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.

(Buzzfeed)   Marcus Bachmann can finally find happiness   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 374
    More: News, Marcus Bachmann, Minnesota Senate, Minnesota, Central Time, DFL, same-sex marriages, interracial marriages, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

31348 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2013 at 7:54 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 09:07:24 PM

Martian_Astronomer: So, if I understand the Michele Bachmann's line of reasoning correctly, the first thing that's going to happen is that millions of straight marriages are going to be destroyed because now it's possible for dudes to marry other dudes, which is what they really wanted all along. Straight marriage was the only thing keeping them from getting down on one knee and proposing to the pool boy, you see


You can understand why she might think that way.

images.dangerousminds.net
 
2013-05-13 09:08:42 PM

jvl: stoli n coke: What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage."  So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?


Name one person who is opposed to it for a non-religion based reason.

I don't hate Christians at all. I am one. I just never understood how a preacher can stand at the pulpit clean-shaven wearing mixed fabrics and say that one section of Leviticus will incur divine wrath while the other rules listed right down the same page are okay now before ending the service and going to the seafood potluck.

Marriage is a legal construct in this country, not a religious one. Churches can still refuse to marry couples. I know churches that won't marry a couple if the woman is pregnant. I know a church that won't marry couples if one of them has been divorced. I even know one that didn't marry interracial couples up until a few years ago (byproduct of growing up in the South). Their operations won't change one bit.

This is about insurance, visiting partners in hospitals, legal rights to estates, helping speed along the adoption process, etc.  In other words, the stuff a lot of married couples take for granted because they've never been screwed over by it.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:09:25 PM

Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?


I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:13:18 PM

CliChe Guevara: Well, it would seem that way, if it wasn't for the fact that the guy really is very, -very- gay. Not just slightly gay, but about as gay as you can possibly get.


What your basically saying is that people who call themselves Gay but who act masculine are hiding their real heterosexual identity.  A Gay riding a Harley? That's about as straight as you can possibly get.

NTTAWWT
 
2013-05-13 09:13:31 PM

Martian_Astronomer: So, if I understand the Michele Bachmann's line of reasoning correctly, the first thing that's going to happen is that millions of straight marriages are going to be destroyed because now it's possible for dudes to marry other dudes, which is what they really wanted all along. Straight marriage was the only thing keeping them from getting down on one knee and proposing to the pool boy, you see. Next, as I understand it, God will begin to send plagues and other natural disasters to express his displeasure, as well a few large scale incidents of violence. Finally, since homosexuality destroys every culture that embraces it, Minnesota will fall to a massive invasion of gay barbarians from the north, just like ancient Rome, if the Huns had been gay Canadian lumberjacks.

Did I miss anything?


I think I found your trouble
 
2013-05-13 09:14:25 PM

jvl: CliChe Guevara: Well, it would seem that way, if it wasn't for the fact that the guy really is very, -very- gay. Not just slightly gay, but about as gay as you can possibly get.

What your basically saying is that people who call themselves Gay but who act masculine are hiding their real heterosexual identity.  A Gay riding a Harley? That's about as straight as you can possibly get.

NTTAWWT


In which alternate universe is Mr. Marcus Bachmann's demeanour considered to be "masculine"?

Additionally, was Aliens: Colonial Marines a worthwhile game in that universe?
 
2013-05-13 09:15:24 PM

jvl: Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.


Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.
 
2013-05-13 09:15:24 PM

Pichu0102: For a second I thought he might have killed himself, thankfully the headline was a little misleading and he didn't.


This.

/Also:
//♫♪ what a difference a gay makes ♪ ♫
 
2013-05-13 09:15:55 PM

aerojockey: mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?


Well, the ones that get to stay in office are. There are still occasionally some independent minded Republicans left, but not many as the Rove/Bush political machine pretty much did away with most of them years ago.  You still see one now and again, like Pat Brady, but like him their careers end sometimes only days (or sometimes even minutes) after breaking party ranks in even the smallest way.
 The GOP doesn't even wait until the next election to put them under the bus anymore, especially if they espouse a traditionally GOP conservative value that now runs counter to the whims of the money that drives the GOP's current decisions now.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:17:20 PM

Dimensio: In which alternate universe is Mr. Marcus Bachmann's demeanour considered to be "masculine"?


