Gay Marriage

[GreasyQtip]

Whether you are for or against gay marriage I ask you to read the following by Chris Kluwe in response to teammate Matt Birk.

For those who don't know Matt Birk expressed his opinions that gay people should not be allowed to be married, anyone who is willing to read, this is a well educated response

http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbou...o-14-problems/

Full disclosure: I know Matt Birk, having played with him for multiple years in the NFL. I think he’s a smart, funny person who has done both good things in the community here in Minnesota as well as with the concussion issue facing disabled players. I respect Matt, and I respect his right to his own views and ideas.

However, in this instance, Matt I think you’re wrong. This is not an attack on you as a person or your beliefs, but the argument you presented in the Star Tribune simply does not stand up to logical inspection.

Problem the first – Your argument lacks facts, sources, or statistics. You can’t just say “Same -sex marriage is bad for kids because I think it’s bad for kids, and I think it’s bad for kids because it’s bad for kids”. That’s called circular reasoning and it’s a logical fallacy. If you want us to understand why same-sex marriage is bad for kids, you need to provide some sort of substantial evidence. Tell us that children from same-sex couples are more likely to grow up broke and miserable and alone and will end their days starving in a gutter. Just don’t use a study like this one http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...49089X12000610 which displays clear source and confirmation bias (as outlined neatly in this http://www.slate.com/articles/health...age_good_.html article from Slate). Use something like this http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...04280802177615 (sadly behind a paywall, but the abstract should give you the high notes). I’ll sum it up for those who don’t want to click on links: there’s no difference between children raised in heterosexual relationships and same-sex relationships, as evidenced by a meta-study of nineteen different LBGT studies.

Problem the second – Your argument that “government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids” is flawed on two counts. The first flaw is one of simple mathematics – if “marriage” is so necessary to the proper raising of children, why are we not passing an amendment to outlaw divorce? Current statistics from the CDC put the national divorce rate at approximately 50% (of roughly 2.1 million marriages a year, 1 million will end in divorce). They also put the number of same-sex couple households at 685,000, and those with children at 160,000. Let’s say, purely for the sake of example, that every single one of those same-sex households got married. You’re telling me you’re more concerned with the impact of those 160,000 households, as opposed to the 1 million heterosexual couples getting divorces? If this is truly about the children, shouldn’t divorce be first up on the constitutional amendment list, in order to save more children?

The second flaw is that you’re actually arguing in favor of same-sex marriage. If children having a stable home is the main crux of your concern, then denying gay couples the benefits of 1100 federal laws can only harm the children they will raise. Not allowing those children the same health benefits, family care benefits, survivor benefits; that can only be a detriment to the upbringing and care of a child, correct? Or do you propose that same-sex couples should be unfit for adoption, should be unfit to raise children?

Problem the third – You’re conflating “‘if it feels good, go ahead and do it’” with couples that want the stability and benefits of marriage and just so happen to be gay. There’s plenty more heterosexual couples that marry because “it feels good, go ahead and do it” with no intention of ever having children than there are same-sex couples (again, simple mathematics). Should we deny marriage to anyone who doesn’t plan to have kids? What about the infertile couples? The old people? You yourself say “Marriage is in trouble right now — admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions.” So why the discrimination? Why should we be passing a constitutional amendment denying legal rights to American citizens who pay taxes and serve in our armed forces? If “marriage” is so important, why aren’t we going after all those “many other reasons” first?

Problem the fourth – Marriage has already been redefined multiple times over the years. Marriage used to be one man and multiple women. Marriage used to be a way to exchange property between two families. Marriage used to be between brother and sister to keep the royal bloodline pure. Marriage used to be between children. Marriage used to be only for people that were the same skin color. Marriage used to be a lot of things, many of them oppressive towards women and minorities. I think I’d rather marriage be between two people that love each other and are committed to each other no matter what combination of fleshy bits are hanging off their bodies; not a reality TV show.

Problem the fifth – You’re trying to raise a religious argument in a secular matter. The First Amendment isn’t just about the freedom FOR religion, it’s also about the freedom FROM religion. The word “marriage” appears in thousands of legal documents and laws in this nation, and to attempt to narrowly define it through a religious application means you’re trying to assert a religious viewpoint on those who may not necessarily hold the same views. Our founding fathers knew quite clearly the dangers that state sponsored religious persecution could inflict (they lived through it!), and the First Amendment is worded in favor of state neutrality for a reason. I will support your right to worship at whatever altar you choose, but I will not support you trying to force it on someone else, or to deny someone else legal benefits due to religious reasoning.

