Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Article hints at why Obama may be "coming out" tonight and changing his stance on gay marriage: "A review of those who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign shows that about one in six are gay"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 193
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Kevin Jennings, Lambda Legal, Ricketts, bundlers, finance director, Dan Eggen, Human Rights Campaign  
•       •       •

843 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2012 at 7:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-09 06:37:30 PM  

snowjack: EnviroDude: Weaver95: I'm wondering why the Republicans oppose gay marriage.

If you knew the answer to the purpose of marriage (not to be confused with the benefits), you would know the answer to your question.



What is the purpose of marriage?

/remember, you can have companionship, raise kids, grow old without being married. So why marriage?

Inheritance, family-level hospital access when a loved one is injured, societal recognition of the family unit and of a degree of love that goes beyond friendship or companionship... Shall I go on, or did you have some religious agenda you wanted to push?


Howbout an anti-religious agenda?

All of what you mention could and should be done without getting the church involved. Two people want to commit to each other to that degree? Make it a legal contract, civil union, whatever... no skymen involved.

If a couple also wants to have a church ceremony to affirm their union in front of whatever deity they prefer and their community, that's up to them. And, churches should be able to exclude people from having these strictly for show ceremonies in their churches.

But as far as the legal aspects go, churches and gods shouldn't have a thing to do with it, and anyone of legal age and sound mind should be able to legally bind themselves to whoever they feel like.
 
2012-05-09 06:38:54 PM  
*yawn*
 
2012-05-09 06:39:01 PM  

EnviroDude: :
The above are benefits of marriage, not the purpose


nope! those are the purpose of marriage, at least as far as society is concerned. I understand that certain religions have differing views...but that's not what's at issue here.
 
2012-05-09 06:40:39 PM  

EnviroDude: closer than the other two that haven't a clue what it is.


Even if that were true (hint: it's not), why not let people who don't believe in Jesus and who won't ever do so do what they want? If you're right, they're all going to hell anyway.
 
2012-05-09 06:43:11 PM  

themindiswatching: EnviroDude: closer than the other two that haven't a clue what it is.

Even if that were true (hint: it's not), why not let people who don't believe in Jesus and who won't ever do so do what they want? If you're right, they're all going to hell anyway.


even if you wanted to go with the whole religious route (which still rings false, as Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality), you STILL run into the 'problem' that THIS country doesn't base it's laws on religious doctrine. so the GOP objections to gay marriage fail twice over.
 
2012-05-09 06:45:29 PM  

Weaver95: even if you wanted to go with the whole religious route (which still rings false, as Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality), you STILL run into the 'problem' that THIS country doesn't base it's laws on religious doctrine. so the GOP objections to gay marriage fail twice over.


Indeed.
 
2012-05-09 06:47:59 PM  
Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz.
Marriage has never been more fragile. But the same things that have made it so have also made a good marriage more fulfilling than ever before. In this enlightening and hugely entertaining book, historian and marriage expert Stephanie Coontz takes readers from the marital intrigues of ancient Babylon to the sexual torments of Victorian couples to demonstrate how recent the idea of marrying for love is-and how absurd it would have seemed to most of our ancestors. It was only 200 years ago that marriage began to be about love and emotional commitment, and since then the very things that have strengthened marriage as a personal relationship have steadily weakened it as a social institution. Marriage, A History brings intelligence, wit, and some badly needed perspective to today's marital debates and dilemmas.
I've heard her interviewed once or twice, argues essentially marriage was created as a way to consolidate property between two (or often, historically, more) families.
 
2012-05-09 06:49:32 PM  

EnviroDude: The above are benefits of marriage, not the purpose.


You're a troll, I know, but the purpose of marriage has long, long been entirely practical, legal and political first and religious second. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that you can get married without ever setting foot in a religious establishment.
 
2012-05-09 06:56:00 PM  

EnviroDude: To make Old Testament God happy?

closer than the other two that haven't a clue what it is.


You know, more people would probably go to church if all the churches weren't packed full of insufferably smug Right-Thinkers(tm).
 
2012-05-09 06:57:32 PM  

snowjack: EnviroDude: To make Old Testament God happy?

closer than the other two that haven't a clue what it is.

