Obama-Marriage Debate - Somerset, KY

Discuss the national Obama-Marriage debate in Somerset, KY.

Are you with President Obama in supporting gay marriage?

Somerset is not with Obama on gay marriage
Not at all
 
92
Yes, all the way
 
65
I'm on the fence
 
1

Vote now in Somerset:

OK then

United States

#835 Sep 24, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't remember checking that list out. Usually when I investigate a list of books or links given to me by someone making a Fundamentalist argument it is a huge waste of time. I do read and keep up with news. If it was a fact that homosexuality literally caused by abuse I would already know it. I wouldn't need Jerry Falwell to tell me.
I'll pick up from what Dio was saying in his last post. EVEN IF my gay friend was nudged or pushed toward being gay because of some kind of childhood abuse how does that make his sexual orientation as an adult a problem? If he's happy who are you to say he needs "help"? To me that seems like incredible arrogance.
The movement to "pray the gay away" was a terrible idea that failed. Even hardcore Christian organizations that once supported it are starting to remove that support. There is no evidence it does any good at all and lots of evidence that it causes harm:
"In contrast, there is ample evidence that societal prejudice causes significant medical, psychological and other harms to LGBT people. For example, research on the issue of family acceptance of LGBT youth conducted at San Francisco State University found that "compared with LGBT young people who were not rejected or were only a little rejected by their parents and caregivers because of their gay or transgender identity, highly rejected LGBT young people were: More than 8 times as likely to have attempted suicide. Nearly 6 times as likely to report high levels of depression. More than 3 times as likely to use illegal drugs. More than 3 times as likely to be at high risk for HIV and STDs."
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/the-lies-a...
Regarding your friend's experience as a counselor, which Dio mentioned, there is an inherent observation bias when we think there is a connection and we look for every instance of that connection. Kind of like ER nurses who think the full moon means a busy night. They only remember the full moon nights that are busy and they forget the ones that are not.
The soluton may be to dissolve any special priviledges for the married and let people decide for themselves how and with who they want to divide their property.
Also

United States

#836 Sep 24, 2012
If gay marriage is legalized, can two brothers that are gay get married?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#837 Sep 24, 2012
OK then wrote:
<quoted text>The soluton may be to dissolve any special priviledges for the married and let people decide for themselves how and with who they want to divide their property.
Instead allowing a broader definition of marriage just disentangle it from law altogether? Sure. I doubt that will fly, though.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#838 Sep 24, 2012
Also wrote:
If gay marriage is legalized, can two brothers that are gay get married?
Can a brother currently marry his sister?

Level 3

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#840 Sep 24, 2012
Paul Revere wrote:
Coming out in favor of gay marriage might be the dumbest move he could possibly make. And that's saying something.
You can quote all the polls you like but, voters have banned gay marriage every single time it has been placed on the ballot. Only when a liberal Judge gets involved by legislating from the bench is it found "constitutional".
So, Obama has completed his trifecta by attacking single mothers, the Catholic church and now traditional familes.
I guess destroying the economy wasn't enough. He had to move onto destroying our society as well.
You are aware of how did destroy the economy right? That would be Bush he started 2 wars that were UNFUNDED as well as gave tax breaks to the top 2%. Bush never paid for anything while the man was in office for 8 years. It had to be paid for by someone and Obama got left with that. I can tell you however when Obama took office the UE rate in this country was well over 10%. Do you happen to know what the UE rate is today? It is 8%. The question on peoples mind in November is going to be are we better off now than we were 4 years ago. The answer to that question is yes I am in no way saying it is the best that it can be. I am saying that it is better than it was 4 years ago and much better than if McCain had won in 08. You are also aware that there have been more jobs added in the last 4 years then were added in the 8 years Bush was in office. I hate to tell you this but more than 54% of American's favor giving the same rights to samesex couples that heterosexual couples have. There is nothing wrong with this and it is something that the Supreme Court will be taking up this fall. I look forward to the fact that the DOMA law will be struck down.
Noone

London, KY

#841 Sep 24, 2012
LovehasNogender wrote:
<quoted text>
You are aware of how did destroy the economy right? That would be Bush he started 2 wars that were UNFUNDED as well as gave tax breaks to the top 2%. Bush never paid for anything while the man was in office for 8 years. It had to be paid for by someone and Obama got left with that. I can tell you however when Obama took office the UE rate in this country was well over 10%. Do you happen to know what the UE rate is today? It is 8%. The question on peoples mind in November is going to be are we better off now than we were 4 years ago. The answer to that question is yes I am in no way saying it is the best that it can be. I am saying that it is better than it was 4 years ago and much better than if McCain had won in 08. You are also aware that there have been more jobs added in the last 4 years then were added in the 8 years Bush was in office. I hate to tell you this but more than 54% of American's favor giving the same rights to samesex couples that heterosexual couples have. There is nothing wrong with this and it is something that the Supreme Court will be taking up this fall. I look forward to the fact that the DOMA law will be struck down.