Problem the last – The only impact same-sex marriage will have on your children is if one of them turns out to be gay and cannot get married. What will you do (and I ask this honestly) if one or more of your kids ends up being gay? Will you love them any less? What will your actions speak to them, 15 years from now, when they ask you why they can’t enjoy the same relationship that you and your wife have now? And if your response is “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”, well, for a lot of people that bridge is here right now. They’re trying to cross it, but the way is barred, and I will do my best to tear those barricades down any way I can because I believe that we are infringing on the free will of other human beings by denying them their basic right to live free of oppression. I love my daughters for their minds and their personalities, not for who they love as adults. That’s none of my damn business, and I will support them in life no matter who they want to marry.

Ultimately, while your letter is respectful and polite (and I’ve tried to keep mine the same way, no SPARKLEPONIES in this one), I remain unconvinced by any logical reasoning you have so far brought to bear on the subject. I encourage you to keep speaking out, as we should never be afraid to espouse our views, but from a rational standpoint I simply cannot agree with discrimination against a subset of our citizenry.

(Miss you at the crossword puzzles)

-Chris

For me, I can't believe in 2012 someone would support a person who thinks another person deserves different rights than they do. We call that racism and prejudice.

Your answers are in here.

[Requiem]

Chris Kluwe be killin' it.

[spdirty]

Doooooooonn't Caaaaaaare!

[Bacchus]

I befriended him on FB after I read this. He has lots of friends!! Well it sounds like he is going to keep this up and I would imagine a political job is in his future.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your argument lacks facts, sources, or statistics.

This one sentence applies to just about everything that comes out of right-wing pie holes these days.

Props to Kluwe for putting an epic beat down on another clueless right-wing bigot.

[bpc]

I don't care what gay folks do. I believe in nature's laws. If two people wanna love each other, fine. With that being said, if your same sex organs can't copulate and conceive children naturally, then that's nature saying you probably shouldn't have them. Same rules apply.

[Jetland]

Originally Posted by bpc

I don't care what gay folks do. I believe in nature's laws. If two people wanna love each other, fine. With that being said, if your same sex organs can't copulate and conceive children naturally, then that's nature saying you probably shouldn't have them. Same rules apply.

and with this you now have learned everything you would ever want to know about bpc

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by bpc

I don't care what gay folks do. I believe in nature's laws. If two people wanna love each other, fine. With that being said, if your same sex organs can't copulate and conceive children naturally, then that's nature saying you probably shouldn't have them. Same rules apply.

Really?

Your thinking is sort of "black or white," isn't it?

So if it came down to a choice between an abusive, drug addicted heterosexual parent vs. a responsible, healthy, loving gay couple, you'd turn the orphaned kid over to the druggie?

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by bpc

I don't care what gay folks do. I believe in nature's laws. If two people wanna love each other, fine. With that being said, if your same sex organs can't copulate and conceive children naturally, then that's nature saying you probably shouldn't have them. Same rules apply.

makes logical sense to most..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by lonestar

makes logical sense to most..

Then you probably need to sign up for a course in fundamental logic a.s.a.p.

[lonestar]

oh I see the peanut gallery has chimed in again.. Probably some cutesy cartoon of some sort.. or bullet point..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by lonestar

oh I see the peanut gallery has chimed in again.. Probably some cutesy cartoon of some sort.. or bullet point..

"Probably," eh?

This post represents perfectly your relationship with reality...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by lonestar

makes logical sense to most..

You obviously don't understand the difference between logical problems and ethical questions, but that's no surprise coming from a barely-literate, home-schooled yokel like you.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You obviously don't understand the difference between logical problems and ethical questions, but that's no surprise coming from a barely-literate, home-schooled yokel like you.

Hmmmmlet me see heres.... Logicsal problems why them are Spock problems, yes, they are logicsal yousee and only Spock can undersgtand them.... Thos sethical problems them there are are Spice Girl problems becasuse them girls show no ehttics trashign GW. Who you calling a Yokel? I'm a Local Yokell which on thsi board mkesa me king ogf the repbucansi.

[GreasyQtip]

Originally Posted by lonestar

makes logical sense to most..

This is a powerful statement, this isn't an opinion here, you actually don't know what the word logic means.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by GreasyQtip

This is a powerful statement, this isn't an opinion here, you actually don't know what the word logic means.

