Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Obama wrestling with gay marriage question

This is what we get when we have an arrogant, narcissist in office who doesn't give a rats-rear-end about this nation only that he gets his way.  And this afternoon his demand was finally met.  Today he pridefully signed the new bill allowing gays to openly serve in combat.


And.... had the audacity to state that it would strengthen our military. Please tell me how being openly gay is going make our military stronger?  The man is so consumed with gay rights, etc.  He can't see passed his own hands.

Get this, a few hours after he signed this disastrous bill, he began to wrestle with the question of whether gays should have the right to marry.

He was so anxious to get this bill passed that he didn't even bother to way the options or the consequences of what this bill would represent to this nation.


I cannot believe how much damage this man has caused in just two years being in office and what even gets me angrier, are the Republicans who have stroked his pride and are kissing up to him and to his liberal cohorts.


I detest liars, traitors and hypocrites. 





34 comments:

Always On Watch said...

OMG!

I am strongly opposed to gay marriage.

BHO is pandering for votes -- the gay voting block and all that.

I look for him to come out in support of gay marriage.

BTW, my friends with "gaydar" believe that BHO is a bisexual. I think so too, but can't prove my suspicion.

Uncle Walt said...

Can anybody give me one valid, not bible based, reason that gays SHOULDN'T be allowed to serve?

According to the survey of or troops, most of them don't care even while most of them acknowledge that they are already serving with gays who haven't been outed yet.

I don't get where you claim that President Obama has not considered the consequences. The Pentagon has been studying this for a year now. Other countries with very capable militaries already have openly gay soldiers and they are still very capable militaries.

The only reason to support this insane discrimination is that you personally don't like gays and find the fact that they love people of their own gender to be some how disgusting or sinful. Find, no one requires any of you to like gays, but your prejudice isn't an actual justification for discrimination.

So other than just blatant mindless discrimination, why shouldn't they ba allowed to serve openly?

Uncle Walt said...

We could, of course, have the same discussion about gay marriage.

Other than simple discrimination based on gender, why should we limit the civil contract called marriage to hetero couple?

Karen Howes said...

I detest liars, traitors, and hypocrites too, Leticia.

Have a very merry CHRIST-mas, my friend.

Leticia said...

AOW, I am also against gay marriage and I have pretty much spoken my piece on this subject. I wonder if he really is, because he is seriously obsessed with the gay agenda.

UW, what does sexual orientation have to do with being in combat or being in the armed forces? NOTHING...that's the whole point. And for the record I have never said,"I do not like gays." On the contrary, I believe they need help, love and compassion. It is the lifestyle that they embrace that I will condemn and abhor. And you right, I believe the homosexual argument is moot.

Karen, you too!! HUGS AND KISSES!

tha malcontent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tha malcontent said...

Opposed to gay marriage or not and I happen to be for it. The way that I see it is, If a gay person wants to be married to his or her partner, why doe's it hurt anyone else.
And if a person love this country enough and is brave enough to put their life on the line fighting for their country, then I say, give them anything they want. Period.
The thing is that Obama is being called the "Come back Kid" for having a few victories. Obama was able to buy some victories at the last moment and no one is talking about the lousy bills that he has past like the Start bill. Another move to put us in second place to the Russians.
We MUST get rid of those Rino's who can't be trusted to vote against the slop that Obama calls his policies.
The Dems load these bills with Pork and call the Republicans un-American for not supporting them. The real test for Comrade Obama begins on January 5th, when the Dems lose control of the Congress. If you really think that the the Kenyan Marxist is the "Come back kid" then just wait, and see whats in store for him then..

Uncle Walt said...

Leticia,

We detest liars, traitors, and hypocrites.
I am sure all also detest pedophiles, murders, and terrorists.

So I guess we agree on something.

None of which provides any sort of justification for discriminating against someone because of who they fall in love with or sleep with.

I am still waiting for some reality based reason for denying gays the ability to serve their country in the military.

MK said...

obongo wrestling about the gays marrying is pure lies. The only thing he's wrestling with is how to deceive the public into accepting it. He's made up his mind long ago.

"why should we limit the civil contract called marriage to hetero couple?"

The same reason you shouldn't be allowed to marry your father or your mother or your children or your siblings.

