Obama Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

This isn't a power play by Obama. Bonehead Biden forced his hand. I, for one, am glad to see Obama speak out for equal rights. He had the balls to stand behind his convictions knowing it was going to offend a lot of people. Not a lot of politicians out there would do such a thing and I respect him for it.

I personally am getting sick and tired of hearing about protest after protest of the Amendment. It was VERY cut and dry. They put the vote out there, one side had more votors in favor then the other side had against. It passed. Now deal with it
Click to expand...
Of course the gays and their supporters are protesting this. They pay taxes just like you and I, yet they are paying into a system that does not give them equal rights and living in a world where people are openly hostile to them. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution and is an important part of our political process. I'd say you're the one who should deal with it.

Conservatives instigated this whole thing. You may be sick of hearing about it, but gay marriage was already illegal in this state and your own people picked this fight. You don't whack a bees nest with a stick and then act surprised when you get stung. They knew what they were doing. This issue distracts us from the real issues and divides neighbors against one another. It's pathetic and North Carolinians fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Think about it...Did we really need this amendment? Does it serve any purpose whatsoever? Do you think it's going make any difference whatsoever if the popular opinion swings in the other direction sometime in the future?
 
Fart said:
This isn't a power play by Obama. Bonehead Biden forced his hand. I, for one, am glad to see Obama speak out for equal rights. He had the balls to stand behind his convictions knowing it was going to offend a lot of people. Not a lot of politicians out there would do such a thing and I respect him for it.


Of course the gays and their supporters are protesting this. They pay taxes just like you and I, yet they are paying into a system that does not give them equal rights and living in a world where people are openly hostile to them. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution and is an important part of our political process. I'd say you're the one who should deal with it.

Conservatives instigated this whole thing. You may be sick of hearing about it, but gay marriage was already illegal in this state and your own people picked this fight. You don't whack a bees nest with a stick and then act surprised when you get stung. They knew what they were doing. This issue distracts us from the real issues and divides neighbors against one another. It's pathetic and North Carolinians fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Think about it...Did we really need this amendment? Does it serve any purpose whatsoever? Do you think it's going make any difference whatsoever if the popular opinion swings in the other direction sometime in the future?
Click to expand...


OK... fair enough.

Let me debate your points one by one:

First off, it's not a "Standing by his conviction" if he now is for gay marriage, but a couple years ago he was against it. He said that himself. That's waffling on an issue.

I agree they pay taxes also the same way we do and are granted the same rights under Amendment 1 to "peaceable assembly" A peacable assembly is not designed (per the framers of the Constitution) to be a "give me what I want or have me arrested". Quite the contrary. But, in this case, what they are demanding is ILLEGAL already (you said it yourself). THey are going in and demanding marriage certificates to people that they are not legally allowed to marry.

And lastly, do we need the amendment? In the short run, no. In the long run, yes. Overturning a law is relatively simple - a Constitutional amendment (even one for a state) is a MUCH bigger task. If it was SUCH a big deal for gay people to get married, why has it taken them so long (the law was passed in 1996) to do something about it? Why wait to protest until the moral majority makes it even harder to do something about? Let's look at this another way, if the Amendment had failed, how would the opponents to it have wanted the new law worded? No matter how it would have been worded, it would have "discriminated" against someone. What about those people who want to marry their pet goat? Would THEY then go storming into the Justice of the Peace demanding their marriage licenses, too? You can't tell me that somewhere in North Carolina there isn't someone who wants to marry their goat.
 
If Amendment 1 had failed, the existing law banning gay marriage would not have changed.

The marry-your-dog/marry-a-goat argument is ridiculous... you're using the example of an animal with no legal rights and the inability to sign a legal document with two consenting adult human beings.

We all lose because we're talking about this instead of the HUGE economic problems that aren't going away.

I will add that "conservatives" didn't start this... socially 'conservative' statists started this and there were (D) as well as (R) sponsors in the state legislature.
 
This is what I'm sick of; they (gays, homos, LGBT's, whatever) are trying to make it like they are a singular race or something. NO, we have White's, Black's, Asian's, Latino's, proper name for Russian/European types escape me. Gay is not a race, get over it, live on. Guy marry Girl, Get it? Guy with guy that's your mistake.

What you do in your house is your business, I don't bring that crap to work and don't bring yours. Get over it, you (gay) are not some special race!

So, if gays are a special race or something, can I start a NC Redneck group wanting special laws, how about a special Ynakee group, or Texas, California, Alaskan and so on? Love how the media can't believe it was voted down, come on, how many other states did to? And you're surprized? I guess most news/reporter types are gay leaning anyway.

