So now Obama is not against Same-Sex Marriage? Flip-Flopping again...

[OU_Sooners75]

Weird....must be because now he knows he has a base of followers (no matter how stupid they are)....

Here is what he said in 2008....


Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif. [/URL] [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/#"]http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/politics/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gifEmail (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/#) http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/politics/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gif (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/#) 413 (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/#comments) Smaller Font (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/#) Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/#) Larger Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/#) | Print (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/#)

ABC News’ Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, Tahman Bradley, and Rigel Anderson report: Barack Obama’s nuanced position on same-sex marriage is on full display in an MTV interview which is set to air on Monday.
Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."
At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure which would eliminate a right to same-sex marriage that the state’s Supreme Court recently recognized.
"I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about."
"Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them," he added.
Watch the interview here (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/20081101/story.jhtml).
MTV will release the interview as a 30-minute special on Monday at


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/


You liberal turds better not ever talk about any republican being a flip flopper!

[yermom]

he states in that quote that he is against it, but that the government shouldn't be restricting it

i'm against all marriage, personally ;)

[Curly Bill]

We already knew Obama was for same sex marriage!

He married another man didn't he?

[hawaii 5-0]

People shoulda gotten a clue on his evolving views on Gayness when he dumped Don't Ask Dont Tell. (or is Mitt claiming ownership on this as well?)

It wasn't like this just happened overnight.

5-0

[okie52]

People shoulda gotten a clue on his evolving views on Gayness when he dumped Don't Ask Dont Tell. (or is Mitt claiming ownership on this as well?)

It wasn't like this just happened overnight.

5-0

Evolving...now thats funny.


In most circles known as flip flopping unless its "your" candidate, then its Darwinian.

[dwarthog]

Oh boy, sock puppets...

[badger]

You liberal turds better not ever talk about any republican being a flip flopper!

Meh... not a liberal turd, but talking about any politician flip flopping is kind of fun :D

Vey7GKNpl4Q

[sappstuf]

I look forward to Obama admitting that Dick Cheney was right all along..

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html

[okie52]

I look forward to Obama admitting that Dick Cheney was right all along..

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html

Compassionate conservatism.

[rainiersooner]

I look forward to Obama admitting that Dick Cheney was right all along..

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html

that's actually pretty funny. I forgot about that.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

O'Bummer if a laugh a minute, truly unfortunate he sits as POTUS.

[dwarthog]

that's actually pretty funny. I forgot about that.

Not all that hard to forget. When it's republican in an important position that endorses something just another news cycle, but wait, a Democrat in an important position endorses the same thing? Hold the presses!

[hawaii 5-0]

Usually a politician will say anything that will get him elected.

This stance by Obama is big, real big.


Anyone recall that Switzerland, where Romney is hiding his money, ws the 1st country to allow same-sex marriages?

5-0

[pphilfran]

Usually a politician will say anything that will get him elected.

This stance by Obama is big, real big.


Anyone recall that Switzerland, where Romney is hiding his money, ws the 1st country to allow same-sex marriages?

5-0

Doesn't he have his money in a blind trust? I think it is managed by one of his friends/associates...

[diverdog]

Doesn't he have his money in a blind trust? I think it is managed by one of his friends/associates...

yep it is a black gay mormon dude living in Switzerland. :chuncky:

[hawaii 5-0]

Societal views can't evolve????


Used to be a time not too long ago when it was illegal for persons of opposite race to marry.


Did that notion just change overnight?

5-0

[pphilfran]

yep it is a black gay mormon dude living in Switzerland. :chuncky:

Ha ha....

I think it is this dude...

http://www.ropesgray.com/bradmalt/

Brad Malt has been a partner in the Corporate Department since 1987, and is Chairman of the firm's management committee. Brad was a founder of the private equity practice at Ropes & Gray, and as a result of Brad's extensive private equity experience, he has a broad knowledge of industry best practices and "market" terms and conditions. He counsels clients on acquisitions and dispositions, alternative investment activities, financings and portfolio company issues. He has particular knowledge in advising fund sponsors in connection with fundraising, strategic initiatives, relationships among partners, organizational structure, effective policies and procedures, and operational matters.

Professional Experience

Concentrating in corporate finance and mergers and acquisitions, Brad represents a wide variety of private and public equity clients in their fundraising and investment activities. These clients include leveraged buyout funds, hedge funds, CBO funds, fund-of-funds, mezzanine funds, pension funds, and other alternative investment funds and investors.

Honors & Awards

The Best Lawyers in America (1997-2012)
Chambers Global: The World's Leading Lawyers for Business (2006-2012)
Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business (2004-2011)
Massachusetts Super Lawyers (2004-2011)
Lawdragon 3000: Leading Lawyers in American (2006)
PLC Which Lawyer (2006, 2010-2011)
Top 45 lawyers in the country under the age of 45 by The American Lawyer (1995)
Who's Who in America
Who's Who in the World
Who's Who in American Law
Who's Who in Finance and Industry
The American Lawyer "heavy hitters"
Euromoney's Guide to the World's Leading Private Equity Lawyers



Professional & Civic Activities

Lecturer and former co-chairman of the ALI-ABA Advanced Course of Study on Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions
Session co-chair and Panelist, International Bar Association Private Equity Transactions Symposium
Member of the Massachusetts General Hospital Corporation
Member, Massachusetts Business Roundtable

[diverdog]

jeez he looks like this guy:

http://www.doletown.com/simpsons/mrburns/mrburnschair.gif

[okie52]

Societal views can't evolve????


Used to be a time not too long ago when it was illegal for persons of opposite race to marry.


Did that notion just change overnight?

5-0

Certainly. Obama has had an epiphany.

[hawaii 5-0]

Say, just where is Romney's tax return?

Still waiting on that one.

5-0

[okie52]

Say, just where is Romney's tax return?

Still waiting on that one.

5-0

Didn't he have Geithner handle it?

[pphilfran]

Say, just where is Romney's tax return?

Still waiting on that one.

5-0

This years? He filed an extension...I think he has 6 additional months...paid his estimated taxes and if he falls short he will pay a penalty....

[pphilfran]

jeez he looks like this guy:

http://www.doletown.com/simpsons/mrburns/mrburnschair.gif

lol

[hawaii 5-0]

Certainly. Obama has had an epiphany.


When you get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell and then the next year call for equal marriage rights I wouldn't call it an epiphany. If he had done it all within a week or so maybe.

5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Didn't he have Geithner handle it?


Good 'un.

5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

This years? He filed an extension...I think he has 6 additional months...paid his estimated taxes and if he falls short he will pay a penalty....



Seems suspicious to me.

Like he's got something to hide.

Kinda like forgetting he beat up a queer in high school.

5-0

[pphilfran]

When you get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell and then the next year call for equal marriage rights I wouldn't call it an epiphany. If he had done it all within a week or so maybe.

5-0

He wasn't going to say chit until Joe backed him in a corner...

Now it is damage control and claiming no big deal we were going to come out later...

Later? Why later?

Always reactive...a bad sign of a leader...

[pphilfran]

Seems suspicious to me.

Like he's got something to hide.

Kinda like forgetting he beat up a queer in high school.

5-0

What is wrong with you today?

Do you have anything other than smoke out your butt about him doing anything illegal as far as the return?

Damn, he is within his rights to file for an extension....he has a very difficult return and his million accountants probably require extra time to complete the return....

I filed for an extension a few years back for my parents return...was I trying to hide something?

[diverdog]

What is wrong with you today?

Do you have anything other than smoke out your butt about him doing anything illegal as far as the return?

Damn, he is within his rights to file for an extension....he has a very difficult return and his million accountants probably require extra time to complete the return....

I filed for an extension a few years back for my parents return...was I trying to hide something?


Man o man I found out that if you file an S Corp returns a day late they charge you a $195 per sharehold/per month penalty until it is paid. Fortunately for me they bought the dog ate my tax returns lie and gave me a pass this year.

[pphilfran]

Man o man I found out that if you file an S Corp returns a day late they charge you a $195 per sharehold/per month penalty until it is paid. Fortunately for me they bought the dog ate my tax returns lie and gave me a pass this year.

lol

[hawaii 5-0]

What is wrong with you today?

Do you have anything other than smoke out your butt about him doing anything illegal as far as the return?

Damn, he is within his rights to file for an extension....he has a very difficult return and his million accountants probably require extra time to complete the return....

I filed for an extension a few years back for my parents return...was I trying to hide something?

It's simple Phil. You're not a politician running for a major office. Mitt is.

Romney's father George was a leader in tax return disclosure. I'd hope to hold his son to as high a standard. Other politicians turned in their returns. Why not Mitt?

I'll try to get back on topic.

5-0

[pphilfran]

It's simple Phil. You're not a politician running for a major office. Mitt is.

Romney's father George was a leader in tax return disclosure. I'd hope to hold his son to as high a standard. Other politicians turned in their returns. Why not Mitt?

I'll try to get back on topic.

5-0

His return may not be complete...

What part of extension do you not understand?

Come Nov you can raise all the hell you want since the return must be filed by then...

Until then you will sound like a lefty version of a right wing birther...

[hawaii 5-0]

His return may not be complete...

What part of extension do you not understand?

Come Nov you can raise all the hell you want since the return must be filed by then...

Until then you will sound like a lefty version of a right wing birther...

Ding! Ding!!!!! Good jorb.

5-0

[pphilfran]

I will tell you what his return will say....

he will pay about 15% in income taxes...he will use each and every possible deduction to it's fullest extent....will donate a chit pot full of money to charity....and it will show he made a mountain of money...

[olevetonahill]

His return may not be complete...

What part of extension do you not understand?

