What do you think of President Obama supporting gay marriage at the same time North Carolina amends constitution against it?
Considering the magnitude of other problems facing individual states and the nation, and this fluff piece is what captures the attention of politicians and the public!?!?
North Carolina I can understand, as the populace is easily distracted with shiny objecs and, as I understand, state law law allows marriage between first cousins so long as they are different sexes. (A Cold War era Berlin style wall should have been built around that place years ago.)
Is this issue, along with many others, something that needs resolution right now? Am I the only person who believes politicians are using these tactics to divert public attention from truly crucial issues which they fear to tackle in an election year, or at any time for that matter?
Considering the dismal drop in marriage rates I have read about and the skyrocketting divorce rate, how soon before marriage becomes an anachronism, an archaic, quaint retro fad which will come and go from generation to generation?
I'm sorry, but I consider the entire issue an enromous politcal smoke screen to divert attention from issues our leaders don't want to address.
OK, I've got my blood pressure up enough to get movng and go to work. Have a great day folks.
I firmly believe gays deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us. Let 'em marry.
But, don't then say, "We told you so".
I'm glad he's being honest with everyone about his stand now.
Ask01 gave a concise, articulate, informative post...it's really a shame he's clinically insane.
Good morning, Nashville.
We kicked this wedge-issue topic around yesterday on the UFD thread...we talked about a lot of things yesterday.
As I said yesterday, IMO, human rights should trump states rights.
If two adult people, who happen to be of the same sex, want to join in holy (unholy?) matrimony, then I say let them do it. Marriage is a civil contract and as such it should not be artificially restricted in number and by gender....no other civil contracts are similarly limited by number & gender restrictions, to my knowledge.
Some so-called "conservatives" are actually closet statists....they support big government intrusion into something extremely personal, using their religious beliefs as cover for their bigotry.
The South is notorious for that kind of mendacity. North Carolina never repented after the war between the states; it is a backward, backwater state and should have been allowed to secede from the union...it is a drag on the rest of our society.
Conservatives are only anti-government when they aren't in charge. It really is all about power.
L'ner: Problem is, they will want legal/ financial rights, ( from the government) as well. Medical, tax exemptions, all those things afforded to married people.
If two men or two women want to live together, I don't give a shit.
If they want to be legally "married" in holy matrimony... NO way.
And I lived in San Francisco for 2 years...trust me, something's in the water there.
I agree with Ask01, this is a smokescreen issue and quite trivial in overall importance to this republic and the welfare of its citizens.
The special interests actually formulate policy and agendas, the public's interest is being ignored.....the masses are kept interested in these political theatrics by using these silly wedge issues, to pique the prurient interests and thereby drive the hate-based partisanship.
Let's be honest, the presidential elections are a farce...7 or 8 "battleground states" are in play, the rest of the voters in this republic might as well stay home and watch the Comedy Channel on election night...nothing acts to suppress the vote more than the fundamentally undemocratic Electoral College system....and that's just the way the parties, the pols, the Super PACs and the media like it.
Amen, Gd..."conservatives" like big government when that government does their bidding...and they like activist judges who strike down laws they do not support. They support government intrusion into the educational curricula, if religious bias is being injected into the program. Jim Crow could not have existed without big government to enforce and promote it.
Darge, same sex married coupes should be entitled to all the benefits that hetero couples are entitled to...why discriminate against same sex couples as you propose? What benefit to society would be derived from that sort of bigotry and oppression?
There are roughly 50 things that are of importance to me in returning the United States to sanity..Whether or not a man marries another man or a cihicken is of no consequence to me.
LONER.......Yesterday you were brillant in delivering your views. I did not agree with you but I was impressed with the eloquence and logic in which you presented your argument. I would have given you an A+ in every category.
Today,you have returned to empty rhetoric.
L'ner: Call me old-fashioned. Two of the same sex, should not be allowed to be legally married and then gain all the financial benefits and rights.
Live together....have a spiritual wedding....but not a legal marriage.
It's just too ****in' weird.
Darge, "weird" is not a valid reason. If Shaq married a dwarf, that would be weird too, but quite legal.
Yeah, it's a pretty shrewd maneuver- he didnt lose any votes with this, plus he's got all the fire & brimstoners worrying about men marrying men, and not looking at the real issues facing the nation.
And, does the president even have a say in how the states handle marriage? (BTW I'm all for gay marriage, why anyone cares about this is beyond me.)
The Rasp giveth...and the Rasp taketh away....he gives me an A+, followed by an F. That's a C average.....I suppose. I do strive for excellence...a C simply will not do.
I'll try to do better in the future...but, as I said in the beginning, we have already kicked this thing around...it's tough to be "brilliant, impressive and eloquent" when dealing with left-overs....I'd rather discuss something more substantive than the gay marriage wedge issue.
Papa, I only think this is an issue because it ralies the GOP base. Sure, there is a growing movement to have it legalized, but other than California, they're not really making any noise. It's the ones who are pushing back, like NC yesterday, that are stirring the pot.
