OBAMA: GAY MARRIAGE IS COOL WITH ME

actually, in a not so far away reality from now, with the scientific advances and aberrations we're facing, it will be possible for MEN to have children... what about that?

I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage.

  On 5/11/2012 at 1:52 AM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

also, i'd like to claim that i'm also against celebrities adopting poor starving kids!!!

i am against celebrities in the first place

  On 5/11/2012 at 1:52 AM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 5/11/2012 at 1:48 AM, lumpenprol said:

What I'm most interested in is this, is where do people who need a "cause" go from here? I mean the right to gay marriage is pretty wimpy cause when compared to civil rights, vietnam war, etc.

this!!!

 

 

 

 

 

also, i'd like to claim that i'm also against celebrities adopting poor starving kids!!!

YEAH!! let the kids starve, feed the flies.

  On 5/11/2012 at 2:01 AM, Adjective said:

I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage.

Yeah they should stop that, and also the government should start a war on jealousy. The jealousy epidemic is a leading cause of death, almost as bad as crack cocaine and zinc deficiency.

  On 5/11/2012 at 2:08 AM, RadarJammer said:

  On 5/11/2012 at 2:01 AM, Adjective said:

I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage.

 

Yeah they should stop that, and also the government should start a war on jealousy. The jealousy epidemic is a leading cause of death, almost as bad as crack cocaine and zinc deficiency.

jealousy like, the idea of infidelity as it relates to marriage? or is that about me as an unmarried hater

  On 5/11/2012 at 2:15 AM, Adjective said:

  On 5/11/2012 at 2:08 AM, RadarJammer said:

  On 5/11/2012 at 2:01 AM, Adjective said:

I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage.

 

Yeah they should stop that, and also the government should start a war on jealousy. The jealousy epidemic is a leading cause of death, almost as bad as crack cocaine and zinc deficiency.

jealousy like, the idea of infidelity as it relates to marriage? or is that about me as an unmarried hater

I am right with you on hating marriage and I think that If the government was to legally sponsor the union of two people then maybe now that science is getting pretty good they should all be screened for genetic compatibility and mental health like predispositions to infidelity and jealous rage and anger management issues etc.

There is nothing wrong with people playing sappy romance love games but family unit games need to be taken more seriously.

ILL BE ON THE FIRST QUEERBOAT TO MOGER

Mass culture perpetuates a perspective of humanity/society that is so abundant individuals like Kanakori are incapable of accepting any other form or alteration. Applying words like "natural" as their defense, they must surely forget human history and how we all enjoy our current technological luxuries. Our entire existence came about through chaos, sex and destruction. I really don't think two men or women adopting a baby is the end of the world or relevant. Refusing to acknowledge the purpose of equality and refusing to accept major problems and flaws within our current "natural" state is kind of ridiculous but then again propaganda and film got the Germans to kill millions of innocent people. Not surprising to see irrational perspectives when you think about whats on TV all the time.

  On 5/11/2012 at 2:08 AM, YO303 said:

 

YEAH!! let the kids starve, feed the flies.

there's so many other ways they could help, you know what i mean...

  On 5/11/2012 at 2:01 AM, Adjective said:

I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage.

I agree actually. I think the libertarian position highlights that as the core issue, but that said most would also assert that in lieu of ending those laws, marriage needs to be equal. People try to frame the debate as an intrusive gay agenda, i.e. "why can't they just have civil unions" or "that it goes against church rights," etc. That's not the issue. It never has been. It's the same logic that people use to say delusional nonsense like "Christianity is under attack" because things like mandated school prayer has been outlawed.

The issue is state governments are singling out same-sex couples and treating them as lesser citizens. Clearly it's not on the same magnitude as something like the 60s civil rights movement, but it's still government endorsed discrimination and there should be vocal, aggressive criticism against it. There has been a lot of progress in recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships in other regards (custody of children, shared employee benefits, etc) even in the more conservative states. It's the "marriage" debate that conveniently opens the floodgates for all the delusional rhetoric about religious morality and social standards. I feel if the federal government simply mandates that civil unions must be recognized and allowed in courtroom ceremonies, the ammunition that the opposition keeps using would be depleted greatly. Then the states and local governments could sort out all the semantics and legal implications to existing law in a far more subdued and rational manner.

sound post right there ^

  On 5/11/2012 at 3:19 AM, joshuatx said:

  On 5/11/2012 at 2:01 AM, Adjective said:

I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage.

