Newsweek: "Obama First Gay President"

[bodecea]

I am starting to wonder if Newsweek just lost 2012 for Obama.

I mean, it is obvious that Biden was picked as VP to be the butt of the jokes, but this pales in comparison. Even the vaunted 'Teleprompter' could not pull off a shark jumping stunt like this.

It just says something for the diminishing group of people that think "gay" is the kiss of death.

 

[percysunshine]

I am starting to wonder if Newsweek just lost 2012 for Obama.

I mean, it is obvious that Biden was picked as VP to be the butt of the jokes, but this pales in comparison. Even the vaunted 'Teleprompter' could not pull off a shark jumping stunt like this.

It just says something for the diminishing group of people that think "gay" is the kiss of death.

Just sayin....now Obama is the butt.....

 

[Stephanie]

I am starting to wonder if Newsweek just lost 2012 for Obama.

I mean, it is obvious that Biden was picked as VP to be the butt of the jokes, but this pales in comparison. Even the vaunted 'Teleprompter' could not pull off a shark jumping stunt like this.

It just says something for the diminishing group of people that think "gay" is the kiss of death.

I'd say the majority of the people don't care. but you have to find the cover funny, they called him the FIRST GAY President..Just like Bill Clinton was the first Black President..

who dreams up these silly things.?

 

[The Rabbi]

The left might be telling you what to EAT, but aren't you supporting a government position that tells adults who they can and cannot build a life around? Aren't they one in the same, T? Restricting free choice in the name of "the greater good", right?

Who's restricting free choice, Einstein? Two people want to shack up, there's no law against it. Two people want to enlist whatever clergyman they want to sanctify it as a union, no law against it. No one is stopping anyone from living their lives however they want.

That'd work for you? Your children? Why are you married, if 'shacking up' is 'good enough.'

Well I did do that. I got a rabbi to marry my wife and myself. We were married. No one stopped it or objected.
So there isn't an issue of "choice" here at all. No one is restricting anyone else's choice.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am starting to wonder if Newsweek just lost 2012 for Obama.

I mean, it is obvious that Biden was picked as VP to be the butt of the jokes, but this pales in comparison. Even the vaunted 'Teleprompter' could not pull off a shark jumping stunt like this.

It just says something for the diminishing group of people that think "gay" is the kiss of death.

That's so ******* ghey.

 

[KevinWestern]

The Hidebeast nor Laura Bush wasn't trying to tell US what to EAT were they?

Try again Mustink.

The left might be telling you what to EAT, but aren't you supporting a government position that tells adults who they can and cannot build a life around? Aren't they one in the same, T? Restricting free choice in the name of "the greater good", right?

Who's restricting free choice, Einstein? Two people want to shack up, there's no law against it. Two people want to enlist whatever clergyman they want to sanctify it as a union, no law against it. No one is stopping anyone from living their lives however they want.

An adult having the ability to marry under law either an (1) opposite partner or (2) same sex partner has more choices than an adult being able to marry only an (1) opposite sex partner.

My side supports freedom of choice, your's restricts choice.

It's pretty simple.

 

[BDBoop]

Who's restricting free choice, Einstein? Two people want to shack up, there's no law against it. Two people want to enlist whatever clergyman they want to sanctify it as a union, no law against it. No one is stopping anyone from living their lives however they want.

That'd work for you? Your children? Why are you married, if 'shacking up' is 'good enough.'

Well I did do that. I got a rabbi to marry my wife and myself. We were married. No one stopped it or objected.
So there isn't an issue of "choice" here at all. No one is restricting anyone else's choice.

You chose to get married, and you did. They can choose to get married, but their choice won't be legal, or provide them any of the legal benefits you enjoy. Why? Why do you feel you deserve better than they do.

 

[The Rabbi]

The left might be telling you what to EAT, but aren't you supporting a government position that tells adults who they can and cannot build a life around? Aren't they one in the same, T? Restricting free choice in the name of "the greater good", right?

