Biden: I Am ‘Absolutely Comfortable’ With Same-Sex Marriage
- Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:19am by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
AP
Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday he’s “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage, making him the highest Obama administration official to indicate support for the issue.
President Barack Obama remains formally opposed to same-sex marriage, though his position has been said to be “evolving.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host David Gregory asked Biden about his own views.
“And you’re comfortable with same-sex marriage now?” Gregory asked.
“I am vice president of the United States of America,” Biden said. “The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”
He said he “can’t speak for” the administration coming out in support of same-sex marriage, but said Obama has been a champion for gay rights.
“The president continues to fight, whether it‘s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or whether it is making sure across the board that you cannot discriminate,” Biden said.
He said his measure of an issue is when the “social culture” begins to embrace it.
“I think ‘Will and Grace’ probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anyone’s ever done so far,” Biden said, referring to the NBC sitcom that ended in 2006. “People fear that which is different. Now they’re beginning to understand.”
NBC’s Chuck Todd said Biden’s office told him “he was speaking for his own evolving on marriage not for the admin[istration].”
Watch below, via NBC:
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 694 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 662 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 343 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 231 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 238 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 231 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (491)
sizzler2220
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:03pmWell, Obama would be against same sex marriage since he is a muslim.
Report Post »Tom70
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:02pmHe would also be comfortable with dog and humans … now that I think of it so would Pelosie, poor dog.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:09pmI’m no fan of Joe Biden – I think he’s one of the most annoying Vice Presidents to have served in the White House to date. However, this is where I would agree with him – homosexuals are deserving of all the same rights and civil liberties as the heterosexuals are. Yes, this also means that the homosexuals, like the heterosexuals, have the RIGHT to marry one another, as long as their proposed marriage is consensual. Whenever the churches stop attempting to embolden the government (both state and federal) to attempt to force their morals on the homosexuals and vice versa, our country will finally be able to express tolerance towards people whose values differ from the mainstream. We should be trying to protect everyone’s rights and civil liberties, not shove morals and/or values down others’ throats.
MIBUGNU2
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:29pmJoe feels “absolutely comfortable” walking around with his fly open.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:32pmMarriage is not a right. That is a fallacious argument. Try again.
Report Post »LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:36pmMROSHA, your twisted thinking is sick. Before all this crap got started by the liberals, Everone had the same rights. As a man I could marry any woman of legal age who would marry me. EVERY man in the country had the same exact same rights. Now the sick twisted liberal have twisted the concept of marrage into something it was NEVER meant to be. Men do not marry other men. Thats not marrage. Thats sick. We all had the same rights, every single person. Marrage always was a man and a woman, and as far as I’m concerned, it still is. I do not accept two men as being married. Biden is a moron, and that is a fact.
Report Post »MIBUGNU2
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:36pmThe Country is going down the TOILET, food and gas prices
Report Post »going through the roof. no JOBS to be had, POTUS spending
like a wild bitc* with a new credit card..and these jerks talk about
gay’s and war on women, GOOD GRIEF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:45pmMethinks he is comfortably numb.
Report Post »iampraying4u
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:47pmbiden is just a mouthpiece for abomanation
Report Post »LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:48pmIf you want to do the right thing, in any situation, ask a liberal what they would do, then do the opposite! In bizzaro liberal land, good is bad, bad is good, up is down, down is up. They they fight to protect a murderers life, but kill unborn innocent baby’s. Liberals are sick demented jerks. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Report Post »Leopold
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:57pmJust wait and see. Everybody around obama will come out and support same sex marriage. This way obama does not have to officially declare his own support. But the msg. that he does still gets out.
Report Post »GitMoFunky
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:05pmI think Biden is an alien… and I mean that in the extra-terrestrial sort of way… If you look at his head, it just doesn’t look right. Like it could open up like a convertible… I bet there’s a little green guy in there at the controls… I‘m just say’in… There’s a logical reason for people being the way they are and that would explain a lot…
Report Post »MAMMY_NUNN
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:19pmWhat isn’t Joe comfortable with ?
Report Post »Joe = Braindead
huufarted
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:24pmJoe Biden: I feel absolutely comfortable smoking a pole or getting butt slammed …
Report Post »barber2
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:37pmMIB: Better that than his mouth !
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:39pm@The Gooch and LiberalsAlwaysLie
The Gooch – WRONG. Marriage IS a right – hence, it is YOUR argument that is fallacious, as you have no proof whatsoever showing that it’s only a mere “privilege.”
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_437HCdkDE
LiberalsAlwaysLie – Are you suggesting that we should allow the government to establish its own definition of marriage and ban other marriages in the process? Your nonsensical statement seems to be hinting at that.
Report Post »poorrichard09
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:42pmI’m totally comfortable with gay marriage. And I’ll tell you, the president has a big stick. A little Freudian slip there, Joe?
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:51pmI believe Biden is Catholic. I wonder how the church feels about his statements. Just as Pelosi spouts a lot of pro-choice statements and she is Catholic. Just amazing. Maybe they should find another faith and another job.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:56pmWhy an I not surprised, I’m not sure he even knows which planet he on.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 2:01pmDoes he kiss Barnie Frank (who now looks like he has HIV)… where both would be Confortable with a Communist Government?
Report Post »RedDirtTexas
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 2:07pmAt Mr.Osh Yeah, we really don’t want those hideous morals and values spreading around! Do we? We need to give our 2nd graders kid books telling them if mommy and daddy are both wearing beards, that’s okay! It’s ok to shove that down our throats, huh? To tell the truth, same sex marriage means less liberals being born, so therein lies the silver lining in that liberal cloud! You think that might be why libs are so pro illegal alien? To replenish their ranks?
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 2:25pmThat’s great Joe, buddy… and I’m perfectly fine with you no longer being the vice president …PREFECTLY FINE . In fact … most joyful, very happy, extremely content, profusely gay.
I will even give you the perfect 10 exclamation marks award …!!!!!!!!!! …congratulations Joe
Report Post »vox_populi
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 2:42pmMost of the country at this point is “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage.
So… yeah. I’ll wave to you guys as history passes you by.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:00pmA marriage is a contract between two individuals. Animals are not aware enough to commit to a legal contract. Until the day that they can, all the fear mongering of same sex marriage leading to legalized beastiality is borderline absurd.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:06pmMr. Oshawott:
Report Post »Um… so one man’s (and a politician at that) opinion on a youtube posting negates my right to have an opinion on this matter? Very weak, friend. I refer you to my reply to your first main post.
Yeah, I get the games of semantics & legalism. If & when a body politic asserts anything is a right to the collective, govt. has decided what is & isn’t kosher based on its ability to impose its will thru threat of force. So if I become king of the world, I can assert it is a right that the post office serve ham sandwiches on Fridays.
The precedents thru history overwhelmingly define marriage as between male & female & as a privilege thas has been monitored, defined & restricted by both the state & religion. Now creeps in the sereration of church & state argument. Fine. Assert homosexuality is also a religion & I’ll shut up & go away (which is basically what most proponents want the opposition to do… rather than debate or “gasp!” vote on the matter).
This is the same cowardly game that asserts abortion is a “right.” Please, enlighten, cite specific language that clearly asserts marriage is a right & not a privilege. Or just post another display that depends on emotion & a guilt play.
I particularly love how people put forth Nero as an historicial precedent & proponent for gay marriage. Yep. The same guy who placed his horse in the senate. Go w/that.
You need to bring a stronger argument than an 11 minute guilt play. Nihilism….
Baron_Doom
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:08pm“…homosexuals are deserving of all the same rights and civil liberties as the heterosexuals are.”
And they already do. What they’re not arguing for is more rights than any other group has… the right to fundamentally redefine a term which has meant one thing and one thing only for thousands of years.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:27pmMR. OSHAWOTT, I just checked the Bill of Rights and found no mention of the word “marriage”. That would make you a filthy liar…and a clownish tooooooool.
Report Post »MAMMY_NUNN
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:29pm@ RedDirtTexas
Report Post »They don’t realize they are in a selfdestructive mindset for all they can reproduce is a Mr. Hanky or a Furbee that is the logic of the left.
HeavyMetalDaze
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:54pmOnly an idiot would equate human coupling with cross species coupling. In fact its false equivalency.
Report Post »Thevoice
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:00pmHere we go again …The message from the extreme left commie loons …Accept the craziness ..Yea…Just brilliant ….Will & Grace … A TV show and I guess Jersey shores …And maybe the Obama idea of job creation and a vibrant economy is a Bravo housewives reality show..Really..This is what leadership of America has come down to. Basing the core principles of a nation on TV shows…WOW…Now do you “New age progressive commie” Obama/ Biden OWS encampment dwellers, Guberment save me idiots see how idiotic you are.
Report Post »SFsuper49er
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:02pmMr. Oshawott , all your for is promoting bad behavior and all this stuff put together is why the country is in the shape it’s in… You know that it’s not normal but refuse to see it. This is exactly why the left wants to take down all things like the Ten Commandments and other Christian symbols that remind the wicked there doing wrong… Get your head on straight and stay out of mainstream thinking. It just shows how fast wickedness spreads …
Report Post »Honestybefore truth
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:03pmI have no problem with same sex secular unions, which would cover the legal and financial issues. but, I fear the move to legalize “marriage” is more about setting religious institutions up to be forced to perform same sex marriages under fear of civil liberties lawsuits. Forcing acceptance never works, look at the mess it resulted in place like Serbia, Bosnia, etc. And MR. OSHAWOTT, I’m interested in how far out of the mainstream you expect tolerance to be extended? Will necrophilia, bestiality, and the sickos at NAMBLA be among the those you expect every one accept and tolerate. And just who elected you the Arbiter of Tolerance and Morality….HMMM?
Report Post »Realist4U
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:04pmYes, Joe. And are you also ok with your replacement (Hillary) marrying her Muslim lover before she takes your job?
