Obama gay marriage support seen as world precedent

[lolol]

Gay And Proud wrote:

<quoted text>
And your stunning example of the standard anti-gay argument is why equality for LGBT citizens is inevitable.
Thanks for posting!

.
Not anti-gay and not against everyone having equal rights, but I don't have to pretend that in my personal perception your ilk is weird, just as you think straights are weird. As long as you don't invade my space, I won't invade yours, but if you're going to walk down the sidewalk with your tongues down each others throats i'll have the same reaction as I would with anyone, get a room.

[Annie Muk]

lolol wrote:

You can't legislate peoples perception of an abnormality any more than make people not stare at others with visible physical abnormalities. Just human nature.

In the U.S. mixed race couples are also "stared at". In my country no one cares what colour your spouse is, however I am 22 years older than my wife and I suppose we get "stares", but after so many years together we don't notice it anymore.

Mixed race couples, age difference couples, and homosexuals can deal with it .......... even if you can't.

[Canon]

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

It is hard to understand why so many people are upset by something that is not going to affect their lives in the least. Who exactly does gay marriage harm?

It's about the meaning of "marriage" and it for men and women only.

[Gay And Proud]

Canon wrote:

<quoted text>
It's about the meaning of "marriage" and it for men and women only.

Just like it always has, right... marriage has always been a legal contract between a man and his property... a man and his multiple wives... a man and his brother's widow... a man and the woman he raped...

On that last one, have you seen this news story? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21148...

By the way, could you explain to me how any heterosexual married couple has lost ANYTHING as a result of legal same-sex marriage? Legal same-sex marriage has been legal in a number of places for a few years now (like since at least 2003 in Canada) so you should have no problem finding proof to back up your claim. I just can't find any proof for that one.

[Greg]

Obama can do in USA, what he wanst, but why this sentence: another leaders should follow me. Let the kiss a.. of another leaders. Let he go for instance to his chef Netanjahu and say him that he should follow him.

[hi hi]

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

It is hard to understand why so many people are upset by something that is not going to affect their lives in the least. Who exactly does gay marriage harm?

What disturbs me so much that I've basically dropped out of participating in the "war" -- except to comment on what I see -- is that every source from individuals to news media to organizations feel it is *absolutely goddamn fair* that the public is voting on it. It's taken by now *for granted* that this is somehow "fair"; it is also taken for granted that there is absolutely *no way in the world in the United States of America under any state or federal law* to stop this from happening.

I had such a profound, profound problem with that from the beginning and it has never, ever gone away. It has completely changed how I see the world, completely. Now, when someone is talking about like, racism, and they say to a white person, "How dare you chime in," I laugh in their goddamn faces; ANYONE can weigh in on ANY subject that doesn't affect them IN THE SLIGHTEST if these people can vote on gay marriage.

If people who are completely unaffected can vote on gay marriage, I can tell the damn federal government how to run itself as if I were an expert. I could involve myself in any public/social problem NO MATTER whether I have any say or not. It's also why I vehemently judge the churches now, and what they do. Why? Because it is my goddamn business, end of statement, if gay marriage is the business of the general public, end of statement. I *dare* you (not you; I am saying generally, to whoever) to tell me it's not.

I thank you for your post, by the way.

[hi hi]

lolol wrote:

<quoted text>
.
Not anti-gay and not against everyone having equal rights, but I don't have to pretend that in my personal perception your ilk is weird, just as you think straights are weird. As long as you don't invade my space, I won't invade yours, but if you're going to walk down the sidewalk with your tongues down each others throats i'll have the same reaction as I would with anyone, get a room.

*shrug* It's a fair reaction if it's the same reaction you'd have to a heterosexual couple. In fact, people really can't indict you if it's your GENERAL reaction to this sort of thing. That's fair.

What the virulently antigay do is say that heterosexual couples can *mouthfuck in public* while a gay couple had better not *dare* look at each other or stand within five feet of each other, which is why this culture war is now called a "war," as I'm sure you know.

[See the Light]

If Muslim Countries were laughing at Obama before, since he announced that he support's gay's -I'm sure they hate him now and the U.S. even more.

[hi hi]

See the Light wrote:

If Muslim Countries were laughing at Obama before, since he announced that he support's gay's -I'm sure they hate him now and the U.S. even more.

I want nothing to do with any ideology that tries to rape people of their individuality. I am not goddamn interested in what any of those countries thinks. I mean, I realize I'm not able to read the tone of your response, but I had to laugh: What topic could have been brought up that I give less of a SHIT about? Nothing against you. But seriously.

[Annie Muk]

Greg wrote:

Obama can do in USA, what he wanst, but why this sentence: another leaders should follow me.

This is typical self-propagating, American propaganda.

* The Soviet Union kicked Hitlers azz that ended the war by way of Germany's surrender to the Soviet Union, yet afterwards the U.S. staged a mock surrender to them to make it looks as though it was the U.S. that "won the war".

* The Soviet Union had agreed to dismantle their missile sites in Cuba only if the U.S. would remove theirs from Turkey, yet the U.S. has it written as though the USSR "backed down unconditionally" in the face of American determination and might. Furthermore, it was because of the American missle sites in Turkey (aimed at Soviet cities) that was the reason for the Soviet's placement of their own missles in Cuba in the first place, although the U.S. claims Soviet missiles were an unprovoked act of agression.

* Hungary had already allowed east Europeans safe passage through their borders to the west and the downfall of the "Iron Curtain" was already assured, yet Ronald Reagan quickly tried to capitalize on the situation by demanding that Gorbatjov "tear down the wall" to make it seem that it was the U.S. that had "won the Cold War".

* As has been pointed out, several countries have already approved same sex marriages, but Obama is trying to look like the man who sets a new standard.

Typical self-propagating, American propaganda.

[Annie Muk]

hi hi wrote:

<quoted text>

If people who are completely unaffected can vote on gay marriage, I can tell the damn federal government how to run itself as if I were an expert.

It's called "DEMOCRACY".

[hi hi]

Annie Muk wrote:

<quoted text>
It's called "DEMOCRACY".

Yet for some weird, weird, weird reason, people *DON'T* call it

"DEMOCRACY"

when it curtails the rights of

ya know

WOMEN

and BLACK PEOPLE

and HISPANICS

and so forth.

Suddenly, they trip all over their own feet NOT to call it democracy.

Your post sounds bizarrely short-sighted and manipulative, since no one like you will EVER admit that democracy was also was brought about,

ya know

the inability of women to vote

or the enslavement of Africans

or segregation

ya know, all the things we SUDDENLY ALL CLAIM TO BE BAD,

all of them allowable through

what was your word?

"DEMOCRACY."

[Annie Muk]

hi hi wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet for some weird, weird, weird reason, people *DON'T* call it
"DEMOCRACY"
when it curtails the rights of
ya know
WOMEN
and BLACK PEOPLE
and HISPANICS
and so forth.
Suddenly, they trip all over their own feet NOT to call it democracy.
Your post sounds bizarrely short-sighted and manipulative, since no one like you will EVER admit that democracy was also was brought about,
ya know
the inability of women to vote
or the enslavement of Africans
or segregation
ya know, all the things we SUDDENLY ALL CLAIM TO BE BAD,
all of them allowable through
what was your word?
"DEMOCRACY."

You apparently don't know what "democracy" is, otherwise you wouldn't blame it for those things (that you mention) that were caused by NON-democratic priciples.

Are you of the misinformed notion that the U.S. is a democratic nation?

[hi hi]

Annie Muk wrote:

<quoted text>
You apparently don't know what "democracy" is, otherwise you wouldn't blame it for those things (that you mention) that were caused by NON-democratic priciples.
Are you of the misinformed notion that the U.S. is a democratic nation?

Oh, that's so funny, you miss the *only explanation that would make sense* in my response to you.

Think slowly.

Let's take a little guess: Could I have responded in that manner because I was *mimicking* YOUR definition of "democracy"? Could I have responded in that manner because I presumed *you* didn't know what "democracy" is?

You missed that: At no point in responding to me did you presume that I might presume YOU were wrong, since you're "oh so sure" that you're correct.

Your attempts to pull a "more knowledgeable than thou" attitude aren't working. The reason?... The votes are philosophically not fair nor democratic *in the most generalized sense of the word*; they are, in fact, a rape of rights. I mean, I can either make that point by pointing to other such rapes of rights in history, or I can make that point by implying that I think *you* have a misplaced value system.

But do you really think ...

... do you actually believe ... that your post will *change the way I see* those votes and what is happening to families with children?

If so, you need to check the definition of "logic" before you check that of "democracy." Logic dictates, with your attitude and tone, that I am hardly allowing myself to be led by the likes of you to any "understanding" of anything.

Thanks for reading.

[Annie Muk]

hi hi wrote:

<quoted text>
At no point in responding to me did you presume that I might presume YOU were wrong, since you're "oh so sure" that you're correct.

OK, now I get it. You're just plain bonkers with a chip on your shoulder. Of course, that presumptuous presumption is based upon the formerly debunked presumption of your presumptiousness not withstanding any previous presumption in the slightest.

[taffman]

A few years ago if you were bent, You were hung drawn and quartered, later they were just hung, then later they were imprisoned then in the sixties they made it legal, then they called for equal rights and went on gay rallies to get more rights, then they demanded acceptance, then they prosecuted those who found their ways distastfull, next they wanted to have children which is imposibe when you concider their life style, now they want something which can only be applied to a man and a woman. They will get it, as every politician will jump on the band wagon to gain more votes irrispective of what the rest of us think. I was told what happens behind closed doors is their buissnes, but we are being forced to listen and watch as these people screem about their rights day in day out, personally I think they are just a bunch of selfish, greedy, un-natural, people. Am I homophobic? No, a phobia is an unreasonable fear of something. I am homodisgusted. like the majority of the population.

[Annie Muk]

taffman wrote:

A few years ago if you were bent, You were hung drawn and quartered, later they were just hung, then later they were imprisoned then in the sixties they made it legal, then they called for equal rights and went on gay rallies to get more rights, then they demanded acceptance, then they prosecuted those who found their ways distastfull, next they wanted to have children which is imposibe when you concider their life style, now they want something which can only be applied to a man and a woman. They will get it, as every politician will jump on the band wagon to gain more votes irrispective of what the rest of us think.

Having seen most of "Little Britain" I was of the distinct impression that homosexualality is now mandatory in the UK. Is that not true then?

[taffman]

Annie Muk wrote:

<quoted text>
Having seen most of "Little Britain" I was of the distinct impression that homosexualality is now mandatory in the UK. Is that not true then?

Im thinking of moving to Sweden before they make homosexuality compulsary.

[Annie Muk]

taffman wrote:

<quoted text>
Im thinking of moving to Sweden before they make homosexuality compulsary.

That would be a bad move I'm afraid. Sweden all but glorifies homosexuals, and camp celebritites are adored above all others. It's our way of substantiating that we are not homophobes!

[Freebird USA]

Since Americans are fed a constant diet of stories about how America is despised around the world,why would anyone follow the Pres lead on this issue?