You know, more people would probably go to church if all the churches weren't packed full of insufferably smug Right-Thinkers(tm).


But without them, there would be no churches in the first place!
 
2012-05-09 07:06:51 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: snowjack: EnviroDude: To make Old Testament God happy?

closer than the other two that haven't a clue what it is.

You know, more people would probably go to church if all the churches weren't packed full of insufferably smug Right-Thinkers(tm).

But without them, there would be no churches in the first place!


Sure there would. They would just be more like community centers: more fun stuff, less indoctrination and gossipy mother hens.
 
2012-05-09 07:08:47 PM  

EnviroDude: snowjack: EnviroDude: Weaver95: I'm wondering why the Republicans oppose gay marriage.

If you knew the answer to the purpose of marriage (not to be confused with the benefits), you would know the answer to your question.



What is the purpose of marriage?

/remember, you can have companionship, raise kids, grow old without being married. So why marriage?

Inheritance, family-level hospital access when a loved one is injured, societal recognition of the family unit and of a degree of love that goes beyond friendship or companionship... Shall I go on, or did you have some religious agenda you wanted to push?


Weaver95: also - it clarifies property rules when two people decide they want to spend the rest of their lives together.


The above are benefits of marriage, not the purpose.

themindiswatching: EnviroDude: What is the purpose of marriage?

To make Old Testament God happy?

closer than the other two that haven't a clue what it is.


Actually, you don't have a clue what marriage nor what the actual issue .

Marriage is a contract-joining two individuals and giving them legal protections and benefits not enjoyed by two individuals.

The issue is that in this country, you should not be denied the same benefits and protections just because of your color, belief or sexuality. There is nothing that shows that Gay people are worse/better parents. There is nothing that shows gay people can't be happy monogamous relationship.

Currently in many states a gay partner would not have the same rights as a heterosexual spouse: Family could override any decision, Companies don't have to give benefits, hospitals can refuse admittance, they don't get the same tax breaks.

Separate but equal does not and should not be encouraged in this country
 
2012-05-09 07:08:54 PM  

BillCo: I liked it so much I said it twice.


Usually you just sh*t on a thread, but it looks like you got a case of the squirts.
 
2012-05-09 07:10:37 PM  

vernonFL: Klippoklondike: and now Homosexual


Its sad how many Republicans can't understand how anyone could be for gay marriage unless they themselves are gay
.
So if Obama supports gay marriage, Obama must be a homosexual!


It's just like how supporting the Civil Rights Act makes me black.
 
2012-05-09 07:12:23 PM  

Quasar: vernonFL: Klippoklondike: and now Homosexual


Its sad how many Republicans can't understand how anyone could be for gay marriage unless they themselves are gay
.
So if Obama supports gay marriage, Obama must be a homosexual!

It's just like how supporting the Civil Rights Act makes me black.


I supported the Equal Rights Amendment, and I woke up with a vagina. I mostly use it for storing sand.
 
2012-05-09 07:15:09 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Quasar: vernonFL: Klippoklondike: and now Homosexual


Its sad how many Republicans can't understand how anyone could be for gay marriage unless they themselves are gay
.
So if Obama supports gay marriage, Obama must be a homosexual!

It's just like how supporting the Civil Rights Act makes me black.

I supported the Equal Rights Amendment, and I woke up with a vagina. I mostly use it for storing sand.


Every good playground needs a sandbox.
 
2012-05-09 07:21:43 PM  

Aarontology: FirstNationalBastard: Pic needs Biden fapping in the background to be complete.

Or holding those ice cream cones looking all sad that Obama found someone else.


i611.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-09 07:22:30 PM  

EnviroDude: The above are benefits of marriage, not the purpose


How about you straight up tell us what you think the purpose of marriage is instead of using this socratic bullshiat?
 
2012-05-09 07:22:48 PM  

EnviroDude: Weaver95: I'm wondering why the Republicans oppose gay marriage.

If you knew the answer to the purpose of marriage (not to be confused with the benefits), you would know the answer to your question.



What is the purpose of marriage?

/remember, you can have companionship, raise kids, grow old without being married. So why marriage?


Derp thoughts with Internet dentist.
 