Iowa...I repeat, IOWA, allows same-sex marriage. One of the most rural places on Earth is more progressive than most. That says a lot.
Maybe I should take the opposite tack on the issue, just for shits & giggles....is there a "gay agenda"? If so, is that something to be alarmed about?
While driving back from Keuka Lake this past weekend, a tune by Dire Straits came on the FM radio..."Money for Nuthin'"...I cranked the volume and sang along....then I remembered that in Canada, the song has the words"******" deleted, leaving mini audio black holes in those places...so I quit singing and started listening....the entire stanza that used that word has been expertly removed from the version played on Rochester's WCMF @ 96.5FM.
I was shocked and dismayed at this unwarranted censorship....the artists were mocking out knuckleheads who use such terms....they were not promoting or condoning the use of that term.
IMO, the gay activists have gone too far in this particular instance....I now have less support for their "mission".
WTF...the NCP word filtering device finally kicked in...it appears that the gay agenda has had its effects on this otherwise wide-open site.
I have never seen the NCP filter triggered before....of course, we all probably know the F-word that I'm talking about.....now I'm really losing my enthusiasm for the "mission".
The Neville Bros. expressed it accurately: We got freedom of speech in this country...as long as you don't say too much.
Loner, I'm not for censorship, but let's be honest here, many homosexuals think of that term as their "N" word.
Local classic rock stations around Nashville censor the Eagles' Life in the Fast Lane because it says GD. Yet, they'll play the alternate version of The Devil went Down to Georgia that contains SOB.
Most sites have an unpublished list of verboten words, acronyms, terms, expressions, and they may list banned websites etc. It's like a minefield out there..entire posts are denied, because of a single word and the poster is left in the dark as to what the offense was.
Comment Board hosts should provide a list of the banned words and the ideas that they convey....the hosts do not let the posting public know what the boundaries are...perhaps they are too ashamed of their censorship activity to publicize it....afraid to admit how they have kow-towed to extremists, moralists and the thought police.
Now if Obama will come out for legalizing weed he would have covered by two biggest issues associated with the Left I really agree with.
GD, do they delete the F-word stanza from "Money for nuthin'" in the Nashville listening area? Or do they just delete just the word itself? Maybe they play the original version in Nashville? Any info on that?
You can't take the Lord's name in vain on a rock tune in the Bible belt....kinda like saying "Mohammad" without the "blessed be his name" addendum...strictly verboten....both Christianity and Islam are heretical Judaism performed by Gentiles....and both heresies are equally goofy, IMO.....they are all about thought control and submission to authority....and that calls for censorship.
I've heard the word included, and then sometimes just the word is missing, not the entire stanza.
Apparently SOB is ok, they also play Hair of the Dog in its entirety.
Obama just needed another news cycle where his record on the economy wasn't discussed.
Amen, Big Papa....sadly, the man is a reneger on Cannabis reform...once elected, he set Eric Holder and company on a mission to destroy California's medical marijuana industry....to set an example to other states that might want to disagree with the DEA's wasteful and counterproductive drug policies.
BHO is mainly shuck & jive....he spent 752 million dollars (using other people's money) to get elected in 2008 and it shows.
Bibi Netanyahu ran circles around this guy...made the POTUS dizzy....no more talk about any "settlement freezes", "2-state solutions" etc. President Obama cruelly raised the hopes of the Palestinians, then abandoned them when Bibi and AIPAC put on the political pressure here in the states.....the entire Congress went over to the Israeli side, Obama was left holding the bag...alone.....he won't make that mistake twice.
For identity purposes, the national gay leadership, should call for a convention to choose names for their legal unions. The words marriage, husband, wife, are obviously already taken by the male/female union. This will help prevent confusion on legal documents, job app., etc.
Ben, it's May. The election won't be won in May. Relax, find ten stones and say a prayer.
Ben, FOX News has been demanding that the president reveal his position on the same sex marriage issue....Obama was accused of "dithering" once again....so, he bowed to pressure and stated his view, as demanded...now you guys claim that he created the wedge issue and timed this thing for maximum political effect....that's pure BS, Ben and you know it.
The right wanted to create this wedge issue and they got what they wanted...but they should be more careful of what they wish for...this could easily backfire on the GOP. Faith-based bigotry is not as popular as it once was...the GOP didn't get the memo.
Well... we have brrrrk and loner on record yesterday supporting sibling sex as long as they use protection and don't spawn a retard.
I'm just curious how many other people on this forum extend their liberal views of marriage to to include a consensual and childless marriage of Buffy and Jody?
If you are against it then why is the state of North Carolina wrong for the people drawing a different line in the sand on marriage that you don't agree with?