Did you just hear a whooshing noise just over your head?  Cause that sure as hell is not what I just said.
 
2013-05-13 09:18:14 PM

To Wish Impossible Things: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann threatened to leave Minnesota today if the state goes ahead with its plans to legalize gay marriage.

In an interview with a local television station, the conservative firebrand said she believes God will destroy Minneapolis once the legislation is enacted, and wants to be far away when the reckoning happens.
"The Bible is very clear on this issue," she told KSTP-TV this morning, "Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it.

"Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God - and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next.

"I have a friend from Eden Prairie who's already packed everything she owns into her car and is driving out to Montana as we speak. These are very scary times. I don't want my family to be the last ones out."

How is there not a petition for her to leave the state?

Hell, I'd chip in for the gas money.  We need a fundraiser.  Gas money and rent for a moving van to Montana for Michele.  (And if she weasels out, we'll donate the money to some gay charity.)


Far be it from me to defend Bachmann, but you realize that's made up, right?
 
2013-05-13 09:18:44 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Paris1127: The only abomination about gay weddings in Minnesota would be the lutefisk served there...

/Illinois really needs to step up to the plate here...

Lutefisk would be an abomination at ANY wedding.


Eating Lutefisk Is A Learned Behavior

kimwim: Almost Everybody Poops: Awesome.

In Illinois, SSM bill passed senate and is pending a vote in the house.  They're trying to get enough votes to pass it and I think they will this summer.

Why is it taking so long? The Minn. House just passed this last week!


Illinois's dealing with some pension problems. Marriage equality should reach Illinois by the end of the year, I hope.
 
2013-05-13 09:20:18 PM

kimwim: Almost Everybody Poops: Awesome.

In Illinois, SSM bill passed senate and is pending a vote in the house.  They're trying to get enough votes to pass it and I think they will this summer.

Why is it taking so long? The Minn. House just passed this last week!


The Illinois house, while democrats are the majority, contain a lot of social conservatives.  It's pretty much the rural part of the states where even thouogh they vote for a democrat, if that rep was to come out as pro-SSM it would jeopardize their seat.
 
2013-05-13 09:22:47 PM

morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.


Mitch McConnell won't sleep with you.
 
rpm
2013-05-13 09:23:14 PM

jvl: I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.


Most who trot out that don't follow that to the rational conclusion. I'm sterile, should I be allowed to marry? If so, why? (for the record, I am married). What about post-menopausal women?
 
2013-05-13 09:26:05 PM

Dimensio: Can you expound upon that, please?

Noam Chimpsky is a "birther". As such, do not expect any actual understanding of law, do not expect any intellectual honesty and do not expect any ability to reason.


You misspelled "troll". That's one that should be on everyone's ignore list.
 
2013-05-13 09:26:14 PM

rpm: jvl: I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

Most who trot out that don't follow that to the rational conclusion. I'm sterile, should I be allowed to marry? If so, why? (for the record, I am married). What about post-menopausal women?


Nor is there anything saying (US laws) that fertile couples must have children.
 
2013-05-13 09:27:18 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.

Mitch McConnell won't sleep with you.


my turtle is female thank you very much. I don't mess with that freaky same sex interspecies crowd.
 
2013-05-13 09:28:03 PM

vygramul: Infernalist: Has Crazy-eyes come out with an official statement yet?  Cause, seriously, I could go for some Conservative Tears right about now.

Just wait. I'm sure Fark's resident independents will be here shortly.


Nah. They're too busy derping it up in the Benghazi and IRS threads. And I get the feeling they've given up on the gay marriage thing given the way the wind seems to be blowing.
 
2013-05-13 09:29:11 PM

morlinge: Almost Everybody Poops: morlinge: I just want to know when I'll be able to marry my turtle. I have a really nice turtle.