2012-05-09 07:29:06 PM  
So what's the implication of this headline? That Obama has been bribed by the gays to personally support same-sex marriage? If you're reading this you're probably under age 60, literate, and you're not busy raging on Freep about how Obama must have had a threesome with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, so you're probably for same-sex marriage. Did you need to be bribed? (Don't answer that. There are no bribes forthcoming.)

Anyways, I recall reading in 2008 that the percentage of LGBTQ folks among the really solid Democratic Party activists was somewhere in the mid-teens. 16.6% of bundlers is in line with that.
 
2012-05-09 07:30:44 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Quasar: vernonFL: Klippoklondike: and now Homosexual


Its sad how many Republicans can't understand how anyone could be for gay marriage unless they themselves are gay
.
So if Obama supports gay marriage, Obama must be a homosexual!

It's just like how supporting the Civil Rights Act makes me black.

I supported the Equal Rights Amendment, and I woke up with a vagina. I mostly use it for storing sand.


img11.imageshack.us
 
2012-05-09 07:32:45 PM  

EnviroDude: Weaver95: I'm wondering why the Republicans oppose gay marriage.

If you knew the answer to the purpose of marriage (not to be confused with the benefits), you would know the answer to your question.



What is the purpose of marriage?

/remember, you can have companionship, raise kids, grow old without being married. So why marriage?


Hey, a wilful idiot. The purpose of marriage is to establish family ties. Beyond that, it's purpose is entirely whatever the two (or more, if it's a cultural tradition involving polygamy) people involved want it to be.
 
2012-05-09 07:38:27 PM  

TsarTom: O Hai gais!
[i870.photobucket.com image 500x378]

Miss me yet?


Jesus thats creepy and so so accurate.
 
2012-05-09 07:39:12 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Aarontology: FirstNationalBastard: Pic needs Biden fapping in the background to be complete.

Or holding those ice cream cones looking all sad that Obama found someone else.

At the very least, Ceiling Hillary should be watching.


And this in the background

thepoliticalcarnival.net
 
2012-05-09 07:39:52 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: All of what you mention could and should be done without getting the church involved. Two people want to commit to each other to that degree? Make it a legal contract, civil union, whatever... no skymen involved.

If a couple also wants to have a church ceremony to affirm their union in front of whatever deity they prefer and their community, that's up to them. And, churches should be able to exclude people from having these strictly for show ceremonies in their churches.

But as far as the legal aspects go, churches and gods shouldn't have a thing to do with it, and anyone of legal age and sound mind should be able to legally bind themselves to whoever they feel like.


What do you think civil marriage is? What you describe already exists. Just because you are married in a church doesn't mean you are legally married. You have to file the paperwork with the state. The priest is just one agent that is licensed to perform marriages. Others include Judges, notary publics (as in florida), ship captains, etc. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. Why you are thinking that I have no idea.

I went to a wedding last year - it was officiated by the grooms brother. But the State of California already consider them married because they filled out the paperwork and stood before a Judge three days prior.
 
2012-05-09 07:41:05 PM  

bobbette: Hey, a wilful idiot. The purpose of marriage is to establish family ties. Beyond that, it's purpose is entirely whatever the two (or more, if it's a cultural tradition involving polygamy) people involved want it to be.


No - marriage is all about property. Always has been - always will be.
 
2012-05-09 07:42:13 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Coontz


What an unfortunate last name.

/*gigglefit*
 
2012-05-09 07:44:32 PM  
Seems to me that the word 'marriage' is the root of the problem. So, a proposal:

The only construct recognized by any government - state or federal - is a civil union. Civil unions are available to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, race, whatever. No laws recognize the word 'marriage' in any way, freeing it up to become a purely religious designation that can be as restrictive and discriminatory as you idiot fundies want it to be.

We get equal protection (for everyone) under the law, fundies get to pat them selves on the back for preserving the holy institution of 'marriage', whatever the helll that means.
 
2012-05-09 07:44:33 PM  

BillCo: Goodbye southern Democrats.


Hey, welcome to 2012. Let me get you up to speed quickly: LBJ knowingly wrote off the Southern Democrats in the 60s when he pushed the Civil Rights Act through. Guess what the biggest bloc of Democrats in the South is now?

