Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2010, 07:51:40 AM
-
What a surprise. ::) Laying the groundwork for the president to say that his view on traditional marriage has "evolved" to the point where he now openly supports homosexual marriage. I predict we see this "evolution" before the end of 2011.
Biden Says Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'
Friday, 24 Dec 2010
Vice President Joe Biden says the country is evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it's inevitable there will be national consensus.
He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Friday the same thing is happening with the issue of marriage that happened with gays' service in the military.
Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that will eventually allow gays to serve openly in the military.
Gay marriage is still not legal in most states. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue are evolving, but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BidenGayMarriage/2010/12/24/id/380958
-
What a surprise. ::) Laying the groundwork for the president to say that his view on traditional marriage has "evolved" to the point where he now openly supports homosexual marriage. I predict we see this "evolution" before the end of 2011.
Isn't Obama on the record as not being in favor of it?
-
Yes. And it was clinton who signed doma.
-
I say let 'em get married. Who cares, join me in my pain......oh, wait.......I'm happily married.
-
Wait till gays get the joy of divorce court, family court, cps, and custody fights. Ha ha ha.
They will beg to overturn it and rue the day they wanted to get married.
Too bad most states are no fault now. Watching a grounds trial in a gay divorce would be worth the price of admission.
-
Biden is actually right that it's inevitable.
-
Biden is actually right that it's inevitable.
it will happen because it's a civil rights issue plain and simple
-
it will happen because it's a civil rights issue plain and simple
so is gays in locker rooms, when are there going to be parades for that? ::)
-
Is polygamy a civil rights issue? How about marrying someone at 16?
-
Is polygamy a civil rights issue? How about marrying someone at 16?
why do you try to conflate those with homosexual marriage between adults
classic example of not being able to debate the issue so you throw up a "strawman" in it's place and then try to argue that instead
-
Personally I could care less and think the govt should not be in the marriage business, but it has nothing to do w an affinity for gays marrying, which I find bizarre.
If they want to get married, let them, and then watch them piss and moan how unfair divorce court is.
-
Personally I could care less and think the govt should not be in the marriage business, but it has nothing to do w an affinity for gays marrying, which I find bizarre.
If they want to get married, let them, and then watch them piss and moan how unfair divorce court is.
how do you know which one to screw over in a divorce?
generally now the male gets the shaft(no pun intended) in divorce if they are both dudes who gets the kids?
-
Personally I could care less and think the govt should not be in the marriage business, but it has nothing to do w an affinity for gays marrying, which I find bizarre.
If they want to get married, let them, and then watch them piss and moan how unfair divorce court is.
personally, I don't understand the gay thing (with the exception of hot lipstick lesbo's of course) but then I don't "get it" when I see guys dating morbidly obese women either or guys that date/marry cold stone bitches who basically castrate them. I don't get alot of things about peoples choices in relationships but I also know that I don't have to "get it". It's none of my business what other people want to do and I can see discrimination in the treatment of gay people in our society
-
Ha ha ha. My gf knows a pt at her gym and rhe dude always talks about his wife. She figured his wife would be fit considering the way he talked amd showed her a pic and told me the chic was a massive whale.
As for gay marriage, I really don't care anymore. Its a tiny amount of people and they are not going to bother me. Overtime, people won't even notice and the novelty will wear off.
-
Is polygamy a civil rights issue? How about marrying someone at 16?
Stay tuned. There really isn't a logical distinction between homosexual marriage and polygamy when you factor in the "GLBT" and "gender identity" classifications. If we give special protection to "bisexuals," we will one day have trouble prohibiting a "bisexual" from marrying two people (one of each sex).
This is something I don't think the Army brass has really given enough thought.
-
Stay tuned. There really isn't a logical distinction between homosexual marriage and polygamy when you factor in the "GLBT" and "gender identity" classifications. If we give special protection to "bisexuals," we will one day have trouble prohibiting a "bisexual" from marrying two people (one of each sex).
This is something I don't think the Army brass has really given enough thought.
there isn't?
-
there isn't?
if you read the rest of his post he makes good sense logically, but then again i know logic and you dont mix ;)
-
I say let 'em get married. Who cares, join me in my pain......oh, wait.......I'm happily married.
HAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
It's true.
It's so funny that people somehow believe they have to authority to tell anyone else who they should spend their lives with.
Even funnier is admitted adulterers like Newt or Mccain trying to take the moral high ground on putting penises anywhere.
-
You would think that straight people would be clamoring for gay marriage more than the homosexuals themselves. Gay marriage is the first step in abolishing that pesky little estate/death tax. Don't want to lose 45-55% of your estate when you die and pass it along? Just marry your heir. Done deal, gov't doesn't get shit.
-
if you read the rest of his post he makes good sense logically, but then again i know logic and you dont mix ;)
tommy - you're seriously the last person who should lecture anyone about logic
people who are opposed to equal rights for gay people have often conflated polygamy or even things like bestiality or worse to try to confuse simple minded people such as yourself or perhaps because they are confused in their own simple minds. It doesn't suprise me that you think it makes sense
-
tommy - you're seriously the last person who should lecture anyone about logic
people who are opposed to equal rights for gay people have often conflated polygamy or even things like bestiality or worse to try to confuse simple minded people such as yourself or perhaps because they are confused in their own simple minds. It doesn't suprise me that you think it makes sense
lol YES YES your logic is always flawless ::)
when you go take a basic logic class then let me know, youve shown yourself to be an idiot time and time again...post office, hypocrite, class warfare, gay rights...the list goes on and on.
answer this question for me why is the issue of gays having the right to marry a civil rights issue?
-
lol YES YES your logic is always flawless ::)
when you go take a basic logic class then let me know, youve shown yourself to be an idiot time and time again...post office, hypocrite, class warfare, gay rights...the list goes on and on.
answer this question for me why is the issue of gays having the right to marry a civil rights issue?
Not just "gays," but "GLBT" and "gender identity." The White House wants special protections for all of those categories. From the White House website:
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/
Because of this, we'll probably be dealing with "triad" marriages in the future.
-
Not just "gays," but "GLBT" and "gender identity." The White House wants special protections for all of those categories. From the White House website:
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/
Because of this, we'll probably be dealing with "triad" marriages in the future.
by "deal with it" do you mean get on a message board and bitch about it because other than that I don't see how it would have any effect on your life
there is no comparison with polygamy and homosexuality. No one claims to have been born a polygamist or "known" they were one from a young age, etc.. Nothing listed in your quote from the White House website lists polygamy or triads so why do you bring it up? There is no comparison other than to confuse the issue and to try to conflate the two.
-
I say let 'em get married. Who cares, join me in my pain......oh, wait.......I'm happily married.
I'm not......pain is exactly what it is
-
Wait till gays get the joy of divorce court, family court, cps, and custody fights. Ha ha ha.
They will beg to overturn it and rue the day they wanted to get married.
Too bad most states are no fault now. Watching a grounds trial in a gay divorce would be worth the price of admission.
gotta agree with this
-
I'm not......pain is exactly what it is
marrying your sis not going too well?
-
by "deal with it" do you mean get on a message board and bitch about it because other than that I don't see how it would have any effect on your life
there is no comparison with polygamy and homosexuality. No one claims to have been born a polygamist or "known" they were one from a young age, etc.. Nothing listed in your quote from the White House website lists polygamy or triads so why do you bring it up? There is no comparison other than to confuse the issue and to try to conflate the two.
You're a simpleton, so I really don't expect you to understand that the "B" in "LGBT" means "bisexuals," and White House expressly supports "Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples." What is a "bisexual couple" anyway? (Rhetorical question.)
Tony is absolutely right about you. That's largely why I usually ignore you. :)
-
marrying your sis not going too well?
That's probably coming too . . . .
-
by "deal with it" do you mean get on a message board and bitch about it because other than that I don't see how it would have any effect on your life
there is no comparison with polygamy and homosexuality. No one claims to have been born a polygamist or "known" they were one from a young age, etc.. Nothing listed in your quote from the White House website lists polygamy or triads so why do you bring it up? There is no comparison other than to confuse the issue and to try to conflate the two.
if youre bisexual, then do you not understand that if youre born that way it would be discriminatory to not allow you to marry one of each sex under your logic of this being a civil rights issue?
-
if youre bisexual, then do you not understand that if youre born that way it would be discriminitory to not allow you to marry one of each sex?
personally, I couldn't give less of shit if someone wanted to marry more than one person
don't see how it would effect me in any way so why should I care
I also don't see any need for gay people to justify polygamy in order to have access to the same rights that straight people have.
If you're against gay marriage then be against IT and don't try conflate non-related issues because you lack a good argument for the primary issue
-
marrying your sis not going too well?
I was actually talking about your mom...having you for a son is the painful part
-
personally, I couldn't give less of shit if someone wanted to marry more than one person
don't see how it would effect me in any way so why should I care
I also don't see any need for gay people to justify polygamy in order to have access to the same rights that straight people have.
If you're against gay marriage then be against IT and don't try conflate non-related issues because you lack a good argument for the primary issue
nobody is conflating shit dumb ass IF you think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, THEN you must believe that bisexual marriages are also a civil rights issue.
if a person marries more than one person its POLYGAMY, theres no conflating shit...
THAT IS WHERE YOUR LOGIC TAKES US!!!!!!
I personally dont care either way, but if gays want equal rights they should get them all the way around not just where they bitch and moan...
-
nobody is conflating shit dumb ass IF you think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, THEN you must believe that bisexual marriages are also a civil rights issue.
if a person marries more than one person its POLYGAMY, theres no conflating shit...
THAT IS WHERE YOUR LOGIC TAKES US!!!!!!
I personally dont care either way, but if gays want equal rights they should get them all the way around not just where they bitch and moan...
just because you take it there doesn't mean it's correct
stop assigning your twisted logic to me and I've already said I don't give a shit how many people want to get married
two people of the same sex who want to get married don't need to justify polygamy in order to justify their right to get married
-
I think the issue is that "does a society get to define marriage how it wants?"
Right now its defnied as being between a man and woman,
-
just because you take it there doesn't mean it's correct
stop assigning your twisted logic to me and I've already said I don't give a shit how many people want to get married
two people of the same sex who want to get married don't need to justify polygamy in order to justify their right to get married
LMFAO quit acting like im twisting your logic everytime I show you where it leads and you dont like it
then you respond, "I dont care about that, all I care about is (insert idiocy here)" you did the same shit in the other thread where i made you look foolish...
you said that involving polygamy with LBGT marriage is conflating the issue when its not its a very logical application of your stance that LBGT marriage rights are a civil rights issue.
Im sorry if you dont like where YOUR OWN LOGIC LEADS...
-
LMFAO quit acting like im twisting your logic everytime I show you where it leads and you dont like it
then you respond, "I dont care about that, all I care about is (insert idiocy here)" you did the same shit in the other thread where i made you look foolish...
you said that involving polygamy with LBGT marriage is conflating the issue when its not its a very logical application of your stance that LBGT marriage rights are a civil rights issue.
Im sorry if you dont like where YOUR OWN LOGIC LEADS...
it's not my "logic" that led you there ....it's yours
two people of the same sex who want to get married don't need to justify other forms marriage in order to be entitled to the right to get married they only need to prove that they have the right to get married
-
it's not my "logic" that led you there ....it's yours
two people of the same sex who want to get married don't need to justify other forms marriage in order to be entitled to the right to get married they only need to prove that they have the right to get married
LMFAO you really have no idea what logic is do you?
youre using the idea that gay marriage is a civil rights issue b/c they are born that way
bisexuals are born that way as well, so why do you deny them the right to get married to a person of each sex?
is that not a civil rights issue as well?
its using your logic brain child...
-
I think the issue is that "does a society get to define marriage how it wants?"
Right now its defnied as being between a man and woman,
Not for long. :-\
-
LMFAO you really have no idea what logic is do you?
youre using the idea that gay marriage is a civil rights issue b/c they are born that way
bisexuals are born that way as well, so why do you deny them the right to get married to a person of each sex?
is that not a civil rights issue as well?
its using your logic brain child...
it may well be a civil rights issue
it's hasn't come up as of yet but gays don't need to argue that case in order to obtain their own right to get married.
Since when does one group trying to obtain equal rights need to prove the case for other groups in order to obtain their own rights.
Just because opponents of same sex marriage create this "slipperly slope" arguement doesn't mean it's valid
As I've already said, I don't care if 3 people or 10 people want to get married to each other. It makes no difference to me just like it makes no difference to me if 2 people want to get married
-
it may well be a civil rights issue
it's hasn't come up as of yet but gays don't need to argue that case in order to obtain their own right to get married.
Since when does one group trying to obtain equal rights need to prove the case for other groups in order to obtain their own rights.
Just because opponents of same sex marriage create this "slipperly slope" arguement doesn't mean it's valid
As I've already said, I don't care if 3 people or 10 people want to get married to each other. It makes no difference to me just like it makes no difference to me if 2 people want to get married
when did ANYBODY here say that one group had to prove another groups case for equal rights? ::)
if gays getting married b/c they are born that way is a civil rights issue, THEN bisexuals getting married b/c they are born that way IS ALSO...thats the logic ;)
thats fine straw but dont sit there and act like we are trying to conflate the issue, thats part of the issue as its defined by your logic for gays getting married...
seriously bro I dont know how someone like yourself can struggle so much with basic logic and still not need someone to dress you in the morning
-
when did ANYBODY here say that one group had to prove another groups case for equal rights? ::)
if gays getting married b/c they are born that way is a civil rights issue, THEN bisexuals getting married b/c they are born that way IS ALSO...thats the logic ;)
thats fine straw but dont sit there and act like we are trying to conflate the issue, thats part of the issue as its defined by your logic for gays getting married...
seriously bro I dont know how someone like yourself can struggle so much with basic logic and still not need someone to dress you in the morning
you did
go back and ready your own posts genius
-
you did
go back and ready your own posts genius
really quote my post brain child
-
really quote my post brain child
scroll up and pick any one where you mention bisexual marriage
I've had enough of your nonsense for one day
-
Are there other nations who alow gays to marry?
-
scroll up and pick any one where you mention bisexual marriage
I've had enough of your nonsense for one day
nice side step...I expected exactly that ;)
wouldnt expect you to back up an claim anymore than i would for you to be able to follow a simple line of logic ::)
-
Are there other nations who alow gays to marry?
are you joking?
-
No. I'm not up on gay issues.
-
No. I'm not up on gay issues.
try the google
-
Are there other nations who alow gays to marry?
Only a handful: "Same-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed in Mexico City, but these marriages must be recognized by all Mexican states. Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Current_status
-
Only a handful: "Same-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed in Mexico City, but these marriages must be recognized by all Mexican states. Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Current_status
I had no idea it was so accepted in other places.
I had a Q... in american history, does anyone know the limitations which once existed on different race marriages? Was it illegal at one point? If so, when did that change?
-
Race and sex are not the same.
-
Race and sex are not the same.
Colin Powelll said it best: race is innate, sexual preference is not.
People can make the unproved genetic argument, but we know for a fact that some heterosexual people choose to become gay, and then straight again. Ann Heche is one example. Numerous other examples of people who don't have the gay epiphany till late in life after being married, having kids, etc.
Other than Michael Jackson, we have zero examples of people changing from one race to another. :)
-
All I know is how I react to nakes women with big boobs and a fat ass regardless of race, yet find all men of all races scivatz when at the gym in the locker room.
Don't know if that matters at all. Lol.
-
All I know is how I react to nakes women with big boobs and a fat ass regardless of race, yet find all men of all races scivatz when at the gym in the locker room.
Don't know if that matters at all. Lol.
lol. You can keep your man card. :)
-
Like I said in an earlier post, gay divorce court would be the funniest thing ever.
-
Colin Powelll said it best: race is innate, sexual preference is not.
People can make the unproved genetic argument, but we know for a fact that some heterosexual people choose to become gay, and then straight again. Ann Heche is one example. Numerous other examples of people who don't have the gay epiphany till late in life after being married, having kids, etc.
Other than Michael Jackson, we have zero examples of people changing from one race to another. :)
Powells quote was: Skin color is not behavioral; sexual orientation is
It's from a 1995 Congressional hearing and it's his opinion which, like eveyone else, he is entitled to have.
He's also entitled to change his opinion which he has done regarding gays in the military. He used to be against it and now:
"Attitudes and circumstances have changed," Powell said. "It's been a whole generation" since the legislation was adopted, and there is increased "acceptance of gays and lesbians in society," he said. "Society is always reflected in the military. It's where we get our soldiers from."
At the same time, he said, "we've had a lot of experience watching what other nations have done." Of 28 NATO member countries, a small minority prohibit or restrict service based on sexual orientation.
-
so is gays in locker rooms, when are there going to be parades for that? ::)
only if you walk around nude; we'll all join in and wave as you parade by.....and point/laugh at your shortcomings.
-
Colin Powelll said it best: race is innate, sexual preference is not.
People can make the unproved genetic argument, but we know for a fact that some heterosexual people choose to become gay, and then straight again. Ann Heche is one example. Numerous other examples of people who don't have the gay epiphany till late in life after being married, having kids, etc.
Other than Michael Jackson, we have zero examples of people changing from one race to another. :)
at what age did you choose to be straight?
-
at what age did you choose to be straight?
When I was born with an X and a Y, just like every other normal male.
Are you aware of any other examples, other than Ann Heche, where people choose to be homosexual?
-
I dunno... I have always been straight, and my junk always twiched when I was around females. But gay people I know, have said that their junk just always twitched when they were around other males.
I don't know how any straight male (beach bum allegedly) could claim to "know" what makes another man's junk twitch. And, even if somehow you had access to another man's tingle register... why would ya care?
Doesn't matter to me. When two guy bump uglies, it just means there are two girls out there who can't fine the pipe when they need it. So it's a good thing. I'd be cool with about 3 billion men going for the meat tomorrow... I wouldn't mind 3 billion ladies lining up for it.
-
-
I dunno... I have always been straight, and my junk always twiched when I was around females. But gay people I know, have said that their junk just always twitched when they were around other males.
I don't know how any straight male (beach bum allegedly) could claim to "know" what makes another man's junk twitch. And, even if somehow you had access to another man's tingle register... why would ya care?
Doesn't matter to me. When two guy bump uglies, it just means there are two girls out there who can't fine the pipe when they need it. So it's a good thing. I'd be cool with about 3 billion men going for the meat tomorrow... I wouldn't mind 3 billion ladies lining up for it.
LOL while i cant argue with the logic, it concerns me to hear a married man such as yourself talk in such a manner.
when gays want equal rights all the way around, ill start fighting for their right to get married...
-
LOL while i cant argue with the logic, it concerns me to hear a married man such as yourself talk in such a manner.
Once you get married, ye shall understand ;)
when gays want equal rights all the way around, ill start fighting for their right to get married...
What equal rights have gay people said they DO NOT want?
-
Once you get married, ye shall understand ;)
What equal rights have gay people said they DO NOT want?
lol maybe so, maybe so
they dont want to fight for the rights of straight ppl to not be leered at and put in situations where sexual harrasment is a problem while in locker rooms and bath rooms for instance...
when they admit that gays being in locker rooms and bathrooms with ppl they find sexually attractive is not right and should be changed
Then Ill start advocating for gay marriage
-
I'd like to have one adult public restroom. one adult shower room. one adult fitting room.
Just let it be a freak fest. straight people, gay people, whatever. I don't care if some dude is scoping my junk, just as long as I have the right to scope out the meat curtains of the chick trying to decide if this thong makes her ass look fat.
-
I dunno... I have always been straight, and my junk always twiched when I was around females. But gay people I know, have said that their junk just always twitched when they were around other males.
I don't know how any straight male (beach bum allegedly) could claim to "know" what makes another man's junk twitch. And, even if somehow you had access to another man's tingle register... why would ya care?
Doesn't matter to me. When two guy bump uglies, it just means there are two girls out there who can't fine the pipe when they need it. So it's a good thing. I'd be cool with about 3 billion men going for the meat tomorrow... I wouldn't mind 3 billion ladies lining up for it.
You sound like a homosexual. Not sure if you are. Just sayin . . . .
-
I'd like to have one adult public restroom. one adult shower room. one adult fitting room.
Just let it be a freak fest. straight people, gay people, whatever. I don't care if some dude is scoping my junk, just as long as I have the right to scope out the meat curtains of the chick trying to decide if this thong makes her ass look fat.
I agree with you there bro, I agree with you there
that would be equal rights
-
I agree with you there bro, I agree with you there
that would be equal rights
The women would freak.
-
Right.. government trying to control lives.. damn liberals
-
You sound like a homosexual. Not sure if you are. Just sayin . . . .
