The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[brvheart 1,768]

I'm also interested in your views on polygamy, Tim.

[DJ Vu 176]

How do you feel about brother-sister marriages and why?

A Lannister always pays his debts.

[ShakeZuma 586]

so why should it be illegal for a brother and sister to marry or for a dude to marry 5 women? if they're all consenting adults, where is the harm, and why should the majority infringe on their rights because they think it's weird? I can only imagine the answer is that it has a negative impact on the "family unit" or whatever (brother/sister because they make corky's and polygamists because... well, I don't know) but that should only be a concern if marriage is in any way a prerequisite to having kids and/or starting a family, and it in no way is. brothers and sisters having sex will most likely produce retarded offspring, which is bad, so it's perfectly fine to me to ban brother and sister banging, but that isn't the same thing as banning them getting married because they're two separate things.

[vbnautilus 49]

so why should it be illegal for a brother and sister to marry or for a dude to marry 5 women? if they're all consenting adults, where is the harm, and why should the majority infringe on their rights because they think it's weird? I can only imagine the answer is that it has a negative impact on the "family unit" or whatever (brother/sister because they make corky's and polygamists because... well, I don't know) but that should only be a concern if marriage is in any way a prerequisite to having kids and/or starting a family, and it in no way is. brothers and sisters having sex will most likely produce retarded offspring, which is bad, so it's perfectly fine to me to ban brother and sister banging, but that isn't the same thing as banning them getting married because they're two separate things.

The fact is that most people have deep moral intuitions about these things that are not really rational, but based on "gut feelings" that they cannot readily explain. For timewakefield's sake, I just wanted to him to access one of his own feelings about this issue -- aversion to brother/sister union is pretty universal, and while it can be justified by the the offspring issue, that's not really the direct source of it. The feeling that something is wrong is not always easy to rationalize oneself out of. Intuitions like these can be very deeply held, and can also be an important source of information.(I'm not saying we should succumb to these feelings, but it's worth understanding where people are coming from).

[ShakeZuma 586]

yeah, that's really the basis of all of these arguments isn't it? what we "feel" is right even though we don't have any way of proving it. sorry for jumping in front of tim, hopefully he can still answer, but my view of government is that if an action doesn't directly infringe on anybody else's rights, then we have no justification to take away the rights to those actions.but really, the hilarious part about all of this is that for the past couple of weeks it's been nothing but europe spiraling out of control and the job situation in the us slowing on back down and BAM, gay marriage. changed the subject that easily. we're all a bunch of kittens chasing a feather on a stick.

[timwakefield 69]

I'm also interested in your views on polygamy, Tim.

I think it's fairly subjugating to women, but if they want to do it and are of age then I really couldn't care less.I'm interested in why you asked me that. Is polygamy similar to homosexuality?Or were you just being sarcastic (I don't get it)?EDIT: I made this and my follow-up post in backwards order, because I somehow saw your post without seeing vb's, then saw his after. Good story, I know.

[timwakefield 69]

How do you feel about brother-sister marriages and why?

That shit's gross. I'm not sure why I feel that way, it just seems...wrong. And yes, that's the analogy to people who oppose gay marriage: to them it's simply wrong.But there's a number of massive and important differences between the two. First of all, I've yet to hear of the millions of Americans who wish they could marry their sibling but are unable to do so because it is illegal. If there were such a movement, then I would gladly get over my icky feelings about it and support their right to be in a gross-yet-loving relationship. Another obvious difference is that a brother and sister could produce children, and those children would necessarily be at a ridiculously high risk of terrible birth defects. Straight couples and gay couples don't have that risk (gay couples don't have that risk at all!). Mostly the thing where people want it though. Show me the millions (or even tens of thousands) of brothers and sisters in loving, stable, healthy relationships who want the legal benefits that marriage offers and I'll consider supporting it (the whole procreation + birth defects is a hindrance, hence my consideration rather than full-on support). It becomes a worthwhile issue when it's more than just 0.000001% of the population, and is instead something like 5%.

[phlegm 6]

I really have no serious problems with gay marriage. Like the saying goes tho, be careful what you wish for.Losing half your retirement, assetts, and maybe a healthy alimony check to your ex to him and his gay lover mite give pause.

[vbnautilus 49]

First of all, I've yet to hear of the millions of Americans who wish they could marry their sibling but are unable to do so because it is illegal.

That's because its so stigmatized.

If there were such a movement, then I would gladly get over my icky feelings about it and support their right to be in a gross-yet-loving relationship. Another obvious difference is that a brother and sister could produce children, and those children would necessarily be at a ridiculously high risk of terrible birth defects. Straight couples and gay couples don't have that risk (gay couples don't have that risk at all!).

