American politics and news thread 2.0

Python wrote:

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.

C'mon, Python. With divorce rates over 50 percent and tumbling, what rational person would think "traditional marriage" should only be between a man and a woman? I mean, obviously it makes the most sense to let the people who continue to thrust the pain and suffering of divorce upon their offspring to only be allowed to marry.

Frankly, you're irrational if you believe anything other than what the magical sky-men say in their book.

Python wrote:

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.

No need to get all sweary, but please, there are two paragraphs before "doesn't make sense" which maybe you didn't read, but you must have at least read them if you got to the last line. "Makes more sense" is just a summation line. I could easily have left it out. You are smarter than to just seize on one throw-away line which concludes two paragraphs.
Now first off, just so there is no misunderstaning here, ssm does not foreshadow the apocalypse, either figuratively or literally. Gays only make up 4-5%of the population (roughly 1/20) and only a percentage are socially liberal,(plenty of gays support the traditional definiton of marriage for the same reasons that non-gays do) so the gay marriage rate is and always will be very low. Even in a big city like Toronto with a huge gay population, (arguably per capita, 2nd only to San Francisco) the ssm rate is appallingly low, to the point that no-one seems to publish data any more. There doesn't seem to be big demand. Maybe, just might be nice to know the option is there if wanted. I don't know.
We also passed a by-law in this city, well over ten years ago, that women, just like men, could parade around in public with their tops off. We are still waiting for that first public bare-breast sighting. Feminists agitated for that one. Meanwhile the guys still walk around shirtless. Women are still conspicuous by their tops-on. Some laws just don't get "taken advantage of,"no matter how much certain parties might agitate for them.
But back to the topic at hand, most compelling argument in favour of traditional marriage IMO, is simply that gay marriage (the two dad kind) denys a child a mother. Adoption agencies for decades have always insisted on married couples (mom and dad) Singles need not apply. I don't think the argument for TM (traditional marriage) need go beyond that.
But that argment aside the ssm equation does not hold up to intellectual scrutiny. Here's just a couple of what I think are obvious issues.
1. Take the single guy that wants to adopt. Not a hope in hell. It won't happen. Even if he has financial means, good home, access to day-care; even female relatives that help out with looking after baby, when single dad isn't around. Adoption agencies will insist on a married couple. But two guys married is suddenly OK. Huh? How is this development suddenly an improvement on the single guy? You still don't have a mother. You just have one more dad? By that logic, three guys adopting would be even better. That's a double redundancy instead of just a single reduncancy (2 dads). So it would seem if we are going to be inclusive and fair and everything, then single guys should be able to adopt too, but that's not the case. Where's the outrage from the ssm lobby.
2. Then there is the spousal benefits and tax burden question. The thinking here has to be adjusted as well. Spousal benefits are predicated on the notion that married couples provide a social construct for raising children. Whether they actually do or not is immaterial. The committed mom/dad construct is still in place, hence the spousal benefits. With ssm, suddenly two dads qualify for the same benefits, even though there is no mommy, so now government incurs a loss of tax revenue to accomodate the ssm two-dad couple, who as we've seen don't provide any demonstrably better child raising environment than the single male does. But who makes up the shortfall? The answer is obviously single persons, not only male, but also female. So what about the single persons who suddenly protest this greater percentage of the tax burden shifting to them. They don't matter I guess, as getting screwed by the liberal social agenda is nothing new. We just keep paying. It's like a parking ticket. Generally less hassle to simply pay it.
Truth is ssm does not signal the apocalypse. The support for it was non-existent only ten years ago. The whole agenda has been driven by liberal social engineers, hollering about non-existent rights. It's a defintion issue, not a "rights" issue. That should be obvious. It certainly was to the Supreme Court of Canada, when they refused to invoke the Charter of Rights and tossed the matter back to parliament, ruling the traditional definition of marriage was perfectly constitutional and not in violation of anyone's rights. Mainstream support is generally laissez-faire ie "whatever" or "why not". Even opposition becomes tepid after awhile. It's a liberal social agenda fight. It's even fostered a whole cottage industry of foaming liberals calling everyone and their brother, that doesn't agee with them, a "homerphobe." Bizarre. Are the gays that support the traditional definition, homerphobes too?! Apparently, or maybe not. I don't know, and don't care either. That's a problem for the name-callers to grapple with.
Bottom line, if one can get past the name-calling, as the Supremes ruled here in Canada -- just put it to a vote. Neither side is evil. There is no apocalypse pending.
===as an aside, how does citing divorce rates strengthen arguments for ssm. If anything that sounds like an argument against marriage period.
As a second aside, this is a discussion I long ago lost interest in. I only engaged the discussion again because I was drawn into it, after I responded to what seemed like a rather flip and disrespecful elsewhere.
Suffice to say, I can respect anyone that votes for ssm. Once's stance hardly defines one's character, so Python, Brown, vote as you see fit. None of us are any righter and certainly not smarter than the other. We all graduated high school and then some. Vote with your gut even. Again the discussion bores me. I bore myself even typing about it, but luckily I can type like the wind,(notwithstranding typos and lax punctuation) after years of workplace typing environment, so its not a big incovenience to expound. These discussions are much more engaging though, not to mention friendlier over beer and general blather, but BAB doesn't afford that luxury. So pounding the keyboard we do.
Vive le marriage!