Come Nov you can raise all the hell you want since the return must be filed by then...

Until then you will sound like a lefty version of a right wing birther...Yall lettin this Lefytie Deflect and turn this thread into a Romney Bashin
get back to Obammy
He simply saw a few votes under that slimy rock

[Midtowner]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/542091_10150737356857434_34407447433_8993112_16623 64838_n.jpg

[pphilfran]

lol

[hawaii 5-0]

My real thoughts on this issure.......

Back in junior high school I was like my peers. I hated queers.

In high school I tolerated the few I knew. I just didn't associate with them.

In college I began to see that they were regular people with regular interests and views. I made a coupla friendships with gay people, one a guy, the other was female.

Since then I've developed close friendships with several gay couples as well as a few single gays. (One is actually very conservative)

Some are young couples. One couple have grown children from previous marriages to straight men.

They're very caring, dedicated, creative people. I value their friendships and hope to keep them.

My feelings have evolved over time. Now I believe any couple, gay or straight are entitled to the same benefits of partnership or marriage.

5-0

[okie52]

When you get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell and then the next year call for equal marriage rights I wouldn't call it an epiphany. If he had done it all within a week or so maybe.

5-0

Let's see....Obama was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it...that sound about right?

[LiveLaughLove]

The problem with Obama's "evolving" views are that he held the view of being for same sex mariage when he was running for a liberally safe seat in Chicago, then was against it when he ran for a state wide seat and for president, now he is for it again.

It seems his "evolving" is directly correlated with where he feels the political wind is blowing.

It's also a little curious that the Washington Post runs an 11 page anti-Romney story about him supposedly "gay bashing" 50 YEARS AGO! the day after Obama comes out in support of gay marriage.

I'm sure it was just coincedence and not coordinated timing. Nah, couldn't be that. Oh yeah, Obama's people were ready with a new high quality ad about gay marriage one day after also. Nah, no coincedences.

BTW, with this story of Romneys past 50 YEARS AGO! he has now been vetted more and we now know more about him then we do the President of the United States! Isn't that interesting.

[soonercruiser]

Usually a politician will say anything that will get him elected.

This stance by Obama is big, real big.


Anyone recall that Switzerland, where Romney is hiding his money, ws the 1st country to allow same-sex marriages?

5-0

I'm not a political poll expert...
But, my guess is the pro-gay marriage stance will loose Obama more votes than it gets him.

I believe it was about getting that last gay-rights hold out money.

[soonercruiser]

Say, just where is Romney's tax return?

Still waiting on that one.

5-0

Still waiting to see all of Obama's college records!
First requests, first!

[hawaii 5-0]

BTW, with this story of Romneys past 50 YEARS AGO! he has now been vetted more and we now know more about him then we do the President of the United States! Isn't that interesting.



Taking a pair of scissors to someone against their will is Assault and Battery is it not?

A little different than getting high and not harming anyone.

The vetting of Romney continues. The surface has just been scratched.

5-0

[AlboSooner]

Obama is a smart politician. When he sensed that support for gay marriage would hinder him from becoming a president, he said he was against it.

Now he senses that supporting gay marriage will help him by contrasting himself with Romney, while trying to deflect attention from his abysmal performance on the economy. He is taking a page from Karl Rove, by diverting attention from vital issues, and making social issues the focal point of the election.

Romney would be smart not to take this bait.

It's sad to see Obama's transformation from a young, cool, anti-Washington, inspiring candidate, to a greying, Machiavellian, egomaniac, Washington insider.

The mindless masses will adore him, and worship at his feat for this sudden evolution, when in reality Obama cares only about becoming President for a second time.

[sappstuf]

Taking a pair of scissors to someone against their will is Assault and Battery is it not?

A little different than getting high and not harming anyone.

The vetting of Romney continues. The surface has just been scratched.

5-0

I just wish the vetting would start with Obama...

[dwarthog]

Taking a pair of scissors to someone against their will is Assault and Battery is it not?

A little different than getting high and not harming anyone.

The vetting of Romney continues. The surface has just been scratched.

5-0

Indeed, the surface has just been scratched!


A question emerges in reading the Washington Post piece on Mitt Romney today: How can Romney’s old pal Stu White tell the Washington Post that he has “long been bothered by the Lauber incident” — and then later admit to ABC News that he was “not present for the prank” and “was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post”?

This is curious.

The Washington Post story reports: “I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and has long been bothered by the Lauber incident.”

But ABC News, says: “White was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/cracks-in-the-washington-post-story-on-romneys-pranks-emerge/#ixzz1uYuEZNFz

[cleller]

It's simple Phil. You're not a politician running for a major office. Mitt is.

Romney's father George was a leader in tax return disclosure. I'd hope to hold his son to as high a standard. Other politicians turned in their returns. Why not Mitt?


5-0


Why is there this huge following that believe because Romney is rich, that should count against him? He and his father both had brains and drive enough to amass a huge fortune. That is a bad trait for an American? That's someone you should not put in a position of authority?

Better to have a guy with simple finances and lesser achievement?

When you've got assets like this, and a government that want to either take them from you, or punish you for having them its takes time to get your taxes done. We already know he's mega rich, not going to find out anything new.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Taking a pair of scissors to someone against their will is Assault and Battery is it not?

A little different than getting high and not harming anyone.

The vetting of Romney continues. The surface has just been scratched.

5-0

No we are hearing that the WAPO falsified the story, the people in question have no recollection of it until they were told of it 2 weeks ago. The Family of the guy (now deceased) do not recall that story either. Another "Dan Rather" falsehood by the lame street media...

[Curly Bill]

Why is there this huge following that believe because Romney is rich, that should count against him? He and his father both had brains and drive enough to amass a huge fortune. That is a bad trait for an American? That's someone you should not put in a position of authority?

Better to have a guy with simple finances and lesser achievement?

When you've got assets like this, and a government that want to either take them from you, or punish you for having them its takes time to get your taxes done. We already know he's mega rich, not going to find out anything new.

The left doesn't think people getting rich is a positive message. The left wants to portray the message that people need the government's help to get by in life. Beyond that the left thinks demonizing the rich plays well to the base.

...but then you already knew that.

[olevetonahill]

And again Yall lettin the lefties deflect this around to Mitt. get it back on the Fish Thats flip floppin

[Curly Bill]

And again Yall lettin the lefties deflect this around to Mitt. get it back on the Fish Thats flip floppin

Did you know that Obammy is married to a man? Ol Michelle is actualy Michael. If you've seen pictures I know you can believe this.

[okie52]

And again Yall lettin the lefties deflect this around to Mitt. get it back on the Fish Thats flip floppin

LOL.

[cleller]

And again Yall lettin the lefties deflect this around to Mitt. get it back on the Fish Thats flip floppin

Throw him back.

[TitoMorelli]

Obama is a smart politician. When he sensed that support for gay marriage would hinder him from becoming a president, he said he was against it.

Now he senses that supporting gay marriage will help him by contrasting himself with Romney, while trying to deflect attention from his abysmal performance on the economy. He is taking a page from Karl Rove, by diverting attention from vital issues, and making social issues the focal point of the election.

Romney would be smart not to take this bait.

It's sad to see Obama's transformation from a young, cool, anti-Washington, inspiring candidate, to a greying, Machiavellian, egomaniac, Washington insider.

The mindless masses will adore him, and worship at his feat for this sudden evolution, when in reality Obama cares only about becoming President for a second time.

Did you intend that last part to be sarcastic, or do you actually believe he ever was anything but a crooked pol?

[jkjsooner]

No we are hearing that the WAPO falsified the story, the people in question have no recollection of it until they were told of it 2 weeks ago. The Family of the guy (now deceased) do not recall that story either. Another "Dan Rather" falsehood by the lame street media...

Who are "we" hearing that from? I can't find any legitimate media sources claiming such. I'm not going to get sucked into what breitbart.com and other similar sites say.

I do think this story is relevant. It speaks to Romney's character - at least what type of character he used to have. I know many on here will say that we all did dumb things but I can promise you I never did anything like that. I wouldn't vote for the guys that I knew who did do things like that unless I saw evidence that they truly were regretful and made amends (maturing beyond that isn't sufficient).

And before vet says it, it's not my intent to change the subject. The subject was already changed. This happens to be the thread where this is discussed so I'll discuss it here.

[okie52]

Who are "we" hearing that from? I can't find any legitimate media sources claiming such. I'm not going to get sucked into what breitbart.com and other similar sites say.

I do think this story is relevant. It speaks to Romney's character - at least what type of character he used to have. I know many on here will say that we all did dumb things but I can promise you I never did anything like that. I wouldn't vote for the guys that I knew who did do things like that unless I saw evidence that they truly were regretful and made amends.

Really? Pretty saintly adolescence.

[olevetonahill]

Who are "we" hearing that from? I can't find any legitimate media sources claiming such. I'm not going to get sucked into what breitbart.com and other similar sites say.

I do think this story is relevant. It speaks to Romney's character - at least what type of character he used to have. I know many on here will say that we all did dumb things but I can promise you I never did anything like that. I wouldn't vote for the guys that I knew who did do things like that unless I saw evidence that they truly were regretful and made amends (maturing beyond that isn't sufficient).

And before vet says it, it's not my intent to change the subject. The subject was already changed. This happens to be the thread where this is discussed so I'll discuss it here.

But, But , Hes Evolved :chuncky:

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Who are "we" hearing that from? I can't find any legitimate media sources claiming such. I'm not going to get sucked into what breitbart.com and other similar sites say.

I do think this story is relevant. It speaks to Romney's character - at least what type of character he used to have. I know many on here will say that we all did dumb things but I can promise you I never did anything like that. I wouldn't vote for the guys that I knew who did do things like that unless I saw evidence that they truly were regretful and made amends (maturing beyond that isn't sufficient).