Homophobia is a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe
-
Homophobia is a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe
refer to GB.com political board for numerous examples
-
Homophobia is a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe
I don't have a negative attitude towards you or any other homosexual.
-
I don't have a negative attitude towards you or any other homosexual.
Wow. Epic closet case alert. We can run a poll, which political board getbigger is probably secretly repressing the desire to blow a dude at an RNC fundraiser... BB vs 240...
and well, I think we all know what the results would be.
-
Wow. Epic closet case alert. We can run a poll, which political board getbigger is probably secretly repressing the desire to blow a dude at an RNC fundraiser... BB vs 240...
and well, I think we all know what the results would be.
LOL. You want to take a homosexual poll? LOL! Thanks for confirming my suspicion. So when did you discover you were homosexual?
-
LOL. You want to take a homosexual poll? LOL! Thanks for confirming my suspicion. So when did you discover you were homosexual?
November 2, 2008.
-
November 2, 2008.
LOL ;D
-
Wow. Epic closet case alert. We can run a poll, which political board getbigger is probably secretly repressing the desire to blow a dude at an RNC fundraiser... BB vs 240...
and well, I think we all know what the results would be.
well at least there is no precedent for vocally anti-gay christians turning out to be gay..... I mean except for all those people who were possessed by the devil and tricked into "choosing" to be gay
-
I had a Q... in american history, does anyone know the limitations which once existed on different race marriages? Was it illegal at one point? If so, when did that change?
Yeah, race and sex aren't the same thing, but this makes question perfectly exemplifies how stupid the "slippery slope" argument is. Miscegenation was illegal for a good deal of America's history, but when it was finally legalized it didn't give people the right to marry one person of each race. You could marry outside of your race, but you still got married to ONE person. Just because a bi man or woman is attracted to both sexes doesn't mean they would end up getting married to one of each.
-
Is polygamy a civil rights issue? How about marrying someone at 16?
Polygamy yes...
Age is relative... In West Virginia I believe it's 14 with parental consent??? WTF?!
When you focus on 2 consenting adults over the age of 18, then it's definitely a stupid argument to bring up people who are underage and things like "marrying inanimate objects or animals"
-
So we have somebody saying polygamy is a civil right issue. Somebody saying it's not a civil rights issue. But there's no slippery slope? lol
-
So we have somebody saying polygamy is a civil right issue. Somebody saying it's not a civil rights issue. But there's no slippery slope? lol
I think you either say adults can marry other adults if they want to, or they can't.
That's pretty simple.
I think the difference with Polygamy is often the cult aspect of it... People who don't know anything else.
Other countries have Polygamy as a non issue and no one seems to care about that.
-
I think you either say adults can marry other adults if they want to, or they can't.
That's pretty simple.
I think the difference with Polygamy is often the cult aspect of it... People who don't know anything else.
Other countries have Polygamy as a non issue and no one seems to care about that.
I could care less who marries who (and in what qty for that matter), it wasn't my point.
-
I could care less who marries who (and in what qty for that matter), it wasn't my point.
I think you have to say it's part of the point.
This isn't about "gay marriage"... It's really about should legal adults be able to make their own decisions about their own lives as long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of anyone else.
My stance is simply "yes".
That is really what the basic principle of "gay marriage" is about.
-
I think you have to say it's part of the point.
This isn't about "gay marriage"... It's really about should legal adults be able to make their own decisions about their own lives as long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of anyone else.
My stance is simply "yes".
That is really what the basic principle of "gay marriage" is about.
agreed and as soon as the fairies either start fighting for my right to be in changing rooms with ppl i find sexually attractive or fighting for seperate changing rooms for them
we will begin to talk about equal rights, until then they can suck it(no pun intended)
-
agreed and as soon as the fairies either start fighting for my right to be in changing rooms with ppl i find sexually attractive or fighting for seperate changing rooms for them
we will begin to talk about equal rights, until then they can suck it(no pun intended)
They could perhaps fight for the latter, not the former... I'd say the former would infringe on someone elses rights as far as their comfort level or what have you, but they should champion the cause of straight people changing areas.
-
They could perhaps fight for the latter, not the former... I'd say the former would infringe on someone elses rights as far as their comfort level or what have you, but they should champion the cause of straight people changing areas.
why not put lesbians and straight men in one locker room and vice versa
no one should have a problem with that and we don't need to build any more locker rooms
-
why not put lesbians and straight men in one locker room and vice versa
no one should have a problem with that and we don't need to build any more locker rooms
Actually, you'd have to put lesbians and gay men in the same locker room.
See, the problem is that straight men will still stare at lesbian women.
You need 3... You need straight men / straight women / gay people.
Cause gay people aren't staring at anyone... But how do you then make sure only gay people are in those lockers... plus, isn't that some form of segregation?
Personally, if a gay guy wants to stare at my junk... go for it... I won't notice anyway because I am not staring at him at all.
Besides, I'm sure everyone here has been in a locker room with a gay person, whether you've known it or not.
-
Actually, you'd have to put lesbians and gay men in the same locker room.
See, the problem is that straight men will still stare at lesbian women.
You need 3... You need straight men / straight women / gay people.
Cause gay people aren't staring at anyone... But how do you then make sure only gay people are in those lockers... plus, isn't that some form of segregation?
Personally, if a gay guy wants to stare at my junk... go for it... I won't notice anyway because I am not staring at him at all.
Besides, I'm sure everyone here has been in a locker room with a gay person, whether you've known it or not.
so the "problem" is straight men?
-
so the "problem" is straight men?
In that instance, yes... I don't think that's the problem as a whole.
I think it's society as a whole that have the issue... My mom thinks gay people are horrible because they are gay... I don't think like my mom, but a lot of people do.
-
In that instance, yes... I don't think that's the problem as a whole.
I think it's society as a whole that have the issue... My mom thinks gay people are horrible because they are gay... I don't think like my mom, but a lot of people do.
haven't all straight people shared lockers rooms with gay people their entire lives
I honestly can't ever recall an instance that I've read or heard about where gay people have harassed straight people
I have heard or an occassion or two (or a thousand) of straight people harassing gay people and it's usually straight men doing the harassing
maybe we can put straight men in one room and everyone else in another or maybe we can just have one room for men and one for woman and post a sign saying if you have a problem with it then don't use the locker room
-
haven't all straight people shared lockers rooms with gay people their entire lives
I honestly can't ever recall an instance that I've read or heard about where gay people have harassed straight people
I have heard or an occassion or two (or a thousand) of straight people harassing gay people and it's usually straight men doing the harassing
maybe we can put straight men in one room and everyone else in another or maybe we can just have one room for men and one for woman and post a sign saying if you have a problem with it then don't use the locker room
Yes to your first part... people don't know what they don't know.
-
agreed and as soon as the fairies either start fighting for my right to be in changing rooms with ppl i find sexually attractive or fighting for seperate changing rooms for them
::) http://www.genderqueercoalition.org/bathrooms
-
haven't all straight people shared lockers rooms with gay people their entire lives
I honestly can't ever recall an instance that I've read or heard about where gay people have harassed straight people
I have heard or an occassion or two (or a thousand) of straight people harassing gay people and it's usually straight men doing the harassing
maybe we can put straight men in one room and everyone else in another or maybe we can just have one room for men and one for woman and post a sign saying if you have a problem with it then don't use the locker room
ahhh the "what you dont know doesnt hurt your" logic of defending unequal rights...again do you want me to show you where this goes?
LOL the other day i was changing back into work clothes in the mens locker room and had two twinks talking about sex...
if i had done that in the prescense of a woman it would be sexual harrasment NEVER THE LESS in the locker room where she was getting dressed...
-
How the problem gets solved i.e. the number of changing rooms and who is allowed in which shouldnt be the concern right now
what should be is determining that rights are either unequal or they are not?
I think tu is in agreement that is not fair to have gays in locker rooms with ppl they find sexually attractive even if he himself doesnt care, right?
Thats the first step, After that is decided THEN you try to find a solution...
-
::) http://www.genderqueercoalition.org/bathrooms
sorry bud I could have guessed there would be some group out there that is fighting for this
but how many times have they attached this to any gay marriage bill they have voted on?
how many times has this been voted on period?
how many times have you heard of gay advocates holding rallies, parades, events for this?
when they want equal rights all the way around, Ill start fighting for gay marriage
-
ahhh the "what you dont know doesnt hurt your" logic of defending unequal rights...again do you want me to show you where this goes?
LOL the other day i was changing back into work clothes in the mens locker room and had two twinks talking about sex...
if i had done that in the prescense of a woman it would be sexual harrasment NEVER THE LESS in the locker room where she was getting dressed...
LoL - I knew that would get you all worked up
so some twinks were "talking" about sex
so what
what's the harm to you
did you feel vulnerable and threatened in some way?
-
LoL - I knew that would get you all worked up
so some twinks were "talking" about sex
so what
what's the harm to you
did you feel vulnerable and threatened in some way?
LOL if me and a buddy had done the same to a woman, do you think we may have gotten in trouble for it?
how about in a locker room where she was changing and we were talking about "fuking this big tittied broad"?
LOL do even act like that would be sexual harassment is plain idiocy, par for you but plain idiocy...
but I guess when its two twinks doing it in a locker room of straight guys, the straight guys should just deal with it right?
yea you want equal rights ::)
-
LoL - I knew that would get you all worked up
so some twinks were "talking" about sex
so what
what's the harm to you
did you feel vulnerable and threatened in some way?
whats the harm if i went and watched women get undressed in their locker room?
-
whats the harm if i went and watched women get undressed in their locker room?
did those twinks make you feel vulnerable?
-
did those twinks make you feel vulnerable?
made me feel a tad angry that they would actually talk about shit like that in that situation...
what does it matter if it made me feel vulnerable?
the fact of the matter is that if i had done that to a woman i would get in trouble but for some reason you think its ok for gays to do it to straights?
please explain your reasoning
-
made me feel a tad angry that they would actually talk about shit like that in that situation...
what does it matter if it made me feel vulnerable?
the fact of the matter is that if i had done that to a woman i would get in trouble but for some reason you think its ok for gays to do it to straights?
please explain your reasoning
why would you be "angry"
why not just take care of your busines/mind your own busines and leave
I'm guessing you're a pretty young guy (20's). When you get older you stop giving a shit about other people and just take care of your own shit
-
If you hate homos, you will force them to get married so that they too can suffer! ;D
-
why would you be "angry"
why not just take care of your busines/mind your own busines and leave
I'm guessing you're a pretty young guy (20's). When you get older you stop giving a shit about other people and just take care of your own shit
b/c there is a time and place for certain shit, and talking about gay sex in a mens locker room isnt the time or the place for it...
not that i think you will give reasoning for it and even if you do that if follows any sort of logic but pleas
the fact of the matter is that if i had done that to a woman i would get in trouble but for some reason you think its ok for gays to do it to straights?
please explain your reasoning
-
penises can talk to penises; vaginas to vaginas.
thats the only difference in the locker rooms.
-
b/c there is a time and place for certain shit, and talking about gay sex in a mens locker room isnt the time or the place for it...
not that i think you will give reasoning for it and even if you do that if follows any sort of logic but pleas
the fact of the matter is that if i had done that to a woman i would get in trouble but for some reason you think its ok for gays to do it to straights?
please explain your reasoning
says who ?
you ?
again - when you get a bit older most likely you'll stop worrying about other people are doing/saying and just focus on taking care of your own business
-
says who ?
you ?
again - when you get a bit older most likely you'll stop worrying about other people are doing/saying and just focus on taking care of your own business
THE LAW!!!!!
if me and a buddy did the same thing to a woman at work, never the LESS a LOCKER ROOM where she was getting dressed, do you think she would have a pretty good case for sexual harassment?
well then whats the difference when two twinks do it in a mens locker room?
-
You would
1. Get sued in civial court for hostile work environment and infliction of emotional distress.
2. Complaint with the EEOC, DOL, State Dept of Labor
3. Be forced to undergoe "sensitivity" training.
And on and on and on. I only hope that these twinks and other groups seeking "special rights" only get a taste of their own medicine for what everyone else has had to deal wth.
-
THE LAW!!!!!
if me and a buddy did the same thing to a woman at work, never the LESS a LOCKER ROOM where she was getting dressed, do you think she would have a pretty good case for sexual harassment?
well then whats the difference when two twinks do it in a mens locker room?
if there is a law your state or city that says two guys can't talk about sex in a locker room then go take it up with the management at your gym or consult an attorney
let us know how it turns out
-
if there is a law your state or city that says two guys can't talk about sex in a locker room then go take it up with the management at your gym or consult an attorney
let us know how it turns out
OMG youre an idiot
again would it be ok for two straight men to talk about railing broads in a womens locker room while a woman was getting dressed right next to them?
-
OMG youre an idiot
again would it be ok for two straight men to talk about railing broads in a womens locker room while a woman was getting dressed right next to them?
you said it was the "law"
is there a law in your state that two guys can't discuss sex in the locker room?
I'm guessing there is not
again - why don't you just ignore it and mind your own business
that would be what an adult would do
-
you said it was the "law"
is there a law in your state that two guys can't discuss sex in the locker room?
I'm guessing there is not
again - why don't you just ignore it and mind your own business
that would be what an adult would do
Ever hear of common law and cases brought under an existing statute?
-
you said it was the "law"
is there a law in your state that two guys can't discuss sex in the locker room?
I'm guessing there is not
again - why don't you just ignore it and mind your own business
that would be what an adult would do
OMG youre a moron...
answer the question bro and it will lead you to the answer to your question...would it be ok for two straight men to talk about railing broads in a womens locker room while a woman was getting dressed right next to them?
-
OMG youre a moron...
answer the question bro and it will lead you to the answer to your question...would it be ok for two straight men to talk about railing broads in a womens locker room while a woman was getting dressed right next to them?
I don't care whether you answer my questions or not
I'm just trying to offer you some friendly "advices"
don't worry - eventually you will grow up and not care about silly shit like this
-
I don't care whether you answer my questions or not
I'm just trying to offer you some friendly "advices"
don't worry - eventually you will grow up and not care about silly shit like this
You may not, but HR Managers, In-House Counsel, Lawyers, and people who understand employment do.
-
I don't care whether you answer my questions or not
I'm just trying to offer you some friendly "advices"
don't worry - eventually you will grow up and not care about silly shit like this
LOL nice side step to avoid yet another embarrasement...
i figured as much...
if its not ok for straights to do it, why is it ok for gays?
-
You may not, but HR Managers, In-House Counsel, Lawyers, and people who understand employment do.
exactly, straw owns his own business apparently ??? yet sees no potential problems in this scenario ::)
-
You may not, but HR Managers, In-House Counsel, Lawyers, and people who understand employment do.
yeah but Tony is not talking about his place of employment and he wasn't being harassed
he needs to learn to mind his own business and maybe stop spending so much time hanging out in the locker room
-
Straw = owned.
-
LOL nice side step to avoid yet another embarrasement...
i figured as much...
if its not ok for straights to do it, why is it ok for gays?
side step what
you want to change the entire scenario
were you "harrassed" in any way?
if you were why didn't you say something to the management. I'm sure they would not tolerate harassment of any kind
-
Straw = owned.
was he at work?
were they talking to him or harassing him?
I don't recall reading either
-
side step what
you want to change the entire scenario
were you "harrassed" in any way?
if you were why didn't you say something to the management. I'm sure they would not tolerate harassment of any kind
Employment Law does not require that it be directed at a certain person, only that a environment be permitted to where it goes on.
Tony's example seems very valid to me in this context.
-
exactly, straw owns his own business apparently ??? yet sees no potential problems in this scenario ::)
why would you overhearing (evesdropping) on two guys in gym locker room have any relevence to my business or any business?
-
side step what
you want to change the entire scenario
were you "harrassed" in any way?
if you were why didn't you say something to the management. I'm sure they would not tolerate harassment of any kind
thats not changing anything its the same scenario in a similar situation, how did the scenario change?
you have two ppl who find the person dressing potentially sexually attractive talking about having sex with someone of that persons sex...
what changed?
why is it ok for gays to do it but not straight ppl?
you see this is exactly why you need to take a basic freaking logic class ::)
-
Employment Law does not require that it be directed at a certain person, only that a environment be permitted to where it goes on.
Tony's example seems very valid to me in this context.
The story he told took place at a gym, not a workplace. How could he end up getting sued if he'd told a story of a sexual nature while in the presence of a woman at his gym?
-
The story he told took place at a gym, not a workplace. How could he end up getting sued if he'd told a story of a sexual nature while in the presence of a woman at his gym?
Its not him that would get sued. Remember - the deep pockets is always the target.
-
Hey 333 - why don't you represent Tony ?
he overheard some peoepel talking in a gym locker room and it made him "angry"
who would you sue and on what grounds?
why not help out your fellow GB'er with some legal counsel
-
The story he told took place at a gym, not a workplace. How could he end up getting sued if he'd told a story of a sexual nature while in the presence of a woman at his gym?
these two guys weren't even talking to Tony
he just overheard them and got "angry"
-
these two guys weren't even talking to Tommy
he just overheard them and got "angry"
People sue for a lot less and win. I wish I could find one of those. LOL.
-
sorry bud I could have guessed there would be some group out there that is fighting for this
but how many times have they attached this to any gay marriage bill they have voted on?
how many times has this been voted on period?
how many times have you heard of gay advocates holding rallies, parades, events for this?
when they want equal rights all the way around, Ill start fighting for gay marriage
Why would this be attached to any gay marriage bills? The comparison itself is flawed, but I've never seen anyone besides you make it, anyway. Even though there are probably a few more who feel as you do, the fact that you couldn't even be arsed to, at the very least, find out whether or not there are people who are fighting for the very things you spoke about proves this is not an important issue to you, but a red herring. Not only are there people who are very concerned with "bathroom rights", but they are, ironically, primarily the people you assumed would be in opposition to your so-called position.
-
People sue for a lot less and win. I wish I could find one of those. LOL.
they do?
then this should be an easy "case" for you
why not help out Tony
-
The story he told took place at a gym, not a workplace. How could he end up getting sued if he'd told a story of a sexual nature while in the presence of a woman at his gym?
al youre a reasonable person
do you not see the unequal rights there and the potential for sexual harassment?
the point is to show that gays have rights that straights dont
-
they do?
then this should be an easy "case" for you
why not help out Tommy
He lives in Texas, not the Bronx. Big difference in jury pool.
-
People sue for a lot less and win. I wish I could find one of those. LOL.
Really. I'm not a lawyer and you are, so what is a comparable case to someone telling a story in someone else's earshot, suing and then winning outside of the workplace?
-
He lives in Texas, not the Bronx. Big difference in jury pool.
on what grounds would you sue ?
-
Why would this be attached to any gay marriage bills? The comparison itself is flawed, but I've never seen anyone besides you make it, anyway. Even though there are probably a few more who feel as you do, the fact that you couldn't even be arsed to, at the very least, find out whether or not there are people who are fighting for the very things you spoke about proves this is not an important issue to you, but a red herring. Not only are there people who are very concerned with "bathroom rights", but they are, ironically, primarily the people you assumed would be in opposition to your so-called position.
im not comparing gay marriage to bathroom rights lol nice name...
my point is why is this not at the forefront of gay rights issue? gay marriage is billed as a civil rights issue if you ask most ppl including straw and so would "bathroom rights" lol so why not make a gay rights bill?
youre right the issue isnt all that important i use it as an example of the unequal rights and the lack of concern from those who advocate for gay marriage...straw man being a prime example...
I dont have anything against gays, I actually would assume that gays would see the bath room rights much more easily than others again straw man being a prime example...
-
Really. I'm not a lawyer and you are, so what is a comparable case to someone telling a story in someone else's earshot, suing and then winning outside of the workplace?
talking in a deraugetory manner is considered sexual harassment even if its not directed towards the individual...
do you think that the two twinks talking about gay sex while i was getting dressed could have caused me to be uncomfortable?
-
:D
-
ha ha h ha
-
ha ha h ha
you're not really lawyer are you?
I'm guessing paralegal or maybe bicycle messenger
-
al youre a reasonable person
do you not see the unequal rights there and the potential for sexual harassment?
the point is to show that gays have rights that straights dont
it's at best, an uneven comparison, and there's nothing best about it. Would you actually give up your marriage or right to get married to be able to use the bathroom with women? The only place there would be any benefit would be in a gym locker room. In regular bathrooms, you wouldn't come into too may situations fraught with potential sexual harassment.
Secondly, you've stated that you consider homosexuality behavioral with a genetic component, so from your perspective, why does it matter whether or not a gay guy shares a locker room with you?
-
Straw - I will bet you 250k that I am.
As for the video - it prves that gay conversations between peple can generate a lawsuit in this context.
