Obama-Marriage Debate - Fitchburg, MA

Marriage is between Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!

Barry Oblame Everyone is three years behind Dick Cheney in holding that position, yet there was no glee among the most radical same-sex marriage supporters when the Republican said the same. Ted Olson, Bush's solicitor general, is actively representing the gay rights movement in a case going to the Supreme Court, but the two Republicans' positions and active contributions to the cause are ignored because of their political affiliation.

Same sex "marriage" is an obvious oxymoron. When two men can copulate and produce a baby and when two women can accomplish the same feat, then they may be able to claim it a "marriage". Zero has politicized it to get the deviant vote, just as he is attacking Arpaio and Arizona to get the illegal vote. I've no idea what he will do to get the dead vote. Dare we hope..

Why does the outcome of marriage have to be children? I married in my fifties with no expectation of children. Should my marriage also be illegal?

A society that wants to perpetuate itself has an interest in encouraging the kind of union that a) produces future citizens and b) gives them the healthiest situation for their development. Until leftists muddied the waters, it was clear that this meant marriage between a man and a woman who at least have the biological potential to have offspring without artificial intervention. The present situation, where a heterosexual working couple has fewer kids if any because one of their incomes is taken by Big Government and handed to illiterate single mothers "raising" fatherless feral youngsters who are a drain on society is societal suicide.

The fun has just begun if you want to make some cash on the side. Just marry an illegal (man or woman) for citizenship purposes, divorce, repeat. Liberals will then lecture us on the "sanctity of marriage."

Stamos wrote:

A society that wants to perpetuate itself has an interest in encouraging the kind of union that a) produces future citizens and b) gives them the healthiest situation for their development. Until leftists muddied the waters, it was clear that this meant marriage between a man and a woman who at least have the biological potential to have offspring without artificial intervention. The present situation, where a heterosexual working couple has fewer kids if any because one of their incomes is taken by Big Government and handed to illiterate single mothers "raising" fatherless feral youngsters who are a drain on society is societal suicide.
The fun has just begun if you want to make some cash on the side. Just marry an illegal (man or woman) for citizenship purposes, divorce, repeat. Liberals will then lecture us on the "sanctity of marriage."

Should these heterosexual couples in childbearing years also attempt to produce blonde, blue-eyed children?

Should bisexuals be allowed dual sexual marriages?

Was gay marriage the goal all along, or were there way-points along the way? I seem to recall that first gays wanted equanimity with marriage; hence, civil unions and other legally binding arrangements that are on par with marriage without calling it such, per se. Once gay marriage is a reality, is polygamy next, followed by polyamory?

Once the legal barriers to gay marriage are removed, what obstacles are left to prevent polygamy and polyamory? Seems to me the same arguments in favor of gay marriage also apply to polygamists and polyamorists. If marriage must be redefined to include the wants and desires of 3% of the population, why should polygamists and polyamorists be excluded? Don't polygamists love one another? Don't polyamorists love one another? What business is it of ours to prevent a man from marrying several other men and women? For that matter, what business is it of ours to prevent that same man from marrying his dog and his iPad?

I'm not advocating polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, or iPad love. I'm just wondering why gay marriage would be the new line in the sand...

Stamos wrote:

Should bisexuals be allowed dual sexual marriages?
Was gay marriage the goal all along, or were there way-points along the way? I seem to recall that first gays wanted equanimity with marriage; hence, civil unions and other legally binding arrangements that are on par with marriage without calling it such, per se. Once gay marriage is a reality, is polygamy next, followed by polyamory?
Once the legal barriers to gay marriage are removed, what obstacles are left to prevent polygamy and polyamory? Seems to me the same arguments in favor of gay marriage also apply to polygamists and polyamorists. If marriage must be redefined to include the wants and desires of 3% of the population, why should polygamists and polyamorists be excluded? Don't polygamists love one another? Don't polyamorists love one another? What business is it of ours to prevent a man from marrying several other men and women? For that matter, what business is it of ours to prevent that same man from marrying his dog and his iPad?
I'm not advocating polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, or iPad love. I'm just wondering why gay marriage would be the new line in the sand...