And before vet says it, it's not my intent to change the subject. The subject was already changed. This happens to be the thread where this is discussed so I'll discuss it here.

You and the other libs can go put your head in the sand when they are found out... nothing to see here... Pure and total fabrication by the false media, the O'Bummer Press Agency...

In fact ABC is reporting the inconsitencies...

Here you go Mr. Head-in-sand (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/sister-of-alleged-romney-target-has-no-knowledge-of-any-bullying-incident/)

[okie52]

But, But , Hes Evolved :chuncky:

LOL.

Pretty good one there Vet.

[jkjsooner]

Really? Pretty saintly adolescence.

There's a big line between being a saint and attacking someone for being feminine.

You do that crap today and you get charged with a hate crime. (Note: I'm not saying I agree with the hate crime part but it is true.)

[jkjsooner]

You and the other libs can go put your head in the sand when they are found out... nothing to see here... Pure and total fabrication by the false media, the O'Bummer Press Agency...

In fact ABC is reporting the inconsitencies...

Here you go Mr. Head-in-sand (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/sister-of-alleged-romney-target-has-no-knowledge-of-any-bullying-incident/)

Um, did you read this?


“Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” Christine Lauber said.

That means he would not have told her which means she would not have known. None of that is even remotely abnormal. Usually kids will hide this stuff from their family because they're ashamed that they're being picked on in such a way.

And the fact that he would not have wanted this made public does not change the facts in the case.

I understand why the family would be upset. Again, that doesn't change anything about the truth of the matter.

[TitoMorelli]

Um, did you read this?



That means he would not have told her which means she would not have known. None of that is even remotely abnormal. Usually kids will hide this stuff from their family because they're ashamed that they're being picked on in such a way.

And the fact that he would not have wanted this made public does not change the facts in the case.

I understand why the family would be upset. Again, that doesn't change anything about the truth of the matter.

Doesn't seem that she recalls noticing that his hair had been cut, either. Think maybe someone in the family would have noted it, and maybe asked about it? And that even if he didn't fess up, that his sister or others might now remember his sudden change in appearance?

The "truth of the matter" is that the so-called "source" for the WaPo non-story (Stu White) wasn't even a witness to the alleged incident. He heard the story from somebody else a couple of years ago.

The "truth of the matter" is that in its desire to tarnish Romney and keep the political focus on anything except the joke that is our current administration no one at WaPo ever stopped to think about the feelings of the man's family, which has now publicly berated those who have placed their deceased loved one under the proverbial bus.

The "truth of the matter" is that WaPo is the same pathetic rag that attempted last year to write a hit piece on Perry, based upon a racial slur that someone had painted on a big rock years before on property that his father eventually leased. And guess who actually took the time and effort to paint over the smear? Perry's father. So I guess if I shop at Wal-Mart and find out later that someone had spray-painted a racial slur on the backside of the store, I'm just as guilty of racism? Apparently I am in WaPo's eyes.

Finally, the "truth of the matter" is that this administration and its cohorts in the fourth estate are desperate to keep people focused on anything except this president's pathetic handling of the most pressing problem facing this country. The economy. In fact, their actions and rhetoric have more than likely served to hamstring what should have been a more robust recovery.

[soonerhubs]

I just want to point out that President Obama's statement came just before studies were released indicating that just over 50% of Americans approve of same sex marriages.

I'll let the masses decide whether or not this was coincidental.

I'm personally okay with legality of same-sex marriage now. This is a flip flop from a few years ago. I just think the government needs to stay the **** out of this.

[okie52]

There's a big line between being a saint and attacking someone for being feminine.

You do that crap today and you get charged with a hate crime. (Note: I'm not saying I agree with the hate crime part but it is true.)

Any type of bullying was wrong even back then and certainly by todays standards. Whether Romney attacked this person is true I don't know. I don't know if Romney attacked the person because he was gay or more likely because he was feminine acting which made him different. Most of us that old or older really didn't think someone was really a homo back then...just that he was a wieny or different and therefore a target for some mischief.

I remember when older kids would pick on us younger kids and we would, in turn, pick on younger kids. And it often got physical but I sure can't remember holding any grudges against the older guys that targeted us...that was just part of growing up.

[OU_Sooners75]

My real thoughts on this issure.......

Back in junior high school I was like my peers. I hated queers.

In high school I tolerated the few I knew. I just didn't associate with them.

In college I began to see that they were regular people with regular interests and views. I made a coupla friendships with gay people, one a guy, the other was female.

Since then I've developed close friendships with several gay couples as well as a few single gays. (One is actually very conservative)

Some are young couples. One couple have grown children from previous marriages to straight men.

They're very caring, dedicated, creative people. I value their friendships and hope to keep them.

My feelings have evolved over time. Now I believe any couple, gay or straight are entitled to the same benefits of partnership or marriage.

5-0

What does this have to do with Obama being opposed to Gay Marriage 4 years ago while he was fighting against Hilary Clinton and it was the thing to do....and now?

You cannot tell me a 40 something year old person has not made up their minds or that their minds havent evolved until the last 4 years.

Sorry, not buying it.

The guy is pandering to his side of the aisle and the few gays that are conservative to get more votes.

Nothing more and nothing less.

[Chuck Bao]

I just want to point out that President Obama's statement came just before studies were released indicating that just over 50% of Americans approve of same sex marriages.

I'll let the masses decide whether or not this was coincidental.

I'm personally okay with legality of same-sex marriage now. This is a flip flop from a few years ago. I just think the government needs to stay the **** out of this.

Brilliant post. ^^^^

I've done the flip-flop as well. Four years ago, I was very happy with the idea of same-sex civil unions because I thought, at that time, that it would be the least resistant compromise. The fact is that the few states that recognized civil unions between same-sex partners were proven to be essentially worthless elsewhere. That has forced me to take a more hard line stance. Will someone please tell me how marriage equality is going to hurt someone else or in any way diminish their love for their heterosexual partner?

[OU_Sooners75]

Brilliant post. ^^^^

I've done the flip-flop as well. Four years ago, I was very happy with the idea of same-sex civil unions because I thought, at that time, that it would be the least resistant compromise. The fact is that the few states that recognized civil unions between same-sex partners were proven to be essentially worthless elsewhere. That has forced me to take a more hard line stance. Will someone please tell me how marriage equality is going to hurt someone else or in any way diminish their love for their heterosexual partner?

I cant tell you...but I can tell you this:

I have never been against same-sex marriage.

IMO, that issue should be between the two people that are in love. And I have also been for those two people to have the same rights to insurance and whatnot as a heterosexual couple.

I said that 4 years ago, and I will say it today. When two people are in love, then the government needs to stay the hell out of the way and let them get married or hitched or whatever.

Besides, Marriage is a religious institution IMO anyway.

[okie52]

ABC News, meanwhile, has prepared a handy "timeline" of Obama statements on gay marriage:
FEBRUARY 1996: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," reads a typed, signed statement from then-Illinois state senate candidate Obama in response to a questionnaire by the Chicago LGBT newspaper "Outlines." White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer later publicly disavowed the statement, claiming in June 2011 that the questionnaire was "actually filled out by someone else."
OCTOBER 2004: " What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting," then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television.
"That doesn't mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy or with respect to civil unions. What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved, but I also think we need to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights that are in place.
"I don't think marriage is a civil right," Obama said when asked whether there's an inherent right to marry.

OCTOBER 2010: "I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage," President Obama said during an interview with liberal bloggers. "But I also think you're right that attitudes evolve, including mine. And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships."
DECEMBER 2010: "My feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this. At this point, what I've said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have," Obama said in response to a question from ABC's Jake Tapper at a White House press conference.
"I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we're going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward," he said.
JUNE 2011: "The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it. The country is evolving on this, and he is evolving on it," Pfeiffer told progressive activists at the Net Roots Nation conference.
JUNE 2011: "I think it's important for us to work through these issues because each community is going to be different, each state is going to be different," Obama said when asked during a White House press conference about New York becoming the latest state to legalize same-sex marriage.
"I think what you're seeing is a profound recognition on the part of the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers, and that they've got to be treated like every other American," he said. "And I think that principle will win out. It's not going to be perfectly smooth, and it turns out that the President -- I've discovered since I've been in this office -- can't dictate precisely how this process moves."
OCTOBER 2011: "I'm still working on it," Obama said when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos whether he would move from supporting civil unions for same-sex couples to supporting gay marriage.
"I probably won't make news right now, George. But I think that there's no doubt that as I see friends, families children of gay couples who are thriving, you know, that has an impact on how I think about these issues."

[olevetonahill]

I found this Pic of Obammy and his wife

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2008/09/04/fish_flip_flops_u7Qr5_7548.jpg

[okie52]

LOL.

[Chuck Bao]

I cant tell you...but I can tell you this:

I have never been against same-sex marriage.

IMO, that issue should be between the two people that are in love. And I have also been for those two people to have the same rights to insurance and whatnot as a heterosexual couple.

I said that 4 years ago, and I will say it today. When two people are in love, then the government needs to stay the hell out of the way and let them get married or hitched or whatever.

Besides, Marriage is a religious institution IMO anyway.

75, you are much more forward looking than I am. Kudos for that.

I have mentioned before that my some of my good friends four years ago were talking about baby steps advancement. They were actually afraid of a backlash and giving ammunition to the religious right to scare voters. It seems this happened to a degree as well. So kudos to them too for predicting this mess which shouldn't have anything to do with the economy, jobs, debt, inflation or anything else that should be the focus of the Republicans.

