Trying to have it both ways almost always ends up looking foolish.

And the same position of the VP and the SOS.

“I’m on both sides ! ” , says the King .

And again, the Democrats dig their own grave during the next election by now opposing the things they were elected for.

We wanted you to fight for civil rights, Obama. Now you’re FOR denying homosexuals the same freedoms of the rest of us? Why?

I hope Axelrod was speaking out of his ass. Something tells me he wasn’t.

Now will Olbermann spend the next month, like he did with Carrie Prejean, blasting Obama as a bigoted homophobe?

writer said:
Now will Olbermann spend the next month, like he did with Carrie Prejean, blasting Obama as a bigoted homophobe?

It’s only fair. He brought it on himself. But I wouldn’t hold my breath with Olbermann.

“The president does oppose same-sex marriage” but “Obama always considered Proposition 8 “mean-spirited”

So what does that make the President? Mean-spirited AND hypocritical?

Of course Obama is playing both sides.Thats why they call it playing politics.He’s a politician and this issue is something he really has no control over with the states and courts as the principal combatants.So you sometimes waffle on a issue to win an election because you can get away with it.Cynical enough for you?

writer said:
Now will Olbermann spend the next month, like he did with Carrie Prejean, blasting Obama as a bigoted homophobe?

You know what? I hope he does. This is deplorable.

chucken said:
Of course Obama is playing both sides.Thats why they call it playing politics.He’s a politician and this issue is something he really has no control over with the states and courts as the principal combatants.So you sometimes waffle on a issue to win an election because you can get away with it.Cynical enough for you?

Yeah it’s politics as usual.

men and women are equal but girls still cant get into the boy scouts. throughout history no culture has ever recognized marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman. you want to be queer? invent your own union and get the state to recognize it. stay the fuck out of marriage, its for the normal people.

Constantly said:
men and women are equal but girls still cant get into the boy scouts. throughout history no culture has ever recognized marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman. you want to be queer? invent your own union and get the state to recognize it. stay the fuck out of marriage, its for the normal people.

Holy closet case Batman! And calling yourself normal? Priceless!

Axelrod was having none of it, saying both Guthrie and Todd were misstating Obama’s position. He said Obama always considered Proposition 8 “mean-spirited” and opposed it, but he does not support same-sex marriage generally.

“Yes honey, those jeans don’t make you look fat”!

Why can’t we just be honest once?

“Ask me after election day , 2012 “, says the King .

lazzzlo said:

“Yes honey, those jeans don’t make you look fat”!

Why can’t we just be honest once?

“Yes dear these pork chops are delicious”!

Constantly said:
men and women are equal but girls still cant get into the boy scouts.

It’s a private organization. This is false equivalence. Also, men and women are not equal. There is still a huge income disparity between the sexes.

Constantly said:
throughout history no culture has ever recognized marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.

Source, please? You can’t make a blanket statement like that without providing evidence that this is the case.

Stephen Hogan said:

Source, please? You can’t make a blanket statement like that without providing evidence that this is the case.

Something tells me he isn’t a real strong believer in evidence.

Some_Dude said:
You know what? I hope he does. This is deplorable.

I hope he does, as well. Civil unions are still not marriage. I thought we cleared up this whole ‘separate but equal is not equal’ thing.

“Axelrod was having none of it, saying both Guthrie and Todd were misstating Obama’s position.”

I love the above line…

If you are the elected President….why should people speak for you?

“throughout history no culture has ever recognized marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.” Constantly

“Source, please? You can’t make a blanket statement like that without providing evidence” Stephen Hogan

The surest way to prove Constantly wrong is to provide evidence to the contrary. Do you have such evidence?

hey stevie why dont you show me what culture allowed gay marriage? you cant prove a negative, and you arent refuting my statement by not proving yours.

and paul, if gays are normal why are you calling me one in an attempt to degrade me? idiot

Azarkhan said:
“throughout history no culture has ever recognized marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.” Constantly

“Source, please? You can’t make a blanket statement like that without providing evidence” Stephen Hogan

The surest way to prove Constantly wrong is to provide evidence to the contrary. Do you have such evidence?

I am not the one making the assertion. The onus of evidence falls on the person making the assertion. That’s basic logic. He made a closed-world assumption. Unless he can provide evidence of what he says is true, I must logically assume it to be false.

Just a guess, but I’d say the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman originated a very long time ago. Societies recognized the fact that if the society was to continue, heterosexual sex was the way to go. Nothing against gays, it’s just a fact that you can’t buy two male dogs and expect to raise puppies.

The definition and meaning of marriage has changed significantly over the centuries, and marriage has not always meant one man and one woman.

6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother’s wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history

Will Barry be Olbermann’s WORST PERSON for this? LOL!

I thought homosexuality was as immutable a characteristic as skin color? – WHAT HAPPENED?
Didn’t the President get that POLITICAL memo????

paul, whether one man and one woman, or one man and many women, marriage laws didn’t originate because people hated gays. Societies simply recognized that if everyone was gay, the society would die off. It was a matter of propagation, not discrimination.

Yet another disappointment with Obama. Wow.

Also, historically, marriage has been between a man and a woman, yes? Could it be that this was the case because historically, science was not developed enough to show that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but who they are? Wasn’t homosexuality seen as a disease or a mental condition?

I feel like responding to Constantly’s ridiculous comments, but it’s just not worth the effort and the frustration.

