Obama: "I think same sex couples should be abe to get married

[UncleBuck]

So you'd rather violate the seperate of Church and State and the rights of a priest for the rights of a gay person because they can't be happy with a Civil Union?

Gays are hilarious, they fight to be part of religions that fundamentally HATE their lifestyle. Why do they even follow said religions?

I say let anyone marry anyone, but don't force people to perform a marriage service that is fundamentally against the religion they serve.

Actually I have an idea...how about the Government leaves marriage completely alone and treats all people, married and otherwise, equally?

no one is trying to force priests into marrying gay couples. what the fuck are you smoking? potatoes mixed with crack?

couples are married officially by the state. here in the states, elvis impersonators often take care of the ritual ceremony.

my wife and i had a very religious rabbi perform our marriage. he was a jewish reconstructionist, which basically means that we are applying the teachings of judaism into an evolving, modern world. if we had hired a conservative, orthodox rabbi, we would have had 18 minutes to consummate our marriage right after the vows. instead, we spent the time eating fancy appetizers and taking in the relief that comes with an end to 18 months of endless planning.

the best part? we took the jewish tradition of recognizing the sadness of something during the otherwise happy occasion of a wedding, and used it to acknowledge that even in the moment of happiness my wife and i shared, others could not share in similar happiness because they were gay. one of my wife's bridesmaids was especially touched by that, as was one of my wife's friends who was in attendance. why? because they are precluded from our similar joy for the simple fact of how they were born or who they chose to love.

the question here is not how the ceremony is performed, the question here is whether their ceremony is every bit as equal as ours, and whether they get the exact same rights as we do after the ceremony.

if you are comfortable with giving our gay friends every single tangible civil right associated with marriage, why not give them the title as well?

and if it is all a matter of the title of civil union versus marriage, why don't you argue for the heteros to get civil unions and the homos to get marriage?

obvious reasons are obvious.

 

[UncleBuck]

just like i am so feminist that i offered to take my wife's last name, i am so pro-LQBTQ that i advocate for straights to get civil unions and gays to get marriage.

after all, straights have made more of a mockery of the civil institution of marriage then gays ever would. i mean, the gays have had to beg and plead, organize politically, financially, and otherwise, SIMPLY to get their rights recognized.

if us stoners were as motivated and mobilized for our cause, imagine the headlines we'd be generating. willard rmoney just called us MMJ people "insignificant". you guys gonna take that?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

So you'd rather violate the seperate of Church and State and the rights of a priest for the rights of a gay person because they can't be happy with a Civil Union?

Gays are hilarious, they fight to be part of religions that fundamentally HATE their lifestyle. Why do they even follow said religions?

I say let anyone marry anyone, but don't force people to perform a marriage service that is fundamentally against the religion they serve.

Actually I have an idea...how about the Government leaves marriage completely alone and treats all people, married and otherwise, equally?

I'm an atheist. My wife is an atheist. Guess what? We're married! I might have left the cat out of the bag with wife, oh well.

Marriage is just a partnership. It was originally meant to join two families for political reasons. Religion hijacked it.

"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship."

" Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

" Let's not even go into some of the Bible's most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as a man's obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30) or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the "biblical family values advocates" actually read their Bibles?"

http://huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/bible-weddings_b_887979.html

So no offense, STFU about marriage being owned by religions. It can have religious aspects, but doesn't have to. Just like fucking. It can be religious if you choose, I choose for religion to get off my nutsaq and out of my personal life, which includes my marriage. That's between me, my wife and no one else, including the sky daddy or government.

I got married by Elvis. I'm sure he has no problems marrying two dudes, and isn't being forced.

Two men getting married has been happening around the world for a lot longer than both our countries existed. So it's rather insulting to say gay people should be happy with a civil union only. As an atheist, I'm not trying to be part of any religion. It may shock you, but many gays who wish to marry are atheists. It may shock you even more, most gays are atheist for the very reason most religions say they're wrong or sinful. Just shocking.

 

[UncleBuck]

• You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Canna Sylvan again.
  
  
  
  

 

[desert dude]

just like i am so feminist that i offered to take my wife's last name, i am so pro-LQBTQ that i advocate for straights to get civil unions and gays to get marriage.

after all, straights have made more of a mockery of the civil institution of marriage then gays ever would. i mean, the gays have had to beg and plead, organize politically, financially, and otherwise, SIMPLY to get their rights recognized.

if us stoners were as motivated and mobilized for our cause, imagine the headlines we'd be generating. willard rmoney just called us MMJ people "insignificant". you guys gonna take that?

Man, the stench of hypocrisy is over powering here. This coming from the guy who never saw a DEA raid he didn't like, and who defends Obama at every possible turn. The notion of motivated stoners is an oxymoron though, so maybe it was just a joke.

 

[deprave]

 

[RyanTheRhino]

Who cares about this. gay marriage is not something i really have an opinion on, its not going to affect me so do what you want. Its not like if we let gay people marry the world is going to blow up

 

[Justin00]

soooooooo, Obama makes one reasonable decision and we are all supposed to cheer for him, despite the last 4 years?

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Who cares about this. gay marriage is not something i really have an opinion on, its not going to affect me so do what you want. Its not like if we let gay people marry the world is going to blow up

Exactly, its a wedge issue which he is now supporting around election time. Big surprise....

 

[UncleBuck]

Man, the stench of hypocrisy is over powering here. This coming from the guy who never saw a DEA raid he didn't like, and who defends Obama at every possible turn. The notion of motivated stoners is an oxymoron though, so maybe it was just a joke.

i think you have me confused with you. you're the guy who said just yesterday that you enjoy seeing people get busted if they don't support old mcronald.

you're a lousy shit stain of a human being.