[olevetonahill]

75, you are much more forward looking than I am. Kudos for that.

I have mentioned before that my some of my good friends four years ago were talking about baby steps advancement. They were actually afraid of a backlash and giving ammunition to the religious right to scare voters. It seems this happened to a degree as well. So kudos to them too for predicting this mess which shouldn't have anything to do with the economy, jobs, debt, inflation or anything else that should be the focus of the Republicans.

Chuck
It shouldnt be the Focus of The Dems either. Yet they are trying to focus on it just for a few more votes

[soonerhubs]

I take issue with the "Religious" right's paradigm of legislating "morality."

If they are so damned strong in their convictions, then perhaps they should get off their moral high horse (and their lazy asses, for that matter) and do a bit of evangelical work. Pound the pavement, knock the doors, and take a few notes from the J-Dubs and Mormons. They should share the good word, and quit trying to force their beliefs by restricting liberties.

If they're so hell-bent on having a theocracy, then they should go create one on an island somewhere, and leave our Republic alone!

[Chuck Bao]

Chuck
It shouldnt be the Focus of The Dems either. Yet they are trying to focus on it just for a few more votes

Bro, you got the wrong end of the stick there.

VP Biden backed President Obama in the corner and he had no choice.

I think Senate majority leader Harry Reid came out as well to deflect some of the criticism. His comments were probably more acceptable to moderate voters because he had a little more time to mature (or manufacture) his view. Basically, Harry Reid said that the states had the right to decide about the issue, but he would try to get the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) repealed before this next election.

Now, the repeal of DOMA is important to me, although the Attorney General's office is not enforcing/prosecuting/defending it. Still, the US State Department may or may not recognize gay marriages between a US national and foreign national. At least, deportations have slowed.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

I take issue with the "Religious" right's paradigm of legislating "morality."

If they are so damned strong in their convictions, then perhaps they should get off their moral high horse (and their lazy asses, for that matter) and do a bit of evangelical work. Pound the pavement, knock the doors, and take a few notes from the J-Dubs and Mormons. They should share the good word, and quit trying to force their beliefs by restricting liberties.

If they're so hell-bent on having a theocracy, then they should go create one on an island somewhere, and leave our Republic alone!
The Mormons don't restrict liberties? Since when?

[olevetonahill]

Naw, Bro I think it was a Manufactured deal between Biden an Obama to bring this to the front of the Press.
Simple pandering for votes

Still the Repubs Nor the Dems need to be makin an issue of this .

[olevetonahill]

The Mormons don't restrict liberties? Since when?

And just what Liberties of yours have the Mormans restricted?

Yer still gettin dumber Boy

[yermom]

well, there's Prop 8

[olevetonahill]

well, there's Prop 8

And a California deal affected some one in South Carolina how ?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

And just what Liberties of yours have the Mormans restricted?

Yer still gettin dumber Boy
Where did I say anything about my personal liberties? I made a general statement about liberties, I mean specifically in Utah. Very strict alcohol laws, the Church itself has come out against marriage equality. They might not be thumping as hard as the Baptists, but that don't mean they don't thump.

[olevetonahill]

Where did I say anything about my personal liberties? I made a general statement about liberties, I mean specifically in Utah. Very strict alcohol laws, the Church itself has come out against marriage equality. They might not be thumping as hard as the Baptists, but that don't mean they don't thump.

You must be a slut, cause you so easy :chuncky:

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

You must be a slut, cause you so easy :chuncky:
0/10 on your trolling attempt

[olevetonahill]

0/10 on your trolling attempt

See what I mean?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

See what I mean?
Actually, no

[olevetonahill]

Actually, no
What I thot, Back to class Boy

[Midtowner]

SC schooled OV.

[olevetonahill]

SC schooled OV.

If you say so

[Chuck Bao]

Naw, Bro I think it was a Manufactured deal between Biden an Obama to bring this to the front of the Press.
Simple pandering for votes

Still the Repubs Nor the Dems need to be makin an issue of this .

I have some inside the beltway friends who have said differently. Whatever. Carry on.

[olevetonahill]

I have some inside the beltway friends who have said differently. Whatever. Carry on.

Thats cool Br
I just said 'I think" didnt say I knew

Dont really matter either way, It still pandering for votes

[Chuck Bao]

Thats cool Br
I just said 'I think" didnt say I knew

Dont really matter either way, It still pandering for votes

Again, I have to beg to differ. It does matter because they're afraid and I'm afraid that it will cost the election for President Obama and set back the recent advances in gay rights.

What if Romney wins and instructs the attorney general's office to start enforcing DOMA?

What if the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement starts deporting again the legally married foreign national partner of an American in one of the states where same-sex is legal?

What if this becomes the divisive issue in this presidential election campaign when there are so many much more important issues that actually affect each Americans' daily life.

I'm hopeful and thankful for baby steps towards acceptance, not front page news and the inevitable backlash.

[Midtowner]

If you say so

Meh.. you typically start your one liner personal attack BS when you've got nothing else to say. It's your MO.

So I say so.

[olevetonahill]

Meh.. you typically start your one liner personal attack BS when you've got nothing else to say. It's your MO.

So I say so.


You wanta Ham sammich?

[olevetonahill]

Again, I have to beg to differ. It does matter because they're afraid and I'm afraid that it will cost the election for President Obama and set back the recent advances in gay rights.

What if Romney wins and instructs the attorney general's office to start enforcing DOMA?

What if the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement starts deporting again the legally married foreign national partner of an American in one of the states where same-sex is legal?

What if this becomes the divisive issue in this presidential election campaign when there are so many much more important issues that actually affect each Americans' daily life.

I'm hopeful and thankful for baby steps towards acceptance, not front page news and the inevitable backlash.

What are we differing on?
Im sayin its No ones business, Not the Repubs Nor the Dems

Ima thinkin this is a REAL big deal to YOU and only a few others
The rest of us Dont care what Yall do . Get Married, divorced, separated, **** up your lives. Its all a Part of living.

I dont see this as Being the Big decisive issue that some think .

[Chuck Bao]

What are we differing on?
Im sayin its No ones business, Not the Repubs Nor the Dems

Ima thinkin this is a REAL big deal to YOU and only a few others
The rest of us Dont care what Yall do . Get Married, divorced, separated, **** up your lives. Its all a Part of living.

I dont see this as Being the Big decisive issue that some think .

Thanks for that. You are much more open-minded than many others and that could be why you don't see this developing into a wedge issue with potentially terrible consequences.

Okay, now I'm starting to sound as paranoid as the NRA.

Scratch that, everything is going to be okay.

[olevetonahill]

Thanks for that. You are much more open-minded than many others and that could be why you don't see this developing into a wedge issue with potentially terrible consequences.

Okay, now I'm starting to sound as paranoid as the NRA.

Scratch that, everything is going to be okay.

Yup.
This country has survived some pretty ****ty Presidents, And No matter, what we gonna survive the next one regardless of who it is.

[Midtowner]

What are we differing on?
Im sayin its No ones business, Not the Repubs Nor the Dems

Ima thinkin this is a REAL big deal to YOU and only a few others
The rest of us Dont care what Yall do . Get Married, divorced, separated, **** up your lives. Its all a Part of living.

I dont see this as Being the Big decisive issue that some think .

Spek to you sir.

[olevetonahill]

Spek to you sir.

Pretty good "One Liner" wernt it :chuncky:

[Midtowner]

Pretty good "One Liner" wernt it :chuncky:

I will spek where spek is due. I appreciate anyone who can think for themselves versus cuddling up to the partisan orthodoxy.

[soonerhubs]

To be fair the church did strongly support proposition 8. To that point, he's correct. Also, liquor laws in Utah are crazy.

By the way, I don't support restrictions on liberty, including a group's right to campaign for dumb legislation.

I suppose I was emphasizing the point that honest to goodness discipleship is far more in line with my methods to enhance society's morality when compared to laws restricting liberties.

[hawaii 5-0]

Maybe some could just change the Constitution and cross out the part about "pursuit of happiness".

Let's just get rid of gays alltogether. And Athiests. And left handers. And the near-sighted. And the Irish. And Jews and Catholics. Anyone who isn't like you and me.

"........and there's one with spots."


5-0

[Curly Bill]

I found this Pic of Obammy and his wife

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2008/09/04/fish_flip_flops_u7Qr5_7548.jpg

That's not a picture of his wife!

....not near ugly enough.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FCxmZ9Q_TSQ/TTpRSbExwXI/AAAAAAAACVE/VBmF_pafBGI/s1600/obamam-lol-y-u-mad-tho-728858.jpg

[Chuck Bao]

That's not a picture of his wife!

....not near ugly enough.

That would be really funny, but I don't even want to start to imagine how much phlegm was sprayed in that comment.

[Midtowner]

Maybe some could just change the Constitution and cross out the part about "pursuit of happiness".

Let's just get rid of gays alltogether. And Athiests. And left handers. And the near-sighted. And the Irish. And Jews and Catholics. Anyone who isn't like you and me.

"........and there's one with spots."


Nice Floyd reference... but that ain't in the Constitution. It's part of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

[olevetonahill]

Maybe some could just change the Constitution and cross out the part about "pursuit of happiness".

Let's just get rid of gays alltogether. And Athiests. And left handers. And the near-sighted. And the Irish. And Jews and Catholics. Anyone who isn't like you and me.

"........and there's one with spots."


5-0

Naw lets get rid of You too.

[AlboSooner]

One of the strongest arguments that proponents of gay marriage use is this: two adults who are in love, should be able to get married regardless of their sexual preference.

