I just don't get it

Im guessing that by now it is a pretty safe bet to guess that there is a pretty high percentage of people who have a family member or good friend who is gay.

I just dont get how one could even consider putting a man in office that could care less about there rights as human beings. Of course that same man has no qualms about taking these same peoples hard earned dollars in tax money which even he seems to wish to evade. This point though, is really neither here nor there.

The point is, if you have family or friends that are gay, how can you even consider tossing them to the wind to fend for themselves? Is that what true friends and family are all about? I actually had a friend say to me he'd rather have a Mormon than a Muslim as president and then maybe in another 4 years we can fix the rest. WTH? Is this what we have really come too? Your my friend and I love you but....?

The same has to go for sisters, mothers, cousins, friends. Do we really throw these womens rights away and for what?

Sorry, I just dont get it. Is this really really what we want? Is this really the lesser of two evils?

I dont wish to be long winded here, you folks are smart people and hopefully get my point. Please try to think of others or the bigger picture when making your decision.

Rant over.

Six of one half dozen of the other... Obammney is the best catch phrase that I've heard so far. No matter who gets elected or who we vote for we are "settling" on a candidate that is not attractive at all to any of us. This will continue to happen till we put the twinkies down. Wake up and realize that they just stole ours and our children's future under the guise of democracy.

Long gone are the days of the wise sage elected as commander and chief.

reply to post by onehuman


If your refering to Romney not being supportive of special treatment for LGBT's then I would have to say I think your missing the point.

Discrimination, bias, whatever you want to call it does NOT have to be federally legislated into laws in order to tolerate the LGBT's. THAT'S the argument. An argument that libertarians and republicans have been making for decades! Did you know that back when we amended the constitution for black people to have rights that the democrats were against it for the same reason?

This is not a personal issue about how these politicians "feel" about LGBT's. This is about the billions in tax fraud that will occur, this is about millions in frivolous lawsuits clogging up the court because an LGBT feels like they were mistreated due to their sexual preference.

This is about the financial and legal consequences and repercussions of the state allowing same sex couples to marry and receive tax breaks. Can you not see that if this were to happen at a national level that ANYONE could marry for tax breaks? Don't you see how the could be financially devastating to our economy? crippling even?
The potential for fraud and abuse is staggering! That's what it's about... Not about sex or marriage..

Tolorance for LGBT's has to come from the people. Integration and understanding as well as desensitization are things that come naturally in a society and the people learn to understand and tolerate each other. It CAN NOT be FORCED on the public by the end of a gun or the end of a gavel. Amendments for black people has already shown this to be true. The 18th amendment did NOTHING for teaching people how to tolerate another race...NOTHING... And that's what this is about...Government controlling yet another human behavior..And those that are against it..

reply to post by foodstamp

I'd note something real important here. Homosexuals in America represent as low a number as 1.7% and perhaps as high as 8% of the overall population. Conventional wisdom among the LGBT groups that track these things themselves estimate around 4%. As we can see, that is an incredibly LOUD 4%, but that still leaves 96% of the American population to whom this is NOT a driving issue to decide futures on.

That does NOT lessen the need for basic human decency, respect and civility. There is no excuse for not being civil and generally friendly toward everyone who hasn't created a reason as an individual to be treated differently.

Some seem to DEMAND acceptance to the point of open embracing of the lifestyle and the overall community. That will simply never..EVER..happen. You can't legislate or force the opinions and values of other grown adults......nor should anyone try so long as the above baseline of civility and respect is maintained.

Just my thoughts.... Additionally, on an issue with direct effect to less than 5% of the American population, it's nowhere on my radar screen as a even a side issue in my decision process for 2012 politics. Things like war and the economy make who is gay and who love that fact entirely moot. If the economy collapses or the United States goes to war with fighting in the homeland, sexual orientation becomes a FAR DISTANT memory of something that matters to anyone anymore.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Couldn't have said it better

It's all about conformity.

You see, that's the big thing everybody has in common. They believe in one thing, and they're all taught that everybody has to live by these rules, and they can't imagine anything else. But THEY ALL think everyone has to obey their rules that they've been taught to obey.

But people just can't agree on what to conform to.

America does NOT VALUE INDIVIDUALITY. At all.

if it did, then people wouldn't be so concerned about what another person believes or how they lived their life.

Fact of the matter is simple- Government has NO business getting involved one way or another. The way it's set-up is all wrong. It's all about making a buck for a certificate, and controlling people's lives. Tax credits for one and not the other? How about DON'T TAKE MY TAX MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE, then there will be no issue of he/she got it but he/he she/she didn't.

Certain religious groups talk a big game about being understanding, forgiving, whatever. The teachings seem to fall on deaf ears. What difference does it make to any one person if another person chooses to be in a same sex relationship? Beyond the tax/other "benefits" there is nothing any different from a heterosexual relationship. I don't buy the "it corrupts the kids" line much. If a kid grows up in a home full of love and compassion, he or she will be more likely to spread the love and compassion later. Seems like common sense to me.

I don't care one bit if a person wants to be with another of the same sex, that's their business. Beyond the financial aspect of this whole topic- it really and truly is a NON ISSUE. Get the Gov't out of the game completely, and be done with it.

Personally, I am a man attracted to women. Who the hell am I to say what YOU do?

Remember, the issue is government hands in the cookie jar. It's the driving force behind most issues. Cut their hands off and live your lives, people. We ALL just want to be happy. Let us see we share the same goal and get rid of this common problem.

The LGBT vs Christian debate is nothing more than a means to redirect our attention from the big issues.
I'm not saying equal rights aren't important, but there are other issues out there that would inevitably render a full fledged LGBT victory meaningless if we pay no attention to them. They could give gays full rights tomorrow if they wanted to.... but then they'd have to create another issue to keep us divided and fighting, The problem is that we've let government grow out of control.

Also.... there just aren't enough anti-LGBT-ers out there to really make a difference... this # is all staged.

Gays are such a whiney lot - they already have PLENTY of 'rights.' I'm completely sick to death of hearing about them. They're trying to take over society and they will never be accepted by all they want.

The issue is such that it should be way way down on our list of priorities, so it hardly ever gets mentioned!

Besides, your Obama has no regard for ANYBODY'S rights, so what was your point again?

reply to post by onehuman


I don't think anyone has said gays can't be together in a relationship. they just can't marry.

Kinda like i can't get social security, food stamps or even WIC.

Why ? not because i am hated but because i do not meet the criteria.

I am being discriminated against for not being old, poor or a woman

SHould i get all huffy and puffy and ask for these programs/systems that were created with a certain group in mind to be altered just for me and people who think like me??

Its lame.

How about homosexuals ask for something like marriage but not marriage. heck just make the financial benefits for marriage apply to any kind of relationship. how about we start marrying people to dogs or in animate objects. How about we marry a gender changed man to a woman to a gender changed woman to a man.


No one is telling gays cannot be together(at least i have not seen it anywhere) but just that they cannot be married because they do not meet the critiera.. kinda like i don't meet the criteria for those other programs in which i am discriminated against being young , well off and not a woman.


These are just polarizing points that were divided up by the two party system to have people focus on that instead of on the important issues.

oh yeah and obama started soem education program for black youths.. i am not black so i do not qualify for that..I will cry and moan now.

Personally i think the gay community should be able to do whatever the hell they want, who care what the church or the congress says.

The church can no longer say being gay is wrong, given all the inquisitors and pedophiles they've protected over the centuries. the same goes for congress; they seem to be able to justify a war in Iraq but can't justify gay marriage.

I've met a few gay people in my life and they are among the most pleasant and hardworking people I've ever met. If we all shared their attitude maybe the world would be a better place.

Here is my opinion. Religion needs to be taken out of this debate. Religion is not supposed to be in the government, and religion should not take a role in this debate.

Marriage is no longer a holy commitment with God, unless you want it to be. It is a legal agreement.

I was not married in a church. The man that married us was simply someone who had a license, he was not church affiliated. The bible did not govern my wedding. Why shouldn't two gay people be married in the same way?
Why can't two people commit to a legal agreement? It doesn't have to have anything to do with God and what the bible says is right and wrong.

While we all seem to be on the topic of equal rights for homosexuals, where do we believe the "right to marry someone of the same sex" derives from? I'm fairly certain that America's founding fathers (who had a pretty well thought out system of rights, which derived from God/Nature and nature's laws) didn't particularly think that was a right. So, what's come along since to enlighten us?

