Obama Supporting Gay Marriage

• Skyhook79

  

  Devils Advocate;1167229 wrote:Now for the rest of you self described Republican pubes, You need to stop worring about other people junk.
  
  You want the government out of your junk ( out of your religion, out of your wallet, out of your business ), but you are all in favor of the government interfering in other people junk ( civil unions, female uteruses, sexual preferenses).
  
  I cannot believe the hypocrosy of the right on marriage. From the religious standpoint, the right says that the marriage is a sacred bond in front of God, and yet they cheat, re-marry, and divorce as much or more than the athiests and agnostics. This is an irreconcilable conflict.
  
  If you are worried about the sanctity of marriage, Outlaw divorce. Outlaw second marriages. I will then believe that you are truly concerned with the morality of same sex marriage.

  The people in their own States are the one's voting for or against same sex marriage, the way it should be, not the Gov't intervening.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Con_Alma;1166517 wrote:It's been my experience that the position a candidate takes is not the sole determinant on whether one votes for them or not but rather it is in indication of the candidate as a whole person and their ability to either stand firm in thier convictions when under fire or waiver for potential benefit of seeking a certain acceptance. It's almost pandering to the majority for their vote.

  Sure, the political pressure was on, but compared to how often Romney has changed positions, this is minor.
  On a grand scale, I do not mind if a politician changes their stance, so long as they fully explain why in an analytical manner.
  That to me is much more telling and shows flexibility, than being firm.
  Sometimes, new evidence or developments forces a candidate to change their position.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Skyhook79;1167311 wrote:The people in their own States are the one's voting for or against same sex marriage, the way it should be, not the Gov't intervening.

  That I agree with. Let the states decide how they want to swing, literally.
• pmoney25

  

  The Governments role in marriage is too grant benefits and give people the right to enter into a marriage contract. Plain and simple. It should be a decision between individuals and religions, not government how to define marriage. That being said I don't really think that in 2012 we should have to put people in groups and legislate rights as ALL individuals should be awarded the same rights and seen as individuals and not in groups. However that is my Libertarian utopia that obviously isn't the case.
  
  Marriage is just a word. The government or religion do not define a marriage, the people involved in the marriage do. If two gay guys get married, does that make my marriage and commitment to my wife any less valid or sacred? So gay couples will get a few tax breaks and have authority in emergency situations, Oh my god, how terrible that someone who you love and loves you gets to be by your side if you are dying or gets survivor benefits if you die or has power to make difficult life/death decisions.
  
  Also this idea that Majority of people should be able to decide rights for the minority is a slippery slope and about as anti freedom/liberty as possible.
  
  One of the few jobs of the government is to protect liberty and freedom of its people.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  jmog;1167141 wrote:I am not agreeing with belly, but your logic is flawed.
  
  It is an undeniable fact that the HIV infection percentages are MUCH higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals. We can debate the reasons/cause/effects/etc but that is a fact.

  HIV infections are higher in people that fuck everyone that moves. The Magic argument is flawed, I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that Belly was lumping everyone who has HIV/AIDS with the gays. It's just a dumb argument.
• ts1227

  

  
• tk421

  

  Pretty ironic that the group of Americans that almost all vote for Obama also are against gay marriage, by a pretty good majority.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Unlike virtually every mainstream media commentator or political talking head I don’t care about Obama embracing gay marriage.
  
  Now I know that a lot of people on the left — disappointed by his banker-friendly, PATRIOT Act-renewing, indefinite-detention-enabling, American-citizen-assassinating regime — are searching for any reason to vote for him, and plausible reason to defend his record. That’s the nature of tribal politics — “anti-war” Democrats will happily protest the Bush war machine, but they seem quiet when Obama is the one using drone strikes to assassinate American citizens without trial. I don’t like Mitt Romney either, but that’s not the point.
  
  Even for those in favour of gay marriage, let’s not forget that Obama is capable of doing absolutely zero to change the law. Want to introduce a law allowing homosexual couples to marry? Good luck getting it through the Republican Congress.
  
  I’m in favour of consenting adults being able to do whatever they like with each other, but the fact that the current push for gay marriage is supported by Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs makes me very suspicious (does he want to sell securitised gay marriage debt?).
  