Mitch McConnell won't sleep with you.

my turtle is female thank you very much. I don't mess with that freaky same sex interspecies crowd.


As a guy loving male furry, booo!
 
2013-05-13 09:29:54 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.
 
2013-05-13 09:30:55 PM

mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.


Obviously, he isn't a Republican, just a RINO.

Which is good.  We need fewer Republicans.
 
2013-05-13 09:32:41 PM

jvl: Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage."  So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?


You poor, poor persecuted little man.

I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.
 
2013-05-13 09:33:04 PM
In other news, 30 members of the Minnesota state Senate need to be booted out of office.
 
2013-05-13 09:34:23 PM

ramblinwreck: dukeblue219: ramblinwreck: Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

LOLWUT

? Couldn't spend 5 seconds Googling it? The constitutional amendment was narrowly defeated, 48-51 last November:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/minnesota-amendment-1-result s -2012_n_2050310.html

My mistake, mistook the context as state vs federal.


I mistook it as well and was confused. Pretty wonderful turnaround given that last vote.
 
2013-05-13 09:34:38 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


i581.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-13 09:36:14 PM

raatz01: Am I out of the loop... I thought the headline was a Bachmann divorce announcement.


Could be the end result out of all possibilities. I suspect the turkey baster will get visitation rights.

And, that was harsh. I'll bet Marcus is a great dad, even though he's gay.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:39:54 PM

Summercat: Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.


Marriage is a preferred class of people given special preferences by the government. Let us suppose the purpose of government in doling out these preferences is to encourage or assist procreation. The question is, how should the government distinguish between those given and not given these preferences? Selecting heterosexuals as the only recipient of this welfare is a very course-grained choice since, as you point out, there will be some couplings that are infertile either voluntarily or non-voluntairly.

If one wanted to select only the fertile couples more carefully, then how far should we go? Do we psychoanalyze them? Should we test their plumbing thereby revealing things even the couple does not know? We could do those things. We could create a maze of laws and regulations establishing which tests must be performed and for how long.

I would argue that a line must be drawn, and that, assuming the goal is procreation, the currently line is a reasonable compromise between the interests of the state and over-regulated complexity.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

As a supporter of Gay Marriage, I really hate to say this: as of yet we lack scientific evidence on the efficacy of gay parenting. You might recall that when Prop 8 was argued before the Supremes, the opponents of Prop 8 conceded this. Prior to that Supreme Court appearance, I had never heard of this argument.

Second, I agree that Multi-Parent households produce demonstrably better statistical results than Single-Parent households. However there is no lack of heterosexual couples willing to adopt.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.

I agree it is a thin dusty coating to rationalize what people already think. I disagree that conceding this proves that the argument is non-rational.
 
2013-05-13 09:40:39 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


It's not just about the possibility of Marcus being gay - it's also about how Marcus runs a "gay therapy" / "pray the gay away" center.  Thus, such attacks from Farkers are also against the hypocrisy.
 
2013-05-13 09:41:58 PM

xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.


Fark liberals can be a little more sophisticated than that.

Marcus Bachman really is gay.  He's as gay as gay can be gay.  He's Oscar Wilde gay.  He ran a pray-away-the-gay.

/And hey, now he can get gay married!
//Yay!
 
2013-05-13 09:42:23 PM
I love how the headline even has double meaning: He can find happiness because now he can marry his true love, and he can find happiness now that Michele is going to leave the state.

This had better get nominated for Contextual Headline of the Year.
 
2013-05-13 09:43:38 PM
Honestly, my first thought was "in Bachmann's state? This must be a mistake."

Because of their electing Mrs. Bachmann, I have always thought of MN as a bit more of an intolerant and prejudiced state.  Which, frankly, totally doesn't jive with their love of hockey and reputation for friendliness, but frankly you Americans are just a total mystery to the rest of us.
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:43:39 PM

hardinparamedic: I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.


Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...
 
2013-05-13 09:43:56 PM

PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.


