It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti Gay Marriage Politics are Making Some Politicians Lose Their Minds

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
This thread is for anyone who would like to add their own examples dealing with the Marriage Equality Debate and how it's literally making some Political Talking Heads into complete morons. The people I'm talking about aren't the ones who have a rational position on the matter, regardless of which side. No, I'm talking about those who have completely lost their minds when it comes to arguing their position and the arguments they provide. I'll start it off with a couple examples to better illustrate what I mean. Please feel free to post other examples if you have them, either Pro or Con doesn't matter. But remember, this isn't about debating the topic of Gay Marriage, it's about how the topic itself has reached a point where even the most ridiculous arguments are now being used regardless of how misinformed, illogical, etc. they may be.

I'll start with this one:
Texas GOP governor candidate: Gay marriage prevents kids from being born in wedlock

Basically this guy has two points he's trying to use to show why banning Gay Marriage is needed. His two talking points are as follows:


The state’s only interest in marriage rites, he argued, is economic.

“First,” he wrote, “Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the State’s interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race.”

“Second, Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the State’s interest in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births. By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texas’s marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society.”


So if the State has an interest is in encouraging couples to produce offspring, which is his first point, it really has nothing to do with Gay couples marrying anyway. Regardless of how many Gay couples do or do not marry has ZERO effect towards Hetro couples marrying or having kids. This is actually just another attempt at an old Anti Gay argument that has never been valid but continues to be thrown out there. Gay Couples Relationships do not effect Straight Couples Relationships. In fact, both Gay or Straight Couples don't effect other Gay or Straight Couples either unless of course you mix the two Relationships together for some reason. There is no argument there plain and simple.

Now the second talking point once again isn't even a rational argument either. If the State wants to reduce "unplanned out of wedlock births" then Gay Couples are the certainly the last group you need to worry about. Looking back to his first talking point you'd think he'd realize that if Gay Couples aren't "producing offspring" then they aren't producing offspring which are "unplanned" or "out of wedlock" either. If the State wants to encourage a Strong Family Unit that Produces Offspring without Divorce, it can do that all it wants and it has no connection to Gay Marriage in the slightest way. Again, there is no logical argument being presented here, just agenda based noise.

The only possible argument that would stay logically consistent would be that since Gay couples don't have kids the State should be allowed to grant special privileges or intensives to Straight Couples only. However, even that argument is quickly shown to be incorrect simply because not all Straight Couples have kids or sustain their marriages either. Plus, in some cases Gay Couples might have kids as well using a donor. Further still, regardless of those last to facts I just pointed out, banning Gay Couples from getting Married at all, still has no effect on whether Straight Couples Marry or have Children.

So, back to my original point. Have certain Politicians become completely Mentally Damaged over this whole Topic??? Personally, I'll listen to anyone's argument either for or against something as long as the argument, at the very least, is logically consistent. But if the argument being presented doesn't even make any sense to begin with, there is nothing to discuss. It would be like debating weather or not Unicorns eat a healthier diet than average Horses. It's just silly and when Elected Officials make such arguments publicly they should be called on it, rather than having the media try and sell it as if it's an actual topic to be discussed. It's just stupid and a waste of time.

I'll post my other example(s) in further post.




posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   


It's Texas, it's going to take awhile for them to catch up.

We have some real problems in this World. If you are anti Gay Marriage...

Don't marry a Gay Person. But, quit telling others how to live their lives.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I didn't think that Texas could produce another politcian as crazy as Louie Gohmert but this guy is coming close. Here is a little bit of his craziness.




posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
There really isn't any logical reason to be against two consenting adults getting married. As a Libertarian leaning person I support the rights of my fellow citizens even if I don't feel comfortable with supporting their lifestyle. It is similar to my support for the legalization of marijuana and abortion rights without me supporting their use.

Sometimes we need to be able to set aside our personal feelings and support the rights our our fellow citizens.
edit on 2014/10/12 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
So, back to my original point. Have certain Politicians become completely Mentally Damaged over this whole Topic??? Personally, I'll listen to anyone's argument either for or against something as long as the argument, at the very least, is logically consistent. But if the argument being presented doesn't even make any sense to begin with, there is nothing to discuss. It would be like debating weather or not Unicorns eat a healthier diet than average Horses. It's just silly and when Elected Officials make such arguments publicly they should be called on it, rather than having the media try and sell it as if it's an actual topic to be discussed. It's just stupid and a waste of time.