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:09pm@American Soldier (Separated)
Amen to that. It really is sad that so many people here (the neo-conservative Blazers) would want to vote for nullifying civil liberties of those whose values don’t match with theirs. The Founding Fathers have mentioned this scenario in the Federalist Papers (No. 10): http://constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:13pm@leopold
Report Post »I agree with you 100%!!!
And the beat goes on. And the games people play now…everynight & everyday now….
LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:22pmMrOSHA, I’m not hinting at anything. And clearly you are a liberal. How can I tell? Simple, you make no sense at all. Liberals like you are what is wrong with this country. You idiots think you know it all, but in fact, the opposite is true. Liberals love to connect dots that arnt even there!!! You are clueless. Your ignorance is astounding.
Report Post »woodyb
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:33pmPoor Ole’ Joe — just like so many, he doesn’t know the difference between SEX and GENDER!!!!!!!!!!!
GENDER is what you ARE (male or female or somewhere in between); SEX is an activity — what you do with persons of the same, or nowadays different, GENDER!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:47pm@The Gooch
“…So one man’s (and a politician at that) opinion on a YouTube posting negates my opinion on this matter? Very weak, my friend.”
Nope, it’s the other way around. I already did provide you the proof about marriage being a right and not a privilege. Your statement is simply a mere word salad with no facts to support it. It seems that you’ve decided not to watch the entire video, as it fully explained why marriage should NEVER be voted away from ANY couple, be it homosexual or heterosexual. Besides, NOWHERE within the Constitution did I find any law saying that the government has authorization to nullify marriages of any sort.
Report Post »wdittgasn
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:13pmIf you love Me keep my My commandments, Love is keeping the law of God….. God in his love has a place for Homos, and it is not the Kingdom of God….. It is called the lake of fire, God has such love for them that he will put them to eternal death for the sake of themselves and others.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:16pmMr. Oshawott:
Report Post »Oh, for the love of Pete. WHAT PROOF!?! You just provided a link to diatribe. Good grief. What your argument really amounts to is the same ol’ tripe: I’m right, you’re wrong. My “facts” matter, your‘s don’t. I’m smart, you’re stupid. Oh, and STFU and go away. I answer with a most resounding, “NO.”
This is a matter that deserves debate and consideration, not a call for people to shut up and slink away. So sorry I won’t jump on the “Let‘s all embrace nihilism so we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings!” bandwagon.
Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:16pm@SFSuper49er
“Mr. Oshawott, all you‘re for is promoting bad behavior and all this stuff put together is why the country is in the shape it’s in.”
Wow, since when is the principle of living however you want as long as your actions aren‘t infringing on another person’s rights considered “bad behavior?”
“This is exactly why the left wants to take down all things like the Ten Commandments and other Christian symbols that remind the wicked there doing wrong.”
Hmm…Maybe that’s because they thought that having the Christian symbols such as the Ten Commandments within any government office was un-Constitutional under the Establishment Clause the First Amendment?
“Get your head on straight and stay out of mainstream thinking.”
My head is ALREADY on straight, and my thinking is far from being mainstream. Maybe it’s YOU that needs to get your head on straight and stay out of mainstream NEO-CONSERATIVE thinking?
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:24pmAmericansoldier…no….a marriage is between a man and a woman ordained by God…look up the origin of the marriage ceremony…What I want to know is why would homosexuals even want to be married knowing that it is in fact ordained by God…most don’t even believe God exist…????
Report Post »wdittgasn
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:35pmI would like to say to homos and atheists, If you do not believe in God and you believe we came from some cosmic goo…… Where did marriage come from…..if we came from amoebas, WHO invented marriage…..?…..God did, not man!!!….He made it what it is, a man and a woman…….Even the dumb animals know better, it is the way of life plain to see…..It is beyond me why anyone would want another of the same sex……Unbelievable that there could be so many abominable people.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:10pmDISENLIGHTENED — you may want to read the Bill of Rights again. You missed the 10th.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:11pmTHEGOOCH — please tell us how marriage is not a right.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:12pmWDITTGASN — marriage existed long before Christianity was a religion.
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:31pmBiden should be comfortable. By his intellligence level, he seems to be the result of a same sex marriage. A BIG TU_D
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:51pmThe Gooch
Report Post »Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:32pm
Marriage is not a right. That is a fallacious argument. Try again.
__________________________
The fallacy is your arguement, marriage is a right, a very basic right, the right to choose who you wish to be your partner through life. Of course the courts in Loving made it clear that this is a right. The only problem is the blind bigotry of the right that wishes for a theocracy where the Christian Church dictates the morality laws American will be forced to live under, kind of like the Taleban.
kryptonite
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:01pm@American Soldier (Separated)
A marriage is a contract between two individuals.
———-
Just two? Says who? Why not three, four, five… you get my drift. And while we’re at it, why not make the consenting age, say… 10? That’s a juicy enough *** for the NAMBLA pervs. They too have civil rights. Stop with the sexual discrimination. Here are the SCIENTIFIC facts: If those kids can stare at those two p***cks who adopted them with adoring eyes, the potential is certainly there for them to give their grown lovers an equally breathtaking lovestruck look. So where do we draw the line? Wherever you libs damn well please?
==> “Animals are not aware enough to commit to a legal contract.
—-
Well, animals can be included in wills and inherit. Are they aware enough to receive or use that inheritance? Obviously not; they are mere beneficiaries. Such would be the case in man-beast marriages. Think of it. Instead of Uncle Sam’s “I Want YOU for the U.S. Army,” why not “I want YOU for my goat, Hussein?” Make my goat happy, you pervs.
=> “…all the fear mongering of same sex marriage leading to legalized beastiality is borderline absurd.”
Report Post »—-
Same-sex marriage would not lead to bestiality. The trashing of our foundational definition of marriage — both in word and in deed — is what is pushing us down the slippery slope.
American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:16pm@GODLOVINMOM
I am an Agnostic and I was married. It is a form of commitment to another human who you have a relationship with. Simply dating someone does not afford you certain BENEFITS that GOVERNMENT provides, especially when you are in the military as I was when I was married.
When you take two individuals of the same rank and one make more than DOUBLE the income then the other on the simple fact that they are married, that is a privilege that should be afforded to everyone.
Hospital visitations, joint tax returns, etc etc etc…. there are a variety of benefits that married couples receive by the Government, whether it’s local or federal. While these benefits exist, those benefits should be readily available to any American citizen.
It’s a similar solution that many people advocate to combat illegal aliens issues. Remove ALL and ANY incentives to be married and you won’t have anyone demanding to be married to gain those benefits. While those benefits still exist, people will want to be married and while it’s a legal binding contract, which it is since I didn’t get married in a church, it should not discriminate against American citizens and their sexual preference.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:17pmMarriage and choosing with whom you want to live and play hide the salami or slip-n-slide with are two seperate issues. Saying one is synonymous with the other is like asserting that squatters who decide to pitch a tent on your property are suddenly land owners.
Report Post »First and foremost, across time, cultures, religions and govts., the powers that be have decided who can and cannot get married. In religious texts, it’s pretty straight forward: Man (i.e., male) and wife (i.e., female). In antiquity, if you bother to look at Hammurabi’s Code (ah, middle school social studies), it’s clear the state/king has the final say on what is or isn’t a marriage and who can and cannot be married. Not a right.
In antiquity, in order to validate his actions, the Emperor Nero mandated is was okay for him to marry another man… it’s good to be king… but the evidence on any other same-sex unions is woefully lacking. Now here’s were things get really slippery for same-sex marriage proponents: They want to claim that same-sex relationships that existed in antiquity (Greece, Rome, Chine) were “like” marriages… and therefore they were marriages. Once again, this is a fallacious argument. By that rationale, any cool kid “on the down low” is suddenly married for having engaged in buggery. Bummer.
Listen, I get it. A right is whavever damn thing the body politic says it is. So be it. I still assert this smacks of nihilism and simple bullying.
kryptonite
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:19pm@American Soldier (Separated)
A marriage is a contract between two individuals.
———-
Just two? Says who? Why not three, four, five… you get my drift. And while we’re at it, why not make the consenting age, say… 10? That’s a juicy enough *** for the NAMBLA pervs. They too have civil rights. Stop with the sexual discrimination. Here are the SCIENTIFIC facts: If those kids can stare at those two p***cks who adopted them with adoring eyes, the potential is certainly there for them to give their grown lovers an equally breathtaking lovestruck look. So where do we draw the line? Wherever you libs damn well please?
==> “Animals are not aware enough to commit to a legal contract.
—-
Well, animals can be included in wills and inherit. Are they aware enough to receive or use that inheritance? Obviously not; they are mere beneficiaries. Such would be the case in man-beast marriages. Think of it. Instead of Uncle Sam’s “I Want YOU for the U.S. Army,” why not “I want YOU for my goat, Hussein? Make my goat happy, you pervs.
=> “…all the fear mongering of same sex marriage leading to legalized beastiality is borderline absurd.”
Report Post »—-
Same-sex marriage will not lead to legalizing bestiality. The trashing of our foundational definition of marriage — both in word and in deed — is what is pushing us down the slippery slope.
Walkabout
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:22pmAmerican Soldier (Separated)
If only you’d advocate 100% adherence to the Constitution, then you wouldn’t have to worry about judges and politicians importing laws onto our land
***
I can & many others can advocate all day long. People like Buzzy Ginsburg will still advocate for foreign law & worm their way into power.
I can advocate & convince the right & some independents. But upon the left, whatever I advocate, will mostly fall on deaf ears. then they will do what they will do.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:23pm@HonestyBefore Truth
“Will necrophilia, bestiality, and the sickos at NAMBLA be among those you expect everyone to accept and tolerate?”
(sarcastically) Wow. That’s quite a crafty straw-man argument you’ve built.
NOWHERE within my statement did I mention that we should allow the members of NAMBLA to exercise their sinister sexual desires on people that aren’t willing to take part in their gruesome acts; in fact, I believe that if there’s proof that a NAMBLA member has molested an unwilling person, that member should be arrested on the spot.