Sure the unwanted massage is not cool, but this guy will collect big time.
-
talking in a deraugetory manner is considered sexual harassment even if its not directed towards the individual...
do you think that the two twinks talking about gay sex while i was getting dressed could have caused me to be uncomfortable?
Outside of a work environment, what repercussions would you have suffered had you done this in the presence of a woman?
-
Straw - I will bet you 250k that I am.
As for the video - it prves that gay conversations between peple can generate a lawsuit in this context.
Sure the unwanted massage is not cool, but this guy will collect big time.
does Tommy have a case?
why don't you help him out with some legal "advises" that actually pertain to the situation he described
-
does Tommy have a case?
why don't you help him out with some legal "advises" that actually pertain to the situation he described
Not unless the employer or place of business knew of the situation and ignored it.
-
Not unless the employer or place of business knew of the situation and ignored it.
and what grounds would you sue
all he did was overhear two people talking
they weren't talking to him and he didn't ask them to stop nor did he complain to anyone (well other than coming on here and whining about it)
-
and what grounds would you sue
all he did was overhear two people talking
they weren't talking to him and he didn't ask them to stop nor did he complain to anyone (well other than coming on here and whining about it)
I can envision many scenarios where something may come up like this. Especially in a gym.
-
I can envision many scenarios where something may come up like this. Especially in a gym.
ok -but aside from you imagining different scenarios
how about the actual scenario we're talking about
-
ok -but aside from you imagining different scenarios
how about the actual scenario we're talking about
Definately not a case.
-
Russia is alpha dog! No gay marriages, no gay parades are allowed here!
-
it's at best, an uneven comparison, and there's nothing best about it. Would you actually give up your marriage or right to get married to be able to use the bathroom with women? The only place there would be any benefit would be in a gym locker room. In regular bathrooms, you wouldn't come into too may situations fraught with potential sexual harassment.
Secondly, you've stated that you consider homosexuality behavioral with a genetic component, so from your perspective, why does it matter whether or not a gay guy shares a locker room with you?
the two are not mutually exclusive broham you can have both...
so is heterosexuality, why are we not allowed in womens locker rooms?
-
Outside of a work environment, what repercussions would you have suffered had you done this in the presence of a woman?
lets take a step back i think we are starting to miss the forest for the trees...that is just a real life example of the broader point
straights are not allowed in locker rooms of those they find sexually attractive, why is it ok for gays to be in locker rooms with those they find sexually attactive?
-
Even CA, the most liberal state of all, is against gay marriage. You can't force people to accept something that is unnatural, no matter how the courts rule.
-
Even CA, the most liberal state of all, is against gay marriage. You can't force people to accept something that is unnatural, no matter how the courts rule.
That's what they used to say about interracial dating and marriage.
-
lets take a step back i think we are starting to miss the forest for the trees...that is just a real life example of the broader point
straights are not allowed in locker rooms of those they find sexually attractive, why is it ok for gays to be in locker rooms with those they find sexually attactive?
-
That's what they used to say about interracial dating and marriage.
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
-
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue
-
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue
Yeah - for divorce lawyers.
-
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue
so is bisexual polygamy then ;)
-
so is bisexual polygamy then ;)
well that's good news for you I guess
-
Even CA, the most liberal state of all, is against gay marriage. You can't force people to accept something that is unnatural, no matter how the courts rule.
I think Oregon and Hawaii are both more liberal than California and people rejected it in both places. About 70 percent of voters in Hawaii preserved marriage to one man and one woman.
-
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue
Oops, I meant gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
-
I think Oregon and Hawaii are both more liberal than California and people rejected it in both places. About 70 percent of voters in Hawaii preserved marriage to one man and one woman.
I think taxpayers paying for a high end prostitute for me is a civil rights issue.
-
well that's good news for you I guess
hahah lol is there a reason that youre fighting so hard to keep gays in locker rooms of ppl they find sexually attractive?
-
hahah lol is there a reason that youre fighting so hard to keep gays in locker rooms of ppl they find sexually attractive?
how am I fighting to keep them in locker rooms
all I'm doing is talking to a knuckehead on message board.
I couldn't give less of a shit who is gay and unlike you it never occured to me to be worried about it.
Maybe someday you'll grow up and find something relevent to be worried about
-
how am I fighting to keep them in locker rooms
all I'm doing is talking to a knuckehead on message board.
I couldn't give less of a shit who is gay and unlike you it never occured to me to be worried about it.
Maybe someday you'll grow up and find something relevent to be worried about
lol maybe someday youll take a logic class and understand that logically it a situation of unequal rights for gays to be in locker rooms with ppl they find sexually attractive while straights get thrown in jail for it...
but hey gays and their advocates just want equal rights, right? ::)
-
lol maybe someday youll take a logic class and understand that logically it a situation of unequal rights for gays to be in locker rooms with ppl they find sexually attractive while straights get thrown in jail for it...
but hey gays and their advocates just want equal rights, right? ::)
the logic professor strikes again
if you taught martial arts this is what your students would look like
-
the logic professor strikes again
if you taught martial arts this is what your students would look like
lol all you can do is call me names
never point out any flaws in the logic, just names
how old are you supposedly? hahahhahaha
ahhhhh
so why is it ok for gays to be in locker rooms with ppl they find sexually attractive but not straights...
dont mind quoting this post i know you wont answer the questions ;)
-
lol all you can do is call me names
never point out any flaws in the logic, just names
how old are you supposedly? hahahhahaha
ahhhhh
so why is it ok for gays to be in locker rooms with ppl they find sexually attractive but not straights...
dont mind quoting this post i know you wont answer the questions ;)
I've pointed them out repeatedly on many different threads (how many times have we had this exact same discussion) but at some point I just get bored watching you chase your tail
-
I've pointed them out repeatedly on many different threads (how many times have we had this exact same discussion) but at some point I just get bored watching you chase your tail
lmao thats right straw and in every thread multiple ppl agree with me and no one with you...
its everyone else bro, its not you ;)
-
lmao thats right straw and in every thread multiple ppl agree with me and no one with you...
its everyone else bro, its not you ;)
ok - whatever you say champ
I hope you feel better now
-
lmao thats right straw and in every thread multiple ppl agree with me and no one with you...
its everyone else bro, its not you ;)
ever see the 33 the commie Hunter thread?
-
ever see the 33 the commie Hunter thread?
333 - you should bump that thread
If I recall you lost the first two points and then gave up
I'm heading to my office but I'll check back later
-
lets take a step back i think we are starting to miss the forest for the trees...that is just a real life example of the broader point
straights are not allowed in locker rooms of those they find sexually attractive, why is it ok for gays to be in locker rooms with those they find sexually attactive?
No, it's not a broader point. It's a non-sensical red herring that has no relevance to the "forest". ::) You've stated multiple times that you consider homosexuality behavioral, so why would bathrooms be segregated based on behavior?
Furthermore, here's a question to which I would honestly be interested in reading your answer: HOW would you go about sorting out who was allowed into which bathroom? Would you place interrogators at the doors of bathrooms to find out who is gay? Would the bathroom doormen deny someone entry if they think the suspect is lying? Would gay guy be allowed into a men's room only until he began humming showtunes, at which point he'd be committing a crime? If homosexuality is, in fact, behavioral and sexual activity is prohibited it pretty much all restrooms and locker rooms, regardless of sex, isn't this a moot, stupid and irrelevant point?
-
lets take a step back i think we are starting to miss the forest for the trees...that is just a real life example of the broader point
straights are not allowed in locker rooms of those they find sexually attractive, why is it ok for gays to be in locker rooms with those they find sexually attactive?
if you would look around the typical gym, there are very few, if any, men that are attractive nekid.
-
No, it's not a broader point. It's a non-sensical red herring that has no relevance to the "forest". ::) You've stated multiple times that you consider homosexuality behavioral, so why would bathrooms be segregated based on behavior?
Furthermore, here's a question to which I would honestly be interested in reading your answer: HOW would you go about sorting out who was allowed into which bathroom? Would you place interrogators at the doors of bathrooms to find out who is gay? Would the bathroom doormen deny someone entry if they think the suspect is lying? Would gay guy be allowed into a men's room only until he began humming showtunes, at which point he'd be committing a crime? If homosexuality is, in fact, behavioral and sexual activity is prohibited it pretty much all restrooms and locker rooms, regardless of sex, isn't this a moot, stupid and irrelevant point?
First let me clarify as you seem to have misunderstood, I said that homosexuality has a behavioral content to it. Yes someone maybe more genetically predisposed to being gay just as someone maybe more genetically predisposed to being violent but those ppl must choose to let that behaviour happen.
second if its like you believe and is inherit then why are you asking the quesitons you are?
again youre putting the cart ahead of the horse, the solution isnt the first step. The first step is to agree or disagree that allowing gays into locker rooms and same sex bathrooms presents situations that place straight ppl in scenarios that allow them to be sexually harassed by a person who finds their sex sexually attractive.
we can talk about how its implemented after that, but the first step is to agree on that or whats the point in talking implementation?
-
First let me clarify as you seem to have misunderstood, I said that homosexuality has a behavioral content to it. Yes someone maybe more genetically predisposed to being gay just as someone maybe more genetically predisposed to being violent but those ppl must choose to let that behaviour happen.
Yeah, but regardless of whether or not violent criminals have genetic predispositions towards that behavior, they are not arrested unless they actually commit violent crimes. Unless homosexual sexual activity is taking place in a bathroom, there would be no issue.
second if its like you believe and is inherit then why are you asking the quesitons you are?
I'm not the one making the argument that this is a civil rights issue. Bathrooms are separated by gender, not sexual preference.
again youre putting the cart ahead of the horse, the solution isnt the first step. The first step is to agree or disagree that allowing gays into locker rooms and same sex bathrooms presents situations that place straight ppl in scenarios that allow them to be sexually harassed by a person who finds their sex sexually attractive.
we can talk about how its implemented after that, but the first step is to agree on that or whats the point in talking implementation?
::) I don't agree with you. I don't think you've made any good point on the matter and I don't think you have any good ideas on how to deal with the issue. IF you are going to claim that a problem needs to be solved, then you should have some idea of how a solution should be implemented. The only problem with that is that any solution would contradict points you've made in the past.
btw-in what policy circumstance has anyone EVER said we have to agree a problem exists before we can begin discussing how to implement solutions? :P
-
Yeah, but regardless of whether or not violent criminals have genetic predispositions towards that behavior, they are not arrested unless they actually commit violent crimes. Unless homosexual sexual activity is taking place in a bathroom, there would be no issue.
disagree, just a heterosexual staring at a person they find sexually attractive getting dressed in a locker room is illegal there need be no sexual interaction, why is it not the same for gays?
I'm not the one making the argument that this is a civil rights issue. Bathrooms are separated by gender, not sexual preference.
Thank you al you have done what not one person who has argued your side has done before, youre totally right bathrooms and locker rooms are seperated by gender...by what was the significance of gender when this decision was made?
::) I don't agree with you. I don't think you've made any good point on the matter and I don't think you have any good ideas on how to deal with the issue. IF you are going to claim that a problem needs to be solved, then you should have some idea of how a solution should be implemented. The only problem with that is that any solution would contradict points you've made in the past.
btw-in what policy circumstance has anyone EVER said we have to agree a problem exists before we can begin discussing how to implement solutions? :P
if there is no problem, then there isnt a need for a solution...so first we must agree there is a problem before discussing solutions
-
disagree, just a heterosexual staring at a person they find sexually attractive getting dressed in a locker room is illegal there need be no sexual interaction, why is it not the same for gays?
That actually isn't true.
Thank you al you have done what not one person who has argued your side has done before, youre totally right bathrooms and locker rooms are seperated by gender...by what was the significance of gender when this decision was made?
Puritanical notions of modesty.
if there is no problem, then there isnt a need for a solution...so first we must agree there is a problem before discussing solutions
You are the one arguing that there is a problem, not me.I agree there is no need for a solution. This whole line of reasoning is stupid and a red herring. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. And if you claim that separate bathrooms for gays is the ONE issue that is keeping you opposed to gay marriage, but have no idea how it should be instituted, then it's even dumber.
And no, problems don't have to ratified by consensus before solutions can be discussed. You seem to be pretty convinced
-
That actually isn't true.
is it not? we can go into the womens locker room and change in there getting an eye full if we wish?
when did this happen?
Puritanical notions of modesty.
the significance of sex(switched this b/c gender is a mental thing, sex is physical even though they are used interchangable) is that they find the other sex sexually attractive...kinda like gays do with the same sex ;)
You are the one arguing that there is a problem, not me.I agree there is no need for a solution. This whole line of reasoning is stupid and a red herring. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. And if you claim that separate bathrooms for gays is the ONE issue that is keeping you opposed to gay marriage, but have no idea how it should be instituted, then it's even dumber.
And no, problems don't have to ratified by consensus before solutions can be discussed. You seem to be pretty convinced
AGAIN gay marriage and this are not mutually exclusive bro, the computer sucks at sarcasm bro the whole "ill start fighting for gay marriage, when they start fight for me being able to see women change" is a tongue in cheek way of saying when they truely want equal rights then i will fight for them, as of right now they dont
I agree that solutions have been implemented without consensus on the problem but it certainly makes it easier, no matter what solution i give if you dont agree on the problem then you will just say thats stupid b/c there is no problem...so lets agree first there is a problem.
-
disagree, just a heterosexual staring at a person they find sexually attractive getting dressed in a locker room is illegal there need be no sexual interaction, why is it not the same for gays?
Thank you al you have done what not one person who has argued your side has done before, youre totally right bathrooms and locker rooms are seperated by gender...by what was the significance of gender when this decision was made?
if there is no problem, then there isnt a need for a solution...so first we must agree there is a problem before discussing solutions
No. No other argument works like that. If you assert there is a problem you almost always have at least a rough idea as to how it can be solved. You won't soggest anything because you know that there is no reasonable solution that doesn't contradict your argument. The bathroom/locker room thing isn't sarcasm. It's the only instance you can think of where there is a comparable civil rights issue, and it's neither comparable or an issue. Yes, I think the argument itself is stupid, but whether or not you could suggest a feasible way to institute a solution is a different thing. You can't.
Not only is it a red herring,if you actually fully commit to it, it just reenforces how logically unsound your argument is.
Entering the wrong locker room is not legal. Peeping is illegal, regardless of gender or sexual orientation
Excuse formatting. Posting from a cab on my iPhone .
-
No. No other argument works like that. If you assert there is a problem you almost always have at least a rough idea as to how it can be solved. You won't soggest anything because you know that there is no reasonable solution that doesn't contradict your argument. The bathroom/locker room thing isn't sarcasm. It's the only instance you can think of where there is a comparable civil rights issue, and it's neither comparable or an issue. Yes, I think the argument itself is stupid, but whether or not you could suggest a feasible way to institute a solution is a different thing. You can't.
Not only is it a red herring,if you actually fully commit to it, it just reenforces how logically unsound your argument is.
Entering the wrong locker room is not legal. Peeping is illegal, regardless of gender or sexual orientation
Excuse formatting. Posting from a cab on my iPhone .
LMAO so you think its ok for gay ppl to be allowed in situations where they are able to see ppl the find sexually attractive naked, yet keep straights from doing so?
why is that explain your reasoning...
i can suggest things but that doesnt matter as you disagree on the issue...how about individual locker rooms? or locker rooms with individual changing areas?
now please explain why you feel its ok for gays to be in locker rooms and bathrooms with ppl they find sexually attractive but not straights
-
Somewhat off topic, but:
There are actual effects to these issues, not just theoretical ideas. At the place I worked previously, a man underwent surgery to become a woman. He/she then wanted to use the women's bathroom. All, and I mean all, of the women there did not want him/her in the bathroom with them.
So what is an employer to do?
Should the desires on one person outweigh the desires of many? Should an employer have to provide a 3rd bathroom?
-
Somewhat off topic, but:
There are actual effects to these issues, not just theoretical ideas. At the place I worked previously, a man underwent surgery to become a woman. He/she then wanted to use the women's bathroom. All, and I mean all, of the women there did not want him/her in the bathroom with them.
So what is an employer to do?
Should the desires on one person outweigh the desires of many? Should an employer have to provide a 3rd bathroom?
and just like gay marriage is inevitable so is the problems of having ppl who are sexually attracted to the same sex in locker rooms and bathrooms with ppl they find sexually attractive...
it will become an issue in the future especially with the uber PC era
-
All people should have the same rights to be as miserable as the next person. Str8, Gay, marriage is two people who share love & property....All persons should have that right. People of all faiths, color, etc....can marry now, while during the last few centuries, they couldn't... Regarding the politics of it, well if it was politically correct to run under the a facist party banner, many persons of both parties would sign up.
Gun Control, Nun Control, The Right To Bare Arms, Or Arm Bears!!!! Its all political....Neither party could give a shit, unless it gets them votes! This is the Hot Topic Now!!! :-X
-
and just like gay marriage is inevitable so is the problems of having ppl who are sexually attracted to the same sex in locker rooms and bathrooms with ppl they find sexually attractive...
it will become an issue in the future especially with the uber PC era
I'm not sure it really will. If you've ever used bathrooms in an airport or even a football game, I've seen flamboyantly gay people using them and it's never caused a problem. Locker rooms, I suppose, is anybody's guess.
But, if there ever comes a time where gay men are allowed into a women's bathroom/locker room, every time I need to use the bathroom or change, I'll be claiming I'm gay. 8)
-
I'm not sure it really will. If you've ever used bathrooms in an airport or even a football game, I've seen flamboyantly gay people using them and it's never caused a problem. Locker rooms, I suppose, is anybody's guess.
But, if there ever comes a time where gay men are allowed into a women's bathroom/locker room, every time I need to use the bathroom or change, I'll be claiming I'm gay. 8)
LOL i agree, but then again i have this one dude at my gym who is a cross dresser...i mean wears the volleyball shorts and tank tops with glitter and shit at who got kicked out of another gym for hitting on some guy in the locker room...
enough situations like that go down and the issue will come up, its going to take one or two big law suits before companies start to try and find ways to address the situation.
-
LMAO so you think its ok for gay ppl to be allowed in situations where they are able to see ppl the find sexually attractive naked, yet keep straights from doing so?
why is that explain your reasoning...
i can suggest things but that doesnt matter as you disagree on the issue...how about individual locker rooms? or locker rooms with individual changing areas?
now please explain why you feel its ok for gays to be in locker rooms and bathrooms with ppl they find sexually attractive but not straights
Here is why, bathrooms locker rooms are separated based upon gender for the same reasoning that muslim fundamentalist require that women wear full head to toe coverings, because straight men have trouble controlling their sexual impulses. Women have a long and terrible history of being abused, oppressed and raped by men. It is only in the past 100 years that women have approached anything remotely considered to be equal treatment and this is only in the US and Europe, China has made some inroads, but there is still complete male domination of the economic and political system. Rape and sexual abuse is almost entirely a male on female crime (minor exceptions) and just about every single woman I know has been raped or molested, either by a stranger, a relative, or some form of date rape. Would you care for me to bring out statistics of how many women are sexually assaulted every year by men vs how many men are sexually assaulted by other men? That is the reason why bathrooms are separated by gender. So what if a gay guy checks out your dong, you are not in fear of being raped and taken against your will, no to you it is just icky, when women are viewed sexually by men there is a long and nasty history to where the woman has every reason to be uncomfortable and afraid, you on the other hand are just being childish.
-
LMAO so you think its ok for gay ppl to be allowed in situations where they are able to see ppl the find sexually attractive naked, yet keep straights from doing so?
why is that explain your reasoning...
i can suggest things but that doesnt matter as you disagree on the issue...how about individual locker rooms? or locker rooms with individual changing areas?
No, I can judge the merits of your suggestions of solution respective of your lame argument . I notice you took the easy option of suggesting individual changing rooms for all, rather than setting up separate bathrooms for lesbian and gays. I wonder why that is... ;) (Incidentally, those are the same suggestions the gay bathroom rights website I posted upthread was touting. So, what is the point of this bathroom debate again? ???)
now please explain why you feel its ok for gays to be in locker rooms and bathrooms with ppl they find sexually attractive but not straights
Well, I could but since you disagree with me there's no point. :-\
Haha, bathrooms are separated by gender.You have always stated that homosexuality is behavioral. Unless someone is engaged in gay sex in a bathroom, then how can you define them as gay? Incidentally, all sex, gay or straight ,is illegal in all public restrooms.
