You Know What's Funny?

[1inStripes 933]

Obama's quote of "constantly evolving" just mean, hey lets go with what generates the most fervor for me at the moment.

[HurricaneWarning 212]

Back in 2008 Obama said that he believed marriage was a union between a man and a woman, a sacred union. Looks like Mr. Pres has changed his mind once again.

[hokie07 11]

Back in 2008 Obama said that he believed marriage was a union between a man and a woman, a sacred union. Looks like Mr. Pres has changed his mind once again.

 

Go back to 1994 and you'll find Romney's position wasn't quite as firm as it is today either.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/12/romneys_thought.html

 

"...Our society should allow people to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs. People of integrity don’t force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have. That’s the great thing about this country: it was founded to allow people to follow beliefs of their own conscience. I will work and have worked to fight discrimination and to assure each American equal opportunity."

 

Right, wrong, whatever. It doesn't matter to me. The moral of the story is that Romney is a slime ball just like 99.999999% of all other politicians. If this election tells you anything, it is telling you that no matter who you vote for in the general election (Romney v. Obama) you are voting for a liar.

[MrSocko 136]

New catch phrase -evolving

Obama flip-flops on a issue but it is called "evolving"

Romney is evolving on a issue but it is called "flip-flopping"

 

LOL!

[RichlandsAlum 678]

Play me all day with civil rights, I love it.

 

How many civil rights require a license? (Which of course begs the question as to why the government is involved in this particular activity to begin with.)

 

My personal opinion is that this issue is pretty ridiculous, and I don't appreciate the use of it by partisan hacks of either party to inflame and divide the populace.

Edited May 10, 2012 by RichlandsAlum

[1inStripes 933]

As a point of reference to my earlier comment about divorce rates, I had a coworker who was a lesbian. She went through two "commitment ceremonies" with women within the last 3-4 years. She's no longer committed to either one. Lawyers should be all for this. CHACHING

[Deleted Account 5,203]

And the Democratic National Convention is being held in what state later this year, boys and girls?

 

Sorry, folks (on both sides of the issue). This isn't about rights, homosexuality, or anything else but political opportunism on the part of the incumbent president.

 

We're being played, people. That's truly offensive, IMO.

 

Could you pretty, pretty please tell my leftist Kool-Aid drinking friends this?

 

I thought I was going crazy because I thought I was the only person who thought "Wow, this is absolutely nothing more than a political ploy." I dared mention this to 2 or 3 of my friends, and got comments like "This literally brought tears to my eyes...quit stealing my joy." and "How dare you criticize our president for stating his beliefs?"

 

It brought tears to my eyes, too. Tears about how people who I thought were intelligent are taking the dupe-bait hook, line, sinker, and now are about halfway up the fishing rod.

 

Obama's quote of "constantly evolving" just mean, hey lets go with what generates the most fervor for me at the moment.

 

This, too.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

I'm sure, by now, everyone's seen the outcry over NC's defense-of-marriage constitutional amendment. The media's got the sheep into a frenzy, and they're going to revolt by posting incorrect Facebook status and general whining and moaning.

 

You know what's funny? THE FACTS.

 

Where was this outrage when the 24 states before NC passed their constitutional amendments?

Where was this outrage when the 18 states before NC banned ANY kind of same-sex union?

Where was this outrage when 5 other states, including WV and my adopted state of PA, enacted statutes banning it?

Where was this outrage when Virginia passed its constitutional amendment in 2006?

 

The next time you hear someone gripining about NC's law, ask them what rock they've been hiding under.

 

You know what isn't funny?

 

[Deleted Account 5,203]

As a point of reference to my earlier comment about divorce rates, I had a coworker who was a lesbian. She went through two "commitment ceremonies" with women within the last 3-4 years. She's no longer committed to either one. Lawyers should be all for this. CHACHING

 

Let me assure you, family lawyers are among some of the biggest proponents, and not because they're all aflush with equal rights...

[Deleted Account 5,203]

You know what isn't funny?

 

 

People who haven't attended college tend to be more closed-minded than those who have?

