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:

Pollster

Bristolville, OH

#679 Feb 17, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
"The welfare of the children" has caused people to stay in loveless marriages while cheating, be they homosexual and "in the closet" or heterosexual. Is that any better?
I do not believe that it can be over stated that children as adults also enjoy Constitutional rights as well as the bill of rights afforded them.

Children's rights are the human rights of children with particular attention to the rights of special protection and care afforded to the young.

Including their right to association with both biological parents, human identity as well as the basic needs for food, universal state-paid education, health care and criminal laws appropriate for the age and development of the child.

Interpretations of children's rights range from allowing children the capacity for autonomous action to the enforcement of children being physically, mentally and emotionally free from abuse, though what constitutes "abuse" is a matter of debate. Other definitions include the rights to care and nurturing etc.

Homosexuals produce no offspring! They are forced to obtain children based solely upon the personal private purpose of inessential parenthood!

All homosexual adoption is totally inessential because it places the child last, it denies the child male-female parents which are essential as to whats best for the child!

All homosexual adaption best serves the private purposes of the homosexual to fit in, not the child!
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#680 Feb 17, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that you're clear on the fact that you brought that point up and not me, let's dissect it further, shall we?
Pedophilia, when acted upon, inherently involves criminal activity.
Homosexuality, when acted upon, does not.
We clear?
woof
Homosexuality was illegal until a court case determined that the government didn't have a right to dictate behavior in your bedroom. The pedophiles haven't followed the lead and challenged the law in the same way. The pedophiles can use the same argument the gays used to justify their behavior.

Because when two people love each other.. Are we clear?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#681 Feb 17, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not believe that it can be over stated that children as adults also enjoy Constitutional rights as well as the bill of rights afforded them.
Children's rights are the human rights of children with particular attention to the rights of special protection and care afforded to the young.
Including their right to association with both biological parents, human identity as well as the basic needs for food, universal state-paid education, health care and criminal laws appropriate for the age and development of the child.
Interpretations of children's rights range from allowing children the capacity for autonomous action to the enforcement of children being physically, mentally and emotionally free from abuse, though what constitutes "abuse" is a matter of debate. Other definitions include the rights to care and nurturing etc.
Homosexuals produce no offspring! They are forced to obtain children based solely upon the personal private purpose of inessential parenthood!
All homosexual adoption is totally inessential because it places the child last, it denies the child male-female parents which are essential as to whats best for the child!
All homosexual adaption best serves the private purposes of the homosexual to fit in, not the child!
The usual reason for an adoption is because the natural parents DON'T WANT TO BE or ARE INCAPABLE OF BEING parents. It is THEY who abandoned the so-called "best interest of the child", not the people who adopt it.
Pollster

Bristolville, OH

#682 Feb 17, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The usual reason for an adoption is because the natural parents DON'T WANT TO BE or ARE INCAPABLE OF BEING parents. It is THEY who abandoned the so-called "best interest of the child", not the people who adopt it.
You are still skirting the issue. Which is, whats best for the child?

And the answer is without question, a male-female.
Pollster

Bristolville, OH

#683 Feb 17, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Homosexuality was illegal until a court case determined that the government didn't have a right to dictate behavior in your bedroom. The pedophiles haven't followed the lead and challenged the law in the same way. The pedophiles can use the same argument the gays used to justify their behavior.
Because when two people love each other.. Are we clear?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academic-con...
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#684 Feb 17, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Homosexuality was illegal until a court case determined that the government didn't have a right to dictate behavior in your bedroom. The pedophiles haven't followed the lead and challenged the law in the same way. The pedophiles can use the same argument the gays used to justify their behavior.
Because when two people love each other.. Are we clear?
Its quite clear that you cannot discern the salient differences between sexual relations involving consenting adults and non-consensual criminal sexual conduct perpetrated by an adult upon a child.

Instead, you play little games acting as if the two circumstances are equivalent.

They are not.

woof
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#685 Feb 17, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
It is better for the children.
And two wrongs do not make a right. Nor does it give license to deny a child a father and mother.
You're OK with lying and duplicity "for the welfare of the children". Okey dokey, then.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#686 Feb 17, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Its quite clear that you cannot discern the salient differences between sexual relations involving consenting adults and non-consensual criminal sexual conduct perpetrated by an adult upon a child.
Instead, you play little games acting as if the two circumstances are equivalent.
They are not.
woof
lol.. I can tell the difference, The argument simply doesn't support having them though. It was used in order to make something society though should be illegal- openly accepted. Your bigotry and disdain for them will have to take a back seat when they get it accepted. BTW, I'm most all states, A child is considered adult enough to make the same choices after 13 years of age as long as who ever else is adult enough to make the decision with them is either under 18 or within 2 to 4 years of same age. So lets not pretend there is a huge difference in concept here.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#687 Feb 17, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>lol.. I can tell the difference, The argument simply doesn't support having them though. It was used in order to make something society though should be illegal- openly accepted. Your bigotry and disdain for them will have to take a back seat when they get it accepted. BTW, I'm most all states, A child is considered adult enough to make the same choices after 13 years of age as long as who ever else is adult enough to make the decision with them is either under 18 or within 2 to 4 years of same age. So lets not pretend there is a huge difference in concept here.
Doesn't support having what? Bigotry and disdain for what? I have no clue what you're talking about there.

