President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage

page: 16
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





You can just go close your eyes and stick your head in the sand and pretend none of this is going on...but the rest of us aren't going to.


When it comes to rhetoric and lies, I rather have my head buried in the sand than to listen to him preach about his plans on moving us forward...He isn't moving US forward, he is moving himself forward...




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Gallup is out with a new poll suggesting a whopping 40 percent of Americans say President Obama's newly public support of gay marriage will affect their votes.

Of those, 26 percent say it will make them less likely to vote for Obama, while 13 percent say it will make them more likely to vote for him.

The critical number in the poll, though is for independents - 23 percent of whom said the gay marriage support makes it less likely they will vote for Obama.


Poll: 40 percent say Obama's gay marriage stance will affect vote
www.politico.com...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho


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?



You know they used to use that same argument back when many considered it wrong for black people to be in a relationship with white people?

Yeah, it was an equally stupid argument then too....

Allowing gay marriage is not going to lead to legalizing sex with children or what ever other crap you are daring to propose would happen. Allowing gay marriage is not going to lead to marrying animals.


You dare to speak of logic but you are not applying logic to begin with. Did black people marrying white people lead to the legalization of child rape and animal marriage? Nope...Neither will gay marriage.

Do I really have to explain to you the difference between consenting adults, and raping children or animals? You really think you were using logic?

You ask,where does it stop? It stops where common sense starts. Two consenting adults wanting to marry is just fine. Raping a child or animal is not even close to comparable and it is laughable that people in this day and age,still try to use that same tired argument that was used in the days when black people were struggling for THEIR civil rights.

Gay people will have their rights some day as well...Then and only then can we call this a free country.

There now you can quit screaming to the heavens asking "Why god why would you make these gay people and why do they want to be married and share the same rights as everyone else?" Your questions have been answered...And I am sure you will be in favor of gay marriage now and that I did not waste my time at all.

..... Well, A guy can hope, can't he?

I've said my piece.

Peace and love to you and yours...Even if they are gay.
edit on 11-5-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Hi.


That's what I expected - a net loss. I suspect it will all change before the election, though. I don't think we'll be talking about this in a week from now, much less 6 months from now. I think he did it for donations and to test the water.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Hi.


That's what I expected - a net loss. I suspect it will all change before the election, though. I don't think we'll be talking about this in a week from now, much less 6 months from now. I think he did it for donations and to test the water.



HI BH, yea maybe he was waiting for the right moment, could be.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Hi.


That's what I expected - a net loss. I suspect it will all change before the election, though. I don't think we'll be talking about this in a week from now, much less 6 months from now. I think he did it for donations and to test the water.



HI BH, yea maybe he was waiting for the right moment, could be.


The "right moment" was when he was a senator for Illinois, when he could've done something about it, or at least when he was running for president. But I guess it's better late than never, though the timing leaves much to be desired.

/TOA



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Most likely, he has always supported it but lied in 2008 to gain Christian support.


Does this bother you at all?

This is the kind of thing that bothers me,



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 





though the timing leaves much to be desired


The timing still leaves me with many questions.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed life, liberty and pursuit of happiness equally.

But, you don't have to have the government define "marriage." If marriage is nothing more than a contract in the eyes of the law, then the US should legally define a civil union as one that legally recognizes a union between two consenting adults without preference to sexual orientation.

Then, the equality barrier is lifted from a purely political perspective, and benefits that are now awarded to traditionally married couples are afforded to all in a civil union.

Now, the act of becoming a union can be done however you wish. If those with traditional views want a marriage in Holy Matrimony, then that should be their right. If a gay couple wishes the same and a church is willing, then who's to stop them.

But please, don't try and hijack a word and dictate to those who hold a traditional viewpoint, that they are wrong for believing the way they do.

Almost every post I've read thus far in favor of this has approached it from the vantage point of equality and the same rights now afforded to "married" couples.