 

 

;)

[deuceswild 15]

How many civil rights require a license? (Which of course begs the question as to why the government is involved in this particular activity to begin with.)

 

My personal opinion is that this issue is pretty ridiculous, and I don't appreciate the use of it by partisan hacks of either party to inflame and divide the populace.

 

I share that opinion with you. Separation of church and state has a fuzzy line there. And I too think that this issue is ridiculous just because it's an issue at all.

 

However, any political catalyst that could result in righting a wrong is just that. Political plays and ploys have been the root of all kinds of legislation, good or bad. That's the unfortunate nature of the beast. If Obama publicly supporting the LGBT community can do anything to drive home the agenda, then I can't really say I'm insulted by it. He's going to bat for them, I'll bat for him.

[deuceswild 15]

Obama's quote of "constantly evolving" just mean, hey lets go with what generates the most fervor for me at the moment.

 

Publicly supporting gays really makes him popular. Have you seen WCYB's Facebook page regarding this issue?

 

Yeaaahh..

 

Constantly evolving is what he's hoping we'll do. Unfortunately, most won't.

[1inStripes 933]

Publicly supporting gays really makes him popular. Have you seen WCYB's Facebook page regarding this issue?

 

Yeaaahh..

 

Constantly evolving is what he's hoping we'll do. Unfortunately, most won't.

 

We all know what political powerhouse of an area WCYB covers......

[deuceswild 15]

We all know what political powerhouse of an area WCYB covers......

 

True and that's my point. I think it made him more popular with people he was already popular with. And drummed up even more tension and hatred from the other side. Maybe he's more popular now as a talking point, but he's definitely no more favored I would imagine.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

True and that's my point. I think it made him more popular with people he was already popular with. And drummed up even more tension and hatred from the other side. Maybe he's more popular now as a talking point, but he's definitely no more favored I would imagine.

 

He's going to gain support among social moderates, no doubt. And as close as this election's going to end up being, it could mean all the difference. And Obama knows it...

 

So what if he just ensured that the entire state of NC isn't going to vote for him in November. If he can pick up NH, he'll win. He may just have.

[deuceswild 15]

He's going to gain support among social moderates, no doubt. And as close as this election's going to end up being, it could mean all the difference. And Obama knows it...

 

So what if he just ensured that the entire state of NC isn't going to vote for him in November. If he can pick up NH, he'll win. He may just have.

 

I think whatever he gained in social-moderates he lost somewhere. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it but we'll see.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I think whatever he gained in social-moderates he lost somewhere. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it but we'll see.

 

It doesn't have to be zero sum, but indeed, we'll see.

[1inStripes 933]

True and that's my point. I think it made him more popular with people he was already popular with. And drummed up even more tension and hatred from the other side. Maybe he's more popular now as a talking point, but he's definitely no more favored I would imagine.

 

Most recent polls have been showing a favoritism nationally for allowing G/L to wed. Its marginal, but as UVAO says, it could be enough on the independent side of things to win the election. He also probably figures this improves his chances of keeping a high turnout in the college age voters. Those numbers were probably not going to be as high in 2012 as they were in 2008 because there isn't a big push for change. You drum up more people who are fence sitters for change than you do for continuations.

[RichlandsAlum 678]

I think it's simply both sides (because in American politics there are only two sides.... but I digress) trying to play "Gotcha!" And it's disgusting.

 

I've got the genesis of an idea. What would happen if:

 

- Government were taken out of the marriage business altogether;

- We amended the applicable tax code to eliminate all breaks and incentives (i.e., everybody pays the same rate); and

- People were clearly allowed to assign their "benefits" to whomever they choose, provided that they bear the risk and responsibility for doing so?

 

Genuinely curious as to where this train of thought might go.

