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 7 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Obama is smart. 80%of America frowns upon gay marriages. Why would he risk losing all those votes.
This just off the top of my head (and as a consideration I often fail to...consider), I wonder what percentage of that 80% ever get anywhere near a ballot box? What percentage of the remaining 20% is actually anti-same-sex-union (as distinguished from "undecided" and a position which I think is more accurately labelled as "anti-fag"), and how driven are they gonna be to show up at their local voting site?
It was like that when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
fucking A dude,
In America, we have decided regardless of religion, that there is an age of consent. We have decided that there is an age when people become adults,
activities involving children, by our definition in this country, do not constitute a consenting relationship.
We also do not consider animals consenting beings in such relationships. We don't consider that they are developed enough that we can trust they aren't being abused.
..........
and please quit skirting the issue..."Who's religion gets to define marriage?"
marriage is defined differently by every religion out there. Duties of man and wife are defined differently. Who is right? You would say you are. I would say you are fucking flat out wrong.
We are at an impasse. Should we make the government decide, or should we let bygones be bygones and let people do what they please?( and don't bring up nambla again in response to this post - I dealt with it above, and for the second time I might add)
Edited to Ask - Wulfenstar, you are by far not religious, you said in an early post, which makes it sound to me like you aren't a believer, which would mean that you yourself, by your own definitiion of marriage, are not and cannot be married. So I take it that when you said you were by far not religious, you meant you are by far not a fanatic? Or are you cutting yourself out of your own definition?
.....................
hehe...exactly Crhisisall - like Christmas, it is a truly American, Capitalistic institution
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Im not skirting the issue, YOU are. If we allow for gays to be married (marriage again, not Civil Union)... then why not for anyone or anything.
Age of consent? You are bigoted towards pre-sexual beings! Shame! We have moved BEYOOND such things! Even the term "kids" is derogatory! SHAME! Shame on you for trying to take away the rights of the pre-sexual to be in a consenting adult relationship (i.e. abused)
Again, the different religions themselves decide who and how and what and where you should be MARRIED.
Government can allow for Civil Unions.... maybe.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Link to Wicki's piece on NAMBLA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
I took about 180 seconds to scan the article (slow day at work but I still gotta look like I'm working), which is the most "research" I've ever done on NAMBLA. I'm not real sure how above - or below - board they are, but, as several other gay and lesbian groups apparently decided, I'd think long and hard about throwing my ideological lot in with theirs, out of PR considerations if nothing else...
It was a strange old world out there when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If we allow for gays
JustwantedtofreakWulfoutisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hehe, wow...
Dude, I don't even get you. YOu're only argument, continually, I might add, is that gay marriage is like pedophilia.
I have demonstrated effectively, I think, that there is an obvious and legal difference.
You act like gay marriage is a gateway to allowing unions between men and boys. To that, I ask, what hte fuck are you talking about?
I've stated from the beginning that consenting individuals were required to meet my definition of marriage. I've stated since that children cannot be considered to be consenting, and this is because we need some sort of rigid guid-line for the protection of our children.
You know your argument is falacious, so why do you keep using it? My assumption, and plese correct me if I'm wrong, is that all you have without that is that you are homophobic, you don't like the idea of homosexuals, and you like less their life-style being condoned or accepted by the state.
This is America. You get to think like that. Then, please step away from your core bigotry, and when it comes time to be an American Citizen vote your faith in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Remember that you can hate gays all you want, but that as an American who believes in equality and Civil Liberty, you won't stomp on their rights, to call themselves married, if that's what htey choose to do, to be recognized as married, if we also recognize heterosexual couples to be married.
If on the other hand, you wish for the state to ONLY recognize civil unions, and to change its terminology for everyone(a point which you have yet to state so I'm not convinced this is where you are going), then I'm fine with it. It's equal, it's even, while maybe more extreme than necceary(assuming 'marriage' is a religious term and not a legal one), a step in the right direction in upholding the Constitution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I've stated from the beginning that consenting individuals were required to meet my definition of marriage."
How is that ANY different from what I am saying? Except that, in a Constitutional sense, the government DOES NOT have the right to define what or what is not a marriage. The states barely even have that right.
My belief, my core not-so- bigoted-as-you-would-like-to-think belief, is that marriage is still, and always will be, a religious institution.
Look, gays want to be able to visit their S.O.'s in the hospital and to file taxes and play house together. Fine. Got no quarrel with that as such. They can have a Civil Union which grants them those rights.
What they can't have, is a marriage by a church that does not condone such a thing.
You are arguing that any consenting adult can enter into a marriage (not a Civil Union) I say neine.
My whole point is NOT that gays are sub-human, or second-class citizens. But rather that, when we start allowing for the government to push itself more into our domestic lives, we are opening a pandoras box.
No, I am not religious, but I feel it necessary to defend their beliefs. Most religions do not want to marry gays. That too is also fine. Again, gays can have civil unions, just do not call or think of them as marriages.
As to NAMBLA. Yes, it applys. By NOT drawing a line as to who and what can shack up, you open the door to all sorts of nastiness.
10 years or 100 down the line, after so-called domestic partnerships are allowed, whats to stop folks like NAMBLA from pushing for the same thing? Sure, we find it morally disgusting NOW, but will our childrens children?
We say we will draw the line at age of consent, but really....the lines we have drawn in the past are constantly being pushed back inch by inch.
30 years ago, would we have put up with whats played on most Rap stations? 20 years ago, would we have put up with what is put on T.V. today? 10 years ago, would we have allowed for our rights to be curtailed in the interest of "safety"?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soooooo.....
we were opening a can of worms when we let blacks into our schools. When we let them sit at the front of our busses, drink from our fountains. What could have been next? Pigs, and goats drinking from our fountains? Sure, blacks were okay, but I mean, shit, when we start fucking with the line, that means the line can move...ANYWHERE. What about midgets? People with down syndrome? What about gremlins? What about green men from outer space? Sure, they aren't here today, but when they come down to drink from our children's childrens fountains, and spray us with their foul disintigration rays,will our children just let them run amok? They won't know what to do because we stopped discriminating against blacks...that will be pretty darned confusing!!
Where is our sense of decorum? Again, blacks, sure, aliens, not in my fucking country. So, sorry blacks, we let you into the club, we let everybody and everyhing into the club. Can't do it, you understand
Oh and by the way, I"m really close to using caps on this point, because I keep saying it and you keep pretending it isn't being said...
No church that doesn't condone gay marriage is going to have to marry gay people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Church's that condone gay marriage are going to be allowed to marry gay people. Got it? No?
To be continued in five minutes then....
ugh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That was ruttin' hi-larious, Righteous.
Chrisisalllol
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ummm, wow....
You are comparing what could be a lifestyle-CHOICE (the jury is still out on that one Nature v.s. Nurture) to something you are born with?
Wow...
Besides, most black churchs do not support gay "marriage" either. 
Why does it have to be "marriage"? Why not "Civil Union"?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME