PDA

View Full Version : Obama now says he is for gay marriage



pwaldo
05-09-2012, 09:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html;_ylt=Au7_RYywxovG_b1ZNiZlFmGmWot4;_y lu=X3oDMTUwYTRudmVmBGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEbWl0A0FydGljbGU gTW9zdCBQb3B1bGFyBHBrZwMyMDcxNGQwNi1mOTUzLTM1NDAtY TU3Ny03N2I2YjExOWFmZDAEcG9zAzEEc2VjA01lZGlhQkxpc3R NaXhlZE1vc3RQb3B1bGFyQ0FUZW1wBHZlcgM2MDUyOTBjMS05Y TE1LTExZTEtYmVkMy1hYjRkZTUxZjRkMWM-;_ylg=X3oDMTNib3VkZmI1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDM2ZkNzUwZDItYmNmYi0zMTRlLTkzMzAtNWM0ZDBjZD BlMmNiBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3xkZXN0aW5hdGlvbjIwMTIE cHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3


President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

Previously, Obama has moved in the direction of supporting same-sex marriage but has consistently stopped short of outright backing it. Instead, he’s voiced support for civil unions for gay and lesbian couples that provide the rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples, though not defined as “marriage.” At the same time, the president has opposed efforts to ban gay marriage at the state level, saying that he did not favor attempts to strip rights away from gay and lesbian cou

The announcement completes a turnabout for the president, who has opposed gay marriage throughout his career in national politics. In 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position.

In 2004, as a candidate for the US Senate, he cited his own religion in framing his views: “I'm a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

He maintained that position through his 2008 presidential campaign, and through his term as president, until today.

As president in 2010, Obama told ABC’s Jake Tapper that his feelings about gay marriage were “constantly evolving. I struggle with this.” A year later, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “I’m still working on it.”

“I probably won't make news right now, George,” Obama said in October 2011. “But I think that there's no doubt that as I see friends, families, children of gay couples who are thriving, you know, that has an impact on how I think about these issues.”

Obama’s decision has political connotations for the fall.

The issue divides elements of the Democratic base, with liberals and gay-rights groups eager to see the president go farther, but with gay marriage far less popular among African-American voters.

Just yesterday, in North Carolina, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Obama carried North Carolina in 2008, and its status as a 2012 battleground was guaranteed by Democrats’ decision to hold their convention in Charlotte this summer.

JustAlex
05-09-2012, 09:08 PM
I was waiting for someone to post this....

I think it's GREAT that we finally have a president who supports gay marriage.

Although he still says that it's up to the states....BOO!


Either way....finally some "Change".

habsheaven
05-09-2012, 09:20 PM
Obama has consistently slowly come around to this, as all reasonable people finally do. The nay-sayers will again cry foul. As for the state vs federal levels I really can't comment. I know enough about the make up of the US to know that you are a compilation of states that make up a country, where we are a country made up of provinces. Our emphasis being more federal than provincial and you guys are the exact opposite.

JustAlex
05-09-2012, 09:29 PM
Obama has consistently slowly come around to this, as all reasonable people finally do.

Agreed, I was once like Obama in the sense I thought Gay marriage was out of the question and should NEVER be accepted.

Slowly but surely, I changed my mind and I know today that equality for ALL is the way to go.


As for the state vs federal levels I really can't comment. I know enough about the make up of the US to know that you are a compilation of states that make up a country, where we are a country made up of provinces. Our emphasis being more federal than provincial and you guys are the exact opposite.
Yes, here in the U.S (especially republicans) dislike and distrust the federal government.

We have come to such a divide that certain states would rather divorce themselves from the Union (a la civil war era) and not surprising, many of these states are in "The South".

You can't really blame Obama for saying that it's up to the states to figure it out.....because he knows that a federal mandate to legalize gay marriage would cause more harm than good at present day America.

The "Bible belt" states will NEVER legalize gay marriage, there is too much stubbornness in there.

We will probably have to wait one full generation until we can see some progress....it's unfortunate, but that's how it is :(

andrewhoya
05-09-2012, 09:44 PM
Well, now he needs to back that up by doing something.

shrewsbury
05-09-2012, 09:57 PM
yeah, he didn't change his mind over a two day period because it's election year

pspstatus
05-09-2012, 11:11 PM
yeah, he didn't change his mind over a two day period because it's election year

I doubt he changed his mind at all. My guess is that he felt this way all along but denied it in 08 for political reasons. Which is also most likely why he decided to support it now. Although it's a good thing in my opinion I doubt that the timing of this is coincidental.

ensbergcollector
05-09-2012, 11:14 PM
Agreed, I was once like Obama in the sense I thought Gay marriage was out of the question and should NEVER be accepted.

Slowly but surely, I changed my mind and I know today that equality for ALL is the way to go.


Yes, here in the U.S (especially republicans) dislike and distrust the federal government.

We have come to such a divide that certain states would rather divorce themselves from the Union (a la civil war era) and not surprising, many of these states are in "The South".

You can't really blame Obama for saying that it's up to the states to figure it out.....because he knows that a federal mandate to legalize gay marriage would cause more harm than good at present day America.

The "Bible belt" states will NEVER legalize gay marriage, there is too much stubbornness in there.

We will probably have to wait one full generation until we can see some progress....it's unfortunate, but that's how it is :(

welcome to the p&r section. how many ways can you insult the south in one post?

bud7562
05-09-2012, 11:22 PM
yeah, he didn't change his mind over a two day period because it's election year that the way he get votes to stay in????

theonedru
05-09-2012, 11:23 PM
The only thing Obama is for is saying whatever he can to get votes, he really doesn't care about gays otherwise they would not still be 2nd class citizens

JustAlex
05-09-2012, 11:25 PM
welcome to the p&r section. how many ways can you insult the south in one post?

I'm not sure....but since I actually DO live in the South (Florida).

I think I have inside knowledge of how bad it actually is.


The only thing Obama is for is saying whatever he can to get votes, he really doesn't care about gays otherwise they would not still be 2nd class citizens

LOL, so you DO agree that Gays are treated like 2nd class citizens.

At least he's not parading religious ideology against them like the GOP.

jaybird_1981
05-10-2012, 12:10 AM
I'm not sure....but since I actually DO live in the South (Florida).

I think I have inside knowledge of how bad it actually is.



LOL, so you DO agree that Gays are treated like 2nd class citizens.

At least he's not parading religious ideology against them like the GOP.

I wouldn't really consider Florida the south unless you live in the panhandle. And it definitely isn't only southern states that would vote down a gay marriage bill.

texansrangerfan73
05-10-2012, 12:27 AM
I was waiting for someone to post this....

I think it's GREAT that we finally have a president who supports gay marriage.

Although he still says that it's up to the states....BOO!


Either way....finally some "Change".

Well at least he didn't make the states constitutional rights on that unlike the marijuana issues out in California with his "Federal Stormtroopers" & their Federal raids on home growers. Every state law should be dealt with by the state itself not only certain laws!

AUTaxMan
05-10-2012, 01:03 AM
We have come to such a divide that certain states would rather divorce themselves from the Union (a la civil war era) and not surprising, many of these states are in "The South".

This is utter nonsense.


You can't really blame Obama for saying that it's up to the states to figure it out.....because he knows that a federal mandate to legalize gay marriage would cause more harm than good at present day America.

This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the 10th Amendment. The federal government has no jurisdiction to legalize gay marriage.

theonedru
05-10-2012, 01:13 AM
This is utter nonsense.



This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the 10th Amendment. The federal government has no jurisdiction to legalize gay marriage.

Your right they don't neither do states, counties towns or villages.. Because as citizens anything anyone else is allowed to do they can also equally do.. Its hard to comprehend how people justify their discrimination. its 2012 people get over it and join the present

JustAlex
05-10-2012, 01:36 AM
This is utter nonsense.

Tell that to Rick Perry!


This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the 10th Amendment. The federal government has no jurisdiction to legalize gay marriage.
Legalizing Gay marriage wouldn't infringe on the 10th amendment.

If it did, then I guess The Civil Rights act of 1964 is also against the 10th amendment!


I wouldn't really consider Florida the south unless you live in the panhandle. And it definitely isn't only southern states that would vote down a gay marriage bill.

Well, we saw California vote down Gay marriage, but that was thanks to the FREAKING Mormon church (who is in Utah!) giving millions of dollars in the campaign effort to vote it down.

It's hilarious, but it won't matter, because this year California will once again vote to legalize gay marriage, and I'm confident it will pass!

stlcardinalsfan
05-10-2012, 02:21 AM
its the cool thing to like now,so of course hes going to flip flop on the matter right before the election.


thats why im voting for mitt"the grit"romney............even tho i was hoping for paul to make a big run ...kinda fizzled out :/

JustAlex
05-10-2012, 03:12 AM
its the cool thing to like now,so of course hes going to flip flop on the matter right before the election.

LOL, yeah, Human rights is the "Cool thing" right now :D:

"Flip flop"???