  It just seems like an easy issue for Obama to posture on, while trampling the Constitution into the dirt.
  
  When it comes to civil liberties, Obama has always talked a good game, and then acted more authoritarian than Bush. He talked about an end to the abuses of the Bush years and an open and transparent government, yet extended the Fourth-Amendment-shredding Patriot Act, empowered the TSA to produce naked body scans and engage in humiliatingly sexual pat-downs, signed indefinite detention of American citizens into law, claimed and exercised the power to assassinate American citizens without trial, and aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers. Under his watch the U.S. army even produced a document planning for the reeducation of political activists in internment camps. Reeducation camps? In America? And some on the left are still crowing that talking about being in favour of gay marriage makes him &#8220ro civil liberties”? Is this a joke?

  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-obama-embraces-gay-marriage
• jmog

  Devils Advocate;1167229 wrote:Now for the rest of you self described Republican pubes, You need to stop worring about other people junk.
  
  You want the government out of your junk ( out of your religion, out of your wallet, out of your business ), but you are all in favor of the government interfering in other people junk ( civil unions, female uteruses, sexual preferenses).
  
  I cannot believe the hypocrosy of the right on marriage. From the religious standpoint, the right says that the marriage is a sacred bond in front of God, and yet they cheat, re-marry, and divorce as much or more than the athiests and agnostics. This is an irreconcilable conflict.
  
  If you are worried about the sanctity of marriage, Outlaw divorce. Outlaw second marriages. I will then believe that you are truly concerned with the morality of same sex marriage.

  Did you actually read my post 3 above this one before you posted this idiotic statement?
• Con_Alma

  ptown_trojans_1;1167313 wrote:Sure, the political pressure was on, but compared to how often Romney has changed positions, this is minor.
  On a grand scale, I do not mind if a politician changes their stance, so long as they fully explain why in an analytical manner.
  That to me is much more telling and shows flexibility, than being firm.
  Sometimes, new evidence or developments forces a candidate to change their position.

  Yes but when it comes to core convictions they are not flexible. This "flexibility" is an indication to be that his foundation of beliefs does not encompass the most basic human activity as it relates to human relationships. No matter your or my beliefs on the issue, I have an issue with something so fundamental being "flexible" in a candidate...be it Romney or Obama.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  
• Devils Advocate

  

  jmog;1167653 wrote:Did you actually read my post 3 above this one before you posted this idiotic statement?

  You mean this one?
  

  jmog;1167152 wrote:Ah, the Leviticus argument...
  
  You do realize the book of Leviticus was a historical record of the Jewish laws, not a list of devine moral statutes given by God.
  
  .

  So the Bible is also a historical record? As well as the word of God, book of moral fables, and fairytales?
  
  If you truly believed this, why not have a book That has the 10 commandments and if Christian add in the new testament for good measure. It would seem that the rest is minutia.
  
  If there was more collaboritive evidence from the old testament other than the bible, I Might be a believer as well.
  
  There is not much and I am not.
  
  And your take on gay marriage is not consistant with the conservatave diatribe at all. Congrats! You are one of the few that actually might look at other viewpoints and be tolerant of them.
  
  But your track record is still one that wants to mess around in other peoples junk.
• Devils Advocate

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1167314 wrote:That I agree with. Let the states decide how they want to swing, literally.

  If you look at this as a civil rights issue, you are patently wrong.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Y-Town Steelhound;1167727 wrote:

  Best argument on gay marriage yet. It is however missing eternal damnation.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  Devils Advocate;1167745 wrote:Best argument on gay marriage yet. It should however have a man on dog or horse line.

  #3....
• Heretic

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1167301 wrote:Man, I forgot only Gay people got AIDS.
  
  This is such a non-issue. In the grand scheme of things, it does not matter. It will not change the every day life of straight people. There will be no great cost, marriage will still go on.

  No shit. I had a co-worker Wednesday play the "hetero men are the new minority" card in response to this. The only thing I could think was "how the fuck does giving other people the same rights I have discriminate against me...fucking retard...".
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Heretic;1167906 wrote:No shit. I had a co-worker Wednesday play the "hetero men are the new minority" card in response to this. The only thing I could think was "how the fuck does giving other people the same rights I have discriminate against me...fucking retard...".

