What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 7 - now what?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Bob Gray said:
Having society endorse gay marriage is a far different thing than anything to do with their "right to exist", which almost no one argues against. I don't think they're purposely trying to destroy marriage, but that it is just necessary collateral damage in their eyes to achieve the endorsement of society on their relationships. And they are so focused on achieving that endorsement that they aren't worried about the collateral damage.

It's a clash of a claimed right versus a desire to maintain certain societal mores and standards.
Click to expand...

I think they would be happy to not have it be an issue but right now it is. I will never understand how two men (or women) who love each other getting married cause any collateral damage to the idea of marriage between a man and a woman. Then again I think the last 40 years have done more to destroy marriage than the gays ever could. Shouldn't marriage be about the people involved not the orientation of the people involved?

Assuming there is a God he will judge them when their time is up, lets let them enjoy their time on Earth while they have it...it isnt like they are going to make you marry a gay ;)

Congrats on the marriage Bob :)
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Slap Shot said:
That doesn't mean you have to give them a loan. Obviously not everyone that applies for a mortgage is approved, yet for some reason there was a dramatic increase of at-risk buyers receiving loans. Again, no one forced the lenders to provide them.

btw - I'm not in any way absolving the low-risk buyers - there were far too many applicants that either had no business buying or bought way past their means, but that wasn't possible in the end were it not for the lenders.
Click to expand...

If the applicant fits Fannie/Freddie/FHA/VA underwriting criteria, yes.....you do have to approve them. To deny their loan application when there is secondary lender willing to back and/or buy the loan would bring about a flurry of Fair Lending lawsuits.

Using your logic, McDonald's is responsible for making people fat.
 
Plante26 said:
If the applicant fits Fannie/Freddie/FHA/VA underwriting criteria, yes.....you do have to approve them.
Click to expand...

What brought them there in the first place? Who set the lenders' new and more accepting criteria and/or why was there suddenly a skyrocketing rise in the number of 'qualified' applicants?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

blockski said:
Exactly.

Bob is free to have his views, but why should his views impose on the rights of others?
Click to expand...

So how do you feel about gun control? It's a legitimate question. Many on your side seem to have have no problem constraining others rights when it suits them.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I am for gun control (depending on what you mean by gun control I guess) but comparing gun control and gay rights is a bit of misnomer dont you think? Denying someone an uzi is not exactly the same as denying someone the right to get married.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

GOPHER FREAK said:
So how do you feel about gun control? It's a legitimate question. Many on your side seem to have have no problem constraining others rights when it suits them.
Click to expand...

You're going to tell me the right to marry is the same as the right to own an UZI? How about a rocket launcher?

Please.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Handyman said:
I am for gun control (depending on what you mean by gun control I guess) but comparing gun control and gay rights is a bit of misnomer dont you think? Denying someone an uzi is not exactly the same as denying someone the right to get married.
Click to expand...

I was more or less using it as a way of pointing out the hypocrisy of that post. Everyone tries to impose their views on others.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Slap Shot said:
What brought them there in the first place? Who set the lenders' new and more accepting criteria and/or why was there suddenly a skyrocketing rise in the number of 'qualified' applicants?
Click to expand...

uh, that would be Barney Frank
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Terrierbyassociation said:
Well you're being a bit dishonest here. Has gay marriage killed anyone? No. Have automatic weapons? Yes.
Click to expand...

And you are being a bit dishonest as well. Automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934. And no weapon, automatic or otherwise has killed someone by itself.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

GOPHER FREAK said:
And why use an UZI as a example? Because it's scary looking? It has no more capability than any other Semi-auto pistol.

Mabye this will explain it better than I can

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30
Click to expand...

It was the first one that came to mind...would you prefer I used a different automatic or semi automatic? Fine how about a P90 or an M16? The point is I think it is fine to control whether Joe Blow can have military grade weaponry :p
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

GOPHER FREAK said:
And you are being a bit dishonest as well. Automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934.
Click to expand...

Haven't people been trying to legalize automatic weapons for decades? And aren't they basically legal but just hard to procure?

And I'm surprised all the gun activists didn't have their hands up in the air when those activist politicians in Montana tried to violate federal law with Montana House Bill 246. Shouldn't the people make these decisions? Next thing you know we'll have judicial activists being anti American and giving rights to people whose lifestyles I don't approve of.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Handyman said:
The point is I think it is fine to control whether Joe Blow can have military grade weaponry :p
Click to expand...

My point is, Joe Blow can't get a military grade weapon. Well, he can but it's all but impossible with tax stamps and class III license. But he can have a weapon that looks like one with no more capability than a hunting rifle first introduced in 1906.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

GOPHER FREAK said:
So how do you feel about gun control? It's a legitimate question. Many on your side seem to have have no problem constraining others rights when it suits them.
Click to expand...

If Bob thinks that no one should be allowed to marry, then the parallel with gun control works. Or, if I felt that females shouldn't be allowed to carry guns, but I (as a male) can - then you'd have a parallel.

Why the opposition to same sex marriage is appalling is because it extends rights to some, but not others. Those rights are not absolute - no incest, etc.

Gun control, on the other hand, constrains the right to bear arms universally. The right to bear arms is also not absolute - no bazookas, etc - but those rules (no matter what you may think of them) apply universally, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, marital status, etc.

In short, gun control applies to everybody. Marriage restrictions do not - no dice for same-sex couples, but opposite-sex couples are good to go. That's the difference.

My stance isn't hypocritical at all (not that you ever asked my stance on gun control).
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Slap Shot said:
What brought them there in the first place? Who set the lenders' new and more accepting criteria and/or why was there suddenly a skyrocketing rise in the number of 'qualified' applicants?
Click to expand...

Ummm, obviously the lenders (ie., Fannie/Freddie/FHA/VA) loosened their criteria. Being that they are GSEs or government-backing for loans, and you have your answer: The government loosened the criteria, and the government fought to keep the standards loose despite the Bush Administration sounding the alarm numerous times.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Plante26 said:
Marriage is supposed to be about two people being in love with each other, not two people demanding recognition from the government (and by proxy, the people represented by that government).
Click to expand...

Ok 2 things.

You say marriage is supposed to be about love...do you believe that gay people who want to get married don't love eachother? If not, why do you want to deny two people that love eachother marriage?

Straight couples don't demand recognition right now...lets strip them of all the rights that gay couples don't receive and see how much they(you) demand then.



As far as the polygamy stuff go...the main reason polygamy is illegal is religious. When Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy in the 1830's-40's he kept it secret amongst a few of his quorum of the 12 until his death basically...because he was afraid of the reprucussions it would have to his followers and politically. It was either right before his death or shortly after his murder that the covenant was revealed and the backlash was enough to split his church and eventually seek condemnation from the United States...polygamy is a deeply seeded religious issue and thats why it is illegal.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

gojackets said:
Ok 2 things.

You say marriage is supposed to be about love...do you believe that gay people who want to get married don't love eachother? If not, why do you want to deny two people that love eachother marriage?

Straight couples don't demand recognition right now...lets strip them of all the rights that gay couples don't receive and see how much they(you) demand then.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Read the rest of the thread. No where do I say I wish to deny gay couples the right to marry. I don't think the government has any place in regulating marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top