SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, August 25, 2008 13:24
VIEWED: 10943
PAGE 4 of 15
These 2 are trying to get in to the Whitehouse - no way either of them is going to risk taking a stance that's this close no matter what they feel in their gut.
From June 2008:
"(CBS) Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.
Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.
Last month, the California Supreme Court struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry there.
Americans’ views on this issue have changed since 2004, although opinion has not changed substantially in the last two years. In November of 2004 (soon after the presidential election) just 21 percent of Americans supported the idea of same-sex couples being allowed to marry.
Majorities of both men and women support some form of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, but more women (36 percent) than men (24 percent) back the idea of same-sex marriage.
More than six in 10 Democrats think same-sex couples should be allowed to either marry or form civil unions. Fifty percent of Republicans are against either of these options.
There are regional differences, too. Four in 10 of those living in the western portion of the U.S. favor same-sex marriage - the highest of any other region. Americans living in the south are least likely to support it.
Groups most likely to support same-sex marriage include those under age 30, liberals, Americans living in the west, and those who never go to church.
Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, weekly church attendees and Alliance moles are groups that are least likely to support the idea. "
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, (I feel like I say this anytime one of these discussions comes up), marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.
Civil Unions are NOT a religious institution.
The gay party (or partAy) and its supporters made a fatal error in pushing for it to be called/thought of as, marriage. IF they had pushed for a CIVIL UNION (thereby allowing for all rights to be bestowed) they MIGHT have gotten it.
As it is, if a gay couple speaks about their "marriage", I always laugh. Its no more a marriage than if some redneck yokel married his favorite dog, or if some spoiled lib married his mother.
I, by far, am not religious. Don't get me wrong.
It's getting you right that I'm concerned about...
Quote:
But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.
I'm fine with Civil Unions, should you want to choose to be that way. But calling it a marriage, and expecting people to see it as such, is foolish and the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Gays want to prtoect their "civil rights". Fine, Im all for it. JUST DO NOT IMPINGE ON SOMEONES ELSES RIGHTS WHEN DOING SO.
Still awaiting illumination on how, exactly, Ellen marrying Portia or Reg marrying Fido is gonna impinge on anyone's rights. Their ideological comfort zone, their often unreasoned sense of moral and immoral, and their apparent belief that they're obligated to ensure that everyone else play by that same moral/immoral sense...yeah, those things might get a little impinged...but I'm not seeing the "rights" part.
Admit it, Wulf - your objections have nothing to do with law or constitutionality or even "morals". At least that's the impression I get from your posts on the subject. You're really just hideously uncomfortable with the notion of boys kissing boys (and maybe girls kissing girls) where they pee. Idn't dat about da size of it?
It was immoral AND really icky when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quoting mainstream media here (of all places) is not the best way to win over folks.
Especially on this site.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Sorry, but your point is ridiculous. If a Christian Church, and htere are Christian churches doing it, decides to marry a man and a man, who the hell is the religious 'authority' that tellls them they are out of line?
It's simply a matter of that way of interpreting the Christian religion breaking off from the rest.
It's happened plenty of times before, what with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Restorationism, Ecumenism, and all the other "isms" and all of their offshoots underneath them.
People can just choose not to recognize the spinoffs as religions like they've always done.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Oh, but chicks makin' out in public- that's okay, eh?
I'm down with it, but unlike my misunderstanding of the State trying to tell me I can't smoke anywhere when it's a legal substance you can buy anywhere (at a rediculously high tax rate), I understand if this offends the delicate sensibilites of others. I've got youtube and Cinemax... and that Tatu concert from Romania I downloaded off of Bittorrent. I'm good....
I kissed a girl and I liked it too.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, weekly church attendees and Alliance moles are groups that are least likely to support the idea. "
I almost missed that....
LOLisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.
Being a smoker, I completely agree with that statement... although with our current crop of Rethugs, I can't say with any confidence that the alternative is any better.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*sigh
Wash,
Would you support N.A.M.B.L.A. if they wanted to recognize themselves as being "married'? Im sure they could come up with a church that would marry them... Calling it the "Church of man-boy love, Dogs and Family Union".
Or would that offend your morals?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll answer that - churches aren't allowed to molest children either, according to the law.
But we are dealing with consenting adults, doing somehting that doesn't actively harm anybody, their rights are extending to the tip of their neighbors...whatever,
so again, your equation is ridiculous. No, nobody would support marriage with animals or with children, because those are not consenting relationships....fucking DUH already
do you really think two guys getting married is anywhere close to a man and a child getting married? How does that register?
...............................
Well as to smoking,
cigarette smoke does infringe beyond a person's nose,
though I'm not sure that's a good enough reason in itself to ban where a person can smoke. Music does as well, and talking, and body odor.
The going differentiation is that second hand smoke is harmful to others, and that you don't have a right to put them in harms way...
similar to the way you can't just go out in the middle of the street and set up a shooting range. It's your gun, guns are legal, but you can't just go blasting away anywhere.
........
The question with smoking is where is the line drawn, and I'm not exactly sure where it should be....making it illegal to smoke outside of buildings as an example, seems extreme to me, given the risks. Making it illegal to smoke inside restaurants and places of business makes some sense to me -
though even that gets hazy to me when I compare it to say, auditoriums that pump out deafening sounds where employees are subjected to potentially ear-damaging quantities..etc.
maybe htere was a better way to curb the reality that there was no getting away from cigarette smoke in the public arena when smoking was legal, but I don't know what htat would have been.
.........
Sure Six, people can, but should the law choose one religious interpretation over another? isn't that directly against first amendment?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There should be a special place...*cue wavy transition*
"Boss - de plane, de PLANE!!"
"My dear guests, I am Mr. Roarke, your host. Welcome to Smoker's Island."
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME