Obama-Marriage Debate - Somerset, KY

Discuss the national Obama-Marriage debate in Somerset, KY.

Are you with President Obama in supporting gay marriage?

Somerset is not with Obama on gay marriage
Not at all
 
92
Yes, all the way
 
65
I'm on the fence
 
1

Vote now in Somerset:

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1510 Mar 18, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
Brian is trolling again but to hit on his Democrats like the wind perhaps he should pay attention to Rob Portman from OH most recent comments. Also I don't see DOMA holding up in SCOTUS. The Winds of Change are coming and bringing equality with it....brace yourself!
No doubt about that.

Just consider this single forum thread for a minute. At what point has anyone on here presented a rational, morally sound argument against marriage equality? I can't remember a single one. Instead we get everything from Leviticus and "it ain't natural" to kids need "gender diverse" parents and prison sex.

Does this scream desperation to anyone else? You don't have a leg to stand on so you make sh*t up? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. But there are millions of Americans who think this stuff sounds like good sense.

But as you say, this is going to change. I would not be surprised if these stances against marriage equality are not laughed at by virtually everyone in twenty years. Hell, when I was in high school it was still somewhat ok to tell racist jokes openly. Now they do that crap in whispers because they know nobody is going to put up with their bullsh*t.

Same will be true of same sex marriage.

Level 3

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#1511 Mar 18, 2013
Jeff wrote:
Two men having sex with each other is a crime against nature.Its the same as having sex with your sister or dog.
Wow let's talk about how southern redneck backwoods that sounds. I mean do you even still have all of your teeth? Please feel free to tell me you feel the same about yourself or any other heterosexual male world wide that wants to have anal sex with his girlfriend or wife.
KELLERMAN

Harrod, OH

#1512 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I write my opinions and you're entitled to your opinions.
.
<quoted text>Gays have the same right to marry as everyone else in Kentucky, there is no orientation test for a marriage license. Many gays marry now, they might marry because they want their children raised by the kid's mom and dad.
Why do you believe 'gays are already paying more taxes than heterosexuals'? Do you have any statistics?
.
<quoted text>I don't take my marriage for granted, next month we'll celebrate our 26th anniversary. That's twice as long as same sex marriage has existed.
.
<quoted text>Good, let's work to amend the Constitution. That would prevent courts from writing marriage law and leave it to the people and legislatures.
.
<quoted text>Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have all changed their minds on same sex marriage; they are all Democrats. John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan haven't changed their minds on same sex marriage; they are all Republicans.
Looks like we have the 'wind will flow' party and the consistent party.
.
<quoted text>If a same sex couple wants to marry, they may have a religious ceremony in Kentucky; that's perfectly legal. If they want to marry in a jurisdiction that licenses same sex marriage, they won't be arrested if they return to Kentucky.
That's not true for brother/sister incest couples or polygamists; those are felonies under Kentucky law.
I will take time to respond to one statement of yours, the rest is not important to me. I have a gay grandchild who has been with the same person for the last thirty or more years. You can understand my position. Shouldn't I be just as happy for this one who chose a different life style than that of the other or should I just turn off my feelings for them. Regardless of position on this issue more Americans are now in favor of the marriage amendment that any other time in the history of gay rights issue. I love all my grandchildren the same and I can't love any of them different. I would like all basic rights given to them that the others have. Our family will celebrate their marriage as we have the others when this discriminating issue has been resolved.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1513 Mar 19, 2013
KELLERMAN wrote:
I will take time to respond to one statement of yours, the rest is not important to me. I have a gay grandchild who has been with the same person for the last thirty or more years. You can understand my position. Shouldn't I be just as happy for this one who chose a different life style than that of the other or should I just turn off my feelings for them. Regardless of position on this issue more Americans are now in favor of the marriage amendment that any other time in the history of gay rights issue. I love all my grandchildren the same and I can't love any of them different. I would like all basic rights given to them that the others have. Our family will celebrate their marriage as we have the others when this discriminating issue has been resolved.
I wish all your grandchildren happiness, but that's no reason to rewrite marriage laws for everyone. Kellerman's grandchild has the right to love and live with another consenting adult; the issue isn't freedom, we're talking about law and culture.

So, Kellerman's position is based on feelings for her grandchild, not the general welfare of everyone in society. She supports same sex marriage because of emotion and personal benefit, not reason and the greater good of marriage in society. She reminds me of Portman's purely personal, emotional and selfish change of heart on marriage.

I wonder if Kellerman's grandchild wanted a plural marriage, would she support polygamy for the exact same reasons?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1514 Mar 19, 2013
lifes a beach wrote:
I'm going to have to disagree- marriage is a right that should be afforded to same sex consenting adults.
Homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. Many gays defend traditional marriage, every gay was born of male/female union.