Don't think that's really anything but a post-hoc justification. As someone said, siblings can have sex outside of marriage.

Mostly the thing where people want it though. Show me the millions (or even tens of thousands) of brothers and sisters in loving, stable, healthy relationships who want the legal benefits that marriage offers and I'll consider supporting it (the whole procreation + birth defects is a hindrance, hence my consideration rather than full-on support). It becomes a worthwhile issue when it's more than just 0.000001% of the population, and is instead something like 5%.

I don't see why the size of the minority allows discrimination against them. If there are ten sibling couples that want to get married, why should they not have the same rights to marry as everyone else just because there are fewer of them? Also, the issue about their relationships not being stable is none of your business; the right has argued similar things about gay relationships. It's irrelevant.Anyways, I don't really care too strongly about either issue, but I don't think its all that different, and if you can imagine conservatives feeling in a way you do about sibling marriage I think it gives a better handle on what the issue really is. The feeling that It's just wrong is at the root of it.

[Balloon guy 158]

Tim,would you say then that a functioning retarded man and woman should not be allowed to marry since its highly likely that their children will be also retarded?Is the result of the union part of the reasons for a union?Cause the state had a reason to contract marriages: children have to belong to someone if someone dies, debts are transferred, etc.

[Balloon guy 158]

I read a thing a while ago that only about 5% of homosexuals are monogamous, and very very few are interested in actually getting married:

Moreover, a 2004 study of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 indicates that, compared to opposite-sex married couples, male homosexual couples were 1.5 times more likely to divorce and female homosexual couples 3 times more likely. As time passes and it becomes possible to inquire about same-sex registered partnerships of more than one-to-seven-years’ duration, we should see even larger differences between heterosexual and homosexual unions. It is important to note, too, that only a tiny minority of the homosexual population has taken advantage of civil recognition of homosexual unions. According to the 2004 study cited above, the number of same-sex registered partnerships contracted in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 is only one-half of one percent of the number of opposite-sex marriages created in the same interval (compare .7% for Norway). Yet homosexual persons comprise roughly two-to-three percent of the population. (Note that this suggests that, as bad as the divorce rates are for Swedish same-sex registered partnerships, they still represent the best of the best in the homosexual population.) The Netherlands has had full-fledged “gay marriage” since Apr. 1, 2001. From then until Apr. 2004, only three percent of all adult homosexuals and one out of ten homosexual couples have chosen to get married. By contrast, the number of persons in an other-sex marriage account for sixty percent of the adult Dutch population (seventy-five percent if one counts those widowed or divorced; for these figures go here). In effect, the institution of marriage is made to suffer for the sake of a tiny percentage of the homosexual population. Whatever the motivations of its proponents, “gay marriage” ends up being more about validating the homosexual life than about strengthening marriage or stabilizing homosexual unions.

So when you say millions want to get married, you would be way off.

[vbnautilus 49]

Interesting stats, but lol at this line:

In effect, the institution of marriage is made to suffer for the sake of a tiny percentage of the homosexual population.

So which is it, an insignificant number of homosexuals are even getting married or the "institution of marriage is made to suffer"? If they are barely even getting married how is the "institution suffering"?

[Balloon guy 158]

The institution has a low threshold for pain?

[The Ocho 972]

I read a thing a while ago that only about 5% of homosexuals are monogamous, and very very few are interested in actually getting married:So when you say millions want to get married, you would be way off.

Let me play devils advocate here. Do you think, over time, that homosexual couples would become more monogamous and stay together longer because by actually being bound by the bonds of marriage they would take their relationship more seriously?

[timwakefield 69]

That's because its so stigmatized.

You're just being silly though. Siblings rarely engage in adult sexual relations with each other, and it's because they're not into it, not because society says no.

I don't see why the size of the minority allows discrimination against them. If there are ten sibling couples that want to get married, why should they not have the same rights to marry as everyone else just because there are fewer of them? Also, the issue about their relationships not being stable is none of your business; the right has argued similar things about gay relationships. It's irrelevant.

You make a fair point about minority size, but I also said that I would support sibling marriage if it was an issue, and if the problem of birth defects could be somehow resolved. But I've never heard anybody clamoring for it, so I don't think it's worth worrying about or worth our federal legislators spending time on it.I only mentioned stability very briefly, and was alluding to the fact that in general only people in a stable relationship would have a desire to marry. It was basically a roundabout way of saying "want to get married."

Anyways, I don't really care too strongly about either issue, but I don't think its all that different, and if you can imagine conservatives feeling in a way you do about sibling marriage I think it gives a better handle on what the issue really is. The feeling that It's just wrong is at the root of it.