-
Here is why, bathrooms locker rooms are separated based upon gender for the same reasoning that muslim fundamentalist require that women wear full head to toe coverings, because straight men have trouble controlling their sexual impulses. Women have a long and terrible history of being abused, oppressed and raped by men. It is only in the past 100 years that women have approached anything remotely considered to be equal treatment and this is only in the US and Europe, China has made some inroads, but there is still complete male domination of the economic and political system. Rape and sexual abuse is almost entirely a male on female crime (minor exceptions) and just about every single woman I know has been raped or molested, either by a stranger, a relative, or some form of date rape. Would you care for me to bring out statistics of how many women are sexually assaulted every year by men vs how many men are sexually assaulted by other men? That is the reason why bathrooms are separated by gender. So what if a gay guy checks out your dong, you are not in fear of being raped and taken against your will, no to you it is just icky, when women are viewed sexually by men there is a long and nasty history to where the woman has every reason to be uncomfortable and afraid, you on the other hand are just being childish.
Welcome to the playpen; strong 3rd post.
Thank you for continuing this discussion- it will feed tony's fascination about being cruised in his locker room.
please realize it is an exercise of futility in responding - he will never change his mind. But it does add length to this thread.
dont take anything seriously of what he says; it is more fun to tease and mock him. Like at a zoo and the apes....
-
No, I can judge the merits of your suggestions of solution respective of your lame argument . I notice you took the easy option of suggesting individual changing rooms for all, rather than setting up separate bathrooms for lesbian and gays. I wonder why that is... ;) (Incidentally, those are the same suggestions the gay bathroom rights website I posted upthread was touting. So, what is the point of this bathroom debate again? ???)
the link you gave me didnt really work it took me to that website but the website didnt work properly. The reason I suggested individual rooms is that it would likely be alot cheaper to integrate and if we put gays in their own room it would still present the SAME PROBLEM!!!!!!!!! LOL
Well, I could but since you disagree with me there's no point. :-\
LOL i didnt refuse to explain my reasoning only the solution, but i like it anyway you smart ass ;D
Haha, bathrooms are separated by gender.You have always stated that homosexuality is behavioral. Unless someone is engaged in gay sex in a bathroom, then how can you define them as gay? Incidentally, all sex, gay or straight ,is illegal in all public restrooms.
the siginificance of gender is that you attracted to the opposite gender NORMALLY, so when you are attracted to the same gender person you shouldnt be in the same locker room/bathroom with them...
SIGHHHHH again it has a behavioural content to it, to deny that is just ignorant
its more than just sex al, i refer you to my earlier post where the transgender individual hit on another man in the locker room...do you find that acceptable?
-
Here is why, bathrooms locker rooms are separated based upon gender for the same reasoning that muslim fundamentalist require that women wear full head to toe coverings, because straight men have trouble controlling their sexual impulses. Women have a long and terrible history of being abused, oppressed and raped by men. It is only in the past 100 years that women have approached anything remotely considered to be equal treatment and this is only in the US and Europe, China has made some inroads, but there is still complete male domination of the economic and political system. Rape and sexual abuse is almost entirely a male on female crime (minor exceptions) and just about every single woman I know has been raped or molested, either by a stranger, a relative, or some form of date rape. Would you care for me to bring out statistics of how many women are sexually assaulted every year by men vs how many men are sexually assaulted by other men? That is the reason why bathrooms are separated by gender. So what if a gay guy checks out your dong, you are not in fear of being raped and taken against your will, no to you it is just icky, when women are viewed sexually by men there is a long and nasty history to where the woman has every reason to be uncomfortable and afraid, you on the other hand are just being childish.
LMAO so its only "straight" men who have this problem?
id like to see the study for that sandow...whos gimmick are you? im going to guess mons?
-
...... individual hit on another man in the locker room...do you find that acceptable?
i certainly do.
anytime someone is attracted to me because of the hard work I've done on my body I'm flattered.
those that I which to pursue - I do.
those I choose not to, I say "thanks for the compliment but I'm not interested"
-
the link you gave me didnt really work it took me to that website but the website didnt work properly. The reason I suggested individual rooms is that it would likely be alot cheaper to integrate and if we put gays in their own room it would still present the SAME PROBLEM!!!!!!!!! LOL
LOL i didnt refuse to explain my reasoning only the solution, but i like it anyway you smart ass ;D
the siginificance of gender is that you attracted to the opposite gender NORMALLY, so when you are attracted to the same gender person you shouldnt be in the same locker room/bathroom with them...
SIGHHHHH again it has a behavioural content to it, to deny that is just ignorant
its more than just sex al, i refer you to my earlier post where the transgender individual hit on another man in the locker room...do you find that acceptable?
Then le's not put the car before the horse. If you think gays should be banned from regular bath/locker rooms, then define gay. What makes someone gay?
-
Then le's not put the car before the horse. If you think gays should be banned from regular bath/locker rooms, then define gay. What makes someone gay?
someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex...
-
Tony's biggest problem stems from his insecurities that gays in the locker won't find him attractive.
Hence the reason he continues to run in circles chasing his tail.
-
someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex...
And how do you determine who someone is attracted to?
-
Here is why, bathrooms locker rooms are separated based upon gender for the same reasoning that muslim fundamentalist require that women wear full head to toe coverings, because straight men have trouble controlling their sexual impulses. Women have a long and terrible history of being abused, oppressed and raped by men. It is only in the past 100 years that women have approached anything remotely considered to be equal treatment and this is only in the US and Europe, China has made some inroads, but there is still complete male domination of the economic and political system. Rape and sexual abuse is almost entirely a male on female crime (minor exceptions) and just about every single woman I know has been raped or molested, either by a stranger, a relative, or some form of date rape. Would you care for me to bring out statistics of how many women are sexually assaulted every year by men vs how many men are sexually assaulted by other men? That is the reason why bathrooms are separated by gender. So what if a gay guy checks out your dong, you are not in fear of being raped and taken against your will, no to you it is just icky, when women are viewed sexually by men there is a long and nasty history to where the woman has every reason to be uncomfortable and afraid, you on the other hand are just being childish.
good post
-
Tony's biggest problem stems from his insecurities that gays in the locker won't find him attractive.
Hence the reason he continues to run in circles chasing his tail.
i've thought for years and am amused when others think the same thing.
-
Tony's biggest problem stems from his insecurities that gays in the locker won't find him attractive.
Hence the reason he continues to run in circles chasing his tail.
lol been hit on by one of you fairies in the locker room, didnt enjoy it all to much
-
good post
so is it only straights that cant control themselves or is it gays too straw? guess since sandow didnt post any studies to back up his idiocy its probably going to go unmentioned?
probably wont respond to this post will you? ;)
-
And how do you determine who someone is attracted to?
valid point, but the individual changing rooms would take care of this problem eh?
just for arguments sake though lets say you ask as a requirement to joining the gym...
also seeing as you didnt answer ill ask again, do you think its acceptable for the cross dressing man to be able to hit on guys he finds sexually attractive in the locker room?
how about you straw?
-
i've skipped the last 9 pages, but...
are we all in agreement that dudes from getbig should be able to walk around nude in the ladies shower room?
We can agree on that much, right fellahs?
-
lol been hit on by one of you fairies in the locker room, didnt enjoy it all to much
only one? you need to work out more; get that body into better shape! ;)
-
i've skipped the last 9 pages, but...
are we all in agreement that dudes from getbig should be able to walk around nude in the ladies shower room?
We can agree on that much, right fellahs?
good idea; works for me.
-
valid point, but the individual changing rooms would take care of this problem eh?
just for arguments sake though lets say you ask as a requirement to joining the gym...
also seeing as you didnt answer ill ask again, do you think its acceptable for the cross dressing man to be able to hit on guys he finds sexually attractive in the locker room?
how about you straw?
I gave you my "solution" to your non-existent problem 5 pages ago.
here it is again. read it slowly and carefully
haven't all straight people shared lockers rooms with gay people their entire lives
I honestly can't ever recall an instance that I've read or heard about where gay people have harassed straight people
I have heard or an occassion or two (or a thousand) of straight people harassing gay people and it's usually straight men doing the harassing
maybe we can put straight men in one room and everyone else in another or maybe we can just have one room for men and one for woman and post a sign saying if you have a problem with it then don't use the locker room
-
i've skipped the last 9 pages, but...
are we all in agreement that dudes from getbig should be able to walk around nude in the ladies shower room?
We can agree on that much, right fellahs?
Yes, yes we can agree on that.
-
valid point, but the individual changing rooms would take care of this problem eh?
Yes, if your primary goal is to make sure people who are sexually attracted to each other aren't in the same facilities. But your argument has been that because you are not allowed to share bathrooms and locker rooms with women, gays have a civil right that you don't. Attraction is a mental thing- gender is not. How does the fact that bathrooms are not separated by thoughts equal "civil rights violation"?
just for arguments sake though lets say you ask as a requirement to joining the gym...
What does that accomplish if someone chooses not to answer truthfully? Or defines sexual orientation in a different way?Even though there can be controversies with gender, it's generally straightforward.
also seeing as you didnt answer ill ask again, do you think its acceptable for the cross dressing man to be able to hit on guys he finds sexually attractive in the locker room?
how about you straw?
Things I find unacceptable happen in bathrooms all the time. I walked into the locker room a few days ago and heard some dude talking about his "kike boss." However, both are essentially freedom of speech issues. Having said that, you're aware of Larry Craig, right? Depending on what and how the advance was made, said cross-dresser can be arrested.
Sandow's post was 100% correct. I didn't want to get into it too deeply earlier because this thread is already all over the place, but gender separation is not to separate people who are attracted to each other. It is to separate MEN from WOMEN. it's about rape and violence OVERWHELMINGLY committed on women by men.Outside of prison, man-on-man rape is not very common. Male-on-female sexually based crimes are a common occurence. Separating the sexes was not about making sure neither gender was sexually harassed. When bathrooms were initially segregated by gender, the concept of sexual harassment wasn't even in existence. Separating by gender was about preventing PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.
-
i've skipped the last 9 pages, but...
are we all in agreement that dudes from getbig should be able to walk around nude in the ladies shower room?
We can agree on that much, right fellahs?
This is how we should be showering, 240.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/104171/starship_troopers_shower_scene/
-
Yes, if your primary goal is to make sure people who are sexually attracted to each other aren't in the same facilities. But your argument has been that because you are not allowed to share bathrooms and locker rooms with women, gays have a civil right that you don't. Attraction is a mental thing- gender is not. How does the fact that bathrooms are not separated by thoughts equal "civil rights violation"?
LOL again that is a tongue in cheek, there are more than just that reason to be against gays in locker rooms, such as sexual harassment...
OH MY GOODNESS!!!!!
GENDER IS MENTAL!!!!!!
http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Gender-issues-in-mental-health.html
which is why you can have gender issuessssss...you dont have sex issuessssss
SEX IS PHYSICAL!!!!!!!!!!
-
Things I find unacceptable happen in bathrooms all the time. I walked into the locker room a few days ago and heard some dude talking about his "kike boss." However, both are essentially freedom of speech issues. Having said that, you're aware of Larry Craig, right? Depending on what and how the advance was made, said cross-dresser can be arrested.
Sandow's post was 100% correct. I didn't want to get into it too deeply earlier because this thread is already all over the place, but gender separation is not to separate people who are attracted to each other. It is to separate MEN from WOMEN. it's about rape and violence OVERWHELMINGLY committed on women by men.Outside of prison, man-on-man rape is not very common. Male-on-female sexually based crimes are a common occurence. Separating the sexes was not about making sure neither gender was sexually harassed. When bathrooms were initially segregated by gender, the concept of sexual harassment wasn't even in existence. Separating by gender was about preventing PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.
why even put ppl in that situation al?
so youre ok with gays hitting on straights in locker rooms where they are getting undressed/dressed?
LOL so again its only straight men that cant control themselves?
any studies to back that up?
-
Gender identity disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder
"One contemporary treatment for this disorder consists primarily of physical modifications to bring the body into harmony with one's perception of mental (psychological, emotional) gender identity, rather than vice versa."
thats a mental issue, not a physical issue
-
I can't believe how long this thread has gone.
-
only one? you need to work out more; get that body into better shape! ;)
Not many gay men at the Curves where he works out at I suppose.
-
LOL again that is a tongue in cheek, there are more than just that reason to be against gays in locker rooms, such as sexual harassment...
OH MY GOODNESS!!!!!
GENDER IS MENTAL!!!!!!
http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Gender-issues-in-mental-health.html
which is why you can have gender issuessssss...you dont have sex issuessssss
SEX IS PHYSICAL!!!!!!!!!!
My use of gender was accurate. Pre- op transsexuals are biologically men, but usually opt to use women's rooms. I never said that gender was physical, just that it is not mental, in that you don't have to read someone's mind to determine their gender. Even effeminate gay men are considered to be men by most of society. I've actually been using "gender" instead of "sex" for that very reason.
-
LOL again that is a tongue in cheek, there are more than just that reason to be against gays in locker rooms, such as sexual harassment...
Dude, whether or not you believe there are good reasons to be against gays in locker rooms was never the issue. You tried to make a fallacious argument that the gays' inability to marry was counterbalanced by their "right" to share facilities with people they may be attracted to. You argued that this is a civil rights issue, even though you can't really define how. You said gay= "someone attracted to a person of the same sex".... ummm, okay. So, what, now we're gonna segregate bathrooms based on thoughts? And in the quoted post, you specifically say "against gays in locker rooms", not "we should have single occupancy dressing rooms" or whatever.
-
LOL so again its only straight men that cant control themselves?
any studies to back that up?
No one said only straight men can't control themselves- just that women make up the overwhelming majority of sexually based attacks. All men aren't rapists, but most rapists are men. That's putting it glibly, you get the drift. I'm not going to even bother providing crime stats because they are easy enough to google and, realistically, no one with a working brain should even question that.
why even put ppl in that situation al?
so youre ok with gays hitting on straights in locker rooms where they are getting undressed/dressed?
People get hit on, mctones. That's life. If someone's actions are egregious enough, then they will be prosecuted. Regardless of whether or not I'm "okay" with it, I don't consider it a civil rights violation. If a gay guy made other members of my gym feel uncomfortable by leering at them or making advances, he'd be reprimanded.
And once again, you say "keep gays out of locker rooms", but how do you propose doing that? Advocating single occupancy units is one thing, but advocating excluding gays is completely different. How do you propose accurately defining and detecting gays so we can keep them out?
-
My use of gender was accurate. Pre- op transsexuals are biologically men, but usually opt to use women's rooms. I never said that gender was physical, just that it is not mental, in that you don't have to read someone's mind to determine their gender. Even effeminate gay men are considered to be men by most of society. I've actually been using "gender" instead of "sex" for that very reason.
Not really. There is a new classification called "gender identity." This is how we define it here (same is a number of other cities):
""Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth."
Good luck figuring some of that out without reading someone's mind.
-
Not really. There is a new classification called "gender identity." This is how we define it here (same is a number of other cities):
Well, from the excerpt in your post:
"Gender identity or expression" includes a person's ACTUAL or perceived gender"
Then there's this from an earlier post of mine, reply #206,
Even though there can be controversies with gender, it's GENERALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
So, yeah, I wasn't speaking in absolute terms but the paragraph you posted actually supports what I was saying.
Posting from iPhone, so apologies if formatting is crap.
-
I can't believe how long this thread has gone.
Believe it or not, this isn't even a subject I feel passionately about. I'm just fascinated by tonymctones' idea of "logic'. The points of his argument, when taken as a whole, completely contradict each other.
I'm also playing an ongoing drinking game where I take a shot every time one of his posts contains "LOL" or "LMAO". :D
-
Well, from the excerpt in your post:Then there's this from an earlier post of mine, reply #206,
So, yeah, I wasn't speaking in absolute terms but the paragraph you posted actually supports what I was saying.
Posting from iPhone, so apologies if formatting is crap.
Understood.
Question: how do you determine someone's "gender-related self image"? (I have no idea.)
-
Tony Mc is so concerned about gays in his gym; start your own club. Buy one for sale; pass out keys to only your friends and those who can be trusted not to stare at you in the locker room. Make it a private place; not open to the public. Invite women only if they will use the same shower area as men. Simple answer to your concern.
Thank you, please drive through.
Next......
-
I'm up for that. Only women w curves fat asses and boobs allowed.
-
Tony Mc is so concerned about gays in his gym; start your own club. Buy one for sale; pass out keys to only your friends and those who can be trusted not to stare at you in the locker room. Make it a private place; not open to the public. Invite women only if they will use the same shower area as men. Simple answer to your concern.
Thank you, please drive through.
Next......
That's really not the issue. It's about privacy. That's the reason we separate men and women in bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.
-
Tony Mc is so concerned about gays in his gym; start your own club. Buy one for sale; pass out keys to only your friends and those who can be trusted not to stare at you in the locker room. Make it a private place; not open to the public. Invite women only if they will use the same shower area as men. Simple answer to your concern.
Thank you, please drive through.
Next......
even easier
Tony can just wear earplugs in the locker room then he won't be able to listen in on other peoples conversations either that or he can just mind his own f'ng business which is what normal adults would do
-
even easier
Tony can just wear earplugs in the locker room then he won't be able to listen in on other peoples conversations either than or he can just mind his own f'ng business which is what normal adults would do
Actually, this was something I was wondering about when I read about it.
Do you ever have conversations with your boys about fucking chicks? I hear these conversations in locker rooms all of the time... I've been involved with them.
Perhaps the homosexuals do not actually like hearing about you banging bitches?
It's a two way street when it comes to being "uncomfortable" listening to conversations right?
-
Actually, this was something I was wondering about when I read about it.
Do you ever have conversations with your boys about fucking chicks? I hear these conversations in locker rooms all of the time... I've been involved with them.
Perhaps the homosexuals do not actually like hearing about you banging bitches?
It's a two way street when it comes to being "uncomfortable" listening to conversations right?
it never occured to me either way
I don't spend much time in the locker room. I usually only go in there after I work out to change my shirt and wash my hands
As long as people put away their weights and wipe their sweat off the benches I really don't care what they do or say
The people who really piss me off are the ones who drop the dumbbells
-
i've skipped the last 9 pages, but...
are we all in agreement that dudes from getbig should be able to walk around nude in the ladies shower room?
We can agree on that much, right fellahs?
of course, as long as my wife, sister, daughters, grandmother or favorite aunt isn't in there. ;)
No one said only straight men can't control themselves- just that women make up the overwhelming majority of sexually based attacks. All men aren't rapists, but most rapists are men. That's putting it glibly, you get the drift. I'm not going to even bother providing crime stats because they are easy enough to google and, realistically, no one with a working brain should even question that.
side stepping the prevelance of man on man rape in prison
how accurate do you all think man on man rape statistics are in the free world?
in other words, how many of the men here, if raped by another man, would report it? let's say you would, how many of your male friends family and aquaintances do you think would? what percentage?
-
of course, as long as my wife, sister, daughters, grandmother or favorite aunt isn't in there. ;)
side stepping the prevelance of man on man rape in prison
how accurate do you all think man on man rape statistics are in the free world?
in other words, how many of the men here, if raped by another man, would report it? let's say you would, how many of your male friends family and aquaintances do you think would? what percentage?
No, I actually addressed this in post #206. I said outside of prison, male-on-male rape is not that common. You make a good point that male-on-male rape statistics are probably not entirely accurate, but one thing to keep in mind is that of the m-on-m sexual assault statistics we are aware of, the majority were perpetrated by men who define themselves as straight. According to tonymctones a gay man is a man who is attracted to other men. If a guy commits a sexual assault on another male but doesn't admit to being gay or attracted to men, should he use a gay bathroom or a straight bathroom?
-
I'm just fascinated by tonymctones' idea of "logic'. The points of his argument, when taken as a whole, completely contradict each other.
This issue and his laughable run around when he is discussing pro-choice and men's inability to walk away from children they father always proceeds for pages and pages of him constantly running in circles and then asking you to tell him what he is suppose to be saying. He can't make a statement or noncontradicatory viewpoint without throwing in a question at the end trying to make you give him the answer he wants.
It's amusing to say the least.
-
That's really not the issue. It's about privacy.
Well, you can't get more private than you owning your own building and issuing keys to only those you deem desiring. That's privacy at the max !
-
What a surprise. ::) Laying the groundwork for the president to say that his view on traditional marriage has "evolved" to the point where he now openly supports homosexual marriage. I predict we see this "evolution" before the end of 2011.
Biden Says Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'
Friday, 24 Dec 2010
Vice President Joe Biden says the country is evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it's inevitable there will be national consensus.
He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Friday the same thing is happening with the issue of marriage that happened with gays' service in the military.
Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that will eventually allow gays to serve openly in the military.
Gay marriage is still not legal in most states. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue are evolving, but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BidenGayMarriage/2010/12/24/id/380958
I think I recall having a dispute with Benny who was adamant that Obama supported traditional marriage.