I'm all for it, if it means flipping from a bad position to a good position.

habsheaven
05-10-2012, 08:51 AM
its the cool thing to like now,so of course hes going to flip flop on the matter right before the election.


thats why im voting for mitt"the grit"romney............even tho i was hoping for paul to make a big run ...kinda fizzled out :/

You call this "flip flopping" and you are going to vote for Mitt Romney? How ironic is that? lol

andrewhoya
05-10-2012, 08:53 AM
You call this "flip flopping" and you are going to vote for Mitt Romney? How ironic is that? lol

+1 :sign0020:

Star_Cards
05-10-2012, 09:23 AM
Great. I like it and am glad that he isn't toeing the political line in fear of losing voters. I feel that he was doing some of that in the first election as there are statement showing that he was for gay marriage before he started running for the presidency.

shooten
05-10-2012, 09:23 AM
He is trying everything to get back in he wants them votes and he knows he can get some just because of this!!!!! People dont say what they really think in this contry anymore cause it would be politicly incorrect ask Hank Williams Freedom of speech really? he lost his job Obama is trying to keep his!

Star_Cards
05-10-2012, 09:28 AM
yeah, he didn't change his mind over a two day period because it's election year

This argument really doesn't hold a lot of water. If anything a typical politician would tip toe around this issue in fear of losing votes from the majority of people who vote against making same sex marriage allowable. Think what you want about the announcement but I like it. I hope he's able to actually help bring about the legalization of gay marriage in every state.

Plus if he was doing it just for votes wouldn't he have done it during his first campaign?

Star_Cards
05-10-2012, 09:36 AM
I find it odd that there are so many posts in this thread that are saying Obama is for gay marriage just to get votes. Last time I checked most states that have had votes on gay marriage have been voted in favor of keeping it illegal. Heck, even in san francisco they overturned a ruling to make it legal. I'm not sure on the national polls of how many people tend to be against gay marriage, but I don't see how you can sit there and say that being for gay marriage is the popular side and the side that will give you more votes.

Most politicians say they are against it or at least never come out and say they are for it. That being said, most people that are for gay marriage still vote for politicians that are against gay marriage based on other things. It seems to me that there are far more people in the country that would decide not to vote for a guy based on him being for gay marriage than people who would vote for a guy just because he is for gay marriage. It's an assumption but I think a lot of people that are for gay marriage would have voted for Obama over Romney even before his announcement.

shrewsbury
05-10-2012, 09:39 AM
if you haven't noticed obama doesn't like the middle class, so losing our vote is no big deal to him.

he is after the young and minorities, this is what carried him through last election

CHANGE, yep he changed his mind

don't get me wrong, Mitt don't seem too legit

Star_Cards
05-10-2012, 10:02 AM
if you haven't noticed obama doesn't like the middle class, so losing our vote is no big deal to him.

he is after the young and minorities, this is what carried him through last election

CHANGE, yep he changed his mind

don't get me wrong, Mitt don't seem too legit

If saying he was for gay marriage was so beneficial to him now, why wouldn't it have been the same way four years ago. If it's for the younger people that can now vote that couldn't last campaign, I highly doubt that group is going to decide a presidency.

And on the topic of calling him a flip flop... sometimes it's a good thing to reconsider your ideals after you look outside yourself and get new perspectives on topics. Just because a politician changes his stance doesn't mean he's always doing it for votes. I agree that it happens a lot on both party sides, but that's not always the case. I truly believe that Obama isn't just doing this for votes. Last I checked being gay marriage wasn't the most popular stance to have for a politician. For you to act like gay marriage hasn't been voted down more times than it's be voted for is simply dishonest.

tsjct
05-10-2012, 02:10 PM
Now i just wish he would come out and announce what he really is a SOCIALIST that believes the GOV'T should run our lives. He is the most dangerous person to ever be in the white house.

duane1969
05-10-2012, 03:25 PM
Legalizing Gay marriage wouldn't infringe on the 10th amendment.

If it did, then I guess The Civil Rights act of 1964 is also against the 10th amendment!


Really? So you think that gays not being able to marry is the same as blacks being segregated?


This argument really doesn't hold a lot of water. If anything a typical politician would tip toe around this issue in fear of losing votes from the majority of people who vote against making same sex marriage allowable. Think what you want about the announcement but I like it. I hope he's able to actually help bring about the legalization of gay marriage in every state.

Plus if he was doing it just for votes wouldn't he have done it during his first campaign?

He is doing it to try and recover the liberal vote. In numerous states he is losing Democratic votes. So far, in Democratic primaries, 329k Dems have voted "uncommited" rather than for Obama. Another 162k have voted for no-name people on the ticket who they didn't even know who they were, just because they refused to vote for Obama.

Dem voters are sending him a message and this gay marriage thing is his response. He has to take a liberal stance on something. The race with Romney is looking like it could get close. He can't afford to lose a few million votes because he looks weak on liberal issues.

Star_Cards
05-10-2012, 03:50 PM
Really? So you think that gays not being able to marry is the same as blacks being segregated?



He is doing it to try and recover the liberal vote. In numerous states he is losing Democratic votes. So far, in Democratic primaries, 329k Dems have voted "uncommited" rather than for Obama. Another 162k have voted for no-name people on the ticket who they didn't even know who they were, just because they refused to vote for Obama.

Dem voters are sending him a message and this gay marriage thing is his response. He has to take a liberal stance on something. The race with Romney is looking like it could get close. He can't afford to lose a few million votes because he looks weak on liberal issues.

I don't disagree that the timing is completely strategic, but any person that would vote for him now because he's for gay marriage probably wouldn't have switched to Mitt Romney even if Obama wasn't pro same sex marriage. It's a pretty big distance between an Obama not being for same sex marriage and Mitt Romney. I do get what you are saying, but I'm still glad that he has come out and gave his endorsement to gay marriage and I still think it's a pretty huge deal.

pspstatus
05-10-2012, 03:54 PM
if you haven't noticed obama doesn't like the middle class, so losing our vote is no big deal to him.

he is after the young and minorities, this is what carried him through last election

CHANGE, yep he changed his mind

don't get me wrong, Mitt don't seem too legit


What does this have to do with the middle class?

JustAlex
05-10-2012, 08:47 PM
if you haven't noticed obama doesn't like the middle class, so losing our vote is no big deal to him.

I'm literally laughing my butt off at reading this.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

If anyone doesn't like the middle class it's the GOP, they are the party of the Rich and ultra conservatives.

Obama has tried over and over to tax the wealthiest Americans in order to give a tax break to the middle class....and Surprise, surprise, the GOP is always there to say NO!

Hence their new name: "The party of No"

Seriously, how in the HECK do you equivilate not liking the middle class because he supports gay marriage?


he is after the young and minorities, this is what carried him through last election
And that doesn't tell you anything?

The fact that an Overwhelming majority of Young people and minorities vote democrat?

That doesn't ring alarm bells that the only people that support the GOP are WHITE, OLD, and Conservative?

JustAlex
05-10-2012, 08:50 PM
Really? So you think that gays not being able to marry is the same as blacks being segregated?
Yes!

It's so dang obvious!

Think about it, Blacks were being told "Separate but equal" stuff by white people.

And now it's even worse with Gays, they're not equal AT ALL, they have absolutely no rights to get married.

If anything, that's worse than segregation....

shrewsbury
05-11-2012, 09:52 AM
so easily fooled by a nice smile, a good demeaner, and well planned words.

i am not even sure where to start

habsheaven
05-11-2012, 10:30 AM
so easily fooled by a nice smile, a good demeaner, and well planned words.

i am not even sure where to start

Someone who believes in religion really shouldn't throw around terms like "so easily fooled". :nono:

shrewsbury
05-11-2012, 10:39 AM
actually, someone who doesn't believe in god shouldn't

habsheaven
05-11-2012, 11:19 AM
actually, someone who doesn't believe in god shouldn't

Not a very good comeback, or perhaps it's brilliant. I really don't know because I have no idea what it means?? Fortunately, my point was clear.

shrewsbury
05-11-2012, 02:39 PM
perhaps your brillance should include being able to read and understand what you are reading

you say i am fooled because i believe in god, i say you are fooled for not believing

easy enough? clear enough?

habsheaven
05-11-2012, 02:48 PM
perhaps your brillance should include being able to read and understand what you are reading

you say i am fooled because i believe in god, i say you are fooled for not believing

easy enough? clear enough?

I was suggesting that your comment may be brilliant. I never said anything about my brilliance, but thanks for bringing it up. And since you brought up being able to understand what someone reads. You should have caught the fact that I said "religion" not "God".

As for being fooled. You believe something you have been told. I do not believe the same thing that was told to be. I will always choose to be fooled by myself over being fooled by others.

ensbergcollector
05-11-2012, 03:18 PM
I'm literally laughing my @ss off at reading this.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

If anyone doesn't like the middle class it's the GOP, they are the party of the Rich and ultra conservatives.

Obama has tried over and over to tax the wealthiest Americans in order to give a tax break to the middle class....and Surprise, surprise, the GOP is always there to say NO!

