Obama Endorses Gay Marriage

[kılıç_mehmet]

Clearly not, since gays CAN get married in some places, including ALL of Canada.

Which is a recent development. I know that they can get married in the Netherlands and other European countries aswell.
My opinion is still the same.

So gay marriage is okay as long as it's not called marriage..? What the fuck. That doesn't change anything. It would still be a formal commitment between two people.

Well, if you don't call it a marriage, it's not a marriage.

[Matt231]

Well, if you don't call it a marriage, it's not a marriage.

It's the same idea though. Changing the name doesn't change the concept. You spent the last few days saying that gay marriage is wrong and that we should abort them as babies. And now you're saying it's right, as long as we change the name? It makes no difference.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, if you don't call it a marriage, it's not a marriage.

It's the same idea though. Changing the name doesn't change the concept. You spent the last few days saying that gay marriage is wrong and that we should abort them as babies. And now you're saying it's right, as long as we change the name? It makes no difference.

I've explained that it's not. You've not been paying attention to my posts.
As you obviously cannot comprehend that marriage is something beyond the legal contract, you can easily speak of a marriage that does not carry the burden of a marriage a marriage.
Whether the people who get married can bear this burden or not, it's up to them.
Obviously, homosexuals were never actually entrusted with carrying this burden, as it was evident that they could not, even if they wanted to.
This is why marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman.
That is the nature of marriage.
I'm not suggesting that you should perfom a name change. I'm suggesting a seperate existence.
One that grants legal rights. But the burden of marriage, one that endorses traditional familial values, producing and raising of children is exclusive to normal members of society. It has always been.
This is my final take. I've explained about all that I can or should.

[Matt231]

I'm not suggesting that you should perfom a name change. I'm suggesting a seperate existence.

That's pointless. Just add gay marriage to regular marriage. There's no need to create a separate form of it. That would just exclude them from the rest of society.

One that grants legal rights. But the burden of marriage, one that endorses traditional familial values, producing and raising of children is exclusive to normal members of society. It has always been.
This is my final take. I've explained about all that I can or should.

"Normal?" I'm not even going to comment on that. Sure, it HAS been like that, but not anymore. As I pointed out, gay marriage is legal in many places, so clearly, your view is no longer correct.

[Violet]

I don't call it a pond... but it's still a small body of still water.

Never heard the names 'brush wolf' or 'prairie wolf' before... both are still coyotes.

If two things are equal... is it such a stretch to call them by same name (in this case: marriage)?

[Reforged]

His point of view "evolved"? Well shit, there goes the creationist support.
Their points of view still wield clubs and have freakishly large foreheads.

[C Rod]

"That is the nature of marriage." I'm pretty sure nature evolves, changes.
I don't agree marriage is a burden, its a romantic desire and public commitment. You are upset with losing some quality you think is special to who you are or your society, but don't think like that, if it really is special, you should want to share it.

[ohh EPiC FAiL]

He's just doing it to act like he's made some progress as president so that he'll get more votes. He still won't be getting mine, just as he didn't get mine when he ran for the current term.

[Autumnlicious]

His point of view "evolved"? Well shit, there goes the creationist support.
Their points of view still wield clubs and have freakishly large foreheads.

It has always bugged me that liberals in the US are often pushing for minority rights and even going so far as to pass hate crime laws that further punish intent depending on the target group, but still like to call their opponents Neaderthals, abhumans, throw-backs,etc,.

Similar to lunatic social conservatives who want to criminalize homosexuality, of whom often compare the focus of their hatred like the above. I've heard on multiple occasions that homosexuals are less than human, are a blight, a disease. Very dehumanizing, I suppose.

Both are identical in that sense, yet one is trying to create flexibility, while the other is trying to destroy it.

Other humans confuse me sometimes.

---

He's just doing it to act like he's made some progress as president so that he'll get more votes. He still won't be getting mine, just as he didn't get mine when he ran for the current term.

Are you voting for a turd sandwich or a giant douche?

In all seriousness, I hope your reasons for not voting have factored in Mitt-the-wonder-boy-Romney and the bizarre, pulsing support the GOP musters (and then rescinds! and then musters again!). Because, after all, it would be a tragedy if enough voters (especially young ones) got "disappointed" and let the Elderly/Old people voting demographic dictate who they want to run the country.

HINT: They like to vote conservative, and the biggest demographic support for Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry early on were the elderly. Now they're being forced to rally around a bland, milquetoast Mormon -- it just might work.

[ohh EPiC FAiL]

Romney will not be getting my vote either. Gary Johnson is who I'm voting for. I fully support gay marriage and their equal rights, but I'm not gonna vote for someone who advocates gun control, spend my tax dollars frivolously, and use tax money to take family vacations and spend his time watching basketball all the time.