“And just who elected you the Arbiter of Tolerance and Morality…HMMM?”
(sarcastically) Well, isn’t this amazing?
Report Post »In addition to building that straw-man argument, you’ve launched a groundless ad-hominem attack.
NOWHERE within my statement did I declare myself an “Arbiter of Tolerance and Morality.”
The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:23pmMarriage has also been monitored in the U.S. for all kinds of crazy and precautionary reasons: Race (which I don’t agree with), disease, mental capacity or lack thereof, age, sanguinary relationships. And here’s the kicker: The state expects you to have a licensed marriage. Huh? Go figure. So marriage is no more a rigth than driving a car.
Report Post »Please, try harder than saying, “You’re wrong!” Make this a challenge at least.
Walkabout
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:25pm“Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday he’s “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage”
If all of Joe Biden’s kids were gay, he would feel differently than if they were all straight. So what he says is a lie, which was said for political consumption.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:27pmDick Cheney is not “absolutely comfortable” with his lesbian daughter. He loves her but he wished or wishes for a different outcome.
Only a minority of people would say they are “absolutely comfortable” with their kids being gay.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:28pm@LiberalsAlwaysLie
“Mr. Osha, I’m not hinting at anything.”
Oh, but you WERE hinting at something. This part of your statement says it all:
“Men do not marry other men. That’s not marriage. That’s sick.”
Does this mean that we really have to start passing a law forbidding men from marrying other men and women from marrying other women, even if their marriage is CONSENSUAL? I bring this question up because based on that statement, this is what you seem to be wanting to occur.
“And you clearly are a liberal.”
You’re right, I am a liberal (a SOCIAL liberal), and proud of it. I can say the same thing with the Founding Fathers – they’re liberals as well, as they believed that that people should be able to live however they want without fear of government intrusion, as long as their actions aren’t harming anyone and/or interfering with the rights of other people. Ever heard of “classical liberalism?”
“…You make no sense at all.”
Does this mean that the Founders make no sense to you as well? Let’s not forget, they ARE liberals in a classical sense. I’m not trying to make impetuous assumptions here, I’m just trying to see this from your neo-conservative viewpoint.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:29pm@LiberalsAlwaysLie (cont.)
“Liberals like you are what’s wrong with this country. You idiots think you know it all, but in fact, the opposite is true. Liberals love to connect the dots that aren’t even there!!! You are clueless. Your ignorance is astounding.”
No, it’s the NEO-CONSERVATIVES like YOU that‘s what’s wrong with this country. You NEO-CONSERVATIVE idiots think you know it all, but, in fact, the opposite says anything but. The NEO-CONSERVATIVES not only love to connect the dots that don’t exist, they also love to undermine differing viewpoints with straw-man arguments, ad-hominem attacks, and even character assassination whenever they find themselves cornered. Hence, it’s the NEO-CONSERVATIVES that are clueless and it‘s their WILLFUL IGNORANCE that’s astoundingly APPALLING.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:45pmWait a minute, didn’t he claim to be a Roman Catholic? I guess he really isn’t. Too bad. Oh that’s right, he is a democrat politician. They believe the end justifies the means. They pass laws that spend more and more money to buy votes. That Biden? Yep, that Biden.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:47pm1. So says six or seven? How is that any of my business? Polygomy is, again, a personal issue. If my neighbor has four wives, how does that effect my ability to live my life? It doesn’t! I don’t care if you have 10 wives! I was barely able to handle ONE so if you have the balls to handle it by all means.
2. But we have age of consent as it is and I doubt there’s enough of the NAMBLA guys to be able to drop the consent to 10. I draw the line at the fact the age of consent is set and I agree where they are now.
3. Receiving monetary gifts or of property as inheritances is one thing. You already answered your question then pulled up an analogy that made no sense. Clarify your position and I’ll refute them to the best of my ability.
4. At least you agree with me on the absurdity of the argument. But what’s the difference of an Atheist, such as myself, that got married? I didn’t have to jump through any hoops. I didn’t ruin your Sunday after I got married. I was married for six years, did it affect you one bit? Did you even notice? What is the difference between an Atheist couple getting married by a judge and a gay couple getting married by a judge? And how does it actually affect you?
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:50pmTHE GOOCH
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:17pm
” it’s clear the state/king has the final say on what is or isn’t a marriage and who can and cannot be married.”
So let me clarify here, you are for BIG government that can dictate what individuals can or cannot do?
And I’m the one called a Liberal around here?
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:54pmWALKABOUT
And that‘s what I’m talking about. The fact that you are willing to bypass the constitution and instill big government regulation merely because it suits your narrative, how do you expect the liberal/democrats to follow the Constitution when you are blatantly hypocritical. Follow the Constitution, even if it‘s something you don’t agree with, as long as it‘s a personal matter that doesn’t infringe upon any one else’s right. That’s freedom. That’s what I advocate.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:02pmAmerican Soldier (Separated):
Report Post »Cute. Whether you’re for or against same-sex marriage, marriage is going to be defined at some point by the state. So are you asserting that anything goes? I mean, either its defined and limited or Crazy Eddy can go propose to his four year old daughter and we all gotta be cool with that, ’cause the gub’ment should not tread on the rights of the common man. Maybe we could all go tearing @$$ as unlicensed drivers over to the ceremony. Instead of speaking my peace, I can shoot Eddy’s dog to demonstrate my disapproval.
I guess looking back over history, people generally like having some rules they understand and generally agree upon. What the hell were they thinking? Stupid civilization…
godlovinmom
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:04pmAmerican soldier…to me.. you are giving examples of two different things, marriage and civil unions, which I believe affords homosexuals the same rights with their partners per US laws, more and more states anyways..in my humble opinion..I believe homosexuals want to force their lifestyle on us so much that they are willing to “highjack” marriage in order to achieve that…except me or else, I’m just like you, see I’m married…But ya know thats been happening in man’s history for centuries…nothing new here…Read Jesus’s words, he tells it just like its happening now..so no surprise…No surprise either, how its all gonna end up :) Though you say you don’t believe…God Bless my fellow American!
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:34pmI remember reading that George Washington literally had a homosexual drummed out of the continental Army.
But of course George Washington & the rest are just swiss cheese. What do they know.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:37pmBruce P.
“please tell us how marriage is not a right.”
Most gays are atheists. It figures. They want to do whatever they please, damn the consequences.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:41pmBruce P.
you may want to read the Bill of Rights again. You missed the 10th.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
— please tell us how marriage is not a right.
***
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about bestiality. Several states don’t have laws regarding bestiality.
So by your logic bestiality must be a right set aside for the people.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:44pmWhy should it be defined by the state?
That’s the problem, you want the government to define it so you can exclude homosexuals. If you leave it a civil manner, I fully disagree with forcing a church or clergy member from performing the ceremony. They have their rights to say no as they are a private charity. They also, however, have the right to say yes! And I’ve heard of many clergymen willing to marry same sex couples. It’s about freedom. Remove government control of marriages, remove government incentives for being married.
As far as marriage vs civil union, what’s the difference? While technically I only had a civil union, it was still considered marriage by the DOD, by the US Army, by my commander, by my chain of command and frankly, by me and my wife. So what if you call it civil union or marriage, does it really matter? The outcome is the same….. you’re just splitting hairs.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:55pmMr. Oshawott, good posts.
The only thing I’d add for our Blazer friends is that, you’re welcome to hold whatever opinions you have, but on an issue like this history shows you’re fighting a losing battle in opposing same sex marriage. Even not taking sides (even though I too support same sex marriage), you’re fighting for a lost cause and history will judge your opinions accordingly.
Marrying outside your religion used to be all but prohibited, not by law, but by social sanction. Young people who did that were disowned by their family and socially shunned. Although there may be small pocket of people who still feel that way, that prohibition is all but forgotten. Like the caste system in India, two people from different socioeconomic classes were prohibited from marrying, not legally to my knowledge but again by social sanction. I think that resistance to that still exists buy I imagine few people disown their children for that.
Of course marriage to a different ethnic group was illegal in the United States and elsewhere, and some states have only struck down those laws within my lifetime. Most outside groups like the KKK or perhaps some people on this website no longer give a thought these days to marriage between different ethnic groups. You can be sure that many of the objections were based on the Bible, although you don’t see that much now.
And now we’re looking at marriage between two people of the same gender. History will repeat itself, as
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:58pmTHE GOOCH
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:02pm
I’m not an Anarchist. I obviously agree with certain levels of Government….
“defined and limited or Crazy Eddy can go propose to his four year old daughter”
Yes, there’s Age of Consent laws which I am perfectly fine with.
“Maybe we could all go tearing @$$ as unlicensed drivers over to the ceremony.”
Driving involved potential risk to other motorist, so I have no problem with making sure that people are physically and mentally capable of operating a motor vehicle without endangering the lives of others.
“Instead of speaking my peace, I can shoot Eddy’s dog to demonstrate my disapproval.”
Eddy’s dog is his dog. You don’t have the right to do damage to Eddy, his family or any of his possessions.
“I guess looking back over history, people generally like having some rules they understand and generally agree upon. What the hell were they thinking? Stupid civilization…”
Again, you believe me to be an Anarchist because I believe in small, limited Government. Just the essentials. I don‘t need them to tell me what I can or can’t do or put into my body. I don‘t need them to tell me who I can or cannot have a committed relationship with that’s recognized by law (contracts). I don’t need them to tell me that I must have health insurance. That’s a choice that I must make, a risk that I can take if I see fit.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 9:02pmTHE GOOCH
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:23pm
“Marriage has also been monitored in the U.S. for all kinds of crazy and precautionary reasons: Race (which I don’t agree with)”
If I were a betting man, I would place a large fortune that the people opposed to interracial marriage used the same slippery slope arguments you use today against homosexual marriage.
If marriage is a contract with God, why do you need Government’s permission to do it? Marriage isn’t like driving a car and I 100% disagree with the fact that you must get a license to get married. This isn’t meant as a screening process as you try to justify it as, but as a means to gather more tax revenue.
