Obama endorses same-sex marriage (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bluebike - 2012-05-09 3:58 PM ...Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney.
Really? Why? Because of this issue? Please explain to us why you feel you should impose your religious beliefs upon others. Did Jesus ever say anything about gay people- or is it just in Leviticus? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Regular![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() morey000 - 2012-05-09 4:02 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 3:58 PM ...Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney.
Really? Why? Because of this issue? Please explain to us why you feel you should impose your religious beliefs upon others. Did Jesus ever say anything about gay people- or is it just in Leviticus? Really? Voting for Romney is forcing my religious belief on you. Go Jump. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() morey000 - 2012-05-09 6:02 PM How is this imposing religious beliefs upon others? bluebike - 2012-05-09 3:58 PM ...Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney.
Really? Why? Because of this issue? Please explain to us why you feel you should impose your religious beliefs upon others. Did Jesus ever say anything about gay people- or is it just in Leviticus? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() bluebike - 2012-05-09 5:58 PM mdg2003 - 2012-05-09 3:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-05-09 5:19 PM bradword - 2012-05-09 5:56 PM I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks this is more than a publicity stunt from the President, I have a bridge for sale. Really? Why would he choose an issue that time after time costs politicians votes? The minute I heard the news, honestly, I thought two things. 1: Dang, that's gutsy! 2: Dang, he just lost the election. I hope I am wrong...but I have a strong feeling that May 9th, 2012 may have just pushed Mitt into the Oval Office. I don't see the downside for him on this. Can you elaborate? Who is it that currently supports him will not be behind him after this change of position? Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney. Are you saying that you will vote for Romney because Obama supports gay marriage? |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() morey000 - 2012-05-09 3:58 PM trinnas - 2012-05-09 3:52 PM ...And they will vote overwhelmingly for him any way because race and general political leanings will trump religion Really? So then how did The republican party get a lot of working class religious people to vote against their own best interest? I believe that Karl Rove proved your statement wrong. In a big way. I keep wondering when people will figure that out |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scorpio516 - 2012-05-09 6:42 PM I don't see the downside for him on this. Can you elaborate? Who is it that currently supports him will not be behind him after this change of position? Perhaps Hispanics. And maybe religious blacks. But are those two groups really going to vote for Romney? I've read that religious African Americans tend to take a more literal read of the Bible, and that this represents a stumbling block for gay marriage. But you could take that and ask how someone who takes the Bible literally feels about the Book of Mormon. There are plenty of white evangelical Christians who openly make disparaging comments about Mormonism and assert that it is not Christianity, so I think that's a relevant counterpoint. I don't think it's as cut/dried as it might appear. I think, like the rest of us, they will have to consult their conscience on the matter. Edited by Renee 2012-05-09 6:14 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Regular![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:08 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 5:58 PM mdg2003 - 2012-05-09 3:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-05-09 5:19 PM bradword - 2012-05-09 5:56 PM I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks this is more than a publicity stunt from the President, I have a bridge for sale. Really? Why would he choose an issue that time after time costs politicians votes? The minute I heard the news, honestly, I thought two things. 1: Dang, that's gutsy! 2: Dang, he just lost the election. I hope I am wrong...but I have a strong feeling that May 9th, 2012 may have just pushed Mitt into the Oval Office. I don't see the downside for him on this. Can you elaborate? Who is it that currently supports him will not be behind him after this change of position? Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney. Are you saying that you will vote for Romney because Obama supports gay marriage? Gay marriage, Guantanamo is still open, strip searches, worse environmental record than Bush, the economy..... I voted against Bush, but from my perspective its "New boss, same as the old boss" So, like Obama suggested, I am going to embrace change... a change in president.