Hence their new name: "The party of No"

Seriously, how in the HELL do you equivilate not liking the middle class because he supports gay marriage?


And that doesn't tell you anything?

The fact that an Overwhelming majority of Young people and minorities vote democrat?

That doesn't ring alarm bells that the only people that support the GOP are WHITE, OLD, and Conservative?

No, it tells me that a large number of teenagers and college students will vote for whoever their favorite actress or rap/rock star tell them to. And before you say anything, i work with teenagers and college students. The majority have no idea what candidates believe or stand for. They buy into hype.

secondly, i am lower middle class and i normally vote republican. Why? Because i dont believe that just because i make less money than someone else that i am owed anything. I dont want money given to me that was earned by someone else. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in my income bracket dont feel the same.

JustAlex
05-11-2012, 08:17 PM
actually, someone who doesn't believe in god shouldn't
Not believing in god is the DEFAULT position.

Let me explain:

If you tell me that you believe in Aliens, I will say "good for you, can you please show me the evidence".

This is where you will say: "well, you gotta take my word on it and have a little faith that I'm not lying to you".

I would reply by saying: "I can see you are being sincere, but for the moment I will be a non-believer until I see evidence".


^Now, if I replace Aliens for God, do you see the conversation would be exactly the same....and do you see that NOT believing is actually the default position and there is nothing wrong with that?


No, it tells me that a large number of teenagers and college students will vote for whoever their favorite actress or rap/rock star tell them to.

So, basically you're saying that teens and college students can't come to their own conclusions on how to vote without the influence of famous celebrities?


WHAT?

I'm sure this argument would be good in the 70s and 80s, but I don't buy it for one second.


secondly, i am lower middle class and i normally vote republican. Why? Because i dont believe that just because i make less money than someone else that i am owed anything. I dont want money given to me that was earned by someone else. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in my income bracket dont feel the same.

This is nonsense, I never said that lower class families are owed anything.

I simply said that it makes sense to have a higher tax for wealthy people since that's how we have always done it in the U.S and taxes are actually at an ALL TIME LOW for the wealthiest Americans.

It's not surprising though, seeing how the 1% control government so much.

No one is asking for free money, no one is asking to punish the wealthy, we are simply wanting a FAIR tax system.

duane1969
05-11-2012, 08:55 PM
Yes!

It's so damn obvious!

Think about it, Blacks were being told "Separate but equal" BS by white people.

And now it's even worse with Gays, they're not equal AT ALL, they have absolutely no rights to get married.

If anything, that's worse than segregation....

That is funny.

First gays can get married, they just call it a union and it isn't recognized by insurance companies and for legal purposes like inheritance and taxes. They are allowed to have relationships, live together, be in love, cheat on each other and break up.

How you could possibly equate gays not having their union recognized by a government entity to blacks being banned from businesses, from drinking from certain water fountains, from eating at certain restuarants, from voting, and being arrested and in some cases, killed for it, is beyond me. It's not surprising though, I have seen a lot of people minimize what blacks went through by trying to equate gay marriage to it, but gay marriage falls far short of being anything like black suffrage.

And finally, gays have no right to a government sanctioned marriage. Nobody else gets their own law forcing the social acceptance of their lifestyle or realtionship, gays should not either. They do not deserve preferential treatment.

JustAlex
05-11-2012, 09:04 PM
It's not surprising though, I have seen a lot of people minimize what blacks went through by trying to equate gay marriage to it, but gay marriage falls far short of being anything like black suffrage.

WHOA....I don't believe that for one moment and I wasn't trying to imply that either.

As a minority myself (Hispanic-American) I am very appreciative for the civil rights movement, because I know that what they did has allowed not only blacks to have equal rights but ALL Minorities in the U.S.


And finally, gays have no right to a government sanctioned marriage. Nobody else gets their own law forcing the social acceptance of their lifestyle or realtionship, gays should not either. They do not deserve preferential treatment.

WHY?

Why shouldn't they have a government sanctioned marriage?

Why shouldn't they enjoy the same rights we have....WHY?

No one is saying you have to "accept their lifestyle" and they would NOT get preferential treatment....they are simply asking to be on the same level as straight couples.

Why is that so bad?

Can you name ANY good reasons why gays should not be married?

And PLEASE do not say because your religion says it's wrong.

Religion also said Slavery was OK, thankfully the U.S decided that NO it was NOT OK.

duane1969
05-11-2012, 09:44 PM
WHY?

Why shouldn't they have a government sanctioned marriage?

Why shouldn't they enjoy the same rights we have....WHY?

No one is saying you have to "accept their lifestyle" and they would NOT get preferential treatment....they are simply asking to be on the same level as straight couples.

Why is that so bad?

Can you name ANY good reasons why gays should not be married?

And PLEASE do not say because your religion says it's wrong.

Religion also said Slavery was OK, thankfully the U.S decided that NO it was NOT OK.

I have no problem with gay marriage. I simply do not agree with a government mandate requiring acceptance of it. I do not vote to elect government officials for them to get involved in these types of issues just like I don't think it is their place to get involved in sports player strikes or steroid use. The government has it's hands full dealing with the economy, border security, international relations, gas prices and anti-terrorism. When they have fixed everything else and have spare time on their hands then they can get involved with these issues that fall outside of the scope of their job description.

And my religion doesn't say anything, I am agnostic.

ensbergcollector
05-11-2012, 10:19 PM
Not believing in god is the DEFAULT position.

Let me explain:

If you tell me that you believe in Aliens, I will say "good for you, can you please show me the evidence".

This is where you will say: "well, you gotta take my word on it and have a little faith that I'm not lying to you".

I would reply by saying: "I can see you are being sincere, but for the moment I will be a non-believer until I see evidence".


^Now, if I replace Aliens for God, do you see the conversation would be exactly the same....and do you see that NOT believing is actually the default position and there is nothing wrong with that?



So, basically you're saying that teens and college students can't come to their own conclusions on how to vote without the influence of famous celebrities?


WHAT?

I'm sure this argument would be good in the 70s and 80s, but I don't buy it for one second.



This is nonsense, I never said that lower class families are owed anything.

I simply said that it makes sense to have a higher tax for wealthy people since that's how we have always done it in the U.S and taxes are actually at an ALL TIME LOW for the wealthiest Americans.

It's not surprising though, seeing how the 1% control government so much.

No one is asking for free money, no one is asking to punish the wealthy, we are simply wanting a FAIR tax system.

so what is fair? the top 1% pay almost 50% in taxes while I pay next to nothing. so, making them pay more is what is fair? really?

i didn't say that no teens can come to their own conclusions but if you think that the majority of 18-25 year olds are educated voters you are crazy. in fact, if you think the majority of voters regardless of age are educated voters you are crazy. Obama carried the 18-25 demographic because it was cooler to vote for the young black guy then the old white guy. Why do you think the democrats played up mccains age and obama's race?

JustAlex
05-11-2012, 10:27 PM
I have no problem with gay marriage. I simply do not agree with a government mandate requiring acceptance of it. I do not vote to elect government officials for them to get involved in these types of issues just like I don't think it is their place to get involved in sports player strikes or steroid use. The government has it's hands full dealing with the economy, border security, international relations, gas prices and anti-terrorism. When they have fixed everything else and have spare time on their hands then they can get involved with these issues that fall outside of the scope of their job description.

And my religion doesn't say anything, I am agnostic.

OK, fair enough.

You made valid points that the government has bigger fish to fry and I agree 100%.

But still, there is NO reason why these people should not have the same rights as we have.

The only thing a government mandate would do is REDEFINE marriage as the following:

Two consenting Adults are allowed to get legally married regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality or gender.

FAIR and EQUAL rights for all.

And I hope that as time goes by we all come to this realization.

Many years from now we will look back at this time with SHAME!

Shame that we refused equal rights to all and shame that we looked down upon a certain group, simply for being in the minority and for being different.

JustAlex
05-11-2012, 10:42 PM
so what is fair? the top 1% pay almost 50% in taxes while I pay next to nothing. so, making them pay more is what is fair? really?

You do realize we have one of the LOWEST tax rates for the wealthy in comparison to many other first world countries right?

You do realize that there are so many loopholes that people like Jimmy Buffet pay a lower rate than his secretary that only makes about $50K.

Do you think that's fair?


i didn't say that no teens can come to their own conclusions but if you think that the majority of 18-25 year olds are educated voters you are crazy. in fact, if you think the majority of voters regardless of age are educated voters you are crazy. Obama carried the 18-25 demographic because it was cooler to vote for the young black guy then the old white guy. Why do you think the democrats played up mccains age and obama's race?

OK, and you think the fact that the GOP is against MANY social issues that young people are for, that doesn't matter?

And you know what else.

There were polls that showed that not only did Obama do better with 18-25 year olds, he also did better with 25-40 year olds, and people with college degrees, and of course minorities.

Why would educated people with degrees vote democrat?

