Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't have any 'idea', who my preacher is??? I didn't say they were 'experts'.....
JUPITER WHERE ARE YOU NOW????

I'm right here, dear.

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
My "cohorts" may twist things, but none do it as much as you and most are not as childish as you -- I don't mean that as an insult but as my observation.

Oh, ok..so it's "OK" for your cohorts to do it...because of whatever reason you want to make up, but no one else can...you know what that makes you??? A whiny, hypocritical, lying bigot! I don't mean that as an insult..but as my observation....

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm right here, dear.

You sure are..in your whiny, hypocritical, lying bigotted way!!

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, ok..so it's "OK" for your cohorts to do it...because of whatever reason you want to make up, but no one else can...you know what that makes you??? A whiny, hypocritical, lying bigot! I don't mean that as an insult..but as my observation....

My bad...I left out 'COWARDICE'!...silly me!

Where did I claim that we stop at gender? I gave race and gender as examples, because those are the best known forms of discrimination encoded in law.

Get That Fool wrote:

In your last post

No, in my last post I gave race and gender as examples. I didn't claim that they were the only possible ways to discriminate.

As I said: There are certainly more possible examples of irrelevancies that would be forms of discrimination. Age (once a person reaches adulthood). Religious belief. Physical disabilities. But I'm not aware of any current state or federal laws that discriminate on the basis of these in regards to marriage, so I saw no point in listing them.

***

We are, so where in anything above did I claim that we weren't? Where am I "adjusting the terms" anywhere in what I've posted?

Get That Fool wrote:

Can you stick with 'marriage equality' and define that???

I already did. Not discriminating regarding the right to marriage on the basis of irrelevancies (such as race or gender).

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
You sure are..in your whiny, hypocritical, lying bigotted way!!

I rest my case.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
You sure are..in your whiny, hypocritical, lying bigotted way!!

I did it again...I forgot 'COWARD'!....

cpeter1313 wrote:

I don't care about your tiny little chestnuts.
I have never given a damn about polygamy, except to recognize that there would have to be major changes in the law to make it legally workable. My energies have been for MY people, and thus far, none of us have come forward wanting polygamy.

It seems unrealistic that none of "my people" are not in favor of it. I suppose for Glibtee community to openly support polygamy, it would undermine their cause in the general public.

The only reason you want us to work for all forms of marriage is because the more diffuse a movement gets, the less effective it is. Sorry, but we are not going to lose focus for your edification.

SSM opens up the discussion to legal polygamy, and other marital changes. America's favorite polygamous family, the Browns of "Sister Wives" fame have openly supported ssm, and used it's legality in their own legal battles.

BTW--are you saying marriage CAN be based on an illegal premise?
<quoted text>

The only illegality would be more than one legal wife/husband at a time. No prohibitions on "spiritual" wives, cohabitation, fathering children w/more than one woman, etc.

Drew Smith wrote:

Where did I claim that we stop at gender? I gave race and gender as examples, because those are the best known forms of discrimination encoded in law.
<quoted text>
No, in my last post I gave race and gender as examples. I didn't claim that they were the only possible ways to discriminate.
As I said: There are certainly more possible examples of irrelevancies that would be forms of discrimination. Age (once a person reaches adulthood). Religious belief. Physical disabilities. But I'm not aware of any current state or federal laws that discriminate on the basis of these in regards to marriage, so I saw no point in listing them.
***
We are, so where in anything above did I claim that we weren't? Where am I "adjusting the terms" anywhere in what I've posted?
<quoted text>
I already did. Not discriminating regarding the right to marriage on the basis of irrelevancies (such as race or gender).

Oh, I see...what determines 'irrelevancies'???

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
I rest my case.

Case dissmissed!

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Nolo's definitions change more often than any other dictionary...who cares????

Maybe that's because laws change? There is nothing on that site that is untrue. They are legal definitions... which is what we've been discussing.:)
Find something else credible and I will happily use that.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
You LIAR!
"On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association and other health, professional, and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation," the APA announced on its website earlier this week. "That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."
I hate to ask, but where the hell did you get the idea that "religious professionals" know ANYTHING about raising children?

The term "religious professional" should have tipped her off to begin with. If a religious leader uses religion as a profession, he's not doing it for the right reason.

RatherBeInMissouri wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe that's because laws change? There is nothing on that site that is untrue. They are legal definitions... which is what we've been discussing.:)
Find something else credible and I will happily use that.

So you are saying this definition is good for another month or so???

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, when being 'objective', that 'exactly' what you are supposed to do....

You can't teach opinion in a public school, nimrod! You can teach theory, you can teach fact, you can share and discuss ideas and opinions of your students, but you CANNOT *TEACH*, push, suggest or imply any type of personal opinion to a student in a public school. That's grounds for termination.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
The purpose of roles in the family is to de 'exactly' that. Because they can 'see' there is a difference between sexes doesn't mean they automatically understand how that plays out in society...
That's why children have parents...to teach them how to be adults....

So I take it you are a big fan of wives staying home and caring for a multitude of children, doing all the cooking and cleaning and basically being servants to their husbands? God forbid a woman gets an education, a career and maybe expects her husband to share some of the chores! THAT'S not traditional! pfft!

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
I know homosexuals don't like the words 'normal' and 'order'...but the rest of us do...'

Whatever gets you out of bed in the morning...

