PDA

View Full Version : VP Biden 'absolutely comfortable with gay marriages'



BAMAPHIN 22
05-07-2012, 10:49 AM
Gaffe-prone Vice President Joe Biden may have struck again by saying he was “absolutely comfortable” with gay marriage, a position his boss has not publicly supported. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com#ixzz1uCArIv8a

ohall
05-07-2012, 06:15 PM
Just another day of the Obama administration doing their best to not talk about the subject at hand, the economy and the national debt. It won't work. They have a track record now, and they cannot run away from it no matter how hard they try.

This is not a real issue.

phins_4_ever
05-08-2012, 06:57 PM
Just another day of the Obama administration doing their best to not talk about the subject at hand, the economy and the national debt. It won't work. They have a track record now, and they cannot run away from it no matter how hard they try.

This is not a real issue.
:confused:

Locke
05-08-2012, 07:19 PM
:confused:

No one knows man, you're not the only one...

ohall
05-08-2012, 07:36 PM
No one knows man, you're not the only one...

Partisan huh?

It's pretty easy to understand. Obama and his ADMIN have a record now. An awful one and jump at any opportunity to not discuss their failed record on issues that the majority of Americans care about. This is not a real issue.

Now I know you are a smart guy, you knew what I meant, and baiting is a rookie move. Also using the no one, or we nonsense is a bit immature and school yardish. You should be better than that.

Locke
05-08-2012, 08:08 PM
Partisan huh?

It's pretty easy to understand. Obama and his ADMIN have a record now. An awful one and jump at any opportunity to not discuss their failed record on issues that the majority of Americans care about. This is not a real issue.

Now I know you are a smart guy, you knew what I meant, and baiting is a rookie move. Also using the no one, or we nonsense is a bit immature and school yardish. You should be better than that.

:lol:

How is that partisan? You're really reaching on this one.

No one knows what you're talking about because you're jumping to your own conclusions. Of course we know what you said, we all can read and understand English. The confusion is the relevance of your post to the OP's article. Biden says something about being comfortable with gay marriages, and you jump in with this horsesh*t about them always avoiding the issues? Classic politician spinning. And you wonder why you're always accused of being partisan...?

ohall
05-08-2012, 08:27 PM
:lol:

How is that partisan? You're really reaching on this one.

No one knows what you're talking about because you're jumping to your own conclusions. Of course we know what you said, we all can read and understand English. The confusion is the relevance of your post to the OP's article. Biden says something about being comfortable with gay marriages, and you jump in with this horsesh*t about them always avoiding the issues? Classic politician spinning. And you wonder why you're always accused of being partisan...?

All my replies to you will start from now on, "Partisan, huh?" I know you knew that too, as I said I know you are a smart guy.

Again with the "we" I was un-aware you spoke for more than you and the mouse in your pocket. My point was clear, and on point from my original post. Which is why I suspect you are again showing your true partisan colors. Your demi-God is exposed, the emperor is naked. But continue to try and spin for him, and NOT focus in on the real issues that Americans care about. The economy and the national debt.

I assume you aren't actually making a case that gay rights is a major issue as far as this election goes? If not, and if you can't admit that the VP was answering the way he did, only to attempt to distract from the real issues at hand. Issues he and his running mate are a miserable failure at.

tylerdolphin
05-08-2012, 08:35 PM
All my replies to you will start from now on, "Partisan, huh?" I know you knew that too, as I said I know you are a smart guy.

Again with the "we" I was un-aware you spoke for more than you and the mouse in your pocket. My point was clear, and on point from my original post. Which is why I suspect you are again showing your true partisan colors. Your demi-God is exposed, the emperor is naked. But continue to try and spin for him, and NOT focus in on the real issues that Americans care about. The economy and the national debt.

I assume you aren't actually making a case that gay rights is a major issue as far as this election goes? If not, and if you can't admit that the VP was answering the way he did, only to attempt to distract from the real issues at hand. Issues he and his running mate are a miserable failure at.

So some reporter asks him a question, he answers with his opinion, and that means he has some grand plot?

I imagine you jump down people's throats when they answer questions about what they would like to eat when they have other bigger problems going on.

Locke
05-08-2012, 08:41 PM
All my replies to you will start from now on, "Partisan, huh?" I know you knew that too, as I said I know you are a smart guy.

Again with the "we" I was un-aware you spoke for more than you and the mouse in your pocket. My point was clear, and on point from my original post. Which is why I suspect you are again showing your true partisan colors. Your demi-God is exposed, the emperor is naked. But continue to try and spin for him, and NOT focus in on the real issues that Americans care about. The economy and the national debt.

I assume you aren't actually making a case that gay rights is a major issue as far as this election goes? If not, and if you can't admit that the VP was answering the way he did, only to attempt to distract from the real issues at hand. Issues he and his running mate are a miserable failure at.

So, your post was based on an assumption? How can you know what he was attempting to do, based on simply something you read'? So, pretty much, you are once again, surprise surprise, railing on this administration over an assumption YOU made based on something you read in an internet article. Yup, that sounds completely fair, balance, and non-partisan to me.

You can call Obama my demi-god all you want, I know that's one of the go-to moves for partisans. I'm a registered Independent. I voted Obama last election, and will probably this election as well, since I trust Romney as far as I can throw him. However, had Ron Paul won the nomination, I would have voted Republican. I have voted Republican in several elections locally, including some house seats that were open in 2008. While no one can ever be completely objective, as it is impossible not to have biases, some of us have the ability to step back and think critically. That allows us to vote for whomever we think will do the best job, not for whomever has the (D) or (R) next to their name. So, keep on doing your thing. More and more people are waking up from the 2 party dichotomy we've been force fed and are starting to see things more clearly. I can only hope you join us, sooner rather than later...

ohall
05-08-2012, 10:24 PM
So, your post was based on an assumption? How can you know what he was attempting to do, based on simply something you read'? So, pretty much, you are once again, surprise surprise, railing on this administration over an assumption YOU made based on something you read in an internet article. Yup, that sounds completely fair, balance, and non-partisan to me.