  We legalize gay marriage, kiss your ass hole good bye. It'll be the new "IN" thing, to rape internet forum moderators. Don't shoot the messenger.
• Heretic

  

  ernest_t_bass;1167908 wrote:We legalize gay marriage, kiss your ass hole good bye. It'll be the new "IN" thing, to rape internet forum moderators. Don't shoot the messenger.

  Can't rape the willing, boi!
  
  /Mantooth'd.
• jmog

  Devils Advocate;1167732 wrote:You mean this one?
  
  
  
  So the Bible is also a historical record? As well as the word of God, book of moral fables, and fairytales?
  
  If you truly believed this, why not have a book That has the 10 commandments and if Christian add in the new testament for good measure. It would seem that the rest is minutia.
  
  If there was more collaboritive evidence from the old testament other than the bible, I Might be a believer as well.
  
  There is not much and I am not.
  

  There has been other "collaboritive" evidence as to the accuracy of the historical parts of the Bible.
  
  

  
  
  
  And your take on gay marriage is not consistant with the conservatave diatribe at all. Congrats! You are one of the few that actually might look at other viewpoints and be tolerant of them.
  
  But your track record is still one that wants to mess around in other peoples junk.

  My track record? Please show me where my track record "wants to mess around in other peoples junk". I would love to see this.
• HitsRus

  

  On a grand scale, I do not mind if a politician changes their stance, so long as they fully explain why in an analytical manner.
  That to me is much more telling and shows flexibility, than being firm.
  Sometimes, new evidence or developments forces a candidate to change their position.

  +1 ...I never understood why a candiodate was 'not allowed ' to change position on an issue, without the charge of 'Flip flopper' being levied against him as a mortal sin. From a personal standpoint, my positions have evolved over the years. I don't see why a politicians views couldn't do the same thing. He owes his constituency an explanation... but that's about it. It doesn't make him less of a man or of a leader.
• Con_Alma

  HitsRus;1168432 wrote:+1 ...I never understood why a candiodate was 'not allowed ' to change position on an issue, without the charge of 'Flip flopper' being levied against him as a mortal sin. From a personal standpoint, my positions have evolved over the years. I don't see why a politicians views couldn't do the same thing. He owes his constituency an explanation... but that's about it. It doesn't make him less of a man or of a leader.

  ???
  
  He's allowed and the voters are allowed to label him a flip flopper if that's what they see. Some people don't want a candidate who evolves on certain issues but rather would have a candidate who is firm in his core convictions.
  
  Sure candidates can change but people may or may not want that type of person.
• brutus161

  

  If you try to use your religion and morals to dictate how someone else lives their life, you are neither religious or moral.
• Con_Alma

  brutus161;1168493 wrote:If you try to use your religion and morals to dictate how someone else lives their life, you are neither religious or moral.

  I don't disagree but that's not necessarily the issue here as I see it. If a candidate has a position on a social issue and it stems from his/her core convictions it would be concerning to see someone waiver on such a fundamental piece of their belief. I am not looking for them to forward it as a piece of their political agenda but if asked about it and they are waivering, it becomes an indication of softness as it relates to who they are.
  
  I don't care what the individuals belief is as much as I care that they are steadfast in it.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1168495 wrote:I don't disagree but that's not necessarily the issue here as I see it. If a candidate has a position on a social issue and it stems from his/her core convictions it would be concerning to see someone waiver on such a fundamental piece of their belief. I am not looking for them to forward it as a piece of their political agenda but if asked about it and they are waivering, it becomes an indication of softness as it relates to who they are.
  
  I don't care what the individuals belief is as much as I care that they are steadfast in it.

  You preferred George Wallace when he said, in his inaugural address for governor
  “
  I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. “
  To later in life when he said it was his biggest regret.
  
• Con_Alma

  No, I prefer a candidate that stays true to his core convictions. If that is to legalize Gay marriage then be firm and consistent with it.
  
  Did you even read the post you quoted?