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bluebike - 2012-05-09 4:14 PM Gay marriage, Guantanamo is still open, strip searches, worse environmental record than Bush, the economy..... I voted against Bush, but from my perspective its "New boss, same as the old boss" So, like Obama suggested, I am going to embrace change... a change in president. OK- so it's not just that you want to prohibit gay people from having the same rights, but that you also want to close Guantanamo (and Romney will do that?), and that you also want to reduce ridiculous airport security (romney?) and that you also want to protect the environment more (Romney?), and you also want to take another shot at GOP economic policy (worked out so well last time). I'm sorry- I really don't get where you're coming from. You sound just disgruntled with no particular focus. your previous response made it sound like support of gay marriage was what pushed you from Obama to Romney. as you may represent a sizeable voting block- please explain. Really- I'm interested. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:14 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:08 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 5:58 PM mdg2003 - 2012-05-09 3:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-05-09 5:19 PM bradword - 2012-05-09 5:56 PM I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks this is more than a publicity stunt from the President, I have a bridge for sale. Really? Why would he choose an issue that time after time costs politicians votes? The minute I heard the news, honestly, I thought two things. 1: Dang, that's gutsy! 2: Dang, he just lost the election. I hope I am wrong...but I have a strong feeling that May 9th, 2012 may have just pushed Mitt into the Oval Office. I don't see the downside for him on this. Can you elaborate? Who is it that currently supports him will not be behind him after this change of position? Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney. Are you saying that you will vote for Romney because Obama supports gay marriage? Gay marriage, Guantanamo is still open, strip searches, worse environmental record than Bush, the economy..... I voted against Bush, but from my perspective its "New boss, same as the old boss" So, like Obama suggested, I am going to embrace change... a change in president.
So it wasn't specifically gay marriage that made you "flip." I see. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() And his "change of heart" (from over the weekend) will create just how many new jobs? And bring how many troops home? And will lower the student loan interest rate by how much? And reduce the national debt by what figure? All those figures seem to have gotten lost in the story some where. I hope the nation as a whole doesn't fall for this distraction. There are bigger issues that need addressing at the moment. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bluebike - 2012-05-09 4:06 PM Really? Voting for Romney is forcing my religious belief on you. Go Jump. Of course not. vote for whomever you wish for whatever reason you want. however, if you were voting for Romney because of one particular morality stance, that would be you supporting that your particular religious beliefs should be applied to others to the point of discrimination. You may personally find gay relationships morally reprehensible- that's fine, don't enter into one. But you must accept that preventing other consenting adults from choosing their partner is based on your religious belief. There are no other societal problems associated with homosexual marriage. Plenty of other countries (and states within the US) are doing just fine. And no, this does not open the door to man on dog, or child relationships. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() halfmarathondon - 2012-05-09 4:25 PM And his "change of heart" (from over the weekend) will create just how many new jobs? And bring how many troops home? And will lower the student loan interest rate by how much? And reduce the national debt by what figure? All those figures seem to have gotten lost in the story some where. I hope the nation as a whole doesn't fall for this distraction. There are bigger issues that need addressing at the moment. Watch the whole interview. that's pretty much exactly what Obama said. So- you agree with him. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Question time. Let me preface this by saying that I do not, in any way, keep up with politics. Heck, I don't even own a tv and hardly look at a newspaper. Also, I'm sure as this question is so obvious it has been asked before but given my (chosen) lack of informational channels I haven't run across it yet. Hasn't marriage always been a religious entity? If so, what about separation of church and state? I'm just looking for information. Honestly, I don't care who someone chooses to "marry" and it would never be a consideration for who I vote for, they're pretty much all worthless anyway...sadly. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:21 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:14 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:08 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 5:58 PM mdg2003 - 2012-05-09 3:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-05-09 5:19 PM bradword - 2012-05-09 5:56 PM I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks this is more than a publicity stunt from the President, I have a bridge for sale. Really? Why would he choose an issue that time after time costs politicians votes? The minute I heard the news, honestly, I thought two things. 1: Dang, that's gutsy! 2: Dang, he just lost the election. I hope I am wrong...but I have a strong feeling that May 9th, 2012 may have just pushed Mitt into the Oval Office. I don't see the downside for him on this. Can you elaborate? Who is it that currently supports him will not be behind him after this change of position? Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney. Are you saying that you will vote for Romney because Obama supports gay marriage? Gay marriage, Guantanamo is still open, strip searches, worse environmental record than Bush, the economy..... I voted against Bush, but from my perspective its "New boss, same as the old boss" So, like Obama suggested, I am going to embrace change... a change in president.
