Obama orders end to defense of marriage act - Page 5
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 93
  1. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Roddy73 View Post
    Yeah I missed the point, I just can't see the homosexuals I know saying that child molestation is ok.

    I think homosexuality has been around forever, the fact that we're forced to publicly deal with it now can't be a bad thing. Bad preists are an example of what happens when it's something to be kept a secret, It doesn't go away.
    It is statistically wrong to feel that homosexuals are more prone to child molestation then heterosexuals are. That is pretty much a fact. However, homosexuals in our school system are promoting the teaching to our children that homosexuallity is a natural and proper way to behave. That is because unlike the natural sexual attraction between males and females, and the fact that D tab was designed to be inserted into C slot and not into A hole, homosexuallity must be taught. The recruitment of youth into a homosexual lifestyle is 100% perpetuated by homosexuals.

    And yes, homosexuallity has been around forever because evil has been around forever. Society has also always been forced to deal with homosexuallity, as ancient literature of all sorts tells us, and it has always turned out to be a bad thing for societies that allowed it openly.

    Pediphile priests are the way they are because they are perverts who belong to an organization that by requiring abstinence promotes deviance. This was an issue of concern that was brought up and discussed in great detail when the RCC decided to require priests to be celebate. That was throughout the first millenia A.D. It wasn't until the 12th century A.D. that the RCC really made celibacy an absolute. When that happened, wives of clergy of the RCC were sold into slavery and their children simply abandoned. Throughout the debates over celibacy, the argument of priests becoming sexual deviants was constantly brought up.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  2. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Virginia, near the coast
    Posts
    1,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Gib's Son View Post
    We have a little something called separation of powers and the Presidency is not to be meddling with the Judicial branch! They have to enforce the law....that's their job!


    WASHINGTON – The White House says President Barack Obama is "grappling" with his personal views on gay marriage even as he's ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of a law that bans it.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/...marriage_obama
    We probably should have seen this coming when he started using his "rainbow-letter O" symbol as the new Presidential Seal. What's next? Obama on our currency with the banner reading "His Royal Highness"?

    Of course, he may have been confused by all those liberal judges who have, for years, been allowed to legislate from the bench.
    It's a mechanical device, designed by humans, built by humans and operated by humans. What could possibly go wrong?

  3. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    4,241
    Quote Originally Posted by k_fridge View Post
    Marriage carries certain legal rights and also perks like tax breaks and beneficiary benefits. So yes, as long as those things exist, the state has to have domain over it.
    Exactly. If the State want's to license something then license a civil union. A marriage is and always has been religion based. Heck, with the marriage rate dropping they might make money by changing the status to civil union.
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what will never be. (Thomas Jefferson 1816)

  4. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,459
    I have a busy schedule today but I feel the need to respond to a few points.

    Please note that none of the points listed below is meant to be offensive. Just a modern American viewpoint.


    • On the role of churches in gay marriage- One need not go back farther than a week to see news stories about how churches are marrying gays. Those people who suggest that "marriage" is strictly religious should keep up with this. Especially since churches are already marrying them.



    • On Why I believe that this topic is about the bedroom- Like most people, I have a few gay friends and family members. I don't have any "flaming" friends though. The gays I know all bowl the same as me. They all sing Karaoke the same as me. They all hold technical jobs and vote republican like me. The only tangible difference I see between me and them is what happens in our respective bedrooms. It is for this reason that I always reduce this argument to that level of simplicity.



    • On Civil Rights- I grew up in a post-integration America. From my cultural standpoint I see people who wanted to keep blacks and whites separated as... well as idiots I suppose. As the laws banning interracial marriage were wiped from the books some people were upset, but only because they were un-Christian or blinded by rage, ignorance and/or hatred. Moving back in time, people who rallied against suffrage for women are equally batty to me. Denying gays the ability to visit their partners in the hospital or to leave inheritance to each other or to have kids is a Civil Rights matter and nothing more. People fighting against civil rights will eventually be grouped in the same category as those who hate blacks, Jews, Women, etc.



    • On the origins of Gayness- People who pretend that it's a choice are either idiots or self-loathing closeted gays unable to respect themselves. There is an incredibly simple test that proves this point- I'm a straight guy and I can not possibly even conceive of choosing to become gay. The concept turns my stomach and I see no possible way I could make that choice. Anyone who believes it to be a choice would necessarily feel differently about this. Deep down they would have to be admitting to themselves that they could choose to be gay. Since that's not an option I can swallow (so to speak) I can't possibly believe it to be a choice. Science of course backs this up- look up the tragic case of the Canadian twins if you want to get really saddened.



    • On the biblical commentary on gays- Sure Leviticus comes down on the queers pretty hard, but it also says that god hates shrimp. This is an oversimplification but- Jesus came to us to rid us of the hatred that the Old Testament contained. We no longer hate pork. We no longer hate shrimp. I don't remember a single line in the new testament that suggests that Jesus said that we were still supposed to hate the gays. On a related note, King David had a gay lover that he said he loved above the touch of women, yet the Jews still practically worship him, even though Leviticus would indicate that they shouldn't. My only point here is that being raised a Christian it seems hard for me to believe that god hates gays. Christ certainly didn't.



