[Obama announces supports for same-sex marriage]

[sepht]

Originally Posted by IIIII

The real example of a flipping flopper:





more here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...ights-timeline

I don't see how gay rights has anything to do with gay marriage. Don't get me wrong, I'm gay and I support gay marriage, but I'm looking at it from his point of view.

It seems like he believes gays have a right to be prideful but marriage is a totally different arena. If anyone can find an example of ancient people from at least 1000 years ago getting gay married, I will retract my statement that marriage traditionally is only between a male and female.

[JeffreyH]

Originally Posted by sepht

I don't see how gay rights has anything to do with gay marriage. Don't get me wrong, I'm gay and I support gay marriage, but I'm looking at it from his point of view.

It seems like he believes gays have a right to be prideful but marriage is a totally different arena. If anyone can find an example of ancient people from at least 1000 years ago getting gay married, I will retract my statement that marriage traditionally is only between a male and female.

What I don't get is this. Gay people can still marry. It's just a ceremony. They can invite guests, dress up, have some guy tell them they are married, have them exchange rings, get drunk, have a party.

Why does anyone care about getting an official document from the US government?

"But it's about social acceptance", they may say. And having a law passed is going to somehow change that?

[sepht]

Originally Posted by JeffreyH

What I don't get is this. Gay people can still marry. It's just a ceremony. They can invite guests, dress up, have some guy tell them they are married, have them exchange rings, get drunk, have a party.

Why does anyone care about getting an official document from the US government?

"But it's about social acceptance", they may say. And having a law passed is going to somehow change that?

It's more about tax breaks for child birth. Gays can't have children so giving them tax breaks for the assumption that they are going to have children doesn't make any sense. However, should they adopt, tax breaks and welfare for that child would make sense....

Doesn't it cost a lot of money and red tape to adopt a child? I've seen countries shove off all but the most upstanding citizen from adopting.

[jator]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Like gays were going to vote against the Democrats...

Gotta mobilize the base, son.

And ya everyone has the right to be equally miserable an all that imo.

[zuperxtreme]

Originally Posted by Built To Last

But does that really work? I mean, a lot of people express this sentiment, but I don't know how pragmatic it actually is. Where do we draw the line between personal and collective freedom?

Is it okay for you to drive a hummer if that very expression of personal freedom challenges our collective right to a clean enviornment, free from climate change?

Is it okay to express racist ideas as part of your personal right to free speech if that very expression seeks to hinder the freedom of members of our society?

Thinking philosophically, it occurs to me that there might not even be such a category as "personal" freedom. To truly not harm anyone would require complete removal from society, which doesn't seem possible.

Neither of your examples are harmless, both hurt somebody. Maybe not in a day or a year, but it will eventually hurt(physically, emotionally, whatever).