So it wasn't specifically gay marriage that made you "flip." I see. Its not helping him. I am a democrat that happens to be somewhat socially conservative. Obama is a democrat that hasn't delivered on any of the democratic values that I care about, and now he takes a stance supporting an issue I oppose... so I won't vote for him again. |
![]() ![]() |
Sneaky Slow ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() halfmarathondon - 2012-05-09 7:25 PM And his "change of heart" (from over the weekend) will create just how many new jobs? And bring how many troops home? And will lower the student loan interest rate by how much? And reduce the national debt by what figure? All those figures seem to have gotten lost in the story some where. I hope the nation as a whole doesn't fall for this distraction. There are bigger issues that need addressing at the moment. Did you actually watch the interview? I suggest that you do. That ought to answer your questions. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() morey000 - 2012-05-09 7:26 PM And no, this does not open the door to man on dog, or child relationships. I wonder when my state will finally get around to protecting the sanctity of marriage by passing a bill outlawing man/dog marriage. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:30 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:21 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:14 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:08 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 5:58 PM mdg2003 - 2012-05-09 3:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-05-09 5:19 PM bradword - 2012-05-09 5:56 PM I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks this is more than a publicity stunt from the President, I have a bridge for sale. Really? Why would he choose an issue that time after time costs politicians votes? The minute I heard the news, honestly, I thought two things. 1: Dang, that's gutsy! 2: Dang, he just lost the election. I hope I am wrong...but I have a strong feeling that May 9th, 2012 may have just pushed Mitt into the Oval Office. I don't see the downside for him on this. Can you elaborate? Who is it that currently supports him will not be behind him after this change of position? Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney. Are you saying that you will vote for Romney because Obama supports gay marriage? Gay marriage, Guantanamo is still open, strip searches, worse environmental record than Bush, the economy..... I voted against Bush, but from my perspective its "New boss, same as the old boss" So, like Obama suggested, I am going to embrace change... a change in president.
So it wasn't specifically gay marriage that made you "flip." I see. Its not helping him. I am a democrat that happens to be somewhat socially conservative. Obama is a democrat that hasn't delivered on any of the democratic values that I care about, and now he takes a stance supporting an issue I oppose... so I won't vote for him again. Oooh wow, a real live social conservative/fiscal liberal! Cool! |
![]() ![]() |
Sneaky Slow ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Renee - 2012-05-09 7:31 PM morey000 - 2012-05-09 7:26 PM And no, this does not open the door to man on dog, or child relationships. I wonder when my state will finally get around to protecting the sanctity of marriage by passing a bill outlawing man/dog marriage. I think that North Carolina should have passed an amendment protecting the sanctity of marriage by outlawing John Edwards. |
![]() ![]() |
Sneaky Slow ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 7:34 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:30 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:21 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:14 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:08 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 5:58 PM mdg2003 - 2012-05-09 3:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-05-09 5:19 PM bradword - 2012-05-09 5:56 PM I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks this is more than a publicity stunt from the President, I have a bridge for sale. Really? Why would he choose an issue that time after time costs politicians votes? The minute I heard the news, honestly, I thought two things. 1: Dang, that's gutsy! 2: Dang, he just lost the election. I hope I am wrong...but I have a strong feeling that May 9th, 2012 may have just pushed Mitt into the Oval Office. I don't see the downside for him on this. Can you elaborate? Who is it that currently supports him will not be behind him after this change of position? Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney. Are you saying that you will vote for Romney because Obama supports gay marriage? Gay marriage, Guantanamo is still open, strip searches, worse environmental record than Bush, the economy..... I voted against Bush, but from my perspective its "New boss, same as the old boss" So, like Obama suggested, I am going to embrace change... a change in president.
So it wasn't specifically gay marriage that made you "flip." I see. Its not helping him. I am a democrat that happens to be somewhat socially conservative. Obama is a democrat that hasn't delivered on any of the democratic values that I care about, and now he takes a stance supporting an issue I oppose... so I won't vote for him again. Oooh wow, a real live social conservative/fiscal liberal! Cool! Spend other people's money to oppress homosexuals! Brilliant! Edited by tealeaf 2012-05-09 6:38 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Regular![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tealeaf - 2012-05-09 4:38 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 7:34 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:30 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:21 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:14 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:08 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 5:58 PM mdg2003 - 2012-05-09 3:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-05-09 5:19 PM bradword - 2012-05-09 5:56 PM I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks this is more than a publicity stunt from the President, I have a bridge for sale. Really? Why would he choose an issue that time after time costs politicians votes? The minute I heard the news, honestly, I thought two things. 1: Dang, that's gutsy! 2: Dang, he just lost the election. I hope I am wrong...but I have a strong feeling that May 9th, 2012 may have just pushed Mitt into the Oval Office. I don't see the downside for him on this. Can you elaborate? Who is it that currently supports him will not be behind him after this change of position? Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney. Are you saying that you will vote for Romney because Obama supports gay marriage? Gay marriage, Guantanamo is still open, strip searches, worse environmental record than Bush, the economy..... I voted against Bush, but from my perspective its "New boss, same as the old boss" So, like Obama suggested, I am going to embrace change... a change in president.