Constantly said:
hey stevie why dont you show me what culture allowed gay marriage? you cant prove a negative, and you arent refuting my statement by not proving yours.

and paul, if gays are normal why are you calling me one in an attempt to degrade me? idiot

I’m not refuting your statement, I’m just asking you to provide some evidence that there were ‘no’ civilizations that had same-sex marriages. But, fine, I’ll bite.

Ritualized same-sex marriages were conducted during the Ming dynasty in the province of Fujian. Same-sex marriages also occurred in Ancient Rome. In fact, two Roman Emperors, Nero and Elegabalas, each married a male slave. The Roman Empire recognized gay marriages up until the Codex Theodosianus, which was enacted after Rome became Christian. (John Boswell, “Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.”)

Since when did Obama have anything to do with Prop 8?

Please enlighen us oh tin-foil hat wearing ones.

writer said:
paul, whether one man and one woman, or one man and many women, marriage laws didn’t originate because people hated gays. Societies simply recognized that if everyone was gay, the society would die off. It was a matter of propagation, not discrimination.

I agree writer. Just pointing out for others that the meaning and definition of marriage has changed over the centuries, and it also has not always been between one man and one woman. Like it or not, those are the facts.

Constantly said:
hey stevie why dont you show me what culture allowed gay marriage? you cant prove a negative, and you arent refuting my statement by not proving yours.

and paul, if gays are normal why are you calling me one in an attempt to degrade me? idiot

I didn’t call you gay. I called you a closet case. Many raging homophobes are closet cases.

writer said:
Now will Olbermann spend the next month, like he did with Carrie Prejean, blasting Obama as a bigoted homophobe?

GREAT POINT!

Watch, you’re going to see more of what we see every day…..LIBERAL HYPOCRISY!!

Mr. Hogan-

I see where you are coming from with the eparate but equal argument but wouldn’t civil unions be sufficient? I think the most important thing that a legal marriage does from a legal standpoint is streamline benefit issues and gives legal protection to the spouse-etc.

I think the government should be pro-civil union and that it should be left up to the chruches to decide if they want to call it a “marriage.” Much like out good firend(nycuk) gordo boyers I got married by a justice of the peace in what could be describe as a non-religious ceremony.

I think civil union set a prescendent that would allow more progresive denominations to open their doors to the bigger idea-but I cannot deny that if a gay really wants to be married in what is called religious marriage then they need more allies in the progresive churches.

Pleae correct me if I am wrong to think that acivil union does not provide the legal protections of marriage but I think that is the bigger issue.

And yes by trying to have it both way Obama is really sticking his foot in his mouth.

The judge touched upon the religion issue. His words:

“Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.”

Breaking News:

Axelrod just revealed the Democratic strategy for November………….PANIC!!!!!!!!!

paulmdoro said:
The definition and meaning of marriage has changed significantly over the centuries, and marriage has not always meant one man and one woman. 6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother’s wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history

I can finally marry my Dog now? Cool! But I have divorce my wife first, damn! Any loopholes in the Mormon creed?

But really, if you are going to let two guys get married, you can’t stop for moral reasons at anything else. For just about since the begining Marriage had been between a man and a woman. Not to say one day that might not change. But to try and shove a minorities views apon the rest of the world doesn’t really help the cause.

Plus, let’s face it. there’s some places you shouldn’t stick things.

It is hardly “shoving a minority’s view, ” or would you have said that to the suffrage and civil rights movements as well?

puck30 said:

Plus, let’s face it. there’s some places you shouldn’t stick things.

When does 8th grade start for you? Before or after labor day?

“Plus, let’s face it. there’s some places you shouldn’t stick things.”

Yeah like your thumb in your mouth after its been up your ass. I’m guesing you have this problem frequently based on your dog marriage comment.

Jackass.

“paulmdoro says:
August 5, 2010 at 1:13 pm paulmdoro(Quote)
1 0
puck30 said:

Plus, let’s face it. there’s some places you shouldn’t stick things.

When does 8th grade start for you? Before or after labor day?”

No need for you to wrestle with the pig-you stay classy and leave assholes like him to assholes like me.

Bootleghaircut said:
“paulmdoro says:
August 5, 2010 at 1:13 pm paulmdoro(Quote)
1 0
puck30 said:

Plus, let’s face it. there’s some places you shouldn’t stick things.

When does 8th grade start for you? Before or after labor day?”

No need for you to wrestle with the pig-you stay classy and leave assholes like him to assholes like me.

Thanks Bootle. You said it better anyway.

OY!

It’s official: Dick Cheney is to the left of Barack Obama on gay marriage.

WHAT THE WHAT???

In all seriousness, though, no one should be surprised. Of all the political issues in the world, the one our President has flip-flopped the most on is gay marriage.

Stephen Hogan said:
Ritualized same-sex marriages were conducted during the Ming dynasty in the province of Fujian. Same-sex marriages also occurred in Ancient Rome. In fact, two Roman Emperors, Nero and Elegabalas, each married a male slave. The Roman Empire recognized gay marriages up until the Codex Theodosianus, which was enacted after Rome became Christian. (John Boswell, “Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.”)

two cultures that stood the test of time…you sold me stevie!

“I am not the one making the assertion. The onus of evidence falls on the person making the assertion. That’s basic logic” Stephen Hogan

Now you’re starting to sound like a weasel. If you can’t disprove it, then why argue the point?