You can call Obama my demi-god all you want, I know that's one of the go-to moves for partisans. I'm a registered Independent. I voted Obama last election, and will probably this election as well, since I trust Romney as far as I can throw him. However, had Ron Paul won the nomination, I would have voted Republican. I have voted Republican in several elections locally, including some house seats that were open in 2008. While no one can ever be completely objective, as it is impossible not to have biases, some of us have the ability to step back and think critically. That allows us to vote for whomever we think will do the best job, not for whomever has the (D) or (R) next to their name. So, keep on doing your thing. More and more people are waking up from the 2 party dichotomy we've been force fed and are starting to see things more clearly. I can only hope you join us, sooner rather than later...

You really do you think you are a non-partisan don't you. Kind of scary.

As far as thinking critically, take your own advice and buy a mirror.

Tetragrammaton
05-08-2012, 10:49 PM
Regardless of North Carolina, same-sex marriage is inevitable and will probably be the norm within twenty years. I would expect that Democrats in 2016 embrace same-sex marriage, while Republicans will take the Democrats' current position of favoring civil unions. Obama will support gay marriage after the election.

JamesBW43
05-08-2012, 11:00 PM
Just another day of the Obama administration doing their best to not talk about the subject at hand, the economy and the national debt. It won't work. They have a track record now, and they cannot run away from it no matter how hard they try.

This is not a real issue.

It is a very real issue for the people who cannot visit their spouses in the hospital and enjoy the myriad of other benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy. And the government can do a lot more to fix that than it can to fix the economy.

LANGER72
05-09-2012, 09:05 PM
Looking at this from my purely objective point of view :lol:, this whole announcement was necessary because of Biden's running his mouth. Obama's handlers have decided to take a position now to appease a section of his base since the cat is out of the bag. This whole topic can be categorized as a wedge issue.
They will try to divert the attention away from the economy, unemployment, deficit, and foreign policy issues as long as they can. I think they were saving this issue for a point closer to the election, but the ship has now sailed. Just my .02

Tetragrammaton
05-09-2012, 09:23 PM
Looking at this from my purely objective point of view :lol:, this whole announcement was necessary because of Biden's running his mouth. Obama's handlers have decided to take a position now to appease a section of his base since the cat is out of the bag. This whole topic can be categorized as a wedge issue.
They will try to divert the attention away from the economy, unemployment, deficit, and foreign policy issues as long as they can. I think they were saving this issue for a point closer to the election, but the ship has now sailed. Just my .02

A "wedge issue" works both ways. If Romney admits he is okay with same-sex marriage, then there is no issue.

ohall
05-09-2012, 09:26 PM
It is a very real issue for the people who cannot visit their spouses in the hospital and enjoy the myriad of other benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy. And the government can do a lot more to fix that than it can to fix the economy.

Only the very far right would ever agree with same sex couples not having the same rights as traditional sex couples when it comes to insurance and visitation rights. However, I do not agree with the FED GOV NOT stepping on State rights issues.

This country has far more important issues to deal with than this, it's not a real issue. Shame on Obama for NOT dealing with our economy and debt every second of his Presidency. The distractor in chief at his finest.

Spesh
05-09-2012, 10:18 PM
A "wedge issue" works both ways. If Romney admits he is okay with same-sex marriage, then there is no issue.

And if Romney admitted he was okay with it, he would fracture his base. A base that he has worked desperately hard to win over.
Romney did what he was forced to do, he announced that he was against same sex marriage. He didnt really win much but he is now potentially at odds with the independent vote, which will be key for the election.

I disagree with you Langer, objectively speaking this was a good time for Obama to bring it up. I would be shocked if this announcement wasnt calculated(by that i also mean Biden's comments). This is a wedge issue and a well played one. Regardless of my personal views, i have to tip my hat to the Obama camp, this certainly isnt going to help Romney nail down a VP candidate(many of whom seem hesistant to jump on) and begin working over the independent vote.

ohall
05-10-2012, 10:07 AM
And if Romney admitted he was okay with it, he would fracture his base. A base that he has worked desperately hard to win over.
Romney did what he was forced to do, he announced that he was against same sex marriage. He didnt really win much but he is now potentially at odds with the independent vote, which will be key for the election.

I disagree with you Langer, objectively speaking this was a good time for Obama to bring it up. I would be shocked if this announcement wasnt calculated(by that i also mean Biden's comments). This is a wedge issue and a well played one. Regardless of my personal views, i have to tip my hat to the Obama camp, this certainly isnt going to help Romney nail down a VP candidate(many of whom seem hesistant to jump on) and begin working over the independent vote.

I'd agree with you if he came out and proclaimed his personal views on gay marriage had changed before the elections in NC. He's either an idiot or he is using it to distract from his failings when it comes to the main issues, the economy and the deficit.

LANGER72
05-10-2012, 11:24 AM
And if Romney admitted he was okay with it, he would fracture his base. A base that he has worked desperately hard to win over.
Romney did what he was forced to do, he announced that he was against same sex marriage. He didnt really win much but he is now potentially at odds with the independent vote, which will be key for the election.

I disagree with you Langer, objectively speaking this was a good time for Obama to bring it up. I would be shocked if this announcement wasnt calculated(by that i also mean Biden's comments). This is a wedge issue and a well played one. Regardless of my personal views, i have to tip my hat to the Obama camp, this certainly isnt going to help Romney nail down a VP candidate(many of whom seem hesistant to jump on) and begin working over the independent vote.


IMO, This issue will have no effect on which VP he chooses, since the majority of homosexuals are voting for Obama anyway. Romney will rightfully steer away from this social issue. The less he speaks about it, the better it will be for him. The talking points will always be the economy, deficit, job growth, lowering taxes, repealing the Obama care, corruption, bowing to Muslims, mixed signals, missed opportunities, and bungled foreign policy, and just the concept of are you doing better now than 4 years ago.For most Americans, those are the issues. If you are receiving assistance or a paycheck from the government, obviously those talking points are not important..it will be the social issues..because everything else is hunky dory.
Obama, on the other hand, will use this "wedge" to try to divide the conservative and independents who are leaning conservative.
Frankly, this whole thing is just partisan political Threatre. It changes nothing regarding states laws. It changes nothing among likely voters who have defeated this issue(gay marriage) time and time again, only to have it reversed in the court system.
Obama is running out of tools in his tool box. I think he played this one 2 months to early.

Spesh
05-10-2012, 12:21 PM
IMO, This issue will have no effect on which VP he chooses, since the majority of homosexuals are voting for Obama anyway. Romney will rightfully steer away from this social issue. The less he speaks about it, the better it will be for him. The talking points will always be the economy, deficit, job growth, lowering taxes, repealing the Obama care, corruption, bowing to Muslims, mixed signals, missed opportunities, and bungled foreign policy, and just the concept of are you doing better now than 4 years ago.For most Americans, those are the issues. If you are receiving assistance or a paycheck from the government, obviously those talking points are not important..it will be the social issues..because everything else is hunky dory.
Obama, on the other hand, will use this "wedge" to try to divide the conservative and independents who are leaning conservative.
Frankly, this whole thing is just partisan political Threatre. It changes nothing regarding states laws. It changes nothing among likely voters who have defeated this issue(gay marriage) time and time again, only to have it reversed in the court system.
Obama is running out of tools in his tool box. I think he played this one 2 months to early.

So far, thats been Romney's goal. Unfortunately others have been dragging him back into it.
I dont think anyone disagree's that this election should be about economics and "real" issues. Obama saying he supports gay marriage is fairly irrelevant, especially since he quickly followed it with "but it should be up to the states"(meaning, nothing will change). That said, things such as economic recovery and foreign policy are muddier. They are not as easily defined. Things such as "missed chances" are hypothetical situations that candidates promise they would have handled better yet the public has no way of knowing for certain.

This is a clear cut black and white issue. As it also involves the "morality of our country" people will love debating it. Obama stands on one side, Romney on the other. This is a distraction but a good one for the presidents camp to use. No one can really argue against this election being decided by the independent vote. While gay marriage have been voted down previously, gay rights are a subject that is becoming increasingly popular, especially to independents.
While Obama plays to the popularity of the independent and young vote, Romney has to double back just to convince his base that "hey, no really, im still conservative". Romney had a difficult time keeping the focus on the economy in his own party. Conservatives readily admit that Romney was the best chance to fix the economy for their party, but social conservatives still gave Romney alot of trouble.

Again, people agree that the things we need to be discussing are not being talked about. Romney wants to debate them. Yet, instead he is forced time and again to come back to social issues. And he was just dragged back into it again at a time when he should have locked up his party base and moved on to being as likeable to the middle crowd as he can. The situation is what it is.

jared81
05-10-2012, 03:21 PM
this is just politics at its worse. i think it is down right retarded that people in the media have said obamas position has "evolved". what the hell does that even mean. it has "evolved" because 50% of the population wants it, and even a higher percentage of his base. this is purely political. once again, another politician playing games with peoples rights. i have no repect for almost every politician.

Dolphins9954
05-10-2012, 06:39 PM
Another election about gays and abortion. The classic wedge issues that keep on giving and feeding the illusion of choice.

Dolphins9954
05-10-2012, 06:49 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/watchthegaypeople-1.jpg

Tetragrammaton
05-10-2012, 07:00 PM
Another election about gays and abortion. The classic wedge issues that keep on giving and feeding the illusion of choice.

Should Obama have continued to be wrong and favor discrimination to keep everything even?

Dolphins9954
05-10-2012, 07:04 PM
Should Obama have continued to be wrong and favor discrimination to keep everything even?

The government shouldn't have any say so when it comes to marriage. Obama is only doing what he does best. Use the typical wedge issues to hide the fact that he's a horrible president especially when it comes to liberty. All the Dems will kiss Obama's a$$ like he's some kind of defender of liberty. But the fact remains he's just as dangerous and a threat to our freedom as Bush and Romney.

jared81
05-10-2012, 07:13 PM
Should Obama have continued to be wrong and favor discrimination to keep everything even?

Maybe he should of been honest all along that he supported gay marriage. Instead of crapping on gay people to win the black and conservative swing state vote. It's sad, if you buy into obamas new found ideals, you will buy into anything he says.

WSE
05-10-2012, 08:22 PM
Only the very far right would ever agree with same sex couples not having the same rights as traditional sex couples when it comes to insurance and visitation rights. However, I do not agree with the FED GOV NOT stepping on State rights issues.

This country has far more important issues to deal with than this, it's not a real issue. Shame on Obama for NOT dealing with our economy and debt every second of his Presidency. The distractor in chief at his finest.

calling it a states rights issue when the Republicans passed DOMA is hilariously incorrect, but not astonishing coming from a party parrot.

It is a wedge issue, but one both sides have been using for years. Its far from only one the Democrats are using. It has been this way since Reagan used born agains to rebuild the Republican base.

WSE
05-10-2012, 08:27 PM
and even though it is a wedge issue, its a good one imo. Its the easiest way to demonstrate Republicans are insincere with their "small government" mantra.

CedarPhin
05-10-2012, 09:11 PM
GOP made it a pretty big wedge issue in 2004 IIRC.

---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------


Only the very far right would ever agree with same sex couples not having the same rights as traditional sex couples when it comes to insurance and visitation rights. However, I do not agree with the FED GOV NOT stepping on State rights issues.

This country has far more important issues to deal with than this, it's not a real issue. Shame on Obama for NOT dealing with our economy and debt every second of his Presidency. The distractor in chief at his finest.

So you really are for big gov't trampling all over the states then? Cool.

ohall
05-10-2012, 10:00 PM
GOP made it a pretty big wedge issue in 2004 IIRC.

---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------



So you really are for big gov't trampling all over the states then? Cool.

No I put in one too many negatives (not's) in that sentence. I do not agree with the FED GOV stepping on state rights.

ohall
05-10-2012, 10:09 PM
calling it a states rights issue when the Republicans passed DOMA is hilariously incorrect, but not astonishing coming from a party parrot.

It is a wedge issue, but one both sides have been using for years. Its far from only one the Democrats are using. It has been this way since Reagan used born agains to rebuild the Republican base.

Fight fire with fire. They didn't start that fire friend. And yes it is a wedge issue. One designed to shield Obama and his failed Presidency. The funny thing is, Obama's actions this past week may in fact lose him NC and a few other states.

This past week IMO was a coordinated distraction. Obama, the DEM PP and his thousands of press secretaries, also known as the mainstream media were exposed with 0% doubt they are scared of Obama's record as President.

Starting with Biden's answer, to Obama coming out a few days later declaring his long known opinion on gay rights and to the Washington Post going after Romney this morning with their attack piece.

Parrot huh? Thx, anyone that seems to be as blind as you appear to be, it's a compliment.

---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------


and even though it is a wedge issue, its a good one imo. Its the easiest way to demonstrate Republicans are insincere with their "small government" mantra.