But the argument, "It's just wrong" is baseless and idiotic. I admitted that and essentially said that if 2 siblings wanted to marry and promised not to try to make babies I'd have no problem with it, except the nausea, but my nausea absolutely shouldn't stop 2 people from getting married.

Tim,would you say then that a functioning retarded man and woman should not be allowed to marry since its highly likely that their children will be also retarded?

I'm not even sure that's scientifically accurate. But I think retarded people should probably be discouraged from having children because they would be unfit parents. I do think they should be allowed to marry though, absolutely.

[iZuma 766]

let's make sure here that we understand that marriage and producing offspring are in no way dependant on each other and therefore one should not have any effect on the legality of the other. you don't ban an action because it's tangentionally related to another bad action, ie banning immigration because some immigrants smuggle drugs. also it needs to be clarified that what people are talking about is the rights of consenting adults to make their own life choices. animals, children, and retarded people do not have the mental capacity to consent.

[Balloon guy 158]

let's make sure here that we understand that marriage and producing offspring are in no way dependant on each other and therefore one should not have any effect on the legality of the other. you don't ban an action because it's tangentionally related to another bad action, ie banning immigration because some immigrants smuggle drugs.also it needs to be clarified that what people are talking about is the rights of consenting adults to make their own life choices. animals, children, and retarded people do not have the mental capacity to consent.

Marraige contracts with the state are directly related to the production of offspring and the responsibility of that result. Most marriages will result in children, so to say that we should not include them in the equation doesn't make sense.The only 'benefits' marriage gives couples is only there because of children, lower taxes because more money is needed for children, pass through inheritance, etc.Take children out and the state would give no benefits to married couples.

[Balloon guy 158]

Let me play devils advocate here. Do you think, over time, that homosexual couples would become more monogamous and stay together longer because by actually being bound by the bonds of marriage they would take their relationship more seriously?

The problem is that marriage isn't becoming a stronger institution, so to argue that gay couples will be more monogamous once they have the option to marry longer doesn't fit the current situation at all.Sexual freedom, constant outside influences and a more secular society are all undermining the marriage contract.Besides, gay men are notorious hound dogs, and there isn't a woman in the deal to slow down the over amped sex drive by 'having a headache'.

[vbnautilus 49]

But the argument, "It's just wrong" is baseless and idiotic. I admitted that and essentially said that if 2 siblings wanted to marry and promised not to try to make babies I'd have no problem with it, except the nausea, but my nausea absolutely shouldn't stop 2 people from getting married.

This isn't about you, its about understanding other people and why they do things. And its not baseless. Where do you think your nausea comes from when you thinking about siblings getting married? In other words, why do you have that?

[irishguy 14]

I think the analogy of a brother and sister getting married loses some steam when so many republican's have said they'd be okay with/accept civil unions for gays but they don't want the gays to be able to use "their" word marriage.The argument of ruining the sanctity of marriage just doesn't make sense to me with a rising divorce rate and how easy it is to get married and divorced. Remove the government from the business of marriage and i think the argument either goes away is much more debateable.

[Balloon guy 158]

Looks like President Obama almost lost to this guyin the West Virginia Democratic Primary

In an embarrassment to

President Obama

, Federal Inmate No. 11593-051 – otherwise known as Keith Judd – won 10 counties and 41 percent of the vote in

West Virginia

’s Democratic presidential primary Tuesday.

Mr. Judd is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in

Texarkana, Texas, where he is serving a 210-month sentence for extortion, according to TheCharleston Gazette. Judd had paid the $2,500 filing fee and submitted a notarized “certificate of announcement” to appear on the ballot.

He is even qualified to have a delegate at the

Democratic National Convention, because he won at least 15 percent of vote. However, no one has stepped forward to fill that role.

[vbnautilus 49]

That's an embarrassment to Obama or to West Virginia?

[ShakeZuma 586]

Marraige contracts with the state are directly related to the production of offspring and the responsibility of that result. Most marriages will result in children, so to say that we should not include them in the equation doesn't make sense.The only 'benefits' marriage gives couples is only there because of children, lower taxes because more money is needed for children, pass through inheritance, etc.Take children out and the state would give no benefits to married couples.

so since gay couples can already adopt children then you agree that they should be allowed to marry since it will benefit the children. balloon guy coming along!

[vbnautilus 49]

Most marriages will result in children

That's not true any more. Less than half of married couples have children. 48% of american households have married couples, but only 20% of households have married couples with kids. http://www.nytimes.c...us/26marry.htmlIt's too effing expensive to have kids nowadays.

[brvheart 1,768]

That's an embarrassment to Obama or to West Virginia?

I think it's an embarrassment to Obama and West Virginia democrats. The Republicans in West Viriginia weren't voting for either one.