I'm suggesting stripping the word "marriage" from any type of legal definition, in favor of calling all unions civil unions, to fulfill the legal requirements and allow for equal benefits.
edit on 11-5-2012 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 





The timing still leaves me with many questions.


Apparently people aren't concerned about the timing, all they seem to care about is that he said it...Where is the common sense in that?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Does this bother you at all?


Does it bother me that Obama lied? Of course it bothers me. I don't like it when people lie. I suspected he was lying at the time (during the 2008 campaign).



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Does this bother you at all?


Does it bother me that Obama lied? Of course it bothers me. I don't like it when people lie. I suspected he was lying at the time (during the 2008 campaign).


That's the problem with lies, then we don't know when he is telling the truth, he could also be lying about this to get votes, we just don't know.
edit on 043131p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 



Originally posted by Freenrgy2
But please, don't try and hijack a word and dictate to those who hold a traditional viewpoint, that they are wrong for believing the way they do.


But isn't that what you're doing? Hijacking the word and dictating to those who hold a contemporary point of view, that they are wrong for believing the way they do?

See, the difference is, I am using the word marriage and my spouse and I define OUR marriage. Each couple should have the freedom to define their own marriage, don't you think? To make their own rules about child rearing, finances, communication and so on?



I'm suggesting stripping the word "marriage" from any type of legal definition, in favor of calling all unions civil unions, to fulfill the legal requirements and allow for equal benefits.


That would be fine with me. But that's not where we are right now. Right now, in this country, marriage is a legal contract. Marriage is a civil union. Everyone that's married has entered into a legal contract. Not everyone that's married got married "in the eyes of God". Atheists have been getting married for centuries and no one ever batted an eye.

My position is that my marriage has nothing to do with yours. We can have our own definition of the word and no one gets hurt. How does it hurt you that we have different definitions? How does it affect anyone's marriage?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Maybe he had
some homosexual tendencies
in collage so what??



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Most likely, he has always supported it but lied in 2008 to gain Christian support.

I'm just glad he has come clean.
He is taking his slogan of FORWARD seriously and I hope that he continues in that vein.


I'm not so sure he always supported gay marriage. I say that only because I've followed this closely from the gay perspective and gay news sites.

I do think he is progressive and definitely leaned toward fully accepting gay marriage.

We have to be honest - - he is a politician. No one will ever be elected president that doesn't play the political game.

Timing is definitely important - - - I did expect him to come out in support of marriage equality. I just didn't know when.

The LGBTQ have been putting a lot of pressure on Obama. So good for him - - no matter what.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Six6Six
 



HE is a homo himself..closet homo.


How nice of you to let your homophopia show so plainly.

It's funny how some people think they are being clever with an insult...and they are just making themselves look stupid.


I don't have to like that way of life.....I prefer ONE man and ONE woman. Or in special circumstances Two women and One man.

Stupid? well done boy!!



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 



Originally posted by Freenrgy2
But please, don't try and hijack a word and dictate to those who hold a traditional viewpoint, that they are wrong for believing the way they do.


But isn't that what you're doing? Hijacking the word and dictating to those who hold a contemporary point of view, that they are wrong for believing the way they do?

See, the difference is, I am using the word marriage and my spouse and I define OUR marriage. Each couple should have the freedom to define their own marriage, don't you think? To make their own rules about child rearing, finances, communication and so on?



I'm suggesting stripping the word "marriage" from any type of legal definition, in favor of calling all unions civil unions, to fulfill the legal requirements and allow for equal benefits.


That would be fine with me. But that's not where we are right now. Right now, in this country, marriage is a legal contract. Marriage is a civil union. Everyone that's married has entered into a legal contract. Not everyone that's married got married "in the eyes of God". Atheists have been getting married for centuries and no one ever batted an eye.

My position is that my marriage has nothing to do with yours. We can have our own definition of the word and no one gets hurt. How does it hurt you that we have different definitions? How does it affect anyone's marriage?