Only if your head is stuck in the ground.

phins_4_ever
05-10-2012, 10:53 PM
My frigging goodness. Here is a President who tackles an issue which would end a form of discrimination and a huge step forward into this century and people are discussing if he did it at the wrong time and if he did it to gain political points.
If anything, any admission of any sitting President or 'want-to-be' President that he would not stand in the way of gay marriage usually signed his presidential death warrant. This admission is everything BUT an attempt to score political points. The economy could be at an all time high, unemployment at an all time low, no national debt, balanced budget - it is still usually a death warrant for a Presidency.

Americans are infatuated with instilling their morals onto others and this will always have priority over anything else.

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 PM ----------


Fight fire with fire. They didn't start that fire friend. And yes it is a wedge issue. One designed to shield Obama and his failed Presidency. The funny thing is, Obama's actions this past week may in fact lose him NC and a few other states.

This past week IMO was a coordinated distraction. Obama, the DEM PP and his thousands of press secretaries, also known as the mainstream media were exposed with 0% doubt they are scared of Obama's record as President.

Starting with Biden's answer, to Obama coming out a few days later declaring his long known opinion on gay rights and to the Washington Post going after Romney this morning with their attack piece.

Parrot huh? Thx, anyone that seems to be as blind as you appear to be, it's a compliment.

---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------



Only if your head is stuck in the ground.

Psst. The black helicopters are coming for you. :lol:

phins_4_ever
05-10-2012, 10:56 PM
The government shouldn't have any say so when it comes to marriage. Obama is only doing what he does best. Use the typical wedge issues to hide the fact that he's a horrible president especially when it comes to liberty. All the Dems will kiss Obama's a$$ like he's some kind of defender of liberty. But the fact remains he's just as dangerous and a threat to our freedom as Bush and Romney.

So it would be OK for you if there are no laws from protecting children to be put into arranged marriages with 50 year old pedophiles.

Dolphins9954
05-10-2012, 11:13 PM
So it would be OK for you if there are no laws from protecting children to be put into arranged marriages with 50 year old pedophiles.


Talk about totally manipulating what I'm saying. Yeah like I would support child rape. What a f'in stretch.

phins_4_ever
05-10-2012, 11:19 PM
Talk about totally manipulating what I'm saying. Yeah like I would support child rape. What a f'in stretch.



It wasn't a stretch. Your exact words were "any say".

But what about the personal liberty of a pedophile to go and choose a child bride? So personal liberty is not liberty for all?

Dolphins9954
05-10-2012, 11:26 PM
It wasn't a stretch. Your exact words were "any say".

But what about the personal liberty of a pedophile to go and choose a child bride? So personal liberty is not liberty for all?

You're comparing an act of marriage to child FREAKING RAPE and you don't see the stretch? To say that my argument is supporting pedophiles raping children is a clear manipulation and deceitful way to debate my point. Something I'm not surprised with coming for you.

Tetragrammaton
05-10-2012, 11:28 PM
Maybe he should of been honest all along that he supported gay marriage. Instead of crapping on gay people to win the black and conservative swing state vote. It's sad, if you buy into obamas new found ideals, you will buy into anything he says.

So Obama was wrong, but Romney still is. I give points for correctness.

WSE
05-10-2012, 11:51 PM
Fight fire with fire. They didn't start that fire friend. And yes it is a wedge issue. One designed to shield Obama and his failed Presidency. The funny thing is, Obama's actions this past week may in fact lose him NC and a few other states.

This past week IMO was a coordinated distraction. Obama, the DEM PP and his thousands of press secretaries, also known as the mainstream media were exposed with 0% doubt they are scared of Obama's record as President.

Starting with Biden's answer, to Obama coming out a few days later declaring his long known opinion on gay rights and to the Washington Post going after Romney this morning with their attack piece.

Parrot huh? Thx, anyone that seems to be as blind as you appear to be, it's a compliment.

---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------



Only if your head is stuck in the ground.


Republicans passed DOMA. DOMA says it does not matter what states do, the Federal government defines marriage as ____ and federal benefits will be rewarded as such.

If you call that states rights and small government, go for it. Its a joke. And yes, Republicans use these wedge issues to their advantage as much as Democrats do. But hey, put those blinders on and move forward!

Tetragrammaton
05-10-2012, 11:57 PM
The government shouldn't have any say so when it comes to marriage.

But it does and always will be. That is the same thing Ron Paul says, and it is avoiding the issue. Legalizing same-sex marriage would be closer to the government not having a say in one's marriage.

---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 PM ----------

Do we really need to peddle in the child rape stuff? Carlos never implied, or ever has implied, anything like that. You are making Santorum-like stretches, phins_4_ever.

ohall
05-11-2012, 05:10 AM
Republicans passed DOMA. DOMA says it does not matter what states do, the Federal government defines marriage as ____ and federal benefits will be rewarded as such.

If you call that states rights and small government, go for it. Its a joke. And yes, Republicans use these wedge issues to their advantage as much as Democrats do. But hey, put those blinders on and move forward!

Who said they don't, or even implied it?

And as I said about DOMA, that is not a fire the REP's started. I may not agree with their tact, but I do understand it.

---------- Post added at 05:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 AM ----------


So Obama was wrong, but Romney still is. I give points for correctness.

Actually Obama is trying to play both sides still. He says his personal feelings are for gay rights, but he thinks politically it's a state rights issue.

Tetragrammaton
05-11-2012, 08:36 AM
Actually Obama is trying to play both sides still. He says his personal feelings are for gay rights, but he thinks politically it's a state rights issue.

Marriage has pretty much always been in the hands of the states. Romney is the one that wants a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage.

jared81
05-11-2012, 09:44 AM
So Obama was wrong, but Romney still is. I give points for correctness.

you dont get it. they are both wrong. because the only reason these two do anything is for their own political interest. obama is only doing this to gain favor with his base, while romney is doing for the crazy right. it would be like your girlfriend telling you she loves you, but she is out banging 10 dudes behind your back. just because she tells you she loves you doesnt make up for the fact that you now have herpies.

Tetragrammaton
05-11-2012, 10:17 AM
you dont get it. they are both wrong. because the only reason these two do anything is for their own political interest. obama is only doing this to gain favor with his base, while romney is doing for the crazy right. it would be like your girlfriend telling you she loves you, but she is out banging 10 dudes behind your back. just because she tells you she loves you doesnt make up for the fact that you now have herpies.

