U.S. President Barack Obama Says 'Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal'

[Jingthing]

This thread seems to have thrashed through every possible red herring and irrelevant side-issue whilst ducking the key, overriding question.

The OP stated that the US President thinks that single-sex marriage should be legal in the USA.

Could someone please give me a coherent, supported reason why single-sex marriage should not be legal in the USA. Thank you.

There is none which is why sooner or later (hopefully) sooner gay Americans will win a total victory over this totally unfair discrimination, just as interracial couples did (via the supreme court) not so many years ago. Discrimination is discrimination. Bigotry is bigotry. Both are contrary to core American values which is why eventually such wrongs are made right.

[koheesti]

This thread seems to have thrashed through every possible red herring and irrelevant side-issue whilst ducking the key, overriding question.

The OP stated that the US President thinks that single-sex marriage should be legal in the USA.

Could someone please give me a coherent, supported reason why single-sex marriage should not be legal in the USA. Thank you.

As far as I'm concerned there isn't any reason same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

However, I can think of a lot of things that our politicians should be spending time on instead. The economy, jobs, national debt being three of them.

[Jingthing]

This thread seems to have thrashed through every possible red herring and irrelevant side-issue whilst ducking the key, overriding question.

The OP stated that the US President thinks that single-sex marriage should be legal in the USA.

Could someone please give me a coherent, supported reason why single-sex marriage should not be legal in the USA. Thank you.

As far as I'm concerned there isn't any reason same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

However, I can think of a lot of things that our politicians should be spending time on instead. The economy, jobs, national debt being three of them.

Politicians don't need to spend any time at all on this issue, actually. The final decision will be made in the supreme court anyway. That said, minority rights are always important.

[koheesti]

This thread seems to have thrashed through every possible red herring and irrelevant side-issue whilst ducking the key, overriding question.

The OP stated that the US President thinks that single-sex marriage should be legal in the USA.

Could someone please give me a coherent, supported reason why single-sex marriage should not be legal in the USA. Thank you.

As far as I'm concerned there isn't any reason same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

However, I can think of a lot of things that our politicians should be spending time on instead. The economy, jobs, national debt being three of them.

Politicians don't need to spend any time at all on this issue, actually. The final decision will be made in the supreme court anyway. That said, minority rights are always important.

An issue that affects 2% of the population is never more important than issues that affect 100% of the population (which, as you may have figured out, includes that 2%). In a way it reminds me of "the 1%" who reportedly believe they are more important than "the 99%".

[endure]

This thread seems to have thrashed through every possible red herring and irrelevant side-issue whilst ducking the key, overriding question.

The OP stated that the US President thinks that single-sex marriage should be legal in the USA.

Could someone please give me a coherent, supported reason why single-sex marriage should not be legal in the USA. Thank you.

As far as I'm concerned there isn't any reason same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

However, I can think of a lot of things that our politicians should be spending time on instead. The economy, jobs, national debt being three of them.

Politicians don't need to spend any time at all on this issue, actually. The final decision will be made in the supreme court anyway. That said, minority rights are always important.

An issue that affects 2% of the population is never more important than issues that affect 100% of the population (which, as you may have figured out, includes that 2%). In a way it reminds me of "the 1%" who reportedly believe they are more important than "the 99%".

Isn't that the tyranny of the majority? Because it's only important to a minority it's not really important at all?

[Jingthing]

This thread seems to have thrashed through every possible red herring and irrelevant side-issue whilst ducking the key, overriding question.

The OP stated that the US President thinks that single-sex marriage should be legal in the USA.

Could someone please give me a coherent, supported reason why single-sex marriage should not be legal in the USA. Thank you.

As far as I'm concerned there isn't any reason same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

However, I can think of a lot of things that our politicians should be spending time on instead. The economy, jobs, national debt being three of them.

Politicians don't need to spend any time at all on this issue, actually. The final decision will be made in the supreme court anyway. That said, minority rights are always important.

An issue that affects 2% of the population is never more important than issues that affect 100% of the population (which, as you may have figured out, includes that 2%). In a way it reminds me of "the 1%" who reportedly believe they are more important than "the 99%".

Excuse me, I never said "more" important. You appear to have invented that red herring. Is that a new rhetorical twist on so called special rights? I never got that one either. Gays want equal rights yet the opponents bizarrely label that a demand for "special" rights. It will not wash.

[koheesti]

An issue that affects 2% of the population is never more important than issues that affect 100% of the population (which, as you may have figured out, includes that 2%). In a way it reminds me of "the 1%" who reportedly believe they are more important than "the 99%".

Excuse me, I never said "more" important. You appear to have invented that red herring. Is that a new rhetorical twist on so called special rights? I never got that one either. Gays want equal rights yet the opponents bizarrely label that a demand for "special" rights. It will not wash.

Pot-kettle.

[Jingthing]

An issue that affects 2% of the population is never more important than issues that affect 100% of the population (which, as you may have figured out, includes that 2%). In a way it reminds me of "the 1%" who reportedly believe they are more important than "the 99%".

Excuse me, I never said "more" important. You appear to have invented that red herring. Is that a new rhetorical twist on so called special rights? I never got that one either. Gays want equal rights yet the opponents bizarrely label that a demand for "special" rights. It will not wash.

Pot-kettle.

Explain please.

I know what pot-kettle means but have no idea what you referring to in the context of the included posts.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Jingthing

[folium]

This thread seems to have thrashed through every possible red herring and irrelevant side-issue whilst ducking the key, overriding question.

The OP stated that the US President thinks that single-sex marriage should be legal in the USA.

Could someone please give me a coherent, supported reason why single-sex marriage should not be legal in the USA. Thank you.

As far as I'm concerned there isn't any reason same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

However, I can think of a lot of things that our politicians should be spending time on instead. The economy, jobs, national debt being three of them.

I could describe the issue of single-sex marriage as being 'low-hanging fruit" for a politician (ie not a huge challenge), but that phrase might over-excite some of the more conservative souls on TV!!!

[koheesti]

An issue that affects 2% of the population is never more important than issues that affect 100% of the population (which, as you may have figured out, includes that 2%). In a way it reminds me of "the 1%" who reportedly believe they are more important than "the 99%".

Excuse me, I never said "more" important. You appear to have invented that red herring. Is that a new rhetorical twist on so called special rights? I never got that one either. Gays want equal rights yet the opponents bizarrely label that a demand for "special" rights. It will not wash.

Pot-kettle.

Explain please.

I know what pot-kettle means but have no idea what you referring to in the context of the included posts.

Then someone else must be posting under your profile in OTB. You should have that checked into.

[Exsexyman]

An interesting link from The Guardian newspaper in the UK yesterday. I wonder what Mitt Romney makes of this. Not to mention ColinYai!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/jun/04/mormons-march-gay-pride-parade

[Jingthing]

An interesting link from The Guardian newspaper in the UK yesterday. I wonder what Mitt Romney makes of this. Not to mention ColinYai!

http://www.guardian....ay-pride-parade

We love you, really we do, bless your "gay" little hearts, but forget about "giving you" the same civil rights we've got. BTW, would you like a pamphlet for our organization that helps you turn away from being gay? We're not so bad, we don't do shock therapy. Any more, that is. Edited June 5, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Then someone else must be posting under your profile in OTB. You should have that checked into.

[Exsexyman]

An interesting link from The Guardian newspaper in the UK yesterday. I wonder what Mitt Romney makes of this. Not to mention ColinYai!

http://www.guardian....ay-pride-parade

We love you, really we do, bless your "gay" little hearts, but forget about "giving you" the same civil rights we've got. BTW, would you like a pamphlet for our organization that helps you turn away from being gay? We're not so bad, we don't do shock therapy. Any more, that is.

Haha. Yes, they are a rum lot to be sure! Maybe if Mitt becomes President, (God forbid), we can all enjoy the same rights they have, and polygamy will become all the rage! Nah, on second thoughts one Mother in Law is plenty!

[Jingthing]

An interesting link from The Guardian newspaper in the UK yesterday. I wonder what Mitt Romney makes of this. Not to mention ColinYai!

http://www.guardian....ay-pride-parade

We love you, really we do, bless your "gay" little hearts, but forget about "giving you" the same civil rights we've got. BTW, would you like a pamphlet for our organization that helps you turn away from being gay? We're not so bad, we don't do shock therapy. Any more, that is.

Haha. Yes, they are a rum lot to be sure! Maybe if Mitt becomes President, (God forbid), we can all enjoy the same rights they have, and polygamy will become all the rage! Nah, on second thoughts one Mother in Law is plenty!

Maybe he was for polygamy before he was against it?

[Scott]

Make sure they are all sisters.

Try to stay on the topic.

[chuckd]

What does Romney's religion have to do with Obama's 16 year continuing evolution on same sex marriages?

Perhaps a better topic for discussion on this thread might be what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright really thinks about same sex marriages?

[GentlemanJim]

What does Romney's religion have to do with Obama's 16 year continuing evolution on same sex marriages?

Perhaps a better topic for discussion on this thread might be what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright really thinks about same sex marriages?

Well for a start Romney's religion is not a religion, it is a cult and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is just that, a Reverend, a man of the cloth and as a religious man in religious office he should be given no political voice. Keeping Church and state separate and all that, his opinions are worth diddley squat and if he wanted his voice to be listened to in a political context then he should have got a real job.

Edited June 6, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[chuckd]

What does Romney's religion have to do with Obama's 16 year continuing evolution on same sex marriages?

Perhaps a better topic for discussion on this thread might be what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright really thinks about same sex marriages?

Well for a start Romney's religion is not a religion, it is a cult and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is just that, a Reverend, a man of the cloth and as a religious man in religious office he should be given no political voice. Keeping Church and state separate and all that, his opinions are worth diddley squat and if he wanted his voice to be listened to in a political context then he should have got a real job.

That's a pretty strong cult if it is has existed for nearly 200 years and has over 10 million adherents worldwide. Sort of like the atheist cult isn't it?

[Jingthing]

What does Romney's religion have to do with Obama's 16 year continuing evolution on same sex marriages?

Perhaps a better topic for discussion on this thread might be what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright really thinks about same sex marriages?

Romney's real "religion" may be political opportunism. Don't bother suggesting Romney hasn't flip flopped on gay civil rights too. He once mused -- "I'll be better than Ted for gay rights" referring of course to Ted Kennedy, the famous ultra LIBERAL.

Now he's a staunch supporter of every anti-gay marriage measure you can possibly imagine.

(Romney is running for president against Obama. Rev. Wright is not running for president.)

Edited June 6, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

What does Romney's religion have to do with Obama's 16 year continuing evolution on same sex marriages?

Perhaps a better topic for discussion on this thread might be what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright really thinks about same sex marriages?

Well for a start Romney's religion is not a religion, it is a cult and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is just that, a Reverend, a man of the cloth and as a religious man in religious office he should be given no political voice. Keeping Church and state separate and all that, his opinions are worth diddley squat and if he wanted his voice to be listened to in a political context then he should have got a real job.

Wright's "church" has existed decades at best, and he probably became a reverend after completing a mail order course. It is a guarantee that Rev. Wright and his congregation are very anti-gay marriage. Obama has been a member for what, 20 years? So in addition to "Goddamn America!", Obama has been listening to anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit, sitting there, smiling away at all the votes he was earning.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney's real "religion" may be political opportunism. Don't bother suggesting Romney hasn't flip flopped on gay civil rights too.

Maybe he does not consider marriage between two men a "civil right" and from the votes on the issue so far, most people seem to agree with him. He was probably talking about the right to equal employment and equal pay and other issues that are far more important.

[koheesti]

btw - Gay TVers! You'd be proud of me. I was chatting with a couple older Russian friends last night, defending gay rights, same sex marriage and gay adoption! Their attitudes are what in the West would be considered archaic. In short, you should see about getting your "disease" treated - and by all means, stay away from children!

It was a reminder how when I lived in Moscow 16 years ago I thought that minorities in America who felt they were mistreated should come spend time in Russia to feel what serious oppression and discrimination felt like. It's quite shocking really.It's sort of like how they say the American left wing would be considered right wingers in Europe.

[folium]

btw - Gay TVers! You'd be proud of me. I was chatting with a couple older Russian friends last night, defending gay rights, same sex marriage and gay adoption! Their attitudes are what in the West would be considered archaic. In short, you should see about getting your "disease" treated - and by all means, stay away from children!