This country was founded on Christian Morals/Beliefs/Freedoms/Laws. Been to court and swore on a Bible lately?
 
The fact they are so up front in media, movies, television, etc... makes the GBLT's seem like a much larger group than they really are. They have gained a tremendous amount of acceptability by making us laugh at them on tv or sing along with their songs. (Yes, I sing along with Freddy Mercury and others) The fact is, they still number in the single digit % in our census. When it comes down to it, I dont seek them out to hate them or bother how they live their peverted lives. I simply dont care, not my business... Untill it comes to wanting my stamp of approval via my vote. I stand for protecting the sanctity of our marriage laws as God designed them. We are only one uninformed generation away from being totally hedonistic society. If you dont like it... Move to Amsterdam.
 
shawn said:
Yup... better that we argue about this, or abortion, or Romney's dog, than the fact the gov is overspending by a couple million bucks *a minute*.



Correct, but the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was added to the Declaration by Jefferson as a direct reference to Locke. Jefferson also referred frequently to a "wall of separation between church and state", again referencing Locke, but that's more or less where the phrase originated. Just because those words aren't there, doesn't mean that's not what the first amendment means.
Click to expand...
Actually the first amendment is meant that Government shouldn't interfere with religion or the free practice of religion, "thus creating a wall between church and state". But peoples religious beliefs will affect their lives in all aspects even the political aspect, therefore the church that each individual believes is okay in their decisions and reasoning. Therefore the church is in the people that are in politics but the government shouldn't "regulate" church.
 
The "wall of separation between church and state" goes both ways, though, as evidenced by the limits and prohibitions on tax-exempt organizations (such as churches) from engaging in political activities.

The consequences of ignoring or breaking down that wall is a slippery slope... look at what is going on in Mali (Timbuktu) right now... areas of a moderate Muslim country have been seized by Muslim fundamentalists who are now trying to use Shariah law.

What the framers were really good at considering is that allowing one exception leaves room for more... and not all exceptions are exceptions you will like. A very good example of what the framers intended and how 'good intentions' have the potential to make a mess of things... the expansion of presidential powers since the turn of the 20th century.
 
I'm pretty sure in gods eyes they are all damned anyway!!! Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" oh not to mention: ‎1 Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Fuck the political/queer agenda!
 
I agree they pay taxes also the same way we do and are granted the same rights under Amendment 1 to "peaceable assembly" A peacable assembly is not designed (per the framers of the Constitution) to be a "give me what I want or have me arrested". Quite the contrary. But, in this case, what they are demanding is ILLEGAL already (you said it yourself). THey are going in and demanding marriage certificates to people that they are not legally allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

What they're doing in that case may be illegal, but it is also civil disobedience; something our founding fathers were fond of. It was quite effective in the black civil rights movement of the 60's. History does not look at Rosa Parks or the activists responsible for the Greensboro lunch counter sit-ins as criminals. If this amendment is repealed and the laws are changed history will see these people in the same light. But, aren't we talking about something that hasn't even happened yet? Just because one person called for it does not mean it will even happen.

I will add that "conservatives" didn't start this... socially 'conservative' statists started this and there were (D) as well as (R) sponsors in the state legislature.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

This is what I'm sick of; they (gays, homos, LGBT's, whatever) are trying to make it like they are a singular race or something. NO, we have White's, Black's, Asian's, Latino's, proper name for Russian/European types escape me. Gay is not a race, get over it, live on. Guy marry Girl, Get it? Guy with guy that's your mistake.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned they are born that way or it is the result of factors that happen so early in life that it is entirely out of their control. God and genetics made you what you are just as God and genetics made them what they are. What you do with it is of your own free will. Race is not the only protected status in this country. Our government doesn't discriminate based on color, nationality, gender, handicap, etc. Sexual orientation is the next logical step for anyone who believes they are born the way they are and have no control over it.

This country was founded on Christian Morals/Beliefs/Freedoms/Laws. Been to court and swore on a Bible lately?
Click to expand...

Not since 2003 or so when I had to testify against a drunk driver that ran into me.
Swearing on the bible itself is optional though. Most people simply take an oath to tell the truth. I don't know that it has ever been required.

I stand for protecting the sanctity of our marriage laws as God designed them. We are only one uninformed generation away from being totally hedonistic society. If you dont like it... Move to Amsterdam.
Click to expand...

Straight people have done a good enough job of promoting hedonism and ruining the sanctity of marriage. Pretty much nobody is a virgin on their wedding day. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Over 40% of the children in America are born out of wedlock. All you can do is focus on the sanctity of your own marriage. What everyone else is doing does not need to affect your marriage or your family.
 
