100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama declares support for gay marriage | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Obozo doesn't have the very strong youth vote that got him elected.... Ron Paul took it away from him for abusing it! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 05/10/12 05:35 PM
|
|
Also, what is wrong with a person changing their beliefs anyway? ITS CALLED PROGRESS or learning.
right, so are you willing to change your belief on 911?(sheesh) Answer: Yes of course. In fact, I have changed my belief on 9/11. For a short time I actually believed the B.S. reports put out by official channels -until I looked a little closer at the facts and started using common sense. Just like what happened when I learned that Santa Clause did not really exist. It was a hard pill to swallow but I am dedicated to truth. I can sense a lie when I hear it. I guess because I want the truth, that makes me a "truther." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love how the media is portraying Obama as "evolving" on the subject.
I'm just thinking flip flop to get the youth vote. Just because he says he's for gay marriage doesn't mean he believes in it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now i know without a doubt that your reading comprehension is bias. you say he has never said he OPPOSED them when he reversed his longstanding opposition to them http://youtu.be/N6K9dS9wl7U really? lets see I dont 'promote' it, = I am opposed to it (as a matter of law) I Believe it is a union between a man and women = I am opposed to it (As a matter of law) I Believe it is a STATE issue= I Am aoopsed to it (AS a matter of law) ,,,,,I dont really know what to say to those who saw that and interpreted it as anything LIKE opposing same sex marriage as it relates to the LAW,,,,, he stated that he has christian beliefs. not what is legal I dont believe tattoos are attractive OR healthy, and I dont promote them, but that doesnt mean I would OPPOSE others having the right to have them,,,, he stated that he is a christian, so his beliefs are in line with the christian beliefs. unless you believe that christian's are divided in their belief on same sex marriage, than he is opposed to same sex marriage. presently, he has stated that he no longer believes the same way as he used to. i'm am positive you will find another excuse to justify his change in belief so close to election time certainly , if you can show me where he said he no longer believes as he used to lying promiscuity etc... Then why is he saying he is for it now? Why doesn't he talk about important issues like the economy and jobs? Is he is diverting attention away from those issues? I think so. 
im guessing, since it was an INTERVIEW,, he was asked about it,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying then, that if you are a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ, then you are required to be against gay marriage? no, a christian is required to conform to whatever doctrine he/she chooses to follow you said: "unless you believe that christian's are divided in their belief on same sex marriage," obama stated his traditional christian view not any new progressive christian view(s) (Yes Christians are divided.) agreed Also, what is wrong with a person changing their beliefs anyway? ITS CALLED PROGRESS or learning. right, so are you willing to change your belief on 911?(sheesh) If someone spends their life stubbornly clinging to their twisted belief system refusing to change is not necessarily a good thing. is there a kettle in the room you could call 
the topic is about obama changing his christian view against same sex marriage. traditional christian view is man and woman marriage which he stated in the video link there is nothing wrong with changing a belief. obama seems to have changed his belief to help with his bid in the election. nothing wrong with that either. the problem is some people posting that obama's stance was never against same sex marraige, so the news report of him making a change is not true it is helpful to read topic threads from the beginning to be able to contribute to the thread and not stray too much from the original topic its not a problem to understand that people can seperate their PERSONAL values from the laws and that he never said he OPPOSED same sex marriage as a matter of law |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why should just unrelated lovers suffer let the siblings and cousins marry too,,,why not??? First cousins should legally be able to marry and are in most states. Siblings have an unacceptably high chance of producing children with birth defects. there is no other category of citizen who is stopped from marrying because of a 'high' chance of producing 'defective' children its their body and their choice and it shouldnt be used to deny them their 'right' to marry whom they love (legally arguing the case, that is,,,) Plural Marriage! Marriage to Pets! Marriage to inanimate objects! Marriage to Virtual Avatars! 
I am not sure his announcement was a wise political move. It could cost him the election since it could cost him several crucial battleground states where large constituencies feel like there should be a distinction between marriage of a man and a woman and other less traditional arrangements of mutual commitment. 
So....I think the most significant aind interesting aspect of the announcement is the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind the declaration. But I don't think it will play well in NC, FL, OH, PA and IA, VA, NV, CO.... Seems like an inopportune time to make such a declaration IMO.... http://www.270towin.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
besides california, Im not sure that the other states are necessarily majority opposed to 'marriage equality'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
besides california, Im not sure that the other states are necessarily majority opposed to 'marriage equality' I believe it's 32 states that are strongly opposed to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
besides california, Im not sure that the other states are necessarily majority opposed to 'marriage equality' I believe it's 32 states that are strongly opposed to it. i'm pretty sure it wouldn't do to well in Texas... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It took a very wise man to do what the President did.
