Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Barksdale was being sarcastic.

Sadly he's not Chongara.

Barksdale wrote:And Obama attempts to take down another hundreds-years old institution. When will these lefties stop this fiasco??

What part of it is he taking down? He's just stated that he's for giving same-sex couples the same civil and legal rights that a heterosexual couple would have. It's not like treating a group of people like humans would destroy the entire concept of marriage.

Some people just need to stop worrying about the sex others are having.

MrDwhitey wrote:Barksdale was being sarcastic.

Fortunatly he's not Chongara.

My bad then, and I fixed that for you.

alarmingrick wrote:Civil until "someone has to clean up this mess".

Sorry, but I feel marriage shouldn't be dictated by sexual preference, period.
If you start "making marriage a subset" of anything, then the (not)Right will
say "see, he's trying to change marriage", "lessen marriage" or what the hell
ever they dream up his current "socialist policy" is.

Such as it is, North Carolina just banned civil unions and same sex marriage of any kind, making heterosexual marriage the only defining partnership of the state.

For those who love each other but cannot enjoy a legal relationship because the state bans it, it becomes morally wrong. More importantly, I feel it does infringe upon constitutional laws that should not have the state interfere with what people do in their private lives, especially since it discriminates against a subset of people and potentially people of a specific sexual orientation (hey, sounds like an argument from a Conservative stand point, eh?).

I wouls say this.
"You dont want marriage to be defiled? Ok, No more marriage, everything is a civil union. You cant defile what desnt exist."

w00t! Americas national leader bringin' the gay marriage controversy in the house like it's 1999 (in any other western nation). At this rate Alabama will reach 1980 in 30 years.


EDIT: Wait. Was "w00t" a thing in 1999?

I always wonder why conservatives don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral standards as a theocracy in the middle east.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:So now explain why the heck you want a Federal law to cover lying about your marriage status to pick up a date. Or do you ignore questions you don't like the answer to?

Because marriage is discussed and regulated at the Federal level to begin with (see DoMA, tax benefits, rules regarding insurance, etc). Thus lying about your marital status to prospective partners is like lying about your tax records to prospective employers.

*shrug* I don't respect state rights due to the nature of state politics-- it tends to grab the most extreme examples of any particular view instead of the more moderate ones.

That is so far a stretch. Honestly, to advocate that type of Gov't intrusion into and control of interpersonal interactions is scary. I honestly hope your skewed version of America never comes close to being realized.

And I thought Romney had no chance against Obama. To quote Winston Churchill after pearl harbor. "We've just won the war" (We = republicans in this case)

GG

CptJake wrote:That is so far a stretch. Honestly, to advocate that type of Gov't intrusion into and control of interpersonal interactions is scary.

Why not? Aren't you a Republican? The party loves to regulate what people can and cannot do in interpersonal interactions.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:That is so far a stretch. Honestly, to advocate that type of Gov't intrusion into and control of interpersonal interactions is scary.

Why not? Aren't you a Republican? The party loves to regulate what people can and cannot do in interpersonal interactions.

I seriously doubt you can find any post made by me that asks or advocates for MORE gov't intrusion in anyone's life. Even on the 'piss test folks for welfare' topic I was very much against it because I feel (and so far the courts have agreed) that it violates the 4th ammendment and on the grounds that the solution to a poorly run gov't program is rarely another gov't program.

So go ahead and project whatever image you have in your head onto me, it won't come close to being reality.

And my comment stands. Advocating the level of control and intrusion by the gov't into the lives of individuals that you advocate is scary to me. That has nothing to do with your political party nor mine. It has to do with a massively different philosophy on the role of gov't.

CptJake wrote:I seriously doubt you can find any post made by me that asks or advocates for MORE gov't intrusion in anyone's life.

No, but I certainly can find plenty of conservatives who gladly do it.

For example, Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Lawrence v. Texas supreme court ruling which declared unconstitutional laws preventing sodomy, wanting the laws restored in the states that previously had them.

I guess he's allowed to get away with it because he's a "Libertarian" (hah, as if), though.

hotsauceman1 wrote:
And well one of the articles i used as a source was explicitly about homophobia in black culture and hyper masculinity.

Yeah, statistically African Americans are the racial group most strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, at about 55-60% depending on the polling methodology used. And, if I recall correctly, something like 70% of African American votes cast on Proposition 8 were in support. I'm not questioning that the black community tends to oppose gay marriage, I'm questioning whether or not it will matter given how popular Obama is within the black community.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

You act like it means gak. It doesn't its grandstanding.

He did insure Romney finally gets the conservative voters off their butts to go to the polls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?

Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.

Don't like it, leave it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crablezworth wrote:Romney isn't going to be anything other than a guy with the personality of a dead moth.

So, no difference than Obama then.

Obama at least had the balls to call someone a jackass.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I wouls say this.
"You dont want marriage to be defiled? Ok, No more marriage, everything is a civil union. You cant defile what desnt exist."