Quote "As far as I'm concerned they are born that way or it is the result of factors that happen so early in life that it is entirely out of their control. God and genetics made you what you are just as God and genetics made them what they are. What you do with it is of your own free will. Race is not the only protected status in this country. Our government doesn't discriminate based on color, nationality, gender, handicap, etc. Sexual orientation is the next logical step for anyone who believes they are born the way they are and have no control over it".

We are all born as sinners and from the age of accountability onward we are responsible for those sins. The ONLY unforgivable sin is not asking for forgiveness, to turn your life over to Christ and to change your path away from sin with the strength that he supplies you. Asking to be forgiven and not changing your path is a failure on your part. Me personaly, I am the worst sinner on the face of the earth. I have been forgiven and entered into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. My slate has been wiped clean. It takes faith, prayer, fellowship with other Christians, and good family examples and mentors. Married parents are God's own personal example for us. Yes, divorce (Me included) and out of wedlock children are a fact. The sweetest part of the message here is that Traditional family is good in God's eyes. Two homosexuals playing house, is not. It has nothing to do with the stereotypical Southern Baptist, one sided, holier than thou crap, portrayed in the media. It is about forgiveness and love for all... Once you admit you are wrong in GOD's eyes, not ours. The Bible is the inerant word of God and it is to be lived by, not to be watered down or to change the parts that dont suit us. This little life we think is so great, is just a drop in the bucket compared to where you will spend eternity. Yes, both Heaven and Hell are real. If you want to know more, reach out with a PM and I will be glad to lay the facts out for you.
 
My reply to born that way, I was born with blond hair, what's your point? Deal with it.

I'd post more but all I'm near is my phone.

Again, they are not that special, just a group of like minded people, like Harley guys, jap bike guys, fourwheelers, deadheads, pot heads and on and on.

My black co workers are pissed with you comparing civil race rights to gays, they are done with nobama.

This is America, majority rules (supposedly), even if it's tyrannical. Literally sucks for them, let them explain that to little johnny. If it's so bad and you (gay) feel so strongly about it and don't agree become an ex patriot or san fran, asheville or key west.

Cracks me up that only 4 counties out of the whole state were against it. Least we know where the majority of metrosexuals live now.
 
As usual, my buddy Scott sums it up pretty well!

( I was born wanting to smack people everytime they disagree with me... after a few good ass whoopins, I became a regular humanitarian!)
 
Fart said:
50% of marriages end in divorce. quote]

And the other 50% end in death.


And thank you CBerry for reminding me of ‎1 Cor. 6:9-10. That pretty well puts to rest the concept that God being against homosexuality is an Old Testament thing. I knew it was in the New Testament, but couldn't remember where.
Click to expand...
 
I hardy ever take a political view especially online. But here is how I see it. If the amendment failed and then change the rules to allow gay marriage, then polygamy would have to be allowed along with no age discrimination, therefore allowing pedofiles to be legal. So it is good that the amendment passed.

Now looking at marriage it is a religious thing not a legal thing. However, some point in our country legal rights got attached to marriage. To maintain the separation of church and state they should attached legal rights to some form of union. This would allow rights for gays and straights and keep the sacredity of marriage int acted. With marriage being sacred, all these divorces that are going around these days is wrong as well. And if we are not going to truly honor it then we might as well let whoever marry whomever they want.

We are all sinners in Gods eyes, the gays sins are very visible compared to other sin. I do fear that this issue is a distractive ploy from the bigger issue this country is facing. If Obama supported it from the begining, but flip floping shows lack of character and leadership.
 
Stuntman Autoworks said:
Actually the first amendment is meant that Government shouldn't interfere with religion or the free practice of religion, "thus creating a wall between church and state". But peoples religious beliefs will affect their lives in all aspects even the political aspect, therefore the church that each individual believes is okay in their decisions and reasoning. Therefore the church is in the people that are in politics but the government shouldn't "regulate" church.
Click to expand...

No, Locke's point was that when the religious and political spheres get intertwined, the majority will use political power to impose their morals on minority groups. What you've got to remember is that at that point in time, there was fairly recent history of Christian factions using government power to suppress or marginalize other Christian denominations, Jews, and Muslims.