The very people who say "We don't want to be around a gay life-style" are the ones preventing gays from being a part of the fabric of family that marriage represents. That would mean everyone was the same. Whom would the ignorant bash? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
besides california, Im not sure that the other states are necessarily majority opposed to 'marriage equality' I believe it's 32 states that are strongly opposed to it. I just don't see how it should not be legal. No matter what your morals are, it doesn't make sense to be able to make it not legal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
besides california, Im not sure that the other states are necessarily majority opposed to 'marriage equality' I believe it's 32 states that are strongly opposed to it. I just don't see how it should not be legal. No matter what your morals are, it doesn't make sense to be able to make it not legal. Same could be said for other things. Prostitution is one. Not that I am comparing the 2 just saying it doesn't make sense. Same for gambling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
besides california, Im not sure that the other states are necessarily majority opposed to 'marriage equality' I believe it's 32 states that are strongly opposed to it. I just don't see how it should not be legal. No matter what your morals are, it doesn't make sense to be able to make it not legal. Same could be said for other things. Prostitution is one. Not that I am comparing the 2 just saying it doesn't make sense. Same for gambling. I agree with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! What a nice change of heart. Wonder why he's changing now?? 
Might as well announce it before the election. NC voters rebuked it, we'll see if it hurts him or not. I think gays/lesbians should be allowed a union of sorts, to shore up their surviving spouse rights and health care rights, etc etc. I have a third cousin who has been with the same partner for 30 odd years, they apparently belong together and it's her business, not mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! What a nice change of heart. Wonder why he's changing now??
Might as well announce it before the election. NC voters rebuked it, we'll see if it hurts him or not. I think gays/lesbians should be allowed a union of sorts, to shore up their surviving spouse rights and health care rights, etc etc. I have a third cousin who has been with the same partner for 30 odd years, they apparently belong together and it's her business, not mine. i think should be up to the people in a vote, like cali voted on it. if the people want it, then fine. If not, then to bad. thats what a democracy is supposed to be about anyway... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! What a nice change of heart. Wonder why he's changing now??
Might as well announce it before the election. NC voters rebuked it, we'll see if it hurts him or not. I think gays/lesbians should be allowed a union of sorts, to shore up their surviving spouse rights and health care rights, etc etc. I have a third cousin who has been with the same partner for 30 odd years, they apparently belong together and it's her business, not mine. i think should be up to the people in a vote, like cali voted on it. if the people want it, then fine. If not, then to bad. thats what a democracy is supposed to be about anyway... That's how it is. It's up to the states to decide. The only reason he even brought it up is to get vote from a certain voting block that he has been losing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meh..the states should abolish marriage period,it doesn't serve a purpose other than making divorce attorneys money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It took a very wise man to do what the President did. The very people who say "We don't want to be around a gay life-style" are the ones preventing gays from being a part of the fabric of family that marriage represents. That would mean everyone was the same. Whom would the ignorant bash? an opinion doesnt make everyone the same Bush declared that terror was the enemy and not islam,, but that didnt stop people from protesting the building of a mosque in NYC,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
besides california, Im not sure that the other states are necessarily majority opposed to 'marriage equality' I believe it's 32 states that are strongly opposed to it. I just don't see how it should not be legal. No matter what your morals are, it doesn't make sense to be able to make it not legal. its not that its 'illegal', its just not a recognized 'marital' relationship just like siblings marrying is not 'illegal', but there is no place that will perform the wedding because of cultural morals and there is no authority that would recognize it |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Fri 05/11/12 06:22 PM
|
|
just like siblings marrying is not 'illegal', 'Scuse me????? Incest Family law Laws regarding incest vary from legal to prohibited in different countries. 
Red: Incestuous relationships are prohibited Yellow: Incestuous relationships are allowed, but marriages are prohibited Blue: Incestuous relationships and marriages allowed. Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives that is illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place or is socially taboo (or both) and can be illegal or legal depending on the jurisdiction. The exact definition, including the nature of the relationship between people, and the types of sexual activity, vary by country, and by even individual states or provinces within a country. These laws can also extend to marriage between said individuals. In most US States, incest is a felony crime. United States In the United States the District of Columbia and every state, except Rhode Island, have some form of codified incest prohibition.[27] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989,[27] Ohio only targets parental figures,[27] and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[27] Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment for those engaging in sexual activities with relatives closer than first cousins[27] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and in-laws.[27] In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins, although Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[28] UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has questioned the rationale behind laws prohibiting incest, at least as they apply to sex between adults OK. That got somewhat off topic. 
|
|
|
|
|