Feds will no longer defend law banning same-sex marriage
By Pete Yost
Associated Press
POSTED: 08:36 a.m. HST, Feb 23, 2011
WASHINGTON >> In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus" the Constitution is designed to guard against.
The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.
The move quickly drew praise from some Democrats in Congress but a sharp response from the spokesman for Republican John Boehner, the House Speaker.
"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," said Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel.
Gay groups, which had long pressured the administration to take a step like this, were pleased. Ron Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the policy change "a tremendous step toward recognizing our common humanity and ending an egregious injustice against thousands of loving, committed couples who simply want the protections, rights and responsibilities afforded other married couples. We thank the Obama administration."
Obama's move may position him politically at the forefront of rising public support for gay marriage. Polling results can vary rather significantly depending on what words are used to describe gay marriage, but there is a gradual trend in public opinion toward more acceptance of gay marriage.
An Associated Press-National Constitution Center Poll conducted last August found 52 percent of Americans saying the federal government should give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex, while 46 percent said it should not. In polling by ABC News and the Washington Post, support for the legalization of gay marriage has climbed from 37 percent in 2003 to 47 percent in February 2010.
Holder's statement said, "Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed" the Defense of Marriage Act. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional and that Congress has repealed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said Obama himself is still "grappling" with his personal view of gay marriage but has always personally opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as "unnecessary and unfair."
Holder wrote to Boehner that Obama has concluded the Defense of Marriage Act fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.
The attorney general said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard.
At a December news conference, in response to a reporters' question, Obama revealed that his position on gay marriage is "constantly evolving." He has opposed such marriages and supported instead civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The president said such civil unions are his baseline — at this point, as he put it.
"This is something that we're going to continue to debate, and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward," he said.
On Wednesday, Holder said the president has concluded that, given a documented history of discrimination against gays, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now.
The attorney general said the department will immediately bring the policy change to the attention of two federal courts now hearing separate lawsuits targeting the Defense of Marriage Act.
One case, in Connecticut, challenges the federal government's denial of marriage-related protections for federal Family Medical Leave Act benefits, federal laws for private pension plans and federal laws concerning state pension plans. In the other case in New York City, the federal government refused to recognize the marriage of two women and taxed the inheritance that one of the women left to the other as though the two were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/116749799.html
-
^^^^^
I think obama is realizing his chances for relection are starting to look slim especially considering the outlook for the economy and the job market within the next 2 years.
either that or maybe he was honest for once when he said he was ok with being a one term president...
-
Yup. Inflation, disaster economy, failed foreign policy, wtf energy policies, are all going to lead to a gop victory in two years. Focusing on the fags screams desperate for their money.
-
Yup. Inflation, disaster economy, failed foreign policy, wtf energy policies, are all going to lead to a gop victory in two years. Focusing on the fags screams desperate for their money.
the check is in the mail
-
Yup. Inflation, disaster economy, failed foreign policy, wtf energy policies, are all going to lead to a gop victory in two years. Focusing on the fags screams desperate for their money.
Rush pretty much said the same thing yesterday. Only, he tied it to Obama's potential LOSS of cash, should these GOP governors crack these public-sector unions.
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-obama-pandering-with-doma (http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-obama-pandering-with-doma)
"How many of you, who are not union, in the state of Wisconsin, and who are Republican are learning for the first time that YOUR state income taxes (a portion of it) is ending up in ads campaigns and other spending campaigns for Democrat candidates in your state or nationally? Obama and his bunch are figuring out that people are going to start learning this.
They're going to start figuring out the money-laundering aspect of it. They're thinking, 'You know. Maybe, we might lose this collective-bargaining business...' They might lose this source of revenue, or a portion of it. So, where do they make it up?
HELLOOOOOOOO, GAY PEOPLE!!!"
-
It appears that Obama FORGOT that the Supreme Court already weighed in on this issue 40 years ago and declared that laws like DOMA DO NOT violate the Constitution.
See Baker v. Nelson.
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment./4/
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations./5/"
Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm (http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm)
-
Rush pretty much said the same thing yesterday. Only, he tied it to Obama's potential LOSS of cash, should these GOP governors crack these public-sector unions.
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-obama-pandering-with-doma (http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-obama-pandering-with-doma)
"How many of you, who are not union, in the state of Wisconsin, and who are Republican are learning for the first time that YOUR state income taxes (a portion of it) is ending up in ads campaigns and other spending campaigns for Democrat candidates in your state or nationally? Obama and his bunch are figuring out that people are going to start learning this.
They're going to start figuring out the money-laundering aspect of it. They're thinking, 'You know. Maybe, we might lose this collective-bargaining business...' They might lose this source of revenue, or a portion of it. So, where do they make it up?
HELLOOOOOOOO, GAY PEOPLE!!!"
hahahahahah and what did beck say or hannity :D :D
-
hahahahahah and what did beck say or hannity :D :D
Try addressing the issue at hand, for once. Obama is getting whacked on his union backing and embarrassed on his foreign policy responses.
So, how convenient now, does he announce that (despite a USSC ruling to the contrary) that he's ruled DOMA unconstitutional and won't defend it in court?
-
the problem is if it came out of the mouth of rush it's probably not true, so no reason to comment :o
-
the problem is if it came out of the mouth of rush it's probably not true, so no reason to comment :o
PLEASE!! How many times have lefties been in "shock", because of something happening that Rush talked about and saw coming MONTHS prior?
-
the prophet rush :D :D :D :D :D :D just keep watching him ::) i'll stick to real news sources and you can watch entertainers. oh and for your information the wwf or wwe is entertainment also
-
the prophet rush :D :D :D :D :D :D just keep watching him ::) i'll stick to real news sources and you can watch entertainers. oh and for your information the wwf or wwe is entertainment also
Real news sources, like Chris "Thrill up my leg" Matthews? RIGHT!!!! ::)
-
Real news sources, like Chris "Thrill up my leg" Matthews? RIGHT!!!! ::)
he has nice legs.
-
February 24, 2011
Obama Completes His Trifecta
By Richard N. Weltz
With a bold political announcement, President Barack Obama has completed the trifecta -- de facto coups which bring into his White House the powers and functions of the other two branches, as outlined in our Constitution.
That document assigns the legislative function to Congress, but the Executive Branch blithely and routinely co-opts that power by run-arounds and choosing to enforce or not enforce duly passed laws of the Legislature. Notable examples in the scant couple of years The One has been in office include: refusal to enforce voting laws against intimidation at the polls in Chicago, efforts to use the regulatory functions of the FPA to circumvent the specific legislation of Congress to ban cap-and-trade, refusal to enforce immigration laws, and attempts by the FCC to regulate matters banned from its jurisdiction by law.
We need not even mention the undemocratic parliamentary tactics and outright bribery used by Obama and his allies to ram through the unpopular and clearly unconstitutional ObamaCare bill -- without it even having been read by most Congress members.
On the judiciary side, we witness the executive ignoring a Federal Court ruling on ObamaCare's unconstitutionality, the refusal -- to the point where an order of compliance had to be issued from the bench -- to refrain from imposing an illegal moratorium on oil drilling; and, now the clearest and most blatant power grab of all. Obama has arrogated to himself, in the matter of DOMA, the power to declare that law unconstitutional and order his Justice Department not to contest lawsuits challenging it.
In the meantime, while usurping and/or undercutting the legitimate powers and functions of the other two branches, in the three areas for which the Executive does have power and responsibility -- faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign policy, and commanding the armed forces -- this megalomaniacal narcissist has proven a spectacular failure.
What have we allowed to happen to the American concept of separation of powers? Are we abandoning this unique and hallowed concept for a tinpot dictatorship dressed up in a fancy suit and fancy oratory? Where and how do we stop this train to ruination?
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/obama_completes_his_trifecta.html at February 24, 2011 - 03:43:45 PM CST
-
February 24, 2011
Obama Completes His Trifecta
By Richard N. Weltz
With a bold political announcement, President Barack Obama has completed the trifecta -- de facto coups which bring into his White House the powers and functions of the other two branches, as outlined in our Constitution.
That document assigns the legislative function to Congress, but the Executive Branch blithely and routinely co-opts that power by run-arounds and choosing to enforce or not enforce duly passed laws of the Legislature. Notable examples in the scant couple of years The One has been in office include: refusal to enforce voting laws against intimidation at the polls in Chicago, efforts to use the regulatory functions of the FPA to circumvent the specific legislation of Congress to ban cap-and-trade, refusal to enforce immigration laws, and attempts by the FCC to regulate matters banned from its jurisdiction by law.
We need not even mention the undemocratic parliamentary tactics and outright bribery used by Obama and his allies to ram through the unpopular and clearly unconstitutional ObamaCare bill -- without it even having been read by most Congress members.
On the judiciary side, we witness the executive ignoring a Federal Court ruling on ObamaCare's unconstitutionality, the refusal -- to the point where an order of compliance had to be issued from the bench -- to refrain from imposing an illegal moratorium on oil drilling; and, now the clearest and most blatant power grab of all. Obama has arrogated to himself, in the matter of DOMA, the power to declare that law unconstitutional and order his Justice Department not to contest lawsuits challenging it.
In the meantime, while usurping and/or undercutting the legitimate powers and functions of the other two branches, in the three areas for which the Executive does have power and responsibility -- faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign policy, and commanding the armed forces -- this megalomaniacal narcissist has proven a spectacular failure.
What have we allowed to happen to the American concept of separation of powers? Are we abandoning this unique and hallowed concept for a tinpot dictatorship dressed up in a fancy suit and fancy oratory? Where and how do we stop this train to ruination?
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/obama_completes_his_trifecta.html at February 24, 2011 - 03:43:45 PM CST
Nah, it's just that his position supporting traditional marriage "evolved" in the past two years and he is listening to his conscience (and ignoring the public).
-
He's doing the same thing on other issues pertaining to the law. The man is an out of control power freak. He wants to be dictator for life, laws, constitution, precedent, and reality be damned.
-
Yup. Inflation, disaster economy, failed foreign policy, wtf energy policies, are all going to lead to a gop victory in two years. Focusing on the fags screams desperate for their money.
you are crazy if you believe this
-
the problem is if it came out of the mouth of rush it's probably not true, so no reason to comment :o
awesome
-
the prophet rush :D :D :D :D :D :D just keep watching him ::) i'll stick to real news sources and you can watch entertainers. oh and for your information the wwf or wwe is entertainment also
very nice again..keep it up
-
As usual, when you can't refute the point, you attack the source.
Sorry, if I don't get my news and political opinions, from last-placed hacks who get tingles up their legs and go into heat, upon the sight of Barack Obama (even as he's continually being exposed for the clueless weakling that he is).
-
rush is political opinion
-
rush is political opinion
Indeed!! Just like "Thrill up my leg" and Big Ed.
The difference is that Rush's political opposition fear and loathe him, because he has them pegged and exposed them for who they truly are. And he's got the audience and the paychecks to prove.
The hacks you continue to cite are nothing but jokes.
-
rush is nothing more than a fat beck without a chalk board :D :D and about his audience there are millions and millions of morons in this country ;D
-
rush is nothing more than a fat beck without a chalk board :D :D and about his audience there are millions and millions of morons in this country ;D
Once again, you flee in cowardly fashion from the issue being discussed, namely Obama's "convenient" declaration about not doing his job, to drum up left-winged support as he sees this public-sector union thing, blowing up in his face.
-
Jeremy Bernard: A historic choice for White House social secretary (openly gay)
WasPost ^ | 2-25-11 | Jonathan Capehart
The White House is set to make news and history this afternoon when it announces the new social secretary. Jeremy Bernard, currently the chief of staff to the U.S. ambassador to France, will become the third person to hold the job in the Obama administration. But he will be the first man and the first openly gay person to be the first family's and the executive mansion's chief event planner and host.
*snip*
Bernard and his then-partner Rufus Gifford were early supporters of Obama in California. And they raised a ton of money for him through their company, B&G Associates. Gifford went on to become finance director of the Democratic National Committee. Bernard was the White House liaison at the National Endowment for the Humanities before dashing off to his Paris post in November.
Full disclosure: Bernard and I are friends. He will bring a certain warmth and irreverence to the job that will make him a joy for his colleagues to work with. His knowledge of the Obamas and his intense attention to detail will ensure that their vision for the people's house continues seamlessly
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.co m ...
________________________ ________________________ _
WTF?
-
HELLLLLOOOOOOOOOO!!!! GAY PEOPLE!!!
-
Bernard and his then-partner Rufus Gifford were early supporters of Obama in California. And they raised a ton of money for him through their company, B&G Associates. Gifford went on to become finance director of the Democratic National Committee. Bernard was the White House liaison at the National Endowment for the Humanities before dashing off to his Paris post in November.
________________________ _______________
Gay for Pay!
-
Bernard and his then-partner Rufus Gifford were early supporters of Obama in California. And they raised a ton of money for him through their company, B&G Associates. Gifford went on to become finance director of the Democratic National Committee. Bernard was the White House liaison at the National Endowment for the Humanities before dashing off to his Paris post in November.
________________________ _______________
Gay for Pay!
How does that one verse in TK's unofficial-official theme song go again?
-
How does that one verse in TK's unofficial-official theme song go again?
This WH is so embarrassing.
-
This WH is so embarrassing.
So someone is embarrassing because they are holding a gun?
Why is that?
-
No, its embarassing because we have a collection of freaks resembling the Star Wars bar scene occupying all important positions of govt.
-
So someone is embarrassing because they are holding a gun?
Why is that?
I think it's the cheese grin to which 333386 is referring in that pic, a symbol of the supreme buffoonery of this administration.
-
I think it's the cheese grin to which 333386 is referring in that pic, a symbol of the supreme buffoonery of this administration.
So a smile equates to buffoonary.
Come on man... You realize that every time you guys do something like this, you lose any idea of being "fair and balanced" and you just become a shill.
-
So a smile equates to buffoonary.
Come on man... You realize that every time you guys do something like this, you lose any idea of being "fair and balanced" and you just become a shill.
That was my view as to why 333386 used that pic.
-
So a smile equates to buffoonary.
Come on man... You realize that every time you guys do something like this, you lose any idea of being "fair and balanced" and you just become a shill.
Do what? We have a collection of freaks in all high positions of office.
-
So a smile equates to buffoonary.
Come on man... You realize that every time you guys do something like this, you lose any idea of being "fair and balanced" and you just become a shill.
I never claimed to be "fair and balanced". My views are predominantly conservative and I make no bones about it.
-
Do what? We have a collection of freaks in all high positions of office.
You never show photos of anyone who looks like a fool that is a Republican do you? Not that I've seen.
To bring another poster into the fray... Neither does Beach Bum.
-
You never show photos of anyone who looks like a fool that is a Republican do you? Not that I've seen.
To bring another poster into the fray... Neither does Beach Bum.
The GOP is not doing anything right now that warrants mocking and ridicule like the Obozo Admn is.
And since this thread is about gays, surely I can find a few unflattering ones with Kagan.
-
So a smile equates to buffoonary.
Come on man... You realize that every time you guys do something like this, you lose any idea of being "fair and balanced" and you just become a shill.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I never claimed to be "fair and balanced". My views are predominantly conservative and I make no bones about it.
nothing wrong with that..I tend to be conservative as well but you need to acknowledge when the other guy who is not conservative has a good point
-
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:-[
I call it like I see it.
This admn resembles the bar scene from Star Wars. From top to bottom, its filled with people who resemble the worst of he rejects inhabiting the DMV.
-
:-[
I call it like I see it.
This admn resembles the bar scene from Star Wars. From top to bottom, its filled with people who resemble the worst of he rejects inhabiting the DMV.
calling it like you see it is one thing..calling it like you see it even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is NUTS!!!!!
-
calling it like you see it is one thing..calling it like you see it even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is NUTS!!!!!
Go check out your thread praising Obama for his handling of Egypt. I placed a little gift in there for you to ponder from Christopher Hitchens.
-
That was my view as to why 333386 used that pic.
which is the reason that people dont take you or your posts seriously. ;D
-
He's doing the same thing on other issues pertaining to the law. The man is an out of control power freak. He wants to be dictator for life, laws, constitution, precedent, and reality be damned.
really?
wow, that would be great !
-
which is the reason that people dont take you or your posts seriously. ;D
Gay suckers who donated a shit load to ZERO in 2008 are getting all lathered up by this admn to be again hit up for money for
re-election. First its the flaunting of the law on DOMA, now its the cronyism by appointing the twink as secretary, oh how cute is that?
Like gullible dupes and lemmings you will all send him $ $ $ again. Pathetic.
-
Gingrich: Obama Sparks 'Constitutional Crisis,' Raises Impeachment Specter
NewsMax ^ | 2-25-2011 | By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.
Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.
Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich: Obama Sparks 'Constitutional Crisis,' Raises Impeachment Specter Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
-
You never show photos of anyone who looks like a fool that is a Republican do you? Not that I've seen.
To bring another poster into the fray... Neither does Beach Bum.
I don't recall posting a lot of pictures of people looking like fools. So in that sense, you are correct.
-
Gingrich: Obama Sparks 'Constitutional Crisis,' Raises Impeachment Specter
NewsMax ^ | 2-25-2011 | By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.
Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.
Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich: Obama Sparks 'Constitutional Crisis,' Raises Impeachment Specter Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
It is pretty outrageous. I hope the voters hold him accountable.
-
Conservatives vow to make gay marriage a 2012 election issue
By Associated Press
POSTED: 08:06 a.m. HST, Feb 25, 2011
NEW YORK >> Angered conservatives are vowing to make same-sex marriage a front-burner election issue, nationally and in the states, following the Obama administration's announcement that it will no longer defend the federal law denying recognition to gay married couples.
"The ripple effect nationwide will be to galvanize supporters of marriage," said staff counsel Jim Campbell of Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group.
On the federal level, opponents of same-sex marriage urged Republican leaders in the House of Representatives to intervene on their own to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, against pending court challenges.
"The president has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the president's neglect of duty."
Conservatives also said they would now expect the eventual 2012 GOP presidential nominee to highlight the marriage debate as part of a challenge to Obama, putting the issue on equal footing with the economy.
Gay rights activists welcomed Wednesday's announcement from the Justice Department, sensing that it would bolster the prospects for same-sex marriage in the courts. Among Democrats in Congress, there was praise for Obama's decision and talk of proposing legislation to repeal the law altogether.
"I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now," said Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif. "My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the federal government should honor that."
On the state level, there were swift repercussions.
In Rhode Island, the Roman Catholic bishop of Providence, Thomas Tobin, said Thursday that his diocese would "redouble its efforts' to defeat a pending same-sex marriage bill in response to the announcement. In Iowa, conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats said the DOMA decision would invigorate a campaign to repeal the state's court-ordered same-sex marriage law.
"This gives us more credibility than ever with this issue," said Vander Plaats, who wants to topple the Democratic leadership in the state Senate that is blocking efforts to put a same-sex marriage repeal proposal on the ballot.
In Maryland, meanwhile, the state Senate was debating a bill that would make that state the sixth to legalize same-sex marriage — joining Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.
Linsey Pecikonis of the gay-rights group Equality Maryland predicted the DOMA announcement would improve the bill's prospects.
"It's a recognition that government is no longer able to defend discrimination," she said.
In Congress, GOP House leaders gave no immediate indication whether they would intervene to defend DOMA in the ongoing lawsuits, but they harshly criticized Obama's decision.
"This is the real politicization of the Justice Department — when the personal views of the president override the government's duty to defend the law of the land," said House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas. "It's disappointing that the Obama administration continues to place politics above the will of the American people."
In fact, many polls show the public almost evenly divided on legalizing same-sex marriage, one reason the issue is so volatile politically.
Perkins, the Family Research Council leader, suggested that House Republicans would risk alienating their conservative base if they did not tackle the marriage issue head-on.
"The president was kind of tossing this cultural grenade into the Republican camp," he said.
"If they ignore this, it becomes an issue that will lead to some very troubling outcomes for Republicans."
Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay-rights group Lambda Legal, predicted the DOMA announcement would energize opponents of gay marriage, but he questioned whether that would have much impact on the 2012 presidential race.
"I think they will try to turn this into a major election issue," he said. "But the people who feel strongly that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry were not going to vote for President Obama anyway."
Conversely, he said the gay community will rally behind Obama all the more eagerly.
"It's hard to imagine that with the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' (enabling gays to serve openly in the military) and this decision, there will be anything less than enthusiastic support," he said.
Though the DOMA announcement elated gays and infuriated many conservatives, it did not do away with the law, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages and allows states to deny recognition of same-sex unions performed elsewhere. Among its many effects, it forces same-sex married couples to file separate U.S. tax returns, and bars the transfer of Social Security benefits to a surviving same-sex spouse.
