Obamas position on gay marriage

Are you suggesting he should run on the basis of his economic policies? With the growing problems in Europe, that might not be something he’ll want to talk about.

Most conservatives will vote for Romney anyways, but this way he can rally his base (frei Jews, gays, etc.). It might backfire since a big chunk of his base (particuarly blacks and Hispanics) won’t be amused, but that’s a risk he’s willing to take.

@far east:

Because there is a distinction between society “looking the other way” when hearing about certain actions versus actively promoting them, and even encouraging practitioners of such unnatural behaviors to embrace and be proud of their tendencies.

Far East +1

As long as you make sure yeshivos get government money, you can support ay marriage. Just ask Bloomberg!

Here we go again….

Why is this an acceptable thread on YW?

hey, if the YW can run ads for someone openly supporting it, why shouldn’t we be able to talk about?!

Can we spell “hypocrite?” As soon as he thinks this is going to hurt his campaign, he will reverse himself (again).

Sam2: +1

Per “far east” and Yserbius123.

Why do people care? Why does this need to be discussed so much? Why is this on all front pages?

kfb: The constitution says nothing like that.

We need to fight because it’s the right thing to do.

Even non-Jews recognize that znus is wrong. They don’t make it illegal because what’s done in your home is your business – but people don’t come out and say it’s ok to do! With this issue, they’re trying to publicly say that it’s ok. We need to show that it’s not ok.

@kfb And murder and theft are things that can cause harm to other people. Laws against them existed even before Sinai. The Romans and Greeks had strict laws against murder and theft, yet they were some of the most promiscuous civilizations in history. You can’t really compare the two.

I’m also shocked that a frum forum like this is full of liberals! Doesn’t anyone see the truth anymore??

@Yserbius123:

“So let the government re-define marriage to be whatever they want it to be. Let people marry their cars if they want to. Why should I care?”

Because it slowly numbs the American public to the fact that such behavior is disgusting, deviant and wrong. If someone practices this in their bedroom, without others knowing, then you’re right – it doesn’t make an iota of difference to us. But when society accepts it, to the point where government officials on the highest levels are championing the cause, it turns into a situation where suddenly this behavior is seen as another option, something that’s completely normal. And it becomes politically incorrect to say that it’s wrong – it’s basic human rights, isn’t it? Once something is seen as normal, it becomes a whole lot harder to be hard and fast against it without one being viewed bigoted and intolerant.

First it’s gay marriage – let’s say bestiality is next. If the government makes it legal for one to marry his dearly beloved hamster, is that okay? What if NAMBLA successfully lobbies to allow marriage between a man and an underage boy? Or how about incest? Why is it okay to be prejudiced against these things, but not gay marriage?

The liberals in this thread will tell me the difference between the cases, but in reality, the difference is that the public has decided that one deviant behavior is okay and normal, but the rest aren’t. And that itself is the reason that we cannot just look away when society attempts to “normalize” gay marriage.

Obama changes his positions when it comes to gays and has finally come out of the closet.

Fareast, it is alot more then just polictics.

The word marriage is (was) NOT defined by laws until states started allowing (and disallowing) same sex marriage. Until then, it was defined by religon. All major religons; Christians, Jews, and Muslims; all belive the marriage is between a male and female. It was the states that decided they wanted a database of marriages and gave rights to spouses. In just about ever state, including NY, a couple who gets married religiously, does not need to actually obtain a marriage license to get benefits. The states actually acknowledge a Kesuva or a even just a rabbis testimony, that a couple is married.

Now come the homosexuals, they want to be married also. So, they are trying to get marriage a civil term instead of a religious one.

Why should we care?

1) now there is no limit on what the government can define as marriage. Today it is homosexual, tomorrow it is incest, and the next day it is zoophilia that want to be ‘married’.

2) we will be forced to teach our children about this. Government will hold back funding if our schools won’t teach the full definition of marriage.

