Obama says same-sex couples should be able to marry

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-09-2012, 21:38
BPTactical

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridge

So the government can get money out of you with a license.

No, that it is a legally recognized union between man and wife.
Not that gubberment intervention is needed for that though......
05-09-2012, 21:40
Ridge

Well now we've just come full circle...
05-09-2012, 21:42
Tinelement

I already put my 2 cents in.

Is this gonna be the first closed thread of the new forum!?

Coffee
Popcorn
05-09-2012, 21:43
Jumpstart

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridge

So the government can get money out of you with a license.

First you paint it as a "religious notion" and now it's about the government taking your money. Men and women have been getting "married" across societies for thousands of years. There is a reason behind that fact.
05-09-2012, 21:44
Wulf202

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPTactical

No, that it is a legally recognized union between man and wife.

Or if you live together for more than 6 months. With all the common law marriage laws it doesn't mean shit, no union, no ceremony or vows, just living under the same roof. Hell male and female room mates qualify quite often.
05-09-2012, 21:45
Ridge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumpstart

Men and women have been getting "married" across societies for thousands of years. There is a reason behind that fact.

And what is the reason? And why do two people that begrudgingly live together to support an illegitimate child have more right to it than two people who love each other?
05-09-2012, 21:46
BPTactical

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridge

And what is the reason? And why do two people that begrudgingly live together to support an illegitimate child have more right to it than two people who love each other?

Dr Phil wants to know........
05-09-2012, 21:51
Jumpstart

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridge

And what is the reason? And why do two people that begrudgingly live together to support an illegitimate child have more right to it than two people who love each other?

Because they can create that child.
05-09-2012, 21:57
Ridge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumpstart

Because they can create that child.

And then treat it like shit.
05-09-2012, 22:06
tmleadr03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumpstart

Well, why has it been necessary for hundreds of years? All those reasons.

Snort. Jumping over a broom has been going on for a lot longer then wedding licences.
05-09-2012, 22:06
Rucker61

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPTactical

I am so very torn on this subject.
1- I am all for personal freedoms, if that is the life that one wishes then so be it. Just don't expect me to accept it as "normal" and don't you dare think you deserve anything exceptional or "protected class" status.

Like the tax exempt status of churches?

Quote:

2-Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.

Then let the various churches handle it. The government doesn't have any business in sacred activities. What's your feeling on divorce? As strict as the Pope's, as in don't allow it, or stronger, or weaker?

Quote:

3-Adoption-Bullshit. It takes a man and a woman to make a child and it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. I sincerely feel that a child in a gay marriage is set up to fail. The additional stresses it places on a child must be tremendous.

It takes a act of sex to make a child, test tubes and petri dishes notwithstanding, but there have been millions of kids raised in single parent homes. Do you feel that since it takes a man and woman to raise a child, surrogate fathers should be assigned to single moms by the government? Forced to enter the sacred union of marriage to make sure that the kids are raised by two loving parents?

I know kids raised in gay homes, and they're fine. Anecdote, not data, but it's a couterpoint. I would bet that if you were to actually study the children of two gay parnents you'd find that they have about the same success/failuer rate as kids raised in hetero couple homes, and better than you'd find in single parent homes.

Quote:

We have seen historically that a large amount of children that commit serious crimes come from dysfunctional families. Seriously, how much more dysfunctional than wife and wife or husband and husband can you get?

Seriously? A lot frigging worse. Do you even know any gay couples?

Quote:

What is the worst part is the clear indicator that this is a further degradation of the very fiber of our society, morals.
Without morals there is no right or wrong.

So gay people are Evil, and bent on destroying American society? You need to get out more. Greed and selfishness are more detrimental than gay marriage by many orders of magnitude.

Quote:

I think this is by design, one way to weaken a strong county and society is to destroy the basis of said society.
Destroy the traditional family, destroy the morals of society and you have a society that is very easily influenced and manipulated.
Perfect Marxist strategy.

How does the two guys living together across the street getting to enjoy the same legal benefits as my wife and I do affect our marriage, your marriage, or any other marriage? Answer - not at all. There are many other factors today that do, however. I'd say that the inability of single income family to afford a middle class lifestyle has been more detrimental than anything on the gay agenda could ever hope for.
05-09-2012, 22:09
Rucker61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumpstart

First you paint it as a "religious notion" and now it's about the government taking your money. Men and women have been getting "married" across societies for thousands of years. There is a reason behind that fact.

More than one. Political alliances, for one. Women as chattel not getting a choice, another, and lets not forget societies where one man could own many wives. Marriage as a religious sacrament is all about control of society.
05-09-2012, 22:09
Ridge

http://i.imgur.com/6LXjj.gif
05-09-2012, 22:19
hghclsswhitetrsh

Doesn't adversely affect me, I don't care. If it doesn't affect you, follow me.
05-09-2012, 22:24
Goodburbon

HOLY COW I agree with Obama.