You don't get it. Obama supporting same-sex marriage hastens the time in which it will take for it to be legal in all fifty states by making it the platform of the Democratic Party. Whether or not he is doing it for his base is secondary to human rights.

SkapePhin
05-11-2012, 02:26 PM
you dont get it. they are both wrong. because the only reason these two do anything is for their own political interest. obama is only doing this to gain favor with his base, while romney is doing for the crazy right. it would be like your girlfriend telling you she loves you, but she is out banging 10 dudes behind your back. just because she tells you she loves you doesnt make up for the fact that you now have herpies.

I actually think Obama was ambivalent about same-sex marriage before because of political reasons, not the other way around. If he supported gay marriage in 2008, he would have lost the general election, the same reason Bush won the election in 2004 when the gay marriage initiative made the ballots. For whatever reason, many people in the US feel strongly against this issue. It is not a politically advantageous move to support same-sex marriage right now, but I feel it is absolutely the right thing to do.

SkapePhin
05-11-2012, 02:31 PM
Marriage has pretty much always been in the hands of the states. Romney is the one that wants a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage.

I always find it funny when conservatives trample over their core principles (less big government) over social issues that don't even concern them... A true conservative should take Obama's stance on this issue.

ohall
05-11-2012, 04:43 PM
Marriage has pretty much always been in the hands of the states. Romney is the one that wants a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Super, still doesn't change the fact Obama is playing both sides.

He personally agrees with gay rights, but wants to leave it with the states. Are you saying Obama is not playing both sides?

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------


you dont get it. they are both wrong. because the only reason these two do anything is for their own political interest. obama is only doing this to gain favor with his base, while romney is doing for the crazy right. it would be like your girlfriend telling you she loves you, but she is out banging 10 dudes behind your back. just because she tells you she loves you doesnt make up for the fact that you now have herpies.

So if you believe in the traditional view of gays and marriage you are now a far right crazy? Aren't LIB's or IND's supposed to be tolerant ppl?

SkapePhin
05-11-2012, 04:49 PM
Super, still doesn't change the fact Obama is playing both sides.

He personally agrees with gay rights, but wants to leave it with the states. Are you saying Obama is not playing both sides?

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------



So if you believe in the traditional view of gays and marriage you are now a far right crazy? Aren't LIB's or IND's supposed to be tolerant ppl?

What is a "traditional view of gays"?

And I would say its generally not a good practice to be tolerant of intolerance... If that were the case, a good portion of our population would still need to use their own "separate but equal" bathrooms.

Tetragrammaton
05-11-2012, 05:30 PM
Super, still doesn't change the fact Obama is playing both sides.

He personally agrees with gay rights, but wants to leave it with the states. Are you saying Obama is not playing both sides?

Believing in states' rights and being pro-gay marriage are not mutually exclusive positions, unless you are interested in making divisions less gray and more black and white.

ohall
05-11-2012, 05:38 PM
What is a "traditional view of gays"?

And I would say its generally not a good practice to be tolerant of intolerance... If that were the case, a good portion of our population would still need to use their own "separate but equal" bathrooms.

Meaning same sex couples are not viewed as an acceptable union in the eyes of the traditional churches.

Personally I don't really care, I just do not agree with the word married or marriage being used.

As far as tolerance, that's in the eye of the beholder. I think it's intolerant for gays to shove their views on marriage on to me. Call it w/e you like, just not marriage/married.

ohall
05-11-2012, 05:41 PM
Believing in states' rights and being pro-gay marriage are not mutually exclusive positions, unless you are interested in making divisions less gray and more black and white.

I think putting it on a ballet and letting each state decide is the best the best way to go.

Tetragrammaton
05-11-2012, 05:49 PM
I think putting it on a ballet and letting each state decide is the best the best way to go.

We have seen that the majority is willing to trample on civil rights in every same sex marriage ballot initiative. Other options are needed.

SkapePhin
05-11-2012, 05:49 PM
Meaning same sex couples are not viewed as an acceptable union in the eyes of the traditional churches.

Personally I don't really care, I just do not agree with the word married or marriage being used.

As far as tolerance, that's in the eye of the beholder. I think it's intolerant for gays to shove their views on marriage on to me. Call it w/e you like, just not marriage/married.

But the issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with a church's view of marriage. The rights being sought here are in the eyes of the law, not church. I have yet to see anyone argue that churches must be forced to marry two same-sex people.

"Marriage" is not reserved for the religious. Its an institution that predates most current religions. In fact, it seems like it mostly began as a way for famillies to exchange property.

Why are people so concerned with the word "marriage". If people are so concerned with the "sanctity" of marriage, from a religious standpoint, why aren't they also trying to put laws on the books to ban divorce? That would seem to be a greater threat to the institution of marriage.

ohall
05-11-2012, 06:23 PM
But the issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with a church's view of marriage. The rights being sought here are in the eyes of the law, not church. I have yet to see anyone argue that churches must be forced to marry two same-sex people.

"Marriage" is not reserved for the religious. Its an institution that predates most current religions. In fact, it seems like it mostly began as a way for famillies to exchange property.

Why are people so concerned with the word "marriage". If people are so concerned with the "sanctity" of marriage, from a religious standpoint, why aren't they also trying to put laws on the books to ban divorce? That would seem to be a greater threat to the institution of marriage.

In my view it is not. I do not know anyone that does not think gay couples should not have every right a traditional couple should have.

I am concerned with a word, because traditional view points are under attack, and have been for decades. And more to the point, same sex unions are not the same as opposite sex unions. I would hope the differences are self evident. Let the same sex movement give a little here, find a different word or phrase. After all, ppl who want tolerance, should try and be a little tolerant.

SkapePhin
05-11-2012, 06:31 PM
In my view it is not. I do not know anyone that does not think gay couples should not have every right a traditional couple should have.

I am concerned with a word, because traditional view points are under attack, and have been for decades. And more to the point, same sex unions are not the same as opposite sex unions. I would hope the differences are self evident. Let the same sex movement give a little here, find a different word or phrase. After all, ppl who want tolerance, should try and be a little tolerant.

So this entire fuss about gay marriage is a matter of semantics?

SkapePhin
05-11-2012, 06:33 PM
Ohall, would you support initiatives to ban divorce?