There are a lot more Moslems and Mormons in this country, who I expect to make this argument very soon: Three or four adults who are in love with each other should be able to get married regardless of their numerical preference.


Logically (meaning within the realm of reasonable people), one cannot support the first position and then be against the second, because the numerical barrier is less harder to bring down than the sexual preference one.

People who say government should stay out of marriage, are basically saying people should stay out of marriage. A governmental body has to decide on marriage. The church is a form of governing body, and local government is government.

Ps: that train of constitutional personal liberties where there is minimal government interference, has left the station many decades ago.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

One of the strongest arguments that proponents of gay marriage use is this: two adults who are in love, should be able to get married regardless of their sexual preference.

There are a lot more Moslems and Mormons in this country, who I expect to make this argument very soon: Three or four adults who are in love with each other should be able to get married regardless of their numerical preference.


Logically (meaning within the realm of reasonable people), one cannot support the first position and then be against the second, because the numerical barrier is less harder to bring down than the sexual preference one.

People who say government should stay out of marriage, are basically saying people should stay out of marriage. A governmental body has to decide on marriage. The church is a form of governing body, and local government is government.

Ps: that train of constitutional personal liberties where there is minimal government interference, has left the station many decades ago.And why shouldn't three or four consenting adults be able to enter into a contract of their choice? Let the government issue civil unions, and the Churches/Mosques/Synagogues/Spaghetti manufacturers do the "marriage" part, with however many people their scriptures permit.

[AlboSooner]

And why shouldn't three or four consenting adults be able to enter into a contract of their choice? Let the government issue civil unions, and the Churches/Mosques/Synagogues/Spaghetti manufacturers do the "marriage" part, with however many people their scriptures permit.

Let me ask you this: is there anything wrong with anything, and how do you decide?

[soonerhubs]

And why shouldn't three or four consenting adults be able to enter into a contract of their choice? Let the government issue civil unions, and the Churches/Mosques/Synagogues/Spaghetti manufacturers do the "marriage" part, with however many people their scriptures permit.

Good post! Disclaimer: I'm not signing up for polygamy no matter what the law states. :)

[jkjsooner]

One of the strongest arguments that proponents of gay marriage use is this: two adults who are in love, should be able to get married regardless of their sexual preference.

There are a lot more Moslems and Mormons in this country, who I expect to make this argument very soon: Three or four adults who are in love with each other should be able to get married regardless of their numerical preference.

I think one argument is that gay people don't really choose to be gay so it goes beyond being a preference. Whether it's genetic, a consequence of the environment within the womb, or a consequence of early childhood experience, it's pretty clear to me that is some of the signs occur at a very young age - long before puberty. (This is not true for everyone of course.)

Anyway, I think the strongest argument is one based on sex discrimination rather than sexual orientation discrimination. To me, the argument is stronger that a straight woman can marry a man but a homosexual man cannot marry a man. In that way you show that the laws unnecessarily discriminate based on one's sex and ignores the whole "preference" angle.

BTW, this isn't my issue. Frankly, I'd love to avoid the issue because it is used successfully as a wedge issue by the Republicans. In fact, Republicans seem to find ways to bring up this issue via defense of marriage initiatives every major election cycle. The cynic in me thinks it is an ongoing attempt to motivate their base to get to the polls.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Let me ask you this: is there anything wrong with anything, and how do you decide?
Sure there are plenty of things that you may find wrong, or that I may find wrong. However, I don't believe government is responsible for the moral well being (if there is such a thing) of society. Things that should be legally wrong require a victim: murder, rape, assault, theft etc. Any incident when x person infringes on y person's rights. Polygamy between consenting adults, has no victim and does not fit the case for infringing on individual rights.

[olevetonahill]

Sure there are plenty of things that you may find wrong, or that I may find wrong. However, I don't believe government is responsible for the moral well being (if there is such a thing) of society. Things that should be legally wrong require a victim: murder, rape, assault, theft etc. Any incident when x person infringes on y person's rights. Polygamy between consenting adults, has no victim and does not fit the case for infringing on individual rights.

So if its between consenting adults it should be ok then?

[AlboSooner]

Sure there are plenty of things that you may find wrong, or that I may find wrong. However, I don't believe government is responsible for the moral well being (if there is such a thing) of society. Things that should be legally wrong require a victim: murder, rape, assault, theft etc. Any incident when x person infringes on y person's rights. Polygamy between consenting adults, has no victim and does not fit the case for infringing on individual rights.

What legal basis do you have to take the moral position that victims should be protected and that people's rights should not be infringed, and how do you differ between conflicting rights?


(in vain you will try to escape what you committed yourself to in the previous post)

[yermom]

you need a legal basis for a belief?

how about coming up with a reason for not allowing gay marriage that doesn't involve God or the Bible?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

What legal basis do you have to take the moral position that victims should be protected and that people's rights should not be infringed, and how do you differ between conflicting rights?


(in vain you will try to escape what you committed yourself to in the previous post)
I don't understand how you've phrased the first part of this, or even what you're asking. Can you give me an example of such conflicting rights?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

For the big picture and how history will view is - not as a "flip-flop" - but as the first president to stand up and have the courage do the right thing.

[olevetonahill]

For the big picture and how history will view is - not as a "flip-flop" - but as the first president to be forced into doing something by his VP.

Fixed that fer ya jaun

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Fixed that fer ya jaun

Now vet, the historians won't be consulting the posse on these matters...

[olevetonahill]

Now vet, the historians won't be consulting the posse on these matters...

Sez U

[cleller]

And why shouldn't three or four consenting adults be able to enter into a contract of their choice? Let the government issue civil unions, and the Churches/Mosques/Synagogues/Spaghetti manufacturers do the "marriage" part, with however many people their scriptures permit.

This could get interesting. While we're at it why don't we just decide that if people don't want to pledge allegiance to the flag, they can pledge allegiance to their Iphone or microwave? Then, we could say that all the college football teams could decide at the coin toss if they'd rather play the game on the field, or on their X-box while smoking weed?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

This could get interesting. While we're at it why don't we just decide that if people don't want to pledge allegiance to the flag, they can pledge allegiance to their Iphone or microwave? Then, we could say that all the college football teams could decide at the coin toss if they'd rather play the game on the field, or on their X-box while smoking weed?
Great analogy. But really people aren't forced to pledge allegiance anyways, so that works.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Sez UObviously, you haven't told him about the OVP coup d'etat we have planned...

[olevetonahill]

Obviously, you haven't told him about the OVP coup d'etat we have planned...

SHHHHHHH

[Turd_Ferguson]

SHHHHHHH

Just kidding, Just kidding...No Coup d'etat here...move along...

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/337a6c7912bcf9496834f500-399-300/joe-biden.jpg

[sappstuf]

you need a legal basis for a belief?

how about coming up with a reason for not allowing gay marriage that doesn't involve God or the Bible?

This is a couple of years old, but it is what you are looking for.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245649/case-marriage-editors?page=1

[sappstuf]

Fixed that fer ya jaun

Yep. Forced into by his Vice President while following the lead of another Vice President, Dick Cheney.

Courage.

[AlboSooner]

you need a legal basis for a belief?

how about coming up with a reason for not allowing gay marriage that doesn't involve God or the Bible?

You input doesn't quite follow the conversation between Scsooner and me. I wish it were as easy as giving a reason. No reason will change your mind, because you're going to find things to dismiss that reason, regardless of its veracity.


I don't understand how you've phrased the first part of this, or even what you're asking. Can you give me an example of such conflicting rights?

You said that things that should be legally wrong require a victim, and I deducted that you have made a judgement in your mind that victims must be protected from wrong. I can't make it easier than that. I won't give you examples, as far as you don't give me an answer as to how do you differ between conflicting rights. One person believes to have right X, and another person believes to have right Y, but those conflict each other. How do you decide between the two in an objective and unbiased manner?

[Chuck Bao]

This is a couple of years old, but it is what you are looking for.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245649/case-marriage-editors?page=1

What a load of rubbish! That article basically states that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because 1) people are NOT bigots who oppose same-sex marriage because they are just NOT THAT and it has absolutely no parallels with the civil rights movement, 2) the legal and media elite who promote equality of marriage are all delusional and basically out of touch with the common man's wants and needs (too bad that they aren't in the business to sell movies or protect constitutional rights), 3) Society could completely break down with dogs and cats sleeping together (although Europe has had a gay marriage for a couple decades or so without total societal collapse), 4) marriage is designed to produce kids (strange that this now falls way down the list of reasons to ban gay marriage).

[sappstuf]

What a load of rubbish! That article basically states that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because 1) people are NOT bigots who oppose same-sex marriage because they are just NOT THAT and it has absolutely no parallels with the civil rights movement, 2) the legal and media elite who promote equality of marriage are all delusional and basically out of touch with the common man's wants and needs (too bad that they aren't in the business to sell movies or protect constitutional rights), 3) Society could completely break down with dogs and cats sleeping together (although Europe has had a gay marriage for a couple decades or so without total societal collapse), 4) marriage is designed to produce kids (strange that this now falls way down the list of reasons to ban gay marriage).

You apparently only read the first page and not pages 2 and 3.... Cause you can't read the entire article and come anywhere near what you just came up with in the order that you did.

[Turd_Ferguson]

What a load of rubbish! That article basically states that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because 1) people are NOT bigots who oppose same-sex marriage because they are just NOT THAT and it has absolutely no parallels with the civil rights movement, 2) the legal and media elite who promote equality of marriage are all delusional and basically out of touch with the common man's wants and needs (too bad that they aren't in the business to sell movies or protect constitutional rights), 3) Society could completely break down with dogs and cats sleeping together (although Europe has had a gay marriage for a couple decades or so without total societal collapse), 4) marriage is designed to produce kids (strange that this now falls way down the list of reasons to ban gay marriage).Know how I know you ghey?:chuncky:

[Chuck Bao]

Know how I know you ghey?:chuncky:

Please do tell.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Please do tell.Nope.