It is not better and it will not be as long is he in office Romney all the way!!!!

Level 5

Since: Mar 12

Brownsville, TN

#842 Sep 24, 2012
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
There are genetic reasons why this wouldn't work in a male female relationship. But sure, if they're gay then there is no reason that sisters, brothers, cousins, uncle & nephew couldn't marry.
What would be wrong with it, if they're gay?
I realize you probably have not researched this, but the reasons are not based on genetics. Incest laws predate the discovery of DNA. Where there are incest laws, they apply to adopted children as well, even if those adopted children have no biological relationship to the parents or siblings. Most states do not enforce or lack laws relating to incest after 18 years of age. Regardless, I think the assumption is a little odd since siblings, whether gay or not, very rarely become attracted to each other.

Level 3

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#843 Sep 24, 2012
Noone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not better and it will not be as long is he in office Romney all the way!!!!
Well my post went a little off topic but you are so sadly mistaken if you think that the Mitt and Twit ticket are going to offer the Nation a way forward.
guess what

United States

#844 Sep 24, 2012
dionysio wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize you probably have not researched this, but the reasons are not based on genetics. Incest laws predate the discovery of DNA. Where there are incest laws, they apply to adopted children as well, even if those adopted children have no biological relationship to the parents or siblings. Most states do not enforce or lack laws relating to incest after 18 years of age. Regardless, I think the assumption is a little odd since siblings, whether gay or not, very rarely become attracted to each other.
There is no good arguement as to why gay brothers and sisters could not marry if gay marriage is legalized.

Level 5

Since: Mar 12

Brownsville, TN

#845 Sep 24, 2012
DaGasssMan wrote:
<quoted text>
These magistrates are a fricking joke. While I do agree they shouldn't have voted to have an increase in a time where everyone is hurting a little they shouldn't get run out of town for doing so. I would imagine if they had the chance they wouldn't have asked for that increase at all and just let sleeping dogs lie. But what is done "is done" and they have to defend it now.
I love the Library and hope to god they don't find a way to let our idiotic self righteous politicians run it. If that happens then yes we probably will end up like Danville and that will be horrific. At least they haven't ran up millions of dollars worth of Lawyer bills and charged us with it. Like Judge Beashers did with the 10 commandments. Sigh...
I am a christian and I know that there is separation between church and state. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand your going to lose that battle. Yet he spent untold millions on a losing battle, that no one really expected to win.
I try and live by the 10 commandments but I don't expect them to be crammed down anyone's throat. And I certainly do not want to pay a nickle for any of that idiocy.
This is what I am saying, I think. I do understand the concern but I would much rather see the library board overtaxing us rather than losing it to a bunch of lunatics hellbent on destroying literacy in our community. I do think Tough Love raises some good points but removing that authority will almost certainly increase the level of ignorance in a community that cannot afford it. If we were being governed by sober-minded individuals who placed a high value on education, progress and all things good, I would say let them call the shots but we aren't. It's basically like saying that we should remove library taxing authority from the communists and giving it to the Taliban. It's a tough call but I would have to side with the commies on that one.

Level 5

Since: Mar 12

Brownsville, TN

#846 Sep 24, 2012
guess what wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no good arguement as to why gay brothers and sisters could not marry if gay marriage is legalized.
The reasons are the same that apply to adopted children. Is there a good reason in those cases? If so, then the same would apply to gay brothers.

Level 5

Since: Mar 12

Brownsville, TN

#847 Sep 24, 2012
dionysio wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what I am saying, I think. I do understand the concern but I would much rather see the library board overtaxing us rather than losing it to a bunch of lunatics hellbent on destroying literacy in our community. I do think Tough Love raises some good points but removing that authority will almost certainly increase the level of ignorance in a community that cannot afford it. If we were being governed by sober-minded individuals who placed a high value on education, progress and all things good, I would say let them call the shots but we aren't. It's basically like saying that we should remove library taxing authority from the communists and giving it to the Taliban. It's a tough call but I would have to side with the commies on that one.
Logged in and messed that up didn't I? Disregard that post.
guess what

United States

#848 Sep 24, 2012
dionysio wrote:
<quoted text>
The reasons are the same that apply to adopted children. Is there a good reason in those cases? If so, then the same would apply to gay brothers.
Love doesn't recognize those boundries. Also there was a deep understanding of genetics long before the discovery of DNA.
There is no reason why two gay sisters could not marry if gay marriage is legalized.