The fact that we've got several folks in this thread quoting Bible verses and talking about what God thinks of teh gays should tell you everything you need to know about the dangers of a tyrannical majority. :beer:
 
Shawn's point about Locke is correct, IMO. The founding Fathers and their influencers used their Christian beliefs (or at least the Biblical example of the exodus from Egypt) as a framework for the Declaration of Independence, The 10 commandments as our laws, Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc... They were also carefull not to allow too much religion into Government. In no way am I going to beat someone over the head with a bible or try to drag them to the cross. Your own 'free will' allows you to make your own choices in life. Choosing to comit a crime in our society will get you punished by the judicial branch, choosing to sin and not ask for forgiveness will get you punished in Hell. Very similar. One thing to keep in mind, even though politicians are pretty much all the same when it comes to human strengths and weakness, the founding Fathers got it as right as you possibly can. IMO, The reason for that is because it is so close to how God layed it out in the Bible.

When all it circles back to the Gay marriage issue and the vote on it, I will throw another Locke quote out there... "It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth". Taken out of context, both Locke and the Bible can be misused. It is good to have thinking people discuss these issues without becoming bitter over it.
 
nctom said:
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth".
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'd argue that truth-seeking isn't the proper role of government. ;)
 
Very true. Ever driven by the 'Justice' building in Downtown Charlotte? It is one of the smallest buildings there. I have looked and I cant even find a 'Truth' building.

I was going to throw this Locke quote in there too.

"The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure".​
 
Politicians will say/promise anything to get elected or re-elected. I find the whole gay "marriage" thing a way to mainstream this group of folks or somehow validate their different lifestyle that some will ALWAYS find offensive or ungodly w or without an official union -marriage. I could care less what others do with their lives if it makes them happy and does'nt infringe on my own pursuit of my own happiness. I support gay folks for doing their part to curb global overpopulation. :beer:;)
 
I don't understand why gays shouldn't have the RIGHT to get married.

I didn't vote because I could really care less if any of them want to or not. It's not effecting me one way or the other.

I've read most of the replies above and yet to have seen any reason why they shouldn't have the RIGHT to marriage.
 
Another point, not about gays in general.
America used to be majority rules, now, if your group loses, you become a special interest. Lawyers/politicians get involved and your sub group has more rights than the majority. That ain't right.

Simple ex; you and 5 coworkers go to lunch. Eveyone wants MAC's Speed Shop, one wants Mr G's. The right way, we end up at MAC's and the 5th wheel sucks it up or goes solo.

I like the statement earlier, if you allow this, next is multiple wives, perverts allowed to marry kids, billy married to his sister or mom, whatever. You got to draw a line eventually.
 
mbalbritton said:
I don't understand why gays shouldn't have the RIGHT to get married.

I didn't vote because I could really care less if any of them want to or not. It's not effecting me one way or the other.

I've read most of the replies above and yet to have seen any reason why they shouldn't have the RIGHT to marriage.
Click to expand...

Man I want to say if you didn't vote because you don't care then why are you posting on here anyway? But to answer your question as to why the shouldn't have the RIGHT to marriage. Simply is majority said "no". Just as simple but hard for a non Christian to believe is God said "no". I'm not a Christian just on Sundays or only when its easy and makes people feel good. The Bible has some teachings and passages that are very hard to swallow at times and really hit you hard, but that doesn't mean they arent just as true as the feel god stuff. Me being a Christian means I have to follow the WHOLE Bible even the parts that aren't popular or easy.
 
Yep and yep. 'Free will' is both amazingly empowering, and scarey as Hell. Everybody gets to choose what they do within their life. Some will refuse the opportunity to be saved and they will pay a price so eternally horrible the human mind cant conceive it. The ones who give their lives to the Lord will live forever in peace and in a place of unimaginable glory. While it is far from simple... It's a no brainer for me.
 
SSWaters said:
Another point, not about gays in general.
America used to be majority rules, now, if your group loses, you become a special interest. Lawyers/politicians get involved and your sub group has more rights than the majority. That ain't right.

Simple ex; you and 5 coworkers go to lunch. Eveyone wants MAC's Speed Shop, one wants Mr G's. The right way, we end up at MAC's and the 5th wheel sucks it up or goes solo.

I like the statement earlier, if you allow this, next is multiple wives, perverts allowed to marry kids, billy married to his sister or mom, whatever. You got to draw a line eventually.
Click to expand...


Yep - you have to draw the line somewhere.... and drawing it where God drew it 2000+ years ago seems like a logical spot to draw it to me. I'm obviously not alone either.
 
Stuntman Autoworks said:
Man I want to say if you didn't vote because you don't care then why are you posting on here anyway? [\quote]

Because I have the right to an opinion and to voice it if I so choose


But to answer your question as to why the shouldn't have the RIGHT to marriage. Simply is majority said "no". [\quote]
Did anyone vote on wether or not straight people could marry?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top