Happens almost as often as I agree with Republicans.
05-09-2012, 22:28
rockhound

It is a noj issue for me, what do i care who anyones else chooses to spend their lives with
05-09-2012, 22:30
rockhound

It is a non issue for me, what do i care who anyones else chooses to spend the
ir lives with
05-09-2012, 22:38
XC700116

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPTactical

I am so very torn on this subject.
1- I am all for personal freedoms, if that is the life that one wishes then so be it. Just don't expect me to accept it as "normal" and don't you dare think you deserve anything exceptional or "protected class" status.
2-Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
3-Adoption-Bullshit. It takes a man and a woman to make a child and it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. I sincerely feel that a child in a gay marriage is set up to fail. The additional stresses it places on a child must be tremendous.
We have seen historically that a large amount of children that commit serious crimes come from dysfunctional families. Seriously, how much more dysfunctional than wife and wife or husband and husband can you get?

What is the worst part is the clear indicator that this is a further degradation of the very fiber of our society, morals.
Without morals there is no right or wrong.

I think this is by design, one way to weaken a strong county and society is to destroy the basis of said society.
Destroy the traditional family, destroy the morals of society and you have a society that is very easily influenced and manipulated.
Perfect Marxist strategy.

Generally I agree with you in many aspects and used to hold the exact same views until my mother remarried a man who's oldest son, now my step brother, is gay. He's from a strong Catholic family, my step father's first wife died from cancer shortly after their youngest was born or they would probably still be together and I wouldn't even know them. He's not "out" they don't talk about it, he's not "LOOK AT ME I'm GAY and YOU have to accept it". He's just a early 40 something guy that happens to be attracted to other men. Who am I to say it's wrong? So to point #1 I 100% agree.

Point #2 is where I diverge, in the traditional sense marriage is between a man and woman, except early Mormons and many other cultures in this world believe/believed in plural marriage. Then the fact that marriage is born of religion, so I tend to think of it in the light of, it's part of certain religions and it shouldn't be applied in a general sense, or by the government in any form. IMO it equates to sharia law to a point in that it's a religious view enforced by government. I realize that is a pretty bold statement but it's merely meant to illustrate my point.

Point #3, I'm pretty much with you, but this part

Quote:

Seriously, how much more dysfunctional than wife and wife or husband and husband can you get?

Well I can tell you I'd much rather have grown up in a home with two loving parents of the same sex than a mother that took care of me and an abusive drunk. Or what about the home where the parents are constantly fighting openly but "stay together for the kids" I actually know one of these couples that adopted their first child, how well adjusted do you think that kid is? The ONLY reason that a child in the home of a same sex marriage faces so much turmoil is the fact that society, and those that think they should be able to control other people's lives, put it there. The rest of the turmoil is in the hands of how the parents raise the child and their interactions in the home.

Do I really agree with gay couples adopting? No, but I have to say it's no worse than single mothers too young to have grown up before having a child, and then never really grow up and become a responsible parent, or couples that shouldn't be together that "stay together for the kids" yet fight like cats and dogs, or the home with an abusive parent.

As to degradation of morals, IMO, it's not a question of morality, it's a question of someone else's life as compared to YOUR morality. No government should be dictating personal morality as long as it does not interfere with another individual's choice, property, or freedom. If someone's sensibilities or feelings are somehow hurt by someone else's choices in life, well too fricken bad, get over it.

Marxism has no reference to promoting the degradation of morality, It for the most part revolves around economics and the fallacy that people will still work and achieve when there really is no incentive. So that really is a false idea, see the 10 pillars below. HOWEVER I do agree that the leftists in this country are picking and choosing strong 1 issue voters to pander to in order to get them to hand them the power, some it's gay rights, some it's abortion rights, some it's class warfare (this one boggles me to no end because half these idiots voting for them can't make the connection that they are voting for some of the biggest examples of what they are against or want confiscated in their name).

It seems sometimes that the average voter in this country can't apply logic or has the attention span of a 12 year old with A.D.D. after a double espresso. They can't see beyond the "I WANT" part of the thought process and never seem to connect the dots on the political ramifications of what they want and how to go about getting it. They just want someone to hand it to them and the leftists are perfectly willing to do so in order to gain or retain power. Should they ever get all of the power, it's all over and people will finally wake up, but it will be far too late.