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Gender roles are important because as a society, we set what is 'normal' based on culture and tradition. Let me help you out...this is from planned parenthood of all places...
Gender and Gender Identity at a Glance
Gender is our social and legal status as girls and boys, women and men.
Gender identity is how you feel about and express your gender.
Culture determines gender roles and what is masculine and feminine.
What does it mean to be a woman or man? Whether we are women or men is not determined just by our sex organs. Our gender includes a complex mix of beliefs, behaviors, and characteristics. How do you act, talk, and behave like a woman or man? Are you feminine or masculine, both, or neither? These are questions that help us get to the core of our gender and gender identity.
I hope this answers your question.....gender roles are as important as 'gender' itself....

Thanks for the pamphlet but I have studied psych, remember? Have you not noticed the shift in gender roles in this country in the last 50 years? What did you think that whole feminism movement was all about? Teaching a child "HOW" to be a man or woman is redundant. Kids mimic what they see people close to them doing, and take their own interpretation of how to be a man or woman. Gender roles do not have to be taught. Kids are going to be who they are no matter how hard you try to shape them out of clay. You don't have kids, do you?

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
So you only accept it for the things you get from it....
What does it teach us about homosexuality???

That discussion is on another thread. I suggest you go there if you want to know what I've had to say about it.:)
I'm not about to have a religious discussion with someone that can't even act like a Christian.

RatherBeInMissouri wrote:

<quoted text>
That discussion is on another thread. I suggest you go there if you want to know what I've had to say about it.:)
I'm not about to have a religious discussion with someone that can't even act like a Christian.

LOL!!! Of course not!!!! LOL!!

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't have any 'idea', who my preacher is??? I didn't say they were 'experts'.....
JUPITER WHERE ARE YOU NOW????

"However, accoding to psychological/sociological/med ical/religious professionals...the 'best' environment in which to raise a child is in the home with his/her biological mother and father, married, and in a low conflict relationship....."

"Religious professionals are also versed on family issues as part of their duties to counsel...too bad you don't know that..."

Now tell me you weren't trying to imply that "religious professionals" are child development experts. You can't even LIE effectively.

I LOVE this....

TAMPA, August 29, 2012,( LifeSiteNews.com )– In a variation on the acceptance speech he might have given if circumstances were different, Rick Santorum delivered a pitched defense of life, liberty, and family at the Republican National Convention’s opening night event.

Sounding a theme he repeated on the campaign trail – which was eventually picked up by Mitt Romney, he told young people to do three things:“Graduate from high school, work hard, and get married before you have children – and the chance you will ever be in poverty is just two percent. Yet if you don’t do these three things you’re 38 times more likely to end up in poverty,” he said.

“We understand many Americans don’t succeed because the family that should be there to guide them and serve as the first rung on the ladder of success isn’t there, or is badly broken,” he said.“The fact is that marriage is disappearing in places where government dependency is highest.”

“If America is going to succeed, we must stop the assault on marriage and the family,” he said to applause.“It’s a sturdy ladder to success that is built with healthy families, education, and hard work. But President Obama’s policies undermine the traditional family [and] weaken the education system.”

“I thank God that America still has one party that reaches out their hands in love to lift up all of God’s children – born and unborn – and says that each of us has dignity and all of us have the right to live the American Dream,” he concluded.“In November, we have a chance to vote for life and liberty, not dependency.”

I couldn't agree more!!! This is the platform this time around....hope and change has become dependence and disruption.....

Get That Fool wrote:

I LOVE this....
TAMPA, August 29, 2012,( LifeSiteNews.com )– In a variation on the acceptance speech he might have given if circumstances were different, Rick Santorum delivered a pitched defense of life, liberty, and family at the Republican National Convention’s opening night event.
Sounding a theme he repeated on the campaign trail – which was eventually picked up by Mitt Romney, he told young people to do three things:“Graduate from high school, work hard, and get married before you have children – and the chance you will ever be in poverty is just two percent. Yet if you don’t do these three things you’re 38 times more likely to end up in poverty,” he said.
“We understand many Americans don’t succeed because the family that should be there to guide them and serve as the first rung on the ladder of success isn’t there, or is badly broken,” he said.“The fact is that marriage is disappearing in places where government dependency is highest.”
“If America is going to succeed, we must stop the assault on marriage and the family,” he said to applause.“It’s a sturdy ladder to success that is built with healthy families, education, and hard work. But President Obama’s policies undermine the traditional family [and] weaken the education system.”
“I thank God that America still has one party that reaches out their hands in love to lift up all of God’s children – born and unborn – and says that each of us has dignity and all of us have the right to live the American Dream,” he concluded.“In November, we have a chance to vote for life and liberty, not dependency.”
I couldn't agree more!!! This is the platform this time around....hope and change has become dependence and disruption.....

"I thank God that America still has one party that reaches out their hands in love to lift up all of God’s children..."

...unless you are gay or black or hispanic or asian or a female. Then we couldn't care less about you. Our white-male supremecy is the more important than your Constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

There. I fixed frothy lube's quote.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Laws against polygamy do not deny marriage to anyone. Everyone gets a marriage if they want one.
Whether or not one can have *more than one* marriage is not an issue of "marriage equality".

If a woman wishes to marry the father of her children, but is told no, because he is married, is that not a form of discrimination? Why should marital status be a basis of discrimination?