Obama-Marriage Debate - Columbus, OH

Discuss the national Obama-Marriage debate in Columbus, OH.

Are you with President Obama in supporting gay marriage?

Columbus is with Obama on gay marriage.
Yes, all the way
 
83
Not at all
 
67
I'm on the fence
 
1

Vote now in Columbus:

Ignatz

Cincinnati, OH

#576 Feb 4, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
Portray them (or not) any way you like, but unless you can prove they are harming you or violating your superior rights, you should have no say in what they do or don't do.
They violate peoples property rights and 1st amendment rights when they reach in taxpayer pockets for monies to support the nasty consequences of their hedonistic behaviors (STDs and abortions and AIDS).

They violate peoples 1st amendment free speech rights when they promote prosecution of hate speech.

They violate the peoples 1st amendment rights when they claim pornography is free speech, and force their ideology on every community.

They violate children and parents rights with their child molestation, recruitment, and public school indoctrination activities.

They violate the right to life with their promotion of taxpayer financed elective abortion.

They violate the entire US constitution with their promotion of national democracy and a Diversity victim cult and a crony capitalist totalitarian central government.

They violate 1st amendment free speech by forcing taxpayers to support national government AIDS hysteria, free AIDS treatments, and AIDS propaganda.

They violate basic property rights by stealing taxpayer monies to give NEA freebies to LGBTQ; NEA grants are welfare for offensive queer art.

They violate the peoples 9th and 10th amendment constitutional rights when they force lcoal communities to legalize sodomy.

They violate the peoples 9th and 10th amendment rights by forcing local communities to grant marriage licenses, actually public support, to promote ridiculous adult queer hedonism.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#577 Feb 4, 2013
Ignatz wrote:
<quoted text>
They violate peoples property rights and 1st amendment rights when they reach in taxpayer pockets for monies to support the nasty consequences of their hedonistic behaviors (STDs and abortions and AIDS).
Gays having abortions????? REALLY?????
They violate peoples 1st amendment free speech rights when they promote prosecution of hate speech.
How does their promoting anything violate YOUR right to free speech?
They violate the peoples 1st amendment rights when they claim pornography is free speech, and force their ideology on every community.

Again, how does that prevent you from saying anything you like?
They violate children and parents rights with their child molestation, recruitment, and public school indoctrination activities.
Individuals committing crimes should be treated like individuals committing crimes. You wouldn't want to be punished for what someone else did, would you?

They violate the right to life with their promotion of taxpayer financed elective abortion.

Again, I haven't seen hordes of gay people promoting abortion... I wouldn't think that would be something they'd have an issue with.
They violate the entire US constitution with their promotion of national democracy and a Diversity victim cult and a crony capitalist totalitarian central government.
They violate 1st amendment free speech by forcing taxpayers to support national government AIDS hysteria, free AIDS treatments, and AIDS propaganda.
They violate basic property rights by stealing taxpayer monies to give NEA freebies to LGBTQ; NEA grants are welfare for offensive queer art.
They violate the peoples 9th and 10th amendment constitutional rights when they force lcoal communities to legalize sodomy.
They violate the peoples 9th and 10th amendment rights by forcing local communities to grant marriage licenses, actually public support, to promote ridiculous adult queer hedonism.
Wow. No wonder the right is flailing.
KELLERMAN

Huntsville, OH

#578 Feb 4, 2013
Ignatz wrote:
<quoted text>
They violate peoples property rights and 1st amendment rights when they reach in taxpayer pockets for monies to support the nasty consequences of their hedonistic behaviors (STDs and abortions and AIDS).
They violate peoples 1st amendment free speech rights when they promote prosecution of hate speech.
They violate the peoples 1st amendment rights when they claim pornography is free speech, and force their ideology on every community.
They violate children and parents rights with their child molestation, recruitment, and public school indoctrination activities.
They violate the right to life with their promotion of taxpayer financed elective abortion.
They violate the entire US constitution with their promotion of national democracy and a Diversity victim cult and a crony capitalist totalitarian central government.
They violate 1st amendment free speech by forcing taxpayers to support national government AIDS hysteria, free AIDS treatments, and AIDS propaganda.
They violate basic property rights by stealing taxpayer monies to give NEA freebies to LGBTQ; NEA grants are welfare for offensive queer art.
They violate the peoples 9th and 10th amendment constitutional rights when they force lcoal communities to legalize sodomy.
They violate the peoples 9th and 10th amendment rights by forcing local communities to grant marriage licenses, actually public support, to promote ridiculous adult queer hedonism.
You violate their rights with your ignorance and bigoted ways. I'M sure gay people pay taxes also and I wouldn't think they get much in return. They don't have the same rights as you and they pay taxes. How would you like to be treated as if you don't exist. It may never happen in my life time due to age, but I can assure you that gays will get the same rights as other citizens and in future years one will wonder what the fuss was about. I wonder what you have given back to society except hate.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#579 Feb 5, 2013
They don't want the same rights, they want extra rights. Gays already have the exact same rights by law that heterosexual couples have. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. What they want is an extra right, that is to marry someone of the same sex.

