Obama is not guilty of going back on his word. All he promised was CHANGE and everyone interpreted that to mean what they wanted it to mean. People took sound bytes from the news and whatever commentary they were inclined to pick up, from both sides and assumed positions that Obama never took.
Keith Olberman would come out with a liberal comment about how Obama would CHANGE things on gay marriage for the betterment of the gay community and Ann Coulter would come out with a conservative comment on how Obama would CHANGE things on gay marriage for the detriment of family values and everyone assume that was what Obama said. He didn?t say it, THEY DID!
Obama had association with Wright and Ayers and because they were radicals Olberman and Coulter went off on their opposing diatribes on how Obama was a radical. Obama never said that he agreed with the philosophy or agenda of either man. The commentators did and everyone assume that Obama had said.
Barbara Streisand held a fund raiser for Obama; obvious conclusion, since everyone in Hollywood is gay then Obama will oppose the DOMA. Guilt by association and the guilt is yours for making that association.
It was all about tweets and twitters, sound bytes and comments and not about actually listening to what was actually being said.
Obama and his wife said in their family interview that they were not in favor of gay marriage. Yet, everyone came to believe that he would be more liberal on the subject than McCain who had a gay daughter.
Obama only said that he would reevaluate the detainee situation. Yet everyone came to believe that he would be more liberal on torturing prisoners than McCain who had been tortured as a prisoner of war.
You bought into the hype. Not the hype of the political candidates, but the hype of the networks and the commentators who, for different reasons, put across their interpretation because it was good polarizing media.
Worse is yet to come. As newspapers fold and more and more the twitters and the blogs become the method of putting out information the more that this will happen. You will no longer hear about a party?s manifesto, but 140 characters of comment passed through the ether like a game of telephone.
The government is in the marriage business because marriage is business and always has been.
Marriage started out as a busness arraignment to unit the lands and fortunes of families and tribes. More often than not the couples never even met before the marriage. It was about money and power.
The nobles and the rich were getting married for thousands of years to seal contracts before anyone thought of bringing love into the picture.
Why do you think they came to use the terms legitimate and illegitimate for children? It was to determine who was the legitimate heir to the fortune
The nobles and the rich were getting married for thousands of years to seal contracts before anyone thought of bringing love into the picture. Yet, the original idea of money and property is still the over riding issue.
In ancient times if someone wanted to get rid of a marriage partner armies were sdispatched to take back their property. Now instead of soldiers with swords they send lawyers with writs. They still lay seige to castles and hold children hostage until they gain their share of the kingdom, so nothing has really changed, except the fallacy that it all began about love.
If you wonder why the government is involved in the marriage business then get divorced. The IRS will let you know when they swoop in to make sure that the govenment gets it share of the spoils.
Homophobic disenfranchisement is repulsive, repugnant and nauseatingly wrong. It is sickening to see people continue to be a part of it. Don't associate yourself with this foul stench of irrationality and end up in a social fringe group--at least for the sake of your children. Look around you, it is becoming a repulsive position just like being a member of the Klu Klux Klan or Neo-Nazi Party. The Dark Ages continue to lift from society.
We won't. It is no different than Nazism, Klanship, Misogyny, or any other undeducated primitive form of paranoid hatred. It is wrong. The writing is on the wall and everyone sees it. The drumbeat is not going to lessen in strenth, everyone sees that. It is only going to get louder as we convert people away from immoral deluded brainwashed mindsets. I've seen the Mountain top and we will overcome.
Get your kids and grandkids ready for it and don't subject them to being in the social fringes
I can accept Obama's reluctance so long as gay factions do not demand exposure in Viagra and Cielas commercials to show how truly normal and loving such relationships are. We can only assume that erectile disfunction affects gays.
Also homosexuals might demand as expicit sexual depictions on television as do their heterosexual conterparts do. Here again it should help the general public appreciate they are really no different than any other couple.
Come on now guys, why don't you really come out of the closet once and for all.
I am new to this debate and its sickening to hear homosexuals compare themselves to blacks or African-Americans. Gays struggling for rights is an oxymoron. They are not struggling and their struggle has nothing to do with national security or civil rights. Gays simply want civil benefits.
For all sense and purposes, will someone please explain what is the legal definition of "gay" at the state level and the federal level? I cannot find one. And, how can you prove someone is 100% gay as opposed to 50% gay or even 5% gay? Can two gay people produce a heterosexual child? I mean you're getting into some really strange legal precedent here.
I understand the argument the genitals form before the brain, but the U.S. Constitution makes specific mention of homosexuality nor does it specifically mention marriage. That means marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.
Moreover, why is there a distinction between lesbian and gay? The U.S. Constitution did not define these terms.
"To assist an assembly to accomplish in the best possible manner the work for which it was designed, it is necessary to restrain the individual somewhat, as the right of an individual, in any community, to do what he pleases, is incompatible with the interests of the whole. Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty."