Why does the majority of the country agree that we should increase taxes for the rich?

INTIMADATOR2007
05-11-2012, 10:46 PM
Not believing in god is the DEFAULT position.

Let me explain:

If you tell me that you believe in Aliens, I will say "good for you, can you please show me the evidence".

This is where you will say: "well, you gotta take my word on it and have a little faith that I'm not lying to you".

I would reply by saying: "I can see you are being sincere, but for the moment I will be a non-believer until I see evidence".


^Now, if I replace Aliens for God, do you see the conversation would be exactly the same....and do you see that NOT believing is actually the default position and there is nothing wrong with that?



So, basically you're saying that teens and college students can't come to their own conclusions on how to vote without the influence of famous celebrities?


WHAT?

I'm sure this argument would be good in the 70s and 80s, but I don't buy it for one second.



This is nonsense, I never said that lower class families are owed anything.

I simply said that it makes sense to have a higher tax for wealthy people since that's how we have always done it in the U.S and taxes are actually at an ALL TIME LOW for the wealthiest Americans.

It's not surprising though, seeing how the 1% control government so much.

No one is asking for free money, no one is asking to punish the wealthy, we are simply wanting a FAIR tax system.


What is the number that the so called 1% should have to pay in taxes $40%- 70% . What is a fair number , what is the max. You realize that they pay the majority of taxes collected while the people that receive the benifets pay nothing and get refunds. I want a fair tax system as well but that would intail the lower earners to pay their fair share as well. The US has the highest tax rate in the world already for high income earners if they take more from them those folks will simply leave with all the jobs .Have you ever got a job from a poor person ?

boba
05-11-2012, 10:55 PM
You do realize we have one of the LOWEST tax rates for the wealthy in comparison to many other first world countries right?

You do realize that there are so many loopholes that people like Jimmy Buffet pay a lower rate than his secretary that only makes about $50K.

Do you think that's fair?



OK, and you think the fact that the GOP is against MANY social issues that young people are for, that doesn't matter?

And you know what else.

There were polls that showed that not only did Obama do better with 18-25 year olds, he also did better with 25-40 year olds, and people with college degrees, and of course minorities.

Why would educated people with degrees vote democrat?

Why does the majority of the country agree that we should increase taxes for the rich?

Good, and I hope we keep it that way and even lower it.

Taxing the rich kills economies. Who do you think employs the bigger percentage? The 1% or 99%? More taxes, less jobs, more regulations, more over sea jobs. This is basic economics.

JustAlex
05-11-2012, 10:56 PM
Oh my....I guess I will have to SHOW EVIDENCE of just how UNFAIR U.S Tax rates really are:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/31/business/31economist-bartlett2/31economist-bartlett2-blog480.jpg
^NOTICE THE U.S IN DEAD LAST PLACE!

Here we see the income inequality in the U.S:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/

AND HERE, even more evidence of how low are taxes really are:

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around-the-world.html

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01303/infographic1_1303387a.JPG

boba
05-11-2012, 11:02 PM
Oh my....I guess I will have to SHOW EVIDENCE of just how UNFAIR U.S Tax rates really are:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/31/business/31economist-bartlett2/31economist-bartlett2-blog480.jpg
^NOTICE THE U.S IN DEAD LAST PLACE!

Here we see the income inequality in the U.S:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/

AND HERE, even more evidence of how low are taxes really are:

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/07/tax-burdens-around-the-world.html

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01303/infographic1_1303387a.JPG


Haha, in my mind all these stats show the US is the most fair.

JustAlex
05-11-2012, 11:07 PM
Haha, in my mind all these stats show the US is the most fair.

Sure, if you like Income inequality and you prefer corporations to literally do whatever they please with almost no consequences.

Then yes, it's very fair.

boba
05-11-2012, 11:11 PM
Sure, if you like Income inequality and you prefer corporations to literally do whatever they please with almost no consequences.

Then yes, it's very fair.

Why punish people for making more then other people? How is that fair?

INTIMADATOR2007
05-11-2012, 11:20 PM
Sure, nice if you like Income inequality and you prefer corporations to literally do whatever they please with almost no conseques.

Then yes, it's very fair.


Its there money they can do whatever they want ....

ensbergcollector
05-11-2012, 11:20 PM
You do realize we have one of the LOWEST tax rates for the wealthy in comparison to many other first world countries right?

You do realize that there are so many loopholes that people like Jimmy Buffet pay a lower rate than his secretary that only makes about $50K.

Do you think that's fair?



OK, and you think the fact that the GOP is against MANY social issues that young people are for, that doesn't matter?

And you know what else.

There were polls that showed that not only did Obama do better with 18-25 year olds, he also did better with 25-40 year olds, and people with college degrees, and of course minorities.

Why would educated people with degrees vote democrat?

Why does the majority of the country agree that we should increase taxes for the rich?

seriously? maybe because the majority of the country doesn't mind sticking it to the 1%.

i could care less what other countries do. you managed to not answer my question. the top 1% currently pay 50% of their income in taxes. do you think they should pay more?

what social issues are the GOP against? and feel free to tell me how many 18-25 years old you talk to about politics. not what polls or news says but actual people.

INTIMADATOR2007
05-11-2012, 11:23 PM
Getting back on topic .... Be sure to go to BarackObama.com and get you some Gay marriage swag.

This president is making a mockory of the presidencey .

JustAlex
05-11-2012, 11:34 PM
Why punish people for making more then other people? How is that fair?
Dude, it's not about punishment, it's about paying your share.

Why do you think that Jimmy Buffet has previously said that as one of the richest man in the world, he pays very little taxes that could greatly help the U.S.

Don't you know that Taxes help schools and could also help us in our HUGE deficit.

OH and these corporations STILL take jobs overseas even when they pay SO LITTLE in taxes, they don't care about Americans, they only care about profits.


i could care less what other countries do. you managed to not answer my question. the top 1% currently pay 50% of their income in taxes. do you think they should pay more?
WHERE DO the top 1% pay 50% that's crazy, they don't pay anywhere near that high.

Please refer to those graphs and links I posted, the U.S pays very little in taxes and YES that includes the 1%.


what social issues are the GOP against? and feel free to tell me how many 18-25 years old you talk to about politics. not what polls or news says but actual people.

Anti-Gay, Anti-abortion, Anti-immigration are just a few to note.

Most young people are PRO gay marriage, PRO-choice, and PRO immigration.

Again, it's not surprising at all, the GOP target the old, rich, and conservative.

ensbergcollector
05-11-2012, 11:42 PM
Dude, it's not about punishment, it's about paying your share.

Why do you think that Jimmy Buffet has previously said that as one of the richest man in the world, he pays very little taxes that could greatly help the U.S.

Don't you know that Taxes help schools and could also help us in our HUGE deficit.

OH and these corporations STILL take jobs overseas even when they pay SO LITTLE in taxes, they don't care about Americans, they only care about profits.


WHERE DO the top 1% pay 50% that's crazy, they don't pay anywhere near that high.

Please refer to those graphs and links I posted, the U.S pays very little in taxes and YES that includes the 1%.



Anti-Gay, Anti-abortion, Anti-immigration are just a few to note.

Most young people are PRO gay marriage, PRO-choice, and PRO immigration.

Again, it's not surprising at all, the GOP target the old, rich, and conservative.

you seem to enjoy talking in sweeping generalities and not dealing with anything. again, why is the answer to this countries problem to just tax the top earners some more. The democrats get votes because of course most middle income families are in favor of sticking it to the rich people.

young people are very much Pro gay marriage. they are pro choice because 18-25 years olds make up an overwhelming majority of abortions so naturally they are pro choice. Not sure about the pro immigration stance. i don't doubt it but most i talk to are against it. maybe because they are in texas, one of the few states who have an actual educated opinion on immigration.

SLNoble13
05-15-2012, 05:17 PM
I'm from North Carolina and we recently voted to pass the marriage amendment making it illegal for 2 gay individuals to marry. I for one voted for the marriage amendment for several reasons. I do not agree with gay marriage plus I think it would cause lots of questions from children of homosexual parents not to mention an increase in bullying in schools.

People voted on 5/8/2012 to pass the marriage amendment. Then why are the gay population making a big fuss over it... it passed... more people voted in favor of it then against it... move on and go fight somewhere else. Same goes for all of these other states.

Fight something that will help us all

jaybird_1981
05-15-2012, 10:20 PM
Dude, it's not about punishment, it's about paying your share.

Why do you think that Jimmy Buffet has previously said that as one of the richest man in the world, he pays very little taxes that could greatly help the U.S.

.

I never knew that he made that much money on Margaritaville.

JustAlex
05-15-2012, 10:49 PM
I never knew that he made that much money on Margaritaville.

LOL, I don't know where my head was....I was obviously referring to WARREN Buffett.

My mistake :ashamed0001:

shrewsbury
05-16-2012, 11:18 AM
this is funny, do you realize how much of all taxes the 1% pay and even more scary is how much of the percent the top 10% pay?

all the middle class and lower class pays not even 1/3 of all taxes but they make up 90% of the population and use 99% of the goverment resources paid by the other 10% taxes.

