Obama Backs Gay Marriage

• Episkey wrote on 2012-05-09 21:08

  Quote from Cynic;859491:

  Oh, and regarding "flip-flopping"..
  
  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/mitt-romney-same-sex-marriage-barack-obama-/1#.T6rZvGLaKSo
  
  Seems kind of like he's trying to gain some spot-light as-well, no?

  
  
  The link isn't working?~
  
  Also, if it's about Mitt Romney - yeah all he does is flip/flop :fail:
  
  

  Quote from Kollin;859510:

  But, but, then they wouldn't have a word that helps them cling to their pathetic, worthless beliefs. How horrible it would be of us to take that away from them, even though they have taken so much away from others.

  
  
  Pathetic? Worthless?
  
  ...
• Phunkie wrote on 2012-05-09 21:09
  Chill out, yo.
  
  People of the same-sex have been getting married in other countries for years now. Look up the U.K, Canada, the Netherlands, even South Africa.
  
  It's none of our business to regulate who gets married or not, as long as it's a consensual agreement. Animals cannot consent, kids cannot legally consent, so think about those things before you throw them into the argument.
  
  Also, gay rights are human rights. Gay people are just as equal as straight people and should be granted the same rights.
  
  Marriage isn't just a religious institution. There are such things as legal, civil marriages. Just go to City Hall.
  
  Hell, if you want to argue the whole holiness of marriage, then we shouldn't allow divorce since it's immoral in the eyes of God. The whole institution of marriage has gone down the drain, so let those who want to be miserable, be miserable. If you don't wanna get married, don't.
  
  Let those that do.
  
  Governments should look out for the equality of others. This is not something that should be left to the states, IMO. It's something that the federal government should tackle and I'm sure that it will as time goes along.
  
  This is fantastic step into the future.
  
  Remember when blacks weren't allowed to get married to whites? Or remember when they were considered two-thirds (2/3) of a person?
  
  Progress is inevitable. Angry bigots are too.
  
  PROUD.
• MareneCorp wrote on 2012-05-09 21:11

  Quote from Nytachi;859513:

  "Those ignorant people"? Who do you think you are? Who are you to question and judge the regulations of the Christian faith?
  As a Christian myself, I beg to differ.
  Romans 1:26-27:
  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
  And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
  
  Moderator Elena, are we picking favorites?

  
  
  Moderators can't pick favorites... you're just being extremely rude. And that book isn't a legitimate source of information if this arguement is, more or less against, religion/religious ideas. That book has been altered too many times and too misinterpreted by people to make it even worthy of being mentioned as a source.
• Milk wrote on 2012-05-09 21:12
  Kollin.....
  
  Go take a class on learning how to communicate with others.
  Because you certainly need one dude. Try being a bit more sensitive to others beliefs.
• Conor wrote on 2012-05-09 21:13

  Quote from Nytachi;859513:

  "Those ignorant people"? Who do you think you are? Who are you to question and judge the regulations of the Christian faith?
  As a Christian myself, I beg to differ.
  Romans 1:26-27:
  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
  And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
  
  Moderator Elena, are we picking favorites?

  
  
  Though I don't mean to offend by saying something which is probably offensive, I can never understand why passages from the bible or other religious texts are brought into arguments that require logic.
  
  I find it disgustingly ironic that a religion such as Christianity, that's core is love and forgiveness, goes against not only a human rights issue but and issue regarding love. Of course Christianity isn't the only religion like this, but it's the most widely known religion that claims to preach love.
• Elena wrote on 2012-05-09 21:15

  Quote from Nytachi;859513:

  
  
  Moderator Elena, are we picking favorites?

  
  
  No. You're not the only one I'm talking to when I say, NO INSULTING OTHER PEOPLE WHEN EXPRESSING YOUR OPINIONS.
  I don't care if you (you as in anyone who sees this, not you personally) don't agree with someone, or if you think they are ignorant. You do not insult them.
  
  How is pointing fingers at each-other going to get your point across? The only reason I singled you out is because you were one of the first who went ahead and started calling people "stupid", "idiots", and "oblivious sheep". Not the only one, just one of the first. Anyone who deserves an infraction gets one.
  
  Kolling, you need to stop it, too. People aren't going to stop believing what they believe just because you call them "ignorant".
  
  Why would someone that feels insulted by what you say want to listen to you? Insults only upset people. It doesn't make them more rational. That goes for whatever side you're on.
  
  EDIT: Actually, give me a few minutes to clean up this thread. Temp. Lock.