Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

Judged:

1

1

1

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
When there is due process there is no murder, and unfair lending practices are illegal, and people can be punished for that. Ya know I have know soldiers that were puhished for adultry, pretty severly as well, not just in the legal relm but also out side, how many families have been destroyed by adultry, look at the trouble that people get in when they covet thier neighbors goods, look at the problems that not honoring your parents has caused, how about the problems that not loving your neighbor as yourself has caused.
Hate to bust your bubble but the reader in Public schools in this country was the Bible, PUBLIC SCHOOLS, did you know that there was a religous test for holding public office in most states?

chief22 wrote:

Did you know that the vast majority of our founders were devout Christians?

chief22 wrote:

And those who were not, knew the power fo God.
Yes liberals in this nation are trying to secularize her, it is marked by the decline of the family, the high divorce rate the rate of unwed mothers, especially in certain ethnic communities. As we get further from the Grace of God the further down the moral sewer we go.

Judged:

1

1

1

Philliproy wrote:

<quoted text>
It follows that the Hater-in-Chief hates traditional marriage, if the Hater-in-Chief supports gay marriage.

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:

Okay this is getting silly. The right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized conjugal relationship of husband and wife, is a right ALL Americans enjoy.

Pietro Armando wrote:

The issue is not the right to marry,

Pietro Armando wrote:

but how we, "the people", define marriage. How can one argue for a right which one already has? The various states that have passed so called "gay marriage bans", actually reinforced the universal, historic, traditional, definition of marriage, one that we all accepted and understood. The measures can just as easily be called polygamous marriage bans, as well, yet none of the "marriage equality communists", seem to realize.

Judged:

1

1

1

Philliproy wrote:

The Hater-in-Chief hates the traditional family unit, if the Hater-in-Chief supports gay marriage.
The Hater-in-Chief cannot have it both ways.

Judged:

1

1

1

Philliproy wrote:

<quoted text>
But, there is some healthy suspicion that the Flipflopper-in-Chief has decided to revert back to his boyhood Muslim training.
As a schoolboy in Jakarta, Barack Obama attended Muslim prayer sessions with his classmates against the wishes of his mother. The US President's former grade three teacher said that Mr Obama - who was known as "Barry" when he attended the Menteng One school in Jakarta - studied the Koran and went to classes on Islam, despite the objections of Ann Dunham, a Catholic.”
Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/obamas-old-...

Judged:

1

1

1

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
The secularization if this nation didn't start till long after the last founder went home to be with God, well into the 20th centrury.

Judged:

1

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
1.) "Opposite sex", and "same sex" families? Any family composed of one sex is a "same sex" family, any family with both sexes is an opposite sex marriage.
2.) Equal protection applies to individuals. A man has the same right to marry a woman, and vice versa, as any other man, or woman can. The law applies to men and women equally.

Philliproy wrote:

I rest my case!
Hookers and strippers and junkies love the Junkie-in-Chief, while "dumbazz" American Taxpayers pay for their hospital bills and foodstamps.
In his memoir,“Dreams From My Father,” Obama wrote that he went so far as to enter the freezer of a delicatessen with “my initiator,” a junkie who “pulled out the needle and tubing” for Obama.

No big O wrote:

<quoted text>
If he supported ssm... then he would have A LONG TIME AGO, taken measures to repeal defense of marriage act. I am for ssm... however I see what the big O has done as what it is... political schenanigans. He could care less about ssm... He even couched his statement to draw cover... He did not say he was for ssm... period... He said he was for ssm... but it was a states right issue... In other words, it really doesnt matter what I say... He gets points from the homo. community while covering his 6 with others....

Judged:

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
I think he's just playing politics. And even had Biden test the waters.

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
1. true but with the distinction saying that the family has two married adults as head of household.

2. false quit the BS. Same-sex marriages are not receiving equal protection under the law.

3. They already have an established legal relationship by blood. This discussion is limited to two unrelated consenting adults.

4. The word traditional is a subjective term. The fact is that marriage has changed significantly during the course of the 20th century.

5. Polygamy is irrelevant to the discussion as polygamy is an entirely separate issue. We are limited to two consenting unrelated adults at this time. The word marriage, by defintion, means two people. Polygamy is another word with an entirely different meaning. For example, we would not call a marriage of two individuals a polygamous marriage.

Judged:

1

1

Nobama wrote:

<quoted text>
Thats something we can all agree on! All he cares about is the votes, not the people

Judged:

1

1

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't know what he cares about. You have a crystal ball?
Let's assume he cares. He needs to get re-elected in order to do the things he cares about doing.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
I would tend to agree with you.....it matters not what you post or how much information is out there.....she is like a lot of other anti-gay folk.....not willing to see anything but their own ideas and beliefs!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

no big O wrote:

<quoted text>
Waste water
If he cared, how come he has not done anything about DOMA?... you would think that he would have by now introduced legislation to repeal it...
And the fact that in 08 he was against it,,, now he is for it... but it is a states rights issue.... i.e. hey dont blame me.. nothing I can do about it...

no big O wrote:

<quoted text>
Waste water
If he cared, how come he has not done anything about DOMA?... you would think that he would have by now introduced legislation to repeal it...
And the fact that in 08 he was against it,,, now he is for it... but it is a states rights issue.... i.e. hey dont blame me.. nothing I can do about it...

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Please be specific. Two adult sisters heading a household could be defined as a "same sex family".
<quoted text>
No BS. Actually they are in the states that recognize such. All other states marriage, is still viewed as an opposite sex union, and thus those who enter into one, receive the repective legal protections.
<quoted text>
Agreed, where we differ is a matter of gender composition.
<quoted text>
Nothing has changed so significantly, except in a few states, that has altered the basic composition of the marital relationship, one male and one female.
<quoted text>
It is very relevant, and you know it is. Polygamy is marriage, by definition, and certainly a form of marriage that has been, and is, practiced by a number of societies around the globe. It is far older than SSM, and more widely accepted and/or tolerated, even in North America, to a degree. "Poly" obviously means more than two.
I understand why, from a strategic point, why SSMers don't want to connect their cause with polygamy, "oh we're not like them", "we're not asking for any major changes in the law", "We're about love and commitment", etc. That's all well and good as long as its the polygamy of the underage brides, and cult compounds, that SSM wishes to distances themselves from. However, the consensual polygamy of the Mr. & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. Brown, is different. Their, and their supporters, argument, goes something like this. "The gay marriage movement wishes to eliminate the 'opposite sex' requirement, yet retain the number two. We however wish to keep it male female, simply eliminate the number two. Ours has the virtue of maintaining the conjugal aspect of marriage, acknowledges the historic practice of polygamy yet requires it be a relationship of consenting adults, and links children to their biological mother and father. If the law can change for them, why not us"?
Please, for the sake of intelectual honesty, explain why SSMers can't support polygamous marriage equality?

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Presidents must offer the bill to a congressperson for introduction. Just how far would such a bill get in a Republican controlled Congress?
2. The President had a change of heart.
3. He could have done so during the Democratic controlled Congress but was doing the Health Care Reform.
4. Political opinion polls have moved much further toward marriage equality in recent years.

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
... and
5. DOMA was in the way.
6. The tenth amendment issues are far from resolved.

no big O wrote:

<quoted text>
DOMA was what he could have repealed.