[Curly Bill]

LOL

[Chuck Bao]

Nope.

That's not nice. As you well know, Nope and I are history. And, I don't approve of what he has done to his body.

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy301/ghuebsch62/Nopadon1.jpg

[Turd_Ferguson]

What is he...4'9"?

[Chuck Bao]

You apparently only read the first page and not pages 2 and 3.... Cause you can't read the entire article and come anywhere near what you just came up with in the order that you did.

You are right that I only read page 1. As I went back and read pages 2 and 3, I came to the conclusion that my original assessment was still spot on.


An infertile couple can mate even if it cannot procreate. Two men or two women literally cannot mate.

And, I am laughing. Thanks for providing the joke of the day.

[Turd_Ferguson]

It's not called mating Chuck...it's called carpet munching or butt ****ing...pick your poison...

[Chuck Bao]

What is he...4'9"?

Nope is taller than I am and seems taller because he has a really unfortunate chip on his shoulder. When he is in a foul mood, you seriously don't want to mess with him. He's very good at Muay Thai and he can kick anything to smithereens. With that being said, he does need anger management and the roid rage probably isn't helping any. In other words, please do not call him a shorty.

[sappstuf]

You are right that I only read page 1. As I went back and read pages 2 and 3, I came to the conclusion that my original assessment was still spot on.



And, I am laughing. Thanks for providing the joke of the day.

Then I will come to the conclusion that your reading skills are quite weak.

[Chuck Bao]

It's not called mating Chuck...it's called carpet munching or butt ****ing...pick your poison...

I do realize that you are being very trollish here. Call it what you like. I really don't care. If I want to live with my life with someone I love why are you so concerned about what we do in the bedroom? Think about that for a second.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Nope is taller than I am and seems taller because he has a really unfortunate chip on his shoulder. When he is in a foul mood, you seriously don't want to mess with him. He's very good at Muay Thai and he can kick anything to smithereens. With that being said, he does need anger management and the roid rage probably isn't helping any. In other words, please do not call him a shorty.Chuck, I've had stickers in my foot that were bigger than he is...I'd put a pop knot on his head Dr. Welby couldn't fix...:chuncky:

[Chuck Bao]

Then I will come to the conclusion that your reading skills are quite weak.

My reading skills are probably more than a bit weak. Please just quote and highlight the important bits of the article for me. Yeah, I'm a lazy ****.

[Chuck Bao]

Chuck, I've had stickers in my foot that were bigger than he is...I'd put a pop knot on his head Dr. Welby couldn't fix...:chuncky:

Ha! Well I'm not setting up a UFC fight between you two. He does scare the hell out of me. If he doesn't scare you and you want to crack jokes well good. I'm very glad you're being an internet tough guy. I'm sorry that I ever mentioned him because if he ever finds out he is going to kick my ***.

[okie52]

It's not called mating Chuck...it's called carpet munching or butt ****ing...pick your poison...

Are there any carpets still out there?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Are there any carpets still out there?Agree. I should have said bald or landing strip munching...

[Turd_Ferguson]

Ha! Well I'm not setting up a UFC fight between you two. He does scare the hell out of me. If he doesn't scare you and you want to crack jokes well good. I'm very glad you're being an internet tough guy. I'm sorry that I ever mentioned him because if he ever finds out he is going to kick my ***.I'm far from an innerweb tough guy...If Nope ever want's to look me up, let him know my real name is Chuck "Van Damn" Norris...

[Chuck Bao]

I'm far from an innerweb tough guy...If Nope ever want's to look me up, let him know my real name is Chuck "Van Damn" Norris...

That works for me.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

You said that things that should be legally wrong require a victim, and I deducted that you have made a judgement in your mind that victims must be protected from wrong. I can't make it easier than that. I won't give you examples, as far as you don't give me an answer as to how do you differ between conflicting rights. One person believes to have right X, and another person believes to have right Y, but those conflict each other. How do you decide between the two in an objective and unbiased manner?
Conflicting rights would be settled in a court or with some kind of arbitrator. I'm really failing to see where there would be such a massive conflict of rights though...person x believes they own property z and so does person y? Someone has the deed...

[Midtowner]

You input doesn't quite follow the conversation between Scsooner and me. I wish it were as easy as giving a reason. No reason will change your mind, because you're going to find things to dismiss that reason, regardless of its veracity.

How 'bout you come up with one anyway? Just for ****s and giggles?


You said that things that should be legally wrong require a victim, and I deducted that you have made a judgement in your mind that victims must be protected from wrong. I can't make it easier than that. I won't give you examples, as far as you don't give me an answer as to how do you differ between conflicting rights. One person believes to have right X, and another person believes to have right Y, but those conflict each other. How do you decide between the two in an objective and unbiased manner?

We have a Constitution and a legal framework to decide between person X and person Y. Our courts answer these questions millions of times every year. I'm not sure whether you're proposing that because person X and Y might both have protected rights in a situation, our system's collective head should explode, because that'd be a little foolish. Think of what happens in divorce court, in juvenile deprived cases, in civil or criminal matters, both parties always have some rights/powers issues which have to be settled by the court. As far as what rights might be implicated in this situation, I would hope the judicial philosophy of 'your right to swing your fist ends at my nose' would prevail.

[Midtowner]

You are right that I only read page 1. As I went back and read pages 2 and 3, I came to the conclusion that my original assessment was still spot on.

Pretty much. It starts out by saying that homophobes are not as bad as racists because homophibia is still widely accepted in the Christian Church. First, why in the hell is the Christian Church our benchmark for whether bigotry is okay? Second, I'm sure if you surveyed the members of the Christian Churches in the Deep South in 1950 regarding whether Jim Crow was acceptable government policy, you'd have found near 100% approval of it. The Christian Church in the U.S. has a longstanding history of giving its blessings to bigotry, whether it be slavery or Jim Crow or homophobia.

The second and third page are collectively a justification for this belief that gay people should be denied equal protection under the law--because heterosexual sex sometimes produces children.

I didn't see it address the argument as to what happens when someone does reproduce within a homosexual relationship via IVF or what happens when a homosexual couple adopts and why they should be treated any differently than a heterosexual couple who procreates in the same manner.

The third argument presented dealt with property issue in explaining that if we had homosexual marriage out there, it'd be used for fraudulent purposes by straight people with regard to the property issues.

How totally ridiculous is that and how do we not have the same risks of heterosexual marriage being used for that purpose? I mean, if you want to get married to your roomie in order to split a better tax return, go 'head, but enjoy divorce court when one of you wants to move out. You want to risk being ordered to pay alimony to an ex-roommate?

So you're right, the article is rubbish. You could have made similar arguments against interracial marriage in 1950 in the Deep South and you would have been just as wrong about that then as this article is now with regard to providing equal protection under the law for all people.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181889_571776235031_135000017_31317413_393752030_n .jpg
Luckily most of ya will be dead

[sappstuf]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181889_571776235031_135000017_31317413_393752030_n .jpg
Luckily most of ya will be dead

Where are President Clinton and the hundred and fifty Dems that signed DOMA??

[yermom]

Pretty much. It starts out by saying that homophobes are not as bad as racists because homophibia is still widely accepted in the Christian Church. First, why in the hell is the Christian Church our benchmark for whether bigotry is okay? Second, I'm sure if you surveyed the members of the Christian Churches in the Deep South in 1950 regarding whether Jim Crow was acceptable government policy, you'd have found near 100% approval of it. The Christian Church in the U.S. has a longstanding history of giving its blessings to bigotry, whether it be slavery or Jim Crow or homophobia.

The second and third page are collectively a justification for this belief that gay people should be denied equal protection under the law--because heterosexual sex sometimes produces children.

I didn't see it address the argument as to what happens when someone does reproduce within a homosexual relationship via IVF or what happens when a homosexual couple adopts and why they should be treated any differently than a heterosexual couple who procreates in the same manner.

The third argument presented dealt with property issue in explaining that if we had homosexual marriage out there, it'd be used for fraudulent purposes by straight people with regard to the property issues.

How totally ridiculous is that and how do we not have the same risks of heterosexual marriage being used for that purpose? I mean, if you want to get married to your roomie in order to split a better tax return, go 'head, but enjoy divorce court when one of you wants to move out. You want to risk being ordered to pay alimony to an ex-roommate?

So you're right, the article is rubbish. You could have made similar arguments against interracial marriage in 1950 in the Deep South and you would have been just as wrong about that then as this article is now with regard to providing equal protection under the law for all people.

i get it know after reading the article. the civil rights movement meant they could exclude blacks from their churches, someday they will have to let the gays in too

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Where are President Clinton and the hundred and fifty Dems that signed DOMA??
They look stupid too...

Its really ****ing obnoxious from both sides when the immediate response is "YEAH WELL YOU GUYS DID IT TOO" instead of offering actual solutions, even more so when I'm not a Dem. It seems your understanding of the political spectrum is entirely in black and white. No pun intended

[sappstuf]

They look stupid too?

Shouldn't you frame them in a picture with that text at the bottom? I mean the president that signed such a horribly bias and discriminatory law should be your worst enemy. And yet....

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Shouldn't you frame them in a picture with that text at the bottom? I mean the president that signed such a horribly bias and discriminatory law should be your worst enemy. And yet....
A. I didn't make the picture
B. The top portion of the pictures shows private citizens protesting, so the bottom naturally shows the same reflection.
C. You're either a horrible troll, or a retard. Or both.