Report Post »NUTN2SAY
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 9:32pmHETEROSEXUALITY IS ULTIMATELY ALL ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES!
HOMOSEXUALITY IS ULTIMATELY ALL ABOUT THE DEVASTATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES!
Politicians desperate for new votes by creating the evil “gay rights” movement has sold out mankind just for a vote!
Report Post »pavepaws
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 10:13pmDoes the missus know?
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 10:14pmHow’s this … you want your “alternate lifestyle” then have your “alternate marriage” = civil unions.
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 10:23pmSo Joe, who’s the lucky guy your giving Jill up for?
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 10:47pmWell, boys (and possibly girls), it‘s late and I’m tired as hell. Thanks for the laughs. I learned nothing new here today. Same ol‘ same ol’…
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:14pmJZSaul,
Surely you have just about used up that gift card I gave you for Christmas.
You know, the one from “Strawmen – R – Us”
http://www.libertymind.com/index.php?page_id=291
Report Post »GeorgieJo
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:37pmWONDER if Joe spoke to his priest ABOUT THIS????
OMG 2012
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:42pmWALKABOUT — who said I was gay?
Second, again, homophobes are trying to equate homosexuality with bestiality. And you people call homosexuals “perverts.” You people spend as much time thinking about sex as the so-called “perverts” you’re so scared of do. The real perverts cannot claim to not be homophobes when they are so often making such equations.
Under a strict reading of the Constitution, bestiality is reserved for the people to decide. And before you try to twist my words, no, that is not an endorsement of bestiality on my part.
Report Post »But bestiality is beside the point. It is a straw-man argument. Completely illogical and irrelevant to homosexuality (outside of the minds of you perverts).
Bruce P.
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:45pmAMERICAN SOLDIER — they are a different side of the same coin as progressives, both wishing the use the power of the state to force people the way they see fit.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:50pmTHIS IS WHAT ‘NO CHARACTER” looks like.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:55pmGlad you’re comfortable with it, Biden. How is your wife taking it?
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 12:02amWhat part of homosexual intercourse is not perverted….seriously think about it…a very unnatural sexual act….I find it funny that people who practice this and stick up for people who do this…call christians the perverted ones…ya right.
Report Post »MAMMY_NUNN
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 12:21am@ American Soldier (Separated)
I have to ask this for myself and others here on this site
What does the emphasis of (Separated) mean to me it may mean you are
1. A Conscientous Objector
2. A Poser Wannabe
3. A Wash out Who Couldn’t Hack It
4. Not Proud To Be A Soldier
5. (Seperated) Between The Ears
So which one is it that you have to emphasise (Separated) as any real soldier knows that a real soldier is always a soldier “NOT A Soldier (Separated)”
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US AS WE AWAIT YOUR ANSWER
Report Post »barryswhitehalf
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 12:30amPlugs Biden gets all his legal understading from The People’s Court.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 12:33amNUTN2SAY, your fears are misplaced. The human race is in no danger.
That you think it might be makes me wonder a little about you though.
Report Post »barryswhitehalf
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 12:54am“And will the crippled gentleman in the wheelchair there stand up and take a bow!”
-Joe Biden
Biden gets his morals from liberal fictional television sitcoms. He is one sick man.
Report Post »Deborah
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 12:56amAnd Biden and Pelosi call themselves “Catholics.” Methinks not!
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 1:04amThe dems should run on gay marriage as a party plank, add abortion as well and that’s their winning ticket….. Lol.
Any form of immorality, liberals will embrace it whole heartedly.
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 1:07amSo,you’re for gay marriage? “Yep” says the liberal dolt. “Because, it’s about basic human rights; people should be free to marry whom they choose.”
Really? So,this is about freedom? “Sure is” says the liberal dolt. “Consenting adults have a right to marry whomever they choose”.
Really? Ok, so gays,so long as they are consenting adults, should be free to marry? “Yep” says the *******.
So,if this is about freedom, then a man may marry his adult son? “Ummmm, no of course not” says the *******. “ that would not be right”.
Why? They are consenting adults? Is it immoral?
******* dolt: silence as it finally dawns on him her all of us have a moral line in the sand; it is just that the ******* line barely exists anymore. Where is their line? Right next to parents marrying their kids, or siblings marrying each other.
This society is nearly dead, and I cannot say that is a bad thing the way things are mow.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 1:36am@JZSaul,
Most normal folk have been wondering more than just a bit about you for quite some time now.
Still waiting for the JZS Manifesto.
You are Johnny on the spot to offer up your criticisms of everything good, decent, moral, and wholesome, but when you are called a marxist, or a socialist, or a communist, you fervently cry foul and deny any such suggestions.
But you become a shrinking violet when I ask you to tell us just exactly what you would want your ideal American society to look like, or how you would bring it to fruition.
So please JZS, enlighten us with your wisdom. Spell it all out for us. Give us the “JZS Manifesto”
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 1:56am@The Gooch
“WHAT PROOF?! You just provided a link to a diatribe.”
Wow, you view the explanation of why it’s un-Constitutional to ban same-sex marriage a DIATRIBE? It seems that all of that propaganda-laced Kool-Aid must have gotten the best of yout imagination. This link explains why marriage is a right that should NEVER be denied to any couple: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm
“This is a matter that deserves debate and consideration, not a call for people to shut up and sllink away. So sorry I won‘t jump on the ’Let‘s all embrace nihilism so we don’t hurt anyone‘s feelings’ bandwagon.”
Yet, you did exactly what you accused me of within the same sentence, using nihilism as a way of attempting to undermine the FACT that marriage is a right that ALL couples, homosexual or heterosexual, should be allow to exercise under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution instead of showing me proof explaining why marriage is only a “privilege” for certain people.
Report Post »CruisingGranny
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 6:46ami cannot believe that this poor excuse for a human has not been excommunicated from the Catholic church. next he will approve of bestiality. oh, i forgot, he is working under a dog right not.
Report Post »Honestybefore truth
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 7:16amMonsieur Oshawoot?
You aren’t very good at this are you? Calling something a straw man argument doesn’t make it one You might want to try looking up the definitions for both straw man arguments and ad-hominem attacks. Oh don’t bother I will elucidate for you, A straw man is constructed with a superficially similar example, since the majority of people would consider same same gender sex outside the norm (as with the other examples), and that most religions would classify it equally a sin. How is it superficial? Just because you don’t accept the those defining aspects does not make them superficial. As to the next assertion, how exactly does questioning you on the basis for your judgmental statements on various religions views on morality qualify as attempting to disprove any part of your argument. In fact, both sentences were honest questions (if a bit snarky). I truly want to know where you would draw the line. And I also notice that you cherry picked my post to those elements that you thought might be easiest to attack. If all the GLTB community seeks is equality under the law why isn’t civil unions an acceptable compromise?
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 8:32amMr. Oshawott:
Report Post »If you want to pick a random state lesislator & decide he is your moral compass, the end-all/be-all constitutional authority & your own personal Jesus, that is your call. Have at it. That one man is not the historical, moral or constitutional authority that will decide this argument. From what little research I did on the fellow, he seems decent enough. I like his stance on campaign funds. That doesn‘t mean I accept his interpretation of why marriage is not subject to any authority’s review (& I generally loathe authoritarians).
I honestly don‘t know what the heck you’re going on about in the final paragraph of your most recent post. I read it twice and all I can gather is that you wanted to use the term nihilism & make a reference to the 14th Amendment (ah, the gift that keeps on giving… in the right hands).
What I find puzzling is some folks (be they leftists, advocates or nuts) want to take issues that ALL govts. across time have existed to address (e.g., marriage, immigration/domestic defense/self-defense) & suddenly assert that govt. can‘t or shouldn’t touch those areas. You can’t have border control because (only in the U.S.?), people should be allowed to come & go as they please. You can‘t define marriage because we don’t like that. These stances are childish & stink of self-important narcissim that is nothing more than nihilism. No rules, no limits, no questions.
You don’t wanna recognize my stance as valid? Your choice.
4truth2all
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 8:40amYo JZS:
Thought you were “with Jesus” ? …read you’re posts … couldn’t find Him anywhere …you lost ?
I’ll keep hoping you TRULY find Him …
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 8:52amMr. Oshawott
Report Post »If I wanted to play the same game as you, I could pick quite a few political figures, both R & D, who would counter why marriage isn’t a right and why same-sex marriage isn’t a serious consideration. Does that mean your opinion is suddenly negated? Nope. It just means I’m cherry picking a talking head to throw in your direction and I would expect you to make a cogent argument based on your knowledge and beliefs.
The more I delve into this argument, the more I’m reminded rights are subjective, not some grand list of unquestionable expectations that exist under the watchful eye of a supreme authority. You’d think we could all agree that self-defense is a right, yes? I mean, in nature, animals and plants fight to protect themselves. So is that a right of man? Not according to the august body known as the U.N. I disagree. So in this instance, doesn’t it seem possible some folks are asserting an act that was never considered a “right” are suddenly hoping to rewrite history and redefine a term? A simple question: Isn’t that a reasonable consideration? Or all the proponents the end-all, be-all moral & legal authority?
As I’ve stated before, if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, life will go on. I can tolerate such an act, but I will not feign support and will express my dissent. I don’t care for bullies, revisionists and nihilists & those are the folks who seem to be championing this nouveau “right.”
teamarcheson
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 8:56amWe are ABSOLUTELY uncomfortable with Biden.
While a Senator, Biden didn’t behave the way he is now, saying crazy things and not making any sense. Has the Regime been spiking his food and drink with KGB mind inhibiting drugs: LSD?