 

[UncleBuck]

Who cares about this.

the LGBTQ community and those who would like to see them given full equality.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

but Deprave the republicans and the tea party made him do it . . . . .lmfao

 

[Harrekin]

no one is trying to force priests into marrying gay couples. what the fuck are you smoking? potatoes mixed with crack?

couples are married officially by the state. here in the states, elvis impersonators often take care of the ritual ceremony.

my wife and i had a very religious rabbi perform our marriage. he was a jewish reconstructionist, which basically means that we are applying the teachings of judaism into an evolving, modern world. if we had hired a conservative, orthodox rabbi, we would have had 18 minutes to consummate our marriage right after the vows. instead, we spent the time eating fancy appetizers and taking in the relief that comes with an end to 18 months of endless planning.

the best part? we took the jewish tradition of recognizing the sadness of something during the otherwise happy occasion of a wedding, and used it to acknowledge that even in the moment of happiness my wife and i shared, others could not share in similar happiness because they were gay. one of my wife's bridesmaids was especially touched by that, as was one of my wife's friends who was in attendance. why? because they are precluded from our similar joy for the simple fact of how they were born or who they chose to love.

the question here is not how the ceremony is performed, the question here is whether their ceremony is every bit as equal as ours, and whether they get the exact same rights as we do after the ceremony.

if you are comfortable with giving our gay friends every single tangible civil right associated with marriage, why not give them the title as well?

and if it is all a matter of the title of civil union versus marriage, why don't you argue for the heteros to get civil unions and the homos to get marriage?

obvious reasons are obvious.

Because "marriage" by definition is a religious ceremony?

Why differenciate at all? Why have the State stopping anyone from being "unified"? Why have the State involved at all?

If anything I like the "rent is too damn high" party's policy on marriage;

"If a man wants to marry a shoe, we'll let them marry".

 

[Harrekin]

but Deprave the republicans and the tea party made him do it . . . . .lmfao

Insert generic Obamaphile response of "but, but it was the GOPs fault...wah...wah".

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Because "marriage" by definition is a religious ceremony?

Why differenciate at all? Why have the State stopping anyone from being "unified"? Why have the State involved at all?

If anything I like the "rent is too damn high" party's policy on marriage;

"If a man wants to marry a shoe, we'll let them marry".

You really need to put down that eigth of potato whiskey. I think you should look up what irregardless means. It doesn't mean "goes with" like you seem to think. I showed you what marriage meant, it's been around longer than your people were eating potatoes and fucking up your minds with whiskey.

So here it goes again:

Marriage is the union of two people, irregardless of sex, creed, religion, government, political affiliation, tribal unit or ceremony.

That's it. Marriage is very simple. It's so simple, even an Irisman like you and Obama should get it. But apparently, neither of you do.

 

[Wordz]

regardless

 

[Harrekin]

You really need to put down that eigth of potato whiskey. I think you should look up what irregardless means. It doesn't mean "goes with" like you seem to think. I showed you what marriage meant, it's been around longer than your people were eating potatoes and fucking up your minds with whiskey.

So here it goes again:

Marriage is the union of two people, irregardless of sex, creed, religion, government, political affiliation, tribal unit or ceremony.

That's it. Marriage is very simple. It's so simple, even an Irisman like you and Obama should get it. But apparently, neither of you do.

Lol, how you could possibly call someone else simple boggles the mind, you fellate your Kenyan master and don't even know why even tho your just getting him hard to fuck you again.

You need to just keep your grubby statist hands off marriage altogether, let the religions deal with it. Civil partnerships are just fine for those not too butt-hurt (no pun intended,lol) to get all uppity about a difference in title.

The world is fucking broke and the gays (and liberals apparently) are only interesting in the fucking wording eg "but straight people can get married, we only get civil unions"...shut the fuck up, noone cares, I'm legally single and I don't cry cos married people get extra tax credits even tho I have a family, where's MY equality my Cheddar munching friend?

While we're at it, should a goat fucker be allowed married a goat? In the interest of the uber-PC-ness and equality you love so much obviously... What about Ron Paul's turtles? Is it a "States Rights" issue?

EDIT: And give your definition of marriage, can the gays not just call themselves married?
I suspect they really want "equality" for the extra dollars "married" straighties get.

EDIT2: Apologies for the abuse actually, I genuinely thought you were Uncle Buck-fast, him and I have an understanding regarding insults, so sorry again.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Harrekin,

Name one world government that doesn't have state recognized marriage?

 

[Carne Seca]

The world is fucking broke and the gays (and liberals apparently) are only interesting in the fucking wording eg "but straight people can get married, we only get civil unions"...shut the fuck up, noone cares, I'm legally single and I don't cry cos married people get extra tax credits even tho I have a family, where's MY equality my Cheddar munching friend?

Yes, but you have the luxury of choice. LGBT's don't have that privilege. There are over 1,000 laws that apply only to people with marriage status. Laws that no only effect the married couple but their offspring as well (natural or adopted).


The rest of your post I don't care to respond to due to the infantile homophobic shit pile that it is.

 

[jdillinger]

Pure collectivism. It's too bad he's not as concerned about the rights and freedoms of ALL citizens.

Hear hear sir. Who cares what the prez says, whats going to happen if he says it? I'm not against or for gay marriage, I don't really associate with them.. but that is because I don't know any gay people (well openly gay anyway). Its not like hes going to pass a law to allow gay marriage in all corners of the country, which would be another unconstitutional step, and he would be crushed by conservative states about it.

This is just politics as usual, don't expect change or hope from it. All we will see are activists and public figures talking about it but nothings going to happen.. It's not like saying this makes more americans open to the idea of gay marriage, if anything it would push those that oppose it further from himself.

Politicians should never associate with a specific group, or support for a specific group, it just ends up messy.