 THIS.

 The guy still or at least up until recently ran some sort of operation that tried to 'correct' other gay men to straight, obsesses about the subject constantly, and is worried that SSM will break up traditional marriages because men in traditional marriages will now feel empowered to run off with other men.
 Tell me again how it is just homophobia that people think the guy has some orientation issues.
 
2013-05-13 09:44:02 PM

Summercat: jvl: Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.

Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.


What I'm understanding from  jvl's posts is that there are more productive ways to convince others that SSM is okay other than outright shaming them for thinking otherwise.  The argument he cited, as you just shown, can easily be debunked as "irrational", but to a lot of people they have an ingrained idea of marriage most likely they learned from their parents, and as well all know Americans are stubborn bastards.

Then again, there are also plenty of people who just won't understand regardless of how you try to reason with them. It's nice to think that we can easily just site an anti-SSM person down, rationally explain to them why their reasons for being against it are unfounded or based on false data/studies, but those people are few and far between in today's political climate.
 
2013-05-13 09:46:08 PM

jvl: Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...


Call me when they're marching down the streets of Minnesota holding signs about how God wants the gays to repent their sinful ways of homosex.
 
2013-05-13 09:47:43 PM

mavrickatubc: Honestly, my first thought was "in Bachmann's state? This must be a mistake."

Because of their electing Mrs. Bachmann, I have always thought of MN as a bit more of an intolerant and prejudiced state.  Which, frankly, totally doesn't jive with their love of hockey and reputation for friendliness, but frankly you Americans are just a total mystery to the rest of us.


Backmann is a huge outlier when it comes to your typical Minnesotan.  They're more like the live-and-let-live type.
 
2013-05-13 09:47:49 PM

mavrickatubc: Honestly, my first thought was "in Bachmann's state? This must be a mistake."

Because of their electing Mrs. Bachmann, I have always thought of MN as a bit more of an intolerant and prejudiced state.  Which, frankly, totally doesn't jive with their love of hockey and reputation for friendliness, but frankly you Americans are just a total mystery to the rest of us.


In our defense, we're quite liberal.  We've voted for the Dem for President every year since 1976, so frankly Bachmann is the exception not the rule.  Kept in place mainly by extreme gerrymandering on the part of the Republican house.
 
2013-05-13 09:48:55 PM

radarlove: So that means people in MN can marry 5-year-olds and horses and trees now, right?


Don't forget the turtles.  Proud to be from MN today!
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:49:46 PM

hardinparamedic: jvl: Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...

Call me when they're marching down the streets of Minnesota holding signs about how God wants the gays to repent their sinful ways of homosex.


Meanwhile, in France...
 
2013-05-13 09:50:20 PM
Michelle is going to burn so many books tonight
 
2013-05-13 09:52:23 PM

Abox: The anti-gay movement is populated by two kinds of people - women who fear abandonment and resentful closeted gay men. Michele's worst fear may finally come true.


Really, no one just flat out hates gay people? There is no religious opposition?
 
2013-05-13 09:52:34 PM
Can they legally get a divorce or is that another battle to be fought?


//sincere question
///awesome headline subby
 
jvl
2013-05-13 09:54:07 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: It's nice to think that we can easily just site an anti-SSM person down, rationally explain to them why their reasons for being against it are unfounded or based on false data/studies, but those people are few and far between in today's political climate.


Not true. For example, in California, which famously voted for President Obama and High-Speed Rail while voting to ban gay marriage, you can expect that there will be plenty of people who will listen to you. They'll say "I just don't believe in that stuff."  Go with "it just gives them the right to see each other in the hospital, pax taxes together, and call themselves married. You can still just keep not talking to them."

Going with "this doesn't hurt you" is the easy way since it doesn't require actually changing the person's mind.
 
2013-05-13 09:54:35 PM

kimwim: King Something: 8080801

/if you do not know what that means, then you are a normal person

I DON'T WANT TO BE NORMAL!!!


DAMMIT MAN!
 