The biggest reason cited by gays as to wanting the extra rights is the government benefits they cannot get under their choice to be with someone of the same sex. Everything else, transfer of property, medical power of attorney and all can be created by legal processes. They want to get tax benefits traditionally reserved to families and they want government benefits usually reserved to families.
Ignatz

Cincinnati, OH

#580 Feb 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays having abortions????? REALLY?????
<quoted text>
How does their promoting anything violate YOUR right to free speech?
They violate the peoples 1st amendment rights when they claim pornography is free speech, and force their ideology on every community.
Again, how does that prevent you from saying anything you like?
<quoted text>
Individuals committing crimes should be treated like individuals committing crimes. You wouldn't want to be punished for what someone else did, would you?
They violate the right to life with their promotion of taxpayer financed elective abortion.
Again, I haven't seen hordes of gay people promoting abortion... I wouldn't think that would be something they'd have an issue with.
<quoted text>
Wow. No wonder the right is flailing.
LGBTQ are leaders of abortion advocacy.

Evidence is here:

http://www.gaycenter.org/causesincommon/resou...

http://www.aclu-sc.org/fighting-for-lgbt-righ...

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/01/27/5...

http://feminist.org/911/jobs/jobdescription.a...

The bi-sexual and questioning queer, the ""B" and "Q" of LGBTQ acronym are the main practitioners of abortion. Regardless, LGBTQ are the leaders and most strident proponents of elective abortion on demand.

Evidence is overwhelming that LGBTQ are abortion leaders and abortion advocates.

Stop lying.

It is silly to grant a marriage license, which is originally public support for raising children, to lying LGBTQ abortion advocates.

Public support via a marriage license is not to support LGBTQ hedonism or abortion; it is to support child raising.

Revealing these facts is hate, according to the Diversity mavens and PC pinheads.
Ignatz

Cincinnati, OH

#581 Feb 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays having abortions????? REALLY?????
<quoted text>
How does their promoting anything violate YOUR right to free speech?
They violate the peoples 1st amendment rights when they claim pornography is free speech, and force their ideology on every community.
Again, how does that prevent you from saying anything you like?
<quoted text>
Individuals committing crimes should be treated like individuals committing crimes. You wouldn't want to be punished for what someone else did, would you?
They violate the right to life with their promotion of taxpayer financed elective abortion.
Again, I haven't seen hordes of gay people promoting abortion... I wouldn't think that would be something they'd have an issue with.
<quoted text>
Wow. No wonder the right is flailing.
What is about the 1st amendment you don't understand...

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What in the phrase "shall make no law" is so difficult for you to comprehend?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#582 Feb 5, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
People remain free to make whatever religious definitions they feel are appropriate, and to bless whatever unions they feel appropriate. However, in the civil sphere, marriage is and ought to be regarded as the right of both hetero and homosexual couples.
according to you and your ilk.

however God disagrees with you.

Fact check by reading the bible.

go ahead and tell me how smart you are to not believe the bible.

I will continue to shake my head at your abject ignorance; and pray for you.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#583 Feb 5, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact check by reading the bible.
Best. Post. Ever.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#584 Feb 5, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Best. Post. Ever.
quite cut and dry.

you don't like it?

too bad for you.

go tell mommy

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#585 Feb 5, 2013
Ignatz wrote:
<quoted text>
What is about the 1st amendment you don't understand...
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What in the phrase "shall make no law" is so difficult for you to comprehend?
I comprehend it perfectly. And nowhere in that right is the right to take it away from others you may disagree with. You cannot legally control what someone else advocates just because you don't like it.
Ignatz

Cincinnati, OH

#586 Feb 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I comprehend it perfectly. And nowhere in that right is the right to take it away from others you may disagree with. You cannot legally control what someone else advocates just because you don't like it.
Good sentiment.

Now apply it to your federal hate speech prosecutions directed exclusively at non-diversity people.

