Obama approves of same sex marriage

[bigrebnc1775]

No what you're doing is hitting the civil right flavor of the month. You're on the gay band wagon because it's the in thing to do. You aren't for protecting anyone's rights if your were you would also defend the abnormal right of someone who wants to have sex with animals. I for defending rights but not those of abnormal people.

You are absolutely, totally full of shit.

So I'm full of shit asking a person who talks this bull shit about defending rights, If they would also defend someones right if that person wanted to have sex with an animal?
There are people who go to jail because their rights are not protected because they had sex with an animal

 

[beagle9]

Obama wants the gay peoples votes, this is why he has supported gay marriage. Its all about what obama wants and needs. Don't be fooled by this con artist......get smart. If people can't see through this muslim by now, i don't know when they ever will. Everything he does is for his own gains, not yours or anyone else's. I can read him like a book!!!!!!!!

He very well could be a smooth talking con-Artist for sure, and that is exactly right by what we may be seeing in him since elected, but he hides it good by trying to be a comedian on many issues just as well (dodging, weaving and bobbing worse than Mahamid Ali did when running around the rink), and just think on what kind of comedian he is, and who it is that he does attract, I mean with the likes of a Bill Marher & such to be in his corner ?

The American people deserve better or uhhh do they deserve any better anymore ? I am now wondering about that one very much in these latter days. It use to be God Bless America, and now it is going to be "God forgive America" (PLEASE).

 

[EriktheRed]

No what you're doing is hitting the civil right flavor of the month. You're on the gay band wagon because it's the in thing to do. You aren't for protecting anyone's rights if your were you would also defend the abnormal right of someone who wants to have sex with animals. I for defending rights but not those of abnormal people.

You are absolutely, totally full of shit.

So I'm full of shit asking a person who talks this bull shit about defending rights, If they would also defend someones right if that person wanted to have sex with an animal?
There are people who go to jail because their rights are not protected because they had sex with an animal

You know what you just said and you sure as hell didn't "ask" anything.

But that's cool. I hope more wingnuts publicly channel Rick Santorum.

 

[Peach]

You are absolutely, totally full of shit.

So I'm full of shit asking a person who talks this bull shit about defending rights, If they would also defend someones right if that person wanted to have sex with an animal?
There are people who go to jail because their rights are not protected because they had sex with an animal

You know what you just said and you sure as hell didn't "ask" anything.

But that's cool. I hope more wingnuts publicly channel Rick Santorum.

Humans are animals of course but I gather the comparison is sexual relations outside the species. How does that in any manner relate to gay Americans marrying?

 

[Flopper]

It raises an interesting question. Why is it that people in favor of gay marriage cannot seem to discuss the issue without referencing religion?

There is little or no logical basis to ban gay marriage other than religious beliefs unless you consider just plain fear and hatred of gays as a reason. With the growth of population, we certainly don't need more people. We're wrecking the environment with the ones we have and billions more are forecast. Probably the strongest reason would be changes in traditions and commonly accepted gender roles. However, that is hardly a reason to deny millions of people the right to marry the person they love.

Before we deny a person the freedom of choice, we should ask ourselves, what damage would be done to society if we allowed that freedom.

 

[Peach]

It raises an interesting question. Why is it that people in favor of gay marriage cannot seem to discuss the issue without referencing religion?

There is little or no logical basis to ban gay marriage other than religious beliefs unless you consider just plain fear and hatred of gays as a reason. With the growth of population, we certainly don't need more people. We're wrecking the environment with the ones we have and billions more are forecast. Probably the strongest reason would be changes in traditions and commonly accepted gender roles. However, that is hardly a reason to deny millions of people the right to marry the person they love.

Before we deny a person the freedom of choice, we should ask ourselves, what damage would be done to society if we allowed that freedom.

And the forerunner of the "gay marriage bans":

At the annual party rally held in Nuremberg in 1935, the Nazis announced new laws which institutionalized many of the racial theories prevalent in Nazi ideology. The laws excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of "German or related blood."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are absolutely, totally full of shit.

So I'm full of shit asking a person who talks this bull shit about defending rights, If they would also defend someones right if that person wanted to have sex with an animal?
There are people who go to jail because their rights are not protected because they had sex with an animal

You know what you just said and you sure as hell didn't "ask" anything.

But that's cool. I hope more wingnuts publicly channel Rick Santorum.

Way to spin out of that one did you hurt your back?

Why aren't people defending other rights to do anything they want to do?
Could it be that things like gay marriage is not acceptable to the majority of people? After all gay life style is not the norm it never as been if it was why aren't humans asexual?

 

[Flopper]

It raises an interesting question. Why is it that people in favor of gay marriage cannot seem to discuss the issue without referencing religion?

There is little or no logical basis to ban gay marriage other than religious beliefs unless you consider just plain fear and hatred of gays as a reason. With the growth of population, we certainly don't need more people. We're wrecking the environment with the ones we have and billions more are forecast. Probably the strongest reason would be changes in traditions and commonly accepted gender roles. However, that is hardly a reason to deny millions of people the right to marry the person they love.

