|
|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
"Obama supports marriage equality"
On 5/9/2012 at 4:13:10 PM, Ostromite started the thread:
Link.
It's about time. I don't believe for a second that his opinion has "evolved." He's been a gay marriage supporter all along. The only thing that's evolved is his willingness to actually tell people what he thinks.
Msg #1: On 5/9/2012 at 6:12:14 PM, Varan101 replied, saying:
To be honest, I read so many horror stories of marriage and divorce, its really scared me into not even looking for a partner. I sometimes wonder why gay people would even want it. Although in divorce court you may finally get non biased rulings, lol.
Msg #2: On 5/10/2012 at 9:28:10 AM, Mr. Chaos replied, saying:
Can we play a game where we count how many people who are claiming this is 'an attack on marriage' are divorced? Extra points if they have been divorced more than once. Triple points if they cheated on their spouse.
Msg #3: On 5/10/2012 at 6:55:17 PM, Varan101 replied, saying:
It's all just an excuse to find the next boogeyman. We have to have someone that we think we deserve to look down upon. The Bible says we are all sinners, and I don't recall it saying that Gay people are inherently the worst sinners on God's ranking charts even though most people treat them that way. But its easy to demonize them because they are in the minority, and its one of the few sins that a lot of people can claim they haven't committed. Even if you believe in such things, I don't think God would look badly upon you just because your neighbor does something he doesn't approve of. The act of homosexuality is the sin itself, and I don't see how marriage or no marriage changes that.
Msg #4: On 5/10/2012 at 7:53:56 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
Does this mean you'll soon be able to marry your girlfriend, Ostro?
Replies: 5
Msg #5: On 5/10/2012 at 8:47:01 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #4, saying:
Already legal in NY.
Replies: 6
Msg #6: On 5/10/2012 at 9:49:28 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #5, saying:
As well as 49 other states, as far as I know.
Anyway, if this means more weddings I have to attend in the future, then the number of open bars will surely increase as well. I will therefore support the president.
Finally, what does being divorced have to do with destroying marriage? I - and a few others on the board - are divorced, but the only thing we're guilty of is marrying emotionally stunted whores (well, I am, anyway).
Replies: 11
Msg #7: On 5/10/2012 at 10:07:32 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
He's been lying about his position on it for 16 years. Enjoy hope and change. Also, he isn't going to actually campaign for it or include it in the party platform and he still supposedly supports it as a state rights issue so what, exactly, was the news? I'm fine with marriage being extended to anyone but the number of people gushing about it (people who were already going to vote for him anyway) as some miraculous thing is pathetic.
Replies: 8, 9
Msg #8: On 5/11/2012 at 1:28:24 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #7, saying:
only you could turn this into a bad thing
Msg #9: On 5/12/2012 at 1:07:56 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #7, saying:
First President in history to actually hold this opinion. It might not be a big deal to you, but then you've always had the support of the government when it came to YOUR marriage. So get off the high horse and stop shitting on our parade.
Msg #10: On 5/12/2012 at 1:09:14 AM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying:
on the other hand though it is absolutely pathetic that there are millions of people dying and starving and diseased everywhere and terrible things happen all over this world and yet
the american population still thinks that GAY MARRIAGE is worthy of actual, legitimate fucking debate.
it's sickening. the amount of luxury and privilege you don't even know you have, debating GAY MARRIAGE while civilians are being bombed in other countries. like, jesus fucking christ get OVER it.
Msg #11: On 5/12/2012 at 1:48:33 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #6, saying:
As well as 49 other states, as far as I know.
Not quite.
Replies: 12, 13
Msg #12: On 5/12/2012 at 2:34:01 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #11, saying:
I think he meant that I can marry my girlfriend in every state.
Msg #13: On 5/12/2012 at 5:17:38 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #11, saying:
it's sickening. the amount of luxury and privilege you don't even know you have, debating GAY MARRIAGE while civilians are being bombed in other countries. like, jesus fucking christ get OVER it.
HAPPY PLACE. Anyway, that's a red herring argument, and what do you know about people bombing in other countries? Calm down, mang.
I think he meant that I can marry my girlfriend in every state.
Yes, indeed!
Replies: 14
Msg #14: On 5/12/2012 at 7:58:57 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #13, saying:
How is it a red herring argument if my point is that there are certainly more pressing concerns in the united states, let along the entire planet, that are deserving of the attention that seems to be placed on the 'sanctity of marriage'. Why are people worried about gay marriage when there are so many other things, LEGITIMATE concerns, they could worry about?