It was a reminder how when I lived in Moscow 16 years ago I thought that minorities in America who felt they were mistreated should come spend time in Russia to feel what serious oppression and discrimination felt like. It's quite shocking really.It's sort of like how they say the American left wing would be considered right wingers in Europe.

And it's not just gay TVers who are proud of you!

Your comments highlight the generational nature of this discussion as prejudice is far less pronounced in the young. Hopefully discrimination is something that will gradually erode.

[Jingthing]

Romney's real "religion" may be political opportunism. Don't bother suggesting Romney hasn't flip flopped on gay civil rights too.

Maybe he does not consider marriage between two men a "civil right" and from the votes on the issue so far, most people seem to agree with him. He was probably talking about the right to equal employment and equal pay and other issues that are far more important.

But it IS a civil right. You'll see. Not important to you. Who are you exactly to discriminate against ANY minority, even a hated one? Recent polling also shows only 39 percent of Americans opposed legalizing gay marriage. Civil rights for a hated minority by POPULAR VOTE is bloody un-American. These are PROTECTED under our constitution. Edited June 6, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

The popularity of any issue brought before the Supreme Court has no relevance or importance in deciding if the issue is Legal under the Constitution ....... Justice Blackburn

And why those people are appointed for life, so as not to need the popularity of the people to keep their job when making unpopular decisions, or need to bend to the political will of the times.

It would not be a civil right if the Constitution said ... All men except gays are created equal under the law. Then you would need an amendment.

Blacks Law dictionary already defines marriage and always has as ..... Two PEOPLE legally joined ...... why ? Because they saw this coming a mile away and didnt want to have to reprint all the dictionarys ! lol ..... poor bisness decision if you ask me, but it also makes them look like they know what they are doing even if others don't.

[chuckd]

What does Romney's religion have to do with Obama's 16 year continuing evolution on same sex marriages?

Perhaps a better topic for discussion on this thread might be what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright really thinks about same sex marriages?

Romney's real "religion" may be political opportunism. Don't bother suggesting Romney hasn't flip flopped on gay civil rights too. He once mused -- "I'll be better than Ted for gay rights" referring of course to Ted Kennedy, the famous ultra LIBERAL.

Now he's a staunch supporter of every anti-gay marriage measure you can possibly imagine.

(Romney is running for president against Obama. Rev. Wright is not running for president.)

But Romney's religion is not running, nor is Wright's.

Either way, on this particular thread why is Romney even being discussed at all? It's all about Obama and his evolving thought processes..

[Jingthing]

What does Romney's religion have to do with Obama's 16 year continuing evolution on same sex marriages?

Perhaps a better topic for discussion on this thread might be what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright really thinks about same sex marriages?

Romney's real "religion" may be political opportunism. Don't bother suggesting Romney hasn't flip flopped on gay civil rights too. He once mused -- "I'll be better than Ted for gay rights" referring of course to Ted Kennedy, the famous ultra LIBERAL.

Now he's a staunch supporter of every anti-gay marriage measure you can possibly imagine.

(Romney is running for president against Obama. Rev. Wright is not running for president.)

But Romney's religion is not running, nor is Wright's.

Either way, on this particular thread why is Romney even being discussed at all? It's all about Obama and his evolving thought processes..

Well two points. You posted about Romney above, so that's a bit rich. Secondly, Romney is running to replace Obama and their current positions on gay marriage equality are opposed to each other. So I think Romney's gat marriage record IS (very) relevant and related to the gay marriage/Obama topic. Interestingly, Obama has not yet explicitly declared gay equality a civil rights issue and he rather weakly asserted it is an issue for the STATES. When he knows very well the only real way to resolve his issue is a the FEDERAL LEVEL, almost definitely through the supreme court, sooner or later. Edited June 6, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Errrrrr Romneys religion IS running. It might not be an issue for YOU but it's important for a lot of people .... Mormons for example

[Jingthing]

Errrrrr Romneys religion IS running. It might not be an issue for YOU but it's important for a lot of people .... Mormons for example

His religion is relevant ONLY in as much as it directly impacts his political decisions. This has been discussed elsewhere and it is an area of hot discussion in the US press (the changing decisions based on messages received after prayer reports). That said, I think we had better leave it alone on this thread.