Before we deny a person the freedom of choice, we should ask ourselves, what damage would be done to society if we allowed that freedom.

And the forerunner of the "gay marriage bans":

At the annual party rally held in Nuremberg in 1935, the Nazis announced new laws which institutionalized many of the racial theories prevalent in Nazi ideology. The laws excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of "German or related blood."

Once the Nazis took power in 1933, the Nazis intensified persecution of German male homosexuals. Persecution ranged from the dissolution of homosexual organizations to internment in concentration camps. In spite of their efforts to eliminate homosexuality, it thrived in Nazi Germany. Hitler filled many key positions with known or suspected homosexuals

 

[JimBowie1958]

It raises an interesting question. Why is it that people in favor of gay marriage cannot seem to discuss the issue without referencing religion?

There is little or no logical basis to ban gay marriage other than religious beliefs unless you consider just plain fear and hatred of gays as a reason.

Or you just consider it disgusting, filthy and harmful to the general welfare due to demographic loss.

With the growth of population, we certainly don't need more people. We're wrecking the environment with the ones we have and billions more are forecast. .

That is the biggest bunch of disproven horseshit.

How can you still buy in to that Malthusian tripe?

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is little or no logical basis to ban gay marriage other than religious beliefs unless you consider just plain fear and hatred of gays as a reason. With the growth of population, we certainly don't need more people. We're wrecking the environment with the ones we have and billions more are forecast. Probably the strongest reason would be changes in traditions and commonly accepted gender roles. However, that is hardly a reason to deny millions of people the right to marry the person they love.

Before we deny a person the freedom of choice, we should ask ourselves, what damage would be done to society if we allowed that freedom.

And the forerunner of the "gay marriage bans":

At the annual party rally held in Nuremberg in 1935, the Nazis announced new laws which institutionalized many of the racial theories prevalent in Nazi ideology. The laws excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of "German or related blood."

Once the Nazis took power in 1933, the Nazis intensified persecution of German male homosexuals. Persecution ranged from the dissolution of homosexual organizations to internment in concentration camps. In spite of their efforts to eliminate homosexuality, it thrived in Nazi Germany. Hitler filled many key positions with known or suspected homosexuals

Oh, Hitler did it, so it must be wrong! /s

Hitler was also a vegetarian, an animal rights advocate, a socialist, a hiker, and a person who deeply valued nature and passed laws to protect all the forrest in Germany.

Guess that must all be wrong as well.

 

[Peach]

There is little or no logical basis to ban gay marriage other than religious beliefs unless you consider just plain fear and hatred of gays as a reason. With the growth of population, we certainly don't need more people. We're wrecking the environment with the ones we have and billions more are forecast. Probably the strongest reason would be changes in traditions and commonly accepted gender roles. However, that is hardly a reason to deny millions of people the right to marry the person they love.

Before we deny a person the freedom of choice, we should ask ourselves, what damage would be done to society if we allowed that freedom.

And the forerunner of the "gay marriage bans":

At the annual party rally held in Nuremberg in 1935, the Nazis announced new laws which institutionalized many of the racial theories prevalent in Nazi ideology. The laws excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of "German or related blood."

Once the Nazis took power in 1933, the Nazis intensified persecution of German male homosexuals. Persecution ranged from the dissolution of homosexual organizations to internment in concentration camps. In spite of their efforts to eliminate homosexuality, it thrived in Nazi Germany. Hitler filled many key positions with known or suspected homosexuals

Yes, but the Nuremberg laws forbade Aryan/Jewish relations as "unnatural", one of same arguments used by those against human rights for gay Americans.

 

[BDBoop]

It raises an interesting question. Why is it that people in favor of gay marriage cannot seem to discuss the issue without referencing religion?

There is little or no logical basis to ban gay marriage other than religious beliefs unless you consider just plain fear and hatred of gays as a reason.

Or you just consider it disgusting, filthy and harmful to the general welfare due to demographic loss.

With the growth of population, we certainly don't need more people. We're wrecking the environment with the ones we have and billions more are forecast. .

That is the biggest bunch of disproven horseshit.

How can you still buy in to that Malthusian tripe?

"Malthusian tripe" - so you don't believe we're outstripping the earth and her resources, I take it.

 

[EriktheRed]

So I'm full of shit asking a person who talks this bull shit about defending rights, If they would also defend someones right if that person wanted to have sex with an animal?
There are people who go to jail because their rights are not protected because they had sex with an animal

You know what you just said and you sure as hell didn't "ask" anything.

But that's cool. I hope more wingnuts publicly channel Rick Santorum.

Way to spin out of that one did you hurt your back?

Why aren't people defending other rights to do anything they want to do?
Could it be that things like gay marriage is not acceptable to the majority of people? After all gay life style is not the norm it never as been if it was why aren't humans asexual?