“Same-sex marriages also occurred in Ancient Rome”

There is no proof of legal same-sex marriages in Rome. Homosexual behavior in Rome or Greece was not strictly taboo. The young Caesar reputedly had Nicomedes, king of Bithynia, for a lover, and the Theban Sacred Band was a legendary body of soldiers comprised of homosexual lovers, destroyed by Alexander, himself a homosexual. But to say homosexual marriage was legal is simply wrong.

As for your emperors (who as divine deities had, shall we say, a bit more leeway regarding social mores):

“During his rule, Elagabalus showed a disregard for Roman religious traditions and sexual taboos…Elagabalus was married as many as five times, lavished favors on courtiers popularly assumed to have been his homosexual lovers, and was reported to have prostituted himself in the imperial palace. His reputed behaviour infuriated the Praetorian Guard, the Senate and the common people alike…Amidst growing opposition, Elagabalus, only 18 years old, was assassinated ”

Nero married several different women. He may have had homosexual lovers, but he was never married to one.

Bootleghaircut said:
Mr. Hogan-

I see where you are coming from with the eparate but equal argument but wouldn’t civil unions be sufficient? I think the most important thing that a legal marriage does from a legal standpoint is streamline benefit issues and gives legal protection to the spouse-etc.

I think the government should be pro-civil union and that it should be left up to the chruches to decide if they want to call it a “marriage.” Much like out good firend(nycuk) gordo boyers I got married by a justice of the peace in what could be describe as a non-religious ceremony.

I think civil union set a prescendent that would allow more progresive denominations to open their doors to the bigger idea-but I cannot deny that if a gay really wants to be married in what is called religious marriage then they need more allies in the progresive churches.

Pleae correct me if I am wrong to think that acivil union does not provide the legal protections of marriage but I think that is the bigger issue.

And yes by trying to have it both way Obama is really sticking his foot in his mouth.

My issue with civil unions is that by using a different name, we are still discriminating. Even if the same legal rights are in place, it’s still the equivalent of saying ‘well, your relationship isn’t as legitimate in our soceity as this heterosexual’s marriage is, so we’ll call it by a different name’. You are still treating them differently, so there is still inequality.

In regards to having a church decide what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage, that would be giving the church authority that they don’t really have over heterosexual couples. Marriage is not a religious institution. It is far older than any existing religion. In our country, marriage is a legal institution and by denying a legal status to a group of people because they are different, you are violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Same-sex marriage in the Middle Ages:

Historians believe they have evidence of same-sex marriage in late antiquity and early Middle Ages. One piece of evidence is a monastic icon depicting the marriage of two male saints with Jesus officiating. (photo)

Historical sources ave also been cited as evidence, including church rites from the 10th and 11th centuries.

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiated in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

http://www.scatoday.net/node/14703

And:

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/

“Nero married several different women. He may have had homosexual lovers, but he was never married to one.”

And clearly that makes all the difference.

Just ask Larry Craig.

I’ll argue the point Azz. You and Constantly (maybe just contstantly) wanted Stephen to give examples of a culture that allowed homosexual marriage or marriage between more than one man and one woman…Rome, Greece, Ancient Persia, and as for their longevity…I’d say all of them lasted longer as cultures than our on American one.

And for the record, and to display the fact that I’m not blind to hypocrisy yes its wrong for Obama to try and play both sides of the fence, a tactic which continually weakens the Democratic Party.

“Ritualized same-sex marriages were conducted during the Ming dynasty in the province of Fujian”

“Ritualized” and “in the province of Fujian” indicates this was not the norm but was confined to a relatively small area of China. Why it was done is a good question. I clearly don’t know enough about Chinese history to dispute this. But thanks for the tip. It’s interesting and definitely something to research.

“My issue with civil unions is that by using a different name, we are still discriminating. Even if the same legal rights are in place, it’s still the equivalent of saying ‘well, your relationship isn’t as legitimate in our soceity as this heterosexual’s marriage is, so we’ll call it by a different name’. You are still treating them differently, so there is still inequality.”

Ok I can dig it.

“In regards to having a church decide what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage, that would be giving the church authority that they don’t really have over heterosexual couples. Marriage is not a religious institution. It is far older than any existing religion. In our country, marriage is a legal institution and by denying a legal status to a group of people because they are different, you are violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.”

Good Points.

Obama is letting me down on this one. There. I said it.

Constantly said:
two cultures that stood the test of time…you sold me stevie!

But you said no cultures in history did it, and he just showed you a handful that did. So, your blanket statement from before is *sigh* a lie. You can spin it. It occurred in history, you said it didn’t. You didn’t say No successful culture in history have done it. But that’s a much easier statement, because, of cultures that have stood the test of time, I can think of the Islamic culture in the Middle East and then, I’m sure there are others. That would mean that Islam is right with everything they do? Islam is older than American culture, right?

The bottom line, its a myth that in human history we are the only culture to argue about relationships between men and men, women and women, or even polygamy. Its been going on as long as there has been recorded history. Dispute that!

Hey Perm, isn’t Polygamy accepted as part of Islamic culture? Does that mean that should be the way things work?

Azarkhan said:
“I am not the one making the assertion. The onus of evidence falls on the person making the assertion. That’s basic logic” Stephen Hogan

Now you’re starting to sound like a weasel. If you can’t disprove it, then why argue the point?

If following logic makes me a weasel, then I’m proud to be one.

Azarkhan said:
There is no proof of legal same-sex marriages in Rome.