Who's restricting free choice, Einstein? Two people want to shack up, there's no law against it. Two people want to enlist whatever clergyman they want to sanctify it as a union, no law against it. No one is stopping anyone from living their lives however they want.

An adult having the ability to marry under law either an (1) opposite partner or (2) same sex partner has more choices than an adult being able to marry only an (1) opposite sex partner.

My side supports freedom of choice, your's restricts choice.

It's pretty simple.

An adult marrying a child has more choices. Do you support that? And adult marrying more than one adult has more choices (the plural of spouse is spice). Do you support that? An adult wanting to marry a sheep has more choices. Do you support that?
Having choice isn't a religion where more is necessarily better.

 

[BDBoop]

Who's restricting free choice, Einstein? Two people want to shack up, there's no law against it. Two people want to enlist whatever clergyman they want to sanctify it as a union, no law against it. No one is stopping anyone from living their lives however they want.

An adult having the ability to marry under law either an (1) opposite partner or (2) same sex partner has more choices than an adult being able to marry only an (1) opposite sex partner.

My side supports freedom of choice, your's restricts choice.

It's pretty simple.

An adult marrying a child has more choices. Do you support that? And adult marrying more than one adult has more choices (the plural of spouse is spice). Do you support that? An adult wanting to marry a sheep has more choices. Do you support that?
Having choice isn't a religion where more is necessarily better.

If you have to change the subject, you've lost.

 

[The Rabbi]

That'd work for you? Your children? Why are you married, if 'shacking up' is 'good enough.'

Well I did do that. I got a rabbi to marry my wife and myself. We were married. No one stopped it or objected.
So there isn't an issue of "choice" here at all. No one is restricting anyone else's choice.

You chose to get married, and you did. They can choose to get married, but their choice won't be legal, or provide them any of the legal benefits you enjoy. Why? Why do you feel you deserve better than they do.

Because my marriage resulted in children, has lasted now 22 years (as of Sunday) and represents stability for society. In other words, an ideal outcome for the state. While other marriages may have less than ideal outcomes, no one goes into a marriage wanting a less than idea outcome.
But now you've moved from "choice" to "legal recognition." Moving the goalposts. Sure sign of losing.

 

[The Rabbi]

An adult having the ability to marry under law either an (1) opposite partner or (2) same sex partner has more choices than an adult being able to marry only an (1) opposite sex partner.

My side supports freedom of choice, your's restricts choice.

It's pretty simple.

An adult marrying a child has more choices. Do you support that? And adult marrying more than one adult has more choices (the plural of spouse is spice). Do you support that? An adult wanting to marry a sheep has more choices. Do you support that?
Having choice isn't a religion where more is necessarily better.

If you have to change the subject, you've lost.

You're right. He lost that argument when he based it on "choice."

 

[BDBoop]

Well I did do that. I got a rabbi to marry my wife and myself. We were married. No one stopped it or objected.
So there isn't an issue of "choice" here at all. No one is restricting anyone else's choice.

You chose to get married, and you did. They can choose to get married, but their choice won't be legal, or provide them any of the legal benefits you enjoy. Why? Why do you feel you deserve better than they do.

Because my marriage resulted in children, has lasted now 22 years (as of Sunday) and represents stability for society. In other words, an ideal outcome for the state. While other marriages may have less than ideal outcomes, no one goes into a marriage wanting a less than idea outcome.
But now you've moved from "choice" to "legal recognition." Moving the goalposts. Sure sign of losing.

Well then. You've got a long way to go before you can catch up to these guys.

Gay New York Couple of 60+ Years Who Married Last Year Die Just Two Weeks Apart| News | Towleroad

 

[BDBoop]

Or these guys.

After 60 Years, a Deep Desire to Make It 'Legal' - NYTimes.com

 

[BDBoop]

An adult having the ability to marry under law either an (1) opposite partner or (2) same sex partner has more choices than an adult being able to marry only an (1) opposite sex partner.

My side supports freedom of choice, your's restricts choice.

It's pretty simple.