.
lifes a beach wrote:
So if the people of Kentucky didn't want interracial marriage either then that would be ok too?
Ending anti-miscegenation laws is a good idea; racial differences are slight and unimportant but gender differences are great and important to the survival of the human race. I favor democratic process, the rule of law and human rights; not the special right to rewrite marriage laws for everyone.

.
lifes a beach wrote:
A majority has no right to deny minorities rights based on popular opinion.
Drunks don't get the right to drive because the law (democratic process) stops them. Our government is accountable to the people.

Same sex marriage is bad because it's antidemocratic.

.
lifes a beach wrote:
Don't get me started on that worthless fool Biden, I am all too familiar with his political antics (and that's not even really including his same sex marriage stance).
Now, we can include Hillary Clinton in our list of fair-weather friends.

.
lifes a beach wrote:
I do agree with you on the obscene expansion of government and its disgusting amount of wasteful spending though. On that we can definitely agree.
Same sex marriage means more wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries. If you think the government is overspending, keep marriage one man and one woman.

We should reform entitlements, not redefine marriage for everyone.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1515 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I wish all your grandchildren happiness, but that's no reason to rewrite marriage laws for everyone. Kellerman's grandchild has the right to love and live with another consenting adult; the issue isn't freedom, we're talking about law and culture.
So, Kellerman's position is based on feelings for her grandchild, not the general welfare of everyone in society. She supports same sex marriage because of emotion and personal benefit, not reason and the greater good of marriage in society. She reminds me of Portman's purely personal, emotional and selfish change of heart on marriage.
I wonder if Kellerman's grandchild wanted a plural marriage, would she support polygamy for the exact same reasons?
You are a really nasty person. I think I can say that now without much regret. I've read hundreds of your posts and they continue to be laced with this kind of passive aggressive, dismissive ire. You are the guy who would have argued that slavery was not that bad because slaves were fed and housed (compare to "they have civil unions") and changing slavery laws would hurt society (compare to everything you've said).

But lest you think I'm just making an ad hominem argument (happily doing so in the first paragraph, thanks), here's the main reason I think you and lots of others on here are full of crap:

All your arguments are about things OTHER than gay marriage. You guys talk about incest, polygamy, child rearing, and prison rape. You absolutely NEVER discuss gay motherf*cking marriage.

If this person's grand kid gets married to his partner how in the name of all f*ck does that affect your life???

You have not yet provided a SHRED of evidence that same sex marriage would do anything to harm this society you keep harping about. Except in the sense that the society you want to protect is narrowly defined by a set of largely Bible-based antiquated notions of morality that NEED to get blown the hell up.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1516 Mar 19, 2013
Yiago wrote:
You are a really nasty person. I think I can say that now without much regret. I've read hundreds of your posts and they continue to be laced with this kind of passive aggressive, dismissive ire.
I sent my best wishes to a poster's grandchild, what's wrong with that? How is wishing a couple well,'passive aggressive'?

.
Yiago wrote:
You are the guy who would have argued that slavery was not that bad because slaves were fed and housed (compare to "they have civil unions") and changing slavery laws would hurt society (compare to everything you've said).
^^^Yiago's statement above is a lie, I've never written "slavery was not that bad"; those are Yiago's words, not mine. I've never written anything in favor of slavery, I condemn slavery and warn slavery is still being practiced today.

Forced prostitution is a form of slavery. Same sex marriage would force government to recognize same sex marriages based on economic need. Not everyone marries for love.

If you dislike slavery, keep marriage one man and one woman, for a wholesome society.

.
Yiago wrote:
But lest you think I'm just making an ad hominem argument (happily doing so in the first paragraph, thanks), here's the main reason I think you and lots of others on here are full of crap:
Ad hominem arguments are fallacies. I don't care why you make ad hom arguments, just as long as we all understand it's not rational.

.
Yiago wrote:
All your arguments are about things OTHER than gay marriage. You guys talk about incest, polygamy, child rearing, and prison rape. You absolutely NEVER discuss gay motherf*cking marriage.
Same sex marriage would endanger people in gender segregated institutions like prisons. Prison rape exists now; if same sex marriage were legal, forced prison marriages might be a consequence. Don't blame me if you haven't thought through the consequences of your policies. It's not my fault, when your justification for same sex marriage can also be applied to incest, and polygamy.

Child rearing is a valuable benefit from male/female marriage; every gay was born of male/female union.

Also, please note the profanity same sex marriage supporters use, they don't respect culture.