3) embracing homosexuals is long known to be one of the number one factors that brought down great civilizations. Check it up. Greece, Rome, and even Hitler Germany all embraced homosexuals in their final days.

As Jews, we have to do all we can to stop laws that allow for gays to marry. When talking about forbidden relationships, god only uses the word abomination once. Don’t take it with a grain of salt.

This country used to uphold its values and morals

, based on judeo Christian beliefs. It is all down hill from here. Honestly, I am against gay marriage as most? Frum Jews and people with morals are. But correct it doesn’t directly affect me. What DOES however is that fact that in 2012 it is unacceptable to have a moral thought or conservative view. The liberals can say what they want when they want, push their agendas on us, be pro whatever it is gay marriage etc, but I can’t say ” I am against gay marriage” out loud without being an awful person. It’s like being politically correct has taken over our country, we can’t even express our own thoughts without getting steam rolled.

Far East: The Slippery Slope Fallacy states that something is wrong only because it may lead to something else that’s bad. In this case, however, people that are against gay marriage are bothered by gay marriage itself to a certain degree, whether it be the “abominable”-ness of the act as clearly stated by the Torah, or the ramifications of gay marriage, such as legally being able to adopt kids, and the propagandization of gay culture into our education system and society.

The fact of the matter is, that under the new all-inclusive definition of marriage that liberals are starting to stick in some states, just about anything goes including incest and bestiality. Supporting gay “marriage” legally, doesn’t “lead to” (as implied by the fallacy) supporting (somehow still immoral things such as) bestiality and incest, it literally changes the definition of what marriage is from a religious ordeal to a legal one. And while you may give reasonable explanations why bestiality will never be legalized, a) I fail to understand why it should be less illegal under redefined marriage laws to marry a sibling than it is to marry the same gender, in fact it’s more natural b) it would not reaffirm you fallacy theory because bestiality and incest do exist. They do not have to be led up to. They just have to be legalized and under current definitions in many states I see it as already legal without a precedent.

So in conclusion, by falsely stating that something true is a fallacy, you have stumbled upon the Fallacy Fallacy, thereby committing the chief fallacious act of the day.

Far east: There are two distinct issues. 1) Certain people believe that gays shouldn’t get married, legally or not. 2) People believe that Gay marriage legislation is wrong, and it legally includes other forms of marriage. Therefore, for someone to mention that they are against gay marriage legislation for the sole reason that they are against bestiality is 100% ok. Because at the end of the day, it is gay marriage legislation that sets the legal precedent for all these forms of marriage, and they must legislate against it as long as they would like bestiality to stay illegal.

Far East: Bestiality, most probably legal (depending on animal rights laws I assume). Incest, definitely legal.

@gregaaron So what if it’s deviant behavior? It’s not exactly hurting anyone. As long as something doesn’t cause harm, I see no reason why it should be illegal. That’s the difference, as I see it, between various types of deviant behavior. If a certain behavior can cause harm to people or property, it should be illegal. If not, there is no reason why it shouldn’t be legal.

Yserbius123: A) No one is arguing whether incest or homosexuality should be legal or not (in fact incest is illegal for some reason), rather whether if it should be considered a legal marriage or not. Define “marriage” before arguing whether it be legal or not for certain relationships. Define “marriage” etymologically, historically, biblically or any way that pleases you, but at least present an argument.

B) Sodomy was one of the traits of the gentiles from Sedom, and the whole country was destroyed even though they were gentiles. Fact: This bad act affects the world whether religious, Jewish or not. It may not bother you, but it bothers most people that the current trend of homosexuality is surely either causing many bad things or causing the withholding of good things from happening to us and our country. I’m sure there are many Jewish sources for this besides for what I have presented.

far east: Don’t read my posts, read gregaaron’s. He got my point well and clear. Bestiality marriage would be legal by precedent and so would incest marriage.

But anyways, great point you made. What I write is so false, that you can’t even point out one flaw. Must be hard admitting to losing an argument that barely just started.