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?

blockski said:
Isn't that exactly what gay marriage is? The state recognizes it - no one is forcing churches to start wedding homosexuals.

So, if the whole argument is about semantics - they just don't like the fact that it's called marriage - that makes the arguments against it even weaker, IMO.

Gay couples should get exactly the same rights as straight ones. Marriage is and will continue to be recognized by the state, therefore allowing gay marriage is the only way to go.

Those opposed to this very simple thing are on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...

Go back and actually read my post this time.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

moe24 said:
3 - 100% agreed. But just as I said in #2, the state should only be recognizing marriages, not defining them.
Click to expand...
How exactly can you recognize something, without defining what it is you're recognizing?:confused:
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Foxton said:
How exactly can you recognize something, without defining what it is you're recognizing?:confused:
Click to expand...

Seriously?

It's quite easy. The various religious organizations all already have their various definitions of marriage. When people get married the state gives whatever taxes and benefits they deem appropriate. Thus the state is simply recognizing what religion defined.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

moe24 said:
Go back and actually read my post this time.
Click to expand...

I read it the first time, but I'll throw it up here for posterity:

moe24 said:
1 - The reason is much more simple then what you give. There just aren't enough people who feel the same as I do.

2 - No one (that I know at least) is using that as a way to deny anyone their rights. If the state wants to recognize marriages for tax or benefit purposes that's fine, but they should leave the defining of a religious institution to the religious organizations. This actually makes it easier and more open for gays to marry as there are plenty of liberal christian churches perfectly willing to marry gay couples.

3 - 100% agreed. But just as I said in #2, the state should only be recognizing marriages, not defining them.
Click to expand...

1 - Of course lots of people don't feel that way - I'm just curious as to why some of those that do put themselves in the camp that would deny gay couples the right to marry.

2 & 3 - As I said, how is the state defining marriage? By allowing gays to marry, they would actually allow churches to define marriage as they see fit, while the eyes of the state would be neutral.

For the State to allow gay marriage doesn't define anything - it is merely a recognition.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

IMO, Obama is suffering from a bad case of escapism. Add up his time off, golf days, fundraising days, useless "pitch" days (a la, olympics) and toss in time spent on issues not relative to the mid-east or the economy and it's no wonder why we're not moving forward.

Useless with a capital U.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Speaking of gays just read today that that Miss California who is against Gay marriage is getting nothing from her lawsuit filed against the pageant. Evidently they showed her the sex tape she made and that was enough to get her to concede. Go figure.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

BassAle said:
I happen to disagree.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I think there's probably a range including ignorance and hypocrisy. But there's definitely no shortage of good ol' bigotry. As John Stewart pointed out last night by way of a flippin' awesome quote from Maine's bigot-in-chief, Paul Madore. That was priceless. Sure, it was stooping pretty low for Stewart to bother with the guy, but as a Maine native, I got a kick out of it. :)
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

ScoobyDoo said:
Speaking of gays just read today that that Miss California who is against Gay marriage is getting nothing from her lawsuit filed against the pageant. Evidently they showed her the sex tape she made and that was enough to get her to concede. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Irony would be that tape being of her with another woman.;)
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

ScoobyDoo said:
Speaking of gays just read today that that Miss California who is against Gay marriage is getting nothing from her lawsuit filed against the pageant. Evidently they showed her the sex tape she made and that was enough to get her to concede. Go figure.
Click to expand...

She gets to keep her jugs though.

As for the sex tape, reportedly it shows that she is not the master of her own domain... :eek:
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

ScoobyDoo said:
Speaking of gays just read today that that Miss California who is against Gay marriage is getting nothing from her lawsuit filed against the pageant. Evidently they showed her the sex tape she made and that was enough to get her to concede. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mentioned that a page ago. :)
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

moe24 said:
Seriously?

It's quite easy. The various religious organizations all already have their various definitions of marriage. When people get married the state gives whatever taxes and benefits they deem appropriate. Thus the state is simply recognizing what religion defined.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You believe that the government can give free reign to religious groups to tell them what to do in regards to who can be married, without putting any kind of limits or their own definition on it? BTW, they still have to define what it is they are recognizing, just not specifics like "man/woman" or "woman/woman" or "man/man" but something like how only a government recognized religion can do it.

And various religions can have their definitions for whatever they want, the government is a secular entity, separation of church and state and all that. Allowing religious groups to define marriage is putting them above the government. It should very much be the other way around. Legal recognition through the state, then get the religious recognition if you want.
 
Re: Obama 7 - now what?

geezer said:
I can't think of one single instance in which use of this phrase might be accurate. I hope never to read it again. (It says that without government, nobody would have guns)
Click to expand...

Cry me a river. I think law abiding citizens should be able to own guns - I just don't find it be a God given right.

Plante26 said:
If I'm not mistaken, CRA and banking regulation was weakened under Clinton near the end of his term.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken. As I already noted it happend after Bush came into office.

Plante26 said:
That aside, it was the expansion of Fannie/Freddie loan qualifications that drove the banks further to the fringes of qualified borrowers.
Click to expand...

Again, you are mistaken. The vast majority of subprime loans didn't come from Fannie/Freddie (nor were they related to CRA) and neither did the vast majority of failed loans - they came from private lenders.

Neither of those bills ever became law, smart guy:
Click to expand...

I never said they did, but Frank backed them so I referenced them as a counter to pirate's proclamation. And I couldn't care less about ACORN, I never said anything in their defense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top