The GOSPEL TRUTH (whether you believe or not) IS this...The CRIMINAL prez and all his CRIMINAL henchmencan can all agree on gay marraige if they want, BUT, FIRST OFF without God, there would be NO marraige! The word wouldn't even exist! If I were a preacher and two men or two women came to me and asked to marry them, Id say "Do you believe in God and KNOW the bible? If so, then I'd say, "Then you KNOW the TRUTH about GAY anything! That is an abomination to God! Therefore, as a representative of God, I CAN'T perform the marriage ceramony. I DON'T have anything against gay people, I have and have had gay friends, but they also know my stand on the bible. I don't judge them, I just know what God says about it. The CRIMINAL politicians can pass all the laws they want, but in the end...THEY "WILL" STAND AND ANSWER TO GOD!! When Jesus comes back, "EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW AND CONFESS JESUS IS LORD!!!" It's ok if you don't believe ME...BUT when the time comes...it "WILL BE TOO LATE!"
Does this actually surprise anyone? The surprise to me was bringing in
his children and their friends parents along with the soldiers and their
right to same sex marriages. He should have just said: "The crowd
at George Clooney's house tonight is going to give me hell over this
issue, just like Michelle has for so long, if I don't take this stance!
I agree, Slack, the gay activists need to have a "language review" committee. Lots of rewrites, deletions and outright banishments may be needed before the battle is over.....it's language war.
And the sanctity of marriage folks need a linguistics committee too. They could take steps to outlaw the use of expressions like: a marriage of sweet and spicy flavors...a marriage of science and art....a marriage between form and function
The term "marriage" in pinochle and other card games also needs to be changed.
The internet is most easily targeted for language control...it's already set up for easy censorship, easy scanning, instant shut down etc.
The Reverend yucchhii has spoken, let it be written, let it be done.
"yucchhii" That's what my granddaughter says when she sees men kissing.
Hey Yucchhii, where can I buy a tin-foil helmet like yours? I tried the home-made foil skull cap....it did not work too well....you must have the store-bought model....can I order one online?
Ben, you've been had. I didn't think you were that gullible.
Slack....here we go....."Reverend Yucchhii slips into a gay piano bar...."
The Yucchhii is actually a cactus found in the southwest.. I think.
Why should our opinion of marriage hold more weight than other peoples opinion, gd?
Yucchhii....welcome to the forum....you are a man of God, apparently, and an American patriot...am I right on that?
What are your views concerning Obama and Israel?
Yucchhii walks into a gay bar... orders a Monkey Gland straight up..
If someone can come up with one, non-Biblical reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married I'd like to hear it.
I'm serious, maybe there's something Im not considering, but I can't think of any way that this would hurt me or affect me, or affect society at large.
Regarding your 8:25 post; When you're not eligible to legally run for an office, you can't be "elected".
Simply put, a voter can't vote for someone illegally simply by voting for someone who isn't legally eligible for the office.
Papa..as usual, we have the publicized good reason and the obscured real reason.
The "good reason" is faith-based...good stuff, from the "Good Book"...God is apparently offended when same-sex hominids on some mudball circling a yellow sun enter into a civil marriage contract. That's about the only "good reason" out there.
The "real reasons" are more hidden from view. Insurance companies do not want to increase spousal benefit pay outs, it affects the bottom line.....employers do not want to extend spousal benefits to a whole new class of people...preachers and politicians love this issue, because it means increased donations for the cause....it polarizes people.
BigPapa, I can't think of anything. But it seems to me, creating a civil union with the same legal benefits of marriage, would accomplish the same thing. It would establish a legal bond, and cut down on confusion. But I don't care if its legalized tomorrow. If your not gonna have children, ''shack up'' cheaper, and easier to dissolve.
"Monkey Gland"? I'm wino, not a cocktail man, so I Googled it here:
"The Monkey Gland is not the typical drink name and it's origin is, well, interesting. In his 1922 Harry's ABC of Mixing Cocktails book, Harry McElhone (owner of Harry's New York Bar in Paris) took credit for the invention of this drink. He also claims that the name Monkey Gland was inspired by the 1920's experiments of one Serge Voronoff. It was well before the time of Viagra and it's many male enhancement counterparts and Voronoff was experimenting with various implants, the most famous of which was the grafting of monkey testicle tissue, or monkey glands, to human testicles. Voronoff was well-known for this rather shocking technique and over time he received a considerable amount of ridicule for it and died in near obscurity in the 50's. The Wikipedia article on Voronoff also states that in the late 90's some accused Voronoff's experiments of introducing AIDS to humans. "
Our resident Usurpist wrote: Simply put, a voter can't vote for someone illegally simply by voting for someone who isn't legally eligible for the office
Uhhh...one too many double negatives in there?
Yucchhii... why do you elevate the 'sin' of homosexuality over the golden rule? Jesus never said a word about it that I could tell.
It could be argued that it was the beauty of Stephen and the brutality of watching him be stoned that affected Saul and primed him for his change on the road to Damascus. "And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel." (Acts 6:15 RSV)
Paul's criticism of 'the gay' in Romans 1 was wrapped in a much larger criticism that gets much less attention by the modern church.
Romans 1:29-31 "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy".
Paul follows his criticism of homosexuality in Romans 1 with this admonition in Romans 2:1 "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."
Jesus never mentions homosexuality anywhere in the bible that I can see but he has direct consternation for divorce and for the hypocrisy of the pious who emphasize law over love.