Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance

[Reforged]

was he easing HIS guilt or helping to massage THEIR inability to separate personal feelings from public rights?

75% of the states have banned gay marriage, the rev. J's state most recently. Majority rules in this republic, gay marriage is not a right, and hopefully will never be. there are far more urgent concerns in this nation at this time than to worry about what an extremely small minority wants. That is what's wrong with this country, looking to please the few and let the problems that face the majority go.

Ja, mein fuhrer.

[Minimalist]

This is about rights, and people don't just get their rights taken away because the majority wants it.

Actually, if history teaches us anything it is that rights have to be fought for. The bigoted fools waving their fucking bibles ( like G-C) never give up without trying to maintain the status quo for their fucking god.

[Godscreated]

there are far more urgent concerns in this nation at this time than to worry about what an extremely small minority wants.

I know, right? Plus I'm getting damn tired of all those scientists researching anything besides cancer. Just focus on the worst thing, assholes!

Seriously, though, why do you think the government is incapable of doing multiple things at once? From their track record I'd say they don't tend to do even a single thing well, but with the sheer number of people the US employs they can surely work on a large variety of issues at one time.

I also particularly like how you think that the people who support gay marriage are an extremely small minority. How large would the percentage have to be before you no longer considered it small?

I was not saying anything about those who support, I was referring to gays. Gays are a very small percentage of the population.
Our government has a hard enough time dealing with this country, they need less distractions and more butt kicking from the majority. As far as I'm concerned our government should spend their valuable time and our money doing for the majority in this country. The unemployed out number the gay population, if we do not get our financial problems fixed, we will become vulnerable to another financial fall.

---

A USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted May 7–10, 2009, however, found support at only 40%, lower than in 2003, with 57% opposed. According to this poll, 48% of Americans feel that society would change for the worse if same sex marriage were legalized, the same percentage as a 2003 poll. The poll asked: "Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."

Legal Marriage Civil Unions No Legal Recognition Unsure
All Respondents 42% 25% 28% 5%
Republicans 18% 31% 49% 2%
Democrats 52% 22% 21% 5%
Independents 43% 26% 25% 6%

Not exactly a "tiny minority"
but that doesn't even matter. This is about rights, and people don't just get their rights taken away because the majority wants it. Gay rights isn't a democracy issue, it's a human rights issue.

Gays themselves are a very small percentage of the population.

[Hovik]

I was not saying anything about those who support, I was referring to gays. Gays are a very small percentage of the population.
Our government has a hard enough time dealing with this country, they need less distractions and more butt kicking from the majority. As far as I'm concerned our government should spend their valuable time and our money doing for the majority in this country. The unemployed out number the gay population, if we do not get our financial problems fixed, we will become vulnerable to another financial fall.

Sure, only 3.5% of people in the United States identify as LGBT, but consider that that's nearly twelve million people; that's not insignificant by even a little bit.

At any rate, I don't see what your point is. What you're essentially saying is that it's okay to shaft a minority out of their rights just because you're in the majority and they're not? That's sick, and you should feel bad.

Your argument doesn't even make sense: "Financial problems are more pertinent to the majority, therefore gays can't marry." What the fuck? Are you dense?

Friedrich Nietzsche is dead ... GOD

That's real cute, except you entirely missed the context and point of Nietzsche writing "God is dead." How about you educate yourself instead of misinterpreting things about which you have no understanding?

[Godscreated]

I was not saying anything about those who support, I was referring to gays. Gays are a very small percentage of the population.
Our government has a hard enough time dealing with this country, they need less distractions and more butt kicking from the majority. As far as I'm concerned our government should spend their valuable time and our money doing for the majority in this country. The unemployed out number the gay population, if we do not get our financial problems fixed, we will become vulnerable to another financial fall.

Sure, only 3.5% of people in the United States identify as LGBT, but consider that that's nearly twelve million people; that's not insignificant by even a little bit.

348,857,130 people are not gay and 34 million are unemployed those my friend are more significant than 12 million.

At any rate, I don't see what your point is. What you're essentially saying is that it's okay to shaft a minority out of their rights just because you're in the majority and they're not? That's sick, and you should feel bad.

I did not say gays should not have rights, I do not believe they should be able to marry, they have all the rights the rest of us do, except for marriage and the few things that would go along with that.

Your argument doesn't even make sense: "Financial problems are more pertinent to the majority, therefore gays can't marry." What the fuck? Are you dense?

Why would my concern for the unemployed make me dense, there are many who need to provide for their families, our government needs to concentrate on real problems that effect the many, this would include the gays that are unemployed as well.

Friedrich Nietzsche is dead ... GOD

That's real cute, except you entirely missed the context and point of Nietzsche writing "God is dead." How about you educate yourself instead of misinterpreting things about which you have no understanding?

I missed nothing and understand well, I stated the truth Nietzsche is dead and God is alive. Nietzsche was wrong about Christianity it is still alive and well, and Nietzsche is dead and gone.

[Hovik]

Sure, only 3.5% of people in the United States identify as LGBT, but consider that that's nearly twelve million people; that's not insignificant by even a little bit.

348,857,130 people are not gay and 34 million are unemployed those my friend are more significant than 12 million.