JustAlex
05-16-2012, 11:31 AM
NO!

The real funny thing is how certain Americans are willing to defend the richest persons in the world.

The same people that helped crash our economy and place us in this terrible recession where millions have lost their jobs and homes.

That's what's really funny.....it's almost like the gladiators praising the emperor right before they're about to die....that's what you're doing by defending the 1%.

Pfft....I'm not going to post the graph again....the top 1% in this nation pay one of the LOWEST tax rates compared to other first world countries.

The whole system is corrupt and MILLIONS of regular Americans who are fed up with it.

duane1969
05-16-2012, 11:40 AM
Wait, what? How the heck did this thread turn into a discussion about taxes? Holy cow guys, let's at least make some effort to stay on-topic.

Back on topic, did anybody see the latest CBS poll concerning Obama's new pro-gay marriage stance? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/poll-obamas-gay-marriage-stance-hurt/story?id=16348715

26% say they are less likely to vote for him now
16% say they are more likely to vote for him now
57% say it doesn't change their voting plans

On the surface this seems minor until you start looking at the latest polls and see that Romney is sitting on a 1-3% lead in nearly all of them. If 1/2 will vote the same and 1/4 are less likely to vote for Obama then that could be a killer for his chances of re-election.

Additionally, 70% of independents see this as purely a political move, something that won't sit well for a guy who has tried to portay himself as a man of the people and not just another politician.

I gotta be honest, a few months ago I had resigned myself to the idea of Obama being POTUS for the next 4 years, but it is starting to look like he is on a sinking ship and he is the guy poking holes in the boat bottom.

pghin08
05-16-2012, 11:46 AM
NO!

The real funny thing about certain Americans is how much they are willing to defend the richest persons in the world.

The same people that helped crash our economy and place us in this terrible recession where millions have lost their jobs and homes.

That's what's really funny.

Pfft....I'm not going to post the graph again....the top 1% in this nation pay one of the LOWEST tax rates compared to other first world countries.

The whole system is corrupt and MILLIONS of regular Americans who are fed up with it.

This is true. Though I have trouble blaming a lot of the 1%, and I've fallen out of love with the Occupy movement.

Here's why:

When that movement began, it had the opportunity to really develop in many different ways. The way I thought it was going to develop (and the way I think it should have) was a movement to eliminate a lot of the practices used by the proprietary trading sectors of large banks. The development of credit default swaps and other complex instruments developed by Salomon brothers in the 80s, the massive leverage that started taking place, and those who not only let the system go on, but encouraged it as it became the biggest money-maker for these big firms. It should have held the Dick Fuld's, John Mack's and other CEO's feet to the fire. It should have demanded that justice be brought, because as taxpayers, we took the losses from these instruments, and then were on the hook to bail out the banks when they were close to insolvency. They got the biggest welfare check ever written, said thanks and went on their merry way.

But Occupy didn't do that. They played the blame game. Guess what? Not all one-percenters are greedy bankers. They're athletes, tech gurus, etc. Does the system we have now favor the rich in ways? You bet. The tax code has made it easier to make money from OTHER money, rather than doing actual work. But these people have been demonized by Occupy, and their blame is often misguided, and has now begun to come off as "You have money, I don't, give me some." Rather than making a legit push for change in Washington (where it needs to start), they've been content to throw stones at banks throughout the country. It's proven to be wildly unproductive.

That movement had a chance to be great, and to bring justice to those who deserve to have it wielded upon them. But rather, it's turned into an entitlement march with no real direction.

shrewsbury
05-16-2012, 11:48 AM
good post pghin08 and congrats on the new position here, good luck, we are some crazy ones to deal with!!!

JustAlex
05-16-2012, 11:55 AM
That movement had a chance to be great, and to bring justice to those who deserve to have it wielded upon them. But rather, it's turned into an entitlement march with no real direction.

I can definitely agree with some of your points....

HOWEVER, I personally think they need a Spokesperson or a leader or a group of leaders.

One of their biggest problems was that the REAL message wasn't getting across and they have refused many times to name a "leader".

Well, if the movement wants to make a surge this summer, they need to make some changes, and I would start by naming an official spokesperson.

boba
05-16-2012, 12:01 PM
This is true. Though I have trouble blaming a lot of the 1%, and I've fallen out of love with the Occupy movement.

Here's why:

When that movement began, it had the opportunity to really develop in many different ways. The way I thought it was going to develop (and the way I think it should have) was a movement to eliminate a lot of the practices used by the proprietary trading sectors of large banks. The development of credit default swaps and other complex instruments developed by Salomon brothers in the 80s, the massive leverage that started taking place, and those who not only let the system go on, but encouraged it as it became the biggest money-maker for these big firms. It should have held the Dick Fuld's, John Mack's and other CEO's feet to the fire. It should have demanded that justice be brought, because as taxpayers, we took the losses from these instruments, and then were on the hook to bail out the banks when they were close to insolvency. They got the biggest welfare check ever written, said thanks and went on their merry way.

But Occupy didn't do that. They played the blame game. Guess what? Not all one-percenters are greedy bankers. They're athletes, tech gurus, etc. Does the system we have now favor the rich in ways? You bet. The tax code has made it easier to make money from OTHER money, rather than doing actual work. But these people have been demonized by Occupy, and their blame is often misguided, and has now begun to come off as "You have money, I don't, give me some." Rather than making a legit push for change in Washington (where it needs to start), they've been content to throw stones at banks throughout the country. It's proven to be wildly unproductive.

That movement had a chance to be great, and to bring justice to those who deserve to have it wielded upon them. But rather, it's turned into an entitlement march with no real direction.

Actually, I agree 100% with this. What people don't understand is the logical conclusion of taxing anyone who makes over 380,000$ a year is a lot less jobs and money circulating. Who is going to make up for those lost jobs? The government?

Also, (where I live at least) occupy has become 90% a homeless hangout.

Star_Cards
05-16-2012, 12:18 PM
And finally, gays have no right to a government sanctioned marriage. Nobody else gets their own law forcing the social acceptance of their lifestyle or realtionship, gays should not either. They do not deserve preferential treatment.

I don't feel that allowing gays to marry has anything to do with forcing society to accept it. Even if they can legally marry and get all of the benefits that the state gives heterosexuals who are married, people can decide if they personally accept it or not. I also don't feel that allowing gays to marry is preferential treatment. Any consenting human being should be allowed to marry another consenting human being, regardless of the sex of the two people. It wouldn't be preferential treatment because straight people could marry the same sex if they wanted to do so.

Star_Cards
05-16-2012, 12:26 PM
I'm from North Carolina and we recently voted to pass the marriage amendment making it illegal for 2 gay individuals to marry. I for one voted for the marriage amendment for several reasons. I do not agree with gay marriage plus I think it would cause lots of questions from children of homosexual parents not to mention an increase in bullying in schools.

People voted on 5/8/2012 to pass the marriage amendment. Then why are the gay population making a big fuss over it... it passed... more people voted in favor of it then against it... move on and go fight somewhere else. Same goes for all of these other states.

Fight something that will help us all

Even if you disagree with gay marriage, don't you feel that your preference shouldn't hinder someone else who doesn't happen to have the same sexual preference? I believe that one could be against something or just not into that something but still recognize that other people out there may be into that something and would want to allow them to participate. Just because you don't like or agree with something isn't a valid reason to keep others from doing it.

Your assumptions that children of gay couples would have lots of questions is a bit off base. There are tons of children of gay parents. You don't need marriage to keep that from being in existence. Allowing gay marriage would not cause more children to have gay parents. Plus, there are quite a few examples of children growing up just fine with gay parents.

People are making a big fuss over it because not everything should be decided by majority rule. If that were the case there would be a lot of people without certain civil rights today.

Star_Cards
05-16-2012, 12:28 PM
as far as the tax side bar that started, I think the obvious path should be to spend what you bring in... not simply keep asking (taking) more money so you don't have to actually account for your spending habits. There is so much waste on our government at all levels that I'm sure money could be saved and or found to off set budgetary deficiencies.

Star_Cards
05-16-2012, 12:31 PM
This is true. Though I have trouble blaming a lot of the 1%, and I've fallen out of love with the Occupy movement.

Here's why:

When that movement began, it had the opportunity to really develop in many different ways. The way I thought it was going to develop (and the way I think it should have) was a movement to eliminate a lot of the practices used by the proprietary trading sectors of large banks. The development of credit default swaps and other complex instruments developed by Salomon brothers in the 80s, the massive leverage that started taking place, and those who not only let the system go on, but encouraged it as it became the biggest money-maker for these big firms. It should have held the Dick Fuld's, John Mack's and other CEO's feet to the fire. It should have demanded that justice be brought, because as taxpayers, we took the losses from these instruments, and then were on the hook to bail out the banks when they were close to insolvency. They got the biggest welfare check ever written, said thanks and went on their merry way.