And as for the mythical discrimination against homos, they're not stopped from marrying, homosexual men are allowed to get married.

It's to who they get married where the limits must apply.

Uncle Walt said...

MK,
What is the justification for "It's to who they get married where the limits must apply."

What business is it of the state who you marry?

MK said...

So if you want to marry your 8-year-old daughter, the state has no right to stop you huh. You really need that explained to you?

Leticia said...

My whole anger point is the fact that gays feel they have the right to flaunt their lifestyle and forcing people to accept it.

As I stated earlier, what does sexual orientation have to do with serving in the military? Nothing. There is absolutely no reason at all.

Nuff said.

Uncle Walt said...

The 8 year old argument is silly. No child can enter into a legally binding unlimited duration contract. They can't buy a car, they can't take out a loan, get a driver's license or enter into the civil contract called marriage.

Its the same reason you can't marry your dog or your goat or what ever your animal of choice is, the beast cannot enter into a contract.

Is that the best you can do?

Uncle Walt said...

Leticia,

Either I am missing your point or we are agreeing on something.

It sounds to me like you are saying a persons sexual orientation is irrelavent to their ability to serve their country so gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military.

Did I get that right?

MK said...

You're the one who asked the stupid question walter.

If you don't want to hear "silly" answers, then i suggest you don't ask stupid questions and pretend to be a fool in the first place.

MK said...

"Is that the best you can do?"

What's that about walter, why are you getting bitchy, welfare cheque a bit late this month old son, cops staking out your pot dealers crib?

Uncle Walt said...

Somehow asking what business the government has telling people who they can marry is silly.

I would think since you all seem so opposed to allowing gays to marry, that you might actualy have some real reasons for your opposition.

But I guess that would be asking too much

Leticia said...

UW, spot-on. I want our military men and women to concentrate on protecting our nation, protecting themselves and not have something as "gay rights" being thrust upon them and worrying about it.

They cannot afford to have any kind of distraction, especially in combative situations.

So, absolutely, sexual preference is not relevant in any manner or form when it comes to serving in the military.

Mal, I guess we will have to disagree on this one matter, because I will never support the gay marriage or adoption., etc.

MK, precisely.

Uncle Walt said...

Leticia,

Other than your distaste for homosexuality, what is your justification for opposing gay marriage?

Why is it any of the states business who a person marries?

Leticia said...

Sorry, UW, but we have had this conversation and I am not getting into another one.

MK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Uncle Walt said...

Evening MK,

A large number of states have passed either laws or state constitutional amendments denying gays the right to marry whomever they choose.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines Marriage as a union between a man and a woman which supports the states denying gays the right to marry.

AOW stated that she is "strongly opposed to gay marriage"

Leticia stated "I am also against gay marriage"

And then you added this "i told you this before, they are free to marry, just not to people of the same sex".

So I have asked what it the justification for the state telling anyone who they can marry.

And no one has given me a reason.

Many of you are opposed to gay marriage, but noone has a reason?

I didn't think it would be that hard a question.

MK said...

"Somehow asking what business the government has telling people who they can marry is silly."

I already showed you why it isn't silly walter. Read my comments, from the top son, unless off course you're just weaseling around refusing to listen and then crying out that no one said anything. If that's the case why don't you just go away, that way you won't be confronted with facts and reason, which clearly frighten and confuse you.

Oh and walter, the gubbmint isn't sitting around holding meetings to decide who walter can marry and who walters boooyfriend cannot marry, there is no department of marriage taking marriage applications walter, at least not yet. The gubbmint only steps in to prevent you from marrying your 8 year old son, your pig, your dog, your brother, your mother, sister etc. In the same way it steps in to prevent robberies, war etc.

"I would think since you all seem so opposed to allowing gays to marry, that you might actualy have some real reasons for your opposition."

The reasons were clearly stated, it's not our fault that you're either too stupid to understand them or simply choose to ignore them and squeal that nothing was said, like an irritating child. And again walter, no one is opposing homos from getting married, neither the gubbmint nor any one else, pass the joint son, i told you this before, they are free to marry, just not to people of the same sex, so please stop caterwauling that homos aren't allowed to marry.

"But I guess that would be asking too much"

Yes, expecting a dumb liberal to actually listen and allow some reasoning past his thick skull really is too much.

MK said...

Evening walter. Read the following slowly son, read it very slowly, then read it again and again.

"A large number of states have passed either laws or state constitutional amendments denying gays the right to marry whomever they choose."

Show me the laws that expressly state that - a homosexual man/woman is not allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. Because that would be unfair.

No one, straight or gay is allowed to marry whomever they choose walter e.g. their children, their pigs, dogs, father, mother etc, so stop pretending that it's only you homos who are persecuted. It isn't, no matter how much you wail and whine.

"So I have asked what it the justification for the state telling anyone who they can marry. And no one has given me a reason."

So where is your letter from the gubbmint telling you walter who you can marry. I'd like to see who is on the approved list for walter. Otherwise stop making stuff up son.

I'll say it again walter, read my comments again, my reasons are already there. I have repeated them again and again, you only have to scroll up and read them, or stop whining that none were given.

I didn't think it would be that hard to do, but then again your stupidity keeps surprising me.

Uncle Walt said...

Evening MK,

And yet you avoid the question.

We both agree that there are no laws forbidding any adult from marrying another other adult of the same sex.

You keep telling me that like its some sort of revealed wisdon.

But that wasn't the question was it?


The question is simply, what is the justification for the state telling a man that he can not marry another man?

And

What is the justification for the state telling a woman that she can not marry another woman?

That simple question is one that you have not yet answered.

MK said...

"And yet you avoid the question."

No i haven't, you keep avoiding the answer all the while squealing that none was given.

"We both agree that there are no laws forbidding any adult from marrying another other adult of the same sex."

No you bungling fool, there ARE laws forbidding any adult from marrying another other adult of the SAME sex. There are no laws forbidding any adult [which by the way includes homos] from marrying another other adult of the OPPOSITE sex. For @#$%sakes walter, you really are a thickie aren't you.

On the plus side, you've stopped caterwauling your earlier stupidity, which i won't mention for fear of you falling back down the ladder and having to start all over again. Grinding progress but progress none the less. Gold star for you walter.

"You keep telling me that like its some sort of revealed wisdon."

Yes because you keep getting it mixed up you fool. Either that or you can't even read, in addition to your poor spelling.

"The question is simply, what is the justification for the state telling a man that he can not marry another man?"

And the answer is in my earlier comments, you're either too stupid to see it or are unwilling to see it walter.

"What is the justification for the state telling a woman that she can not marry another woman?"

Same as the one for denying walter and harry, walter and his mother, walter and his daughter, walter and his brother, walter and his sister, walter and his stupid pig.

"That simple question is one that you have not yet answered."

And that simple answer is one that you have not yet acknowledged or don't have the mental ability to see which is what i'm putting my $2 on.

Uncle Walt said...

Evening MK,

You keep on insisting that you have answered my questions and that your answers are somewhere in this thread.

Could you do me a small favor and simply repost your answer to my questions cause I haven't found them.

Just for clarity, here are my questions again.

The question is simply, what is the justification for the state telling a man that he can not marry another man?

And

What is the justification for the state telling a woman that she can not marry another woman?

I hope this isn't too much to ask.

And thanks for commenting on my blog, all comments are always greatly appreciated.

Leticia said...

UW,

The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union.

When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve - not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created.

If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

I'm done.

MK said...

"You keep on insisting that you have answered my questions and that your answers are somewhere in this thread."

I have, repeatedly, you simply have to read them. Fact is there is no point really anymore because you don't want to see my answer. Horse to water, forcing it to drink, you know what i mean. Though in your case 'ass' is more appropriate, seeing as how that's your party emblem and all that.

"Could you do me a small favor and simply repost your answer to my questions cause I haven't found them."

I ain't doing you any favors chump, besides i can't teach you to read or teach you comprehension, perhaps you can try one of those teachers unions you no doubt favor. And as far as i know, the medical field has not invented a cure for stupidity. I vaguely remember reading news of a 'stupid' pill a while ago, but seeing as how many stupid liberals [not counting you] there are out there, i doubt the trials were successful. So you're outta luck walter.

"I hope this isn't too much to ask."

It really is walter, particularly when you simply won't listen. Perhaps the problem is that you asked for an answer when what you really wanted was to be convinced, subtle difference walter which is another thing that escapes you.

"And thanks for commenting on my blog, all comments are always greatly appreciated."