I was being sarcastic about the apocalypse. I don't believe in that stuff. I'll vote with my head and compassion. I simply do not recognize why gay marriage should be illegal. Religion isn't sufficient enough, because why should somebody's own belief supersede others? And why is same sex marriage wrong at all? Because it's not usual in one's little world?

Still, nine states have currently legalized it. That's a big step in the right direction and a good indicator that America will largely embrace it as the older generations die away with their homophobia. It'll be all states, sooner or later.

Python wrote:

I was being sarcastic about the apocalypse. I don't believe in that stuff. I'll vote with my head and compassion. I simply do not recognize why gay marriage should be illegal. Religion isn't sufficient enough, because why should somebody's own belief supersede others? And why is same sex marriage wrong at all? Because it's not usual in one's little world?

Still, nine states have currently legalized it. That's a big step in the right direction and a good indicator that America will largely embrace it as the older generations die away with their homophobia. It'll be all states, sooner or later.

I didn't think you were quite that close-minded. Still with the homophobia. I give-up. Better to stick to Bond talk than getting all crabby about something I lost interest in discussing a long time ago, present blathering notwithstanding. btw religious arguments don't matter to the public discussion. You can't very well cite the "divine will" to someone that might not even recognize the notion of divine, let alone it having a will.

I really do weary of this topic,(ssm) even if it may not seem like it, but I truly do. Really I do.
Other topics of interest, and actually more relative to this thread, that caught my attention this weekend. I'm not going to link articles. The coverage is quite accesible.
1. I see the courts have shot down Bloomberg's Big Gulp by-law. Well done. I wish I lived in NYC. Even though I hate pop, I might have made an exception, just this once, and bought a super-sized Gulp, and slurped it back on the front steps of City Hall.
2. What's with Nancy Pelosi and the Keystone Pipeline from Alberta!? Just because one of our windbag socialist opposition politicians makes the rounds in Washington pooh-poohing the oilsands development, she's suddenly spouting all his talking points. Is she off her meds!?
3. And Obama has cancelled White House tours as some lame statement against spending cuts!? OMG, I'll show you guys! His own people have protested though. "White House tours aren't something that need be affected. Take a pill Mr. President."

On the subject of SSM

1) a man/female relationship does not make a better parentship than 2 women or 2 men, this is me speaking from experience in an almost 20 years work as youth worker. It is about the care delivered towards the children, the love and attenttion given and that is something that is possible in a loving relationship. Saying that such a thing is only possible in a heterosexual relationship is smallminded and without any foundation.

2) If there are benefits for a heterosexual relationship in tax or being an heir, why can this not be put towards other relationships like the SSM. I would make such benefits depend upon the length of a relationship, children in a relationship, things that make economical sense and thus lose the emotional bagage that comes with divorce and death.

3) and if in the future other forms of living together come up for equal rights, what is wrong with that?- Marriage should be a social contract in which all particpants have a duty and a role to fullfill. And like any contract if it does not work out there should be a way out but also with a set of duties towards spouse(s) and especially children.

4) And on the subject of the Big Gulp by Bloomberg I do believe that even STewart & Maher, both liberal, were against the propesition. Simply because the forbidding did not solve the problem of people getting fat. And that if you tackle such a problem one should create a solution that involves other options.

tiffanywint wrote:

But back to the topic at hand, most compelling argument in favour of traditional marriage IMO, is simply that gay marriage (the two dad kind) denys a child a mother. Adoption agencies for decades have always insisted on married couples (mom and dad) Singles need not apply. I don't think the argument for TM (traditional marriage) need go beyond that.

Precisely. And don't even get me started on the diminished role of the father. Can you even imagine a show being put on television today called FATHER KNOWS BEST? Feminists have tried to relegate dads to second-class status by "empowering" women to go out and get pregnant through artificial insemination or through a gay best friend, with absolutely no thought or care as to what the child may need. Children have the best chance for a balanced, level, productive, happy life when raised by a father and mother who are married to one another and love each other. It may be a quaint notion, but sometimes the old ways really are the best. The contributions of a mother and father in a child's life cannot be underestimated, no matter how hard modern psychology tries to assure us that a child can have the same life with two mommies or two daddies or two mommies and "Uncle Jake" (who acts as a surrogate father).