.
Yiago wrote:
If this person's grand kid gets married to his partner how in the name of all f*ck does that affect your life???
You have not yet provided a SHRED of evidence that same sex marriage would do anything to harm this society you keep harping about.
Changing marriage laws changes the law for everyone, not just gays:

"At [Proposition 8] trial, however, Dr. Lamb had conceded that his own published research concluded that growing up without fathers had significant negative effects on boys, and that there is data
indicating that there are significant differences between men and women in their parental behavior."
http://theacru.org/Hollingsworth%20v.%20Perry...

.
Yiago wrote:
Except in the sense that the society you want to protect is narrowly defined by a set of largely Bible-based antiquated notions of morality that NEED to get blown the hell up.
For some people, the Bible is the number one reason to keep marriage male/female. On my list it's number 27.

I protect marriage because of the greater social good. I don't whine your "notions of morality that NEED to get blown the hell up", I reject violence.

Same sex marriage is bad because it harms civil discourse, reason number 31.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1517 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I sent my best wishes to a poster's grandchild, what's wrong with that? How is wishing a couple well,'passive aggressive'?
Because you immediately follow it up by playing down that poster's concerns as merely emotional and due to a desire for some kind of personal gain. Then you describe your own position as the rational one, being based on a desire to do what's best for society.

Yet you *never* define exactly how keeping SSM illegal is good for society or how making it legal will hurt society. You do some hand waving about traditions and then you go immediately to prison rape and child rearing. Neither of which are relevant to the topic.
Marriage is a social and legal contract between two consenting adults. We already allow basically any two adults to get married as long as it is a man and a woman, but on what logical basis do we adhere to this rule? It cannot be due to child rearing since not every couple can or will have children. It cannot be because of a Biblical edict because we have a secular Constitution that explicitly protects us from that sort of religious coercion.

What else is there? Other than genitalia, what's the problem? Two guys get hitched and you can no longer eat your Cheerios in the morning? You can't walk your dog? You have to get a divorce? I don't understand why this causes you such consternation.

No one will ever force you into a gay marriage. No one will ever force you to minster one or to even attend one.

So why bully these people? Why treat them like second class citizens?

I do not buy for a minute that this is all about prisoners getting butt banged in the Big House. You are basically a homophobe and a Fundamentalist and you have some of the silliest arguments I've ever heard in my life.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1518 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Yiago's statement above is a lie, I've never written "slavery was not that bad"; those are Yiago's words, not mine. I've never written anything in favor of slavery, I condemn slavery and warn slavery is still being practiced today.
Forced prostitution is a form of slavery. Same sex marriage would force government to recognize same sex marriages based on economic need. Not everyone marries for love.
If you dislike slavery, keep marriage one man and one woman, for a wholesome society.
You might have missed the part where I *did not say* that you said that.

Regarding your very, very weird argument how does it not apply to male/female marriages? Why are you worried about gay marriage leading to some kind of slavery (???) but not worried about male/female marriages leading to the same?

There seems to be a whole of double standards embedded in your weird logic.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1519 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Ad hominem arguments are fallacies. I don't care why you make ad hom arguments, just as long as we all understand it's not rational.
And ad hominem *fallacy* is when you attack a person's character as a way of attacking their argument. It is irrational.

But my personal attack on you had nothing to do with countering your argument. I was just pointing out that I think you are a phenomenal turd, based on your many posts on Topix.

Following that, I went after your arguments. At no point do I base a counterargument on your dubious moral character. Rather, I base them on your dubious arguments.

Not a fallacy.

You make my happy place sad. I'm done for the night. Please stop being an a**hole to the same people you claim to want to protect. It looks really, really bad on you.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1520 Mar 20, 2013
Yiago wrote:
...Regarding your very, very weird argument how does it not apply to male/female marriages? Why are you worried about gay marriage leading to some kind of slavery (???) but not worried about male/female marriages leading to the same? There seems to be a whole of double standards embedded in your weird logic.
Reason #83 to keep marriage one man and one woman: gay=diggers, the same sex version of gold-diggers..
A Day

Somerset, KY

#1521 Mar 28, 2013
This should be a huge issue for Constitutional Conservatives. The Constitution is for protecting the INDIVIDUALS rights. This is NOT an issue that’s up for popular vote. It is simply unconstitutional not to afford the same rights to every U.S citizen, especially because of bigoted prejudice. It is amazing to me that we have a civil rights issue going on like this now.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1522 Mar 28, 2013
A Day wrote:
This should be a huge issue for Constitutional Conservatives. The Constitution is for protecting the INDIVIDUALS rights. This is NOT an issue that’s up for popular vote. It is simply unconstitutional not to afford the same rights to every U.S citizen, especially because of bigoted prejudice. It is amazing to me that we have a civil rights issue going on like this now.
What amazes me is that 20 years ago they were winning with civil unions and now they want to redefine the word marriage. With civil unions, they would have won by now because most don't really care what others do in their bedrooms.
A Day