Replies: 18, 19
Msg #15: On 5/12/2012 at 8:02:56 AM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying:
Because it essentially boils down to "the gays are getting married and I don't like it".
Msg #16: On 5/12/2012 at 8:04:49 AM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying:
I'm a little tired of politicians and the American people telling me what I can and cannot do with the person I'm in love with.
Msg #17: On 5/12/2012 at 12:26:39 PM, fordprefect replied, saying:
Can we never post to this subforum again. I don't think it would spam up the main board if we just posted there from now on, cheers.
Msg #18: On 5/12/2012 at 3:31:24 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #14, saying:
Because kids getting shot in Syria has literally nothing to do with marriage laws in the US.
Replies: 20
Msg #19: On 5/12/2012 at 6:41:54 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #14, saying:
That's what ever person thinks about anything they agree/disagree with.
Msg #20: On 5/12/2012 at 11:22:47 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #18, saying:
No, it doesn't. I was using the comparison mostly to say that people will get their panties in a wad over something as harmless as marriage equality, and yet they won't bat an eyelash about actual troublesome things in the world. Why are you letting the silly homos get you so worked up? Why are you not getting worked up about people dying? What type of priorities do you have to think like that?
QuickComment, yes, but then perhaps you can tell me what horrible event will happen if/when marriage equality happens in the country. Because I honestly have no idea.
Replies: 21, 23
Msg #21: On 5/12/2012 at 11:39:23 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #20, saying:
I think their point is that just because something may seem trivial in comparison with other things, doesn't indicate how we should legislate it. Nobody on this site opposes marriage equality.
I have no doubt that there are groups trying to get prayer removed from public schools for instance, and no doubt there are religious people who claim 'don't these people have better things to advocate considering all the suffering in the world?'. There are plenty of reasons to support gay marriage bills, but 'priorities' is a bit bizarre.
Replies: 22
Msg #22: On 5/13/2012 at 1:46:10 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #21, saying:
I'm mostly just incredibly personally frustrated and have been for a while regarding this and I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts.
Msg #23: On 5/13/2012 at 4:19:49 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #20, saying:
"I" am not getting particularly worked about this, unless you meant "you" in the rhetorical sense; it's tough for me to interpret properly, this being the internet and all. In any case, it's fallacious to introduce an unrelated topic in order to divert attention away from the original discussion. That is literally a textbook definition of a red herring.
I'm usually not one to start talking about logical fallacies outright while debating on the internet (I probably use them all the time when I don't take a discussion very seriously), but obviously this topic is of some importance to you and I feel you should be able to articulate your thoughts better than you have been.
Replies: 24
Msg #24: On 5/13/2012 at 7:50:19 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #23, saying:
Didn't need the lecture dad, thanks.
Replies: 25
Msg #25: On 5/13/2012 at 8:08:18 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #24, saying:
You really are the most miserable person on this board, aren't you?
Replies: 27
Msg #26: On 5/13/2012 at 2:32:30 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Replies: 28
Msg #27: On 5/13/2012 at 4:10:30 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #25, saying:
fghjhgdsgh HA. I didn't know that was what I was :3 I'm not miserable. Surely you've been frustrated by something to the point of blind rage.
Msg #28: On 5/13/2012 at 4:11:40 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #26, saying:
nedry understands me~~~
Msg #29: On 5/13/2012 at 5:06:25 PM, fordprefect replied, saying:
Full list of things Trainwreck gets incoherently emotional about:
1) Minor military trivia inaccuracy in a film
Replies: 30
Msg #30: On 5/13/2012 at 6:27:14 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #29, saying:
LOLOL, ford.
Actually the last thing I remember raging about is Monki's stupidity.
Msg #31: On 5/13/2012 at 7:23:01 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
I wonder if his creation museum will have a gay marriage diorama?
Replies: 32
Msg #32: On 5/13/2012 at 7:52:36 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #31, saying:
It would be two Catholic priests in drag with Moses horns and UCLA badges using a crying boy as Chinese finger cuffs.
Msg #33: On 5/14/2012 at 12:54:58 AM, Archaeopteryx replied, saying:
I'd say move to Canada but I have serious doubts about what King Harper is planning for the country. Next election I get to vote him out(I live in his riding... makes me feel dirty inside, but that's just how Alberta makes everyone feel.)
Msg #34: On 5/15/2012 at 2:29:05 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying:
Gay people should be able to get married.
Debate over. Make it so.
|
|