Actually, there are. Maybe you should engage the source I cited.

Azarkhan said:
Homosexual behavior in Rome or Greece was not strictly taboo.

Actually, these relations were, in a large way, celebrated.

Azarkhan said:
But to say homosexual marriage was legal is simply wrong.

No, it’s not wrong. It was legal until it was explicitly stated to be illegal in the Codex Theodosianus.

Azarkhan said:
Nero married several different women. He may have had homosexual lovers, but he was never married to one.

Actually, he was. Nero married a man named Sporus.

“Hey Perm, isn’t Polygamy accepted as part of Islamic culture?”

In parts of the Muslim world, e.g., Egypt, it is frowned upon and actually considered, for lack of a better term, old-fashioned. Saudi Arabia on the other hand, has no problem with it, as long as the man treats all of his wives equally.

Stephen, your my hero. No sarcasm at all intended. Just keep citing history and pointing out their hypocrisy and ignorance.

Then monsieur Azarkhan, doesn’t that mean we don’t seem to have the monopoly on what constitutes a marriage? That logically others points of view might need to be considered?

OK Stephen, if you want to believe that, go ahead.

“That logically others points of view might need to be considered?”

Of course they can be considered. But I am opposed to rewriting history to support any particular point of view or group.

Is Suetonius not a good enough source for you Azarkhan?

In what regard, Socrates?

Is it not a fact that homosexual relationships have been recorded throughout human history, and in effect are “nothing new under the sun?

How is that rewriting history to support a view? I would consider it a fact.

Using ancient history to defend your stance in modern times, that’s strange. I guess only when it suites you. Can I use it to justify witch-burning or slavery etc? When you read and use ancient history, don’t skip over the horrors committed. Same with religious zealots picking and choosing only certain parts of the Bible to bolster their arguments.
Also strange how gay individuals use closet-homosexual to desribe people that don’t agree with them. Following that logic, anyone using race-baiting (Sharpton, Jackson, Olbermann, Maddow) would be a closet racist.
I could really care less if 2 men or women marry, but why do you need the term marriage? 1 of the most well-known gay men on the planet, Elton John, (and Obama) are against using the term marriage and are fine with other terms. Is Elton a homophobe or is Obama a closet homosexual?
I am a long-time Elton John fan btw, but no offense, I wouldn’t want to sleep with him.

StandUp said:
but why do you need the term marriage?

Because without the term marriage, it is still not equal.

StandUp said:
I am a long-time Elton John fan btw, but no offense, I wouldn’t want to sleep with him.

I am, too, but I wouldn’t either.

“Is it not a fact that homosexual relationships have been recorded throughout human history, and in effect are “nothing new under the sun?”

If you read my previous posts, I gave examples of homosexual relationships. I could cite many more. But the question is: were homosexual marriages legally sanctioned by ancient societies?

Suetonius is the one who is quoted as saying Nero married Sporus. Personally, I think it was part of his gig to smear Nero with many other taints, but nonetheless he documented in detail, Nero’s relationship with Sporus.

“Suetonius is the one who is quoted as saying Nero married Sporus”

That does not mean it was “legal”. As emperor, Nero could have “married” his horse.

Okay, okay. Does allowing a homosexual marriage to take place somehow de-sanctify a marriage between a man and woman? I’d go so far to say that in a mono-Christian culture sure. It might. MIGHT. Yet, if we can’t use history as example of whats been considered in the past, why should Christian values and morals be allowed…and I’m speaking to Standup here.

And I don’t think we’ve ever been a mono-Christian culture here…and I’m sure thats going to rile some feathers.

It won’t matter. It doesn’t matter. I think the Maker doesn’t care either, but I can’t say for sure, because I’m not him.

I promise Azarkhan, if we are going to stick on this point about Sporus and Nero, Stephen is right, He was married with all the ceremonies etc. Its in there.

Would I use this as my main point for defending a homosexual marriage. No. Just one example of many. And lets face it, Nero was off his rocker for many reasons.

“Does allowing a homosexual marriage to take place somehow de-sanctify a marriage between a man and woman?”

I personally don’t care if homosexuals marry. However, I do think this should be sanctioned by society. In a democracy, that is done by voting, not by 1 judge. If we go that route, we basically end up where we are with abortion, were 40 years after Roe v. Wade, it is still a hot, disputed topic.

Stephen-

Simply being married does not give you equality. A well-written civil-union or whatever law could provide what your seeking. The term marriage in itself doesn’t carry equality. I think that a gay couple should not be discriminated against, but when I tell someone that I’m married I don’t want to have to qualify the statement by saying that i am married to a woman and not a man, animal, tree, or piece of furniture.

“I promise Azarkhan, if we are going to stick on this point about Sporus and Nero”

Could it be that the exception proves the rule? I would like to see evidence of legally sanctioned homosexual marriage among all strata of Roman society, not just the emperor.

Holy shit…gasp…Azarkhan….I agree.

Umm…however, I get real uncomfortable with majorities telling minorities their not “as legal.” Or they start defining for other individuals whats legal or not legal.

StandUp said:
Stephen-

but when I tell someone that I’m married I don’t want to have to qualify the statement by saying that i am married to a woman and not a man, animal, tree, or piece of furniture.

Really? Why is that such a big deal?

Socrates69 said:
Is Suetonius not a good enough source for you Azarkhan?

For God’s sake, who gives a shit what Suetonius said? Should you not be out trying to separate gnat shit from pepper?