That's right: southern black people. I'm not sure Obama is quaking in his boots given that he received 95% of their votes last time around.
 
2012-05-09 07:45:03 PM  
bdub77: I'm not exactly certain why he didn't come out about his support of gay marriage yesterday or the day before, especially since he was due to be in NC. I certainly don't think it was about the money. Maybe he was afraid it would just polarize the other side to vote for it simply because he's against it. But I think there was a slow realization that he'd have to take a stand and soon. I'm a little peeved he didn't do it earlier, but I respect the fact that he thought about it and then made a decision in support of it. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand.

Romney, for the record, is definitely ___ it.


It was a low turn out primary and expected to pass anywhere from 60-80% the vote. Better to wait until after to wag his finger and suck some of the hand shaking and congratulating from the NOM crowd. Biden's "slip" was anything but btw.

As much as it sucks, this is politics, and it's politics done beautifully. ADD Dems need to take note. Obama is not a wizard, but he knows how to play ball and play the long game. Dem base needs to do the same.

/Chill the frak out, we got this
 
2012-05-09 07:48:24 PM  
Aren't 1/10 people gay anyway? And the probability that you're gay given you're liberal is higher than that? and given that the number of people who gave > $500,000 is small to begin with, this seems well within the realm of statistical expectation, no conspiracy of teh gheys needed.
 
2012-05-09 07:49:05 PM  

Car_Ramrod: EnviroDude: The above are benefits of marriage, not the purpose

How about you straight up tell us what you think the purpose of marriage is instead of using this socratic bullshiat?


I don't think he's coming back. Real churchy types aren't big on two-way communication. The Right-Thinker(tm) sows his Seeds of Truth(tm) only where he thinks they will grow. When the soil is fertile, with cryptic hints and mysteeeerious proclamations, the Right-Thinker(tm) draws in the curious yet ignorant masses, then suddenly stuns them with his Pronouncements of Unquestionable Dogma(tm).

Pretty sure that's a direct quote from Supply Side Jesus. Anyway, I think he may have sensed that Fark may not be not fertile soil for his PUD(tm).
 
2012-05-09 07:49:05 PM  
Bunnyhat:

I live in Louisiana. We couldn't even find a Democrat to challenge Gov. Jindal on his re-election. Our one democratic senator doesn't look like she stands much of a chance at re-election.

Frankly I think most people who already dislike gay marriage either already supports Republicans or don't care enough to make it a one issue choice on who they vote for.


When you choice is between a Blue Dog and GOP guy that basically have the same positions, why vote for the Dem? Blue Dogs are only hurting themselves by tacking to the right and running from the Dem platform on most issues. It defensibly makes them look incredibly weak, and it's because they really are.

If they instead stuck up for their platform and used their "moderate" cred effectively, they'd be some of the most powerful congress critters. but their lack of spine is blatant. Some local shock jock will say jump and they ask how high, and evidently get replaced with a token republican who isn;t afraid of rattling a few feathers and running on their record.
 
2012-05-09 07:49:37 PM  

Edsel: That's right: southern black people. I'm not sure Obama is quaking in his boots given that he received 95% of their votes last time around.


Yeah, they won't vote Romney but they might stay home or vote third party to protest. A lot of black folks are severely homophobic.
 
2012-05-09 07:49:49 PM  
It's only okay when the Koch brothers do it.
 
2012-05-09 07:51:45 PM  

fringedmyotis: Seems to me that the word 'marriage' is the root of the problem. So, a proposal:

The only construct recognized by any government - state or federal - is a civil union. Civil unions are available to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, race, whatever. No laws recognize the word 'marriage' in any way, freeing it up to become a purely religious designation that can be as restrictive and discriminatory as you idiot fundies want it to be.

We get equal protection (for everyone) under the law, fundies get to pat them selves on the back for preserving the holy institution of 'marriage', whatever the helll that means.


I don't see why we should give the word Marriage to the religious. It wasn't theirs to begin with. I don't see why they get to just claim it for themselves and we should all just accept their definitions as correct.
 
2012-05-09 07:51:47 PM  
The article and suppositions about donor money are wrong.

Obama is positioning himself to become leader of the United Nations.

