President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


It just needs to placed into LAW (SCOTUS). Then the fun predicted by Isaiah 24 begins. ARE YOU READY FOR THE POLESHIFT PEOPLE? When you change the ORDINANCE it will happen. Why are they waffling on this I do not know. Just be ready to do the neutron dance when it takes place.

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??

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)

The thing is, I instantly thought they most likely never said a word, I believe this because of his fairy-tales he often tells, like his composite girlfriend in his book


www.americanthinker.com...

reply to post by sonnny1


He did in the following video youtu.be...

He states his belief in civil unions, in his recent message he affirms his past beliefs and comes clean that his belif in civil unions wasn't equal or fair and now believes in same-sex marriage.

The title of the YouTube video is a lie, just concentrate on the video and what Obama says!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


and after the election he will go back on it.. like everything he has on so far.

reply to post by beezzer


No Steve and Steve still can't get married, he just thinks they should be able to. Nothing has changed from a week ago. Or 4 years for that matter. President Obama has done almost nothing with his entire term and now he's promising, "Well that last one was just a warm-up, but THIS time I'll actually do all those things I promised... and more!"

It's sad to see that people are starting to believe he will actually do anything he says this time. Who cares what he said about gays, work on the the nation's real issues and don't spend a trillion more dollars doing it.

People are too worried about getting their feelings hurt nowadays. Boohoo go cry about it

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Ghost375
See I definitely lean liberal. But after semi-recent considerations, I'm against same sex marriage. Instead, I think they should have some other civil union type thing, where the couple would receive the same benefits but it wouldn't be called marriage.

Compromise?

There are many gay Christians who want to get married in church in the eyes of God.

There are many churches who support gay marriage.

Why the hell should they be second class citizens? Compromise? NO!

And this is precisely why we rarely get anywhere. Compromise is the cornerstone of civil discourse and resolution. Second class? Just because a gay couple wouldn't be able to legally call it marriage? Really? If you get all the same benefits, what does it matter?? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

Compromise is the only way through this, and many, issues our society faces. Why do so many people scream for their way or the highway? That kind of stubbornness can be found on both sides of any argument, and always leads to tears.

Either one side forces their way on the other through violence, threats, lies, slander, etc., or we can meet in the middle and sacrifice a little to gain a lot.

What's so bad about a compromise on gay marriage?

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?

It stops when liberty is unjustifiably limited. Two men in a relationship does not unjustifiably limit the liberty of either person, neither does polygamy. So again it stops when liberty is limited. The only time liberty should ever be limited is when what you're doing limits another person's liberty unjustifiably. For example; if I turn my backyard into a chemical storage area, my neighbors freedom from disease, illness, air quality, etc are all limited unjustifiably.

Marrying your cousin and having unhealthy babies limits the baby's right to health (although this one is probably tricky depending on your perception of when life begins, not to mention rights for "potential life.") But more to the point, marrying people under age limits the liberty of the child, beastiality limits the rights of the animal (this one is tricky too seeing how animals don't really have rights).

I would hope that most of you hardcore freedom fighters would understand liberty 101

It stops where liberty is limited.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Good on you Obama...

I caught the story minutes after it happened - while scanning headlines in Google news yesterday

I actually welled up as I was reading it

for me this is one of those meaningful moments you never forget

I know there's still time and work ahead - but still, good for us - that's all I can say

thanks for this thread OutKast Searcher - S&F

Originally posted by ArnoldNonymous
reply to post by beezzer

 

No Steve and Steve still can't get married, he just thinks they should be able to. Nothing has changed from a week ago. Or 4 years for that matter. President Obama has done almost nothing with his entire term and now he's promising, "Well that last one was just a warm-up, but THIS time I'll actually do all those things I promised... and more!"

It's sad to see that people are starting to believe he will actually do anything he says this time. Who cares what he said about gays, work on the the nation's real issues and don't spend a trillion more dollars doing it.

People are too worried about getting their feelings hurt nowadays. Boohoo go cry about it

Obama will say just enough to get the vote. Just enough to make people think that he will change something in his second term. A dangerous lame duck term. He claims he needs another term because he unfinished business... He will dangle just enough hope to get people to the booths...

His record speaks louder than his current rhetoric. He said he needed to say in 1996 when he supported gay marriage. Trust his first response and ignore the junk in between elections. Obama simply 180'd back to his original 1996 stance. The pressure of this reelection made certain of that.