” I get real uncomfortable with majorities telling minorities”

I don’t. I have a much bigger problem with a minority imposing its will on the majority, particularly when the minority (gay men and women) is a relatively very small one.

Just let us have the word, you can have your own. You have already co-opted the word gay so now it doesn’t mean happy and joyful anymore, it simply means homosexual. Why is it such a big deal for you to have the word?

Azarkhan said:
” I get real uncomfortable with majorities telling minorities”

I don’t. I have a much bigger problem with a minority imposing its will on the majority, particularly when the minority (gay men and women) is a relatively very small one.

That puts a lot of faith and trust in majorities.

Ah nutsofast, howya been. Let me see here, if I can bring you up to speed, and I’ll use little words to make it easy for you.

Us big people talk about same sex marriage. Some say not bad thing, some say it bad thing. Some give examples of when it happened before. Others say prove it.

This necessary when having debate, must back up with facts.

This doesn’t mean we agree, or disagree, just important to have facts.

Does this help you? Probably not.

StandUp said:
Just let us have the word, you can have your own. You have already co-opted the word gay so now it doesn’t mean happy and joyful anymore, it simply means homosexual. Why is it such a big deal for you to have the word?

Why is it such a big deal for you to have it?

A civil-union law could be passed with bipartisan support that includes the legal benefits that marriage provides. When I say i am married, people would know what i mean, and when you say you are “unioned”, “civiled”, or “partnered”, or whatever, you pick the term, people would know what you mean. Convenient for everyone

Azarkhan, I again see your point, but therein I think lies our political differences. I don’t trust the majorities. And if I saw this as the minorities trying to impose their will, then yes I would have problem. Yet, how is their seeking marriage an imposing of their will upon those who are not homosexual? In all sincerity please explain this to me.

Socrates, you have an appropriate name, since your namesake was often on his knees taking it ,which I’m sure you are familiar with.

You are the kind of person that I could use as a blueprint to build an idiot.

I’d like to see things from your point of view but I can’t seem to get my head that far up my ass

It’s not a big deal for me to have it. I’m not the one trying to get it, I already have it. What if I wanted to start calling dogs cats or horses pigs. If animals could talk I’m sure they would voice their opposition

“Obama always considered Proposition 8 “mean-spirited” and opposed it, but he does not support same-sex marriage generally.”

That answer should piss off everyone, left and right.

StandUp said:
It’s not a big deal for me to have it. I’m not the one trying to get it, I already have it. What if I wanted to start calling dogs cats or horses pigs. If animals could talk I’m sure they would voice their opposition

Gay people wanting marriage equality is equivalent to a talking dog calling itself a cat?

Battery dying…to be continued

Standup, why is it important to understand what you mean by marriage? I’m serious. I can point out all kinds of “normal” marriages where different meanings have been attached. I’d in fact have more respect for couples who want to married of any sexual persuasion because I’d personally see it as a devout commitment.

And yet how many normal marriages can’t meet that definition?

“That puts a lot of faith and trust in majorities”

If you don’t like living in a democracy, there are other nations/societies where that burden doesn’t exist.

BTW, it is a bit odd that in order to prove that homosexual marriage was sanctioned in Roman pagan society, some have to rely on the Codex Theodosianus, a compilation made by Christian emperors. I should think there would be several pagan sources to support such an assertion.

Gay people wanting marriage equality could be better stated as “gay people wanting equality”. That is attainable

Azarkhan said:
“That puts a lot of faith and trust in majorities”

If you don’t like living in a democracy, there are other nations/societies where that burden doesn’t exist.

Love it or leave it right? I seem to recall something about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, or something like that.

Stephen Hogan said:
It’s a private organization. This is false equivalence. Also, men and women are not equal. There is still a huge income disparity between the sexes

I’m sorry…can you please direct me to where the US Constitution guarantees equal outcome. I mean, I’ve read it numerous times but I just can’t find that part.

notsofast says:
August 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm (Quote)
“Socrates, you have an appropriate name, since your namesake was often on his knees taking it ,which I’m sure you are familiar with. You are the kind of person that I could use as a blueprint to build an idiot. I’d like to see things from your point of view but I can’t seem to get my head that far up my ass.”

Ah you somehow see yourself as the voice of reason and logic? I mean your above comments demonstrate your true brilliance with that tried and true tactic of attack the man, not his message. And I seriously doubt you’d look at another viewpoint even if it bit you in the ass. Cause its scaaaarrrrry I’m sure. And if we’re going to attack names…it must be opposite day, cause I bet notsofast is really opposite of ohsoslow.

“BTW, it is a bit odd that in order to prove that homosexual marriage was sanctioned in Roman pagan society, some have to rely on the Codex Theodosianus, a compilation made by Christian emperors. I should think there would be several pagan sources to support such an assertion.”

I wouldn’t call it odd, I would call it damn ironic. If it does in fact support the sanction of homosexual marriage.

“I seem to recall something about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, ”

Denial of marriage rights for gays hardly qualifies as “tyranny”. The fact that some people think it does indicates just how many rights Americans enjoy.

Azarkhan said:
“I seem to recall something about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, ”

Denial of marriage rights for gays hardly qualifies as “tyranny”. The fact that some people think it does indicates just how many rights Americans enjoy.

So literal. I was merely attempting to make a point about those who believed in the need to protect the minority from the majority. Certainly tyranny was a more fashionable word back then.