If you were a libertarian, you'd realize government has no place in the discussion to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:That is so far a stretch. Honestly, to advocate that type of Gov't intrusion into and control of interpersonal interactions is scary.

Why not? Aren't you a Republican? The party loves to regulate what people can and cannot do in interpersonal interactions.

Again, almost as much as the Democrats.

Ouze wrote:I do have to wonder if the votes he would gain from gay marriage advocates will outbalance the ones he will lose from gay marriage opponents and voters traditionally opposed to it.

There are essentially two prevailing arguments here.

One holds that, as the first President to openly support same-sex marriage, Obama will be able to generate greater voter engagement within the gay community and thus bring them out to vote. This might overcome any ill-will the same action generates among groups that do not support gay marriage, or (more accurately) oppose gay marriage, but the the only significant Democratic block that opposes gay marriage to a greater degree than it supports it is the black vote; where Obama is very popular.

Alternatively, this sort of late support may backfire, and alienate the gay community (and supporters of gay marriage) if they see it as political gamesmanship rather than genuine support for their cause. However, since most people aren't single issue voters, its questionable to what degree this will affect the actual rate of turn-out. In essence, it may convince people that would have voted to stay home, or it may only serve to heighten the indifference of the already indifferent.

Melissia wrote:Obama at least had the balls to call someone a jackass.

No you misread that. It said he prefers jackass to dog. Dog is too chewy.

Frazzled wrote:
He did insure Romney finally gets the conservative voters off their butts to go to the polls.

I doubt this will matter that much in the face of how strong conservative opposition to Obama already was.

Romney still has to get people to vote for him, and not whoever else happens to be on the ballot.

LoneLictor wrote:Wait, hold on...

You think that gay marriage is the same as stealing someone's house?

No more than I think gay marriage is the same as free speech.

Absurd examples are absurd.

d-usa wrote:I always wonder why conservatives don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral standards as a theocracy in the middle east.

I always wonder why liberals don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral (and legal) standards as repressive dictatorships.

djones520 wrote:
I'd say he gains very little from it, because the majority of folks in that pool where going to vote for him anyways, but he may alienate quite a few moderate dems. But take a look at the California vote a couple years back. Whites where pretty even on it, 51 against to 49 for. Hispanics where pretty close as well. Blacks though... 70% voted against legalizing gay marriage. That could create a big rift over a small social issue if he tries to make a big push for it.

My general opinion is that the net effect will be close to zero given that gay marriage has about 50% support across the United States, and is a fairly insignificant issue in this election. If he is pressed on the matter, and he most likely will be, he can point to the repeal of DADT as indicative of his support for gay rights and generate support from within the homosexual community and its supporters that should counteract any of the losses he sees in the black community (if he sees any at all).

Its also worth noting that this isn't the first time he's openly supported gay marriage, he openly supported when he ran for Illinois Senate in 1996, and has supported civil unions (marriage in all but name) since then.

biccat wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Wait, hold on...

You think that gay marriage is the same as stealing someone's house?

No more than I think gay marriage is the same as free speech.

Absurd examples are absurd.

d-usa wrote:I always wonder why conservatives don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral standards as a theocracy in the middle east.

I always wonder why liberals don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral (and legal) standards as repressive dictatorships.

Deflects the question and doesn't answer it, how unexpected

d-usa wrote:Deflects the question and doesn't answer it, how unexpected

Actually I did answer the question presented.

Questions are sentences that end with question marks.

The UK doesn't have Gay Marriage. It has a Civil Partnership which is pretty much the same thing.

Would Civil Partnership not go down better in the States? It's not got Marriage in the Title, but it's pretty much the same thing.

Surely all the 'Sanctity of Marriage' types would back down if it wasn't technically a Marriage?

biccat wrote:
He's trending left 6 months before the election, which is not a winning strategy.

And, in a fairly predictable response, Romney is trending right; at least on this issue. The middle ground in the US politics gets smaller and smaller every year.

Of course, considering polling results regarding same-sex marriage, its difficult to conclude that the centrist position is superior here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:
Would Civil Partnership not go down better in the States? It's not got Marriage in the Title, but it's pretty much the same thing.

You would think so, but probably not. Much of the gay community views it as a slap in the face, and the groups opposed to same-sex marriage generally still see it as marriage.

Medium of Death wrote:The UK doesn't have Gay Marriage. It has a Civil Partnership which is pretty much the same thing.

Would Civil Partnership not go down better in the States? It's not got Marriage in the Title, but it's pretty much the same thing.

Surely all the 'Sanctity of Marriage' types would back down if it wasn't technically a Marriage?

Civil partnership would be better and more appropriate. Everyone gets the same form. Its up to the respective people and their faiths if they want to call that a marriage.

Too bad one state (I forget which) just went so far as to ban all civil unions.

Aduro wrote:Too bad one state (I forget which) just went so far as to ban all civil unions.

In their defense they were proposnig that unions be uncivil.

How is Romney's position that states can figure it out any different from Obama's position that states can figure it out?

The key difference is Obama is probably lying.