But just to make you happy,

IMAGINE HOW STUPID
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/bill-clinton-vegan.jpg
YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01710/george-wallace_1710856c.jpg
IN 40 YEARS

[sappstuf]

A. I didn't make the picture
B. The top portion of the pictures shows private citizens protesting, so the bottom naturally shows the same reflection.
C. You're either a horrible troll, or a retard. Or both.

But just to make you happy,

IMAGINE HOW STUPID
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/bill-clinton-vegan.jpg
YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01710/george-wallace_1710856c.jpg
IN 40 YEARS

I just find it amusing that liberals think any person who supports DOMA is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, but the man who actually signed it into law gets a free pass because he is on the right team.

Selective outrage at its best.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

I just find it amusing that liberals think any person who supports DOMA is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, but the man who actually signed it into law gets a free pass because he is on the right team.

Selective outrage at its best.
Cool story bro, whats it got to do with my post?

[sappstuf]

Cool story bro, whats it got to do with my post?

Nothing. I'm killing time in Afghanistan.. Gotta do something.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181889_571776235031_135000017_31317413_393752030_n .jpg
Luckily most of ya will be dead

One Man
One Woman
For Life

Should be:
One Man
One Woman at a time.

Right Vet?

[TitoMorelli]

---

ATTN: Headline fail.


http://americandigest.org/Capture17.jpg

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Reminds me of a classic:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/03/us-athletics-diamond-idUSTRE6622I420100703

Not really sure about the "200 meters" part though

[SanJoaquinSooner]

http://headlinehumor.com/images/headlines/h1.jpg

http://www.headlinehumor.com/images/headlines/h10.jpg

[jkjsooner]

I've still yet to hear an argument countering my claim that gay marriage ban is discrimination based on one's sex (as opposed to one's sexual orientation).

I take the silence as an admission that nobody has a good counter argument.

I'm sort of kidding but would love for it to be debated.

[Midtowner]

I just find it amusing that liberals think any person who supports DOMA is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, but the man who actually signed it into law gets a free pass because he is on the right team.

Selective outrage at its best.

He was certainly a knuckle-dragging troglodyte when he signed it. It's his position now which defines who he is today. And no one gets a free pass.

[okie52]

He was certainly a knuckle-dragging troglodyte when he signed it. It's his position now which defines who he is today. And no one gets a free pass.

Maybe my memory is hazy on this but wasn't DOMA a positive thing for gays at the time?

[sappstuf]

I've still yet to hear an argument countering my claim that gay marriage ban is discrimination based on one's sex (as opposed to one's sexual orientation).

I take the silence as an admission that nobody has a good counter argument.

I'm sort of kidding but would love for it to be debated.

How could that be? All women have the right to get married to a man, all men have the right to get married to a woman.

[sappstuf]

He was certainly a knuckle-dragging troglodyte when he signed it. It's his position now which defines who he is today. And no one gets a free pass.

Uh no. Charles Manson could come out tomorrow against murder... That wouldn't define who he is.

DOMA is President Clinton's legacy that still lives in federal code to this day.

[olevetonahill]

Uh no. Charles Manson could come out tomorrow against murder... That wouldn't define who he is.

DOMA is President Clinton's legacy that still lives in federal code to this day.

Hate to admit this , But I had to look up DOMA just so id know what The **** yall talkin about

While Klinton was in office I dint read ANY news nor watch TeeVee. I hated him then I hate him now

[Midtowner]

Maybe my memory is hazy on this but wasn't DOMA a positive thing for gays at the time?

How could it possibly be?

[Midtowner]

Uh no. Charles Manson could come out tomorrow against murder... That wouldn't define who he is.

DOMA is President Clinton's legacy that still lives in federal code to this day.

Actually, it would. A repentant Manson is different from an unrepentant Manson. He's still a sonofabich but repentant > unrepentant. Since Clinton can't do anything to affect DOMA now one way or the other, his repentance is enough to redefine him. It's an academic argument really. You're entitled to your feelings on the matter, they aren't any more or less valid than anyone else's.

[sappstuf]

Maybe my memory is hazy on this but wasn't DOMA a positive thing for gays at the time?

It was. It wasn't perfect, but it was a good thing at the time. Any state could recognize marriage by a simple majority vote at the time. Some of the red states did pass laws defining a marriage between a man and a woman, but there were plenty that didn't.

It has only been the abysmal failure of gay marriage at the ballot box that has turned DOMA into a bad thing. If 35 states recognized gay marriage today because of DOMA, it would be considered a good thing.

Funny how perspectives change.

[okie52]

How could it possibly be?

The don't ask part prevented some investigations about gays and didn't allow discrimination against closeted gays.

[Midtowner]

The don't ask part prevented some investigations about gays and didn't allow discrimination against closeted gays.

That's a totally different Act. DADT has actually been repealed. DOMA is still in full force and effect.

[jkjsooner]

How could that be? All women have the right to get married to a man, all men have the right to get married to a woman.

You just made my point. While you say they both have rights you've demonstrated that their rights are separate. A man has a right to marry a woman. A woman does not have that same right. A woman has a right to marry a man. A man does not have that same right.

Prior to the ban on anti-miscegenation laws, all black people had a right to marry other blacks and all white people had a right to marry other whites. Using your logic since they both had "similar" rights there is no discrimination.

In my opinion people fail when they try to compare a ban on same sex marriage to anti-miscegenation laws but approach the topic from a sexual orientation discrimination point of view. The analogy is much tighter when approaching it from a sex discrimination point of view.

[sappstuf]

You just made my point. While you say they both have rights you've demonstrated that their rights are separate. A man has a right to marry a woman. A woman does not have that same right. A woman has a right to marry a man. A man does not have that same right.

Prior to the ban on anti-miscegenation laws, all black people had a right to marry other blacks and all white people had a right to marry other whites. Using your logic since they both had "similar" rights there is no discrimination.

In my opinion people fail when they try to compare a ban on same sex marriage to anti-miscegenation laws but approach the topic from a sexual orientation discrimination point of view. The analogy is much tighter when approaching it from a sex discrimination point of view.

What your describing doesn't meet the definition of marriage so there is no right. Call it something else.

What if two brothers were living together. One had a tragedy and his wife was killed and he is left with his son. He moves in with his brother and they live together for the next 5 years raising the child. Do they have the right to be defined as married? If not, why? They love each other.. Isn't that all that matters?

[okie52]

That's a totally different Act. DADT has actually been repealed. DOMA is still in full force and effect.

Oooops.

[Midtowner]

What your describing doesn't meet the definition of marriage so there is no right. Call it something else.

What if two brothers were living together. One had a tragedy and his wife was killed and he is left with his son. He moves in with his brother and they live together for the next 5 years raising the child. Do they have the right to be defined as married? If not, why? They love each other.. Isn't that all that matters?

What if it was a brother and a sister?

[sappstuf]

What if it was a brother and a sister?

From your point of view, it shouldn't matter what the sibling pairing is and following your logic it should be marriage if they want it to be called marriage.

[jkjsooner]

What your describing doesn't meet the definition of marriage so there is no right. Call it something else.

I could argue at one point a relationship between a black and a white didn't meet the definition of marriage either.

[jkjsooner]

From your point of view, it shouldn't matter what the sibling pairing is and following your logic it should be marriage if they want it to be called marriage.

Midtowner can correct me if I'm wrong but courts often look at whether there's a overwhelming public interest. For example, having separate bathrooms does not constitute sex discrimination because there is a strong public interest at play. In the same way, due to genetic problems associated with inbreeding, there's a strong public interest in not allowing brothers and sisters to marry. (Now of course this doesn't apply to a brother marrying his brother.)


One thing about the sex discrimination line of thinking, as I understand it being a female is a protected class but being a male is not. (I personally think that when one class is protected, the complement should also be protected but I don't think the laws look at it this way.) In that respect, you might have to approach the sex discrimination from the woman's point of view - i.e. a man can marry a woman but another woman can't.


I'm sure there's a lot in here that Froze or Midtowner will correct...

[jkjsooner]

BTW, I'm not really saying my arguments should or would hold up in court. I'm just saying that it's a stronger argument than trying to argue based on sexual orientation.

When we struck down anti-miscegenation laws, the lawyers didn't argue that the laws were discriminatory based on someone's racial preference. They argued that the laws were discriminatory based on the person's race.

In Loving vs Virginia, they didn't define Loving as being a member of a group who has a preference for black women and that he was being discriminated against for his membership in said group.

[sappstuf]

Midtowner can correct me if I'm wrong but courts often look at whether there's a overwhelming public interest. For example, having separate bathrooms does not constitute sex discrimination because there is a strong public interest at play. In the same way, due to genetic problems associated with inbreeding, there's a strong public interest in not allowing brothers and sisters to marry. (Now of course this doesn't apply to a brother marrying his brother.)


One thing about the sex discrimination line of thinking, as I understand it being a female is a protected class but being a male is not. (I personally think that when one class is protected, the complement should also be protected but I don't think the laws look at it this way.) In that respect, you might have to approach the sex discrimination from the woman's point of view - i.e. a man can marry a woman but another woman can't.


I'm sure there's a lot in here that Froze or Midtowner will correct...

How is gay marriage anymore or less in the public interest than a guy who wants to marry two girls or a full-on group marriage where 20 people all marry each other? If the thought of two brothers or two sisters getting married makes you feel a little uncomfortable, that means you think there are limits to what marriage is. That is a good thing, because if there are no limits then it isn't defined and doesn't mean anything. We know that isn't true because marriage, obviously means so much to people.