Socrates69 said:
it must be opposite day, cause I bet notsofast is really opposite of ohsoslow.

I see the song”I Got Plenty of Nothing” is your theme song.

paulmdoro said:
Why is it such a big deal for you to have it?

Answering a question with the same question is sort of “I’m rubber you’re glue”.
So I’m bump down a level and just say- I asked you first.

paulmdoro said:
Gay people wanting marriage equality is equivalent to a talking dog calling itself a cat?

And thanks for twisting my words and completely misunderstanding.
I didn’t say a talking dog calling itself a cat. Please reread the post

You really even need to ask? Why do you think gays and lesbians are so hung up on the word marriage? Because they are just like you and me. We got married because we loved someone and wanted to enter the institution of marriage with them, with all that that entails, for better or worse. Marriage has meaning, and they want to be a part of it just like you and me. It really isn’t rocket science and it’s not like they’re asking you for a kidney or lung.

StandUp said:
And thanks for twisting my words and completely misunderstanding.
I didn’t say a talking dog calling itself a cat. Please reread the post

I twisted them because I think it’s nonsensical.

When I say I am married, people know what I mean. When I say “baseball’, people know exactly what i mean, same with banana, Coke, radio, fire, etc.
B4 you accuse me, no, I’m not comparing gay couples to any of these. Just tryyyyying to make a point

paulmdoro said:
Because they are just like you and me.

LOL…gross, they are not like me, but whatever floats your boat.

paulmdoro said:
You really even need to ask? Why do you think gays and lesbians are so hung up on the word marriage? Because they are just like you and me. We got married because we loved someone and wanted to enter the institution of marriage with them, with all that that entails, for better or worse. Marriage has meaning, and they want to be a part of it just like you and me. It really isn’t rocket science and it’s not like they’re asking you for a kidney or lung.

Key phrase in all of that nonsensical rambling is- “Marriage has meaning”. why redefine it. Take whatever term you want, I’ll go along with it.

StandUp said:
When I say I am married, people know what I mean. When I say “baseball’, people know exactly what i mean, same with banana, Coke, radio, fire, etc.
B4 you accuse me, no, I’m not comparing gay couples to any of these. Just tryyyyying to make a point

Regarding Coke, You could mean Diet Coke, or Cherry Coke, or Caffeine Free Coke, or Coke Zero. Or you could mean you are thirsty.

If someone asks you if you’re married, and you say yes, and they reply, “Oh so do you have a husband or wife?”, that’s going to be the end of the world for you?

StandUp said:
Key phrase in all of that nonsensical rambling is- “Marriage has meaning”. why redefine it. Take whatever term you want, I’ll go along with it.

How could you possibly derive a key phrase from “nonsensical rambling”?

You are only referring to how laws- workplace laws, IRS laws, church ,etc define marriage. Don’t you think a civil-union could give you the same things?

Take at look at these democratic-advocacy ‘reporters’ of the so-called “mainstream media” trying to Play the Race Card with a group of Black Tea-Party reps.

http://www.breitbart.tv/reporters-take-on-black-conservatives-at-press-conference/

The Tea people put them to shame as they were flustered their Race-Card LIES were debunked, one after the other!

These are supposed ‘reporters’, yet listen to them Foam-at-the-Mouth when they can’t get their LYING RACIST SMEAR to stick!

Everyone – EXPOSE these examples of Left-Wing Bias in the “mainstream media” to all your family & friends, e-mail everyone you know NOT to BELIEVE the “mainstream media”!!!!!!
——————————————————–

GOP Candidates: BOYCOTT the “mainstream media”. YOU DON’T NEED THESE OBAMA-LOVING PROPAGANDISTS!! – The uninformed audiences they have won’t vote for you

Civil union is equality. Gays want the term marriage to gain acceptance. That is not up to the law.

One day people in a minority will come along and “demand” something and then and only then will you see why we resist. You are right about one thing- Gay an lebsian couples are “hung up” on using marriage. Therein lies most of the problem. If you were just demanding equality you would get overwhelming support from the heterosexual community. Believe it or not, most people don’t care if 2 same-sex people want to love each other and live their lives together. I’m almost afraid to say that I have gay friends because I will be accused of using the “i have black friends” card. But I do, and they are fine with using other terms as long as the end result is the same. They provided me with the insight to make my arguments

Talking past each other now…damn I could have mowed the grass instead, now it’s raining and I’m pissed.

Here’s the rub. I say, hey, marriage, it’s only a word, why not just let them have it? You say, hey, if it’s only a silly little word, why not just find another one?

Is that the gist of it?

I don’t care what they call it. They can call it marriage, they can call it heaven, a civil union or a mistake. They should be able to get married. I have no problem with gay marriage, or polygamy. But the fact remains, only one man, and one woman can create a child. Yeah a couple women can go out and get some sperm from the sperm bank, but that child still is not the result of those two humans. That child is does not hold equal parts of those individuals. You know why? Because that is just nature and no amount of lawyers or judges can change nature.

paulmdoro said:
Regarding Coke, You could mean Diet Coke, or Cherry Coke, or Caffeine Free Coke, or Coke Zero. Or you could mean you are thirsty. If someone asks you if you’re married, and you say yes, and they reply, “Oh so do you have a husband or wife?”, that’s going to be the end of the world for you?

Wrong again. When I order a Coke, nobody ever asks me what kind. When I say I misplaced my baseball nobody asks me what does it look like.
In 27 years of marriage I’ve never had to state what I am married to, why should I start now because of a minority group trying to co-opt another long-standing meaning.