You think the guy lives high on the hog now? Imagine the deals he'll be able to broker when he heads up the UN (which we finance and protect incidentally). Book deals, lecture deals, drug deals, arms deals ... lobster for breakfast in Paris, trade Afghani opium to US drug companies before lunch ... ... ... watch ESPN for the rest of the day.

It should be obvious to everyone by now.

The Obama brand is probably worth several billion dollars. He's his own asset. I'm kind of jealous.
 
2012-05-09 07:52:41 PM  
yeeeeesssss... homosexual conspiracy to support the candidate most likely to represent their interests... how eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil.
 
2012-05-09 07:53:22 PM  

snowjack: Car_Ramrod: EnviroDude: The above are benefits of marriage, not the purpose

How about you straight up tell us what you think the purpose of marriage is instead of using this socratic bullshiat?

I don't think he's coming back. Real churchy types aren't big on two-way communication. The Right-Thinker(tm) sows his Seeds of Truth(tm) only where he thinks they will grow. When the soil is fertile, with cryptic hints and mysteeeerious proclamations, the Right-Thinker(tm) draws in the curious yet ignorant masses, then suddenly stuns them with his Pronouncements of Unquestionable Dogma(tm).

Pretty sure that's a direct quote from Supply Side Jesus. Anyway, I think he may have sensed that Fark may not be not fertile soil for his PUD(tm).


I've noticed that about some of our shill accounts. they pop up, say something typically ignorant, then evaporate. granted...at least SOME of them stick around to defend their points (or more likely - deflect attention from the main topic of a discussion) but i'm seeing more and more 'hit and runs' on main point discussion topics on fark. i'm also seeing a lot of long dormant accounts pop up this season....but I don't know how that relates to the GOP shills change in tactics.
 
2012-05-09 07:54:33 PM  

snowjack: I don't see why they get to just claim it for themselves and we should all just accept their definitions as correct.


Because they built their churches on top of Pagan temples and usurped their seasonal holy days. Why shouldn't they rip off the word marriage too?
 
2012-05-09 07:54:42 PM  
I had a feeling this was going to happen last year when I heard NPR do a story about Obama funrasing in front of a largely gay group in NY. He told them he personally was for gay marriage but politically could not make that statement just yet. There were seveal donors that were not comfortable with giving him large chunks of cash while he straddled the fence. I am sure there was a lot more pressure behind the scenes.

I'm glad he finally got on the right side of the issue, even if it costs him votes. Next up: His fence sitting on drug enforcement.
 
2012-05-09 07:55:27 PM  
he's evolving to a wider stance.

i see...
 
2012-05-09 07:58:38 PM  

snowjack: I don't see why we should give the word Marriage to the religious. It wasn't theirs to begin with. I don't see why they get to just claim it for themselves and we should all just accept their definitions as correct.


To get them to shut the fark up, at least about this topic. We have real problems to solve, and this is diverting our attention.
 
2012-05-09 08:00:11 PM  

colon_pow: he's evolving to a wider stance.

i see...


nah, that's mostly a Republican thing.
 
2012-05-09 08:00:41 PM  

colon_pow: he's evolving to a wider stance.

i see...


He's about to hit the ball out of the farking park.
 
2012-05-09 08:01:50 PM  
1 in 6? i'm all for gay rights, but that's pushing it.
 
2012-05-09 08:02:49 PM  
Let's think of it this way:

R-money changed his stance on gay marriage to satisfy the right-wing money people. (And the large percentage of Republicans who don't like freedom.)
 
2012-05-09 08:04:48 PM  
Still looking for the answer to "What is the purpose of marriage".

put down your agendas and give it a whirl
 
2012-05-09 08:05:35 PM  
I have to admit...I didn't think there would be this level of support for gay marriage. Or maybe it's not so much support for gay marriage and more that the country is rejecting the religious fundamentalist attempts to control the US government. As the evangelicals lose influence, more and more people stop focusing on issues important to the religious right and shift their attention to other matters. 10 years ago, this couldn't have happened. the grip of the right wing was simply too strong, to pervasive. now days...the fundies seem only able to make things work at the state level and lose more and more control at the federal level.
 
2012-05-09 08:06:10 PM  

EnviroDude: Still looking for the answer to "What is the purpose of marriage".


asked and answered - property rights.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report