Obama Backs Gay Marriage

[His Name Is John]

Probably old news to most here, but as no one else was discussing it, I thought I might bring it up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102

I think the 'gay marriage' issue is different to the 'is homosexuality moral' issue. In England most people don't really have a problem with homosexuals, and support civil-unions, however recently when our Prime Minister brought up trying to push through gay marriage, there was a huge backlash from all parties and many within the gay community.

This seems to be a risky move by Obama, and it will be interesting to see if a similar backlash happens in the USA as it did in England.

Discussion: Is this Obama pandering for votes? Is it going to do more harm to his presidential re-election campaign than good? Should gay marriage be legal? What about civil unions?

[bluethread]

I think a better reason to support homosexuality is that it doesn't hurt anyone and it makes these people happy. I don't need a nature vs nurture when this is good enough.

One thing it can do is remove legal distinctions between men and women. Do you think that is a proper approach with regard to all legislation?

If Christianity stands its ground on this, it will shrink to small cults long term. But that will not happen. Christians will "see the light" and accept homosexuality and move on to the next dogmatic thing.. maybe polygamy or robo-human marriages or whatever.

Then do you think we should not only legalize polygamy, as is the case with homosexual marrage now, but also grant it legally protected status as homosexual marrage advocates seek? Also, do you think it is proper to remove legal distinctions between humans and robots?

[Haven]

I can't see any good reason to maintain legal distinctions (by this I assume you mean differences in rights and priviliges) between men and women. Any such distinctions are simply vestiges of a more discriminatory time.

[His Name Is John]

I don't like the "born this way" argument or the "natural" argument because I see them as having logical fallacies if you dig deep enough into them.

For example, some people are born with no or little empathy for others which could lead them into becoming serial killers. We shouldn't conclude that God doesn't want for them to feel empathy or that serial killers are acceptable.

I agree.

The "natural" argument takes two forms: "if it is natural, it is inherently good" or "if animals do it naturally, then it is not a bad thing." In the first case, e coli is natural , but we don't consider it good. In the second case, animals will eat their offspring and we don;t think it is good.

There is a third 'natural' argument.

What is natural for humans to do. What our bodies are designed to do.

Evolution shows that the primary reason for our sexual organs is to reproduce. To advocate an act that absolutely goes against this primary function is wrong.

The whole 'animal kingdom' and 'if its natural (in the sense that we are born with it?) its good' are both misunderstandings of Natural Law theory, by people who don't really understand what they are talking about.

I think a better reason to support homosexuality is that it doesn't hurt anyone and it makes these people happy. I don't need a nature vs nurture when this is good enough.

Homosexuality does hurt the people involved, nearly all the studies show this.

This is just one of the weird things that faith has taken a dogmatic stance on. And it is really hurting the religion. My daughter tells me about a lot of her friends in high school are hostile to Christianity because of the strong anti-homosexual stance many Christians have taken. They usually know 2 or 3 gay or bi people and they see them as friends. So to them, Christianity is coming across as a bully trying to hurt their friends.

Of course religion is going to get a kicking over this. But do you think that is going to make us all change our minds? I am willing to go to prison for my beliefs (I would say die, but in all honesty, I don't know if I could or if I would curable in the situation). What we are experiencing now isn't nearly as bad as what Christians have experienced in the past because of their beliefs.

The Roman empire burning them, throwing them to be killed by lions. Yet Christianity grew quicker than the Roman's could control. It is radical faith, and radical people, people who will hold to their views and are willing to die for their belief - in other words, pure Christianity - that inspires people to listen.

If Christianity stands its ground on this, it will shrink to small cults long term. But that will not happen. Christians will "see the light" and accept homosexuality and move on to the next dogmatic thing.. maybe polygamy or robo-human marriages or whatever.

I think that Christianity will shrink, and become hated. Many Church's will bow under the pressure. These 'luke-warm' Christians will disappear, and all you will have is those that are really serious about their faith.

The Catholic Church is not going to change it's mind on the issue of homosexuality. It would have to change its entire code of morality (which is not going to happen).

I think in a couple of years society is going to start turning back towards Christian values, as Christians start standing up for what they believe to be right. We have seen the direction things are going and we don't like it.

It is going to be an interesting next 30 years.

[Haven]

John, I assume you are against straight couples who are unable to have children having sex, right? After all, such action cannot produce procreation and therefore goes against God's design by your own logical standards.

Also, there is no grand conspiracy against Christians or (right-wing) Christian values. As a Humanist and Christian atheist, I respect the religious rights of traditional Christians, and I would fight to preserve such rights. Also, fundamentalism and / or traditionalism will not be the only form of Christianity going forward; liberal theology (which is different from "lukewarm" belief) isn't going away any time soon.

[Thatguy]

I don't like the "born this way" argument or the "natural" argument because I see them as having logical fallacies if you dig deep enough into them.

For example, some people are born with no or little empathy for others which could lead them into becoming serial killers. We shouldn't conclude that God doesn't want for them to feel empathy or that serial killers are acceptable.

I agree.