[bucfan64 309]

Personally, I believe that this is an issue that is to be left to the states and not the Federal Government. In all honesty, I wonder sometimes, if any part of the government needs to be involved in the marriage business. The President said in his statement that it is an issue the states should decide, which is code language to appease the states rights groups. I do however expect him to further "evolve" on the issue if re-elected and ultimately support some type of move on behalf of the Federal Government to make it the law of the land. The presidents record would indicate that he thinks little to nothing of state rights, once again proving that his comment regarding "leaving it up to the states," is nothing more than a further political ploy.

 

From a Christian perspective and that of a Pastor, I cannot endorse "same sex" marriage. The words alone do not even go together, there is no such thing as "same sex" marriage. The term marriage identifies a union between a man and a woman, aka opposite sex. To imply that marriage (the union of a man and a woman) can be "same sex" is contradictory.

 

I'll not labor the biblical perspective on this issue, but will simply add that the scriptures teach that marriage is a faithful, lifelong covenant between a man and a woman. Therefore, if everything else is considered marriage then marriage is essentially regulated to nothingness!

 

If the government is to be involved I would personally support some legislation that would permit same-sex couples the benefits and privileges of couples under marital status, nonetheless I firmly oppose the institute of marriage as a convenant between same-sex couples.

 

Is Same Sex Marriage a Civil Rights issue?

 

I do no think it is, I believe it to be more of a social justice issue. I believe in natural law and that the institution of marriage is representative of the natural law of procreation.

 

A man and a woman may want to marry, they may have different characteristics, one may be white, the other black, one short, one tall, the two may be of different ethnicities and these items can be obstacles to marriage, but in the end, they are still man and woman......compatible by nature. I believe "same sex" marriage is contrary to the laws of nature and that it is incompatible with nature.

 

I also do not think that it appropriate to compare inherited and unchangeable racial traits with non genetic and changeable behavior. "Same sex" marriage is sterile by nature and therefore only appeals to the personal gratification of those involved, therefore it does not need to be protected or promoted by the state as a legal institution.

 

Theese are just some of my thoughts on the issue, I am not here to debate the issue, but rather add my 2 cents to bring a few things to consideration.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I think it's simply both sides (because in American politics there are only two sides.... but I digress) trying to play "Gotcha!" And it's disgusting.

 

I've got the genesis of an idea. What would happen if:

 

- Government were taken out of the marriage business altogether;

- We amended the applicable tax code to eliminate all breaks and incentives (i.e., everybody pays the same rate); and

- People were clearly allowed to assign their "benefits" to whomever they choose, provided that they bear the risk and responsibility for doing so?

 

Genuinely curious as to where this train of thought might go.

 

It gets messy with divorce, custody, spousal support, and alimony.

Without government recognition, the burden shifts significantly toward extrinsic evidence to prove marriage.

[sixcat 2,937]

Personally, I believe that this is an issue that is to be left to the states and not the Federal Government. In all honesty, I wonder sometimes, if any part of the government needs to be involved in the marriage business. The President said in his statement that it is an issue the states should decide, which is code language to appease the states rights groups. I do however expect him to further "evolve" on the issue if re-elected and ultimately support some type of move on behalf of the Federal Government to make it the law of the land. The presidents record would indicate that he thinks little to nothing of state rights, once again proving that his comment regarding "leaving it up to the states," is nothing more than a further political ploy.

 

From a Christian perspective and that of a Pastor, I cannot endorse "same sex" marriage. The words alone do not even go together, there is no such thing as "same sex" marriage. The term marriage identifies a union between a man and a woman, aka opposite sex. To imply that marriage (the union of a man and a woman) can be "same sex" is contradictory.

 

I'll not labor the biblical perspective on this issue, but will simply add that the scriptures teach that marriage is a faithful, lifelong covenant between a man and a woman. Therefore, if everything else is considered marriage then marriage is essentially regulated to nothingness!

 

If the government is to be involved I would personally support some legislation that would permit same-sex couples the benefits and privileges of couples under marital status, nonetheless I firmly oppose the institute of marriage as a convenant between same-sex couples.

 

Is Same Sex Marriage a Civil Rights issue?

 

I do no think it is, I believe it to be more of a social justice issue. I believe in natural law and that the institution of marriage is representative of the natural law of procreation.