In California, where the fate of the state's same-sex marriage ban is in the hands of a federal appeals court, gay rights advocates welcomed the administration's action as validation of their plan to get the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the gay marriage issue. While the California case does not hinge on DOMA, lawyers for two couples suing to overturn Proposition 8 are relying on many of the same constitutional arguments made by the Justice Department.
One of the lawyers, Ted Olson, said the federal government's stance bolsters the positions taken by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gov. Jerry Brown in his previous role as attorney general when they decided not to defend Proposition 8. The net effect, he said, "will be very persuasive" as judges weigh the case.
California is among 30 states which have passed constitutional amendments aimed at prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Brian Brown, president of the conservative National Organization for Marriage, predicted that Obama's decision not to defend the federal DOMA would spur efforts in some of the remaining states to join the ranks of those with constitutional bans.
Indiana lawmakers took a step in that direction last week, and Brown said it was possible that amendments could gain traction in Wyoming, Minnesota, North Carolina and even New Hampshire, if GOP lawmakers succeed in repealing the state's same-sex marriage law.
"This raises the stakes and makes clear the executive branch is not willing to carry out its responsibility," Brown said. "I don't think by any stretch of the imagination the tables have turned on this issue. People in this country know what marriage is."
When DOMA was passed in 1996, an election year, it had broad bipartisan support. Over recent years, Obama has criticized the federal law without fully supporting gay marriage. White House spokesman Jay Carney said this week that the president was "grappling" with the issue but had always personally opposed DOMA as "unnecessary and unfair."
The Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law, estimates that about 80,000 legally married same-sex couples live in the U.S., including roughly 30,000 who wed in Canada or other foreign countries. An estimated 85,000 same-sex couples have entered civil unions or domestic partnerships, the institute says.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/116930093.html
-
excellent.
this will be more entertaining that all that financial mumbo-gumbo.
-
DOMA Decision Reveals: Obama Admin. Misled Congress on Military Benefits for Same-Sex Couples
Center for Military Readiness (PDF link) ^ | 2-24-2011 | Press Release - (PDF link)
________________________ ________________________ ____-
For Immediate Release February 24, 2011
Contact: Elaine Donnelly, CMR President - (734) 464-9430
Contact: Tommy Sears, Executive Director - (202) 347-5333
DOMA Decision Reveals: Obama Administration Misled Congress on Military Housing and Benefits for Same-Sex Couples
In response to the announcement that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:
“The statement issued by the Department of Justice yesterday was partially based on the reckless action of last-year’s lame-duck Congress to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible to serve in the military, which is usually called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.
“This action belies the Defense Department’s “Comprehensive Review Working Group” report on the subject released on November 30, 2010, and assurances made by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, Clifford L. Stanley in two implementation plan documents released on January 28, 2011. The CRWG report and official testimony from the Secretary of Defense disingenuously assured Congress and the military service chiefs that the existence of the DOMA would bar the military from providing housing and benefits for same-sex couples living together as married or ‘committed partners’ on military bases.
“Yesterday’s action also belies a new training document currently being circulated by Army officials, called the “Top Ten Things You Need to Know About the Repeal of DADT,” which should be withdrawn immediately. Point #5 on the Army’s “Top Ten” list reads, “The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits the Federal Government from recognizing any same-sex marriage, so same sex partners do not qualify as dependents for many benefits and services.”
“Point #6 further claims that “sexual orientation will not be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin as a class under the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program.” Neither statement is credible, since the Justice Department has just filed a document declaring the opposite: “…[C]lassifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.”
“The Justice Department’s claim that it will continue enforcement of DOMA is meaningless, since the department has said that it will not defend the law at any level. This posture invites activist lower-court judges to exceed their authority in declaring the congressionally approved law unconstitutional, following the same logic as the Obama Administration. Since the Solicitor General will not petition for Supreme Court review of such rulings, the administration has unilaterally extended to sexual orientation groups the same 14th Amendment rights as other “protected” classes.
“President Obama is telling supporters of traditional marriage that their opinions, grounded in a millennium of religious teaching, historical practice, and cultural traditions, are unreasonable and not worthy of consideration, much less a defense from those who wish to impose their own radical view of marriage on the rest of the country.
“The administration is also admitting, belatedly, that imposition of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) law in the military cannot be reconciled with the Defense of Marriage Act. Members of Congress who were led to believe otherwise should call for immediate hearings to reconsider the rash action taken during the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress last December.
“The duplicity exposed yesterday also calls into question the administration’s plans to “certify” that final repeal of the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., would not undermine recruiting, retention and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force. Such a document would be equally meaningless and useful only to President Obama, who is determined to make the military pay the price for his political campaign promises to the LGBT Left.
LINK to Original PDF document
________________________ ______-
LET ME REPEAT AGAIN
F U C K Y O U whoever still supports obama.
-
DOMA Decision Reveals: Obama Admin. Misled Congress on Military Benefits for Same-Sex Couples
Center for Military Readiness (PDF link) ^ | 2-24-2011 | Press Release - (PDF link)
________________________ ________________________ ____-
For Immediate Release February 24, 2011
Contact: Elaine Donnelly, CMR President - (734) 464-9430
Contact: Tommy Sears, Executive Director - (202) 347-5333
DOMA Decision Reveals: Obama Administration Misled Congress on Military Housing and Benefits for Same-Sex Couples
In response to the announcement that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:
“The statement issued by the Department of Justice yesterday was partially based on the reckless action of last-year’s lame-duck Congress to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible to serve in the military, which is usually called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.
“This action belies the Defense Department’s “Comprehensive Review Working Group” report on the subject released on November 30, 2010, and assurances made by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, Clifford L. Stanley in two implementation plan documents released on January 28, 2011. The CRWG report and official testimony from the Secretary of Defense disingenuously assured Congress and the military service chiefs that the existence of the DOMA would bar the military from providing housing and benefits for same-sex couples living together as married or ‘committed partners’ on military bases.
“Yesterday’s action also belies a new training document currently being circulated by Army officials, called the “Top Ten Things You Need to Know About the Repeal of DADT,” which should be withdrawn immediately. Point #5 on the Army’s “Top Ten” list reads, “The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits the Federal Government from recognizing any same-sex marriage, so same sex partners do not qualify as dependents for many benefits and services.”
“Point #6 further claims that “sexual orientation will not be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin as a class under the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program.” Neither statement is credible, since the Justice Department has just filed a document declaring the opposite: “…[C]lassifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.”
“The Justice Department’s claim that it will continue enforcement of DOMA is meaningless, since the department has said that it will not defend the law at any level. This posture invites activist lower-court judges to exceed their authority in declaring the congressionally approved law unconstitutional, following the same logic as the Obama Administration. Since the Solicitor General will not petition for Supreme Court review of such rulings, the administration has unilaterally extended to sexual orientation groups the same 14th Amendment rights as other “protected” classes.
“President Obama is telling supporters of traditional marriage that their opinions, grounded in a millennium of religious teaching, historical practice, and cultural traditions, are unreasonable and not worthy of consideration, much less a defense from those who wish to impose their own radical view of marriage on the rest of the country.
“The administration is also admitting, belatedly, that imposition of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) law in the military cannot be reconciled with the Defense of Marriage Act. Members of Congress who were led to believe otherwise should call for immediate hearings to reconsider the rash action taken during the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress last December.
“The duplicity exposed yesterday also calls into question the administration’s plans to “certify” that final repeal of the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., would not undermine recruiting, retention and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force. Such a document would be equally meaningless and useful only to President Obama, who is determined to make the military pay the price for his political campaign promises to the LGBT Left.
LINK to Original PDF document
________________________ ______-
LET ME REPEAT AGAIN
F U C K Y O U whoever still supports obama.
Wow. So the administration not only refuses to enforce existing bipartisan federal law, it lied to the military. I'm just amazed at what a free pass they get from the media.
-
DOMA Decision Reveals: Obama Admin. Misled Congress on Military Benefits for Same-Sex Couples
Center for Military Readiness (PDF link) ^ | 2-24-2011 | Press Release - (PDF link)
________________________ ________________________ ____-
For Immediate Release February 24, 2011
Contact: Elaine Donnelly, CMR President - (734) 464-9430
Contact: Tommy Sears, Executive Director - (202) 347-5333
DOMA Decision Reveals: Obama Administration Misled Congress on Military Housing and Benefits for Same-Sex Couples
In response to the announcement that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:
“The statement issued by the Department of Justice yesterday was partially based on the reckless action of last-year’s lame-duck Congress to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible to serve in the military, which is usually called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.
“This action belies the Defense Department’s “Comprehensive Review Working Group” report on the subject released on November 30, 2010, and assurances made by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, Clifford L. Stanley in two implementation plan documents released on January 28, 2011. The CRWG report and official testimony from the Secretary of Defense disingenuously assured Congress and the military service chiefs that the existence of the DOMA would bar the military from providing housing and benefits for same-sex couples living together as married or ‘committed partners’ on military bases.
“Yesterday’s action also belies a new training document currently being circulated by Army officials, called the “Top Ten Things You Need to Know About the Repeal of DADT,” which should be withdrawn immediately. Point #5 on the Army’s “Top Ten” list reads, “The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits the Federal Government from recognizing any same-sex marriage, so same sex partners do not qualify as dependents for many benefits and services.”
“Point #6 further claims that “sexual orientation will not be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin as a class under the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program.” Neither statement is credible, since the Justice Department has just filed a document declaring the opposite: “…[C]lassifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.”
“The Justice Department’s claim that it will continue enforcement of DOMA is meaningless, since the department has said that it will not defend the law at any level. This posture invites activist lower-court judges to exceed their authority in declaring the congressionally approved law unconstitutional, following the same logic as the Obama Administration. Since the Solicitor General will not petition for Supreme Court review of such rulings, the administration has unilaterally extended to sexual orientation groups the same 14th Amendment rights as other “protected” classes.
“President Obama is telling supporters of traditional marriage that their opinions, grounded in a millennium of religious teaching, historical practice, and cultural traditions, are unreasonable and not worthy of consideration, much less a defense from those who wish to impose their own radical view of marriage on the rest of the country.
“The administration is also admitting, belatedly, that imposition of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) law in the military cannot be reconciled with the Defense of Marriage Act. Members of Congress who were led to believe otherwise should call for immediate hearings to reconsider the rash action taken during the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress last December.
“The duplicity exposed yesterday also calls into question the administration’s plans to “certify” that final repeal of the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., would not undermine recruiting, retention and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force. Such a document would be equally meaningless and useful only to President Obama, who is determined to make the military pay the price for his political campaign promises to the LGBT Left.
LINK to Original PDF document
________________________ ______-
LET ME REPEAT AGAIN
F U C K Y O U whoever still supports obama.
OK ! finally, we get to fuck!
-
Wow. So the administration not only refuses to enforce existing bipartisan federal law, it lied to the military. I'm just amazed at what a free pass they get from the media.
Watching "Huckabee" this weekend brought up a point that the media (at-large) may be ignoring: The Latino and Black voters, who are Christians.
Two pastors, who represent a huge voting block that supported Obama have stated that many of their voters (especially the Latinos ones) are NOT pleased with Obama at all for pandering to the gay vote, by refusing to defend DOMA.
They stated that his stance on marriage was among the reasons they supported him. This flip-flop isn't sitting well with them. Now, I don't expect those demographics to completely flip to the GOP. But, as we saw in 2004, if enough of them ditch Obama (partially due to this issue, along with his economic bungling), Obama could be in BIG TROUBLE in 2012.
-
Watching "Huckabee" this weekend brought up a point that the media (at-large) may be ignoring: The Latino and Black voters, who are Christians.
Two pastors, who represent a huge voting block that supported Obama have stated that many of their voters (especially the Latinos ones) are NOT pleased with Obama at all for pandering to the gay vote, by refusing to defend DOMA.
They stated that his stance on marriage was among the reasons they supported him. This flip-flop isn't sitting well with them. Now, I don't expect those demographics to completely flip to the GOP. But, as we saw in 2004, if enough of them ditch Obama (partially due to this issue, along with his economic bungling), Obama could be in BIG TROUBLE in 2012.
Its all about $$$$$
Gays are useful idiots for the DNC and send boat loads of cash to the Dems.
-
Its all about $$$$$
Gays are useful idiots for the DNC and send boat loads of cash to the Dems.
If the 2012 GOP challenger gets the bulk of independents and working-class whites, a significant chunk of Latinos (30-40%), and gets the evangelical vote fired up, Obama and the Dems are going to get SLAUGHTERED in 2012, no matter how much money he gets from the gays.
-
W/O the idiot white mushy middle, Obama's coalition is that of the fringes of society. Gays, govt workers, eco-nazis, guilt ridden whites, doped up college kids, trial lawyers, college profs, etc.
The way things are going - even Palin will be able to destroy him.
At 10% UE, Gas at $5.00, turmoil everywhere, even Sarah will be able to send Soetoro packing nd back to Kenya or wherever the hell he came from.
-
W/O the idiot white mushy middle, Obama's coalition is that of the fringes of society. Gays, govt workers, eco-nazis, guilt ridden whites, doped up college kids, trial lawyers, college profs, etc.
The way things are going - even Palin will be able to destroy him.
At 10% UE, Gas at $5.00, turmoil everywhere, even Sarah will be able to send Soetoro packing nd back to Kenya or wherever the hell he came from.
As long as the GOP gets a legitimate conservative, they're in business. Hit Obama on the fiscal issues first; then tack on the social issues, especially the marriage thing, on two fronts: One, the American people's view on marriage; two, the principle of a president's job to be a PRESIDENT, not the self-appointed Supreme Court.
-
As long as the GOP gets a legitimate conservative, they're in business. Hit Obama on the fiscal issues first; then tack on the social issues, especially the marriage thing, on two fronts: One, the American people's view on marriage; two, the principle of a president's job to be a PRESIDENT, not the self-appointed Supreme Court.
The way we are going,between energy prices, UE, inflation, WTF foreign policy, WTF DOJ poliies, WTF appointments, WTF corruption, etc, even Barney the Purple Dino can beat Obama.
-
The way we are going,between energy prices, UE, inflation, WTF foreign policy, WTF DOJ poliies, WTF appointments, WTF corruption, etc, even Barney the Purple Dino can beat Obama.
Maybe. But, he doesn't have Sarah's legs.
;D
-
Maybe. But, he doesn't have Sarah's legs.
;D
This DOMA thing is very alarming to me, not because of gay marriage, but because of the horrible precedent it sets.
Just another example of how awful this admn is.
-
This DOMA thing is very alarming to me, not because of gay marriage, but because of the horrible precedent it sets.
Just another example of how awful this admn is.
Agreed!!
And, since the Supreme Court already ruled that laws like DOMA don't violate the constitution, it doesn't matter what Obama thinks on this issue. So, this move of his is nothing but pandering to the homosexual contingent. But, as stated earlier, this could cost him a siginificant number of Latino voters and even more white voters. If he loses too many of them, he's toast in 2012.
-
Obama: "We cant ignore the law when it is inconvienent"
-
House Republican Leaders Vow to Defend Defense of Marriage Act
By: CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash
Washington (CNN) - House Republican leaders say they will decide by the end of the week how to proceed in defending the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Both House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor expressed disappointment that the Obama administration decided to stop defending the law in court and said House Republicans are weighing their options.
"I'd be very surprised if the House didn't decide that they were going to defend law," Boehner told the Christian Broadcast Network.
"If the president won't lead, if the president won't defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), then you'll see the House of Representatives defend our actions in passing a bill that frankly passed overwhelmingly," he said.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced in a letter to members of Congress last week that the administration was reversing course and directing the Justice Department to no longer defend the law as they had during the president's first two years in office. Holder said they now believe a key part of the law, signed by then-President Bill Clinton, is unconstitutional.
Cantor told reporters that the president's position is that "he is not defending the law of the land is something very troubling I think to most members of the House."
There are two cases relating to the Defense of Marriage Act pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There is a March 11 deadline for Congress to notify the court if it intends to act in the cases.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/28/house-republican-leaders-vow-to-defend-defense-of-marriage-act/#more-148451
-
Optional: a president who upholds the law
Obama and attorney general in deciding not to defend marriage law may set a precedent to undo their own legislative priorities | Emily Belz
Associated Press/Photo by Darron Cummings
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17716
________________________ _______________________
The Obama administration will no longer defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and bars federal benefits to same-sex couples, because President Obama no longer finds the act constitutional. That unusual decision gives future administrations justification to refuse to defend laws that they personally find unconstitutional.
Obama has long opposed DOMA, calling it "abhorrent" and "discriminatory," but under his administration the Justice Department has defended it as established law. The president previously said, with regard to DOMA, "We have a duty to uphold existing law." On Jan. 18, when a reporter asked whether the administration would quit defending DOMA in court, then-White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded, "We can't declare the law unconstitutional." But Attorney General Eric Holder declared just that on behalf of the president in a letter to congressional leaders Feb. 23.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
The long-term implications of Obama's decision could come back to harm some of the president's own priorities that are now law. Daniel Dreisbach, a constitutional law expert at American University, explained that courts will likely be debating the constitutionality of healthcare reform for years, and a future Republican president could decide that the law isn't constitutional and instruct the Justice Department not to defend it in court. Because so many laws have been passed recently on party-line votes, statutes could be even more vulnerable based to which party controls the White House, he said.
"The Department of Justice defends a statute today and tomorrow a new president is elected and the defense is withdrawn," Dreisbach said. "It opens the door for future presidents to make these decisions with a higher level of comfort."
The president has freedom to interpret the Constitution, which flows from his oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution," said Dreisbach. But he said regardless of interpretation, the president is expected to defend the law of the land. "What is rather unusual is for the executive branch not to defend a statute passed by Congress and signed by the president." Congress passed DOMA in 1996 and President Clinton signed it.
"When Congress enacts laws on behalf of the American people, the American people have the right to expect them to be defended when they're challenged," said Senior Legal Counsel Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund. "How the attorney general's constitutional duty to protect and defend the laws of the United States becomes optional is a great mystery."
Holder, in his letter, said he and Obama believe Section 3 of the DOMA law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, violates the equal protection clause under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
"The question now becomes: Is there anyone left who can defend the constitutionality of this statute in court?" Dreisbach asked. A court would have to decide whether members of Congress, for example, have standing to defend the statute.
-
Palin: Obama's position on Defense of Marriage act 'appalling'
By: CNN Associate Producer Rebecca Stewart
(CNN) – Sarah Palin is "appalled" by the Obama administration's recent action regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. In a statement provided to the blog run by the National Organization for Marriage, the former governor explained her reaction to the administration's stance on DOMA.
In response to a question posed by Maggie Gallagher, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, the former governor of Alaska said, "I have always believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Like the majority of Americans, I support the Defense of Marriage Act and find it appalling that the Obama administration decided not to defend this federal law which was enacted with broad bipartisan support and signed into law by a Democrat president."
Joining a procession of Republicans denouncing the administration's move, Palin continued, "It's appalling, but not surprising that the President has flip-flopped on yet another issue from his stated position as a candidate to a seemingly opposite position once he was elected." The statement was posted on a blog for the organization, which supports "marriage and the faith communities that sustain it."
President Obama recently asked Attorney General Eric Holder to cease defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The bill faces two lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that are based on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. And though candidate Obama once stated that he "believed marriage is between a man and a woman" while campaigning for the presidency, he has also admitted that his position was evolving on the issue shortly before the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a measure that prevented gay service members from openly serving in the U.S. military.
Holder announced in a letter to members of Congress that the administration was reversing course and would stop defending DOMA because they believe that a key part of the law is unconstitutional.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/palin-obamas-position-on-defense-of-marriage-act-appalling/#more-148607
-
Palin: Obama's position on Defense of Marriage act 'appalling'
By: CNN Associate Producer Rebecca Stewart
(CNN) – Sarah Palin is "appalled" by the Obama administration's recent action regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. In a statement provided to the blog run by the National Organization for Marriage, the former governor explained her reaction to the administration's stance on DOMA.
In response to a question posed by Maggie Gallagher, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, the former governor of Alaska said, "I have always believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Like the majority of Americans, I support the Defense of Marriage Act and find it appalling that the Obama administration decided not to defend this federal law which was enacted with broad bipartisan support and signed into law by a Democrat president."
Joining a procession of Republicans denouncing the administration's move, Palin continued, "It's appalling, but not surprising that the President has flip-flopped on yet another issue from his stated position as a candidate to a seemingly opposite position once he was elected." The statement was posted on a blog for the organization, which supports "marriage and the faith communities that sustain it."
President Obama recently asked Attorney General Eric Holder to cease defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The bill faces two lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that are based on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. And though candidate Obama once stated that he "believed marriage is between a man and a woman" while campaigning for the presidency, he has also admitted that his position was evolving on the issue shortly before the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a measure that prevented gay service members from openly serving in the U.S. military.
Holder announced in a letter to members of Congress that the administration was reversing course and would stop defending DOMA because they believe that a key part of the law is unconstitutional.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/palin-obamas-position-on-defense-of-marriage-act-appalling/#more-148607
you had me at "Sarah Palin appalled....." that alone makes it wonderful !
-
Sarah is 100000% correct here, yet you twinks are too self centered and concerned only with your own narrow self interest to see it.
-
1st call for impeachment by member of Congress
wnd ^ | 3/2/11 | Bob Unruh
A Republican congressman has told a left-leaning blog that if there is collective support, he would favor the impeachment of Barack Obama over his decision to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Scott Keyes of ThinkProgress.org asked U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.: "I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don't reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?" Keyes asked.
Read all about the grounds for impeachment.
Franks replied: "If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Sarah is 100000% correct here, yet you twinks are too self centered and concerned only with your own narrow self interest to see it.
this about sums up the gay rights movement in america...yelling about equal rights but really wanting special rights...
-
Sarah is 100000% correct here, yet you twinks are too self centered and concerned only with your own narrow self interest to see it.
1. thank you for referring to me as a twink; at my age that never happens..
2. self centered and narrow interests; has Woody Allen said once, "deep down I'm a shallow person"....as long as my oil related investments continue to grow I'm a happy queen !
-
Boehner makes move to defend Defense of Marriage Act
By: CNN Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh
Washington (CNN) - House Speaker John Boehner announced Friday that he's taking action to have Congress defend the federal law barring recognition of same sex marriage, after the Obama Administration announced last month it no longer will.
"The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts - not by the president unilaterally - and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution," Boehner said in a written statement released on Friday.
Boehner said he's taking the procedural step of asking the "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" to direct the House's General Counsel to officially go to court to defend Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress passed in 1996. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. In addition to banning federal recognition of same-sex marriages it says states cannot be forced to recognize such marriages from other states.
By going through the advisory group, Boehner avoids holding a full House vote to direct the House's General Counsel to defend the law.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi immediately denounced the move, calling the law "discriminatory."
Pelosi said getting Congress involved takes its focus off jobs and the economy and wastes resources. "This decision will burden the staff and monetary resources of the Office of the General Counsel, and given the complexity of these cases and the number of courts involved, it is likely this will cost the House hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars."
The advisory group that Boehner will convene soon is made up of the top five House leaders from both parties - Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer. Action by the group requires a majority of its Members' approval to move forward, so even though Democrats disagree with Boehner's decision to intervene in the case they don't have the ability to block the action.
In February President Barack Obama ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, according to a statement Wednesday from Attorney General Eric Holder.
"The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Holder said.
The key provision in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."
"Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the (Justice Department) not to defend the statute" in two pending cases in New York, Holder said. "I fully concur with the president's determination."
Obama has previously expressed his personal opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act but had never stated an opinion relating to its constitutionality.
Republicans opposed the White House's decision last month, calling it a distraction at a time when they said the focus needs to be on the economy. But the GOP also charged that the Administration had a duty to uphold the law even if it disagreed with it.
While Speaker Boehner said he wants Congress to step in to defend the law, he again noted Friday that he thinks Congress' should be dealing mainly with economic issues. "It is regrettable that the Obama Administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy," Boehner said.
The administration had a March 11 deadline to respond to two lawsuits against the measure in New York. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - which includes New York - is the only federal circuit to have never decided the basic legal question of whether a law discriminates against gay men and lesbians. The same deadline would apply to Congress to notify the court about its intention to defend the law.
In July, a federal judge in Massachusetts became the first to rule the law unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro said that "irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest."
Courts in California are considering a legal challenge to Proposition 8, an initiative narrowly approved by that state's voters in 2008. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Same-sex marriage is legal in five states - Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire - and in the District of Columbia. Civil unions are permitted in New Jersey.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/04/boehner-makes-move-to-defend-defense-of-marriage-act/#more-149161
-
Boehner hires top lawyer for fight over marriage law, sources say
By Bill Mears, CNN
April 19, 2011
Washington (CNN) -- House Republicans have hired a prominent conservative attorney to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a pending lawsuit, legal sources say, and will make an effort to divert money from the Justice Department to fund its high-profile fight.
House Speaker John Boehner disclosed the legal and political strategy in a letter Monday to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The Obama administration, which normally would defend federal laws in judicial disputes, announced last month it believed the Defense of Marriage Act, often referred to as DOMA, to be unconstitutional. The law defines marriage for federal purposes as unions only between a man and woman.
Boehner said that with the Justice Department not participating, he had "no choice" but to act unilaterally.
"The burden of defending DOMA, and the resulting costs associated with any litigation that would have otherwise been born (sic) by DOJ (The Department of Justice), has fallen to the House," Boehner said. "Obviously, DOJ's decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA. It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA."
Such a move would require Senate approval, an unlikely prospect since Democrats control that chamber.
Boehner will probably end up finding money for the legal fight from other discretionary and non-discretionary spending sources, according to legal experts. There was no indication just how much the legal fight could eventually cost.
In response to Boehner's letter, Pelosi, D-California, asked the speaker how much the legal defense of DOMA would cost taxpayers.
"I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged," Pelosi's letter said. She also asked for details on the reported hiring of Paul D. Clement, a former solicitor general, specifically when a contract was signed and why a copy was not provided to Democrats on the Committee on House Administration.
Legal sources say the House Republican leadership hired Clement, a Washington appellate attorney, to defend the law. He filed a brief Monday in a pending case from New York, where a lesbian received an estate tax bill of more than $360,000 after her longtime partner and legal wife had died.
Clement is a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, serving from 2005 to 2008. It was his job to defend federal laws and executive actions in court, similar to what he will be doing now as a private lawyer on retainer. He was mentioned at one time as a possible Supreme Court nominee.
Separately, he also is representing more than two dozens states in their lawsuit against the administration over the sweeping health care reform law passed by Congress last year. That case is pending in a federal appeals court in Atlanta.
In the Defense of Marriage Act dispute, groups on both sides of the issue noted the highly charged political aspects.
"Not only are House Republican leaders defending the indefensible, they've brought in a high-priced attorney to deny federal recognition to loving, married couples," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "Speaker Boehner appears ready to go to great lengths, and the great expense of a high-power law firm, to try to score some cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples."
But conservative groups applauded the move.
"At last we have a legal eagle on this case who actually wants to win in court," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "Thanks to Speaker Boehner's actions, President Obama's attempt to sabotage the legal defense of DOMA is not going to work."
President Barack Obama on February 23 ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the law.
"The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," said Attorney General Eric Holder. The key provision in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."
Obama had previously expressed his personal opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act but had never stated an opinion relating to its constitutionality.
Holder's chief spokesman said the department had no comment on Boehner's moves.
Two pending lawsuits from New York and Connecticut challenge the law. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes both states, is the only federal circuit to have never decided the basic legal question of whether a law discriminates against gay men and lesbians.
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 by the GOP-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and says states cannot be forced to recognize such marriages allowed in other states.
The New York legal fight was prompted by Edith "Edie" Windsor, who lived with her female partner, Thea Spyer, for more than four decades. They married out-of-state in 2007, but neither the federal government nor their home state of New York recognized the legal union. Spyer died and left her estate to Windsor, who was then forced to pay taxes on the money because she was not considered a legal spouse.
In July, a federal judge in Massachusetts, in a separate case, became the first to rule part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. District Judge Joseph Tauro said that "irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest."
The administration's decision comes on the heels of other major developments in the struggle over gay and lesbian rights.
In December, Obama signed legislation that will repeal the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy and bring an end to the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the armed forces.
Courts in California are considering a legal challenge to Proposition 8, an initiative narrowly approved by that state's voters in 2008. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Either one of those cases could reach the Supreme Court in coming months, perhaps in time to become a major issue during the 2012 election year.
Same-sex marriage is legal in five states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- and in the District of Columbia. Civil unions virtually equivalent to marriage are permitted in New Jersey, while several other states offer more limited civil unions or partnerships.
The New York case is Windsor v. U.S. (1:10-cv-08435).
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/18/house.defense.of.marriage/
-
What a surprise. ::) Laying the groundwork for the president to say that his view on traditional marriage has "evolved" to the point where he now openly supports homosexual marriage. I predict we see this "evolution" before the end of 2011.
Biden Says Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'
Friday, 24 Dec 2010
Vice President Joe Biden says the country is evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it's inevitable there will be national consensus.
He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Friday the same thing is happening with the issue of marriage that happened with gays' service in the military.
Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that will eventually allow gays to serve openly in the military.
Gay marriage is still not legal in most states. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue are evolving, but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BidenGayMarriage/2010/12/24/id/380958
Well I didn't see this one coming. ::)
Obama Mulling Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage
Sunday, 19 Jun 2011
As he gears up for his re-election battle, President Barack Obama is considering the idea of endorsing same-sex marriage, The New York Times reports.
A Democratic strategist told the Times that high-ranking White House officials “are looking at the tactics of how this might be done if the president chose to do it.”
Another intriguing clue comes from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly gay. He said he was asked by an Obama official, “What would be the effect if he came out for same-sex marriage?”
Obama is the prime attraction at a Gala with the Gay Community fundraiser in New York City this coming week. He also will hold a gay pride at the White House on June 29, the Times reports.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BarackObama-Same-SexMarriage/2011/06/19/id/400560
-
This is sad. I'm worried about what's on the horizon for our country when we keep thumbing our nose at the Creator like this.
-
Obama has the twinks all pissed off and threatening to withhold $ $ $ . that is what this is about, nothig else.
Gay morons, like always, will be fooled and duped into emptying their walets for fauxbama again.
Fucking twinks - probably the most idiotic voting bloc of the entire electorate.
All obama has to do is wink at them once and they will unload all their cash on him like last time.
-
Well I didn't see this one coming. ::)
Obama Mulling Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage
Sunday, 19 Jun 2011
As he gears up for his re-election battle, President Barack Obama is considering the idea of endorsing same-sex marriage, The New York Times reports.
A Democratic strategist told the Times that high-ranking White House officials “are looking at the tactics of how this might be done if the president chose to do it.”
Another intriguing clue comes from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly gay. He said he was asked by an Obama official, “What would be the effect if he came out for same-sex marriage?”
Obama is the prime attraction at a Gala with the Gay Community fundraiser in New York City this coming week. He also will hold a gay pride at the White House on June 29, the Times reports.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BarackObama-Same-SexMarriage/2011/06/19/id/400560
Obama knows he could lose some Latinos and even a handful of black votes, if that happens.
-
Obama knows he could lose some Latinos and even a handful of black votes, if that happens.
He definitely has his finger in the wind.
He ought to just be honest, because I don't think he ever supported traditional marriage anyway.
-
He definitely has his finger in the wind.
He ought to just be honest, because I don't think he ever supported traditional marriage anyway.
Did you see my thread about the 1996 marriage card issue?
Fauxbama got caught in another lie. I'll bump it.
-
Obama knows he could lose some Latinos and even a handful of black votes, if that happens.
wow..McWay finaly said something that makes sense and has some truth to it....
see what happens when you lay off the orange cell-tech for just ONE day??? ;)..your brain cells start to return
-
wow..McWay finaly said something that makes sense and has some truth to it....
see what happens when you lay off the orange cell-tech for just ONE day??? ;)..your brain cells start to return
What fauxbama does not want to lose if the gay $$$$$$. So what if he loses a few blacks and hispanics in the process? Obama does not give a damn about blacks or hispanics. Its all about $$$$
-
What fauxbama does not want to lose if the gay $$$$$$. So what if he loses a few blacks and hispanics in the process? Obama does not give a damn about blacks or hispanics. Its all about $$$$
you never let up
-
you never let up
It's the truth. Fauxbama does not give a damn about blacks.
-
It's the truth. Fauxbama does not give a damn about blacks.
and Sarah Palin does???????
-
No more or less than obama does.
-
No more or less than obama does.
LOL..you couldn't even fake it and say she does......you KNOW she's hostile to blacks
-
Why.
-
Why.
have you heard her mention blacks in a speech or debate even once????..have you EVER seen her talking to a black group????
-
have you heard her mention blacks in a speech or debate even once????..have you EVER seen her talking to a black group????
Lmfao. Bachmann mentioned them today and the miserable failure obamas economy has been for them.
-
if youre bisexual, then do you not understand that if youre born that way it would be discriminatory to not allow you to marry one of each sex under your logic of this being a civil rights issue?
I presume you mean marry a man and a woman at the same time. Of course that would be polygamy, which I believe is still illegal in this country. If you meant that a bisexual person could marry a person of the same sex and later marry someone of the opposite sex if they first divorced or otherwise lost their first partner in death, the I say so what? I am bisexual. I have been married to the same woman for a very long time. We're not getting divorced anytime in the near future. But if I was a widower and I met a man who I loved, why shouldn't we get married if that's what we wanted to do?
-
This is sad. I'm worried about what's on the horizon for our country when we keep thumbing our nose at the Creator like this.
He/She is wondering,, it's about time !
-
wow..McWay finaly said something that makes sense and has some truth to it....
see what happens when you lay off the orange cell-tech for just ONE day??? ;)..your brain cells start to return
You're late to the party, AGAIN. I've been saying that for the past two years. And, what part of "I don't like Orange Cell-Tech" don't you understand? My favorite is Blue Raspberry!!!
-
Just a thought. If an immigrant marries a U.S. citizen in a gay marriage, does this allow them the same rights as an immigrant who marries a U.S. citizen in a straight marriage?
-
Just a thought. If an immigrant marries a U.S. citizen in a gay marriage, does this allow them the same rights as an immigrant who marries a U.S. citizen in a straight marriage?
Not unless it's in one of those six states that allows gay "marriage".
-
watch - obama's biggest legacy won't be obamacare or finreg....
it will be federal legalization of gay marriage. he didn't want that to be the story today.
-
Saw the presser on the plane. Obama is such a fag and a pofs.
Refuses to take a position as always.
-
Not unless it's in one of those six states that allows gay "marriage".
Looks like it is six states now and counting.
-
I presume you mean marry a man and a woman at the same time. Of course that would be polygamy, which I believe is still illegal in this country. If you meant that a bisexual person could marry a person of the same sex and later marry someone of the opposite sex if they first divorced or otherwise lost their first partner in death, the I say so what? I am bisexual. I have been married to the same woman for a very long time. We're not getting divorced anytime in the near future. But if I was a widower and I met a man who I loved, why shouldn't we get married if that's what we wanted to do?
LOL do you not understand that by the reasoning gays are using to fight for gay marriage you would be discriminating against bi sexuals wanting to marry one of each sex?
-
LOL do you not understand that by the reasoning gays are using to fight for gay marriage you would be discriminating against bi sexuals wanting to marry one of each sex?
I am not sure I understand what you are asking here. So if I seem to miss your point, my bad.
As far as I can determine, gay folks are simply asking to have the same rights, advantages and protections offered straight folks though marriage. Obviously, there are also some disadvantages with legalized marriage....namely the complications and financial issues involved in ending a marriage through divorce. Polygamy is another issue altogether. If a bisexual wanted to marry both a man and a woman at the same time, that would still be polygamy in my opinion. Not that I have a problem with polygamy. If that's what folks want, so be it. Personally, one spouse at a time seems like enough of a problem for most people to manage successfully considering the high rate of divorce.
I consider myself bisexual. I am married to a woman. Although I find both men and women sexually attractive, I have no desire to marry a man or, for that matter, another woman while committed to my present wife. One spouse at a time is fine for me. Marriage is complicated enough.
-
I am not sure I understand what you are asking here. So if I seem to miss your point, my bad.
As far as I can determine, gay folks are simply asking to have the same rights, advantages and protections offered straight folks though marriage. Obviously, there are also some disadvantages with legalized marriage....namely the complications and financial issues involved in ending a marriage through divorce. Polygamy is another issue altogether. If a bisexual wanted to marry both a man and a woman at the same time, that would still be polygamy in my opinion. Not that I have a problem with polygamy. If that's what folks want, so be it. Personally, one spouse at a time seems like enough of a problem for most people to manage successfully considering the high rate of divorce.
I consider myself bisexual. I am married to a woman. Although I find both men and women sexually attractive, I have no desire to marry a man or, for that matter, another woman while committed to my present wife. One spouse at a time is fine for me. Marriage is complicated enough.
gays are arguing on the basis that homosexuality is innate so therefor it is out of their control and that is why it should be legal.
how is being bi sexual any different on that basis?
-
gays are arguing on the basis that homosexuality is innate so therefor it is out of their control and that is why it should be legal.
how is being bi sexual any different on that basis?
On that basis,if one accepts this yet scientifically unproven point, it makes no difference. Personally, I believe if gay folks are arguing that they should have the right to marry based on what may or may not have made them gay or bisexual, they are choosing the wrong point to support their right to marry.
Whether gay marriage is blessed in the eyes of God is dependent on various religious doctrines. However we are hopefully discussing civil marriages which are nothing more than legal contracts which come with some very practical privileges, such as tax advantages and inheritance rights, as well as legal problems should one divorce. I suspect many folks are confusing the two.
-
On that basis,if one accepts this yet scientifically unproven point, it makes no difference. Personally, I believe if gay folks are arguing that they should have the right to marry based on what may or may not have made them gay or bisexual, they are choosing the wrong point to support their right to marry.
Whether gay marriage is blessed in the eyes of God is dependent on various religious doctrines. However we are hopefully discussing civil marriages which are nothing more than legal contracts which come with some very practical privileges, such as tax advantages and inheritance rights, as well as legal problems should one divorce. I suspect many folks are confusing the two.
LOL first of all, then why do you think gays are arguing that they have a right to marry?
second what do you do with common law marriage if two ppl of the same sex live together for a number of years. Are they married by common law if one of them says they were in a relationship?
-
Looks like it is six states now and counting.
It depends. Look at the pattern. Gay "marriage" gets legalized in non-referendum states with left-leaning courts and/or left-winged governors, senators, and assemblymen. Most of the states in the northeast are like that.
As long as the people can vote directly on the issue (should they disagree with their elected officials), gay "marriage" gets legalized.
But, once the people can actually vote on it, that's a whole different story. 31-0, at last count.
-
LOL first of all, then why do you think gays are arguing that they have a right to marry?
I imagine the arguments are as diverse as the folks making them. Some gay folks no doubt have valid arguments for gay marriage while others not so much. All gay folks (gays) do not think or act alike.
second what do you do with common law marriage if two ppl of the same sex live together for a number of years. Are they married by common law if one of them says they were in a relationship?
It could be if the state you live in recognizes common law marriages, including common law marriage between two people of the same sex. Otherwise, I would suspect their relationship would not be legally recognized. Surely, someone will test this idea at some point.
THE MYTH: There is a common misperception that if you live together for a certain length of time (seven years is what many people believe), you are common-law married. This is not true anywhere in the United States.
STATES THAT RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:
Only a few states recognize common law marriages:
Alabama
Colorado
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma's laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Washington, D.C.
-
I imagine the arguments are as diverse as the folks making them. Some gay folks no doubt have valid arguments for gay marriage while others not so much. All gay folks (gays) do not think or act alike.
It could be if the state you live in recognizes common law marriages, including common law marriage between two people of the same sex. Otherwise, I would suspect their relationship would not be legally recognized. Surely, someone will test this idea at some point.
THE MYTH: There is a common misperception that if you live together for a certain length of time (seven years is what many people believe), you are common-law married. This is not true anywhere in the United States.
STATES THAT RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:
Only a few states recognize common law marriages:
Alabama
Colorado
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma's laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Washington, D.C.
and what valid reasons have you heard prime?
I agree it certainly will get tested at some point b/c someone will put it to the test. Where did I ever say in any state?
fact is it is an issue that will have to be dealt with.
-
and what valid reasons have you heard prime?
I agree it certainly will get tested at some point b/c someone will put it to the test. Where did I ever say in any state?
fact is it is an issue that will have to be dealt with.
Truthfully, I haven't paid a lot of attention to this matter. I can only guess that the reasons gay folks want to get married are the same as those for straight people. If you are married, you already know what some of the advantages legalizing a relationship through marriage. If you aren't, in general they range from the financial stuff to the right to see your loved one if they were at the hospital in intensive care to inheritance issues should that loved one die....and then there's always the fact that you love one another and just want to get married.
Some people object to gay folks getting married for religious reasons and because they believe they have the right to impose their morals on others. This is why it is important to remember that we are talking about a legal contract and not church weddings here. If folks object to gay people getting married in the Catholic or Episcopal church, for example, they should take that up with their church.
Who do you believe has the right to decide whether gay folks should be allowed to marry? We live in a democracy, if the question is put to a vote and the majority of folks vote to approve gay marriage, would you be o.k. with that?
My cousin and his partner have been married for several years now. The have lived together longer than most straight marriages last. Personally, I think it is great that they were able to get married.
-
Truthfully, I haven't paid a lot of attention to this matter. I can only guess that the reasons gay folks want to get married are the same as those for straight people. If you are married, you already know what some of the advantages legalizing a relationship through marriage. If you aren't, in general they range from the financial stuff to the right to see your loved one if they were at the hospital in intensive care to inheritance issues should that loved one die....and then there's always the fact that you love one another and just want to get married.
Some people object to gay folks getting married for religious reasons and because they believe they have the right to impose their morals on others. This is why it is important to remember that we are talking about a legal contract and not church weddings here. If folks object to gay people getting married in the Catholic or Episcopal church, for example, they should take that up with their church.
Who do you believe has the right to decide whether gay folks should be allowed to marry? We live in a democracy, if the question is put to a vote and the majority of folks vote to approve gay marriage, would you be o.k. with that?
My cousin and his partner have been married for several years now. The have lived together longer than most straight marriages last. Personally, I think it is great that they were able to get married.
well first of all they have the rights you feel they lack just not with someone of the same sex. I dont have those rights either.
SO ILL ASK YOU AGAIN...what valid reasons do you think there are for legalizing gay marriage?
thats fine, but the simple fact of the matter is we cant always go with public opinion. Are you ok with doing away with abortion? b/c sooner or later public opinion will be against that...
Im fine with leaving up to the states.
-
gays are arguing on the basis that homosexuality is innate so therefor it is out of their control and that is why it should be legal.
how is being bi sexual any different on that basis?
it's not.
a bi guy can marry either a woman or a man.
marriage=two people.
basic.
-
it's not.
a bi guy can marry either a woman or a man.
marriage=two people.
basic.
Tell that to polygamists, particulary those of the Muslim variety.
-
well first of all they have the rights you feel they lack just not with someone of the same sex. I dont have those rights either.
SO ILL ASK YOU AGAIN...what valid reasons do you think there are for legalizing gay marriage?
thats fine, but the simple fact of the matter is we cant always go with public opinion. Are you ok with doing away with abortion? b/c sooner or later public opinion will be against that...
Im fine with leaving up to the states.
I too am fine with gay marriage being left up to each state as long as gay folks can file joint tax returns just as do straight couples. I am not OK with ending a woman's right to have an abortion. In a democracy the public has the ability to express their opinion at the poles. While I may not always agree with how folks vote, I do not know of a better system. Unfortunately, the media often manipulates "public opinion". I am not convinced that what we hear and see through the media always accurately reflects public opinion.
When you say that gay folks have all the rights straight folks have, this is a matter of opinion. If you are straight, you are usually attracted to people of the opposite sex. This sometimes leads to love and eventually to a civil marriage. If you are a gay person, you are usually attracted to people of the same sex. This sometimes leads to love and eventually a relationship. Whether or not it leads to a civil marriage depends on where you live. Whether gay folks should marry on a moral basis is a different issue.
To my mind, all civil marriages should not be thought of as marriages but rather legal contracts/agreements between two committed people. My wife is Catholic and I am not. When we wanted to get married in the church, we were refused because I would not convert to Catholicism. If we had married in a different church, we would never have been able to have a Catholic wedding. How did we get around this? We were married by a Justice of the Peace, i.e. a civil ceremony which the Catholic church does not consider a marriage. A year later, we got married in the Catholic church. BTW, I still did not convert.
-
Tell that to polygamists, particulary those of the Muslim variety.
Do people of the Muslim/Islam faith accept homosexuality? I could be wrong about this, but I think it would be impossible for a Muslim to marry someone of the same sex and still be a Muslim. I don't see Muslim people marrying both men and women since it is still considered a sin in their faith for a man to lie with another man.
-
I too am fine with gay marriage being left up to each state as long as gay folks can file joint tax returns just as do straight couples. I am not OK with ending a woman's right to have an abortion. In a democracy the public has the ability to express their opinion at the poles. While I may not always agree with how folks vote, I do not know of a better system. Unfortunately, the media often manipulates "public opinion". I am not convinced that what we hear and see through the media always accurately reflects public opinion.
When you say that gay folks have all the rights straight folks have, this is a matter of opinion. If you are straight, you are usually attracted to people of the opposite sex. This sometimes leads to love and eventually to a civil marriage. If you are a gay person, you are usually attracted to people of the same sex. This sometimes leads to love and eventually a relationship. Whether or not it leads to a civil marriage depends on where you live. Whether gay folks should marry on a moral basis is a different issue.
To my mind, all civil marriages should not be thought of as marriages but rather legal contracts/agreements between two committed people. My wife is Catholic and I am not. When we wanted to get married in the church, we were refused because I would not convert to Catholicism. If we had married in a different church, we would never have been able to have a Catholic wedding. How did we get around this? We were married by a Justice of the Peace, i.e. a civil ceremony which the Catholic church does not consider a marriage. A year later, we got married in the Catholic church. BTW, I still did not convert.
first of all prime you still havent given one reason why gays should be allowed to marry...
So youre ok with ppl deciding on gay rights but not womens rights? whys that?
I agree I think everyone should just be given civil unions by the govt and leave marriage to the private sector.
-
I agree I think everyone should just be given civil unions by the govt and leave marriage to the private sector.
BINGO !
no more calls, we have a winner.
I knew, after all these years, we could agree on something other than "the sun rises in the east"
whew; like pullin' teeth....
-
first of all prime you still havent given one reason why gays should be allowed to marry...
I thought I did. IMO, the reasons gay folks should be afforded the right to marry in a civil ceremony are the same as those for straight folks. It is as simple as that.
So youre ok with ppl deciding on gay rights but not womens rights? whys that?
What I am OK with is the democratic process whereby the public votes on these issues. I don't always agree with the outcome of a vote. If I were a dictator, I would impose a law that allowed folks to marry in civil unions regardless of whether it was a gay union or a straight one. I would also disallow any law that took away a women's right to have an abortion should they choose to do so.
I agree I think everyone should just be given civil unions by the govt and leave marriage to the private sector.
See, people do sometimes agree on some issues. That is encouraging!
-
I thought I did. IMO, the reasons gay folks should be afforded the right to marry in a civil ceremony are the same as those for straight folks. It is as simple as that.
What I am OK with is the democratic process whereby the public votes on these issues. I don't always agree with the outcome of a vote. If I were a dictator, I would impose a law that allowed folks to marry in civil unions regardless of whether it was a gay union or a straight one. I would also disallow any law that took away a women's right to have an abortion should they choose to do so.
See, people do sometimes agree on some issues. That is encouraging!
so then you must also feel the same about bi sexuals being able to marry one of each sex then?
if not then please tell me why you feel its different...
lol you said you were ok with ppl voting for gay marriage but would not be ok with taking away a womens right to choose....
so are you ok with ppl voting on taking away a womens right to choose or no?
you cant have your cake and eat it too.
-
so then you must also feel the same about bi sexuals being able to marry one of each sex then?
if not then please tell me why you feel its different...
lol you said you were ok with ppl voting for gay marriage but would not be ok with taking away a womens right to choose....
so are you ok with ppl voting on taking away a womens right to choose or no?
you cant have your cake and eat it too.
Conversations with you always become cyclical. I think I expressed my views very clearly in the reply you are quoting here. I answered you regarding bisexuals and marriage several posts back. Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote again. The other possibility is that you are one of those people who believes if you keep asking the same question, regardless that it it has been answered already, the answer will change. Trust me, I am not going to change my answer. I was clear and concise. If you can't understand what I said, that is your loss.
-
Conversations with you always become cyclical. I think I expressed my views very clearly in the reply you are quoting here. I answered you regarding bisexuals and marriage several posts back. Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote again. The other possibility is that you are one of those people who believes if you keep asking the same question, regardless that it it has been answered already, the answer will change. Trust me, I am not going to change my answer. I was clear and concise. If you can't understand what I said, that is your loss.
the reason it circles back is b/c you arent consistant in your views...
and I want to make sure you know it and see the hypocrisey....
-
the reason it circles back is b/c you arent consistant in your views...
and I want to make sure you know it and see the hypocrisey....
My views are consistant. Perhaps I just don't express myself clearly enough or you read things into what I say that aren't there. Am I ever a hypocrite? Probably. But my core views remain the same.
There is an article in today's Oregonian about gay marriage. It seems there is a groundswell of folks who are completely against gay marriage and they are speaking up in retalliation to New York's recent decision about gay marriage. My gut reaction is why do they care so much? What difference does it make to anyone if gays get married? It seems like many people are way too concerned with the affairs of other people even when it doesn't affect them at all.
I am going to try and be very clear and consise with you here:
1. I do not oppose gay marriage.
2. I support a woman's right to an abortion.
3. I believe in a "live and let live" policy.
4. While not perfect, democracy is better than other types of government.
-
My views are consistant. Perhaps I just don't express myself clearly enough or you read things into what I say that aren't there. Am I ever a hypocrite? Probably. But my core views remain the same.
There is an article in today's Oregonian about gay marriage. It seems there is a groundswell of folks who are completely against gay marriage and they are speaking up in retalliation to New York's recent decision about gay marriage. My gut reaction is why do they care so much? What difference does it make to anyone if gays get married? It seems like many people are way too concerned with the affairs of other people even when it doesn't affect them at all.
I am going to try and be very clear and consise with you here:
1. I do not oppose to gay marriage.
2. I support a woman's right to an abortion.
3. I believe in a "live and let live" policy.
4. While not perfect, democracy is better than other types of government.
Prime; bless your heart, you are wasting time trying to have a serious conversation with tony.
He won't change his mind, so it's more fun to poke fun at his ideas. He expects that.
-
Prime; bless your heart, you are wasting time trying to have a serious conversation with tony.
He won't change his mind, so it's more fun to poke fun at his ideas. He expects that.
Are you saying I am taking him too seriously or am I giving him too much credit?
-
Are you saying I am taking him too seriously or am I giving him too much credit?
He appears to be serious about everything he writes; it's just that you won't ever change his mind on anything.
Try not to take anything seriously in these threads. After all, this is a bodybuilding/steroid site. Those are the posts you should consider serious.
Who cares what a bunch of of roid heads think about politics ?!?
I'm posting because they make me smile. It's funny reading.
-
Prime youre for the idea of having ppl vote on the right of gays to marry but against them voting on the right to choose...
why the difference? they are both rights issues as far as youre concerned.
do you not see the inconsistency there?
-
Prime youre for the idea of having ppl vote on the right of gays to marry but against them voting on the right to choose...
why the difference? they are both rights issues as far as youre concerned.
do you not see the inconsistency there?
You are dense. I never said I was against folks voting on a women's choice to abort a pregnancy. What I said is that I am against women not having that choice. If it is put to a vote in Oregon where I live, I would vote for a woman's right to choose. Just as I would vote for a gay couple's right to marry in a civil ceremony. If the majority of folks disagree with me in a vote, then they do. This is how a democracy works.
Give it up. You are making a fool of yourself.
-
You are dense. I never said I was against folks voting on a women's choice to abort a pregnancy. What I said is that I am against women not having that choice. If it is put to a vote in Oregon where I live, I would vote for a woman's right to choose. Just as I would vote for a gay couple's right to marry in a civil ceremony. If the majority of folks disagree with me in a vote, then they do. This is how a democracy works.
Give it up. You are making a fool of yourself.
,,,,making a fool.....
well, there you have the secret of these political threads.
no one ever changes anyone's minds; and the same arguments are hashed and rehashed daily.
The newer posters are seeing these things for the same time; us 'oldtimers' just sit back and smile...
and wait for Nov. '12.
-
,,,,making a fool.....
well, there you have the secret of these political threads.
no one ever changes anyone's minds; and the same arguments are hashed and rehashed daily.
The newer posters are seeing these things for the same time; us 'oldtimers' just sit back and smile...
and wait for Nov. '12.
The time leading up to election of November 2012 will no doubt bring a hailstorm of opinions about the candidates here. What is so funny and sad about this is that I would venture a guess that some of the loudest protesters won't bother to vote. Some people just complain about the system and the candidates rather than do something that could help change things. In most elections only about 40% of the folks who are eligible to vote actually do vote. That is pathetic.
-
You are dense. I never said I was against folks voting on a women's choice to abort a pregnancy. What I said is that I am against women not having that choice. If it is put to a vote in Oregon where I live, I would vote for a woman's right to choose. Just as I would vote for a gay couple's right to marry in a civil ceremony. If the majority of folks disagree with me in a vote, then they do. This is how a democracy works.
Give it up. You are making a fool of yourself.
Fair enough
not making a fool of myself but you were right, you didnt articulate very well...
go back and read your statements and youll see why I came to the conclusion I did.
-
Fair enough
not making a fool of myself but you were right, you didnt articulate very well...
go back and read your statements and youll see why I came to the conclusion I did.
I read my statements again each time you posted a reply indicating you didn't get what I was saying or that I had not answered your question as you'd hoped. My replies seemed very clear to me. If to you I did not articulate well enough then that is what it is. I will endeavor to keep my answers and replies to you as simple and direct as I possibly can in the future.
-
I read my statements again each time you posted a reply indicating you didn't get what I was saying or that I had not answered your question as you'd hoped. My replies seemed very clear to me. If to you I did not articulate well enough then that is what it is. I will endeavor to keep my answers and replies to you as simple and direct as I possibly can in the future.
good answer.
I'm thinking Haiku.
-
He and Obama went from this:
to this:
Biden says he is 'absolutely comfortable' with same-sex marriage
Posted by
CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin
(CNN) – As a ballot initiative to ban same sex-marriage comes to a vote in North Carolina this week, Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday he was "absolutely comfortable" with the idea of same-gender unions.
"I just think that the good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about, it is a simple proposition: Who do you love? Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person who love?" Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
While he did not touch on the North Carolina initiative, his comments were consistent with his message on the controversial issue in general. He added, however, that it's the president, not him, who sets the administration's policy.
President Barack Obama, who once opposed same-sex marriage, has taken the official position that his views on the issue are "evolving." He says at fundraisers that there is much work do be done, leading many supporters in the LGBT community to believe that he would support same-sex marriage in a second term.
Biden, on the other hand, has more room politically to speak on the topic. Sunday, he said he was encouraged by what he sees as a shifting culture, one more welcoming to the notion of same-sex marriage, and pointed to a popular TV show as a catalyst for such change.
"I think 'Will and Grace' did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has ever done," Biden said, referring to the former NBC comedy about a gay man and a heterosexual woman living together in New York City.
Asked if the president would support same-sex marriage in a second term, Biden said he didn't know the answer. But he pointed to the Obama administration's repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, a move that now allows gay and lesbian members of the military to serve openly.
Some on Twitter seized on the vice president's words to question whether the White House was signaling a change in position on the issue ahead of the election. But David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Obama's re-election campaign, made clear that there is no intended split between the president's views and those of the vice president. Axelrod tweeted:
"What the VP said - that all married couples should have the same legal rights - is (precisely) POTUS' position."
The White House tried to shut down speculation that the administration's position on gay marriage has "evolved" when a spokesperson for the vice president put out a statement after the interview, saying his words mirror the president's position.
"Vice President Biden was echoing the President's position: that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights. That's why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country."
Responding to the interview, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a leading advocacy group for LGBT rights, also put out a statement.
"We are encouraged by Vice President Biden's comments, who rightly articulated that loving and committed gay and lesbian couples should be treated equally. Now is the time for President Obama to speak out for full marriage equality for same-sex couples," Michael Cole-Schwartz, the group's communications director, said in a statement.
In the past, Biden has expressed support for gay marriage. In a December 2010 appearance on "Good Morning America," he said, "I think there's an inevitability for a national consensus on gay marriage."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/06/biden-says-he-is-absolutely-comfortable-with-same-sex-marriage/
-
works for me.
-
works for me.
Too bad your cult messiah won't get behind behind, or does he? :o :o
-
Romney backer hits Obama administration on same-sex marriage
Posted by
CNN Producer Gabriella Schwarz
(CNN) – Former New York governor and Mitt Romney supporter George Pataki injected his voice Tuesday into the debate over the current administration's stance on same-sex marriage, an issue spiked by Vice President Joe Biden's comments over the weekend.
Although Republicans have been largely quiet on the issue in the last few days, Pataki used President Barack Obama's position to paint the current administration as shifty.
"Either you're for something or you're against it, and Vice President Biden has made it plain he's for it. President Obama on the other hand is looking to have both sides," Pataki said on a conference call with reporters.
On Sunday, Biden expressed support for same-sex marriage, comments the White House insisted did not represent a change from past statements. Obama, who once opposed same-sex marriage, has taken the official position that his stance on the issue is "evolving." He has hinted at fundraisers that there is more work to be done, leading many in the LGBT community to believe the president may work to legalize same-sex marriage on the national level during a second term.
Pataki, the former Republican three-term governor, said Obama is attempting to garner support from constituents who fall on both sides of the issue. He also compared the ongoing conversation surrounding same-sex marriage to the president’s open mic moment with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, "where he said just wait until after the election, I'll have a lot more flexibility then."
"Well I think the American people deserve to know today where President Obama stands today and where he will stand next year on this issue," Pataki said.
Obama will appear with current Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering's Albany NanoTech Complex at the State University of New York Albany for an event on Tuesday. The first-term Democrat has publicly supported same-sex marriage and signed a law legalizing the unions last year.
A Gallup Poll released Tuesday indicated half of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with 48% saying such marriages should not be legal.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/romney-backer-hits-obama-administration-on-same-sex-marriage/
-
Too bad your cult messiah won't get behind behind, or does he? :o :o
it takes time.
i'm in no hurry.
-
it takes time.
i'm in no hurry.
Just admit it - your gay messiah has no balls on this.
-
What a surprise. ::) Laying the groundwork for the president to say that his view on traditional marriage has "evolved" to the point where he now openly supports homosexual marriage. I predict we see this "evolution" before the end of 2011.
Missed it by a few months. ::)
Obama says he supports same-sex marriage
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 3:45 PM EDT, Wed May 9, 2012
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama, who previously said his views on the issue were "evolving," said Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage.
The announcement puts Obama squarely at odds with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage.
"At a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.
The president once opposed same-sex marriage.
Obama was "disappointed" by Tuesday's vote on the issue in North Carolina, which he described as discriminatory against gays and lesbians, a spokesman said earlier Wednesday.
North Carolina voted to implement a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, which was already prohibited by state law. Supporters of the measure pushed for the constitutional amendment, arguing that it was needed to ward off future legal challenges.
Obama spoke Wednesday with ABC's Robin Roberts. The interview will appear on ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday. Excerpts were to air Wednesday evening on "World News with Diane Sawyer."
His interview followed comments by other key administration figures.
Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday on NBC he was "absolutely comfortable" with couples of the same gender marrying, leading observers to wonder when Obama would again address the issue.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Monday also made headlines when he openly backed same-sex marriage rights. Asked on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" if he supports allowing individuals of the same gender to legally wed, Duncan replied: "Yes, I do."
Obama told Roberts that first lady Michelle Obama was involved in his decision.
"This is something that, you know, we've talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do," Obama said.
The new president of the Human Rights Campaign lauded Obama's decision.
"President Obama's words today will be celebrated by generations to come," Chad Griffin said. "For the millions of young gay and lesbian Americans across this nation, their president's words provide genuine hope that they will be first generation to grow up with the freedom to fully pursue the American dream."
Obama told ABC that some opinions on the issue are "generational."
"You know, when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
-
Just admit it - your gay messiah has no balls on this.
Seems like he found his balls. What say you 333386?
-
Seems like he found his balls. What say you 333386?
LOL - ZERO BALLS
1. SAID HE IS IN FAVOR OF STATES DECIDING
2. SAID THIS AFTER MASSIVE LOSS IN NC
3. SAID THIS AFTER HE LOST THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
4. WHAT IS HIS PROPOSAL AND PROPOSED LEGISLATION AGAIN?
only an idiot would fall for this scam from gaybama.
-
Seems like he found his balls. What say you 333386?
It doesn't take balls to cower, when a sixth of your donors force you to stand up for gay "marriage" or lose their $$$$$$.
It doesn't take balls, when you come out (if you will) AFTER, instead of before, a marriage amendment vote in North Carolina which passed with ease.
And, it doesn't take balls, when your VP unmasks your intention to keep hemming and hawing on this issue, until the election is done. And your aides have verified that.