But Occupy didn't do that. They played the blame game. Guess what? Not all one-percenters are greedy bankers. They're athletes, tech gurus, etc. Does the system we have now favor the rich in ways? You bet. The tax code has made it easier to make money from OTHER money, rather than doing actual work. But these people have been demonized by Occupy, and their blame is often misguided, and has now begun to come off as "You have money, I don't, give me some." Rather than making a legit push for change in Washington (where it needs to start), they've been content to throw stones at banks throughout the country. It's proven to be wildly unproductive.

That movement had a chance to be great, and to bring justice to those who deserve to have it wielded upon them. But rather, it's turned into an entitlement march with no real direction.

I pretty much agree with this completely. Asking for more money or demonizing the wealthy does nothing to support a solution. I think occupy helped bring about a valid issue, but at some point solutions need to be hit the table for them to seem legit. Maybe they have brought some ideas to the table, I don't know. I don't follow it much.

boba
05-16-2012, 12:32 PM
Just throwing this out there.
Isn't marriage kind of a christian practice? Don't we get marriage from the bible? Why would homosexuals fight so hard to be part of ceremony from a book that condems their practice? There isn't any real tax benefit is there?

I might be 100% wrong about the origins of marriage, so this point might be irrelevant.

Star_Cards
05-16-2012, 12:47 PM
Just throwing this out there.
Isn't marriage kind of a christian practice? Don't we get marriage from the bible? Why would homosexuals fight so hard to be part of ceremony from a book that condems their practice? There isn't any real tax benefit is there?

I might be 100% wrong about the origins of marriage, so this point might be irrelevant.

I think that is the tricky part. marriage is recognized by the state and society completely apart from any sort of religious meaning. Any heterosexual couple of any religion or of no religion can get married. The fight for gay marriage has no base in a religion necessarily. That would be up to the actual individuals. The same sex marriage fight is more about the benefits and being recognized by the state. Marriage hasn't been solely owned by christianity for a long time. That's where the lines get crossed. People work off of different definitions based off of their own personal ideas.

Basically I see it as, the state recognizes marriage outside of any religion, so it should recognize same sex marriage in the same way, without any sort of religious undertone or base.

As for marriage benefits, I don't know all of them but a major one is is one's partner dies the other partner is not recognized as the deceased persons next of kin. There's also benefits like health insurance and such that some companies wouldn't offer to a same sex partner since there is no official marriage. I thought married couples get more of a tax deduction but I could be wrong. OUtside of that there are many things like the two I mentioned above that are benefits of being married.

pghin08
05-16-2012, 01:20 PM
good post pghin08 and congrats on the new position here, good luck, we are some crazy ones to deal with!!!

Thanks!

duane1969
05-16-2012, 01:28 PM
Just throwing this out there.
Isn't marriage kind of a christian practice? Don't we get marriage from the bible? Why would homosexuals fight so hard to be part of ceremony from a book that condems their practice? There isn't any real tax benefit is there?

I might be 100% wrong about the origins of marriage, so this point might be irrelevant.

I have said this before. I think that this is the sticking point. Most people see the word marriage as a joining between a man and a woman. Until 30 or 40 years ago marriages were almost exclusively performed in a church by a pastor or priest.

When gays say that they want the right to get married I think that they are fighting for the wrong thing. They want the right have a legal union that is recognized by the government and insurance companies for legal and health insurance reasons. I think that most people would accept this. The problem arises when they demand that it be called a marriage and most people see marriage as a thing between a man and a woman.

pghin08
05-16-2012, 01:42 PM
I have said this before. I think that this is the sticking point. Most people see the word marriage as a joining between a man and a woman. Until 30 or 40 years ago marriages were almost exclusively performed in a church by a pastor or priest.

When gays say that they want the right to get married I think that they are fighting for the wrong thing. They want the right have a legal union that is recognized by the government and insurance companies for legal and health insurance reasons. I think that most people would accept this. The problem arises when they demand that it be called a marriage and most people see marriage as a thing between a man and a woman.

I never really thought of it that way.

ensbergcollector
05-16-2012, 01:44 PM
I have said this before. I think that this is the sticking point. Most people see the word marriage as a joining between a man and a woman. Until 30 or 40 years ago marriages were almost exclusively performed in a church by a pastor or priest.

When gays say that they want the right to get married I think that they are fighting for the wrong thing. They want the right have a legal union that is recognized by the government and insurance companies for legal and health insurance reasons. I think that most people would accept this. The problem arises when they demand that it be called a marriage and most people see marriage as a thing between a man and a woman.

+1

i have long said I support civil unions that provide gay couples with legal rights. while most say that is all they want, when push comes to shove, that isn't true. they want the word. they want marriage.

habsheaven
05-16-2012, 01:59 PM
I have said this before. I think that this is the sticking point. Most people see the word marriage as a joining between a man and a woman. Until 30 or 40 years ago marriages were almost exclusively performed in a church by a pastor or priest.

When gays say that they want the right to get married I think that they are fighting for the wrong thing. They want the right have a legal union that is recognized by the government and insurance companies for legal and health insurance reasons. I think that most people would accept this. The problem arises when they demand that it be called a marriage and most people see marriage as a thing between a man and a woman.

Many people also see "marriage" as a loving commitment between two adults, with more emphasis on the love than on the sex of the individuals. Ask a child what marriage is, they will invariably tell you, "that's what happens when people fall in love." For gays, they too grow up seeing their parents "married" and want the same for themselves. Many are not concerned about what legal benefits they can gain. I'm not sure why people think a word belongs to them and only them.

shrewsbury
05-16-2012, 02:18 PM
so we should go by a child's definition to understand what something means? a child is the least likely to know the real meaning of anything

a living will will provide whomever you want with your stuff upon death, no need to be married for that

besides the fact that homosexuals (according to most of you) want something because others have it, does anyone have a legit reason?

throw out the bible, religious stuff and look at the facts

boba
05-16-2012, 03:06 PM
Many people also see "marriage" as a loving commitment between two adults, with more emphasis on the love than on the sex of the individuals. Ask a child what marriage is, they will invariably tell you, "that's what happens when people fall in love." For gays, they too grow up seeing their parents "married" and want the same for themselves. Many are not concerned about what legal benefits they can gain. I'm not sure why people think a word belongs to them and only them.


So they just want the word?

So it's kind of like a league of racquetball players wanting to be called tennis players. It's not the same thing, but tennis is a more popular and respected word then racquetball. So the racquetball players try to redefine tennis to include their sport. I know, that's a dumb analogy, but I think it gets the point across.

shrewsbury
05-16-2012, 03:49 PM
just like everyone who participates should get a trophy

duane1969
05-16-2012, 03:54 PM
Many people also see "marriage" as a loving commitment between two adults, with more emphasis on the love than on the sex of the individuals. Ask a child what marriage is, they will invariably tell you, "that's what happens when people fall in love." For gays, they too grow up seeing their parents "married" and want the same for themselves. Many are not concerned about what legal benefits they can gain. I'm not sure why people think a word belongs to them and only them.

The word doesn't belong to anyone, but expecting people to just change their perception of the meaning of a word just because your moral values expects it is pretty silly.

Look at it this way. When you walk into a restuarant and order a cheeseburger you expect a cheeseburger because every since you can remember the word "cheeseburger" has meant a piece of ground beef with cheese and condiments on a bun. Then one day somebody decides that the word cheeseburger is now going to include sandwiches made with fish. From that point forward, when you hear the word cheeseburger or think of getting a cheeseburger, do you think of a ground beef sandwich or do you assume that when you order a cheeseburger that it might actually be a fish sandwich and just accept it?

theonedru
05-16-2012, 04:02 PM
The word doesn't belong to anyone, but expecting people to just change their perception of the meaning of a word just because your moral values expects it is pretty silly.

Look at it this way. When you walk into a restuarant and order a cheeseburger you expect a cheeseburger because every since you can remember the word "cheeseburger" has meant a piece of ground beef with cheese and condiments on a bun. Then one day somebody decides that the word cheeseburger is now going to include sandwiches made with fish. From that point forward, when you hear the word cheeseburger or think of getting a cheeseburger, do you think of a ground beef sandwich or do you assume that when you order a cheeseburger that it might actually be a fish sandwich and just accept it?

Ummm.... A cheeseburger is a sandwich and not always made from beef, it can contain any number and mixes of meat, so why do you ascertain it has to be made from beef to be a cheeseburger, or even a met product for that matter......

boba
05-16-2012, 04:04 PM
Ummm.... A cheeseburger is a sandwich and not always made from beef, it can contain any number and mixes of meat, so why do you ascertain it has to be made from beef to be a cheeseburger, or even a met product for that matter......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

Star_Cards
05-16-2012, 04:06 PM
I have said this before. I think that this is the sticking point. Most people see the word marriage as a joining between a man and a woman. Until 30 or 40 years ago marriages were almost exclusively performed in a church by a pastor or priest.