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:10amTo all the small minded bigots out there, if you are against gay marriage there is a very, very easy solution to the problem…dont get into a gay marriage!! Stay with me here now, I know its complicated for you. Again, just to be clear since its a difficult concept, if your against gay marriage don’t get into a marriage with a person of the same sex. Now that hopefully we are clear on how you can avoid this particular problem, lets talk a little about morality. Everyone here seems to think our country is heading into some moral decay, mainly due to the issue of gay marriage and the bible in schools. But seriously, what past are you longing for? Whats more immoral? A few gay people getting married (and please review the above for how you can avoid that problem if your confused), or child labor, segregation, genocide of indigenous populations, slavery, mass pollution, women having no rights, etc. We are much, much more moral of a country now than we ever have been. More people have access to medical care than ever before, the most vulnerable in our society are taken care of better than ever before, we have unprecedented access to foods and information….but gays can marry and everyone isnt forced to follow your religion in schools so I guess that overrides all those other moral advances? You people really are messed up…..
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:26amDoseofReality
Report Post »Always nice to know when one‘s opinion and right to dissent doesn’t matter. I like how your argument’s approach could be used on any number of hot button issues. I believe I’ll incorporate it into my stance on private gun ownership. If you don’t own a gun, you need to STFU and go away.
So now the argument is we have Walmart, antibiotics and Facebook, ergo, gay marriage is logical progression? Wacky.
Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:28am@HonestyBefore Truth
“A straw man is constructed with a superficially similar example, since the majority of people would consider same-gender sex outside the norm (as with other examples) and that most religions would classify it equally as a sin. How is it superficial? Just because you don’t accept those defining aspects does not make them superficial.”
Straw-man argument – a tactic in which an irrelevant subject is used to sidestep away from the subject of origin.
Your bringing up of the fringe movement NAMBLA was simply a diversion, as it didn‘t address why marriage should or shouldn’t be viewed as a right. That REALLY is a straw-man argument.
“…How exactly does questioning you on the basis for your judgemental statements on various religious views on morality qualify as attempting to disprove any part of your argument?”
Ad-hominem attack – a tactic involving the bashing of the messager instead of the message itself.
Report Post »In the midst of your other question, you’ve labeled me as an “Arbiter of Tolerance and Morality,” despite the fact that my statements had NO attacks towards any religious viewpoints. This is an instance of an ad-hominem attack.
janedough1
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:36amWell isn’t that special….
Report Post »F.O.S. DIAPERHEAD
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:42amMarraige is a social contract between 2 people. It’s an agreement that 2 people will be sharing their identities/ responsibilities together as one in the eyes of the community. No one may say whom another should or shouldn’t love, share identities/ responsibilities with, and thus enter into such a contract with the community. Who these 2 poeple are should be of no consequence as long as they are able to abide by the contract. Traditionally, marriage has been defined as that between a man and a woman and thus the term should remain defined as such. If 2 homosexuals wish to share lives in such a manner, access to the same privilege as offered to heteros may not be denied or that would be discrimination. Accesss to the term, however, may be denied. Let them have the same contract just call it something else reflecting that it is not between a man and a woman. Call it a civil union or municipal bond or let them create their own term. As gays may find it offensive for it not to be called marriage, so do heteros find it offensive to call it marriage. Sorry but heteros claimed it first.
That being said …
What does it mean to say you are COMFORTABLE with gay marraige? There’s nothing comfortable about it! It is void of God or evolutionary blessings and sorry but anal sex is just sick! The whole thing is just sad and messed up like you! Oh, and God didn’t create Biden … he’s just the bad part of a down cycle like excrement that comes out of a gay luv hole.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:47amGooch – I think you should have a right to own guns, I have mulitple myself…..nice try though.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 10:13amDoseofReality:
Report Post »Great. We have common ground. Now, does that mean I can take a reasoned approach to why I believe marriage is not a right? And does that mean I’m also allowed to put forth why I believe (based on precedent), the term “gay marriage” is an oxymoron? Because the haunting refrain from gay marriage proponents in this argument over a nouveau right is I don’t have a right to challenge and question the matter.
I don’t consider myself a bigot (okay, maybe I have a very strong dislike for fat people), just someone who does not accept that suddenly marriage is not only a right, but also open to same-sex relationships. I don’t believe I take a hateful or dismissive stance on this subject, but I’m not here to convince you or anyone what you must believe. You have your argument, I have mine. I suspect what many folks want is the plebes to not have a say in this matter & a new right to be mandated by a sympathetic court system. I’m not sure that would happen w/the current SCOTUS… they appear hesitant to touch his issue.
What many see as a right, I see as an assertion to pander to a special interest group by disregarding millenia of precedent on a human construct that shares an established definition across cultures. What that means to me is that all matters are up for special interest consideration. So govt.’s role is not to govern, but to pander and placate. Hmm… that doesn’t seem wise to me, but I’m one man among many.
Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 10:16am@The Gooch
“If you want to pick a random state legislator and decide he’s your moral compass, the end-all/be-all constitutional authority and your personal Jesus, that is your call.”
Um…Where within my statement did I mention that the politician within the video happens to be my “moral compass, the end-all/be-all constitutional authority, and my ‘personal Jesus?’” Oh, that’s right, NOWHERE. Besides, I would find that sort of thinking to be utterly foolhardy.
“I honestly don‘t know what the heck you’re going on about in your most recent post.”
You didn‘t even try taking the slightest bit of time reading the article that’s in the link I’ve posted, did you?
“You don’t wanna recognize my stance as valid? Your choice.”
Ditto on that notion. You don’t want to view my stance as valid, that’s your decision as well.”
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 12:48pmWhat’s the big deal, he’s a liberal, everyone with an iq above 70 know, liberals are wrong 100% of the time.
Report Post »reality_check
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 2:23pmThirty-three times since 1998, states have voted on gay marriage ballot measures. Thirty-two of those times, opponents of gay marriage have won.
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/infographic-a-turning-point-for-gay-marriage-85899384474
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 2:35pmGIT-R-DONE — where did I say I was only for homosexuals having the right to be married?
Perhaps you base your comments on what I actually say, instead of making up things.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 2:42pmLets see is there anything else the homosexuals want…they have the rainbow for their symbol..you know God’s promise that he will not flood the earth again, they have GAY, which used to mean, very happy, we all know that’s not true anymore, I have never met a more “unhappy” crowd, they have our public schools, we can no longer teach the bible or even talk about God, but they can teach their “perverted” lifestyles. They have their civil unions, buts that not good enough, they want marriage…anything else???? Homosexuals have American rights, they just want “special” rights for their sexuality…well I’ve been married to the same man for 26 years, where are my “long term marriage” rights…ya I know, thats how dumb all this is.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 2:49pmAMERICANFIGHTINGMAN1 — no, it does not logically follow that we allow incest. Incest, unlike homosexual marriage (There is no evidence that the children of homosexual couples are harmed psychologically or developmentally. If you wish to challenge this, please show us the scientific evidence supporting your claim), does produce harm to the offspring of such unions and to the community. The offspring may suffer from birth defects, higher infant mortality rates and a weak immune system. And those offspring have a higher chance of engaging in incestuous relationships as well. Populations with high-rates of inbreeding can bring a loss of herd-immunity, endangering the population.
You are right, the law is based on morality. However, there is a difference between the morality of outlawing rape, murder, theft and that corrupt morality of banning homosexual marriage (and let’s be honest, outlawing homosexuality all together, if you had the ability). Murder, theft, rape brings harm to others, it impinges upon freedom. Homosexual marriage, however, is an act between consenting adults that does not bring harm to others, it impinges upon the freedoms of no one. Outlawing murder, theft, rape, etc helps protect peoples life and liberty. Outlawing homosexual marriage, however, does not protect the freedom of anyone, impinging upon it.
Again, who said I was a “lib”? Unless you meant libertarian…
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 2:55pmWe’re talking about Joe Biden here…I think he was saying that he’s comfortable with SOME sex in marriage.
Report Post »I think it’s hilarious though that Obama still plays the “my opinion is evolving” card.
Honestybefore truth
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 5:17pmMr. Oshawott
The following is solely for the purpose of attempting once again to educating you (but more than likely you take it for something else).
Sir you are, and continue to be; a cherry picking, purposefully ignorant , objectively lost liberal soul, who cannot recognize a losing argument when trips out of your mind!
See what I did there, that is an ad-hominem attack. Unlike the question that originally set you off.
And as well, you still claim that your straw man argument valid. Sorry, your wholly objective definition does not count. Even your subconscious appears to agree, since your refutation implies a matter of degree rather than a wholly differing definition. In point of fact, your points have been nothing themselves but a straw man argument. They have addressed none of my queries, nor statements, simply denouncing the manner of their format. I believe you are purposely (and somewhat childishly) avoiding meaningful discussion simply because you fear that it somehow might lend more credence to those self-same definitions that you are attempting to avoid as relevant. The saddest thing is that you don’t realize that, in reality, I am at least partly on your side. I see room to compromise on this issue. I ( though agnostic myself) only wish to see others faith and religions protected from those that will seek to use misuse an outcome.
P.S. I also would be interested in the etymology of your handle?
Report Post »ACLUHater
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 5:29pmSounds like Joe is preparing to come out of the closet.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 6:50pmMr. Oshawott, I did go to your 2nd link. In the (im)proper hands, the 14th Amendment could be used to assert Ice Cream Sandwich Sunday is a right. Here’s a good case of a well-intentioned piece of legistaion being used by activists & complicit courts to impose ideological sacred cows thru the judiciary. That link is at least more meaningful than the video to which you directed me. As an example of why the 14th Amendment is a Pandora‘s Box for folks who don’t like democracy, allow me to briefly digress. The 14th Amendment was used to impose another progressive/leftist sacred cow, abortion. Legal scholars (even honest abortion proponents) lament the shameless, cowardly manner that found the “right to choose” squirreled away in the 14th Amendment. Wouldn’t want that stand alone amendment or allow the constituency to decide, now would we? If you have some time, I recommend doing some research on why activists LOVE the 14th Amendment & many legal scholars (R & D, left & right) find it shamefully broad, misused & abused. And let’s not forget no court decision or amendment is carved in stone (see the 18th). Right? With limits imposed to date.
