Aside from that, I found it to be ridiculously obvious where he stood on this issue. There is a difference between trying hard to be deceptive and generally being politically correct. I do not see how anyone who at least tried would not be able to clearly understand his position on the matter.
Aside from that, I found it to be ridiculously obvious where he stood on this issue. There is a difference between trying hard to be deceptive and generally being politically correct. I do not see how anyone who at least tried would not be able to clearly understand his position on the matter.
:thumbsup: for a President who won't put his personal beliefs above the rights of others.
You're full of shit! Married couples with no kids have the option to file as individual taxpayers or as a couple, whichever is to their advantage.
But thanks for tyring to put a turd in the punchbowl. Please don't procreate.
You're full of shit! Married couples with no kids have the option to file as individual taxpayers or as a couple, whichever is to their advantage.
But thanks for tyring to put a turd in the punchbowl. Please don't procreate.
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
Wow, holy shit, he's showing that it's possible to have a difference between your personal beliefs and the policies you support! That's something Ron Paul did a lot - he said he was strongly opposed to abortion, but as a Libertarian, he felt that it should not be made illegal by the government and that it's up to people to decide for themselves.
Same thing here with Obama. As a devout Christian, he does not personally agree with gay marriage... but as the next president, he does not think it is the government's place to put an outright ban on it either.
Not everything has to have a law behind it.
Same thing here with Obama. As a devout Christian, he does not personally agree with gay marriage... but as the next president, he does not think it is the government's place to put an outright ban on it either.
Not everything has to have a law behind it.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Which brings up another question. Will churches who do not feel that they ought to be performing gay marriages be sued? If no, then I'm OK with gay marriage. If yes, then I'm against it.
:lips: my (_!_)
I don't think so. The clergy act essentially as agents of the state for the purpose of performing legally sanctioned weddings that are also recognized under civil law, but religious institutions are allowed to define and limit the kinds of marriages they will perform according to their own beliefs. OTOH, the state cannot discriminate against couples by denying civil marriages to specific groups.
That's the beauty of separation of church and state, and it's exactly why those who claim gay marriage threatens "traditional" marriage are full of shit.
I don't think that is possible. Churches can currently turn away anyone for any reason right now without getting sued right?
No, but it raises questions of who you've been kissing and where that chapped them. :shocked: :laugh:
Maybe that's because Obama's use of a civil union for gays might be a step toward actual marriage. Can't say the same for evangelicals and conservatives.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
You guys have been reduced to silly little one-liners. With "discussion" like this, you will be relegated to the kids table for at least the next 4 years.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
TBQH - I think you slap it enough already. As for your lips, perhaps spending less time going down on the GOP hog would cure that quicker than Chapstick.®
I think marriage should be marriage for everyone or nobody, but "civil unions" are a hell of a lot better than what you gay-bashers want to do to gay people. It might be "separate but equal", but at least they can have equal rights...which is better than the complete lack of rights you'd like to give them.
Conservatives rarely bring up civil unions, and when they do, the response tends to be more reasonable. The more nasty responses tend to show up when the conservative in question is saying that gays are evil and will destroy traditional families. Obama didn't say anything like that.
I'm not sure what particular instance you're talking about, but context really does matter. How you say it is just as important as what you're saying, and if the reaction to civil union proposals tends to be negative, it might be because the proposals sound less like Obama phrased it and more like it came from the local Klan rally.
Seriously, look through the gay marriage debate threads on this forum. I see a hell of a lot of posts totally bashing gay folks in some extremely nasty ways. If they aren't the majority of anti-gay marriage posts, it certainly seems that way. I'm not saying it's totally fair, but Obama doesn't have that baggage to haul around with him when HE brings up "civil unions". I disagree with him still, but at least I can see his argument without thinking of people throwing rocks at gay teenagers.
I dont think Obama believes in anything other than getting reelected. To Obama gays are just another voting block he wants to make happy.
You can be for gay people or for marriage. There is no common ground. What do you think is more important; protecting marriage or protecting gay rights? Gay does not equal marriage.
You can be for gay people or for marriage. There is no common ground. What do you think is more important; protecting marriage or protecting gay rights? Gay does not equal marriage.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter