Obama Praises NY Gay Marriage Vote

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Obama Praises NY Gay Marriage Vote
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

Senior Member

2,798 posts
Jun 27, 2011 11:26 PM
I also said I don't think he can win....

Tim Kaine will most likely be the frontrunner
Jun 27, 2011 11:26pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jun 27, 2011 11:41 PM
Ty Webb;815876 wrote:I also said I don't think he can win....

Tim Kaine will most likely be the frontrunner
You did not say that until after your original post. But ok looks like we are in agreement. As for 2016 it is far far to early to speculate on frontrunners. I am sure you have some polling data for 2016. Just put it back in your pants and concentrate on 2012.
Jun 27, 2011 11:41pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

Senior Member

2,798 posts
Jun 28, 2011 12:07 AM
Not for the Democrats.......it's not even close to too early to think about the future of the party....as I'm sure many Republicans are thinking about also
Jun 28, 2011 12:07am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Jun 28, 2011 12:47 AM
Ty Webb;815829 wrote:Did you notice were I said the Democratic Nomination?

I said nothing of the national picture...I think our best chance in 2016 lies in Timmy Kaine

Tim Kaine wouldn't even win Virginia right now. He's about as hated as any ex-governor they've ever had.
Jun 28, 2011 12:47am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Jun 28, 2011 1:20 AM
justincredible;815400 wrote:There were a ton of hot lesbians in Chicago this weekend. Of course, there were also a ton of unattractive lesbians as well.

You're an unattractive lesbian.
Jun 28, 2011 1:20am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jun 28, 2011 2:55 AM
BGFalcons82;815610 wrote:It's a state's issue, IWP. Pure and simple. If you don't like the rules of that state, then DON'T MOVE THERE. Pretty simple if you ask me. Ditto for taxes, for example. If you don't like paying confiscatory tax rates in NYC for example, you have the FREEDOM to move to another city. Or do you believe that all city and tax rates should be equal across the entire 57 states?

Your woman/ black example is false equivalence.
Ok, Ohio now says that blond haired people are not allowed. If you don't like it you can move to another state right so there's nothing wrong with that in your mind.
majorspark;815622 wrote:This is a red herring. Being a black women is not immoral and is not considered so by nearly all Americans. 10's of millions believe homosexuality to be immoral. If they don't want their state to sanction what they believe to be an immoral activity if your not a resident of that state who cares. I could care less New York is legalizing gay marriage. I don't live there.
Many believed that interracial marriages were immoral would it not have been an injustice for those to be banned?
Jun 28, 2011 2:55am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 28, 2011 5:43 AM
I Wear Pants;816052 wrote:
Many believed that interracial marriages were immoral would it not have been an injustice for those to be banned?
State Sanctioned marriage is unnecessary. Anyone that wants can be married if we get the State out of the way. There's no reason for government to be involved in this matter at all. Fight for that and you will have your equality.
Jun 28, 2011 5:43am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jun 28, 2011 7:48 AM
Ty Webb;815790 wrote:I've been reading that Cuomo pushed so hard for this to set himself up as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016
Considering that gay marriage has been defeated by the voters every time it's been on the ballot, (including California) I'd love to see Cuomo get the '16 nomination.
Jun 28, 2011 7:48am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jun 28, 2011 7:55 AM
Con_Alma;816077 wrote:State Sanctioned marriage is unnecessary. Anyone that wants can be married if we get the State out of the way. There's no reason for government to be involved in this matter at all.

So there is no reason for the state to recognize marriages for estate purposes? Or next of kin? or guardianship? etc etc etc.

The argument that the government should have nothing to do with marriage really makes no sense. Unless you want everyone to have to go to a lawyer and write up a POA, living will, living trust, etc etc for everything in your life, government recognizing marriage is the only way to go
Jun 28, 2011 7:55am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 28, 2011 8:00 AM
LJ;816097 wrote:...

The argument that the government should have nothing to do with marriage really makes no sense. ...o
Nothing to do with it? It didn't say that. The government should NOT have a say in who does or doesn't get married. Benefits and privileges can by accomplished and proved without gaining the "permission" to the government to get married.
Jun 28, 2011 8:00am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jun 28, 2011 9:02 AM
I Wear Pants;816052 wrote:Ok, Ohio now says that blond haired people are not allowed. If you don't like it you can move to another state right so there's nothing wrong with that in your mind.

Please stop, IWP. You're digging deeper and faster than you imagine.

Texas, and other states (including Ohio), had referendums on this question and the people voted to state a marriage is between a man and a woman. There was never...and will never....be a vote to banish blondes. The will of the people, and now the law of their land, is to keep marriage heterosexual in their state. Some states, such as New York, believe that anyone can marry anyone. So be it. I know it's such a old-fashioned, out-dated, neanderthal-headed, redneckin idea to have 50 separate states...oops, I mean 57...but that's our Constitution. At least for now, anyways.
Jun 28, 2011 9:02am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jun 28, 2011 9:42 AM
Con_Alma;816100 wrote:Nothing to do with it? It didn't say that. The government should NOT have a say in who does or doesn't get married. Benefits and privileges can by accomplished and proved without gaining the "permission" to the government to get married.

I'm not talking about permission, I am talking about recognition. You said "government sanctioned marriage" which would include recognition. So do you want them to recognize marriage and all of the legal benefits that come along with it, or do you think every married couple should have to go and file POA's and living wills and trusts?
Jun 28, 2011 9:42am
Sage's avatar

Sage

Senior Member

2,070 posts
Jun 28, 2011 1:11 PM
It's almost pathetic how America, a country with A FUCK TON OF TROUBLE ON ITS HANDS, spends so much time squabbling about two gay dudes getting married. Honestly, who gives a shit?

Times change. Things change. Don't you anti-gay marriage folks realize how dumb and stupid you will look in a mere 30 years? Actually, I guess you don't, because most of you will be dead by then.

#flameon
Jun 28, 2011 1:11pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jun 28, 2011 1:17 PM
BGFalcons82;816145 wrote:Please stop, IWP. You're digging deeper and faster than you imagine.

Texas, and other states (including Ohio), had referendums on this question and the people voted to state a marriage is between a man and a woman. There was never...and will never....be a vote to banish blondes. The will of the people, and now the law of their land, is to keep marriage heterosexual in their state. Some states, such as New York, believe that anyone can marry anyone. So be it. I know it's such a old-fashioned, out-dated, neanderthal-headed, redneckin idea to have 50 separate states...oops, I mean 57...but that's our Constitution. At least for now, anyways.
Is marriage a right?

If it is then why do you believe it's okay to restrict that right to only people you approve of?

Sage makes a good point. The people arguing against gay marriage are in 30 years going to look like the assholes standing outside those schools in Alabama to keep the black kids from entering. Don't be on the wrong side of history.
Jun 28, 2011 1:17pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Jun 28, 2011 1:40 PM
BGFalcons82;816145 wrote:There was never...and will never....be a vote to banish blondes.
I agree that a vote to banish blondes would be stupid. But the fact that it never happened doesn't make his example any less valid and the idea that someone should be able to tell someone else who they can marry any more valid.
Jun 28, 2011 1:40pm
F

FairwoodKing

Senior Member

2,504 posts
Jun 28, 2011 2:51 PM
Every poll that has been taken shows that young people (under 34) favor gay rights, including marriage, and it's the senior citizens (55+) who oppose. If we could just get AARP to support gay marriage, it would pass in every state.
Jun 28, 2011 2:51pm
F

FairwoodKing

Senior Member

2,504 posts
Jun 28, 2011 2:53 PM
I just hope we don't get Mitt Romney in the White House. Having a gd Mormon as president would set the gay movement back twenty years.
Jun 28, 2011 2:53pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Jun 28, 2011 2:59 PM
FairwoodKing;816409 wrote:I just hope we don't get Mitt Romney in the White House. Having a gd Mormon as president would set the gay movement back twenty years.

Nice broad brush you're painting with there.
Jun 28, 2011 2:59pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jun 28, 2011 3:04 PM
FairwoodKing;816409 wrote:I just hope we don't get Mitt Romney in the White House. Having a gd Mormon as president would set the gay movement back twenty years.

I just hope we don't get Barney Frank in the White House. Having a gd gay as president would set AIDS research back twenty year.
Jun 28, 2011 3:04pm
F

FairwoodKing

Senior Member

2,504 posts
Jun 28, 2011 3:05 PM
FatHobbit;816414 wrote:Nice broad brush you're painting with there.

It's the truth. When the referendum came up in California a couple of years ago to legalize gay marriage, the Mormon Church spent millions and put all of their human resources behind its defeat. If it hadn't been for the Mormons, the thing would have passed. The last thing the gay world needs is a Mormon president.
Jun 28, 2011 3:05pm
F

FairwoodKing

Senior Member

2,504 posts
Jun 28, 2011 3:06 PM
LJ;816419 wrote:I just hope we don't get Barney Frank in the White House. Having a gd gay as president would set AIDS research back twenty year.

You're an idiot.
Jun 28, 2011 3:06pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jun 28, 2011 3:07 PM
FairwoodKing;816424 wrote:You're an idiot.

My statement was no worse than yours.
Jun 28, 2011 3:07pm
F

FairwoodKing

Senior Member

2,504 posts
Jun 28, 2011 3:11 PM
We gays have a right to fear a Mormon president. Straights need to fear a Mormon president, too. We don't need someone in the White House who is ultraconservative on social issues.
Jun 28, 2011 3:11pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Jun 28, 2011 3:11 PM
FairwoodKing;816422 wrote:It's the truth. When the referendum came up in California a couple of years ago to legalize gay marriage, the Mormon Church spent millions and put all of their human resources behind its defeat. If it hadn't been for the Mormons, the thing would have passed. The last thing the gay world needs is a Mormon president.

I would imagine that one mormon represents all mormons as equally as one homosexual represents all homosexuals.
Jun 28, 2011 3:11pm
F

FairwoodKing

Senior Member

2,504 posts
Jun 28, 2011 3:25 PM
FatHobbit;816429 wrote:I would imagine that one mormon represents all mormons as equally as one homosexual represents all homosexuals.

Everyone who is an active member of a politically-charged church like the Mormons has something in common with all other Mormons. They all share certain values, even though there may be small individual differences. Similarly, most gays share certain values. I know hundreds of gays and lesbians because of my participation with Seattle Men's Chorus. Every one of them is in favor of gay marriage and they all oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell. Yes, there are gay conservatives. They are called Log Cabin Republicans. But even they are in favor of gay marriage and oppose DADT.
Jun 28, 2011 3:25pm