secular pov, though ssm does not bring the apocalypse. I'm not even sure there is likely to ever be an apocalypse. Earh might just get too close to the sun someday and that's the end of life on the this planet.
In a free and pluralistic society though, marriage is a social construct, which has a defintion. Historically it exists to facilitate family. Children do benefit from having both a loving mother and father in a committed family relationship. Personally I think children benefit from having both a mother and a father. Maybe that makes me not "21st century" advanced. Then again what makes the 21st century so evolved. I think a quick glance at history will show that each century since the beginning of recorded history was quite depraved and I have no reason to believe that is likely to change. I doubt, that 500 years from now, people of the 26th century will be looking back at either the 20th century or 21st century as models of human virtue, charity or civility. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
But back to our precious 21st century (I'm sure in every century since recorded time, man has proclaimed superior evolvement, but we never do seem to actually evolve. Our depraved nature has a way of persisting through the ages) if the people either through plebiscite or through their elected representatives, should see fit to change that defintion, then so be it. In a country like the United States which IMO has the most enlightened constitution in the history of the world, in that framers intended that power should be decentralized, each state should be free to contrive their own social legislation. So be it. I cast my vote for the traditional definition of marriage, because I think it makes most sense.

tiffanywint wrote:

So be it. I cast my vote for the traditional definition of marriage, because I think it makes most sense.

"Makes most sense"? That's inefficient. That's as lame as those against interracial marriage because it doesn't "makes sense" for them. Why should gay marriage not be legal? Because it "doesn't fit tradition", as in it's too much of a change for you? That's fucking petty.