Tetragrammaton
05-11-2012, 06:41 PM
After all, ppl who want tolerance, should try and be a little tolerant.

It isn't up to them to make you feel better about who can use the word marriage. No one should have to suffer because you don't like something.

ohall
05-11-2012, 07:15 PM
We have seen that the majority is willing to trample on civil rights in every same sex marriage ballot initiative. Other options are needed.

It is not a civil right to use the word marriage. Only the very far right want to keep gays civil rights away from them. I know I would not vote to keep any civil union rights from same sex couples. That's just wrong.

SkapePhin
05-11-2012, 07:18 PM
It is not a civil right to use the word marriage. Only the very far right want to keep gays civil rights away from them. I know I would not vote to keep any civil union rights from same sex couples. That's just wrong.

This seems like spin to me... Really? All this fuss about a word?

So, you would be OK with a committed same-sex couple having a wedding ceremony as well? And having all the same rights as married couples, as long as they don't say they are married?

tylerdolphin
05-11-2012, 07:25 PM
As far as tolerance, that's in the eye of the beholder. I think it's intolerant for gays to shove their views on marriage on to me. Call it w/e you like, just not marriage/married.

I think its very intolerant that minorities shove their views on equality down my throat. Shouldnt they be tolerant and let the world continue on according to my personal world view that imposes on their rights?

As far as your comment about forcing churches to accept gay marriage, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort.

tylerdolphin
05-11-2012, 07:28 PM
I just think its funny that ohall thinks tolerance consists of being cool with inequality and saying nothing. Pretty sure MLK would have fell into the intolerant category as defined by ohall.

phins_4_ever
05-11-2012, 09:50 PM
You're comparing an act of marriage to child FREAKING RAPE and you don't see the stretch? To say that my argument is supporting pedophiles raping children is a clear manipulation and deceitful way to debate my point. Something I'm not surprised with coming for you.

OK. Let's get to the bottom of this.
I suggest you start reading and comprehending because you are putting words in my mouth/at my fingertips.

I did not say 'sexual encounter' thus rape is not even part of my example. I responded to the simple act of marriage and that your 'any say' would/should include minors. In our country our laws disallow a 50 year old man to get married to a 14 year old. Even if they don't have sex until she is 18 (there goes your rape argument).

Your opinion that government shouldn't have any say when it comes to marriage would actually include that example.

I am simply showing flaws in the logic of Mr Paul and his followers (you) that we should not have any government in our lives and everything should be done based on personal choice.

Now discuss the subject (marriage) and stop making stuff up.

PS I could have added that you made an argument which would fail in the real world (like so many of your arguments you made before) and realizing that, you just made crap up but that's something I'm not surprised coming from you.

Tetragrammaton
05-11-2012, 10:06 PM
There was a good article in The Week about the issue and Obama's endorsement. For everyone thinking it might hurt him politically, I thought this summed it up.


Well, then, what about North Carolina, which just passed an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment? The implicit assumption is obvious, simple, and wrong. Here is the bottom line: In any swing state, voters for whom animus to marriage equality is the single, burning issue aren't casting a ballot for Obama anyway. If you are so intent on discriminating against gay Americans that this issue alone determines your presidential choice then you are almost certainly uncomfortable with an African-American in the White House.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/227887/obamas-gay-marriage-endorsement-is-a-moral-and-political-win

WSE
05-12-2012, 12:40 AM
It is not a civil right to use the word marriage. Only the very far right want to keep gays civil rights away from them. I know I would not vote to keep any civil union rights from same sex couples. That's just wrong.

well, NC just did that.....I am looking for your posts expressing outrage, but cant find them for some reason

phins_4_ever
05-12-2012, 04:23 PM
This seems like spin to me... Really? All this fuss about a word?

So, you would be OK with a committed same-sex couple having a wedding ceremony as well? And having all the same rights as married couples, as long as they don't say they are married?

Little does Ohall know that the word 'marriage' is a legal term and social term rather than a biblical term. It was derived from 1297, from the Old French mariage (12c.) and from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum, from Latin maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage".

Religious people love to claim credit but nowhere can be found the word 'marriage' in a true translation of the Bible.

The concept of marriage was well defined in the Bible but the word 'marriage' is not.

ohall
05-12-2012, 11:51 PM
well, NC just did that.....I am looking for your posts expressing outrage, but cant find them for some reason

Out rage over what? It's a non-issue to me. I care about the economy and the debt.

---------- Post added at 11:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 PM ----------


Little does Ohall know that the word 'marriage' is a legal term and social term rather than a biblical term. It was derived from 1297, from the Old French mariage (12c.) and from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum, from Latin maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage".

Religious people love to claim credit but nowhere can be found the word 'marriage' in a true translation of the Bible.

The concept of marriage was well defined in the Bible but the word 'marriage' is not.

Damn all this time I had no idea the Bible was a legal document. The things you learn here!

ohall
05-12-2012, 11:55 PM
I just think its funny that ohall thinks tolerance consists of being cool with inequality and saying nothing. Pretty sure MLK would have fell into the intolerant category as defined by ohall.

People asking for tolerance should be tolerant. Ya, sorry, I'm such a monster.

Only the far right are calling for any rights for gays to be ignored. This is not comparable to blacks and their civil rights. That's an apples to oranges argument.

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 PM ----------


I think its very intolerant that minorities shove their views on equality down my throat. Shouldnt they be tolerant and let the world continue on according to my personal world view that imposes on their rights?

As far as your comment about forcing churches to accept gay marriage, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort.

They most certainly are.

ohall
05-12-2012, 11:58 PM
This seems like spin to me... Really? All this fuss about a word?

So, you would be OK with a committed same-sex couple having a wedding ceremony as well? And having all the same rights as married couples, as long as they don't say they are married?

To me, that is my only issue. People have a right to be happy, and live their lives. Leave my traditions alone and all is cool with me.

Tetragrammaton
05-13-2012, 12:09 AM
Ohall, where are these state governments forcing churches to marry same-sex couples?

tylerdolphin
05-13-2012, 04:34 AM
People asking for tolerance should be tolerant. Ya, sorry, I'm such a monster.

Only the far right are calling for any rights for gays to be ignored. This is not comparable to blacks and their civil rights. That's an apples to oranges argument.