Or, in other words, says who?

Originally posted by tport17
Here is my opinion. Religion needs to be taken out of this debate. Religion is not supposed to be in the government, and religion should not take a role in this debate.

Marriage is no longer a holy commitment with God, unless you want it to be. It is a legal agreement.

I was not married in a church. The man that married us was simply someone who had a license, he was not church affiliated. The bible did not govern my wedding. Why shouldn't two gay people be married in the same way?
Why can't two people commit to a legal agreement? It doesn't have to have anything to do with God and what the bible says is right and wrong.

I half agree with you, except I think we should get rid of marriage as a legal institution and instead merely have people enter into legal contracts. Let churches perform marriages.

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
While we all seem to be on the topic of equal rights for homosexuals, where do we believe the "right to marry someone of the same sex" derives from? I'm fairly certain that America's founding fathers (who had a pretty well thought out system of rights, which derived from God/Nature and nature's laws) didn't particularly think that was a right. So, what's come along since to enlighten us?

Or, in other words, says who?

Well, I'm pretty sure the founding father's felt their wives should be making them dinner rather than using their silly brains in a voting booth. The bible (God's Law) feels the same.

So, who says women should vote? Women.

Who says gay people should get married? Gay people and those that know/love them.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, I guess. A lot of things have changed since the founding fathers. It is a different world.

reply to post by tport17


Sure, it's a different world. It seems to me, though, that the founding father's had what they believed to be, at least at some level, a collection of absolute truths. I don't think this different world shares a similar framework. Upon what authority can we say that any two consenting adults should be married? It's a philosophical question more than a political one, I suppose, and to answer it, we must first ask why marriage exists in the first place. But I guess I was just interested in the philosophical justification for "homosexual rights."
Does that make more sense?

For or against, I'm personally sick and tired of hearing about it, especially in the political arena and the gays that keep trying to make it a political issue are getting absolutely ridiculous. I could care less what you do in your private life or what gender you like to have sex with. This country has mush bigger issues that need to be resolved and addressed than ones of sexual preferences. The fact that the subject seems to be such a BIG issue in the presidential campaign is a insult to citizens that are losing their jobs, homes, medical, retirement, quality of life, etc.......I don't think the majority of us really care who's doing who

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by onehuman

 

I don't think anyone has said gays can't be together in a relationship. they just can't marry.

Kinda like i can't get social security, food stamps or even WIC.

Why ? not because i am hated but because i do not meet the criteria.

I am being discriminated against for not being old, poor or a woman

SHould i get all huffy and puffy and ask for these programs/systems that were created with a certain group in mind to be altered just for me and people who think like me??

Its lame.

How about homosexuals ask for something like marriage but not marriage. heck just make the financial benefits for marriage apply to any kind of relationship. how about we start marrying people to dogs or in animate objects. How about we marry a gender changed man to a woman to a gender changed woman to a man.


No one is telling gays cannot be together(at least i have not seen it anywhere) but just that they cannot be married because they do not meet the critiera.. kinda like i don't meet the criteria for those other programs in which i am discriminated against being young , well off and not a woman.


These are just polarizing points that were divided up by the two party system to have people focus on that instead of on the important issues.

oh yeah and obama started soem education program for black youths.. i am not black so i do not qualify for that..I will cry and moan now.

edit on 7-9-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

Ah, what?

I hope you work. If you do look at a paycheck. See where it says "social security" and deducts a portion for your social security? You can be a millionaire and still get social security. Not sure where you got that idea you won't get it.

How you could possibly equate a system like food stamps for poor people and the "right" to marry is waaayyy out there. Of course if you don't qualify for a social program you can't get it. Are you insinuating marriage is a social program that is intended to help people who are poor?

You speak of "criteria" as if that is some end-all phrase. You are aware that womens' suffrage demanded that the "criteria" that women couldn't vote be changed? You can vote, right? Would you make your argument in the same tone if you still didn't have that right? How about the "criteria" that allowed slavery then the idea that blacks didn't count as a "whole" vote?

How about women ask for the right to vote, but not really vote. How about blacks ask for the right to be considered human, but not really human. Seems to make sense (sic).

CJ

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Be careful with that truth there Wrabbit...

Awesome reply....