Better yet, let the people decide as per the 9th and 10th amendments. The people directly exercise their lawmaking power through local governments.

The constitution says the people decide what is legitimate speech, not your precious totalitarian Diversity government.

It is refreshing you admit that LGBTQ are advocates of porn in general, and also advocates of porn protected as free speech by Big Brother.

Along with LGBTQ abortion advocacy, LGBTQ promotion of porn speech underscores the idea that LGBTQ are not worthy of a marriage license. Porn and sodomy and abortion advocacy are not a good environment for raising decent children.

On a side note, your precious Diversity government has also seen fit to prosecute people for any speech that remotely discusses so-called state secrets. Perhaps you should rethink your Diversity promoting strategy, because dung eaters will rightfully receieve a lot of the blame when the shat hits the fan.

Ignatz

Cincinnati, OH

#587 Feb 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I comprehend it perfectly. And nowhere in that right is the right to take it away from others you may disagree with. You cannot legally control what someone else advocates just because you don't like it.
The first amendment places absolute restrictions on the federal government, not the people.

The 14th amendment likewise places absolute restrictions on the states, not the people.

You ignorance is ridiculous.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#588 Feb 5, 2013
Ignatz wrote:
<quoted text>
Good sentiment.
Now apply it to your federal hate speech prosecutions directed exclusively at non-diversity people.[/UOTE]

Don't know what I've ever said that would make you call them "MY" federal hate speech prosecutions. I personally think it's BS, because one wouldn't normally commit a crime against someone they loved...

[QUOTE]Better yet, let the people decide as per the 9th and 10th amendments. The people directly exercise their lawmaking power through local governments.
Rights should not be subject to a vote. That's why we're a democratic republic and not a pure Democracy.
The constitution says the people decide what is legitimate speech, not your precious totalitarian Diversity government.
Wrong. The first amendment PROTECTS unpopular speech.
It is refreshing you admit that LGBTQ are advocates of porn in general, and also advocates of porn protected as free speech by Big Brother.

Anyone can advocate whatever they please. They just can't harm another or violate their superior right. Sticks and stones...

[QUOTE]Along with LGBTQ abortion advocacy, LGBTQ promotion of porn speech underscores the idea that LGBTQ are not worthy of a marriage license.
Regardless of what you think, it's going to happen. If you're offended by it, it's by your own choice.
Porn and sodomy and abortion advocacy are not a good environment for raising decent children.
So be a parent and keep your kids away from bad influences. That IS your job, isn't it?
On a side note, your precious Diversity government has also seen fit to prosecute people for any speech that remotely discusses so-called state secrets. Perhaps you should rethink your Diversity promoting strategy, because dung eaters will rightfully receieve a lot of the blame when the shat hits the fan.
Lead by example. Live your life your way (as long as you do not harm others or violate their superior rights) and live it loud. If your ways are the best, people will see and flock to emulate you. If you think you have to use force, there's probably something wrong with your ways.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#589 Feb 5, 2013
Ignatz wrote:
<quoted text>
The first amendment places absolute restrictions on the federal government, not the people.
The people ARE the government, moron!
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#590 Feb 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The people ARE the government, moron!
No, not really. They are but not in the same sense. Government can and had in times past created law or made treaties with foreign nations against the direct wished of the majority of the population. The constitution is only a document granting and restricting powers of the government, not the people or corporations. The rights held by the people are held outside of that and outside of government.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#591 Feb 5, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>No, not really. They are but not in the same sense. Government can and had in times past created law or made treaties with foreign nations against the direct wished of the majority of the population. The constitution is only a document granting and restricting powers of the government, not the people or corporations. The rights held by the people are held outside of that and outside of government.
You can choose to "not listen", or you can choose to shout over them, but you cannot legally prevent someone from advocating as they please. Just ask the KKK, or the Westboro Baptist Church.
Adif understanding

United States

#592 Feb 6, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can choose to "not listen", or you can choose to shout over them, but you cannot legally prevent someone from advocating as they please. Just ask the KKK, or the Westboro Baptist Church.
You can also choose not to give them a platform for their speech. You do not have to listen to it in your back yard for example. There are no constitutional rights that prevent you from kicking someone out for their speech or not allowing them to speech at your gig.