2013-05-13 09:54:41 PM

jvl: hardinparamedic: jvl: Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...

Call me when they're marching down the streets of Minnesota holding signs about how God wants the gays to repent their sinful ways of homosex.

Meanwhile, in France...


This isn't about what's happening in France. Your link is entirely irrelevant given this discussion. This is about what's happening in the United States.

Stop trying to deflect the issue.

Try to stay on topic, and do remind me, again, what group is the most vocal and most active in campaigning against SSM and Gay Rights, and what type of argument is the most common made against those?

And do try to be honest.
 
2013-05-13 09:55:04 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: Summercat: jvl: Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.

Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.

What I'm understanding from  jvl's posts is that there are more productive ways to convince others that SSM is okay other than outright shaming them for thinking otherwise.  The argument he cited, as you just shown, can easily be debunked as "irrational", but to a lot of people they have an ingrained idea of marriage most likely they learned from their parents, and as well all know American ...


Hence why I said it was understandable. I know where they're coming from, but it is from a place where they are uneducated about the background behind their claims. 

jvl: Summercat: Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Marriage is a preferred class of people given special preferences by the government. Let us suppose the purpose of government in doling out these preferences is to encourage or assist procreation. The question is, how should the government distinguish between those given and not given these preferences? Selecting heterosexuals as the only recipient of this welfare is a very course-grained choice since, as you point out, there will be some couplings that are infertile either voluntarily or non-voluntairly.

If one wanted to select only the fertile couples more carefully, then how far should we go? Do we psychoanalyze them? Should we test their plumbing thereby revealing things even the couple does not know? We could do those things. We could create a maze of laws and regulations establishing which tests must be performed and for how long.

I would argue that a line must be drawn, and that, assuming the goal is procreation, the currently line is a reasonable compromise between the interests of the state and over-regulated complexity.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

As a supporter of Gay Marriage, I really hate to say this: as of yet we lack scientific evidence on the efficacy of gay parenting. You might recall that when Prop 8 was argued before the Supremes, the opponents of Prop 8 conceded this. Prior to that Supreme Court appearance, I had never heard of this argument.

Second, I agree that Multi-Parent households produce demons ...


It was a relatively recent study, that determined that the best results were:
2 parents opposite gender > 2 parents, same gender > Single parent either gender.

It's hard to say how conclusive said study is, simply because of the paucity of data to draw from, and the fact that most of the results used by the study had to have been when there was an even greater stigma of being homosexual, or having homosexual parents - the externalities of harassment and ostracism can't be easily measured.

However, there are also studies that hint that *additional* parental figures in a family can be a boon overall to child development. FURTHER, the study concluded that two parents are, hands down, better than one - or none, in the case of foster kids.

Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)
 
2013-05-13 09:55:17 PM

Amidala: cptjeff: FormlessOne: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Maybe I'm misreading that statement, but that statement implies to me that this asshole felt that businesses were hurt and children confused when Minnesota voted against slavery? Seriously?

Well, certain businesses were hurt when we outlawed slavery. And the meatpacking industry was hurt when we started requiring them to make sure workers didn't fall into the meat grinders. Even if it was true that letting gays marry would hurt businesses (and it's laughably false), it's utterly irrelevant.

I would think gay marriage will help the meatpacking industry.


You're thinking of the poor workers languishing in the dwindling fudgepacking industry.
 
2013-05-13 09:59:00 PM

PsiChick: xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.


He RUNS a pray-away-the-gay camp. Seriously.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-ca nd idates-clinic/story?id=14048691#.UZGU994o7IU
 
jvl
2013-05-13 10:01:27 PM

hardinparamedic: This isn't about what's happening in France. Your link is entirely irrelevant given this discussion. This is about what's happening in the United States.


I wasn't the one who moved the goal posts: you did.  Here's your original post to refresh your memory. Maybe you can show me the part where it says "United States"? Or possibly where the bad man touched you.

hardinparamedic: jvl: Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage."  So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?

You poor, poor persecuted little man.

I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.

 
Displayed 50 of 374 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report