No, its not. By opposing gay marriage, you are advocating a position that inherently classifies gays as less than straight people. And asking for tolerance does not include watching intolerance idly, no matter how much you want to think so.

---------- Post added at 04:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 AM ----------


They most certainly are.

lol. What kind of delusional reality do you live in?

phins_4_ever
05-13-2012, 08:52 AM
Out rage over what? It's a non-issue to me. I care about the economy and the debt.

---------- Post added at 11:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 PM ----------



Damn all this time I had no idea the Bible was a legal document. The things you learn here!
And another one bites the dust of comprehension. Where did I say that the Bible is a legal document?

Vaark
05-13-2012, 09:52 AM
This is quite the polarizing forum.. so i thought I'd weigh in and make more enemies LOL.

I disdain the partisan mechanics of both parties, especially the extremes of them, and how rarely the best most qualified candidates are left standing to choose between. (I'm particularly bitter this year because Huntsman didn't stand a chance). The key for me though is that despite lip service, they both boil down to spend and waste! After all, actions speak louder than words. So given the similarity despite the difference in superficial packaging, for me the it's those holy rollers looking to legally foist their values legislatively using one party as a vehicle that seems to be the key in determining which party I despise more. While the hypocritical limo libs may seek to loosen policy to facilitate more freedom of choices all around, their so called radicaliism, unlike the other side, those unpopular policies generally do not entail forcing legal compliance of their values on the general public. That's why I detest the heavy-headed instrusiveness of the radical right which looks to legislate their biblical based morality, often hypocritically, on the general public whether they want it or not. The irony is that this country was founded on the tenet of religious freedom, the separation of church and state, with the majority of the framers of the Declaration of Independence being, like me, spiritual Deists.

While I don't care for Obama, by the same token I don't care for someone who flip flops on positions, sometimes radically, to pander to whomever will vote for him, spiritually believes in magic underwear and has built his economic "credibility" on the blood-letting of acquired companies strictly to maximize profitability.

Bottom-line, anyone who identifies with Sharpton or Rev Wright is anethema to me, but considering they're onerous lobbyists, and not law makers, not quite so much as anyone who identifies with or prefers jingoistic bimbas attending 4 colleges before finding one that would graduate her, who quit on the easiest governorship in the country after being elected with less of a plurality than, say, the mayor of Cleveland, after being mayor of a town of 8000 and who likely wouldn't score too much higher than Vince Young on a Wonderlic. So as disappointed as I am with Obama and the deep economic hole he's digging , there are worse choices, as we've actually recently elected who did more than their fair share in excavating that hole to begin with while acting as Saudi toadies, spilling citizens' blood for the purpose of eliminating uncontrollable wild card oil competition for them, lining their corporate associates pockets, and spitefully outing covert CIA operatives and their operations because husbands called out the bull**** of uranium tubes as justification to invade.

Sorry, but anyone who defends our past regime or prefers candidates like Bachmann or Glen Rice's former semen spittoon loses even more credibility with me

Gonzo
05-13-2012, 10:42 AM
They most certainly are.
No, they aren't, just like they can't force a Catholic church to marry non-Catholics. Separation of church and state, as it should be.

Dolphins9954
05-13-2012, 11:34 AM
If the government wants to be involved in marriage then IMO it must adhere to the equal protection clause of the constitution. If they don't then they are violating the constitution. Which is the norm these days. IMO the government shouldn't be involved in marriage and that doesn't mean I support child rape either. The markets should decide this and not the government. Churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay people if they don't want. While other religious organizations and secular ones will provide marriage services to those who are gay or straight. The government's role should only be for legal things like taxes and divorce.

Locke
05-13-2012, 11:35 AM
This is quite the polarizing forum.. so i thought I'd weigh in and make more enemies LOL.

I disdain the partisan mechanics of both parties, especially the extremes of them, and how rarely the best most qualified candidates are left standing to choose between. (I'm particularly bitter this year because Huntsman didn't stand a chance). The key for me though is that despite lip service, they both boil down to spend and waste! After all, actions speak louder than words. So given the similarity despite the difference in superficial packaging, for me the it's those holy rollers looking to legally foist their values legislatively using one party as a vehicle that seems to be the key in determining which party I despise more. While the hypocritical limo libs may seek to loosen policy to facilitate more freedom of choices all around, their so called radicaliism, unlike the other side, those unpopular policies generally do not entail forcing legal compliance of their values on the general public. That's why I detest the heavy-headed instrusiveness of the radical right which looks to legislate their biblical based morality, often hypocritically, on the general public whether they want it or not. The irony is that this country was founded on the tenet of religious freedom, the separation of church and state, with the majority of the framers of the Declaration of Independence being, like me, spiritual Deists.

While I don't care for Obama, by the same token I don't care for someone who flip flops on positions, sometimes radically, to pander to whomever will vote for him, spiritually believes in magic underwear and has built his economic "credibility" on the blood-letting of acquired companies strictly to maximize profitability.

Bottom-line, anyone who identifies with Sharpton or Rev Wright is anethema to me, but considering they're onerous lobbyists, and not law makers, not quite so much as anyone who identifies with or prefers jingoistic bimbas attending 4 colleges before finding one that would graduate her, who quit on the easiest governorship in the country after being elected with less of a plurality than, say, the mayor of Cleveland, after being mayor of a town of 8000 and who likely wouldn't score too much higher than Vince Young on a Wonderlic. So as disappointed as I am with Obama and the deep economic hole he's digging , there are worse choices, as we've actually recently elected who did more than their fair share in excavating that hole to begin with while acting as Saudi toadies, spilling citizens' blood for the purpose of eliminating uncontrollable wild card oil competition for them, lining their corporate associates pockets, and spitefully outing covert CIA operatives and their operations because husbands called out the bull**** of uranium tubes as justification to invade.

Sorry, but anyone who defends our past regime or prefers candidates like Bachmann or Glen Rice's former semen spittoon loses even more credibility with me

This post just got you a beer, if I'm ever in the hometown of Vaark. This is exactly why I've been saying I'm voting for Obama again. Fiscally, there isn't going to be much of a difference between the candidates. Anyone who says otherwise is either partisan or is deluding themselves. That mean's it's going to come down to the social issues, and you can believe the Obama administration already knows that. Coming out and saying they support gay marriage is THE biggest social issue right now, and they dove in head first...