I live in Idaho, in the first county in the state that allows Gay Marriage. Other counties are not allowing it. Personally I'm in full support of this and very happy for the couples.

I'll share reception of Idaho Governor, Butch Otter:


" The state's Republican governor, C.L. "Butch" Otter, said the move to allow gay marriage ran "contrary to the values of most Idahoans" and undermined fundamental states' rights.

"But we are a nation of laws," Otter said in a statement. "Idaho now should proceed with civility and in an orderly manner to comply with any forthcoming order from the 9th Circuit."
Source

Most? No, if you could the north's Libertarians and my countie's Liberal(most Lib leaning one in the state) and Libertarians.
At least he's accepting, but looks like counties will decide now for the most part. Also, I do not believe it undermines fundamental state rights.
More to follow when there's updates, as surely there will be political(as you asked for)say on this soon enough.





edit on 13-10-2014 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   
My problem isn't with gay marriage in and of itself, people should be free to marry whoever they want. My problem is how the issue is being used as a weapon to tear down Christianity.

Rather than losing their minds trying to stop gay marriage altogether, these politicians should be focusing on putting protections in place for churches and businesses that don't want to participate.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
My problem isn't with gay marriage in and of itself, people should be free to marry whoever they want. My problem is how the issue is being used as a weapon to tear down Christianity.

Rather than losing their minds trying to stop gay marriage altogether, these politicians should be focusing on putting protections in place for churches and businesses that don't want to participate.


You do know there are gay Christians, right?

Churches are protected in America. Recently a minister refused to marry an interracial couple because he didn't believe in interracial marriages. 100% within his legal right.

Businesses in states with anti-discrimination laws that include LGBT, has nothing to do with Christianity. It's about discrimination. What ever product you make, you make it for everyone.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

But, but don't Unicorns eat Rainbows??? In which case lucky charms can't be that healthy for them so horses must have a better diet.


Sorry I couldn't resist. The entire debate has broken down into absurdities and many that are against it are under false impressions over why. Such as I have seen where people have said they don't like the idea that churches are forced to marry gay couples the problem is no churches are forced. Somewhere somehow someone put that in their head.

I think most that are against it really believe that because they think marriage belongs to religion but that doesn't hold up to the litmus test of history so they are literally coming up with these other bat$#!t crazy reasons hoping one will stick.

Then again there are some really stupid people out there in positions of power that may actually believe the stuff they spew.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

Rather than losing their minds trying to stop gay marriage altogether, these politicians should be focusing on putting protections in place for churches and businesses that don't want to participate.


Those protections already exist. As private organizations churches are free to decide who they will and won't marry. This doesn't exclude them from the realities of public pressure, but it does mean that in court the churches have the winning hand.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
My problem is how the issue is being used as a weapon to tear down Christianity.


Can you give specifics? How does gay people getting married affect Christianity at all?

To the OP: "Don't force it on my children"! "Gay marriage degrades Christian marriage"!



Of course, the notion that your neighbors should be denied rights in order to impart your values on your own children would be a double-edged sword, if taken seriously. What if an atheist couple claimed their neighbors should be denied the right to go to church in order to prevent atheist children from getting ideas.

But watching all this go down was another reminder that anti-gay activists are, in a lot of ways, their own worst enemies. They’re so afraid of being called “bigots” that they refuse to make their arguments openly, instead just gesturing at them and hoping people get the hint. The problem with arguing by implication, however, is people have to know what you’re implying. But the real argument for why same-sex marriage supposedly hurts straight marriage is so rarely uttered that people legitimately forget what the argument was. The argument is that by allowing gay people to get married, you “degrade” the institution of marriage and straight people won’t want it anymore because gay people ruined it, merely by existing.

Obviously, that argument relies on bigotry. It’s an argument in favor of segregation, similar to the arguments made in favor of excluding black people from schools and neighborhoods. It so quickly marks the person arguing it as a bigot that it’s understandable that anti-gay activists are wary of making it directly, and instead are reduced to shrugging in its general direction. But they’ve been shrugging so long and are so afraid to make the argument that people forgot what their argument was in the first place.


Source
edit on 10/13/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I really doubt you will find many insane positions coming from the left. If we were to carry through with your plan to fill the thread up with idiot politicians sticking their foot in their mouths about gay marriage, I think you will mostly find right wing people doing it. I say this as a Libertarian too. There really is no justifiable reason to not let gay people marry.