Level 5

Since: Mar 12

Brownsville, TN

#849 Sep 24, 2012
guess what wrote:
<quoted text>
Love doesn't recognize those boundries. Also there was a deep understanding of genetics long before the discovery of DNA.
There is no reason why two gay sisters could not marry if gay marriage is legalized.
I am not sure what the point is here but you are incorrect. Incest laws do not exist simply because of genetics. In fact, it has been demonstrated recently that first cousins do not share enough genetic information to significantly increase the risk of diseases typically associated with inbreeding, yet they are still not permitted to marry in most states. With siblings and parents, the courts have consistently ruled that the reasons are because there cannot be consent when there are unequal levels of power and not genetic. This was the case with the father who was a professor and the daughter who was an adult and both were in a consensual relationship. The same could be argued for siblings who are not twins.

As an aside, genetic theories were postulated and hypothesized prior to the discover of DNA but the mechanism was not understood. We all know about Mendel and the peas and whatnot. That is certainly not a "deep understanding". Most scientists would tell you we do not currently have a deep understanding of genetics at all.

Anyway, what is the point? Is this an attempt to make a slippery slope argument?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#850 Sep 24, 2012
guess what wrote:
<quoted text>There is no good arguement as to why gay brothers and sisters could not marry if gay marriage is legalized.
I agree. There is no good argument.

Is there more to this observation?
guess what

Butler, KY

#851 Sep 24, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. There is no good argument.
Is there more to this observation?
So you are not a homophobic incestaphobe.
guess what

United States

#852 Sep 24, 2012
dionysio wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure what the point is here but you are incorrect. Incest laws do not exist simply because of genetics. In fact, it has been demonstrated recently that first cousins do not share enough genetic information to significantly increase the risk of diseases typically associated with inbreeding, yet they are still not permitted to marry in most states. With siblings and parents, the courts have consistently ruled that the reasons are because there cannot be consent when there are unequal levels of power and not genetic. This was the case with the father who was a professor and the daughter who was an adult and both were in a consensual relationship. The same could be argued for siblings who are not twins.
As an aside, genetic theories were postulated and hypothesized prior to the discover of DNA but the mechanism was not understood. We all know about Mendel and the peas and whatnot. That is certainly not a "deep understanding". Most scientists would tell you we do not currently have a deep understanding of genetics at all.
Anyway, what is the point? Is this an attempt to make a slippery slope argument?
Whatever the courts have decided in the past is irrelevant. Laws exist banning gay marriage yet the controversy exists still.
I would think that those who would not try to bind homosexual love wouldn't try to bind incestual homosexual love either. I would think rather that you would argue in it's favor.

Level 5

Since: Mar 12

Brownsville, TN

#853 Sep 24, 2012
guess what wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever the courts have decided in the past is irrelevant. Laws exist banning gay marriage yet the controversy exists still.
I would think that those who would not try to bind homosexual love wouldn't try to bind incestual homosexual love either. I would think rather that you would argue in it's favor.
Like I said before, this is a very fringe issue since it is extraordinarily uncommon for siblings to even have this desire. I have no idea how this would impact the overall argument of gay marriage either for or against. If you just flipped the question around, you would see the absurdity. If genetic risk is the sole reason incest is wrong, which again it isn't, then what is wrong with step brothers and sisters marrying or adopted brothers and sisters? That is an undoubtedly more common scenario from the same philosophical question, yet, nobody is sitting around debating it because it is irrelevant to the validity of heterosexual marriage in general.

Now, with that being said and since the argument is so confusing, if this is something you are dealing with personally for whatever reason, you should probably ask a professional about it. That is not meant to be insulting in any way. I am just confused about which direction you are going with it. I seem to think you are making the case that gay marriage leads down a slippery slope but if you are trying to legitimize it for some other reason, I am probably not the person to talk to about that. I think in most cases of sibling incest, there is some traumatic cause and people involved in that type of thing probably do need help in general, not just for the taboo attraction.

Level 5

Since: Mar 12

Brownsville, TN

#854 Sep 24, 2012
I should have noted that the step brother and step sister thing is not entirely uncommon depending on what age they begin cohabitation. I think we have all heard of real life examples there. It is, however, very uncommon if they are raised together from a very young age.
guess what

United States

#855 Sep 24, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. There is no good argument.
Is there more to this observation?
Yes, there is more to the observaion. All of the same arguements you use to support gay marriage could be used to support gay incest or incest in general. That was what I was starting to illustrate with the previous posts.

I am opposed to gay marriage because of it's counter-cultural position. It goes against long standing, sexually related, cultural, moral, traditional and religious societal standards.
When we allow the erosion of these sexually related standards we are facilitating the de evolution of our society.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 53 min ChromiuMan 132,157
KY Senator Vows to End Somerset Gas Sales 1 hr DagasssMan 49
Whats Causes Gout? (Nov '08) 1 hr mr m 38
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 2 hr covcas 22,786
Phone Scammers 5 hr Haze Man 4
MBI truck drivers (Aug '08) 12 hr disgruntled mbi d... 54
Gas prices 23 hr Knowitall9 28
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]