But you prove my point repeatedly.

Who cares what you want to call it privately. Go back and read what I wrote. How can I hijack a phrase (civil union) that already is defined. I just want to expand it. You see, that phrase is already tied to a legal & contractual meaning. Couples would have the ability to call their UNION whatever they want.

I'm simply reiterating how the GOVERNMENT should define it.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Hi.


That's what I expected - a net loss. I suspect it will all change before the election, though. I don't think we'll be talking about this in a week from now, much less 6 months from now. I think he did it for donations and to test the water.



HI BH, yea maybe he was waiting for the right moment, could be.

I think he did it because now there are no blurry lines - and both sides are going to have to work from a solid, committed position

Romney will either have to sell the how bad, wrong and unfair it all is angle - and make that angle sound rational and acceptable, or he'll have to pretend it's a non-issue and let it go

Either way - the ball is in his court and Obama gets to coast on it's the right thing to do

It is the right thing to do, not that that matters much in politics, and this is an election year - this is the little game we all play in this country. I think it was nicely done myself

I'm not sure it will result in a loss:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama called his decision to support same-sex marriage the result of a personal evolution but it also appears to have been a calculated political choice made with an eye on the November 6 election.

In becoming the first U.S. president to publicly support gay marriage, polling analysts said Thursday, Obama essentially is betting that his decision will generate enough enthusiasm among young people to offset any votes he will lose from moderate and conservative whites who disagree with him.

A key part of Obama's calculus, analysts said, also will be to hold on to the enormous majority he enjoys among black voters. Church-going blacks are divided over gay marriage but pollsters say they are unlikely to vote for Republican Mitt Romney over Obama, the nation's first black president, in November.
www.chicagotribune.com...
edit on 5/11/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 





The timing still leaves me with many questions.


Apparently people aren't concerned about the timing, all they seem to care about is that he said it...Where is the common sense in that?


I get the feeling that you're a little confused about why this is getting so much attention. Think about it this way - If we care about equality we'll realize we're living at a very important moment in American history. I'm not going to pretend I don't understand that many don't like or respect our current president. But, anybody capable of looking at the world without their partisan politic specs on should at least be able to admit - this is a very big deal

edit to add: I also realize his position is something many people oppose completely. It doesn't change for a moment that this is huge
edit on 5/11/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Hi Annee...



President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."


Obama Once Supported Same-sex Marriage Unequivocally

So, in 1996, he supported it 100%, but in in 2004...



In 2004, Barack Obama stated in a US Senate campaign debate with Alan Keyes that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that he supports civil unions but not gay marriage.
...
He continued by asserting that homosexuality is innate and is not a choice, and that marriage is not a civil right but a tradition that needed to be preserved.


And in 2008...



These views on marriage, civil unions, and religion were continually reaffirmed throughout the 2008 campaign. In an interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Senator Obama defined marriage as between one man and one woman and noted that it was also a sacred union in which God was a factor.


Obama on Marriage Equality

He has changed his mind at least twice now (or his public position has changed, anyway...) and interestingly, the only time he's been against gay marriage was in a campaign year. I just don't think that can be ignored.

I'm not saying he's a dirtbag or anything. This changes nothing about my support for him or my enthusiasm. I just think he's being disingenuous to claim support, then remove it for an election, and then claim it again, when it's the prudent thing to do (during the next election year)...

Is it possible he's actually waffled on his personal opinion over the years? Sure, it's possible. But I doubt it. If he supported marriage equality as early as 1996, I don't think he would regress in his progressive beliefs 10-12 years later, unless it had a political purpose.

I'm thrilled to find out that he has always supported it (IMO) because it shows me that he does genuinely have progressive beliefs and will move the country "forward" in civil rights for all. Even if there is no legislation, his announcement and the positive response to it shows me that the country is really more progressive than I thought. Those who want to drag us back to the stone age are not the majority. They are just the loudest.





top topics
 
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join