Report Post »And that still does not allow for a redefining of marriage… unless govt. does so by fiat. You can assert marriage is a right, but that doesn’t mean it suddenly gets to be redefined to assuage the desires of activists. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the back & forth. No need for anyone to go nuts. Let’s watch NC.
Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:16pm@HonestyBefore Truth
“In point of fact, your points are nothing more than a straw-man argument. They have addressed none of my queries, nor statements, simply denouncing their manner of format.”
Nice try in attempting to use me as your scapegoat, but that still doesn’t change the fact that some of your points are straw-man arguments as well and the fact that your “Arbiter of Tolerance and Morality ‘question’” is an ad-hominem attack, as that attack was personal. I’ve never denounced the manner of their format – I only called them out for what they are.
“I believe you are purposefully (and somewhat childishly) avoiding meaningful discussion simply because you fear that it somehow might lend credence to those self-same definitions that you are attempting to avoid as relevant.”
I express no fear here, as I haven’t been trying to avoid anything. I’ve been attempting to address your viewpoint about same-sex marriage, but all you’ve been doing is deliberately bringing up issues that steer away from the subject of origin, as it is evident throughout all of your posts that I’ve read; hence, I find your tactic to be somewhat childish in itself.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:20pm@HonestyBefore Truth (cont.)
“The saddest thing is that you don’t realize that, in reality, I am at least partly on your side.”
I DO understand that your viewpoints seem to partly match with mine, as I’ve read that you “have no problem with same-sex unions. I’ve also noticed that you feared that the idea of “legalizing ‘marriage’” is really an idea of using the fear of civil lawsuits to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages against their will.
Report Post »I express my utmost opposition towards the idea of forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages against their will, and I would be against any homosexual that would attempt to allow the government to use its power to force their viewpoints on churches and other religious institutions. However, I also express opposition towards the idea of allowing the government to ban marriages of any sort, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or even polygamist. This article explains why marriage should never be denied to any couple: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm
Blazergirl
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:47pmJust think if Osama BinLandin would have carried out his plan. Joe Biden would be our POTUS. There is a God and we do need to count our blessings!!! Pray for our country!!!! If we repent God will heal our land.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 10:06pm@BRUCE P.
“DISENLIGHTENED — you may want to read the Bill of Rights again. You missed the 10th.”
You are such a bore. I said the word marriage is not found in the Bill of Rights and you come back with this to prove me wrong?:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Oh yea, I see it, the word marriage is there – right after the word abortion.
Report Post »AtomPatriot76
Posted on May 8, 2012 at 12:37amHey guys lets be honest here who the hell cares? Why should the government be involved in marriage at all? If anything it should be up to the individuals involved and (If they choose to use one) the church they choose to get married in. If you think gay marriage is an abomination fine don‘t allow it in your church and you can protest all you want that’s fine. If you think gay marriage is right then go to a church that agrees with that sentiment (yes they do exist) and get married there. But really lets be honest here. Why on earth should the government decide anything like that? It should be up to us as individuals as to what we decide.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on May 8, 2012 at 2:27am@AtomPatriot76
You are absolutely SPOT-ON with that statement. As long as the churches refrain from the idea of allowing the government to use its power to ban same-sex marriage, the homosexuals won’t be spending as much time protesting against them for their right to have their marriage recognized by the government, and as long as the homosexuals refrain from allowing the government to use its power to force their viewpoints on churches that don’t want to marry them, the churches will be able to tolerate them more readily (I hope). If a pair of consenting adults of the same gender want to love one another, it’s their decision. I see no way in which a homogenous couple’s decision of getting married has affected me in any way, so there’s no reason for myself to be outraged towards it.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 8, 2012 at 5:58am@American Soldier (Separated)
One of the signs that an empire is falling is the destruction of the societal structure that allowed it to flourish. Some of you here may deny it, but you advocate moral anarchy and without moral cohesion, a society cannot survive. Africa is a prime example. The whole continent is in chaos because there is no moral cohesion. Moral cohesion comes from God, and we recognized that when this country was founded. You atheists want to enjoy the blessings, but disregard the Giver and the paradigm He commands. But God forbid that we should make this discussion about God. He has been stripped of all rights by the anti-God Americans in govt., academia and the media.
Let us then stick to the sociological perspective. To say that you have a right to your own social code of morality is childish or subversive, depending on your age. And to go even further and assert that your divorce or gay marriage doesn’t affect anybody else is an egocentric position and a lie. There are numerous studies that prove that children suffer in both instances. (CONT.)
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 8, 2012 at 6:19am@American Soldier (Separated)
Here is what two experts have to say:
=> Researcher Henry Biller, who has written several books on the subject: “Even if the father and mother behave in generally similar ways, they provide contrasting images for the infant … Mothers and fathers have different verbal styles when communicating … Involved fathers are more likely to stimulate the infant to explore and investigate new objects whereas mothers tend to engage their infants in relatively pre-structured and predictable activities…. According to science, there are hundreds of nuances about men and women that even newborn infants can readily distinguish and that make a difference in the way the child develops. ”
=>Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Dept. of Politics at Princeton University: “…homosexual marriage…doesn’t just create a second societal structure, it actually “smuggles into existence … two radically different social structures… There are same-sex marriages between two women and between two men. “They have utterly different demographics, life spans, health and behavioral characteristics, and sexual behaviors. … They are as different from one another as men are from women. We would have heterosexual marriage, female gay marriage and male gay marriage. This new set of marital structures will…produce three new classes of children. (CONT.)
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 8, 2012 at 7:26am@American Soldier (Separated)
The links:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Now, why does polygamy or gay marriage affect ME as an individual? First, my kids would be taught a marriage paradigm I vehemently oppose both on social and religious grounds. In fact, they could find one of them really cool and decide to follow it. Second, as a nation we would suffer the wrath of God. Third, ironically and contrary to what you think, our already oversized government bureaucracy would grow considerably. Our laws, courts, schools, ALL our communal, legal and educational units would have to be restructured to accommodate the ramifications of the one husband-10 wives and gay marriage structures. Fourth, it could potentially infringe on my religious freedoms. http://christocentric.com/main/?p=829
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 8, 2012 at 7:51am@American Soldier (Separated)
The links:
//catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html
//www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Now, why does polygamy or gay marriage affect ME as an individual? First, my kids would be taught a marriage paradigm I vehemently oppose both on social and religious grounds. In fact, they could find any one of them really cool and decide to follow it. Second, as a nation we would suffer the wrath of God. Third, ironically and contrary to what you think, our already oversized government bureaucracy would grow considerably. Our laws, courts, schools, ALL our communal, legal and educational units would have to be restructured to accommodate the ramifications of the one husband-10 wives and gay marriage structures. Fourth, it could potentially infringe on my religious freedoms. http://christocentric.com/main/?p=829
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:01pm…
Spoken like a true Man of Satan.
Hey Joe, are you and Barry going to do another photo op at H*LL-Burger this year?
Don’t forget to take your buddy Medvedev.
In my opinion, there are two reasons Obama picked Biden as VP.
1. No one would dare assassinate Obama, knowing that moron Joe is next in line for the Presidency.
2. Joe is not wealthy enough to hire a hit on Obama. According to internet info, Biden’s net worth is less than a million dollars.
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:12pmMen marrying daughters, brothers and sisters, man and beast, mother and son, aunt and nephew………the Democrats are fine with it all !!!
Report Post »GO-FOR-LIBERTY
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:47pmDear Joey please apply for your excommunication papers at you nearest church~~You creep.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:03pmThis is my perspective on the whole, dad’s marrying their daughters. Do i find it highly disgusting, yes. Do i find it inappropriate, yes. Does it feel creepy, yes.
Now for those who advocate that Government gets more power (more = bigger government) by creating more regulatory laws in order to regulate things that makes some people feel creepy, why are you against laws that help the sick, the needy, the hungry? You all argue that government should be small and restricted, but you advocate that they limit in terms of being giving, and helping those that need help. But in the next breath, you advocate that government be big and unrestricted to regulate morality, to make YOU feel less creepy or less disgusted with what your neighbors are doing.
I’m against both forms of big government, FYI. I’m trying to illustrate the hypocrisy of most people here on the Blaze….
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:14pmDETROIT PAPERBOY — how does approval of homosexual marriage equate to approval for incest or bestiality?
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 9:17pmBruce P. – You’re the ones who are saying that marriage is a right so how can you only let one group have it but not others, hypocrite?
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 1:37amBruce , maybe we can talk slow for you to get it. You see, if gay marriage is about rights and freedoms of consenting adults, then it naturally and logically folloews that parents may marry their adult kids or brothers may marry brothers, etc. Because, according to you immoral whackjobs, it is only about freedom.
Rather, it really should be about freedom tempered with morality. The law is based on morality; ie, what is right and what is wrong. Crimes prohibiting stealing ,rape, etc. are about right and wrong. You libs don’t see this because you are about political agendas as opposed to justice.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 1:41am@BRUCE
Someone asked you a question.
Why are you not answering?
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 9:26amAmericanfightingman – you are not the sharpest tack in the drawer are you? Crimes like rape, stealing, murder etc are becasue they infornge on someone else’s rights…..namely the person you person who is murdered, raped or had their belongings stolen. Its not just simply a “moral” right or wrong. There are probably maky things you do in your life that i might not agree with, but it doesnt mean i think those things should be illegal. its about freedom and choice….simple as that.
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 2:22pmOk, Does, answer the question honestly: If this is about freedom, may fathers marry adult sons? May mothers marry adult daughters? May adult siblings marry one another? Please answer the questions.
You say it is about freedom. If that is your test, then your answer must be an unqalified “yes”. If morality is a factor, then you will answer “no”, which means that inserting morality into the equation is ok, which logically means that those of us opposed to gay marriage have a basis for our opinions.
You cannot have it both ways. Please, answer honestly.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 3:11pmPosted my comments in the wrong thread…
GIT-R-DONE — where did I say I was only for homosexuals having the right to be married?
