I'm not so sure about that. He openly declared his support for legalized gay marriage six months before the 2012 election. He wasn't quietly waiting until he was safely in his second term to make this an issue; he was prepared to campaign on it.
True, maybe I should have said 'throughout his first term' instead of 'in his first term.' I guess I would be better to say he wouldn't make his personal views a matter of presidential policy until he felt safe in doing so. That shift in the winds did happen before he was re-elected...
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
I said decent argument, not 'my fictional book tells me so' argument. Like I want a real argument on how it directly affects someone’s life when a man/man or women/women get married. It's not like the institution of marriage is some sacred thing when you have someone like Newt Gingrich fighting against gay rights to protect something he has made a mockery of himself in his lifetime. If this was truly about protecting the sanctity of marriage they would be fighting to ban divorce as well, but they don't because this is just about oppressing a group of people not protecting some tradition. It's really sad actually and I feel sorry for these people that think that blocking gay marriage will somehow protect marriage.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
The topic leads to further questions that congress should have to consider such as Where would a same sex marriage be performed in a church or in a private location through a JP?
Reason why its a valid question is if it became law Country wide Priest's, Ministers, etc would be put in a moral conflict of religious dilemma if by law they had to carry out performing a same sex marriage union.
I am not certain i can only guess that not all Minister's etc will currently agree to perform a same sex marriages.
My view is not whether same sex marriages should be permitted or not, but should Men and Women of Religion against their own religious beliefs be forced to perform the ceremony...Congress would be violating freedom of religion and religious expression.
The Church and even JP should have the right to choose whether they will accept to marry any 2 people.
The topic leads to further questions that congress should have to consider such as Where would a same sex marriage be performed in a church or in a private location through a JP?
Reason why its a valid question is if it became law Country wide Priest's, Ministers, etc would be put in a moral conflict of religious dilemma if by law they had to carry out performing a same sex marriage union.
I am not certain i can only guess that not all Minister's etc will currently agree to perform a same sex marriages.
My view is not whether same sex marriages should be permitted or not, but should Men and Women of Religion against their own religious beliefs be forced to perform the ceremony...Congress would be violating freedom of religion and religious expression.
The Church and even JP should have the right to choose whether they will accept to marry any 2 people.
When gay marriage was legalized in Canada, the law was quite specific that it only applied to secular marriages performed by agents of the state such as JPs. Religious institutions were free to perform -- or refuse to perform -- gay marriages in accordance with their beliefs.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
The topic leads to further questions that congress should have to consider such as Where would a same sex marriage be performed in a church or in a private location through a JP?
Reason why its a valid question is if it became law Country wide Priest's, Ministers, etc would be put in a moral conflict of religious dilemma if by law they had to carry out performing a same sex marriage union.
I am not certain i can only guess that not all Minister's etc will currently agree to perform a same sex marriages.
My view is not whether same sex marriages should be permitted or not, but should Men and Women of Religion against their own religious beliefs be forced to perform the ceremony...Congress would be violating freedom of religion and religious expression.
The Church and even JP should have the right to choose whether they will accept to marry any 2 people.
Where are church's currently obligated to perform any and all marriages? I can't just walk into the synagogue down the street and demand they marry me.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Although I obviously find California's same sex marriage ban to be offensive, I'm always a little uncomfortable when the executive puts pressure on the judiciary like this. This sort of thing would almost never happen in Canada in this day and age.
Actually, besides the more obvious division of power which the States has between their branches (whereas I see ours a bit more muddled) the same thing happened in spirit here in Canada.
When the issue was up here, it was going to be put to a referendum. However, before that happened, Chretien, who was nearing the end of his term and wanted to work on his legacy said that it would not be fair to put a human rights issue to a vote for the whole public and started the process in pushing it through. I forget the actual quote but it was pretty eloquent (first time for everything, I know! ). Basically what Obama is saying here, and even if there is 'pressure' he still doesn't have the power to get it rolling that our PM did.
meh, It shouldn't be in the governments business who gets married or not.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
That's an awfully cynical way of looking at it. You don't think it's possible for someone's views on a given issue to evolve and change over time?
As a personal anecdote, when I was a teenager and early 20-something, I was against gay marriage. As I matured as a person and became friends with a few homosexual people, I realized my previous position on the issue was mistaken, and I've since become a staunch proponent of legalized gay marriage.
Yeah, that's why I find it slightly amusing and more than a little bit disingeneous when people ask why we have these arguments. People do change their minds. It isn't just old people dying off that explains why gay marriage has far more support today that it did 20 years ago. And eventually, we reach a point where all those minds that have changed add up, and the President of the United States of America can change his public position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
Well the actual vote had millions of dollars worth of interference from the LDS and Catholic churches.
meh, It shouldn't be in the governments business who gets married or not.
But it is, and has been for the longest time. So this is a null argument. The fact marriage has so many important legal benefits means they have to be involved.
Your story left me riveted and on the edge of my seat. Tell me more about your homophobic rhetoric!
It's not natural. But, it also goes against the created order of God who made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman -- not two men, not two women -- to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth. Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It is, therefore, a contradiction to God's stated desire in the created order.
It's not natural. But, it also goes against the created order of God who made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman -- not two men, not two women -- to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth. Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It is, therefore, a contradiction to God's stated desire in the created order.
I said decent argument, not 'my fictional book tells me so' argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvee
It's not natural. But, it also goes against the created order of God who made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman -- not two men, not two women -- to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth. Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It is, therefore, a contradiction to God's stated desire in the created order.
As I was saying.... it may be nowhere near a decent argument, but it is by very, very, very far the most common. Christianity, Islam, Mormanism.... they all teach their followers to hate homosexuality.
I'll tell you what's an abomination. This show. Anyone who watches it should have their TVs taken from them.
But on topic, I really do not see why anyone would have a problem with gay marriages. Those who say it destroys the 'sanctity of marriage' are misguided. The sanctity of your own marriage is as valued as it ever was and other people getting married, no matter what the configuration, has absolutely nothing to do with your marriage and commitments to your partner.
Those that think it is 'icky' because they find gay sex is dirty or disgusting should also then be calling for a ban on heterosexual marriages, because some 'filthy' stuff goes on in those marriages as well.
). Basically what Obama is saying here, and even if there is 'pressure' he still doesn't have the power to get it rolling that our PM did.