Again, because it makes so much fucking sense to ignore an entire demographic because of some other, entirely unrelated demographic.

At any rate, I don't see what your point is. What you're essentially saying is that it's okay to shaft a minority out of their rights just because you're in the majority and they're not? That's sick, and you should feel bad.

I did not say gays should not have rights, I do not believe they should be able to marry, they have all the rights the rest of us do, except for marriage and the few things that would go along with that.

Except here's the basic issue: marriage is a social right that predates Christianity by quite a lot. You don't have a monopoly on marriage, and your religion has no right to say who can and cannot marry. It's as simple as that. Let's look at what you just said from another perspective, shall we?
"I did not say women should not have rights, I do not believe they should be able to vote, they have all the rights the rest of us do, except for voting and the few things that would go along with that."
See how changing just a few words points out the utter ridiculousness of your argument? Voting and marriage have in common that they're both social rights that are independent of your religion; they both also predate Christianity by a huge margin.

Your argument doesn't even make sense: "Financial problems are more pertinent to the majority, therefore gays can't marry." What the fuck? Are you dense?

Why would my concern for the unemployed make me dense, there are many who need to provide for their families, our government needs to concentrate on real problems that effect the many, this would include the gays that are unemployed as well.

Uh, I don't know, perhaps because unemployment has fuck all to do with gay marriage?

Friedrich Nietzsche is dead ... GOD

That's real cute, except you entirely missed the context and point of Nietzsche writing "God is dead." How about you educate yourself instead of misinterpreting things about which you have no understanding?

I missed nothing and understand well, I stated the truth Nietzsche is dead and God is alive. Nietzsche was wrong about Christianity it is still alive and well, and Nietzsche is dead and gone.

Clearly, considering Nietzsche's statement that "God is dead" was a criticism of organized Christianity at the time, not a statement of the nonexistence of God. "God is dead" was a call to return to a form of Christianity that better meshes with Jesus' teachings. Hence, you not only completely missed his point, but you didn't even bother doing the research to see how and why you're wrong.

[Jinkies]

348,857,130 people are not gay and 34 million are unemployed those my friend are more significant than 12 million.

Please don't hide your bigotry behind terrible arguments like this. You know perfectly well why you don't want gay people getting married and it's not because you feel there are more important or prevalent issues to focus on.

Arguments from majority are terrible. The majority of people in the US are white. If non-whites were lacking in some basic right that whites possessed, would that be okay? The majority of US citizens are female. Would it be okay if males in the US lacked the basic rights of females?

For your specific example, we can easily find problems in this country that affect more individuals than unemployment. Does this mean that we should no longer focus on unemployment?

I jokingly mentioned doctors working on curing cancer before, but the comparison actually holds for an argument as fallacious as yours. Should doctors only focus their attention on the single most deadly (or most common, or whatever selector you choose) ailment facing humans today? Very few people die of lyme disease or AIDS compared to cancer. Should we therefore funnel all research into cancer (or the common cold, which just about everyone gets)?

Stand proud with your bigotry. Don't hide behind moronic arguments like, "Eh, we're only fucking over a few million people, it's cool." Just admit that your actual problem with homosexuals is the same as the slogan of the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Jackalope]

Nietzsche was wrong about Christianity it is still alive and well

That isn't even close to what Nietzsche meant.

[libalchris]

You're right, godschild. Let's just ignore human rights issues and focus on more important ones, because it would really be so fucking difficult to give gays the right to marry. You know, for such an irrelevant issue, North Carolina sure found the time to make sure gays COULDN'T marry.

[Godscreated]

348,857,130 people are not gay and 34 million are unemployed those my friend are more significant than 12 million.

Please don't hide your bigotry behind terrible arguments like this. You know perfectly well why you don't want gay people getting married and it's not because you feel there are more important or prevalent issues to focus on.

Arguments from majority are terrible. The majority of people in the US are white. If non-whites were lacking in some basic right that whites possessed, would that be okay? The majority of US citizens are female. Would it be okay if males in the US lacked the basic rights of females?

For your specific example, we can easily find problems in this country that affect more individuals than unemployment. Does this mean that we should no longer focus on unemployment?

I jokingly mentioned doctors working on curing cancer before, but the comparison actually holds for an argument as fallacious as yours. Should doctors only focus their attention on the single most deadly (or most common, or whatever selector you choose) ailment facing humans today? Very few people die of lyme disease or AIDS compared to cancer. Should we therefore funnel all research into cancer (or the common cold, which just about everyone gets)?

Stand proud with your bigotry. Don't hide behind moronic arguments like, "Eh, we're only fucking over a few million people, it's cool." Just admit that your actual problem with homosexuals is the same as the slogan of the Westboro Baptist Church.

You're so far away from the truth of my life, you do not know me and have no right to judge me as you have, if you dislike what I say fine, judge me when you know me. There are far more pressing issues than gay marriage, yet you would have our government to spend time on a small issue than to help people who are in need, I guess though I should not expect any more from an ungodly person as your self.

---

You're right, godschild. Let's just ignore human rights issues and focus on more important ones, because it would really be so fucking difficult to give gays the right to marry. You know, for such an irrelevant issue, North Carolina sure found the time to make sure gays COULDN'T marry.

And I say way to go North Carolina.