Obama-Marriage Debate - Sikeston, MO

The only reason that Obama said that he supports it is to get votes. Why was he against it before, and now he supports it. I hope this flip flop shows him for what he is> Unfit to be president

I support gay marriage more than Obama. I want a federal law in support of gay marriage.

Obama wants to leave it up to hating states.

bufu wrote:

I support gay marriage more than Obama. I want a federal law in support of gay marriage.
Obama wants to leave it up to hating states.

I DON"T WANT A FEDERAL LAW IN SUPPORT OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE. i WANT TO LEAVE IT UP TO STATES THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. That is the way it is now and the way it will remain. I would like to know why people like you think that just because somebody disagrees with same sex marriage, they are either bigots or haters? That indicates to me that you are absoulty a queer male/female

Why should anyone care if gays marry? Why would they vote to prevent gays from marrying?

Simple. They hate gays.

Why is the government involved in any capacity in this issue?

Marriage is a spiritual contract rooted in religious belief.

Any two (or more) people can just as easily enter into a legal contract that lays out the terms of shared responsibilities and ownership of property.

Why the instance that the government step in and re-define a word?

Those who support "gay marriage" that are themselves in committed homo relationships will be no more joined if given government "permission". If they really need the force of government to validate their relationship, they must not really have much to begin with.

The fact of the matter is that this issue is more about insulting traditional values and less about any person's imaginary "right to marry".

If you're gay and want to call yourself married, go ahead, fine by me. I don't have to accept your lifestyle choice as equivalent to that of normal folks, but you are free to believe as you wish.

Additionally, where does all this mess stop? If the government is going to re-define the word "marriage" to include two people of the same sex, why must the number be limited to only two? Why not allow polygamy? Why limit the definition to only humans? Why not let the animal freaks marry their dogs or goats or whatever? Corporations have attained "personhood" from a legal standpoint, why not let corporations get "married"?

I was married "until death did us part". The only impact that the government had on that relationship was to levy additional tax burdens on us. We would have been married regardless of what the government had to say in the matter.

In closing, the homos can call themselves married all they like. The government can pretend to have the authority to regulate such senseless matters, but they have no authority to actually regulate them. Free people need not recognize either the governments endorsement or prohibition of marriage of any kind.

We have much bigger problems to concentrate on solving than this issue of what people call themselves.

Of course, a civil contract has no authority over Soc Sec survivor benefits, parental authority over medical decisions, granting citizenship by marriage, or a host of other issues.

Hate is the driving force in preventing gays from marrying.

bufu wrote:

Of course, a civil contract has no authority over Soc Sec survivor benefits, parental authority over medical decisions, granting citizenship by marriage, or a host of other issues.
Hate is the driving force in preventing gays from marrying.

Privatize SS, allow remaining funds in a person's fund to be transferred by will.

Power of attorney can be granted to anyone that you choose.

Citizenship by marriage is a sham that needs to end.

Hate of traditional morals and spiritual beliefs is the primary driving force behind the demand to change the definition of the word marriage.

A civil union contract could address all those things that concern you and your kind.

The constitutional amendment passed Tuesday by N Carolina prevents civil unions as well as marriages.

I imagine a good number of the other hater states outlawed civil unions when they passed gay hating legislation.

bufu wrote:

The constitutional amendment passed Tuesday by N Carolina prevents civil unions as well as marriages.
I imagine a good number of the other hater states outlawed civil unions when they passed gay hating legislation.

And those folks in North Carolina that don't like their Constitution can either campaign to get the Constitution amended again, or they can take their assets, talents, tax-base and perverse lifestyle to another state that suits their needs. This is what we call voting with our feet and wealth.

This is certainly not a federal issue. If all states were exactly the same in all legal aspects, there would be no point in having individual states.

I suppose you feel that a totalitarian central federal authority should rule every aspect of our lives.

It took the federal govt to pass civil rights laws. The majority haters in the old confederacy used their "states rights" to suppress black civil rights.

It's gonna take the feds to provide marriage rights to all citizens.

It may take a few more years but the cranky elderly are dying off and when they're gone things will be better.

So, you really believe that the federal government actually has the right to regulate marriage?

That flies in the face of our natural right to freely associate.

Why insist that the government be involved in any way, shape or form? Are you and your kind really that weak and dependent that you can't manage even your own personal relationships?

Do you really need the approval of others in order to share your life with someone else? Really?

Personally, I don't care what you call yourself. I just see no need for the federal government to regulate marriage.

Comparing the "right" of sexual deviants to indoctrinate children into a perverse lifestyle is nothing like allowing a colored person to sit in the front of a public bus. Your comparison of this issue to the civil rights movement is offensive and without merit.

quote

"Comparing the "right" of sexual deviants to indoctrinate children into a perverse lifestyle..."

There's some of that hate I was referring to.

bufu wrote:

quote
"Comparing the "right" of sexual deviants to indoctrinate children into a perverse lifestyle..."
There's some of that hate I was referring to.

So, a differing perspective qualifies as hate?

I never proposed that homosexuality should be outlawed, or that homos should be beaten. So exactly how is this "hate"?

Explain how homosexuality is not a deviation from the normal biological design of the human body.

Explain how raising children in an environment of deviant behavior and lifestyle choices is not indoctrination.

Explain how the homo lifestyle choice is not perverted when every instance of a "gay pride parade" or "gay day" is headlined with public sexual acts so disgusting that the news footage has to be blurred simply to comply with broadcasting standards of decency.

It's not hate that I have for those folks as I think they have the same right to pursue happiness as anyone else. I wish them no harm.

I simply wish they would simply live their lives, exercise some decency in their behavior and respect the views of others without imposing their irrational demands for compliance on others.

Yep. It takes hate to consider the desire of gays to marry as irrational.

But hey!!! Coming from a guy who routinely refers to people as parasites and animals it's to be expected.

Its a moral issue and guys should not be gay.
What someone wants to do in private is their business . They should not expect to be saluted ,
Just think about this: take a stack of Solo cups and take them apart , then put them back together.
You will see they only stack a certain way.
However if a couple of women are cute ........,,

bufu wrote:

Yep. It takes hate to consider the desire of gays to marry as irrational.
But hey!!! Coming from a guy who routinely refers to people as parasites and animals it's to be expected.

Michael Jackson was married.

Are you saying that he wasn't gay?

Sure, they wouldn't let him marry that kid from "home alone", but he did get married.

Doesn't MJ count?

bufu wrote:

The constitutional amendment passed Tuesday by N Carolina prevents civil unions as well as marriages.
I imagine a good number of the other hater states outlawed civil unions when they passed gay hating legislation.

We hope so.

bufu wrote:

quote
"Comparing the "right" of sexual deviants to indoctrinate children into a perverse lifestyle..."
There's some of that hate I was referring to.

No hate just truth.

sol wrote:

The only reason that Obama said that he supports it is to get votes. Why was he against it before, and now he supports it. I hope this flip flop shows him for what he is> Unfit to be president

It's actually going to hurt him than help him

Everyone give Wrapper a 8' salute.