Quote:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
05-09-2012, 22:43
UncleDave

You cannot legislate morality. If you passed a law that you must love your neighbor, how often would that law be broken. The strength of your morals comes from within and how you are raised, not legislative action. That is why Jesus said my kingdom is no part of this world. If gays marry or don't marry has no bearing on what a person of faith does, and legislating against it will not stop them from living together in a union of a marital nature. Behaviors are only changed from within a person.
05-09-2012, 22:55
Aloha_Shooter

Wouldn't we all be better off if his mother had been a lesbian?
05-09-2012, 23:03
bryjcom

The way I see it is this. Who gives a shit if gays marry?? We got FAR WORSE things to worry about then whether 2 dudes have to split their belongings after they break up.

Honestly, it should be left up to the states to decide. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the federal government can regulate marriages....At least nowhere that I know of....
05-09-2012, 23:34
Sharpienads

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.
05-09-2012, 23:47
XC700116

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.

couldn't have said it any better
05-10-2012, 00:14
GilpinGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.

While I agree with most of this, I've read the Constitution many times and don't recall that a US Citizen has a RIGHT to marry anyone but maybe I'm off-base. And maybe I'm being a little anal here, but let's not fall into the liberal trap of making common terms like "right to marry" a regular thing that we all utter like it is an actual right under the Constitution. There is no such right that I know of. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

And for the record I'm one of the "I really don't have a huge opposition to gay marriage or 'civil unions' (aka gay marriage), but it just doesn't SEEM like the right way to go to me" crowd. I'll leave it at that.

If it goes, fine. And I think we will see it nation-wide eventually, just like legalized pot, prostitution, etc. Weeeeeeee!
05-10-2012, 00:35
mevshooter

I'm not budging on gay marriage, because most of the people on that side of the argument have been infringing on my second amendment rights for longer than the gay marriage movement has been around.

Yes, you're dang right, this is my political ammunition to fight with.

Stay the hell away from my guns, and I will stay the hell out of your bedroom.

Until then, the fight continues.
05-10-2012, 00:40
Sharpienads

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

While I agree with most of this, I've read the Constitution many times and don't recall that a US Citizen has a RIGHT to marry anyone but maybe I'm off-base. And maybe I'm being a little anal here, but let's not fall into the liberal trap of making common terms like "right to marry" a regular thing that we all utter like it is an actual right under the Constitution. There is no such right that I know of. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

And for the record I'm one of the "I really don't have a huge opposition to gay marriage or 'civil unions' (aka gay marriage), but it just doesn't SEEM like the right way to go to me" crowd. I'll leave it at that.

If it goes, fine. And I think we will see it nation-wide eventually, just like legalized pot, prostitution, etc. Weeeeeeee!

"The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

On top of that, the federal government has no power to legislate on marriage. And by getting married you're not infringing on anybody else's rights or making anybody else carry any sort of responsibility for your actions.

I get what you're saying though. But I don't think something like the "right" to healthcare or the "right" to an education is the same as the the right to marry whoever you want.
05-10-2012, 00:50
Sharpienads

Quote:

Originally Posted by mevshooter

I'm not budging on gay marriage, because most of the people on that side of the argument have been infringing on my second amendment rights for longer than the gay marriage movement has been around.

Yes, you're dang right, this is my political ammunition to fight with.

Stay the hell away from my guns, and I will stay the hell out of your bedroom.

Until then, the fight continues.

True, but there are better arguments for the 2A than that.
05-10-2012, 01:04
Flatline

Quote:

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

there should NOT be government recognized marriage. just civil unions or contracts, as i see it.

if a religious institution wants to marry you, well thats yours and their business. be it man man, woman woman, man woman woman woman, etc. if your choice of religion will marry you go for it. the government should only recognize contracts between individuals.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumpstart

Part 1. Tell me why it is necessary for two men to get an arbitrary piece of paper that says they are together?

Part 2. Devaluation of real marriages = Divorces >children hurt > crime rates higher single family homes> teen pregnancy > higher drug use > moral decay > breakdown of societies.

Hence marriage needs valuation in our times, not devaluation.

Are you sure that the devaluation of marriage is affected by gays and not by the change in morals by straight couples?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPTactical

3-Adoption-Bullshit. It takes a man and a woman to make a child and it takes a man and a woman to raise a child.

I can tell you as a fact that mammal offspring can be created by from only females.
Furthermore plenty of single parents have raised children successfully. Maybe you think I should head down to the battered women's shelter and tell those women that if they have children and they don't get back with a man ASAP then they risk forever corrupting their children!
05-10-2012, 01:08
GilpinGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

"The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

I believe (strongly) that these "certain rights" were the ones specifically outlined by the founders and further amendments. Nothing else, ever, unless ratified by the States as a new Right through the proper process (not judicial activism) is a right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

On top of that, the federal government has no power to legislate on marriage. And by getting married you're not infringing on anybody else's rights or making anybody else carry any sort of responsibility for your actions.

I get what you're saying though. But I don't think something like the "right" to healthcare or the "right" to an education is the same asthe the right to marry whoever you want.