Perhaps you base your comments on what I actually say, instead of making up things.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 3:14pmAMERICANFIGHTINGMAN1 — (sorry, put this in the wrong thread, originally) no, it does not logically follow that we allow incest. Incest, unlike homosexual marriage (There is no evidence that the children of homosexual couples are harmed psychologically or developmentally. If you wish to challenge this, please show us the scientific evidence supporting your claim), does produce harm to the offspring of such unions and to the community. The offspring may suffer from birth defects, higher infant mortality rates and a weak immune system. And those offspring have a higher chance of engaging in incestuous relationships as well. Populations with high-rates of inbreeding can bring a loss of herd-immunity, endangering the population.
You are right, the law is based on morality. However, there is a difference between the morality of outlawing rape, murder, theft and that corrupt morality of banning homosexual marriage (and let’s be honest, outlawing homosexuality all together, if you had the ability). Murder, theft, rape brings harm to others, it impinges upon freedom. Homosexual marriage, however, is an act between consenting adults that does not bring harm to others, it impinges upon the freedoms of no one. Outlawing murder, theft, rape, etc helps protect peoples’ life and liberty. Outlawing homosexual marriage, however, does not protect the freedom of anyone, impinging upon it.
Again, who said I was a “lib”? Unless you meant libertarian…
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 10:08pm…any time there’s a story about homosexuality, you’ll find BRUCE P. posting a mile-a-minute. Think he’s got a horse in this race?
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on May 8, 2012 at 1:09amBruce, nice try using non existent science to avoid exposing your failed logic. A dad marrying his adult son is wrong morally just as two men marrying is morally wrong. You have been cowed into accepting gay marriage and rejecting incestuous marriage even tho both are logically consistent if liberty and freedom are the foundations. You rely on some perceived enhanced harm to children to escape the incongruities of your position.
And yes, you are indeed a liberal. The hallmark of liberals is dishonesty and cowardice. You know your position o n gay marriage is intellectual aligned with incestuous marriage, but you wiggle away on non existent science. This, by another name is intellectual dishonesty, or cowardice, but it is surely not truth.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 1:01pmAMERICANFIGHTINGMAN — It does not follow that homosexual marriage would permit incestuous relationships. As I described in my comments above, incestuous relationships bring real harm and danger to the community. Because it brings a real, objective, indebateable harm, it infringes upon freedoms.
Your question about morality presents a false dichotomy, by attempting to cast the question as only have two answers. It doesn’t. Yes, myself (and others) believe it is a moral question, in that we do not believe it is moral to infringe upon the freedoms of others.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:00pmLOL – Yeah, it’s like some on here have said — they are going by the polls and that tells them they need to come out with this and will help them running against Romney – who is saying the opposite.
Report Post »What they may not realize, since they aren’t into “reality” — there are far more out here now that have figured them out and the old strategies they are using and the truth about Obama (yes, he is for this too). What I don‘t know are the numbers since I don’t trust polls.
What they also don’t get or believe is that this country was blessed b/c we founded it on biblical principles and b/c of that, God has blessed us. We have rebelled greatly against those to where just “judgement” was called for — enter Obama. God allowed it for His purposes and hopefully will turn us back to Him in order to be blessed again. Legalizing gay marriage is rebellion, along with abortion, rampant divorce, & all the other harmful sins we’ve been committing on a large scale for decades. Oh well………….pray on !!!
“..IF My people will humble themselves and pray, and search for Me, and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
momrules
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:19pmMom…….., I wonder if it is too late. Has America gone too far down the path of evil. Christians are awake but I think it is because we all feel a stirring in Heaven, a feeling that time has run out and God’s great patience is ending.
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:30pmThe 2 moms
I feel it too & it started coming strong when I signed myself up to post on this site approx.Nov.2K11….God’s timeline….tick,tick,tick. God knows how/when-He Knows.. all of this is going to end and the secrets/mysteries have been revealed to mankind…..tick,tick,tick. The main key is Israel is being surrounded…tick,tick,tick. Germany is a key & there are signs of changing of the old guard into re-birth of the Roman Empire….tick,tick,tick. Myself, during these times, I Obey God & Leave All The Consequences To Him…I am at peace!!! God Bless America!
Report Post »gc68314
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:42pmIt‘s actually you who doesn’t get that we were NOT founded on biblical principles.
Report Post »barryswhitehalf
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 12:56amLeave it to Biden to support a perverted social change in our society. Thats called progress?
I don’t think so.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:58amAnd this my people explains why Biden makes so many gaffes. If he thinks men with men and women with women is NORMAL, his poor wife.
Is Biden trying to tell us something about himself?
Report Post »this1can
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:56pmWhy do you think he is so positive that Obummer has a big stick I think he’s been there done that Love/Pray
Report Post »Listen_then_think
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:55amSo biden is a closet homosexual? Our national leaders are now promoting moral decay. Same sex marriage is a sin, it is wrong, it is biologically impossible. There is no scenario where it can be made right, or normal, or not sinful. That is the main reason homosexuals are so overtly outspoken and loud about their gayism. It is basic psychology, they feel guilt because they KNOW it is wrong but they are too weak and lazy to make the right choice. Those who shout the loudest feel the most guilt. Psych 101, methinks thou dost protest too much.
Report Post »texasbeta
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:53pmThe same place it says homosexuality is a sin, is the same place it says that if you talk to a woman during her period, you are cast out, that if you are a woman wearing pants, you are going to hell, that if you eat shelfish, then you are cast out, that you should NOT pick up fallen grapes from your field but to leave them for the poor, not to defraud your neighbor (FOX News anyone?), do not go spreading slander among your people, do not seek revenge or hold a grudge against your neighbor, not to wear clothing blended from more than 1 type of fabric, not to cut the hair on the sides of your heads or trim your beards, etc. It also says to keep the sabbath holy, which is Saturday…Christians just arbitrarily changed it to Sunday to cast difference between them and Jews. None of these are listed as more important to follow than the others…and you personally violate several of them. What makes YOUR sin less than a homosexual’s sin? It doesn’t. YOU just embody the hypocrisy of your ignorance. No, you people are not Christians…you define modern apostasy.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:33pmTexasbeta – You know nothing about the Bible. Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament. You mock and insult people who follow Christianity yet you also try to tell Christians how to act Christian.
You’re just an anti-Christian bigot.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:06pmAll you have done is attack him personally because you know you don’t have an rebuttal to the argument. Doesn’t the bible also say he without sin cast the first stone?
I also believe I’ve been told that sin is sin, and no sin is greater than another. This is where I usually get Christians to sell out when I bring up Jeffrey Daumer’s born again christian status. Murder and lusting at your neighbors wife apparently is equal, as a sin is a sin. So what makes your sin any better than a homosexual’s sin?
Practice what you preach and look within your own house first. Until you can live your life completely sinless, as a Christian, you should have no say how another lives their lives. Only your God can cast judgement. It is not your place, especially in a FREE America, to tell other FREE American‘s what they can or can’t do.
Homosexuality doesn’t affect you.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:51pmAmerican Soldier (Separated) posted: “Homosexuality doesn’t affect you.”
Report Post »Except when you can be jailed for holding beliefs that question or challenge homosexuality.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
Or you have no choice but to have your children taught about how really normal such behavior is. Okay, let’s just stick to the historical contributions… and not bother ourselves with homosexual sex education that may or may not be part of such mandates.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/16/local/la-me-gay-schools-20111016
Let’s not forget the creation of the neologism “homophobe” which is bandied about to smear anyone who dares not to embrace the fey crowd 100%. What’s so damn laughable about this is that diminishes what a true clinical phobia is, but its a handy sledge to threaten people with.
And let’s not forget “hate crimes/hate speech’ movement. Because even though proponents argue with me that gays don’t wanna be recognized as a protected class, they still wanna control what you can say and, therefore, think.
Then there’s this whole debate on redefining marriage. Perhaps you’ve heard about it?
But, yeah, homosexual advocacy and control of thought and language really hasn’t been pressed on people. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:12pmFirst of all, the preacher is in the UK. I have yet to hear of anyone in America arrested for claiming homosexuality is a sin. First amendment rights and all…
The key is, live and let live. If you’re going to fight them, expect blow back.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:40pmFirst of all, the preacher is in the UK. I have yet to hear of anyone in America arrested for claiming homosexuality is a sin. First amendment rights and all…
The key is, live and let live. If you’re going to fight them, expect blow back.
****
With wretches like Justice “buzzy” Ginsburg. i can very well see politicians & judges importing foreign laws. It is not a matter of if but when some one in the Democrat party tries to imprison a Christian pastor for hate speech or write a law making to that effect.
Another homosexuality does affects everyone. If yo0u want to teach it in schools then if affects virtually everyone. If you want to test kids to see if they are gay then that is pushing on morality over another.
But American soldier (retired) acts like how I expect a beta male to act.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:37pmAmerican Soldier (Separated):
Report Post »Way to leave me hanging. “First of all….” Okay. Then what? With regard to my first point, the story cleary indicated this was not the first incident of a person being prosecuted in the U.K. because of his or her beliefs. This is not an isolated incident; this type of action has been taken in continental Europe and even bandied about in Canada. The point is there is a creep to criminalize any who might not fall in lockstep 100% with the fey crowd.
I actually don’t have a problem with gay civil unions. What’s odd is that two gays who want to cohabitate and have an agreement on how their possessions would be doled out if and when the relationship goes south can take action to put such an order in effect. There’s these guys and gals known as lawyers….
If someone I cared about revealed he or she engages in homosexual behavior, I would look them in the eye and state my reasons for not supporting the oxymoron that is “gay marriage.” I’d also readily defend any gay person who fell victim to any zealot or bully who felt it was acceptable to terrorize or harm another human being simply for being gay. But that’s not good enough is it? Nope. I must pretend that my thoughts and beliefs that have been researched on what marriage is (a union between a male and female) and isn’t (a right) don’t really matter. To hell with that.