Dolphins9954
05-13-2012, 11:39 AM
This post just got you a beer, if I'm ever in the hometown of Vaark. This is exactly why I've been saying I'm voting for Obama again. Fiscally, there isn't going to be much of a difference between the candidates. Anyone who says otherwise is either partisan or is deluding themselves. That mean's it's going to come down to the social issues, and you can believe the Obama administration already knows that. Coming out and saying they support gay marriage is THE biggest social issue right now, and they dove in head first...

Now if we can only get Obama to "change" his mind on things like the Patriot Act, Torture, NDAA, Indefinite Detention, Suspension of Habaes Corpus, Assassinations of Americans without due process, Due Process, Making it a felony to protest around Obama, Free Speech Zones, Transparency and Open Government, War- Mongering, War on Drugs................

Locke
05-13-2012, 11:45 AM
Now if we can only get Obama to "change" his mind on things like the Patriot Act, Torture, NDAA, Indefinite Detention, Suspension of Habaes Corpus, Assassinations of Americans without due process, Due Process, Making it a felony to protest around Obama, Free Speech Zones, Transparency and Open Government, War- Mongering, War on Drugs................

I agree. However, those things would also still be said about Romney if he wins the election. So really, we have to focus on how the candidates are going to be different. Really, the biggest and most significant way are social issues. It would be nice to have a truly unique candidate come in and make some sweeping changes, but that doesn't seem possible for the foreseeable future....

Dolphins9954
05-13-2012, 11:52 AM
I agree. However, those things would also still be said about Romney if he wins the election. So really, we have to focus on how the candidates are going to be different. Really, the biggest and most significant way are social issues. It would be nice to have a truly unique candidate come in and make some sweeping changes, but that doesn't seem possible for the foreseeable future....

It's like picking between 2 terd bowls but hey this one has a cherry on top. South Park has it right......


D5gXRPXs0PQ

Dogbone34
05-13-2012, 01:54 PM
social issues don't pay the bills

ask california

Locke
05-13-2012, 02:22 PM
social issues don't pay the bills

ask california

Social issues are the only differences between the 2 candidates. If you think they will be any different on their foreign policy or their fiscal plan, I don't know what to tell you...

Dogbone34
05-13-2012, 05:03 PM
Social issues are the only differences between the 2 candidates. If you think they will be any different on their foreign policy or their fiscal plan, I don't know what to tell you...

True the MIC will call the shots for both.
One candidate would walk in lock step economically with the california leadership/majority, the other not so much. Its not a good model to follow for job growth.

Vaark
05-14-2012, 10:48 AM
I agree. However, those things would also still be said about Romney if he wins the election. So really, we have to focus on how the candidates are going to be different. Really, the biggest and most significant way are social issues. It would be nice to have a truly unique candidate come in and make some sweeping changes, but that doesn't seem possible for the foreseeable future....

Really, when it comes to being a vote-pandering whore, Bumpus has nothing on this guy.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/mittromney_prideflier-1.jpg

Locke
05-14-2012, 11:08 AM
Really, when it comes to being a vote-pandering whore, Bumpus has nothing on this guy.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/mittromney_prideflier-1.jpg

:lol:

Simply fantastic...

Eli_Manning
05-14-2012, 12:14 PM
it's impossible to be an atheist and support homosexual marriage

SkapePhin
05-14-2012, 12:32 PM
it's impossible to be an atheist and support homosexual marriage

???

NY8123
05-14-2012, 01:45 PM
I honestly could give a **** who marries who. It really doesn't matter to me there are two things with gay marriage that are true, 1) you have to think it through before bring children into the world, you cannot just spit them out of the sake of the support check and 2) if you let gays marry it helps the cost of the medical burden on the US by providing an avenue for coverage. It is ridiculous that in this day in age that we as American's cannot cover domestic partners on health care coverage regardless of same sex marriages or not, domestic partners should be allowed coverage if one person has health coverage and the other doesn't.

Spesh
05-14-2012, 03:20 PM
Really, when it comes to being a vote-pandering whore, Bumpus has nothing on this guy.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/mittromney_prideflier-1.jpg

Vaark, with every post i love you alittle more. I have no idea how i missed this flyer, but i only have one word for it:

Outstanding.

Tetragrammaton
05-14-2012, 04:10 PM
it's impossible to be an atheist and support homosexual marriage

So am I lying about being an atheist or lying about supporting same-sex marriage?

Locke
05-14-2012, 09:47 PM
So am I lying about being an atheist or lying about supporting same-sex marriage?

I'm more interested in his reasoning behind that statement personally...

tylerdolphin
05-14-2012, 10:19 PM
I'm more interested in his reasoning behind that statement personally...

Im interested in the fact that youre expecting a logical reasoning personally.

JamesBW43
05-14-2012, 10:48 PM
Only the very far right would ever agree with same sex couples not having the same rights as traditional sex couples when it comes to insurance and visitation rights. However, I do not agree with the FED GOV NOT stepping on State rights issues.

This country has far more important issues to deal with than this, it's not a real issue. Shame on Obama for NOT dealing with our economy and debt every second of his Presidency. The distractor in chief at his finest.

You would think, but I haven't heard of any actions being taken to do something about it. In fact NC just went in the opposite direction.

In regards to states rights, the states don't have the right to discriminate, so I disagree entirely that this is even a states rights issue at all.

Also, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. This notion that talking about one issue means we can't talk about another, or that it somehow takes away from governing is just silly imo.

SkapePhin
05-17-2012, 11:38 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/biblemarriage-1.jpg

And yet people are opposed to gay marriage?

Spesh
05-17-2012, 12:02 PM
And yet people are opposed to gay marriage?

Hilarious.

It always makes me laugh when i see people on television screaming about "the traditional value of marriage!!!!!". Im just waiting for the day some politician slips up and announces "I promise to protect the tradition of marriage, i mean im having a hell of a time selling my daughter otherwise".

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 01:26 PM
Coincidentally, my gay BIL, I'm just informed, got told about a breakup from his partner, by a note.

This, after my BIL ****ing took his whole life from Texas, and moved to Chicago...To be with this guy

I'd really like to beat the **** out of this guy, not because he's gay...But because he ****ed with my
brother in law, whom I happen to think highly of.

ETA; No ****. My BIL is gay, and I'm in favor of gay marriage, as long as the same responsibility applies.

ROADRUNNER
05-17-2012, 02:38 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/obamaletsdothis-1.jpg