Somerset, KY

#1523 Mar 28, 2013
I dont know what the above comment is trying to suggest, but marriage is a legally binding contract. Are you saying the word marriage should but defaulted on in favor of civil union universally. Thats seems to be just word play, if the contract would still be the same. I think the reason Civil Union may have been looked on favorably is because it is itself a discrimination tactic. I for one don't like the thought of gold stars being back in fashion.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1524 Mar 28, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>What amazes me is that 20 years ago they were winning with civil unions and now they want to redefine the word marriage. With civil unions, they would have won by now because most don't really care what others do in their bedrooms.
A civil union is just a stepping stone. There was no way to get marriage equality taken care of 20 years ago. But in 2013 we are on the cusp of actually doing it.

And the operative word is "equality". A civil union is not equal to a marriage. It doesn't matter how many of the same benefits they have, they have an unambiguously different meaning to people on a social level. This argument is about equal rights and it's about an end to institutionalized bigotry against gays.

Sounds like SCOTUS will defer the Prop 8 question but are likely to destroy DOMA. So that's a win. Prop 8 is already shot down in California. But it would have been better if they shot it down themselves so we can avoid other states doing similar stupid laws.
Jeff

Huntsville, TN

#1525 Mar 28, 2013
Being gay is not a human right,its a sin against nature.

Since: Mar 13

Corbin, KY

#1526 Mar 28, 2013
NAF RACSAN wrote:
<quoted text>
You have drank a BIG dose of Obama juice and are presenting false information! One point I would like to make is concerning the employment rates. Kentucky has canceled all extended unemployment benefits regardless of what is still owed. All of these people are without any income, AND JOBLESS! All of these people are no longer on the unemployment rolls and are not counted in the unemployment rates. PRETTY SMART TRICK ISN'T IT? Again, dont take my word for it just because I am one of them! Look for yourself!!
http://www.kewes.ky.gov/
Only actual "false" information is that Obama created 3M jobs. He doesn't create jobs. He influences legislation. As for the extended unemployment in KY, he has nothing to do with that. When the economy starts to pick up, the geniuses in politics figure we no longer need money. The unemployment rate is probably MUCH higher than some say because many have fallen off the rolls because they ran out of benefits.

Level 3

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#1527 Mar 28, 2013
Jeff wrote:
Being gay is not a human right,its a sin against nature.
Wow well lets start off with it really sounds like you may have been born and raised in one of the most closed minded states that being TN. This I hate to tell you is about the right that the everyone should have the same rights under the united states constitution. I don't know if your married really could care less this is about the 1100 FEDERAL rights that are not given to same sex couples that they pay for I might add. It would be like asking a heterosexual married couple to give up the 1100 rights they enjoy at a FEDERAL level. I think that you may want to expand your vocabulary pick up a book a read something. I am sure if you have read the news at all with the hearings that went before the Supreme Court this week you can almost bet that DOMA will be found unconstitutional you can't have 2 classes of citizen's.
Jeff

Huntsville, TN

#1528 Mar 28, 2013
If you love your dog are you protected under the constitution to have sex with it? Its not natural to have sex with a dog or two men to have sex with each other.

Level 3

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#1529 Mar 28, 2013
Jeff wrote:
If you love your dog are you protected under the constitution to have sex with it? Its not natural to have sex with a dog or two men to have sex with each other.
Wow again with the expanding your vocabulary. Let me see if I can put this in a context that you maybe able to understand..one this is not unnatural as there are tons of heterosexual couples married and unmarried that have anal sex everyday. If I had to guess its something that I am sure you have tried or attempted to anyway. This has nothing to do with the beastieality. This has to do with the fact that there shouldn't be 2 classes of citizens in the country. Its not okay for the FEDERAL government to take money from same sex couples and not expand the same rights to them as well that heterosexual couples enjoy. I will again put in the number for you 1100 FEDERAL rights is what same sex couples want and should be granted under the United States Constitution. I will give you the link just in case you have never read this document before. I might suggest that you attempt.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...

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.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
KY What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... 11 min Nutz 7,412
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 18 min Hatti_Hollerand 21,216
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr SistaNoneYa 131,119
KY Can You Pass an 8th Grade Test from 1912? (Aug '13) 2 hr Crazy Jae 1,075
4 word game (Jan '09) 2 hr whatimeisit 1,881
Somerset mayor, Keck or Girdler? 3 hr Gomer-ez 45
*keep a word- drop a word* Game (Jul '11) 7 hr whatimeisit 10,333
Sully's 13 hr News 19

Somerset Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]