Because we're talking about equality, not sexuality.

I'd consider Rush a polygamist as he married many women, only he did it serially instead of concurrently. lol

Stamos wrote:

A society that wants to perpetuate itself has an interest in encouraging the kind of union that a) produces future citizens and b) gives them the healthiest situation for their development. Until leftists muddied the waters, it was clear that this meant marriage between a man and a woman who at least have the biological potential to have offspring without artificial intervention. The present situation, where a heterosexual working couple has fewer kids if any because one of their incomes is taken by Big Government and handed to illiterate single mothers "raising" fatherless feral youngsters who are a drain on society is societal suicide.
The fun has just begun if you want to make some cash on the side. Just marry an illegal (man or woman) for citizenship purposes, divorce, repeat. Liberals will then lecture us on the "sanctity of marriage."

Jesus Christ, Stamos, what's next with you, sterilization, and extermination? You're downright scary sometimes, even though I know you're only blowing some smoke because you're so threatened and disenfranchised at this point in your life. But this sounds like something that could have been written in China, or somewhere even worse.

Stamos wrote:

Should bisexuals be allowed dual sexual marriages?
Was gay marriage the goal all along, or were there way-points along the way? I seem to recall that first gays wanted equanimity with marriage; hence, civil unions and other legally binding arrangements that are on par with marriage without calling it such, per se. Once gay marriage is a reality, is polygamy next, followed by polyamory?
Once the legal barriers to gay marriage are removed, what obstacles are left to prevent polygamy and polyamory? Seems to me the same arguments in favor of gay marriage also apply to polygamists and polyamorists. If marriage must be redefined to include the wants and desires of 3% of the population, why should polygamists and polyamorists be excluded? Don't polygamists love one another? Don't polyamorists love one another? What business is it of ours to prevent a man from marrying several other men and women? For that matter, what business is it of ours to prevent that same man from marrying his dog and his iPad?
I'm not advocating polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, or iPad love. I'm just wondering why gay marriage would be the new line in the sand...

Maybe because there are a lot of same sex families "we liberals" see functioning very well in society, but we haven't encountered any interspecies or even bio-techno hybrid units/families quite yet. Maybe we'll be able to talk with the animals some day, Stamos, and we'll have our own Stepford wife, but not yet! And you know, monogamy is so passe these days. Why, Republicans as well as Democrats all around Washington and the nation have a hard time with faithfulness.

It's a religious issue with you, the whole shebang, isn't it??? Do you go to church?

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
Should these heterosexual couples in childbearing years also attempt to produce blonde, blue-eyed children?

See, Stamos, even 'Really" got creeped out by what you said.

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
Because we're talking about equality, not sexuality.
I'd consider Rush a polygamist as he married many women, only he did it serially instead of concurrently. lol

In your equal caring and sharing world all the stars in the sky would be all evenly spaced and all the trees in the forests would be equally sized.

Your idea that the government should institute gay marriage for the sake of some bogus equality argument that gays can marry the ones they love is ridicules. There is no public interest in the government recognizing any "romantic relationships," gay or straight.

The inequalities you speak of are entirely government created. Name one that is not. Heterosexuals can't marry same sex partners, either. Your equal rights argument for gay marriage revolves around government benefits and entitlements that "civil unions" can legally address. If equality is truly what is a desired, civil union and not marriage should be the goal of the gay community. Anything else is an obvious attempt to force and compel religious people to violate their religious beliefs in the misguided belief that forcing the "gay marriage" issue will eradicate prejudice against gays. It will have exactly the opposite effect. So once again, don’t polygamists who love one another have this same “equality” argument you are spewing? Don’t polyamorists that also love one another have this same argument?
I personally think homosexual couples should be allowed to use contract or “civil union” law to benefit one another. I am also in favor of recognition of their families in regards to some benefits. But I am adamantly opposed to equating heterosexual and homosexual couplings in marriage. They are different and should be treated as such. The oil in your car is different from the oil in your salad.