    • On the evolution of my own thoughts- When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. When I was in school I was a homophobe. I thought that gays were horrible creatures trying to ruin the world, but then I grew up. To be quite honest, I just don't have as much anger in my heart as I did as a kid who thought he knew it all. I now see blind hatred as something that I don't want to espouse. And it's surely something that I would not want to pass on to the next generation.


    So in conclusion- I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Once they have the same civil rights as the rest of us, what's left for them to rally against or fight for? They will become an appropriately marginalized group just like every other group here in America.

  5. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Gib's Son View Post
    Exactly. If the State want's to license something then license a civil union. A marriage is and always has been religion based. Heck, with the marriage rate dropping they might make money by changing the status to civil union.
    I'm not so sure. While marriage is Biblical and often regarded as a religious ceremony, government leaders has historically seen it as a means of strengthening society. That's why we have certain incentives and legal protections for marriage. Traditional marriage is also good for the economy. Whether or not same-sex marriage or civil unions would contribute as much to society or economic strength would be a good discussion someone should start. I've seen arguments on both sides of the issue.

  6. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,923
    Quote Originally Posted by fixacr View Post
    We probably should have seen this coming when he started using his "rainbow-letter O" symbol as the new Presidential Seal. What's next? Obama on our currency with the banner reading "His Royal Highness"?

    Of course, he may have been confused by all those liberal judges who have, for years, been allowed to legislate from the bench.
    With the way Obama is catering to homosexuals, that currency banner may be reading "His Royal Hiney". Come to think of it, all Obama has given the American people so far is a bunch of lip service.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  7. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,923
    Quote Originally Posted by BACnet View Post
    I have a busy schedule today but I feel the need to respond to a few points.

    Please note that none of the points listed below is meant to be offensive. Just a modern American viewpoint.


    • On the role of churches in gay marriage- One need not go back farther than a week to see news stories about how churches are marrying gays. Those people who suggest that "marriage" is strictly religious should keep up with this. Especially since churches are already marrying them.


    • On Why I believe that this topic is about the bedroom- Like most people, I have a few gay friends and family members. I don't have any "flaming" friends though. The gays I know all bowl the same as me. They all sing Karaoke the same as me. They all hold technical jobs and vote republican like me. The only tangible difference I see between me and them is what happens in our respective bedrooms. It is for this reason that I always reduce this argument to that level of simplicity.


    • On Civil Rights- I grew up in a post-integration America. From my cultural standpoint I see people who wanted to keep blacks and whites separated as... well as idiots I suppose. As the laws banning interracial marriage were wiped from the books some people were upset, but only because they were un-Christian or blinded by rage, ignorance and/or hatred. Moving back in time, people who rallied against suffrage for women are equally batty to me. Denying gays the ability to visit their partners in the hospital or to leave inheritance to each other or to have kids is a Civil Rights matter and nothing more. People fighting against civil rights will eventually be grouped in the same category as those who hate blacks, Jews, Women, etc.


    • On the origins of Gayness- People who pretend that it's a choice are either idiots or self-loathing closeted gays unable to respect themselves. There is an incredibly simple test that proves this point- I'm a straight guy and I can not possibly even conceive of choosing to become gay. The concept turns my stomach and I see no possible way I could make that choice. Anyone who believes it to be a choice would necessarily feel differently about this. Deep down they would have to be admitting to themselves that they could choose to be gay. Since that's not an option I can swallow (so to speak) I can't possibly believe it to be a choice. Science of course backs this up- look up the tragic case of the Canadian twins if you want to get really saddened.


    • On the biblical commentary on gays- Sure Leviticus comes down on the queers pretty hard, but it also says that god hates shrimp. This is an oversimplification but- Jesus came to us to rid us of the hatred that the Old Testament contained. We no longer hate pork. We no longer hate shrimp. I don't remember a single line in the new testament that suggests that Jesus said that we were still supposed to hate the gays. On a related note, King David had a gay lover that he said he loved above the touch of women, yet the Jews still practically worship him, even though Leviticus would indicate that they shouldn't. My only point here is that being raised a Christian it seems hard for me to believe that god hates gays. Christ certainly didn't.


    • On the evolution of my own thoughts- When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. When I was in school I was a homophobe. I thought that gays were horrible creatures trying to ruin the world, but then I grew up. To be quite honest, I just don't have as much anger in my heart as I did as a kid who thought he knew it all. I now see blind hatred as something that I don't want to espouse. And it's surely something that I would not want to pass on to the next generation.

    So in conclusion- I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Once they have the same civil rights as the rest of us, what's left for them to rally against or fight for? They will become an appropriately marginalized group just like every other group here in America.
    The last time I heard this much crap was when some guy in a plaid jacket over a white on white open collared shirt was trying to sell me a used car.