7 million Amercan voters to 1 gay judge causes people to scratch their head in amazement. Next time it will be more like 10 million or more

More Liberty said:
I don’t care what they call it. They can call it marriage, they can call it heaven, a civil union or a mistake. They should be able to get married. I have no problem with gay marriage, or polygamy. But the fact remains, only one man, and one woman can create a child. Yeah a couple women can go out and get some sperm from the sperm bank, but that child still is not the result of those two humans. That child is does not hold equal parts of those individuals. You know why? Because that is just nature and no amount of lawyers or judges can change nature.

But marriage is not exclusively about having children. Plenty of married couples never have children by choice, and plenty of people who marry later in life can’t.

paulmdoro said:
Here’s the rub. I say, hey, marriage, it’s only a word, why not just let them have it? You say, hey, if it’s only a silly little word, why not just find another one? Is that the gist of it?

And again you are wrong. I didn’t say it was a silly little word. Now you’re putting words in my mouth.
I said I agree with “marriage has meaning”. Are you even reading or just knee-jerking

StandUp said:
Wrong again. When I order a Coke, nobody ever asks me what kind. When I say I misplaced my baseball nobody asks me what does it look like.
In 27 years of marriage I’ve never had to state what I am married to, why should I start now because of a minority group trying to co-opt another long-standing meaning.

7 million Amercan voters to 1 gay judge causes people to scratch their head in amazement. Next time it will be more like 10 million or more

If your biggest problem in life is having to start telling people who you’re married to, you’ve got it nice and easy and have nothing to complain about. Nothing whatsoever.

StandUp said:
And again you are wrong. I didn’t say it was a silly little word. Now you’re putting words in my mouth.
I said I agree with “marriage has meaning”. Are you even reading or just knee-jerking

Excuse me for trying to harmlessly paraphrase. Are you being an asshole on purpose or is it just natural?

gordonbloyershow said:
Civil union is equality. Gays want the term marriage to gain acceptance. That is not up to the law.

Gordon- I concur, meeting adjourned

I nominate More Liberty as Presidential candidate for the LIBERTY party and Gordon as VP. However, I would like to be a czar.

StandUp said:
I nominate More Liberty as Presidential candidate for the LIBERTY party and Gordon as VP. However, I would like to be a czar.

Sounds like an apocalyptic horror movie.

paulmdoro said:
But marriage is not exclusively about having children. Plenty of married couples never have children by choice, and plenty of people who marry later in life can’t.

I’m not saying it is. What I’m saying, is that many homosexuals try so hard to feel and be accepted as normal. It’s almost an obsession, but they will never be normal, not in the natural sense. The reality is, the only reason humans have an attraction for one another, the gene that tells us another person is appealing, is to carry on the species. For some reason, a homosexuals body tells them that the same sex is attractive, there really is no scientific reason for that attraction. The only way to carry on the species is with one man and one woman. Two men can’t carry on the species, nor can two women….only a man and a woman can.

paulmdoro said:
If your biggest problem in life is having to start telling people who you’re married to, you’ve got it nice and easy and have nothing to complain about. Nothing whatsoever.

Damn, can’t believe you are wrong again. I’m not complaining, I am defending. The LGBT community are complaining. How can you be so blinded?

Done with paulmdoro. I need to discuss with someone who is honest in their debate.

I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.

StandUp said:
I nominate More Liberty as Presidential candidate for the LIBERTY party and Gordon as VP. However, I would like to be a czar.

I guess we couldn’t do any worse than the previous idiot or the current idiot.

“The reality is, the only reason humans have an attraction for one another, the gene that tells us another person is appealing, is to carry on the species.”

How in the hell do you know this? Are you a higher power?

“It’s almost an obsession, but they will never be normal, not in the natural sense.”

And you’re normal? Says who? And who gave you the authority to determine who is and is not normal?

StandUp said:
Damn, can’t believe you are wrong again. I’m not complaining, I am defending. The LGBT community are complaining. How can you be so blinded?

Done with paulmdoro. I need to discuss with someone who is honest in their debate.

I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.

Denial much? You’re complaining. Sniff, but I’ve been married 27 years, sniff, and people shouldn’t be confused when I tell them I’m married, sniff.

Boo hoo.

puck30 said:
But really, if you are going to let two guys get married, you can’t stop for moral reasons at anything else.

Agreed. Progressives will demand that bigamy and polygamy be placed on the docket next. After that, they will move on to human/non-human unions: The term “animal husbandry” will gain a whole new meaning. ;< )

Name-calling

paulmdoro said:
Excuse me for trying to harmlessly paraphrase. Are you being an asshole on purpose or is it just natural?

Name-calling. How nice from someone who has probably been called vicious names by bigots before. Didn’t you learn anything from that? In my posts I have used the terms gay couples, homosexual and LGBT, your terms, yet you call me names. Sorry but I can’t get down to your level.

Okay NOW I’m done with you. You can have the last word even though I know you will probably insult me, twist my words or just flat out misquote me

StandUp said:
Name-calling

Name-calling. How nice from someone who has probably been called vicious names by bigots before. Didn’t you learn anything from that? In my posts I have used the terms gay couples, homosexual and LGBT, your terms, yet you call me names. Sorry but I can’t get down to your level.