There are many things people are denied on a daily basis. Gays feel they are an exception.
At what point do you stop and say, "okay. enough is enough. no one is dying here."
Exactly what would happen if you couldn't marry? Oh, you wouldn't be permitted to transfer property and be able to do hospital visits for a sick spouse. Those are the benefits of being married. These are not enumerated civil rights.
Get used to it folks! You are going to share. The writing is on the wall. Prepare your kids and don't teach 'em to be haters. It is no longer the "in" thing socially. Don't let your kids and grand kids be in shady social groups like the Klan or Neo-Nazi's. It is time to adapt. It is a priority look at the times.
Gay rights issues pretty much only surfaced during the primary, which is why Obama said what he said. During the general, those were not made a key issue. This is why Obama hasn't done anything. He was placating part of his base during the primary and then avoided the issue during the general to avoid offending the for example 55% of Californians who voted down same sex marriage.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Keith Olberman would come out with a liberal comment about how Obama would CHANGE things on gay marriage for the betterment of the gay community and Ann Coulter would come out with a conservative comment on how Obama would CHANGE things on gay marriage for the detriment of family values and everyone assume that was what Obama said. He didn?t say it, THEY DID!
Obama had association with Wright and Ayers and because they were radicals Olberman and Coulter went off on their opposing diatribes on how Obama was a radical. Obama never said that he agreed with the philosophy or agenda of either man. The commentators did and everyone assume that Obama had said.
Barbara Streisand held a fund raiser for Obama; obvious conclusion, since everyone in Hollywood is gay then Obama will oppose the DOMA. Guilt by association and the guilt is yours for making that association.
It was all about tweets and twitters, sound bytes and comments and not about actually listening to what was actually being said.
Obama and his wife said in their family interview that they were not in favor of gay marriage. Yet, everyone came to believe that he would be more liberal on the subject than McCain who had a gay daughter.
Obama only said that he would reevaluate the detainee situation. Yet everyone came to believe that he would be more liberal on torturing prisoners than McCain who had been tortured as a prisoner of war.
You bought into the hype. Not the hype of the political candidates, but the hype of the networks and the commentators who, for different reasons, put across their interpretation because it was good polarizing media.
Worse is yet to come. As newspapers fold and more and more the twitters and the blogs become the method of putting out information the more that this will happen. You will no longer hear about a party?s manifesto, but 140 characters of comment passed through the ether like a game of telephone.
Marriage started out as a busness arraignment to unit the lands and fortunes of families and tribes. More often than not the couples never even met before the marriage. It was about money and power.
The nobles and the rich were getting married for thousands of years to seal contracts before anyone thought of bringing love into the picture.
Why do you think they came to use the terms legitimate and illegitimate for children? It was to determine who was the legitimate heir to the fortune
The nobles and the rich were getting married for thousands of years to seal contracts before anyone thought of bringing love into the picture. Yet, the original idea of money and property is still the over riding issue.
In ancient times if someone wanted to get rid of a marriage partner armies were sdispatched to take back their property. Now instead of soldiers with swords they send lawyers with writs. They still lay seige to castles and hold children hostage until they gain their share of the kingdom, so nothing has really changed, except the fallacy that it all began about love.
If you wonder why the government is involved in the marriage business then get divorced. The IRS will let you know when they swoop in to make sure that the govenment gets it share of the spoils.
Get your kids and grandkids ready for it and don't subject them to being in the social fringes
Also homosexuals might demand as expicit sexual depictions on television as do their heterosexual conterparts do. Here again it should help the general public appreciate they are really no different than any other couple.
Come on now guys, why don't you really come out of the closet once and for all.
For all sense and purposes, will someone please explain what is the legal definition of "gay" at the state level and the federal level? I cannot find one. And, how can you prove someone is 100% gay as opposed to 50% gay or even 5% gay? Can two gay people produce a heterosexual child? I mean you're getting into some really strange legal precedent here.
I understand the argument the genitals form before the brain, but the U.S. Constitution makes specific mention of homosexuality nor does it specifically mention marriage. That means marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.
Moreover, why is there a distinction between lesbian and gay? The U.S. Constitution did not define these terms.
"To assist an assembly to accomplish in the best possible manner the work for which it was designed, it is necessary to restrain the individual somewhat, as the right of an individual, in any community, to do what he pleases, is incompatible with the interests of the whole. Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty."
There are many things people are denied on a daily basis. Gays feel they are an exception.
At what point do you stop and say, "okay. enough is enough. no one is dying here."
Exactly what would happen if you couldn't marry? Oh, you wouldn't be permitted to transfer property and be able to do hospital visits for a sick spouse. Those are the benefits of being married. These are not enumerated civil rights.