What was I spinning out of? You're the one who said you were "asking" when you were clearly implying something. Let's roll the tape:

No what you're doing is hitting the civil right flavor of the month. You're on the gay band wagon because it's the in thing to do. You aren't for protecting anyone's rights if your were you would also defend the abnormal right of someone who wants to have sex with animals. I for defending rights but not those of abnormal people.

That's the old Rick Santorum man-on-dog argument and it's a bullshit strawman. I think you're smart enough to know that's what you were doing, too.

As for the rest of your post, I don't give a shit. I'm not gonna stump for legalizing gay marriage, but I don't think it's bad, either. What I'm really enjoying about this, though, is watching rightwingnuts publicly trip all over themselves trying not to sound like bigoted assholes while they're sounding just like bigoted assholes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know what you just said and you sure as hell didn't "ask" anything.

But that's cool. I hope more wingnuts publicly channel Rick Santorum.

Way to spin out of that one did you hurt your back?

Why aren't people defending other rights to do anything they want to do?
Could it be that things like gay marriage is not acceptable to the majority of people? After all gay life style is not the norm it never as been if it was why aren't humans asexual?

What was I spinning out of? You're the one who said you were "asking" when you were clearly implying something. Let's roll the tape:

No what you're doing is hitting the civil right flavor of the month. You're on the gay band wagon because it's the in thing to do. You aren't for protecting anyone's rights if your were you would also defend the abnormal right of someone who wants to have sex with animals. I for defending rights but not those of abnormal people.

That's the old Rick Santorum man-on-dog argument and it's a bullshit strawman. I think you're smart enough to know that's what you were doing, too.

As for the rest of your post, I don't give a shit. I'm not gonna stump for legalizing gay marriage, but I don't think it's bad, either. What I'm really enjoying about this, though, is watching rightwingnuts publicly trip all over themselves trying not to sound like bigoted assholes while they're sounding just like bigoted assholes.

Where do we stop allowing the abnormal the right to do what they want too do? Should people have the right to have more than one spouse if they want more than one? Should people be allowed to have sex with animals if they want too? If you answer no I agree because it's not normal just like same sex marriages it's not normal if it was everybody would be asexual.

 

[Neotrotsky]

And the forerunner of the "gay marriage bans":

At the annual party rally held in Nuremberg in 1935, the Nazis announced new laws which institutionalized many of the racial theories prevalent in Nazi ideology. The laws excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of "German or related blood."

Once the Nazis took power in 1933, the Nazis intensified persecution of German male homosexuals. Persecution ranged from the dissolution of homosexual organizations to internment in concentration camps. In spite of their efforts to eliminate homosexuality, it thrived in Nazi Germany. Hitler filled many key positions with known or suspected homosexuals

Yes, but the Nuremberg laws forbade Aryan/Jewish relations as "unnatural", one of same arguments used by those against human rights for gay Americans.

They also did not allow Jews to have guns

 

[Neotrotsky]

Obama tells Robin Roberts of ABC.

Who cares of what Obama approves? Who appointed him God?

He had a vision



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhHo6CUq4-o]SHIRI - YouTube[/ame]

 

[alan1]

when you inherit from your spouse, you are exempt from estate taxes. that can't be fixed by contract.

when you are married and get divorced after 10 or more years, you are entitled to 1/2 of your spouse's social security benefits. that cannot be fixed by contract.

that's just off the top of my head.

but more importantly separate but equal is not equal.

Maybe those fucked up laws need to be fixed, instead of adding more fucked up laws.

It's not just that....We've finally cut to the nut of the matter here...

In the end, it's not about rights but privileges and benefits extended by third parties.

It's the star-belly Sneeches come to life.

I guess Theodor Geisel was to deep for some people.

 

[BDBoop]

Obama tells Robin Roberts of ABC.

Who cares of what Obama approves? Who appointed him God?

He had a vision

You mean like Every Single Republican that was running for President?

 

[alan1]

I think he changed his mind. You know people do that, particular those with any intelligence.

First of all, I said nothing about a flip-flop, so back off on that insinuation.

It has nothing to do with intelligence unless you are talking about the intelligence of people that can see through the pandering for votes.

Changing your opinion has everything to do with intelligence.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Your blanket statement is incorrect.
For example, if an opinion is based upon false information, that isn't intelligence.
Note: I'm not saying his opinion was based upon false information, just that your statement was incorrect.

 

[alan1]

First of all, I said nothing about a flip-flop, so back off on that insinuation.

It has nothing to do with intelligence unless you are talking about the intelligence of people that can see through the pandering for votes.

Changing your opinion has everything to do with intelligence.

Question is, did he really change his mind or is he only pandering to the base.

I don't think he changed his mind. I pointed out a youtube video earlier where he stated that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman but that he felt that a homosexual couple should be allowed marry.

He hasn't changed his mind at all. In fact, the quote that started this OP doesn't really state anything different than what he stated in the past. I'd say, he's pandering.

Immie

He's pandering, that was my point also.