No and stop it. It is the identical case as interracial marriage. Just because you don't like or agree with it doesn't make it aberrant or need exceptional handling.

Stamos wrote:

<quoted text>
In your equal caring and sharing world all the stars in the sky would be all evenly spaced and all the trees in the forests would be equally sized.
Your idea that the government should institute gay marriage for the sake of some bogus equality argument that gays can marry the ones they love is ridicules. There is no public interest in the government recognizing any "romantic relationships," gay or straight.
The inequalities you speak of are entirely government created. Name one that is not. Heterosexuals can't marry same sex partners, either. Your equal rights argument for gay marriage revolves around government benefits and entitlements that "civil unions" can legally address. If equality is truly what is a desired, civil union and not marriage should be the goal of the gay community. Anything else is an obvious attempt to force and compel religious people to violate their religious beliefs in the misguided belief that forcing the "gay marriage" issue will eradicate prejudice against gays. It will have exactly the opposite effect. So once again, don’t polygamists who love one another have this same “equality” argument you are spewing? Don’t polyamorists that also love one another have this same argument?
I personally think homosexual couples should be allowed to use contract or “civil union” law to benefit one another. I am also in favor of recognition of their families in regards to some benefits. But I am adamantly opposed to equating heterosexual and homosexual couplings in marriage. They are different and should be treated as such. The oil in your car is different from the oil in your salad.

Being gay isn't a crime in the Commonwealth I live in, and you religious people aren't going to legislate my rights out of existence around here, like you did in North Carolina.

Gayness makes you ultraconservatives real uncomfortable. I'm sorry. I can say that, because I'm not gay. BUT I deserve the right to become gay. Any time I want. And I bet if I were gay, and I could choose my gay partner from one of my small circle of heterosexual friends (Although I think some of my friends are gay! OR bisexual) we'd make a god family unit base, even if we were gay. Better than many heterosexual couples I know pretending to be parents.

And If I do become gay Stamos, I promise not to try to get my kids to become gay.

You're pretty religious Stamos, aren't you? You can answer! The truth will set you free!

Of course he supports gay marriage. Just look at the guy he's married to.

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
Should these heterosexual couples in childbearing years also attempt to produce blonde, blue-eyed children?

When Government control IS acceptable for Stablamos.

The "sanctity of Marriage", just what IS that with 50% success rates?!!!?!?!?

How about you target divorce!

I really don't see the issue with same sex marriage. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us. lol

Civil Servant Supporter wrote:

<quoted text>
Being gay isn't a crime in the Commonwealth I live in, and you religious people aren't going to legislate my rights out of existence around here, like you did in North Carolina.

Nice try Civil, but being gay is NOT a crime anywhere in this Country and YOU have every right to be gay in any state, including North Carolina. I say go for it! You’d make a great trustafarian beearch for some fine fella’s like sloppy or the wanna be mayor. And how dare you try to force your morality on me? This same-sex marriage issue is nothing more than an attempt to morally legitimize homosexual behavior. Your position is as discriminatory as my own .The real efforts from the likes of you self claimed “liberals”(whether you realize it or not) is not simply "marriage equality” but moral public acceptance that you pinheads like to shove down the throats of those who disagree. Many liberals like you have been deceived because this issue is not, nor has it ever been, about marriage and/or discrimination.

As a conservative, I understand the true meaning of marriage which is justified and defined by moral reasoning. First of all, as a Christian, I accept the institution of marriage as being the union between one man and one woman which is the foundation of life itself at every social institution the world over. Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on.
Science also supports the common sense (for most of us) definition of marriage and has long revealed that -children, and society function best when men and women are united in strong and healthy marriages. Nature itself dictates that marriage between one man and one woman is central to human existence which forms the basic building blocks of “ANY” society.