The "natural" argument takes two forms: "if it is natural, it is inherently good" or "if animals do it naturally, then it is not a bad thing." In the first case, e coli is natural , but we don't consider it good. In the second case, animals will eat their offspring and we don;t think it is good.

There is a third 'natural' argument.

What is natural for humans to do. What our bodies are designed to do.

Evolution shows that the primary reason for our sexual organs is to reproduce. To advocate an act that absolutely goes against this primary function is wrong.

The "it's natural" argument is mainly a response to the argument that homosexuality is unnatural. Homosexual acts are traditionally referred to, for instance, as "crimes against nature." If, therefor, we can show that such acts occur in nature all the time and that some people are naturally inclined to engage in such conduct, the argument that, in effect, nature is unnatural fails.

Arguments about what evolution intends body parts for don't hold sway either. If, following evolution, these body parts are often used for this purpose then it does little good to argue that animals engaging in homosexual conduct are acting contrary to evolution and, in the name of evolution, should stop. Evolution clearly has not strongly selected against this conduct, so we should not claim that we are banning the conduct in the name of evolution. There are evolutionary arguments in favor of homosexual conduct as well.

Just because something is natural does not make it good. However, taking out the "it's unnatural" argument against homosexuality, there's one less reason to consider homosexuality to be an inclination we should artificially stamp out.

[bluethread]

I can't see any good reason to maintain legal distinctions (by this I assume you mean differences in rights and priviliges) between men and women. Any such distinctions are simply vestiges of a more discriminatory time.

Then you believe that the LPBG should be outlawed as a sexist organization? Do you also believe that Title IX should be changed or recinded because it recognizes men and women as different? Should it be illegal to denigh employment to transvestites at Hooters?

[Quath]

There is a third 'natural' argument.

What is natural for humans to do. What our bodies are designed to do.

Evolution shows that the primary reason for our sexual organs is to reproduce. To advocate an act that absolutely goes against this primary function is wrong.

The whole 'animal kingdom' and 'if its natural (in the sense that we are born with it?) its good' are both misunderstandings of Natural Law theory, by people who don't really understand what they are talking about.

I think primary purpose of an organ is overly simplistic. Is the primary purpose of a penis urination or sex?

And trying to figure out design and follow it makes us robotic and uninteresting. Our mouths were not designed to blow bubble gum, but no one complains that we do use it for that. I would say we were designed to be adaptable and using our bodies for many things fits that adaptability design very well.

Homosexuality does hurt the people involved, nearly all the studies show this.

I would have to disagree with you on this. The only studies I have seen that show this have been heavily biased or have shown the effects of gays being bullied.

Of course religion is going to get a kicking over this. But do you think that is going to make us all change our minds? I am willing to go to prison for my beliefs (I would say die, but in all honesty, I don't know if I could or if I would curable in the situation). What we are experiencing now isn't nearly as bad as what Christians have experienced in the past because of their beliefs.

It will change your mine or your children's mind or else you will be seen like Fred Phelps.

I believe standing on your virtues, but in this case you are on the side against love. It is not a winnable side long term.

[McCulloch]

Evolution shows that the primary reason for our sexual organs is to reproduce. To advocate an act that absolutely goes against this primary function is wrong.

Please expand on this idea. What other act that goes against the primary natural function of any human part is considered immoral?

Homosexuality does hurt the people involved, nearly all the studies show this.

Really? Please cite a few of these studies.

I am willing to go to prison for my beliefs.

Yes, but are you willing to look at your beliefs rationally and admit that you might be wrong? I am. Are you willing to vilify or imprison others for not adhering to your beliefs?

I think that Christianity will shrink, and become hated. Many Church's will bow under the pressure. These 'luke-warm' Christians will disappear, and all you will have is those that are really serious about their faith.

I hope that you are correct. I share with you a belief that society would be better off without the pretense of the merely nominal religionists.

I think in a couple of years society is going to start turning back towards Christian values, as Christians start standing up for what they believe to be right. We have seen the direction things are going and we don't like it.

I disagree. Traditional Christian values will continue to become less relevant as they have been for at least the last two hundred years.

It is going to be an interesting next 30 years.

Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.

[Goat]

It is interesting how politicians and the press play on the confussion over personal preferences and proposed legislation. Obama has not stated that he will propose legislation, but that it is now his personal view. It is presumed by some that he will now press for legislation. It was the same with Santorum during the primaries. He was hard pressed on his personal views on this isssue. When he presented those views, it was presumed by some that Santorum would seek to impose those views as a dictator to the exclusion of all other considerations.

That is a good point. Although I do think several times Santorum did say his aims to act upon his personal views. As for Obama, I read somewhere today that he has said that he will leave it up to each state to decide. So no real change what-so-ever.

Massive pandering.

I believe it was that when push came to shove, he was force to make a statement about it, one way or another, because Biden had a Biden moment, and talked about it.

[Darias]

I found a video relating to Obama's recent stance on gay marriage. Apparently it has generated a lot of backlash, especially in my state; keep in mind that the majority of people here recently voted for a state constitutional amendment which bans gay marriage and civil unions.

This guy is a local pastor of a Baptist church; I'm actually surprised that anyone would talk like that nowadays:
[center]
[youtube][/youtube][/center]