If marriage is defined, then there will be groups of people outside of that definition. There has to be. Good-willed people should be able to discuss the bounds and definition of marriage and disagree with what it means. But we don't get that. What I hear is a bunch of name calling from the left if a person doesn't agree with them. But if you don't support a pair of siblings right to get married, you are just as much a bigot as I am in not supporting gay marriage and that will never work.

Gay marriage is constantly being compared to interracial marriages. The ban on interracial marriages was based on hate. I don't hate gay people, but what they want doesn't meet my definition of marriage. Period. I have said before I support them having equal rights for their civil unions.

Softball players could start demanding tomorrow to be called baseball players because baseball gets all the glory. After all, the rules are 95% the same... Why not? Some would say that if you don't agree with the softball players, then you are a bigot and interfering with their equal rights and pursuit of happiness. The answer is simple, and it has nothing to do with hatred or bigotry. What they play doesn't meet the definition of baseball.

I am fairly certain if we had a vote on gays having equal rights as married people, but it would be call mitsammen instead of marriage, it would pass. But when you have people that have watched and played baseball for their entire lives and you suddenly take them to a softball game and demand them to call it baseball, you are going to have a problem. And the more you tell them they are wrong for not calling it baseball, the harder the pushback is. Before you know it, you have a vast majority of states passing laws that define what baseball is.

My 2 cents..

[Chuck Bao]

How is gay marriage anymore or less in the public interest than a guy who wants to marry two girls or a full-on group marriage where 20 people all marry each other? If the thought of two brothers or two sisters getting married makes you feel a little uncomfortable, that means you think there are limits to what marriage is. That is a good thing, because if there are no limits then it isn't defined and doesn't mean anything. We know that isn't true because marriage, obviously means so much to people.

If marriage is defined, then there will be groups of people outside of that definition. There has to be. Good-willed people should be able to discuss the bounds and definition of marriage and disagree with what it means. But we don't get that. What I hear is a bunch of name calling from the left if a person doesn't agree with them. But if you don't support a pair of siblings right to get married, you are just as much a bigot as I am in not supporting gay marriage and that will never work.

Gay marriage is constantly being compared to interracial marriages. The ban on interracial marriages was based on hate. I don't hate gay people, but what they want doesn't meet my definition of marriage. Period. I have said before I support them having equal rights for their civil unions.

Softball players could start demanding tomorrow to be called baseball players because baseball gets all the glory. After all, the rules are 95% the same... Why not? Some would say that if you don't agree with the softball players, then you are a bigot and interfering with their equal rights and pursuit of happiness. The answer is simple, and it has nothing to do with hatred or bigotry. What they play doesn't meet the definition of baseball.

I am fairly certain if we had a vote on gays having equal rights as married people, but it would be call mitsammen instead of marriage, it would pass. But when you have people that have watched and played baseball for their entire lives and you suddenly take them to a softball game and demand them to call it baseball, you are going to have a problem. And the more you tell them they are wrong for not calling it baseball, the harder the pushback is. Before you know it, you have a vast majority of states passing laws that define what baseball is.

My 2 cents..

Approximately 10% of us are bisexual/gay. But it doesn't really matter if the number is 5% or 1%. The fact remains that some of us have an attraction to the same sex and are in committed, long-term relationships and really shouldn't be denied rights given to heterosexual couples.

What about polygamists? What if I am not satisfied with one wife or two or three? Obviously, you have no idea what it is like to see the opposite sex as not at all attractive. Worse yet, there is the inevitable part of keeping with society's mores, marrying someone you don't find attractive, having kids, living a lie, cheating and pretending. I know a lot of guys like that and it is not good for anyone involved. Now, how is that anything similar to deciding whether to take a second or third wife?

Yes, this is a public interest issue because rights are being withheld for people who just want to live their lives and be true to themselves.

[olevetonahill]

Chuck, You Know Im open about this, Dont understand it tho.

Why in hell would YOU of all people WANT to marry some one and take the ****in chance of Having to give up 1/2 yer stuff when ya divorce?

If you HAD of married Nope and brot him here to the states . then what happened happened.. He would now be the Proud owner of 1/2 yer Family Property that YOU inherited.

Maybe Yall should Count yer blessings

[diverdog]

Chuck, You Know Im open about this, Dont understand it tho.

Why in hell would YOU of all people WANT to marry some one and take the ****in chance of Having to give up 1/2 yer stuff when ya divorce?

If you HAD of married Nope and brot him here to the states . then what happened happened.. He would now be the Proud owner of 1/2 yer Family Property that YOU inherited.

Maybe Yall should Count yer blessings

Get that property into a trust.

[olevetonahill]

Get that property into a trust.

But then . Folk say yer just Not having any faith that it will work out .

I got Faith it wont. The Gheys can have the marriage crap all they want .

[Chuck Bao]

Chuck, You Know Im open about this, Dont understand it tho.

Why in hell would YOU of all people WANT to marry some one and take the ****in chance of Having to give up 1/2 yer stuff when ya divorce?

If you HAD of married Nope and brot him here to the states . then what happened happened.. He would now be the Proud owner of 1/2 yer Family Property that YOU inherited.

Maybe Yall should Count yer blessings

For one, you know damn well that I'm stubborn as hell. If someone tells me that I can't, it just makes me that much more determined.

This just makes me laugh because the guy at the US embassy in Bangkok told me that my friend would leave my butt at the first stopover in San Francisco and he'd never make it to Oklahoma. How insulting is that? There was a glass wall between us or I would have knocked the guy on his ***.

Nope is not a bad guy. I suppose that we would be raising a lot of pet cows by now.

[Chuck Bao]

But then . Folk say yer just Not having any faith that it will work out .

I got Faith it wont. The Gheys can have the marriage crap all they want .

That's easy for you to say. Just give me one chance. That's all I'm asking.

[olevetonahill]

That's easy for you to say. Just give me one chance. That's all I'm asking.

Hell Bro.
When ya can Ill even perform the ceremony

[Chuck Bao]

Hell Bro.
When ya can Ill even perform the ceremony

I would like that very much. So you're up for a road trip to Iowa?

[olevetonahill]

I would like that very much. So you're up for a road trip to Iowa?

I DGAS

Let me Know

Wait Guess I could Reg there. Not sure about that

[jkjsooner]

How is gay marriage anymore or less in the public interest than a guy who wants to marry two girls or a full-on group marriage where 20 people all marry each other?

I didn't say gay marriage is in the public (or the more proper word is "state") interest. I said that to discriminate you have to shown some compelling state interest.

Again, I'll bring up the point that a ban on gay marriage is best argued as gender discrimination. You can't argue that polygamy is gender discrimination. Neither a man nor a woman can marry multiple partners.

I'll agree, if you say that gay marriage is a sexual orientation discrimination issue then I think your arguments about polygamy (and many of your other arguments) have legs as you could argue someone is inherently inclined to polygamous relationships. That's exactly why I would not argue it that way.

[jkjsooner]

Just did a search and when the U.S. district court overturned Prop 8 in california, the judge ruled that it was gender discrimination.


In his ruling, Walker repeatedly argued in his decision that banning same-sex marriage amounted to sex discrimination because some individuals are denied the right to marry others based solely on their gender.

It seems I'm not the only one who finds this line of argument the most compelling. Note that the judge did not rule against the ban based on a concept of sexual orientation (gay vs straight) discrimination (which I find to be very shaky for the reasons others have given).

[Chuck Bao]

Alright, I read what you are writing. It just isn't something that comes naturally to me.

I get that the argument is being positioned around that its sex discrimination because I am the wrong gender to want to marry a guy and not that I'm oriented towards same-sex sex because there are just too many weirdos out there and they are always going to come up with "what ifs".

Is that right?

[Midtowner]

From your point of view, it shouldn't matter what the sibling pairing is and following your logic it should be marriage if they want it to be called marriage.

Let me define my point of view. I asked you about yours.

[Midtowner]

I didn't say gay marriage is in the public (or the more proper word is "state") interest. I said that to discriminate you have to shown some compelling state interest.

No, the test for discrimination against homosexuals is not strict scrutiny. It's probably rational basis, but looking into my crystal ball, it's likely headed in the same direction as gender discrimination--towards intermediate scrutiny, or even strict scrutiny. If I had to answer you what level of scrutiny the law requires right now, I'd say it's probably still rational basis, but that ball is definitely in play. In other words, all you have to show is a legally rational basis--that the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Most everything has passed that standard of review. Legally, the standard of review is going to be what one side wins or loses this thing over.

[jkjsooner]

Alright, I read what you are writing. It just isn't something that comes naturally to me.

I get that the argument is being positioned around that its sex discrimination because I am the wrong gender to want to marry a guy and not that I'm oriented towards same-sex sex because there are just too many weirdos out there and they are always going to come up with "what ifs".

Is that right?

Pretty much. I'm sure that most gay people don't feel that the root of their discrimination is based around their sex. I just think that from my layman's view the argument is tighter when presented that way. It also appears to me that the analogy between this and anti miscegenation laws fits a lot better when approaching gay marriage as gender discrimination.

A lot of judges aren't going to change their mind either way but I think too many of them would dismiss the idea that preference itself adequately defines a group. And if you do define it that way then the "what ifs" start to really start up. Joe Smith could say that he belongs to a subgroup of people who are naturally predisposed to marijuana over alcohol. He could say that he is being discriminated against for being in this group because he is not afforded the same rights as others.

You can go on and on with these types of arguments. I'm not saying they're convincing but I think they could be avoided by treating the issue as simple gender discrimination - example: Jim can marry Nancy but Sally can't marry Nancy and the only reason is because Sally is a female.

[TitoMorelli]

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMFNLclr-051512-gay-COLOR-.jpg.cms