An adult marrying a child has more choices. Do you support that? And adult marrying more than one adult has more choices (the plural of spouse is spice). Do you support that? An adult wanting to marry a sheep has more choices. Do you support that?
Having choice isn't a religion where more is necessarily better.

If you have to change the subject, you've lost.

YOU changed the subject.

YOU stopped talking about same-sex marriage.

 

[bodecea]

Who's restricting free choice, Einstein? Two people want to shack up, there's no law against it. Two people want to enlist whatever clergyman they want to sanctify it as a union, no law against it. No one is stopping anyone from living their lives however they want.

An adult having the ability to marry under law either an (1) opposite partner or (2) same sex partner has more choices than an adult being able to marry only an (1) opposite sex partner.

My side supports freedom of choice, your's restricts choice.

It's pretty simple.

An adult marrying a child has more choices. Do you support that? And adult marrying more than one adult has more choices (the plural of spouse is spice). Do you support that? An adult wanting to marry a sheep has more choices. Do you support that?
Having choice isn't a religion where more is necessarily better.

The question is....do you? Because YOU seem to be the one who cannot see the HARM done to children not of age. You seem to be the one who cannot not see the CLEAR DISTINCTION between consenting adults (legal) and children (illegal...except in certain states of the south)

Why do you seem to have a problem seeing that distinction?

 

[bodecea]

Well I did do that. I got a rabbi to marry my wife and myself. We were married. No one stopped it or objected.
So there isn't an issue of "choice" here at all. No one is restricting anyone else's choice.

You chose to get married, and you did. They can choose to get married, but their choice won't be legal, or provide them any of the legal benefits you enjoy. Why? Why do you feel you deserve better than they do.

Because my marriage resulted in children, has lasted now 22 years (as of Sunday) and represents stability for society. In other words, an ideal outcome for the state. While other marriages may have less than ideal outcomes, no one goes into a marriage wanting a less than idea outcome.
But now you've moved from "choice" to "legal recognition." Moving the goalposts. Sure sign of losing.

My wife and I have been together for over 26 years now. Married in church in 1990, married LEGALLY in California a few years ago before Prop H8 cut others off. We represent stability in society too...have a child going to college...an ideal outcome for the state.


So, we've represented stability and an ideal outcome for the state LONGER than you.

 

[Ed Spacer]

No Family.

 

[KevinWestern]

Who's restricting free choice, Einstein? Two people want to shack up, there's no law against it. Two people want to enlist whatever clergyman they want to sanctify it as a union, no law against it. No one is stopping anyone from living their lives however they want.

An adult having the ability to marry under law either an (1) opposite partner or (2) same sex partner has more choices than an adult being able to marry only an (1) opposite sex partner.

My side supports freedom of choice, your's restricts choice.

It's pretty simple.

An adult marrying a child has more choices. Do you support that? And adult marrying more than one adult has more choices (the plural of spouse is spice). Do you support that? An adult wanting to marry a sheep has more choices. Do you support that?
Having choice isn't a religion where more is necessarily better.

An adult marrying a child is an act that infringes on another's personal rights, and therefore I am against (humans are not mature enough to make decisions for themselves until a certain age). Same argument can be applied to a person marrying a goat (how can goat say "yes" or "no"?).

I'm really shocked that you can't see the difference between two consenting adults getting married, and an adult marrying a kid who is too young to make decisions for his/herself.

As for polygamy - I can care less if people do it, as it hurts absolutely no one.

My philosophy can be summed up as, "if an act does not infringe on another's personal rights, it should not be illegal or restricted".


.

 

[SniperFire]

[
As for polygamy - I can care less if people do it, as it hurts no one.

Wrong. Polygamy DESTROYS families.

What do you think about a man marrying his mother and 5 sisters and breeding with them?

No harm?

 

[KevinWestern]

You are one disgusting woman.
Plus fuckup kids minds with your disgusting lifestyle??

Ed, you sound like a complete moron. You have zero communication skills, and the small specks of coherency you can get out show that you are a hateful, close-minded individual.

What's the point of even posting? You're adding nothing to the conversation. Absolutely nothing...

Just thought you should know...