President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage

reply to post by Yule C Mann

The earth is defiled by its people;
they have disobeyed the laws,
violated the statutes
and broken the everlasting covenant.

I'm assuming you mean this part of Isaiah 24...

Of course, in the same passage, he states the priests as well as the flock will be in trouble, hehe...

Thing is, we already have many laws that violate the covenant.
Then again, which covenant? The Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Covenant of Isaac, or the Mosaic Covenant? (etc., etc.) I'm assuming the Mosaic (Ten Commandments).

So, you think THIS would put it over the edge and cause God to lay waste to the world? (especially when there is NOTHING in the ten commandments about homosexuality....) A bit of a stretch....

reply to post by jibeho


He and his admin are working on it at the UN level, and I think that is why he is so low key about it, because when the UN starts dictating to us, it overruns US sovereignty. But he still wants votes for a second term.

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I kind of find it funny all the Conservatives claiming something like "So...how does this help the economy???"


I thought you guys were freedom loving Constitution lovers...shouldn't you be happy that your Presdient (yes...YOUR President) is coming out for EQUALITY and defending peoples freedom to love and marry who they want???


Or do you have stiulations on Freedom and Equality???

Whoah!! Freedom to love and marry who they want??? I keep hearing that. Like Bidens speech on loving one another.. Sure. So, does that include those who "love" children, and "love" relatives enough to want to marry one. (pedophiles and incest) How about those who choose to love many men or women and wish to marry all of them? Animal Lovers?? Sure its extreme but the same logic can apply.

Where does it stop? When does it stop?

What would a thread like this be without at least ONE person trying to justify their homophobia with an incredibly stupid jump in logic? If you can't see the difference between gays wanting to get married and either straights OR gays marrying their own relatives, and you insist on lumping gays with that, you're really short sighted. Let's go the OTHER way: Let's establish criteria for it to be harder for everyone to marry!

Okay, first up: if you can't bare children because of some biological shortcoming, you can't get married because the purpose of marriage is to procreate. Next, blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites - in fact, keep all races separate. Next, no more than 10 years difference in age - if someone is 30, and another is 50, they won't be granted marriage. Next, if they come from different religions, no marriage. If they're both atheists, no marriage, only civil unions.

It might behoove you to remember that that sisters, parents etc. ALREADY ARE legal relatives. What marriage does to two people who want it is make them legally and spiritually "family." That is all gays want - so don't bother with your short-sighted argument about incest and pedophilia, as it's completely baseless and based really only on your own fear of it in yourself which is why you project it outwards - otherwise it would terrify you too much.

Am I supposed to respond to this??

Just illuminating the logic that has been applied so far and also by Biden.... Guess you missed it...

Any other thoughts on the actual topic?? Obama's 180 back to 1996 and his ever changing opinion in between??

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I've never seen so much potential UN involvement in our domestic affairs in my life. If they step in on this we've got trouble. Border issues, voter ID laws even had a UN commissioner sounding off about the Trayvon Martin case and demanding an immediate investigation.... I guess all is well in the rest of the world...

I'm all for gay marriage. I have several gay/lesbian friends and they are just as normal as everyone else. And trust me, it isn't their choice to be gay. They love who they love.

There is no reason to say two men or two women cannot get married. It doesn't lessen the meaning of heterosexual marriages. If you are straight and allow this to affect you then you need serious help. It's the same as saying "I refuse to sit in the same section of the bus with a minority, because 'insert bible verse/bigoted comment here'." Anything that denies someone the same rights as anyone else is wrong, whether or not some law says it is or not.

And the people claiming religious reasons to say it is wrong are ignoring the fact that over half of straight marriages end in divorce these days anyways. Where's their outrage over that? Two straight people getting divorced is way more damaging to the idea of marriage than two gay people making it work.

In regards to those saying 'how does this help the economy?' The president took a few moments to state his view of the situation. He didn't take months to sit down and come up with it. Get a grip people. He's allowed a few moments to actually discuss things.

- Dredge

Is this called flip-flopping or do liberals have some other name for it?

OCTOBER 2004: What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman …

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.

JUNE 2011: " The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it.

MAY 2012: it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FuManchu2
I am unsure what I think about the legality of same-sex marriage, though here, as in most things, I think Ron Paul makes the most sense when he urges government to stay out of personal relationships.

Isn't that deflective - - since right now we do have government marriage licenses?

Do you even know why we have government marriage licenses? The government marriage license was created to prevent inter-racial marriage.

So we have a legal government contract originally created to make race discrimination legal.

Don't you think its past time to remove any and all discrimination - - - via this government contract?

edit on 10-5-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Sure, by stating that the State and Federal government will only recognize civil unions (m/w, m/m, w/w) to receive benefits normally awarded to m/w couples.

A "marriage" ceremony could still be held as a celebration, but a couple shouldn't be given a 'license' to love.

Everyone cries about separation of church and state, so here's a perfect solution.

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Is this called flip-flopping or do liberals have some other name for it?

OCTOBER 2004: What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman …

A month before the 2004 election. And how did Kerry lean? He leaned towards gay rights, but not gay marriage. So, Obama was a puppet touting the party line at the time.

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.

A month before the mid-term election. Republicans were favored to pick up the majority and Obama was trying to swing the political axe in Democrat's favor.

JUNE 2011: " The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it.

No election to worry about....therefore, who cares.

MAY 2012: it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

It's an election year! Gotta solidify that base.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Sure, by stating that the State and Federal government will only recognize civil unions (m/w, m/m, w/w) to receive benefits normally awarded to m/w couples.

