TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali wrote:(shrug). He just made official what we all knew.

I'm pretty sure that's a statement that everyone can agree with. Was there really anyone out there who didn't know that the prez was in favor of gay marriage? I doubt it.

Who cares what Obama thinks about gay marriage? Who cares what the fed defines as marriage? IT IS NOT THEIR JOB TO DO SO! The same people complaining about too much government are the same ones complaining that the government needs to step in to people's private life. I couldn't care less if two men want to live as a married couple. I don't find that to be normal (sue me) but I don't care. It is not my place to say whether or not same sex couples can live a married life. Why do people feel the need to be the bedroom police? It's disgusting, hypocritical and will cause the right to further alienate its constituency.

I want to see a "Marriage? Ain't none of our business" act.

/my $0.02
//not gay

Obama is so weak. He's pandering to certain donors and trying to distract from his record. Also, he can't be done evolving for the LGBT crowd. He may have covered pandering to the LG folks, but what about the BT folks? Are the B folks going to have their "civil rights" violated, or can they expect marriage to be redefined to include their lifestyle too? Why can't three or more B adults in a consenting relationship enjor the same "rights" to marriage as all the LG folks, as proposed by Obama?

My problem is not with people living in whatever kind of relationship they wish. I don't care either on that level. What I do care about is that the activists insist that we not only allow them to do as they please, but they want the public schools to teach that what they do is perfectly normal. You can do as you wish, but keep it out of the schools. Come to think of it I would like to see the schools stick to academics and leave the birds and the bees to parents.

Do as you choose but don't expect me to teach my kids that your lifestyle is healthy and normal. But then I homeschool so that solves that in my house.

mamabearCali wrote: Do as you choose but don't expect me to teach my kids that your lifestyle is healthy and normal. But then I homeschool so that solves that in my house.

I'm pretty sure the sam thing was said during the civil rights movement. Hate and ignorance is wrong weather its because of the color of a persons skin or who they love.

matriculated wrote:

puma guy wrote:It's called pandering. It's what politicians do! Wait til a PETA fanatic want's to marry a horse.

If endorsing same-sex marriage is considered pandering, then surely the country must have underwent a huge metamorphosis on the issue. Just 5-10 years ago pandering on this issue would have been impossible because the majority of the public was against same-sex marriage. Gallup says that half the country is for, 48% against, with the long-term trend clearly painting a picture of inevitability in one direction.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half- ... riage.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You miss the point. Obama position switched his previously stated belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to his current position. Like when he referred to Republicans as the "enemy" to a group he knew would be receptive to that term. He's a politician and panderer. My ridiculous analogy about the horse was just that. 32 states define marriage as between a man and a woman. I could really care less what two people do.

The Mad Moderate wrote:

puma guy wrote:It's called pandering. It's what politicians do! Wait til a PETA fanatic want's to marry a horse.

Yeah because a guy marrying a horse is exactly the same a two men that want to have the same rights as a man and woman.

Exactly the same.

Anygunanywhere

I have mixed-feelings on the whole issue.

I am glad that Obama came straight-out (no pun intended) for Gay Marriage. It will now take a large bloc of undecided voters that oppose it and put them firmly against him. So from a reelection point of view, I see it as lessening his chances. I consider that a good thing.

I am saddened that it has to be an issue at all. The Government needs to stay out of that stuff. The Republicans that purportedly want less government and the Democrats that want more government should both realize that it really is not the business of Government at all.

The Mad Moderate wrote:

mamabearCali wrote: Do as you choose but don't expect me to teach my kids that your lifestyle is healthy and normal. But then I homeschool so that solves that in my house.

I'm pretty sure the sam thing was said during the civil rights movement. Hate and ignorance is wrong weather its because of the color of a persons skin or who they love.

I hate no one, but I call what is abnormal abnormal and what is sin sin. That is neither hateful nor ignorant.

People have been marrying people of the opposite gender oh....well....since we have recorded history. Same sex relationships have always occurred, but they have always been significantly less in number and have never been recognized in any culture as the same legitimacy of heterosexual marriage. So yes, homosexual marriage is abnormal simply from a human history perspective.

As far as sin goes, well my religion tells me that what Homosexual marriage entails is sinful. So I put it in the same category as sex outside of marriage and teach my children that it is not good and is destructive.

The civil rights movement and the homosexual movement have almost nothing in common, yet it is consistently invoked. Homosexuals are not denied the right to vote, they do not have to go to separate schools, they are not banned from certain shops, they can hold public office, no one is holding them captive in any way. They are not arrested for entering into the relationship that choose and if they are assaulted they have every right to defend themselves. But I along with the rest of recorded human history see their relationship as outside the norm and along with my religion say it is a destructive choice. Tolerance means that you permit something to exist and do not persecute it, it does not mean approval and the giving of legitimacy to anything and everything.

I don't care what he endorses.

AndyC wrote:

pbwalker wrote:Who cares what Obama thinks about gay marriage? Who cares what the fed defines as marriage? IT IS NOT THEIR JOB TO DO SO! The same people complaining about too much government are the same ones complaining that the government needs to step in to people's private life. I couldn't care less if two men want to live as a married couple. I don't find that to be normal (sue me) but I don't care. It is not my place to say whether or not same sex couples can live a married life. Why do people feel the need to be the bedroom police? It's disgusting, hypocritical and will cause the right to further alienate its constituency.

I want to see a "Marriage? Ain't none of our business" act.

/my $0.02
//not gay

Same reason I'm an instructor for the DFW chapter of the Pink Pistols - what someone does in their bedroom with another consenting adult ain't none of my beeswax; I just like teaching them to shoot straight and be able to protect themselves.

So true, both of you. My compliments to you and the many others here who have demonstrated rational thinking.

Why do so many not recognize the outright hypocrisy of ranting on the one hand that "the government is meddling in our personal affairs and our liberties" when it describes marriage, and on the other hand saying that "most states define marriage as being between only a man and a woman?"

In other words, it is a deprivation of our liberties when "the government" does something I do not like, but it is not when "the government" does something I like. NIMBY.

This occurs time and again these days, from issue to issue. For example, why is it that most serious legislative proposals to abolish Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, they being unconstitutional, have a grandfathering clause stuck in at the end in order to attain passage? How can something that is unconstitutional be constitutional for a while, for example until current recipients (voters?) (hypocrits?) die?

Jim

AndyC wrote:
Same reason I'm an instructor for the DFW chapter of the Pink Pistols - what someone does in their bedroom with another consenting adult ain't none of my beeswax; I just like teaching them to shoot straight and be able to protect themselves.

OK Andy, this statement just strikes me as funny. I have a couple of gay friends that shoot, and they would also find that statement really hilarious. I can hear one of them who is a real clown say 'I shoot this way, and you are NOT gonna make me go straight.'

matriculated wrote:Well, I don't see this posted anywhere else, and the talking heads keep blabbering about it, so what do we think?

He's been "evolving" on this issue for some time. Apparently the evolution is finished and he has reached his conclusion.

Equality for all? Treat others as you want to be treated?

Or heinous attack on traditional values?

Forum Rule 11 wrote:Off-topic posts/threads: Since they tend to cause the most problems for other boards, our "off-topic" sub-forum is not an "anything goes" area. Absolutely no discussions of religion, immigration/border security, abortion, race matters, or any other hot-button political issues. (Gun-related political issues can be discussed in other areas.)

The Off-Topic forum was very reluctantly set up at the request of several Members. Thus far, we've had very few problems, but if this keeps up, the Off-Topic forum will be closed.

You love to push the envelope and the Moderators and I have finally had enough. Last warning.

Chas.