When gays say that they want the right to get married I think that they are fighting for the wrong thing. They want the right have a legal union that is recognized by the government and insurance companies for legal and health insurance reasons. I think that most people would accept this. The problem arises when they demand that it be called a marriage and most people see marriage as a thing between a man and a woman.

I think the main hiccup with this is that if the state calls the union a marriage when it's between two heterosexual people then it should be the same for two homosexual people. It should be the same as far as the state is concerned.

Also, I really wonder how many people that are against gay marriage would be for same sex unions. I know a lot of people on the boards are that way, but I just don't know that many people in america would be for same sex unions. I think a lot of people think homosexuality is wrong so any form of a union even if not called a marriage is wrong.

Star_Cards
05-16-2012, 04:10 PM
So they just want the word?

So it's kind of like a league of racquetball players wanting to be called tennis players. It's not the same thing, but tennis is a more popular and respected word then racquetball. So the racquetball players try to redefine tennis to include their sport. I know, that's a dumb analogy, but I think it gets the point across.

I don't think it's about wanting the word. It's about being equal to heterosexual couples and sharing the word and the rights and the benefits.

in my eyes and couple is a couple whether they are gay or straight. They aren't similar to a racquetball player wanting to be called a tennis player. A marriage is about the relationship that the people have and really has nothing to do with their sex.

habsheaven
05-16-2012, 04:24 PM
I don't think it's about wanting the word. It's about being equal to heterosexual couples and sharing the word and the rights and the benefits.

in my eyes and couple is a couple whether they are gay or straight. They aren't similar to a racquetball player wanting to be called a tennis player. A marriage is about the relationship that the people have and really has nothing to do with their sex.

Exactly, it's really not that hard to understand.

theonedru
05-16-2012, 04:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

O.k.....

theonedru
05-16-2012, 04:30 PM
Exactly, it's really not that hard to understand.

It is down here, as most of the posts on here prove.

boba
05-16-2012, 04:43 PM
Exactly, it's really not that hard to understand.


It is down here, as most of the posts on here prove.

You'll have to excuse us less intellectual members :rolleyes:

habsheaven
05-16-2012, 04:44 PM
It is down here, as most of the posts on here prove.

All I know is that when I was growing up. I wanted to get married, I wanted to get a job. I wanted to own a home. I wanted to be in love. I wanted to have kids. I wanted to adopt a kid (my sister is adopted). I wanted to be a foster parent. In short, I wanted the same life my parents had. That is what marriage meant to me. It is all-encompassing.

Why is it unacceptable for a gay person to want the same thing? Why is marriage simply a union between a man and a woman? Is that all it is to most married people? For me, it is so much more. The sex of the participants is irrelevant.

AUTaxMan
05-16-2012, 05:26 PM
All I know is that when I was growing up. I wanted to get married, I wanted to get a job. I wanted to own a home. I wanted to be in love. I wanted to have kids. I wanted to adopt a kid (my sister is adopted). I wanted to be a foster parent. In short, I wanted the same life my parents had. That is what marriage meant to me. It is all-encompassing.

Why is it unacceptable for a gay person to want the same thing? Why is marriage simply a union between a man and a woman? Is that all it is to most married people? For me, it is so much more. The sex of the participants is irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant if you want to change the historical definition of marriage.

habsheaven
05-16-2012, 06:05 PM
It's only irrelevant if you want to change the historical definition of marriage.

Not sure you actually said what you meant to say but I will respond anyway.

Many words have their definition redefined over time as society changes. Marriage isn't exempt. Just because you define marriage in one way doesn't mean it cannot be defined in another way by someone else.

shrewsbury
05-17-2012, 09:13 AM
[QUOTE]It's only irrelevant if you want to change the historical definition of marriage[QUOTE]

and redefine the roles of a father and mother

duane1969
05-17-2012, 11:08 AM
Many words have their definition redefined over time as society changes. Marriage isn't exempt. Just because you define marriage in one way doesn't mean it cannot be defined in another way by someone else.

I agree, but not many words that are redefined over time carry the social weight that the word marriage does. This isn't just the redefining of a word, it is the social evolution of the meaning of the word.

Example: You hear a random guy saying "I just got married yesterday!"

Do you assume:

A: He married a woman
B: He married a man
C: He got married but there is a 50/50 chance as to whether it was a man or woman

Most people will think A. If you have reason to believe he is gay you may think B. What this "redefining" of the word is asking is for everyone to think C.

Expecting people to just do it or to accept it and change their way of thinking because of some government mandate is ludicrous.

JustAlex
05-17-2012, 11:31 AM
I agree, but not many words that are redefined over time carry the social weight that the word marriage does. This isn't just the redefining of a word, it is the social evolution of the meaning of the word.

Example: You hear a random guy saying "I just got married yesterday!"

Do you assume:

A: He married a woman
B: He married a man
C: He got married but there is a 50/50 chance as to whether it was a man or woman

Most people will think A. If you have reason to believe he is gay you may think B. What this "redefining" of the word is asking is for everyone to think C.

Expecting people to just do it or to accept it and change their way of thinking because of some government mandate is ludicrous.

You hear a Random Black guy say "Hey, I just got married, do you want to see my bride?"....BTW the year is 1965.

A: The Bride is Black
B: The Bride is White
C: Not sure

In this time period, EVERYONE would've assumed that the Bride is Black...Why?

Because interracial marriage didn't become legal in the full U.S until 1967!!!!

And everyone thought that a "Government Mandate" to allow interracial marriage was unacceptable and would "Destroy traditional marriage"!

Sorry, but you keep bringing up the most asinine arguments against gay marriage.

There is NOTHING wrong with it, and there are MANY countries that allow it, not to mention 6 U.S states including DC which allows Gay marriage.

And guess what....those states are doing just fine, no one is rioting, no one feels that marriage has been "tarnished" or anything like that!

JustAlex
05-17-2012, 11:36 AM
BTW guys, as if it wasn't bad enough that Republicans and Conservatives are strongly against gay marriage...

In Mississippi...46% of republicans want to BAN interracial marriage!

YES, you heard me right....46%!!!

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/

duane1969
05-17-2012, 11:43 AM
You hear a Random Black guy say "Hey, I just got married, do you want to see my bride?"....BTW the year is 1965.

A: The Bride is Black
B: The Bride is White
C: Not sure

In this time period, EVERYONE would've assumed that the Bride is Black...Why?

Because interracial marriage didn't become legal in the full U.S until 1967!!!!

And everyone thought that a "Government Mandate" to allow interracial marriage was unacceptable and would "Destroy traditional marriage"!

Sorry, but you keep bringing up the most asinine arguments against gay marriage.

There is NOTHING wrong with it, and there are MANY countries that allow it, not to mention 6 U.S states including DC which allows Gay marriage.

And guess what....those states are doing just fine, no one is rioting, no one feels that marriage has been "tarnished" or anything like that!

I get it. You think that black suffrage and gay marriage are equal issues. I do not and will not waste my time addressing them as equal. Blacks had no rights. Gays have all rights. Marriage is not a right.

And if you even bothered to read my post with an open mind you would see that I made no argument for or against gay marriage, so I said nothing that was asinine. I was discussing the social issue of the definition of the word and why people don't accept it. At least try to read what people say before you comment.

habsheaven
05-17-2012, 11:45 AM
I agree, but not many words that are redefined over time carry the social weight that the word marriage does. This isn't just the redefining of a word, it is the social evolution of the meaning of the word.

Example: You hear a random guy saying "I just got married yesterday!"

Do you assume:

A: He married a woman
B: He married a man
C: He got married but there is a 50/50 chance as to whether it was a man or woman

Most people will think A. If you have reason to believe he is gay you may think B. What this "redefining" of the word is asking is for everyone to think C.

Expecting people to just do it or to accept it and change their way of thinking because of some government mandate is ludicrous.

No one is asking anyone to think anything. A government mandate is not, and will not, change how people think. Society is changing. The society we live in is changing how people think.

For me, I would make these assumptions. I assume he is happy about it. I assume he isn't afraid of commitment. If he strikes me as being gay, I assume it's a guy. If he looks straight, I assume it's a girl. If he's butt ugly, I wonder what she looks like. Regardless, none of it really matters.

JustAlex
05-17-2012, 12:02 PM
Blacks had no rights. Gays have all rights. Marriage is not a right.

INCORRECT!

"Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right."


Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage."

Plain and simple....banning gay marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

"While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right"

Source: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

Star_Cards
05-17-2012, 02:03 PM
It's only irrelevant if you want to change the historical definition of marriage.

Saying something has always been a certain way doesn't mean that it's wrong to expand on the definition.

Star_Cards
05-17-2012, 02:08 PM
[QUOTE]It's only irrelevant if you want to change the historical definition of marriage[QUOTE]

and redefine the roles of a father and mother

what does gay marriage have to do with redefining roles of a mother and a father. not all marriages end up producing children and not all people who are parents are married. the claim that you can't have gay marriage because it will change the roles of men, women, fathers or mothers just doesn't make sense to me. You can have typical roles for all of those but not even heterosexual couples follow those traditional roles. Gender roles have changed over and over just within the heterosexual marriages.