In "Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles," published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, the study makes very clear that "[c]hildren raised outside of intact marriages have higher rates of poverty, mental illness, teen suicide, conduct disorders, infant mortality, physical illness, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. They are more likely to drop out of school, be held back a grade, and launch into early and promiscuous sexual activity, leading to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and early unwed parenthood." Hence, it is simply a matter of good government policy to promote such an institution -- not redefine it -- that is so beneficial to society.“Marriage in any important sense is not a creation of the State, not a mere creature of statute.”
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.mlaws...

So you see civil, your fears that people are going to legislate your rights out of existence are dumbfounded and totally irrational, when In fact, the only reason for your existence is because one man and one women created you through marriage. Be it through government recognition, or not!

Stamos, you have actually contradicted your own assumptions. There are more hetero couples who marry who are unable or have no intention to procreate than same sex couples who intend to marry. There would be no dilution of the procreating population. Humans will procreate and reproduce regardless of marriage rules, rights, or institutions. Studies have shown that same-sex couples make excellent couples as often as same-sex couples do. Communities that are homogenious and keep out diversity are lacking in enriching ideas and experiences that help them grow and succeed. With more states banning or otherwise making abortion impossible, more unwanted children will need homes. Same-sex partners are willing to adopt. Sounds like a win-win to me. Same-sex partnerships are often far more stable than opposite sex partnerships, like those you are citing where these children are being raised without a family. You are just creeped out because you can't get past the sexuality aspect. Stop thinking about that part. Some same sex couples are asexual, as are some opposite sex couples.

Really, you still haven't answered any of my questions, why?

Should bisexuals be allowed dual sexual marriages?

Why should polygamists and polyamorists be excluded from the definition of marriage? Don't polygamists love one another? Don't polyamorists love one another? What business is it of ours to prevent a man from marrying several other men and women?

So.....any two, three or more people can adopt .... think of the reality of that? And denial will be a violation of their 'civil rights'...

And if any two loving people can get married, adopt and receive governmental recognition....what of the enamored 'threesome'?

And what about a brother and sister who share the same house, have never married anybody else, and find themselves taking care of a younger family member? Should they have the right to marry in order to not have to go to a lawyer to set up their various inheritance and visitation rights? Should we redefine marriage to include a brother and a sister just to make sure that these people have "equal" rights?

These are all legitamite questions and concerns that effect society as a whole, why do you ignore them?

Really wrote:

Stamos, you have actually contradicted your own assumptions. There are more hetero couples who marry who are unable or have no intention to procreate than same sex couples who intend to marry. There would be no dilution of the procreating population. Humans will procreate and reproduce regardless of marriage rules, rights, or institutions. Studies have shown that same-sex couples make excellent couples as often as same-sex couples do. Communities that are homogenious and keep out diversity are lacking in enriching ideas and experiences that help them grow and succeed. With more states banning or otherwise making abortion impossible, more unwanted children will need homes. Same-sex partners are willing to adopt. Sounds like a win-win to me. Same-sex partnerships are often far more stable than opposite sex partnerships, like those you are citing where these children are being raised without a family. You are just creeped out because you can't get past the sexuality aspect. Stop thinking about that part. Some same sex couples are asexual, as are some opposite sex couples.

It has been known since the dawn of day that a family unit consisting of a man and a woman is the best nurturing environment for the children.

http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends...

http://www.childtrends.org/

This issue could be resolved through Sharia Law. Afterall, don't the gays just love the Mooslums?

The sad thing is, that once the beloved Liberal Socialist DICTATORSHIP is established, the Liberal Socialists will throw off the Gays, just as the National Socialists did. But first, just like Hiter they'll milk the Gays for all the money they can, THEN dump them.