As long as marriage is an institution of the state, the state cannot restrict access to a certain segment of the population. It's just that simple and frankly that is the side the left is on. When you have the truth on your side, you don't need to resort to craziness to get people to believe you.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
How about cool pope suggesting a change on the topic .

Who's is going to pretend himself more catholic than the pope now ?


edit on 13-10-2014 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That's crazy that just one day after me making this post they have an article pretty much exactly like what I posted here. I swear someone is tapping my brain waves for ideas!!!


That was a good article too and helped explain the very issue I'm talking about here. I liked their example too.


It’s like running out in the street and saying, “What do we want? An end to sunshine! Why do we want it? Purple!”


I kinda like their example better than my Unicorn one even.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I think it boils down to one question.

Are you superior to those people? If yes, then ...that's the problem, you're the problem.

Or, are you equal to them, are they equal to you? If they're equal, then the debate is over.

Homosexuals, Palestinians, minorities, women....all of these groups need to fight for equal rights. That's what "forcing their agenda on us," is. You'd be forcing your own agenda if you thought you were being discriminated against, right?

that's it.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I really doubt you will find many insane positions coming from the left. If we were to carry through with your plan to fill the thread up with idiot politicians sticking their foot in their mouths about gay marriage, I think you will mostly find right wing people doing it. I say this as a Libertarian too. There really is no justifiable reason to not let gay people marry.


Yah, I kinda figured that's how it would go, but I figured I might as well leave that open and let the facts and examples prove themselves. Too many times around here my posts get hammered on because others think I'm picking on one side versus the other but that isn't the case. So this time, just to be sure, I figured I'd leave the option open for someone to give examples of the Libs being Anti-Gay as well, to be fair. I didn't assume there would be too many examples of it, but I think it's only fair to allow for it to be included and actually encourage it.

This way I don't spend 5 pages trying to defend myself or the topic either. If someone has some evidence to show, I say bring it on. But if they don't have any counter examples, well then the evidence will show for itself where the problem has it's roots.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Right. They don't and won't ever come right out and say it, but I get the impression that those who oppose Marriage Equality do feel they are superior, they just don't say it like that. Instead they say Gays are against God, or the Bible or even against nature. That way, it's not them or their opinion that Gays are Bad but they of course must follow their Faith which is responsible. But that's all BS and just a way for them to deflect the blame on to some invisible or unaccountable authority when in reality it's just them trying to find a way to be sh*tty towards others without being held accountable for it.

It's like the phrase, "Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner". That deflection tactic is used all the time and it's allowed for some people to direct their Hate toward others while at the same time claiming that they aren't.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around why it matters what two consenting adults do.
This is America. You're free to do whatever you want here unless it harms another individual.
Two consenting adults of the same gender having sex/getting married does not harm you.

[SNIP]


EDIT:

I wonder if those who are against this know that there are gay Christians. And about 90% of them follow the word of the Lord better than the oppressors do.

edit on 13-10-2014 by Lyxdeslic because: (no reason given)


Mod Note: ATS Terms & Conditions Of Use:

15b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums on the Websites, and will neither Post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content. You will also not use common alternative spellings or net-speak alternative for profane words.

edit on 13/10/14 by argentus because: removed offensive content



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Ok. Here is my next example. It's from Ben Carson who I know isn't exactly a politician just yet but he's being groomed for it and may well be a player soon if things keep going the way they are now.



So once again we have just a totally illogical argument being presented. This time from a very well respected and innovative Neurosurgeon. Yet this obviously very intelligent and capable man completely loses all ability to present an argument which is rational or even consistent.

His argument basically is that "Progressives" want to change a long time traditional definition of Marriage that the "Traditionalists" don't want to do. He describes it by saying it's like saying 2+2=5 now. He goes too far by then saying that the "Traditionalists" want to keep 2+2=4 and let the "Progressives" believe 2+2=5. (Which would actually be fine. Let people define Marriage for themselves.) But Carson then insists that the "Progressives" demand that 2+2=5 for everyone and won't compromise. This however is the complete opposite of what is happening and he is simply twisting the argument in reverse.