 

A man and a woman may want to marry, they may have different characteristics, one may be white, the other black, one short, one tall, the two may be of different ethnicities and these items can be obstacles to marriage, but in the end, they are still man and woman......compatible by nature. I believe "same sex" marriage is contrary to the laws of nature and that it is incompatible with nature.

 

I also do not think that it appropriate to compare inherited and unchangeable racial traits with non genetic and changeable behavior. "Same sex" marriage is sterile by nature and therefore only appeals to the personal gratification of those involved, therefore it does not need to be protected or promoted by the state as a legal institution.

 

Theese are just some of my thoughts on the issue, I am not here to debate the issue, but rather add my 2 cents to bring a few things to consideration.

 

I am not here to debate or turn this into anything other than the question I pose. You seem to be much more knowledgeable about this than I am so I am asking honest questions. Feel free to PM if you are more comfortable going that route.

 

Why is this such an issue now?

 

I am no Biblical scholar but if God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, and you believe the Bible to be true, shouldn't adultery be treated with the same sense of disdain as homosexuality. If I covet another man's wife, is that not equally sin against the nature of marriage?

 

I don't see legislation being added to "protect the sanctity of marriage" from adultery, abuse or any other damaging behavior to marriage as it is with "gay marriage" legeslation.

Edited May 10, 2012 by sixcat

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I don't see legislation being added to "protect the sanctity of marriage" from adultery, abuse or any other damaging behavior to marriage as it is with "gay marriage" legeslation.

 

There's quite a bit of abuse legislation, though people must make a stand to use it. Second, the no-fault divorce trend of 1970-2009 resulted in every state enacting no-fault divorce as an easy ticket out of a marriage. Mainly, this was to keep from trapping someone in an adulterous marriage if they were unable to prove "fault".

 

Depends on your perspective, I guess.

[bucfan64 309]

I am not here to debate or turn this into anything other than the question I pose. You seem to be much more knowledgeable about this than I am so I am asking honest questions. Feel free to PM if you are more comfortable going that route.

 

Why is this such an issue now?

 

I am no Biblical scholar but if God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, and you believe the Bible to be true, shouldn't adultery be treated with the same sense of disdain as homosexuality. If I covet another man's wife, is that not equally sin against the nature of marriage?

 

I don't see legislation being added to "protect the sanctity of marriage" from adultery, abuse or any other damaging behavior to marriage as it is with "gay marriage" legeslation.

 

I do believe that adultery should also should be treated with disdain and anything else that immorally destroys the sanctity of marriage. One of the major reasons that you do not see new referendums and legislation taking place is because there are already laws in place to protect abuse, mistreatment etc. The actions that have are being taken in states such as Va. and recently in N.C. are part of a movement to further define marriage and to thwart the same-sex marriage issue. I suppose that if there were a movement to permit abuse within a marriage that you would likely see a movement to disallow or define abuse.

 

I do believe that Adultery is a ground for divorce and if I am not mistaken it can be used legally to help one maintain a divorce, so technically there are measures taken to protect the covenant of marriage already in place. Furthermore, most folks who are religously opposed to divorce are more open to accept a legal bill of divorcement providing the innocent party can prove adultery. In other words, adultery is often accepted as a grounds for divorce from a religously cultural perspective, regardless of the actual LEGAL REASON used to obtain a divorce. For example a person may just obtain a divorce for irreconcilable differences or a no-fault divorce to avoid legal hassle, but in the eyes of the religious community it will be accepted if that person presents to their congregation or pastor the reason being adultery.

 

Once again, I personally have my opinions and viewpoints on this issue, I know how I feel about this and I know WHY I feel the way I do. My convictions are strong, but I am not suggesting that all of society needs to follow my views on the subject. If you disagree, I can respect that........but please grant equal respect back to me.

[barondawg77 115]

I have a feeling that when Thomas Jefferson was discussing Seperation of Church and State and the First Amendment, he was talking about issues like this, not about saying a prayer in school or things like that. I wonder how the Founding Fathers would decide how such an issue would be resolved?