If gay marriage is legalized in all fifty states, it would likely lead to adoption agencies not being allowed to discriminate against singles or gay couples.

What two (or three, or four, or five) consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of my business. I wouldn't be opposed to civil unions or legislation that gives a gay partner Power of Attorney, next-of-kin, or other legal standings in a relationship. But I'm not for putting gay relationships on the same level as heterosexual relationships where adoption is concerned.

I'm pressed for time so I can't read all comments, but I'll jump back in thread later in the day or week.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I wouldn't be opposed to civil unions or legislation that gives a gay partner Power of Attorney, next-of-kin, or other legal standings in a relationship.

I wouldn't even support civil unions or legal status for either ss or hetero unmarried couples. Again you are getting into spousal benefits and further strain on the tax base, followed by the inevitable shifting of the tax burden. The money has to be recovered somewhere. Power of attorney and estate issues can all be handled via lawyers anyway.

The best kind of parents are loving parents, regardless of sex.

st.mark wrote:

... Big Gulp by Bloomberg I do believe that even STewart & Maher, both liberal, were against the propesition. Simply because the forbidding did not solve the problem of people getting fat.

But that's a liberal argument, one you'd expect from liberals. That argument doesn't matter. The court struck down the law because it's a brazen poltical interference in the marketplace, in vioation of the statues and regulations that govern commerce.

Python wrote:

The best kind of parents are loving parents, regardless of sex.

Well actually mothers do play a natural nurturing role that men cannnot biologically play. There is a very natural reason that children attach to their mommies.

Python wrote:

The best kind of parents are loving parents, regardless of sex.

Mother and fathers have different sets of skills to impart on a child. A boy needs a father as a girl needs a mother, and a daughter learns a lot about what to expect from a man by the way her father treats her mother, just as a son learns how to treat a woman, in part, by how his father treats his mother (Chris Brown for example). There are some things in life that only a mother can discuss with a daughter, or a father with a son. The "regardless of sex" comment is purely psychological pablum.

I disagree with that belief especially as plenty of children turned out fine with same sex couples.

Python wrote:

I disagree with that belief especially as plenty of children turned out fine with same sex couples.

A mother and a father that love each other and are married to each other offer THE BEST CHANCE for a child, not necessarily the only chance. But no matter how loving or nurturing the same-sex home is, there is still a desire to know your birth parent, even if that birth parent doesn't want to know you or is a rotten person. Even adopted children who were raised in totally loving "opposite marriage" homes often want to seek out the biological mother (or father) because there is a connection that cannot be replicated even by adoptive parents who love each other, are married, and are committed to raising their adopted child together. There is a bond between mother and child that cannot be broken down and analyzed in scientific journals. Mothers are our gateway into this world; the mother/child bond is special (something even a father can't fully fathom or understand). To *intentionally* bring life into this world in that manner makes it that much more difficult on the child.

My principles apply equally as well to single women, as well as all those hangers-on that stalk professional entertainers and athletes hoping to "get laid and get paid" (by getting pregnant), or to these irresponsible bastard men who screw every groupie they can get their hands on, then think they are being responsible "baby daddies" by sending a woman $10,000 a month for child support.

Doesn't matter, ones belief in what constitutes a real family should not get in the way of others happiness. Why should a potentially happy family be denied the same rights? Allow them the privilege to make their own lives.

Python wrote:

Doesn't matter, ones belief in what constitutes a real family should not get in the way of others happiness. Why should a potentially happy family be denied the same rights? Allow them the privilege to make their own lives.

I'm old enough to remember when Hollywood was parroting the line that marriage was "just a piece of paper", and they spent decades mocking the institution and doing everything in their part to degrade the value of such an institution, and now they want my sympathy and my support to extend this same privilege to others?

I got nothing against gay people. I'm not a "homophone". I don't grab the women and children and lock myself behind the doors with a shotgun and canned goods when I see someone gay walking down the street. They don't rule the night; nobody does. They're not superhuman creatures. They don't run in packs. I'm not afraid they'll go into berzerker mode if I lock eyes with them.

I just don't believe all relationships need to be validated by the law, and that states ultimately have the right to determine what constitutes a marriage in their community. And if that makes me a bigot, my response would be: And? So?