Originally posted by obilesk

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Ghost375
See I definitely lean liberal. But after semi-recent considerations, I'm against same sex marriage. Instead, I think they should have some other civil union type thing, where the couple would receive the same benefits but it wouldn't be called marriage.

Compromise?

There are many gay Christians who want to get married in church in the eyes of God.

There are many churches who support gay marriage.

Why the hell should they be second class citizens? Compromise? NO!

And this is precisely why we rarely get anywhere. Compromise is the cornerstone of civil discourse and resolution. Second class? Just because a gay couple wouldn't be able to legally call it marriage? Really? If you get all the same benefits, what does it matter?? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

Compromise is the only way through this, and many, issues our society faces. Why do so many people scream for their way or the highway? That kind of stubbornness can be found on both sides of any argument, and always leads to tears.

Either one side forces their way on the other through violence, threats, lies, slander, etc., or we can meet in the middle and sacrifice a little to gain a lot.

What's so bad about a compromise on gay marriage?

This is nothing to do with what a church would accept - that is up to the church and the State (as in US government) has no say in that, rightly so if no rule is broken and in this case it isn't, it's about whether you get a license from the State to say you are legally married.

That's not a church issue, it's a State issue. Why compromise? Some churches may allow same sex marriage, some may not, it's their choice and I respect whatever view they hold, but the State should not be putting religion into the mix.

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.

'On My Behalf'

In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.

Yet another 'worthwhile' tread about a politician flip-flopping as needed to keep is lying criminal butt in office. Yay?
/sarcasm

Oh, sorry... It's no longer called 'flip-flopping'. It's called 'evolving'.

FORWARD!

Originally posted by obilesk

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Ghost375
See I definitely lean liberal. But after semi-recent considerations, I'm against same sex marriage. Instead, I think they should have some other civil union type thing, where the couple would receive the same benefits but it wouldn't be called marriage.

Compromise?

There are many gay Christians who want to get married in church in the eyes of God.

There are many churches who support gay marriage.

Why the hell should they be second class citizens? Compromise? NO!

And this is precisely why we rarely get anywhere. Compromise is the cornerstone of civil discourse and resolution. Second class? Just because a gay couple wouldn't be able to legally call it marriage? Really? If you get all the same benefits, what does it matter?? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

Compromise is the only way through this, and many, issues our society faces. Why do so many people scream for their way or the highway? That kind of stubbornness can be found on both sides of any argument, and always leads to tears.

Either one side forces their way on the other through violence, threats, lies, slander, etc., or we can meet in the middle and sacrifice a little to gain a lot.

What's so bad about a compromise on gay marriage?

What's bad is that gays would be the only one compromising. Gays being granted marriage wouldn't affect anyone else one iota - so limiting them isn't a matter of compromise or not whatsoever. The compromise is in your definition of who should get married and who shouldn't.

reply to post by beezzer

Now lets talk aboutreal issues

and this will become the mantra of the right - because what other choice do they have?

:-)

timing really is everything - another good on you Obama

so, please define the real issues - and why this is not a real issue

had you been present - would you also have trivialized the Emancipation Proclamation - focusing instead on the real issue - like now who's gonna pick all that cotton?

human rights ARE the real issue

and the economy is right up there beezzer - don't you worry - it will get plenty of play

Originally posted by Gazrok


While I feel it's a long time coming, and we'll see it legal within a decade, Obama just made the first mistake of this campaign, as he just drove millions of religious zealots over to Romney's side. Thing is, unlike a lot of lackadaisical liberal young folks, these fundies will VOTE. We've seen it before. Morally, the right thing to do, but campaign-wise, an error to be sure.

Great response actually.


I also believe this is a HUGE error for the Obama Campaign

Clearly,Biden played a huge role,for Obama to come out the closet.

reply to post by voidla


Obama says in that vid clip, "the rights of citizenship". Yep I think gays already have citizenship if they were born here or are naturalized. I think Obama was mixing it up a little.

Here is wikipedia on the rights of citizens in the US.

en.wikipedia.org...

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.
My question is, how can we, or should we end the discussion by allowing same sex marriages between two man or two women? Once we accept the notion that any two people can marry, what logical reason prevents one man from marrying two, six, or twelve women? What would prevent a father from marrying his daughter, if religious objections are to be rejected as narrow-minded and the product of bias? (Genetic problems are not inevitable and they may not even choose to reproduce.) Is there any reason to prevent six people who want to proclaim their love for one another to "get married?" Does "marriage" have any meaning any more under such circumstances?

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?