As to the remainder, yeah, kids can generally consent to have sex with other kids after a certain age and its not a criminal act. Got a point?

woof
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#688 Feb 17, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't support having what? Bigotry and disdain for what? I have no clue what you're talking about there.
As to the remainder, yeah, kids can generally consent to have sex with other kids after a certain age and its not a criminal act. Got a point?
woof
I know you don't have a clue. The point was that they are already making adult decisions just like homosexuals were. The same argument that got Sodomy legalize can and will be used to get pedophilia legalized, the only difference is when it is used.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#689 Feb 17, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still skirting the issue. Which is, whats best for the child?
And the answer is without question, a male-female.
The issue is, you are losing, one state at a time, and you are unable to stop it.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#690 Feb 17, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I know you don't have a clue. The point was that they are already making adult decisions just like homosexuals were. The same argument that got Sodomy legalize can and will be used to get pedophilia legalized, the only difference is when it is used.
Ohhhhhhh.

Well...Sodomy's legal now. And since that decision came down, can you please tell me how many states have legalized sodomy between adults and juveniles?

woof
Pollster

Bristolville, OH

#691 Feb 17, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is, you are losing, one state at a time, and you are unable to stop it.
33 states have voted on it, 30 states voted no! The other 3 judges chose to override the will of the people.

The SCOTUS will not support it either.

It is of no benefit to society.

They will tweak hospital visitation. Homosexuals can already leave property to their toy boy, so no change there. Homosexuals might get survivor benefits, but even that's a long shot?

The only thing I see now is something cobbled together to squeeze you in. But no legit respectable marriage!

But that's not a bed thing. the other alternative is for you homosexual to lose your minority status. Which means you go to the back of the line in jobs, housing, adoption, military etc.

Not the gold rush you were expecting.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#692 Feb 17, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
33 states have voted on it, 30 states voted no! The other 3 judges chose to override the will of the people.
The SCOTUS will not support it either.
It is of no benefit to society.
They will tweak hospital visitation. Homosexuals can already leave property to their toy boy, so no change there. Homosexuals might get survivor benefits, but even that's a long shot?
The only thing I see now is something cobbled together to squeeze you in. But no legit respectable marriage!
But that's not a bed thing. the other alternative is for you homosexual to lose your minority status. Which means you go to the back of the line in jobs, housing, adoption, military etc.
Not the gold rush you were expecting.
The final blow will be when the SCOTUS rules that "rights" are not subject to a vote.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#693 Feb 17, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
33 states have voted on it, 30 states voted no! The other 3 judges chose to override the will of the people.
The SCOTUS will not support it either.
It is of no benefit to society.
They will tweak hospital visitation. Homosexuals can already leave property to their toy boy, so no change there. Homosexuals might get survivor benefits, but even that's a long shot?
The only thing I see now is something cobbled together to squeeze you in. But no legit respectable marriage!
But that's not a bed thing. the other alternative is for you homosexual to lose your minority status.
"You homosexuals" is an inaccurate depiction. I merely see the liberty issue involved.
Pollster

Bristolville, OH

#694 Feb 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The final blow will be when the SCOTUS rules that "rights" are not subject to a vote.
The SCOTUS will follow the lead of the states, and over 30 have said no? That IS the final blow!
Glittersucks

Englewood, OH

#695 Feb 18, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The final blow will be when the SCOTUS rules that "rights" are not subject to a vote.
Sheeeeet!

USSC already ignore the rights that are explicitly written now in the constitution.

Why would they honor a supposed right that is imprinted somewhere only in your tertiary-stage addled brain?
Spookhere F trolls

Detroit, MI

#696 Feb 18, 2013
Glittersucks wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheeeeet!
USSC already ignore the rights that are explicitly written now in the constitution.
Why would they honor a supposed right that is imprinted somewhere only in your tertiary-stage addled brain?
Fake glitter?
Glittersucks

Englewood, OH

#697 Feb 18, 2013
I move around, if you know what I mean, big boy.

Mazel Tov!

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

#698 Feb 18, 2013
Spookhere F trolls wrote:
<quoted text>
Fake glitter?
You need to ask my spooky?

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
Leonard Nimoy, Spock, dies at 83 5 min GlitterSucks 1
The whiners got thier way again 7 min Catman Dave 8
Austria passes laws to regulate Islam Muslims 13 min They cannot kill ... 2
Obama issues threat to ICE agent 18 min Duke for Mayor 36
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 20 min Oliver Canterberry 5,766
Scotty Walker: Sarah Palin Version 2.0 37 min Big Johnson 13
Muslim convert in Oklahoma 'BEHEADS woman 1 hr Oliver Canterberry 160
Every state has ISIS recruits 4 hr Reality Speaks 113
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]