So it wasn't specifically gay marriage that made you "flip." I see. Its not helping him. I am a democrat that happens to be somewhat socially conservative. Obama is a democrat that hasn't delivered on any of the democratic values that I care about, and now he takes a stance supporting an issue I oppose... so I won't vote for him again. Oooh wow, a real live social conservative/fiscal liberal! Cool! Spend other people's money to oppress homosexuals! Brilliant! Mock all you want. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() tealeaf - 2012-05-09 6:38 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 7:34 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:30 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:21 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 6:14 PM Asalzwed - 2012-05-09 4:08 PM bluebike - 2012-05-09 5:58 PM mdg2003 - 2012-05-09 3:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-05-09 5:19 PM bradword - 2012-05-09 5:56 PM I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks this is more than a publicity stunt from the President, I have a bridge for sale. Really? Why would he choose an issue that time after time costs politicians votes? The minute I heard the news, honestly, I thought two things. 1: Dang, that's gutsy! 2: Dang, he just lost the election. I hope I am wrong...but I have a strong feeling that May 9th, 2012 may have just pushed Mitt into the Oval Office. I don't see the downside for him on this. Can you elaborate? Who is it that currently supports him will not be behind him after this change of position? Me. Voted for Obama... will vote for Romney. Are you saying that you will vote for Romney because Obama supports gay marriage? Gay marriage, Guantanamo is still open, strip searches, worse environmental record than Bush, the economy..... I voted against Bush, but from my perspective its "New boss, same as the old boss" So, like Obama suggested, I am going to embrace change... a change in president.
So it wasn't specifically gay marriage that made you "flip." I see. Its not helping him. I am a democrat that happens to be somewhat socially conservative. Obama is a democrat that hasn't delivered on any of the democratic values that I care about, and now he takes a stance supporting an issue I oppose... so I won't vote for him again. Oooh wow, a real live social conservative/fiscal liberal! Cool! Spend other people's money to oppress homosexuals! Brilliant! Oh my gooodness I think we are onto something! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() thebigb - 2012-05-09 7:30 PM Hasn't marriage always been a religious entity? No. Not at all. It has always been a matter of limiting access to the woman (to ensure legitimate offspring of the husband) and property rights and dowries. Marriage is a social contract; the state has been the recorder of the contract. Weddings, on the other hand, are acts of solemnizing the marriage. This is a private matter between the couple and their temple, synagogue or church. You cannot be married without the consent of the state. You can be married without the consent of temple, synagogue or church. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() A thread with this charged a topic really won't do well with sarcasm, snarkiness, and leading comments. I don't want to see it go as there's solid content. So far. Make your points, stick to the subject at hand, don't post about the other BT'ers, but rather the subject at hand. Thanks. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Renee - 2012-05-09 6:42 PM thebigb - 2012-05-09 7:30 PM Hasn't marriage always been a religious entity? No. Not at all. It has always been a matter of limiting access to the woman (to ensure legitimate offspring of the husband) and property rights and dowries. Marriage is a social contract; the state has been the recorder of the contract. Weddings, on the other hand, are acts of solemnizing the marriage. This is a private matter between the couple and their temple, synagogue or church. You cannot be married without the consent of the state. You can be married without the consent of temple, synagogue or church. YES! Something that people who desperately want to "preserve the sanctity" seem to never remember. Or not know in the first place. What? You mean it isn't about expensive engagement rings, bachelor parties and catering you can't afford? Hmmmm. Edited by Asalzwed 2012-05-09 6:48 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Renee - 2012-05-09 5:42 PM thebigb - 2012-05-09 7:30 PM Hasn't marriage always been a religious entity? No. Not at all. It has always been a matter of limiting access to the woman (to ensure legitimate offspring of the husband) and property rights and dowries. Marriage is a social contract; the state has been the recorder of the contract. Weddings, on the other hand, are acts of solemnizing the marriage. This is a private matter between the couple and their temple, synagogue or church. You cannot be married without the consent of the state. You can be married without the consent of temple, synagogue or church. Ah, excellent. Thanks Renee! Obviously I don't spend much time in church either |
|