And, did you have a second or third point on how homosexuality exists in a vacuum?
Bruce P.
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:18pmTHE_GOOCH — “Let’s not forget the creation of the neologism “homophobe” which is bandied about to smear anyone who dares not to embrace the fey crowd 100%.”
Funny, you attack homophobia as not existing, then use a slur against homosexuals in the same sentence.
If you are not scared of homosexuals, then why are you so against them being married?
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:53pmIf only you’d advocate 100% adherence to the Constitution, then you wouldn’t have to worry about judges and politicians importing laws onto our land. If you allow for compromise on issues YOU deem worthy of shredding the Constitution for, then you lay the ground work for allowing them to do the same, for issues THEY deem worth of shredding the Constitution.
I don’t even understand why it must be taught in school. Three solutions: 1. end public education or reduce it to local level 2. private schools where you as a paying consumer can advocate for specific curriculum or 3. home school
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:41pmBruce P.:
Report Post »Fey is a slur? Most gays I’ve talked to find that descriptor quaint or cute. Guess I don’t hang out with the right gays. Oh, I am still quite capable of going about my daily routine and expectations with homosexuals present. I don’t present with anxiety or go screaming and running away to hide under my bed. Are you sure you know what a phobia is?
By the by, the term “homophobia” is a lay expression. It is not a clinically recognized term.
I don’t “fear” homosexuals getting married. I do, however, despise revisionist history, bullies and (especially) nihilism. As Lewis Black alluded to in one of his routines, I don’t think one guy buggering another guy is going to be the downfall of the American family. Black also stated in one of his routines (can’t remember if it was the same one) that rules were set forth for his people (e.g., a man marries a woman) to keep the savages from copulating with animals. I’m not sure if, like Obama, Black’s stance has “evolved.” I believe that marriage has adamantly been defined not just by Christianity (which is where most proponents stall with their definition of a villain), but by all major religions, cultures and govts. across a helluva large swath of time.
Thanks for your concern.
Git-R-Done
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 9:55pmAmerican Soldier – So if we don’t support same sex marriage, then you have no problem with speech against homosexuality being criminalized.
Report Post »scudster
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:51amJoe if you cared about America’s well being as much as you cared about yourself you would discourage such behavior, not the opposite.
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:50am…
Report Post »Spoken like a true Man of Satan.
Hey Joe, are you and Barry going to do another photo op at H*LL-Burger this year?
Don’t forget to take your buddy Medvedev.
Bryan B
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:44amI always thought Joe parted his hair on the wrong side…….
Report Post »TheePolitinator
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:43amOf course he’s ok with it. Bohemian grove elitist mentality at its best.
Report Post »longun45
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:41amWell, finally proof that zombies do exist.
Report Post »Simonne
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:40amI’m ok with it but he probably finally saying it because poll shows the majority of Americans now support it & they do watch the polls.
Report Post »NDPINDNT
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:40amWhat a dork! How did this guy make it into politics?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:44pmThat’s easy,
Thanks to public indoctrination, this country is now populated with a large enough percentage of dorks, to elect similar dorks.
Report Post »BeingThere
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:40amBaracksuckers in the military!!! Wonderful!! Whimper fi !!!
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:39amOh? Did Joe receive a proposal? How cute.
Report Post »Hey, Joe, et al.: Marriage is not a “right”. It is a privilege. No culture or religion I can think of off the cuff has ever asserted marriage is a “right”. Granted, that doesn‘t mean legal semantics can’t be used to assert as much. Won’t that be a surprise? The precedent is overwhelmingly in over time, cultures and geography on marriage being between a male and female. But feel free to cite Nero and the odd Chinese “it was like a marriage” historical anomaly.
Geesh. Again with this song and dance routine? This ‘debate’ always brings out the STFU crowd and bully boys/girls. Let’s see if their arguments have progressed beyond the “rights” claim and telling others they don’t have a RIGHT to have an opinion and express it.
BeingThere
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:39amGood, I hope your daughter marries a woman! LOL
Report Post »G-WHIZ
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:54amGood luck on having real grandkids to inherit everyting you worked for your entire life.
Report Post »A great MontyPython-skitt…WW-3 kills-off everyone, except 1man&1woman…and she’s GAY!
So much for world re-population… :-)
MIBUGNU2
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:25pmThis gut-less wonder will say anything his Masda’ tells
Report Post »him to say…what a disgusting POS… Hear Ahmadinejad,
Putin and O’Blamer are on their way OUT..Things are
looking up !! “This is A Big F’N Deal” Joe knows !!
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:36amI watched this load; unload his ‘say anything to appease’ comments on NBC’s Sunday sham show. My goodness, Joe–do you have any thoughts of your own? I know your hair is someone else’s but gee whiz Joe, have an original thought once in awhile instead of what the liberal Borg tells you to think. I know, not possible with libs.
GOP 2012
Report Post »barber2
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:32pmYes. With our Far Lefties it’s all parroted Group Speak..and the younger version : MIC check. .political robotic zombies…
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:34amJoe Biden is also “absolutely comfortable” with asking someone confined to a wheelchair to stand up….
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=joe+biden+stand+up+chuck&mid=7F452811AC94A2E012737F452811AC94A2E01273&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1
I think Joe Biden is “absolutely comfortable” with being an idiot.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:30pmPlugs turned pandering into an art form and a way of life decades ago…”stand up Chuck, let the people see you. Oh, God love ya, what am I talking about?”
Report Post »markdido
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:55pmDo you remember when the libs got the vapors imagining Sarah Palin being a “heartbeat away from the presidency?”
We shold all be praying that nothing happens to Obama!
Report Post »Deborah
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 1:33amI think it’s more accurate to say that Biden has “diarrhea of the mouth.” There aren’t any valves in his digestive tract–nor any filters or neuropathways in his brain–to control the backward flow of fecal material into his gullet.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:32amBiden is absolutely comfortable with being an idiot too so it doesn’t mean a lot.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:28amAh. The Discrimination Card. Once again to overthrow the old, traditional values. You go, Joe ! March right along with the Lefty rhetoric ! Am sure your Bishop will find your words ” inspirational.” Guess since Obama has practically declared war on the church, you don’t really care what that silly, old-fashioned , discriminating old bishop has to say !
Report Post »drbage
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:38amSo the Catholic bishops get all bent out of shape with HHS deeming them obligated to pay for birth control, but remain silent about Biden and gay marriage or Pelosi and birth control, abortion, etc. Maybe I missed it, but do we now have one Catholic Church for the people and another for the politicians?
Report Post »barber2
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:25pmDRB: There are many ultra liberals in the American Catholic Church due to the influence of political correctness, secularism, and the outright atheism of the powerful Left . Have a feeling that there is going to be a shake up in the months to come. Obama and his school of Democrats seem to have gone the ultra Marxist route . ( notice Obama’s strange church going ways – think he’s more into a political God than a spiritual one ! ). Do not know how Catholics in the current Democrat Party can remain in both the Catholic Church and in the Democrat Party with its current policies. Should be some “ interesting ” times ahead for Democrats. Bet JFK is glad to be out of the coming mess.
Report Post »lessoneleg
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:28amAs long as it isn’t his own.
Report Post »Bryan B
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:38amYou got that right…….
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:28amI’ll tell you what I understand. I understand that anything Obama says, flip it 180 and you have the truth. I also understand that anything Biden says is irrelevant.
Is it November yet?
Report Post »barber2
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:16pmWell said !
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:27am“BIDEN: I AM ‘ABSOLUTELY COMFORTABLE’ WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE” Then Joe, by all means go marry somebody of the same sex. We won’t mind.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:38amMaybe old Joe has more to knowledge about being plugged than just the top his noggin. I’ve also heard about these stories where Obama is concerned… hmmmm.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:09pmSo you’re saying you are fine with same sex marriage?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:54pmI think the problem with women is “down time.” So many guys doi not want to deal with down time that they start looking askance at their bro.
Unlike the reproductive tract, the digestive tract has no phases of the moon. Therefore every day a “horn dog” can have afternoon delight filled with Santorum.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 2:09amAMERICAN SOLDIER (SEPARATED), No, I am being sarcastic, or did that just fly right over your head at the speed of light?
Report Post »Razlord
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:23amwe know joe,..
btw, did you get your lifetime membership at barrys’ club in chicago?
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:43amRAZ. Your buddy little Ronnie Paul has no problem with this either eh? All voluntary consensual agreements are okay in his Libertarian eyes. Even Gays in the Military? I can see Mr Ed nodding his head now… lol.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:08pmAnd I forgot to emphasize “con’sensual” for impact… as opposed to consentual RAZ old boy…
Report Post »Razlord
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:05pmthis video shows the difference between obama/romney and dr.paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlg45UcomRI&feature=relmfu
Saturday, May 5, 2012
US Air Force Investigator Says Obama Trying To Hide Something: Something Rotten in Washington
ObamaRelease YourRecords on 12:21 PM
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/05/us-air-force-investigator-says-obama.html
we were born free…
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:32pmLmao.
“US Air Force Investigator Says Obama Trying To Hide Something: Something Rotten in Washington
ObamaRelease YourRecords on 12:21 PM”
I want to see Ron Paul’s DD-214 from his Air Force Service…??? Is he trying to hide something??
Report Post »Abraham Young
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:32pm@TIME2ENDTIME2END
Ron Paul is not in favor of gay marriage. He is in favor of letting the people decide family law, not the FEDS. There is a difference you know, a difference that seems WAY over your head, poor blighter that you are.
Report Post »SteeleHeidi
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 12:19pmwhat Elizabeth answered I’m in shock that some people can earn $6274 in 1 month on the internet. did you see this web page..MakeCash5.notlong.com
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:22amOne more blight on the godless leadership of AMERICA.
Thank YOU, LORD, for uncovering the darkness of this present age and bringing YOUR LIGHT to bare it so that “those who have eyes to see” can see at last.
Report Post »