 

I agree actually. I think the libertarian position highlights that as the core issue, but that said most would also assert that in lieu of ending those laws, marriage needs to be equal. People try to frame the debate as an intrusive gay agenda, i.e. "why can't they just have civil unions" or "that it goes against church rights," etc. That's not the issue. It never has been. It's the same logic that people use to say delusional nonsense like "Christianity is under attack" because things like mandated school prayer has been outlawed.

 

The issue is state governments are singling out same-sex couples and treating them as lesser citizens. Clearly it's not on the same magnitude as something like the 60s civil rights movement, but it's still government endorsed discrimination and there should be vocal, aggressive criticism against it. There has been a lot of progress in recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships in other regards (custody of children, shared employee benefits, etc) even in the more conservative states. It's the "marriage" debate that conveniently opens the floodgates for all the delusional rhetoric about religious morality and social standards. I feel if the federal government simply mandates that civil unions must be recognized and allowed in courtroom ceremonies, the ammunition that the opposition keeps using would be depleted greatly. Then the states and local governments could sort out all the semantics and legal implications to existing law in a far more subdued and rational manner.

I guess my issue is the government giving preferrential treatment to married folk through benefits and rights. As a non-married person, I don't see why I should be viewed less worthy of assistance, and it's just unsettling that marriage would be incentivized so. I hope someday they call legal marriages "CoupleCorps" instead, and let unFed marriage be a separate private practice. People could have their own CoupleCorp logo, with slogans like "The Segals are Legal!" or "Coupling the Wright Way." I don't know I'm sure they're cleverer in the future.

Anyway, I agree that it's yet another way the US is persecuting marginalized groups. It just feels like it's the government trying to keep you out of a club that really sucks. A club with promises turned to contract, and exit comes with penalty. Equal rights victories just don't have the same zazz they used to. And to be honest, even the news of the DADT repeal felt very: The Military Industrial Complex Welcomes You (ominous tuba solo)

Friend just posted this on the facebook.

It is a humorous coincidence, at least.

Is that saying that people with higher education are for same-sex marriage or vice versa?

  On 5/10/2012 at 4:46 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 5/10/2012 at 4:43 AM, Al Hounos said:

Way to come out on the right side of history, Obama. Hope this doesn't cost you the election or your life!

fix'd that for you

All of the Americans I have come accross, on an intimate level before, that have been opposed and disgusted by homosexuality have also been racist, so I'm pretty sure they didn't vote him in, in the first place, and they certainly haven't murdered him yet.

Go BO

Can someone create some nyancat image with obama instead of the cat? he's soooo nyan cat

  On 5/11/2012 at 9:08 AM, azatoth said:

Is that saying that people with higher education are for same-sex marriage or vice versa?

"no" means against the gay marriage ban.

usagi, i disagree. more educated people are more tolerant people. they also tend to be less religious, and religion is far and away the biggest reason people are against gay marriage. pretty simple.

  On 5/11/2012 at 3:12 AM, compson said:

Mass culture perpetuates a perspective of humanity/society that is so abundant individuals like Kanakori are incapable of accepting any other form or alteration. Applying words like "natural" as their defense, they must surely forget human history and how we all enjoy our current technological luxuries. Our entire existence came about through chaos, sex and destruction. I really don't think two men or women adopting a baby is the end of the world or relevant. Refusing to acknowledge the purpose of equality and refusing to accept major problems and flaws within our current "natural" state is kind of ridiculous but then again propaganda and film got the Germans to kill millions of innocent people. Not surprising to see irrational perspectives when you think about whats on TV all the time.

lololololo

Just because I have a diferent opinion I'm limited. I think it's you that can see past yourself. I'm for gay marriage. I'm not for gay adoption because I'm not sure it's healthy for the child.

Gay adoption is a deviation and the kid didn't choose to live in it like the couple did..

I'm all for forced gay conversion of children, it's the only way we'll be able to conquer Middle Earth

  On 5/10/2012 at 9:33 PM, Kanakori said:

  On 5/10/2012 at 8:13 PM, spratters said:

  On 5/10/2012 at 3:43 PM, Kanakori said:

Equality isn't about treating everyone the same way.

 

 

It's about treating what is diferent, diferently.

Still wrong.

  On 5/11/2012 at 1:13 PM, Kanakori said:

Just because I have a diferent opinion I'm limited. I think it's you that can see past yourself. I'm for gay marriage. I'm not for gay adoption because I'm not sure it's healthy for the child.

 

Gay adoption is a deviation and the kid didn't choose to live in it like the couple did..

Why would it be any less healthy for the kid than growing up with a hetero couple, or a single mother / father that it didn't choose? Because guys / girls kissing is gross? I don't see it.

because gay matrix