If two people love each other then it doesn't matter whether they have a piece of paper or not. That's what Hollywood has said for 40+ years and that sounds like pretty good advice that I think I'll stick with. After all, if you can't take advice from a total stranger whom you barely know, don't love and have no respect for, then who can you trust?

I was talking about marriage benefits, not just a signed piece of paper.

Python wrote:

I was talking about marriage benefits, not just a signed piece of paper.

I think it's about more than having "equal rights". As many activists have stated on the record, it's also about pushing tolerance of gays and lesbians further into the mainstream. As TiffanyWint astutely pointed out, gays and lesbians make up a very small percentage of the overall population, and within that tiny population is an even smaller percentage who are truly interested in getting married. If the marriage trends among heterosexuals are any indication, there can't be a huge push among homosexuals to get married either.

So while gay marriage won't affect me and doesn't pose a threat to me, neither do I feel like it is the most pressing issue of our time and we all need to drop what we're doing to resolve it. Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states soon enough because the states that don't have it will start to get blackballed and blacklisted and shunned and boycotted just like people did with Arizona when they didn't want to adopt MLK's birthday as a recognized state holiday, or when companies started boycotting South Africa because of apartheid.

Gay marriage is coming. If you put it in slowly, it'll be easier to tolerate and accept. If you force it down our throats, it'll make us gag and spit it back out.

Best to get used to it then, and I agree the issue should be just dropped and legalized so we can move onto bigger fish.

Python wrote:

Best to get used to it then, and I agree the issue should be just dropped and legalized so we can move onto bigger fish.

The best way to "get used to it" is the boiling frog theory. The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog


Or, in other terms that we can all relate to, just stick the tip in and let a person get used to that before shoving the rest of the needle in when helping a fellow junkie shoot up some heroin....

I just go with Wheaton's Law.

Python wrote:

I just go with Wheaton's Law.

Will Wheaton?

Just so we know where I stand on this issue, and just to make sure everyone realizes I'm neutral and don't have a dog in this fight, I want to make it perfectly clear that I like the pole and the hole, and right now I'm as moist as a snack cake down there.

Yup, that Wheaton.

From my worldly experience, gay guys are no different than the rest of us. Their brains work perfectly well. They can also understand that children love their mommies. Just because a guy is gay doesn't mean he doesn't get reality. Heck, gay guys have mommies too, so they know the mommy love as well as anyone.
So, as there really doesn't seem to be a big demonstrable demand for ssm in the gay community anyway, but thanks just the same, ssm is actually a great issue for keeping activist liberals occupied and away from more dangerous issues that they might be drawn to.
Where the issue could really come in handy, is that it might keep the social-activist crowd occupied and away from the climate change crusaders,:affraid: who do pose a huge threat to both the American economy and the broader global economy.
To wit, it seem that key personnel in the Obama admin (no doubt at Dear Leader's behest) are plotting to sabotage the XL Keystone oil pipeline from Alberta, in the name of saving us from "climate change," even though America imports 300 million barrels of oil a month, from fine upstanding regimes such as Saudia Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela and relies on coal for half its electricity supply.
The New York Times lost its mind last week railing about climate change warning of "the need to safeguard a world for coming generations that is not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts and other destructive forces caused by climate." You can't make this stuff up. They actually print this hyperbole, and coincident with our wind-bag socialist party leader's whirlwind Washington tour, (where he also enthralled a gasping Nancy Pelosi), to make it look like Canada doesn't want the pipeline either. Which is partially true, as of course, our climate-change nuts don't want it either.
If President Greensleaves torpedoes this thing, we are selling to China. Its that simple, and America loses a cheap and reliable source of oil, thanks to the crusader-in-chief in the White House.
But it gets better! Get ready for a carbon tax, America. Word today that big Obama allies in the Senate, Barbara Boxer and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders are plotting to back a carbon tax bill. And on the House side, Obama flunkie, Henry Waxman has put forth a carbon tax discussion draft. Obama has his minions doing the spadework. Smart move this; it allows him to distance and simply approve the work of others.
So conservatively we are looking at doubling the existing federal gas tax just for starters; the tax will of course hit electrical bills. Industrial energy users will be hit nice and hard. A carbon tax amounts to a tax on everything, so everyone feels the love. And of course the zealots in the white house will use the cash-grab to bankroll the latest round of wealth redistribution schemes, which of course is the point of the whole exercise. We are probably looking at gas stamps soon.
These next three years are going to be real rough for anyone trying to stay employed and pay bills
Maybe I'm just a cynic though. Maybe Obama is truly convinced he can illiminate bad weather. :shock:

Interesting use of Dali's 'melting clocks' there :suspect: .

Yeah. Who cares about the planet when the corporations might lose a few bucks? Fuck Earth, that's what I say.