That was my only point, the constitution places restrictions on government, not you or me. For instance, I do not have to let you picket my store from my parking lot. I cannot stop you from doing so on the side walk across the street.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#593 Feb 6, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You can also choose not to give them a platform for their speech. You do not have to listen to it in your back yard for example. There are no constitutional rights that prevent you from kicking someone out for their speech or not allowing them to speech at your gig.
That was my only point, the constitution places restrictions on government, not you or me. For instance, I do not have to let you picket my store from my parking lot. I cannot stop you from doing so on the side walk across the street.
Of course. That would be violating your superior right... to have your property free of trespassers. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to break the law to express it. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. But, say, in a public park, you (a citizen) cannot legally stop any other citizen from speaking was what I was saying.

It's the right wingers and left wingers on the extreme... those who are trying to control other people, even if what they're doing isn't hurting anybody... who are the problem in this country...

In short. Live and let live.
Adif understanding

United States

#594 Feb 6, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That would be violating your superior right... to have your property free of trespassers. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to break the law to express it. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. But, say, in a public park, you (a citizen) cannot legally stop any other citizen from speaking was what I was saying.
It's the right wingers and left wingers on the extreme... those who are trying to control other people, even if what they're doing isn't hurting anybody... who are the problem in this country...
In short. Live and let live.
I do not know if I can add anything but a simple, Yep.. You covered it pretty well there.
Pollster

Bristolville, OH

#597 Feb 11, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
Portray them (or not) any way you like, but unless you can prove they are harming you or violating your superior rights, you should have no say in what they do or don't do.
Share how SSM would be a benefit overall to society.

Why should we pass sweeping SSM laws, for what purpose?

If you say civil rights, does that mean that polygamist, and incestuous relations have a civil right to be married as well?

And what purpose would polygamist, and incestuous marriage play in the role of benefiting our nation as a whole?

If you say that SSM should be allowed for the same financial gain that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Then what is the point of the institution of marriage to begin with, financial gain?

I thought the institution of marriage was to provide a benefit to societal norms and family.

Are we now changing the qualifier to financial gain rather then a benefit to society and the children of a society?

You may say we should have SSM because it is a civil right.

Does that mean that now we are changing the qualifier from a benefit to societal norms and children, to financial gain and civil rights?

Well then, What is the real purpose of the institution of marriage?

Should we pass laws based upon expediency and political correctness?

Has expediency and political correctness become the new qualifier for the institution of marriage?

You may say we need SSM so gay partners can visit one another in the hospital?

Has hospital visitation now become the new qualifier to rearrange the institution of marriage?

Would it not make more sense to change visitation laws?

You may say we need SSM because we have children on orphanages?

Is this now become the new qualifier for the institution of marriage?

Would it not make more sense to relax the adoption laws and allow all children to enjoy both a father and mother in the home?

You may say we should allow SSM because gay couples have been in long term relationships. But wouldn't that discriminate against the short term gay relationships?

Has long term gay relationships now become the new qualifier to rearrange the institution of marriage?

You may say we need SSM because some have served in the military?

But that would discriminant against those that haven't?

And has military service now become the new qualifier to rearrange the institution of marriage?

And what would be the new qualifier for the polygamist and incestuous couple?

And still we have not answered the most basic question, what is the purpose of SSM and what benefit does it provide to society and society's children?

Surly one cannot expect to turn the world upside down based upon something that is totally self-serving, can we?

Should not all laws be based upon those things that cause the mores and norms of a nation and family to flourish?

Should not laws be based upon those things that cause civilizations to propagate the family, rather then the individual?

Should we give full status to the concept of SSM. A concept that has no ability to fully propagate the society in which the concept is being advocated?

Civil unions? For what purpose?

Equality? Based on what?

Look, I am trying to help SSM out here.

But you have got to make you case?

Facts, not emotion.

Logic, not illogic!

Benefit, not nonsense.

Laws based upon moral underpinnings that have stood from antiquity. Not laws created to squeeze moral underpinnings out as new unproven qualifiers are created.

Laws that protect our nations most valuable asset, children. Not laws created for social experimentation with children.

Laws that strengthen heterosexual marriage. Not laws that cheapen and toy with heterosexual marriage.

I have not written to be critical!

But these questions must be answered in the pursuit of whats really best for our nation, not the individual.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Congo: Woman on Woman Rhaipe Epidemic 21 min yeah baby yeah 6
Dear Duke (Got a problem, I've got your solution) 22 min BizzyBee 97
Catman Dave 24 min BizzyBee 6
Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12) 33 min Concerned Brother 963
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 36 min truth 2,451
Man who ran on Ohio State field pleads not guilty 1 hr DPX55 1
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 1 hr obvious 31,505
Armed Contractor on Elevator with President 4 hr Male 59
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 4 hr Male 3,570

Columbus Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]