    Just because religious organizations are marrying homosexuals does not in the least make it theologically correct. All that proves is that religious organizations are as corruptable as any other man made organization. No theology supports homosexuallity, so any religion that condones homosexuallity is simply wrong.

    If there is a fag gene, then homosexuallity can be and should be cured just as any other genetic disorder is remedied.

    No, despite what TV and movies keep trying to make it seem like, most families do not have homosexual members.

    Since homosexuals cannot procreate, they must recruit. That is a method of teaching others how to be homosexual.

    I believe that God has given us all the right to choose for ourselves how we choose to live. I really don't care what you other guys do, just don't keep taking away my God given right to choose to consider you deviant and misled by evil. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. Married heterosexuals have the right to keep the sanctity of marriage what it has always been.

    You people keep attacking the rights of others and you are going to wind up pissing some of us off to the point we will fight back using "any means neccesary". And just so you all know, coldcocking someone has nothing to do with putting ice cubes in your mouths before kneeling.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  8. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,923
    Quote Originally Posted by k_fridge View Post
    I'm not so sure. While marriage is Biblical and often regarded as a religious ceremony, government leaders has historically seen it as a means of strengthening society. That's why we have certain incentives and legal protections for marriage. Traditional marriage is also good for the economy. Whether or not same-sex marriage or civil unions would contribute as much to society or economic strength would be a good discussion someone should start. I've seen arguments on both sides of the issue.
    Governments just figured out how to use marriage to the advantage of political gain. With the leftists in government nowadays, they are simply expanding the realm of marriage in order to cash in on it even more.

    The concept of a man and a woman bonding together in marriage has always been a theological concept, no matter how much government takes control of it.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  9. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,459
    Robo- So for the record- you are declaring that you could easily choose to be gay but so far you have not chosen that. Interesting.

    We hetero folks don't believe in this "choice crap" you are pushing. If we did, we clearly wouldn't be hetero...

    Why do you hate the gays so much if you yourself believe you're only a coin toss away from being one of them? From where I'm standing, that makes you just as queer as the folks you pretend to hate...

    Or is this thread your "coming out thread" where you explain why you're hugging a man in your HVAC-talk profile picture...
    Last edited by BACnet; 02-25-2011 at 04:09 PM.

  10. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Albuquerque NM
    Posts
    2,482
    Anyone could choose to homosexual, if they liked. That knowledge doesn't threaten my sexual identity one bit. Just look at all the people (some of them well-known) who "switch teams", or who go both ways. It's a choice of behavior, just like I had a choice in my mid-twenties when an underaged girl tried to seduce me (it was very clear what she wanted). I knew it was morally wrong, so I turned her down. I guess you could say I was predisposed to not do something that was defined as morally wrong and unhealthy for society, just as some other people are predisposed to ignore all that and follow their sexual desires, however deviant they may be.
    Do wah diddy diddy dum diddy do

  11. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RoBoTeq View Post
    It is statistically wrong to feel that homosexuals are more prone to child molestation then heterosexuals are. That is pretty much a fact. ............
    Care to tell us your "facts". I have documented mine where are yours? Of course you could go to any number of homo / liberal sites and find all the phony info you want but that won't be the truth. You are way out there on this one robo. Come back to sanity and the truth, your to good to be in the "gay support camp" robo come home. Thank you, thank you very much.
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  12. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NW Arkansas
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by k_fridge View Post
    Marriage carries certain legal rights and also perks like tax breaks and beneficiary benefits. So yes, as long as those things exist, the state has to have domain over it. A good argument could be made that some of these benefits and/or perks afforded to marriage are good for the society.
    Obama ordered the Justice department to stop defending DOMA because he and others in the Justice department feel it is unconstitutional. This in no way implies that his administration is in anyway circumventing the judicial branch or refusing to enforce the law. What he did was save the taxpayers millions of dollars by halting the defense of DOMA. It does not mean that private groups cannot spend their money to defend DOMA in the courts. Lord knows there are plenty of homophobic groups out there with money. Let them pony up.

    The reason I qouted K_fridge is because what he posted are some of the constitutional concerns with the law.
    Signature on hold. Trying to find a real Jefferson quote I like. Others here have bogus Jefferson quotes too.

  13. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by wgrr View Post
    Obama ordered the Justice department to stop defending DOMA because he and others in the Justice department feel it is unconstitutional. This in no way implies that his administration is in anyway circumventing the judicial branch or refusing to enforce the law. ................
    No what he has done is to circumvent the legislative branch of government by refusing to enforce and defend a law they passed. That in itself is unconstitutional in my opinion but you go ahead and defend our pro commie anti American President.

    He will continue and try to destroy the America we all grew up in and soon we won't recognize it any more. Just one big socialist big brother tyrannical government who defends the rights of those who our enemies. Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event