He's trying to twist the argument to suggest that Gay Couples want to Change Marriage to be ONLY Gay Marriage which is completely false. It's the "Traditionalists" who are the one's trying to define Marriage for everyone. Allowing Gay Couples to Marry isn't stopping or changing anything to do with Straight Marriage. It is just allowing Gay Couples to Join in Marriage. It's about allowing Everyone to be Included. Carson try's to twist this of course with his lame examples when it's actually his side that is pushing to Exclude others. However, he must stay in denial of this fact or else admit to himself that he is in the wrong.

Another thing I find funny is that he uses the idea of this Long Held Definition of what Marriage is and how such traditions can't just be changed sometimes. But that is just ridiculous as well as incorrect. Society defines and redefines such definitions all the time including the definition of what Marriage is. Marriage has and is defined in many ways and always has been. It's sometimes just a transaction between families merging together for Land Rights and Kingship. Other times it's about purchasing a wife under some other Cultural design. Then there is the reasons each Couple defines Marriage to be. For example, some Married Couples define their Marriage as "Open" and are Swingers while others would never define their marriage in that way and believe Monogamy is the most important principle.

Anyone who says that there is only one possible way to define Marriage is just wrong. Then also to say that changing such long Traditions shouldn't be done or are never done because of how it effects society is again, just wrong. At one point in history not too long ago it was the Traditional Definition that Blacks were only 2/3 of a person and only Legally viewed as such. I wonder if Mr. Traditionalist Ben Carson thinks that old Traditional Definition should have stayed the same too??? Somehow I don't think he'd try using the Sanctity of Tradition for that argument.

The truth is that Society decides the cultural definitions for these things and they do and should change sometimes when they are needed. This is the case here too. Marriage Equality is just what it says, equal. Meaning everyone should be allowed to join the club if they want and allowing that doesn't effect any others who are members. The claim that allowing Gay people to marry somehow destroys the Concept of Marriage or hurts other Married Couples is just not rational or correct and needs to be dropped by those like Carson who have to twist everything around to even try and have an argument.

Or they keep arguing and just admit that it is actually them who trying to deny something to others. That it is them who are actively persecuting others and denying them equal rights, not the other way around. At least then they would be honest about their position and consistent in their argument. They'd still be wrong in my opinion, but they would "Honestly Wrong" which to me is better than what they are now which is both Wrong and Dishonest.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around why it matters what two consenting adults do.
This is America. You're free to do whatever you want here unless it harms another individual.
Two consenting adults of the same gender having sex/getting married does not harm you.


Exactly. That's why I'm of the opinion that for some reason it's literally making some people mentally handicap at this point in their effort to argue a position which makes no logical sense. But they keep trying and in doing so it's damaging them psychologically. Some that doing it probably don't even believe it either, but must present that image in order to keep their Donations coming in. They then try and go against reason and must force an argument forward that even they know isn't valid. They then must use bad logic and deception to try and prop up an argument that won't stand on it's own.


It's sad because I'm sure the male politicians who are 'against gay marriage' probably jack off into their sock over lesbian porn.


I'm glad you brought that up because I've thought the same too and I've noticed almost nobody ever brings up that part of it. Whenever you hear someone complaining about Gay's it's always geared toward Gay Men. Rarely if ever are Women included in this. Once again, it's out of fear that most of these people simply won't admit that the reason they seem to leave out Gay Women in their fight against Gays is because secretly they enjoy the idea of two women together. Which if they would just be honest and true about it would be at the least a step in the right direction. But to lie or sneak around the truth of it just ends up making them look worse because they're being hypocritical about it.

They feel they must tow this specific line of reasoning even though they don't hold those ideas for themselves. Admitting openly what their views really are would upset those who fund them and for a politician nowadays losing your "pay off money" is viewed as the worst possible thing. Worse even than Lying, Cheating, Selling out their Country, Selling out Themselves, or even doing the opposite of what they were elected to do. Everything takes a back seat to what their "masters" want. Including Principles, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Responsibility, Duty, Honor, etc.

They feel they must at all times "Tow the Line" of whatever agenda they are told by their funding sources. Doing this all the time I think is starting to truly drive some of them into madness and insanity.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Can you give specifics? How does gay people getting married affect Christianity at all?


I've already addressed that in several exchanges with you and every other poster in this thread in the past. The fact that you're asking me to explain myself yet again only goes to show that nothing I said sunk in then, and nothing I say now will sink in either. So I think I'll pass on providing you guys with another 50 page star farm this time around.


edit on 13-10-2014 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join