No worries walter, your insane ramblings were most amusing.

jez said...

MK should be thanked for providing the most consistently amusing commentary on this blog.

MK claims that gay marriage is prohibited for "[t]he same reason you shouldn't be allowed to marry your father or your mother or your children or your siblings."

The reasons for incest being illegal include
1) genetic concerns, since incestuous unions can produce deformed offspring,
2) to protect children,
3) to protect the family generally from sexual jealousy and rivalry,
4) to conform with religious commandments.

The first 3 do not apply to adult homosexual unions: they do not produce offspring, the participants are not children, and they are not familial. The 4th is not a good enough reason to propose or maintain a law in a secular democracy such as ours.

Are there any other reasons? (either to prohibit incest, or non-incest derived reasons to prohibit homosexual unions?)

Please note that many forms of adult, consensual incest are not penalised in some states. Incestuous marriages are generally prohibited, although some states might let you marry a first cousin or an in-law.

MK said...

You're welcome jez.

And actually no, walter asked me for my reason for opposing gay marriage, what you listed is among the reasons why i oppose it. I didn't state that what i said is why states have laws preventing same-sex marriage. If you or walter want to know why specific governments, states or countries prohibit same-sex marriage, feel free to ask them and whine at them all you like.

So far the proponents of same-sex marriage have not been able to convince me of the reasons for or the necessity of same-sex marriage or of the so called persecution they keep fantasizing about.

jez said...

"what you listed is among the reasons why i oppose it."
3 of which were entirely irrelevant, leaving conformity with religion.

Are you really so pious that you want to enforce your religious commandments on other people? It's funny, I don't get a particularly religious vibe from your writing style and the opinions you choose to express.

Here's a recap of your responses with (most of) the gratuitous nonsense snipped out:
"The same reason you shouldn't be allowed to marry your father or your mother or your children or your siblings."
"So if you want to marry your 8-year-old daughter, the state has no right to stop you huh. You really need that explained to you?"
"The gubbmint only steps in to prevent you from marrying your 8 year old son, your pig, your dog, your brother, your mother, sister etc. In the same way it steps in to prevent robberies, war etc."
"No one, straight or gay is allowed to marry whomever they choose walter e.g. their children, their pigs, dogs, father, mother etc, so stop pretending that it's only you homos who are persecuted."

(I hope you're proud of everything that I didn't reproduce above)

Only other comparison I can see through thick mist of ad hominem and general unpleasantness is with beastiality, although you never explicitly say that they are prohibited for the same reason. Do you think they are?

Can you see now why UW may have believed that you hadn't answered his question?

Animals are incapable of the competent, adult consent required to enter into any contract, including marriage. It is prohibited for that reason. Members of the same gender enter into contracts with each other all the time, so their marriages must be prohibited for a different reason.

MK said...

"Here's a recap of your responses with (most of) the gratuitous nonsense snipped out:"

There i was thinking that you were being nice with your earlier compliment, should have known, asshole.

"Only other comparison I can see through thick mist of ad hominem and general unpleasantness is with beastiality, although you never explicitly say that they are prohibited for the same reason. Do you think they are?"

Want to marry a pig jezebel? On the plus side for you, it can't say no.

So far the proponents of same-sex marriage have not been able to convince me of the reasons for or the necessity of same-sex marriage or of the so called persecution they keep fantasizing about.

But feel free to waffle on about thick mists and bestiality.

jez said...

No, I was extending your usage of "amusing" to mean "insane ramblings." I thought it was clear enough since it followed on directly from where you'd set it up, but it's my own fault I should have flagged it up more for you.

I should have repeated this already, since of course once isn't enough for you to get it:

"Animals are incapable of the competent, adult consent required to enter into any contract, including marriage."

Is it starting to sink in?

"So far the proponents of same-sex marriage have not been able to convince me of the reasons for or the necessity of same-sex marriage"

Should you need convincing? Isn't the presumption always towards freedom? Isn't it you who said
"I don’t want your permission, that is the sort of totalitarian, collectivist world you want, where some people get to decide what others can and can’t do based on their various fantasies."

So far your only relevant objection to homosexual union appears to be religious, which many people would describe it as fantasy. Still more people would write your religion off as insincere, based on your uncharitable, violent and fantastically amusing writing.