I don't go backwards - because people like you have issues with human equality.

Marriage is the recognized term all over the world - - - and several countries have already recognized Marriage for all its citizens - - including race and sexual orientation.

You see it is NOT "gay" marriage - - it is simply Marriage.

A "marriage" ceremony could still be held as a celebration, but a couple shouldn't be given a 'license' to love.

How quaint.

Everyone cries about separation of church and state, so here's a perfect solution.

Solution?

There is only one solution. No where in America's official contract called Marriage License - - is religion or god mentioned.

reply to post by Annee


See, you don't want equality.

You want religion to accept this and say its o.k.

The argument from the gay/lesbian community used to be that they just wanted the same legal benefits as married couples. But, now that they are getting this, they have decided to move the goalposts once again.

So now they've set their sites on the word....the meaning, the institution. And, by god, they won't be happy until they wrestle that from those who believe in the traditional value of the word.

And if and when you take over the word "marriage", then what? What's next on the agenda.

They don't want to change religious views on the word marriage (well I'm sure some do but not in general). They want to be able to get a 'Marriage License' in their state and be able to do what other married couples do. File taxes, see each other in the hospital, list themselves as a family under healthcare, etc. Either all unions are 'Marriages' or they are all 'Civil Unions', but it isn't right to have one for straight couples and one for gay couples. It is about the legality of their marriages. Religions can say whatever they want and define words how they want, but they cannot influence laws to match their own beliefs.

- Dredge

Originally posted by Nightwalk
No surprise coming from a man who was allegedly caught in the back seat of a car with another man.

There really is a dearth of principled and respectable men in public office nowadays.

Ah, I love gossip.

Please tell us more of it

Seriously though. I understand some may hate the president, but there are reasons to dislike him...you don't have to make up lies.

Originally posted by beezzer
Charles Krauthammer made an interesting point.
(I'll try to find a source)

*paraphrasing*
Obama once again has shown himself to be less of a leader

That certainly is a very good point.

How can his followers call him a good leader when he always seems to be influenced by his kids and especially by that idiot Biden.
That's indefensible.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Headline:
President Obama Endorses Same-Sex Marriage

Reason:
To score more votes,for his reelection.


Real question: Why didn't he say this 4 years ago?

Agreed. It's like the promises he made before he was elected president.

Look, this is what all the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging homophobes and anyone anti-gay rights need to realize. With all of the hatred and violence in this world, and lord knows there is a lot of it, if two consenting adults are able to find love with one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together in marriage, we should applaud. But no, there is a significant portion of the population so self-loathing they can't stand to see two people happy. If Jim and Bob or Sue and Jane want to get married, mind your own damned business. How is their marriage devaluing yours? It's not. Learn a little sophistication for cripe's sake. A marriage between two people has ZERO impact on anyone else's life. ZERO. Too many far-right wingers like to scream to high hell about government being too intrusive in the citizen's life, yet they are the first ones to stand up and poke their noses into yours. Just like the anti-abortionists...how many of those people have EVER put their money where their mouth is and adopted or other wise attempted to care for any of the unwanted children? Few...very, very few. I dare someone to come up with a counterpoint that can trump love being better than hate...cannot be done. You are free to have your religious beliefs, but when those beliefs start to erode another human's civil rights, then its time to reassess. Keep in mind, religion is a tool for social control...societies evolve and what applied thousands of years ago doesn't necessarily hold up today.

Originally posted by Dredge
They don't want to change religious views on the word marriage (well I'm sure some do but not in general). They want to be able to get a 'Marriage License' in their state and be able to do what other married couples do. File taxes, see each other in the hospital, list themselves as a family under healthcare, etc. Either all unions are 'Marriages' or they are all 'Civil Unions', but it isn't right to have one for straight couples and one for gay couples. It is about the legality of their marriages. Religions can say whatever they want and define words how they want, but they cannot influence laws to match their own beliefs.

- Dredge

So, classify all unions as civil unions at the state and federal level and don't differentiate between m/f or m/m, f/f.

Marriage is just a word....right? A civil union would afford EVERYONE the same legal benefits EQUALLY.

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Is this called flip-flopping or do liberals have some other name for it?

OCTOBER 2004: What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman …

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.

JUNE 2011: " The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it.

MAY 2012: it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

He was never against civil unions, he just never believed it should be legalized on a federal level. In fact, he STILL doesn't say that.

So, no...no flip flopping here. Good try though bro

I'm pleased to hear this. Equality. It's a good thing.
Plus, it shows he's not a control freak.
He will leave it up to the states: still not a control freak.
Good for him, good for the people.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Kaploink

 

Marriage is a big business.

And so is the mortuary business...Still doesn't answer my question on how Obama thinks this is going to change anything for him...

You can't make death illeagle, your comparison is like comparing apples to oranges...

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Sasha and Malia influenced his stance on same-sex marriage

www.cbsnews.com...

I don't think he was ever for it, I don't think he is for it now, or,

WHY would he need convincing?

That's the second time recently that he has used his daughters in regards to a controversial topic. First it was a "teachable moment" for them regarding Limbaugh's statement about patsy Sandra Fluke (yet remained silent regarding the constant barrage and debasing of female conservatives from the Left) T words and C words are apparently acceptable in Obama's world...

Great Role Model eh??

edit on 10-5-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

WH won't push gay marriage into party platform

President Obama declared his personal support for same-sex marriage yesterday, but the White House chose not to push for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act today.

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com...