obama for same sex marriage?

dank smoker420

dank smoker420

Well-Known Member
wasnt he for same sex marriage last election? why is it such a big fucking deal this election. all democrats are for same sex marriage. this is all the damn news on for the past 2 days. they wont stop talking about it. romney and obama are fucking losers. RON PAUL FTW
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
dank smoker420 said:
wasnt he for same sex marriage last election? why is it such a big fucking deal this election. all democrats are for same sex marriage. this is all the damn news on for the past 2 days. they wont stop talking about it. romney and obama are fucking losers. RON PAUL FTW
Click to expand...
The MSM couldn't wait to praise the "evolution" of Obama's stance on gay marriage. There is even a ridiculous thread by the biggest political hack on RIU on the subject.

But, just 24 hours or so later, the MSM (especially the NY Times) and the advocates of gay rights are realizing Obama's position doesn't actually help them. He CLEARLY stated it should be decided on a state by state basis. Which is exactly the position of most conservatives. A crushing blow to those that want to approach the debate with a "fundamental rights" or "equal protection" argument.

He is a Constitutional scholar after all. And as we've been told so many times over the last three years on this forum, how "he knows best" and "he knows more than all of us combined" in regards to the Constitution, he MUST be correct.

This is one of the few times I find myself agreeing with the Prez, I support gay marriage, voted in favor of it, but I also believe it's up to the electorate to make the decision to redefine marriage. Apparently, that makes me a bigot and a scumbag, but it makes Obama a hero for espousing the exact same position.
 
S

SSHZ

Well-Known Member
This is about diverting bad news about the economy, unemployment, Israel, DOJ scandals, health care, China, N. Korea, and Russia, the collapse of the Euro, no energy policy, lies on the campaign trail, federal marijuana policy, gas prices, mexico and the drug cartels, and on and on........... hopefully this will be the last straw and he'll lose the elections by a wide margin.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
It's OBVIOUSLY Romney's race to lose at this point. You can smell the desperation of the administration, James CarVille nailed it when he said the Dems are nuts for thinking they have this won. He could pull it off, tell some more whopping lies, fudge every economic and employment number, promise to take more money from those that have and give it to those that don't and BOOYAH!

If he really wanted to help the economy, he could have paid off every homeowner's mortgage in the country with the money he's wasted. Now that would have stimulated the economy and would have cost the same. We'd just have a lot more to show for our debt.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
... I also believe it's up to the electorate to make the decision to redefine marriage. Apparently, that makes me a bigot and a scumbag, but it makes Obama a hero for espousing the exact same position.
Click to expand...
whoever says that minority rights should be put up for a majority votes is a bigot, scumbag AND a moron to boot.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
UncleBuck said:
whoever says that minority rights should be put up for a majority votes is a bigot, scumbag AND a moron to boot.
Click to expand...
You are saying our founding fathers were bigoted scumbag morons.
And I just get a kick out of progressives using the constitution when it fits their agenda, then whine like little babies when it doesn't. Oh, that's right, it lives and breaths when they want it to!
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
[SUP][/SUP]
UncleBuck said:
whoever says that minority rights should be put up for a majority votes is a bigot, scumbag AND a moron to boot.
Click to expand...
Agreed, good thing for my position that homosexuals are not classified as a minority in this country and access to marriage isn't a right.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Smirgen said:
Both Obama and Romney support Same sex marriage
Click to expand...
Romney supports marrying one person of the opposite sex, and then marrying half a dozen other people of the same sax as spouse #1.

Obama is talking about SODOMY!

Romney is vehemently opposed to that. he just watches, and runs the camcorder.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
The MSM couldn't wait to praise the "evolution" of Obama's stance on gay marriage. There is even a ridiculous thread by the biggest political hack on RIU on the subject.

But, just 24 hours or so later, the MSM (especially the NY Times) and the advocates of gay rights are realizing Obama's position doesn't actually help them. He CLEARLY stated it should be decided on a state by state basis. Which is exactly the position of most conservatives. A crushing blow to those that want to approach the debate with a "fundamental rights" or "equal protection" argument.

He is a Constitutional scholar after all. And as we've been told so many times over the last three years on this forum, how "he knows best" and "he knows more than all of us combined" in regards to the Constitution, he MUST be correct.

This is one of the few times I find myself agreeing with the Prez, I support gay marriage, voted in favor of it, but I also believe it's up to the electorate to make the decision to redefine marriage. Apparently, that makes me a bigot and a scumbag, but it makes Obama a hero for espousing the exact same position.
Click to expand...
I am starting to like this new "state's rights" version of Obama. I might just vote for him. Nah, I won't take it that far, but Obama is clearly under the Svengali-like control of Ron Paul.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
...I also believe it's up to the electorate to make the decision to redefine marriage....
Click to expand...
MuyLocoNC said:
...good thing for my position that homosexuals are not classified as a minority in this country and access to marriage isn't a right.
Click to expand...
so homosexuals aren't in the minority and you never said that their equal protection under the law should not be put up for a majority vote?

both are false.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so homosexuals aren't in the minority and you never said that their equal protection under the law should not be put up for a majority vote?

both are false.
Click to expand...
I think I was very clear in the very quote of mine you posted, homosexuals are not classified as a minority in this country - FACT. Access to marriage to anyone except one man and one woman is not a right in this country - FACT.

Not sure how you're arguing against a simple statement of facts. You certainly may not like the current and past status of those two facts and you can strive to change them, but you don't get to say I'm incorrect.

If you're saying homosexuals SHOULD be classified as a minority, fine. But some would argue that one-eyed milkmen are a minority as well, but I don't think that the fact there are less of a certain type of people out there, automatically gets them minority status or extends to them a redefinition of existing law, simply because they want it.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
I think I was very clear in the very quote of mine you posted, homosexuals are not classified as a minority in this country - FACT. Access to marriage to anyone except one man and one woman is not a right in this country - FACT.

Not sure how you're arguing against a simple statement of facts. You certainly may not like the current and past status of those two facts and you can strive to change them, but you don't get to say I'm incorrect.

If you're saying homosexuals SHOULD be classified as a minority, fine. But some would argue that one-eyed milkmen are a minority as well, but I don't think that the fact there are less of a certain type of people out there, automatically gets them minority status or extends to them a redefinition of existing law, simply because they want it.
Click to expand...
you woke up on the stupid side of the bed today. maybe take a nap and try again.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
You are saying our founding fathers were bigoted scumbag morons.
And I just get a kick out of progressives using the constitution when it fits their agenda, then whine like little babies when it doesn't. Oh, that's right, it lives and breaths when they want it to!
Click to expand...
You are lost. Founding fathers believed that actions of the government that are made in the interest of the majority while disregarding the minority is the definition of tyranny.

In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority
Click to expand...
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801
Click to expand...
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
pretty accurate way to describe slave owners.
Click to expand...
14 of the 55 founding fathers owned slaves.

  • Fourteen owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington.
  • Many wealthy Northerners owned domestic slaves: Franklin later freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Jay founded the New York Manumission Society in 1785, for which Hamilton became an officer. They and other members of the Society founded the African Free School in New York City, to educate the children of free blacks and slaves. When Jay was governor of New York in 1798, he signed into law a gradual abolition law; fully ending slavery as of 1827. He freed his own slaves in 1798.
Click to expand...

But, hey, seeing as Dan used this against me in another unrelated argument about Caesar: in those times, it wasn't uncommon for white men to own slaves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top