None of these things is a right, including the "right to marry whoever you want". The words "marry" or "marriage" are never once mentioned in the US Constitution. Marriage to whoever you want is simply not a "right" granted by the US Constitution.

Again, if I'm off here, someone please correct my Crown and Diet Pepsi basted brain. (yeah, I know...gotta lay off the diet pepsi...)
05-10-2012, 01:17
GilpinGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatline

I can tell you as a fact that mammal offspring can be created by from only females.

Any of them ever been human? We are a bit different than, say, platypuses (are they even mammals?).
05-10-2012, 01:18
Irving

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

I believe (strongly) that these "certain rights" were the ones specifically outlined by the founders and further amendments. Nothing else, ever, unless ratified by the States as a new Right through the proper process (not judicial activism) is a right.

Sounds like you should read the Constitution several more times then. One of the very first things that it says is that it is not an exclusive list of rights. I read the Constitution to say that anything that is not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, everything is a right, unless it is specifically stated to not be a right. Right?
05-10-2012, 01:52
GilpinGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irving

Sounds like you should read the Constitution several more times then. One of the very first things that it says is that it is not an exclusive list of rights. I read the Constitution to say that anything that is not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, everything is a right, unless it is specifically stated to not be a right. Right?

The "not an exclusive list of rights" phrase was meant to mean (in my opinion, and others) that the list can be expanded by amendments, and, therefore, it's not exclusive. It's does not mean "yeah guys, anything else ya'll want in this silly thing we're writing is totally cool too". Why even put that phrase in there in the first place if it didn't have any specific meaning?

I think we're real close on all of this so I don't want to bait you or anything. It just steams me when folks talk about my "right" to do this or that. Some things just aren't "rights". So they shouldn't pretend they are.

If folks want gay marriage to be a "right" under the US Constitution, get it ratified by the States. That's my point.

Do I have a right to marry my dog? It's not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. So why not?
05-10-2012, 06:49
Jumpstart

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridge

And then treat it like shit.

So now since children are abused in the world ( your inference being exclusively by straight couples) we should allow homosexuals set aside priviledges? News flash: Homosexuals rape children,murder children, exploit children, steal, lie, assault, slander etc. as well.
05-10-2012, 07:25
tmleadr03

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

The "not an exclusive list of rights" phrase was meant to mean (in my opinion, and others) that the list can be expanded by amendments, and, therefore, it's not exclusive. It's does not mean "yeah guys, anything else ya'll want in this silly thing we're writing is totally cool too". Why even put that phrase in there in the first place if it didn't have any specific meaning?

I think we're real close on all of this so I don't want to bait you or anything. It just steams me when folks talk about my "right" to do this or that. Some things just aren't "rights". So they shouldn't pretend they are.

If folks want gay marriage to be a "right" under the US Constitution, get it ratified by the States. That's my point.

Do I have a right to marry my dog? It's not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. So why not?

Your argument is flawed. Beastiality is against the law in I believe all the states.
05-10-2012, 07:34
BPTactical

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmleadr03

Your argument is flawed. Beastiality is against the law in I believe all the states.

You ever see a Nebraska cheerleader???
05-10-2012, 07:36
n8tive97

Just another slap in the face of conservatives... he is the worst president ever!
05-10-2012, 07:43
Ridge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumpstart

So now since children are abused in the world ( your inference being exclusively by straight couples) we should allow homosexuals set aside priviledges? News flash: Homosexuals rape children,murder children, exploit children, steal, lie, assault, slander etc. as well.

Please, tell me. Would you rather children only allowed to live in a family with one mother and one father, in which they are treated like shit, or do you think they should have the opportunity to live with a gay couple that will treat them nicely?

All your argument is saying is that gays are a lot like straight people. Doesn't really help your case that they should be treated differently.

Gun owners do all that shit, too. Should they be denied the right to raise children?
05-10-2012, 07:56
Rucker61

Gay couples are already living together, having sex and raising kids already. Nothing will change that. Allowing them to marry just gives them rights and protections enjoyed by couples who marry, under the law.
05-10-2012, 08:00
n8tive97

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridge

Please, tell me. Would you rather children only allowed to live in a family with one mother and one father, in which they are treated like shit, or do you think they should have the opportunity to live with a gay couple that will treat them nicely?

All your argument is saying is that gays are a lot like straight people. Doesn't really help your case that they should be treated differently.

Gun owners do all that shit, too. Should they be denied the right to raise children?

So all gay couples are loving parents? There are no gay couples raising kids that treat their kids like shit?
05-10-2012, 08:06
Ridge

Quote:

Originally Posted by n8tive97

So all gay couples are loving parents? There are no gay couples raising kids that treat their kids like shit?

What about straight couples?

The argument was never that gay couples are better than straight couples. The argument is that they aren't any worse.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page