[Requiem]

I'm willing to bet my sister and her partner, who adopted six children and took them out of abusive foster care situations are much better parents and role models for their children than most straight parents on this board. Actually, it isn't a bet. It is a guarantee.

[GreasyQtip]

It's true Requiem. And there are studies to support your claim.

My new favorite argument against gay marriage that I have been hearing recently, is I am okay if they are together I just do not want it called Marriage, the word marriage is for a man and a woman. That is sooo bizarre, it is just a word? How trivial can you be babies.

Furthermore, how insecure you must be to think that another persons marriage will affect yours.

You know why I don't care if two gay people get married, cause other peoples bedroom activities have absolutely no affect on my happy marriage. We aren't gay ourselves so it has absolutely no affect what so ever on our lives.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by bpc

I don't care what gay folks do. I believe in nature's laws. If two people wanna love each other, fine. With that being said, if your same sex organs can't copulate and conceive children naturally, then that's nature saying you probably shouldn't have them. Same rules apply.

"Nature, Mister Allnutt, is what we were put here to rise above."

Name that film and win 10 internetz points!

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

"Nature, Mister Allnutt, is what we were put here to rise above."

Name that film and win 10 internetz points!

I wonder what bpc would say about natural laws and reproduction when it comes to a heterosexual couple who aren't able to produce children? Guess they don't get kids either. Nature didn't intend for it, since they ended up being biological failures. Right?!

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I wonder what bpc would say about natural laws and reproduction when it comes to a heterosexual couple who aren't able to produce children? Guess they don't get kids either. Nature didn't intend for it, since they ended up being biological failures. Right?!

They love their reproduction down in Haiti. God is pitching in to flood the place with kids but then he doesn't stick around to help them when they run out of food.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

They love their reproduction down in Haiti. God is pitching in to flood the place with kids but then he doesn't stick around to help them when they run out of food.

Sounds like God is a loser.

[chadta]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I wonder what bpc would say about natural laws and reproduction when it comes to a heterosexual couple who aren't able to produce children? Guess they don't get kids either. Nature didn't intend for it, since they ended up being biological failures. Right?!

Yes that is right

Just like some people aren't meant to own houses, some people aren't meant to do anything more than ask "would you like fries with that", Life isnt fair, get over it.

At the same time, if a couple,(straight or gay) can find a person to help them out, then they are free to do so, but in no way should I have to pay for it.

We have more than enough unwanted kids out there, I see no reason why we should spend money to help try to create new kids, at the same time we spend money trying to take care of unwanted kids, the solution could not be more obvious, put the unwanted kids, where they are wanted.

Props to your sister Req, props to anybody who adopts, we should push more people down this road, rather than the medical road of trying to conceive. The world needs more people like Reqs sister, and less Octomoms.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by chadta

Yes that is right

Just like some people aren't meant to own houses, some people aren't meant to do anything more than ask "would you like fries with that", Life isnt fair, get over it.

At the same time, if a couple,(straight or gay) can find a person to help them out, then they are free to do so, but in no way should I have to pay for it.

We have more than enough unwanted kids out there, I see no reason why we should spend money to help try to create new kids, at the same time we spend money trying to take care of unwanted kids, the solution could not be more obvious, put the unwanted kids, where they are wanted.

Props to your sister Req, props to anybody who adopts, we should push more people down this road, rather than the medical road of trying to conceive. The world needs more people like Reqs sister, and less Octomoms.

BPC's argument against gay couples having children was because they couldn't produce them on their own, and since nature didn't intend them to -- they shouldn't get to have kids. There are a variety of reasons why men or women become sterile, but not being able to biologically create them on their own accord shouldn't bar them from the ability to raise children by adopting them into their own families.

And yeah, I wish there were more people who would consider that route. Meanwhile, I know a guy who is on child number 9 right now. The amount of tax breaks he gets for those little bastards must be pretty amazing. I just feel bad for all the kids.

[chadta]

Originally Posted by Requiem

not being able to biologically create them on their own accord shouldn't bar them from the ability to raise children by adopting them into their own families.

I agree with that sort of, if they want to adopt, than by all means, but if its going to tie up the medical system, and a host or donor, id like to think that the medical system has better things to do. I am only against trying to medically help them have a baby, but im against doing that for anybody.

I don't like IVF, gay straight, don't matter to me, It just seems wrong on so many levels to try to bring more children into the world, un naturally, when there are so many unwanted children out there. If you want a child that bad, it shouldn't matter that you did not give birth. I know my wife and I discussed this before we got married, and if we couldn't have kids we were going to adopt.