Star_Cards
05-17-2012, 02:13 PM
I agree, but not many words that are redefined over time carry the social weight that the word marriage does. This isn't just the redefining of a word, it is the social evolution of the meaning of the word.

Example: You hear a random guy saying "I just got married yesterday!"

Do you assume:

A: He married a woman
B: He married a man
C: He got married but there is a 50/50 chance as to whether it was a man or woman

Most people will think A. If you have reason to believe he is gay you may think B. What this "redefining" of the word is asking is for everyone to think C.

Expecting people to just do it or to accept it and change their way of thinking because of some government mandate is ludicrous.

I don't see what this has to do with same sex marriage being legal. People's assumptions are all up to them and their individual experiences. Most people that get married would still be heterosexual couples. Allowing same sex marriage to be legal isn't like the government forcing people to change their assumptions or thinking.

Star_Cards
05-17-2012, 02:16 PM
I get it. You think that black suffrage and gay marriage are equal issues. I do not and will not waste my time addressing them as equal. Blacks had no rights. Gays have all rights. Marriage is not a right.

And if you even bothered to read my post with an open mind you would see that I made no argument for or against gay marriage, so I said nothing that was asinine. I was discussing the social issue of the definition of the word and why people don't accept it. At least try to read what people say before you comment.

he's actually just bringing up another example where traditional marriage has been altered or updated to reflect the changing times.

AUTaxMan
05-17-2012, 02:16 PM
Saying something has always been a certain way doesn't mean that it's wrong to expand on the definition.

That may be the case for many things, but demanding that a religious belief be secularized and distorted for the benefit of those who disagree with it is a bit different from asking someone to change their position on a political issue. The religious aspect of this issue is what makes it different.

Star_Cards
05-17-2012, 02:41 PM
That may be the case for many things, but demanding that a religious belief be secularized and distorted for the benefit of those who disagree with it is a bit different from asking someone to change their position on a political issue. The religious aspect of this issue is what makes it different.

the point is that marriage is not only used as a religious event or union. it's recognized by the state. that is where it needs to change. Most people could care less what a specific church or a whole religion wants to do. Legalizing gay marriage is only in the states eyes and has nothing to do with mandating what a religion recognizes. I may be wrong but don't catholics have to take a lot of steps for a second marriage to be a "legal marriage" in the eyes of the church? I'd bet that a lot of people don't do those steps and yet the marriage is still recognized by the state as a legally binding marriage. Legalizing same sex marriages has nothing to do with forcing churches to perform same sex weddings. There are many churches that wouldn't perform quite a few heterosexual weddings at this time.

theonedru
05-17-2012, 02:49 PM
Gays have all rights.

Not true, without "marriage" a lot of homosexual couples are denied things that a m/f marriage are allowed like spousal benefits, family healthcare, even if something happens to their partner they have no say in medical choices, that is usually left to that persons family. Now how it it o.k. that straight couples get there but homosexual couples are denied them? Does not sound like they have all the rights to me... And you know this is what is basically boils down to is for them to be allowed to live a life with all the perks and privileges that straight couples have, there is nothing wrong with them wanting this or us giving them this.

I know there are states where they do get this I am talking on a nationwide scale.

tpeichel
05-17-2012, 03:01 PM
I think the simple solution is to make civil unions have identical legal status to marriages. There is much more support for civil unions because you can rationalize that it is different by removing any religious overtones.

It seems like a small difference, but by forcing people to categorize gay marriage as identical to traditional marriage, people feel like they are giving an okay to the entire gay lifestyle.

Star_Cards
05-17-2012, 03:22 PM
I think the simple solution is to make civil unions have identical legal status to marriages. There is much more support for civil unions because you can rationalize that it is different by removing any religious overtones.

It seems like a small difference, but by forcing people to categorize gay marriage as identical to traditional marriage, people feel like they are giving an okay to the entire gay lifestyle.

One can disagree with something but still know that it's right that another demographic should also be allowed to have a right as well. a lot of marriages have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

theonedru
05-17-2012, 03:32 PM
I think the simple solution is to make civil unions have identical legal status to marriages. There is much more support for civil unions because you can rationalize that it is different by removing any religious overtones.

It seems like a small difference, but by forcing people to categorize gay marriage as identical to traditional marriage, people feel like they are giving an okay to the entire gay lifestyle.

basically people are afraid homosexuals are going to destroy the sanctity of something straight people destroyed a long time ago...

tpeichel
05-17-2012, 03:35 PM
One can disagree with something but still know that it's right that another demographic should also be allowed to have a right as well. a lot of marriages have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

In the eyes of the law, they would be no different.

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 11:59 AM
In the eyes of the law, they would be no different.

the eyes of the law and the eyes of an individual are two separate things.

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 12:04 PM
basically people are afraid homosexuals are going to destroy the sanctity of something straight people destroyed a long time ago...

yeah. that's what I don't get. People think homosexuals will somehow ruin the "perfect pure" ideal of marriage that high divorce rates, cheating, open marriages, 48 hour annulments, sham reality TV weddings, drive thru vegas weddings, and marriage for various other reasons people marry besides love that seemingly hasn't already ruined the perfect marriage picture that so many people have. Heterosexuals have already taken care of messing with the sanctity of marriage all by ourselves.

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 02:04 PM
the eyes of the law and the eyes of an individual are two separate things.

Yes, they are.

Don't gay people want to have equal rights in the eyes of the law or does it go hand in had with changing individual beliefs that their gay lifestyle is no different than heterosexual lifestyle?

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 12:51 PM
yeah. that's what I don't get. People think homosexuals will somehow ruin the "perfect pure" ideal of marriage that high divorce rates, cheating, open marriages, 48 hour annulments, sham reality TV weddings, drive thru vegas weddings, and marriage for various other reasons people marry besides love that seemingly hasn't already ruined the perfect marriage picture that so many people have. Heterosexuals have already taken care of messing with the sanctity of marriage all by ourselves

for some it is not about ruining anything, but redefining the roles of mother and fatherhood and the roles of male and female.

this is not about equal rights, equal pay, equal education, or the right to vote.

habsheaven
05-19-2012, 12:56 PM
for some it is not about ruining anything, but redefining the roles of mother and fatherhood and the roles of male and female.

this is not about equal rights, equal pay, equal education, or the right to vote.

How so? What are we missing?

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 01:02 PM
i guess i would have to point out a mother is female and a father is male, two seperate roles by two seperate sexes, making a well rounded household.

of course there are bad mothers, bad fathers, but there are also bad homosexuals.

men and women are different in many ways and to raise a child with both allows a child to live to their full potential.

the roles of a man and woman are quite different in in our liberal society and even among the womans advocates we see the male and female role defined being different

habsheaven
05-19-2012, 01:11 PM
So a child would have two mothers or two fathers. There's no re-defining going on. Just because one or both of the parents has to take on roles "normally" performed by the other sex does not redefine anything. Are single mothers redefining the role of fathers?

theonedru
05-19-2012, 01:19 PM
[QUOTE=shrewsbury;11536332]for some it is not about ruining anything, but redefining the roles of mother and fatherhood and the roles of male and female. /QUOTE]

Straight couples already skewered the lines of these with the untold million of divorced parents out there as well and single parent who has to play both roles. So same sex marriage would do nothing to mess up what straight people have not already messed up.

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 06:51 PM
it's not about who is messing up anything

it's about taking a well defined role and turning it into what you want to, because people think that is "fair"

so because we have scrub ball players we should replace them with women since they messed it up?

so the only reason gays should be allowed to marry is because it is messed up any ways?

that is so anti-gay it aint funny

someone has to be born gay because you have no other explanation for it?, sounds anti-gay to me

why can't people just be gay for whatever reason they like?

habsheaven
05-19-2012, 08:56 PM
it's not about who is messing up anything

it's about taking a well defined role and turning it into what you want to, because people think that is "fair"

so because we have scrub ball players we should replace them with women since they messed it up?

so the only reason gays should be allowed to marry is because it is messed up any ways?

that is so anti-gay it aint funny

someone has to be born gay because you have no other explanation for it?, sounds anti-gay to me

why can't people just be gay for whatever reason they like?

You ask "Why can't people just be gay for whatever reason they like?" That's a good question, have you asked yourself that question yet? Why are you insisting that they are CHOOSING to be gay? I have heard countless people proclaim that FOR THEM it wasn't a choice. I have heard many people say that they chose to "switch sides". Why is it that I can ACCEPT what ALL of them have said in good faith and YOU CAN'T?

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 11:07 PM
because i have an issue believing you can be born gay does not mean it is anyone else's issue but mine.

habsheaven
05-19-2012, 11:45 PM
because i have an issue believing you can be born gay does not mean it is anyone else's issue but mine.

Well at least you got that right.:thumb:

shrewsbury
05-20-2012, 03:14 PM
that makes me 1 for 12000, odds are pretty low I am ever right!!!!!!