Okay NOW I’m done with you. You can have the last word even though I know you will probably insult me, twist my words or just flat out misquote me

Dude, you basically said I couldn’t read and insulted me more than once. Excuse me for standing up for myself. You can’t get down to my level because you’ve never been that high.

Why would I face bigotry? I’m married.

“Conduct inspections of security countermeasures on an established schedule (ideally weekly).”

It’s common scientific knowledge that the reason we are attracted to one another, that the reason there is a male and a female, regardless of species, is for procreation, and to carry on the species.

I’m saying “normal” in the sense that I have a gene that allows me to carry on the species. Homosexuals, and it’s OK that’s just how nature created them, have a gene that makes them attracted to the same sex, for whatever reason. In other words, if all of man kind had developed into homosexuals, we would eventually no longer exist as a species.

More Liberty said:
“Conduct inspections of security countermeasures on an established schedule (ideally weekly).”

It’s common scientific knowledge that the reason we are attracted to one another, that the reason there is a male and a female, regardless of species, is for procreation, and to carry on the species.

I’m saying “normal” in the sense that I have a gene that allows me to carry on the species. Homosexuals, and it’s OK that’s just how nature created them, have a gene that makes them attracted to the same sex, for whatever reason. In other words, if all of man kind had developed into homosexuals, we would eventually no longer exist as a species.

And I for one am thankful we’re not all the same. That would be boring.

paulmdoro said:
And I for one am thankful we’re not all the same. That would be boring.

You know what, you’re right.

” Wish I that those cojones I’ve been hearing about . What do I say to them on this , Axe ? ” , said King Obama . “Take a vacation . Just keep hoodwinkin ‘em “, said The Walrus

Stephen Hogan said:
Ritualized same-sex marriages were conducted during the Ming dynasty in the province of Fujian. Same-sex marriages also occurred in Ancient Rome. In fact, two Roman Emperors, Nero and Elegabalas, each married a male slave. The Roman Empire recognized gay marriages up until the Codex Theodosianus, which was enacted after Rome became Christian. (John Boswell, “Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.”)

These marriages were in every way like male-female marriages in those cultures?

If not, how did they differ?

So, bottom line is that Barack is a HOMOPHOBE, right?

That’s what Democrats call any Republican against gay marriage, so Democrats don’t want to be labeled as PHONY HYPOCRITS, now, do they???

LMAO!!!!!

It’s pretty simple: black people by a wide margin hate the thought of gay marriage and Obama knows that the black voting block is much, much larger that the gay voting block. Plus, the black voting block — the only true monolithic voting block in America — is the only one that hasn’t begun to turn on him so he can’t turn on them now. With the black vote, he’s not going to just lose a few if he doesn’t appease them, he’s lose ALL of them. That’s how that voting block works.

Those links that supposedly prove there was “homosexual marriage” in those other cultures all point to “separate by equal” and not “marriage.” For example, the one citing medieval homosexual marriage actually said the term was, “affrèrement” or “brotherment.”

It was never considered “marriage” because marriage is between opposite sexes.

Sadly there is a lot of homophobia in the black community.

“Homophobia” is so tired.

People aren’t “scared” of gay people, they just don’t recognize their couplings as being the same as marriage because until a gay couple raises their genetic offspring together, they will never be the same as a married couple. It’s as simple as that.

I don’t care if gay people want to do what they want, but they’ll never have what me, my wife and our daughter have. Not because of “discrimination” or “homophobia” or “bigotry”- it’s called reality, nature, “the way things are” etc.

Not everyone can have kids or wants kids. They don’t want or can’t have what you do. I guess lots of people will never be like you then.

The gay lobby now will be directed to their seats under the bus opposite from Jeremiah Wilson and Van Jones…

Interesting that Obama has had Eric Holder run interference for machete-wielding Black Panthers who were blocking the entrance to a voting area, but can’t be bothered to check the Constitution he supposedly taught in Illinois for anything forbidding gays to marry.

This is Obama’s clumsy attempt to “triangulate” himself between the gay lobby, which pretty much as gave it up for him on Election Day, and the religious right, which didn’t. All this is going to do is leave the religious right unimpressed with Obama (except for the black religious right, who he already had) and swell the ranks of the Log Cabin Republicans.

loupgarous said:
This is Obama’s clumsy attempt to “triangulate” himself between the gay lobby, which pretty much as gave it up for him on Election Day, and the religious right, which didn’t. All this is going to do is leave the religious right unimpressed with Obama (except for the black religious right, who he already had) and swell the ranks of the Log Cabin Republicans.

I believe loupgarous is an old Akadian word that means “wierwolf.” Is that correct?

As for the defeat of Prop 8, it seems that the judge has made a serious error and has legislated from the bench. (OK, so what’s new?) There are the laws of nature and there are the laws of man; when the laws of man conflict with the laws of nature, man invariably loses.

you gay marriage people are all certified crazy..
just because the homosexuals want to fantasize
about being exactly like a husband and wife or male
and female- you fools cave in to that?
obama is making perfect sense.. it has to
be a homosexual civil union.. it cannot
be anything else unless you can make
2+2=5..

if i tell someone i’m “married”- i don’t want them wondering if i’m married to a male or a female.. i have a RIGHT to use a word that makes it clear that i’m with a woman..

when i check the

box that says i’m a male and

then check the box that says i’m married-

don’t i have the right for that to be

known as me being married to a woman?

why can’t i just get a license for
a male/female union without that
license also being a homosexual
license?