Same-sex marriage approved by the state of New York.

Yep. And they get criticized for it by their supporters. What is your point? That we need an even more socially liberal President?

 

He supports gay marriage more than you.

You want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the president does not.

 

that they're hypocrites and their supporters are suckers.

and yes, on gay marriage, i prefer a socially liberal president.

 

I'm unaware of anything Obama has done regarding gay marriage that is in direct contrast to what he has promised.

Who else are they going to support? The Republicans?

B-u-l-l-s-*-*-t.

 

Link?

MGIA.

 

Just like you supported that Fred Thompson candidacy right?

 

your own posts on this bbs prove that it's a lie.

Nobody who supports gay marriage would say that a President who wanted to amend our nation's constitution in order to prevent gay marriage, was the same as a president who was opposed to amending the constitution to keep gay marriage out.

You did that, and you are a liar or totally ignorant if you think that you support gay marriage.

 

You said, in this very freaking thread, that you support letting states decide on the legality of homosexual marriage.

Sorry, but the concept of "let the states decide" is incompatible with "I want a President that supports gay marriage"... because you effectively remove/nullify the authority/influence the President has on the issue.

Which either makes you a hypocrite, an idiot, or both.

 

sure- what's your point?

 

no it's not.

 

is he socially liberal? that dude was anti gay marriage on Law and Order

 

sorry, kid. Nobody is buying your BS on this topic. You have a record of saying things against the support of gay marriage on this bbs.

 

i'll let you in on a secret, despite being ripped from the headlines:

Spoiler

Law & Order is fiction

 

is he socially liberal

 

fuller answer: yes, my preference is for the states to manage, but i always want a president who would use the bully pulpit to advance the issue. Obama, as in so many other things, leads from behind (nttawwt) on gay marriage.

that said, we don't live in a perfect world, and as passionate as many are on this issue, it's not the most important issue that we face. if there were a candidate who had a solid economic record, would be less of an embarrassment overseas, and promised to not meddle w/ states that legalized GM, i'd support that person over The Once.

full disclosure:

Spoiler

at this point, i'd support a bulimic cat over OBama

 

In a two party system their alternative would be ... ?

 

Allowing states to discriminate isn't really being in favor of gay marriage. Again your record is clear.

 

I didnt respond back sooner because (1) I was talking about gays in GENERAL and not SPECFICALLY on gay marriage itself. And talking too much about the after-response. And (2) I don't have daytime internet access at work anymore and at times I'm too tired to check CF and too tired to think when I get home.

I'll re-clarify my comments anyway, and for Northside Storm The terms I was looking for was OVER-PREACHED TO DEATH. "OVER-exhuberance", "OVER-presumption" of other's societal ignorance, EXCESS POLITICAL correctness.

In numerical terms - instead of cranking it out a 9 level, tone it down to a 6. Maybe "less is more" this time. In a sense I'm saying the issue isnt THAT big a deal. But its the over-exuberant types who want to TRAILBLAZE who might actually over-respond and think everyone needs to hear the message.

Yes we must be PRO-ACTIVE in spreading the word and in providing liberty. We HAVE to. I'm against when it turns into CHEESY annoying PSA type over-education of it lol. School workshops and work seminars and relations building exercises, and, uuugh geez...are those ever really effective?

I'm saying let society work it out, warts and all, and keep "those guys" out of it. (If you're one of "those guys", I do apologize). But maybe I'm thinking too much in a "social free market" liberterian kinda sense where we don't need the interest groups and "unions", and it will "work itself out".

 

My answer to this should have been 5 words: "Good for Them, 'Bout Time". I'm overly explaining neutrality when really I didnt even need to add my 2 cents.

I do think "traditional" straight male way of thinking is slowly being eroded away, I STAND by those words there. Its not ANTI-gay, its more what ELSE do we gotta amend?

Keep talking about myself here but I think I've done all the rational thinking, scientific methods, anti-corporatisms, humanist manifestos. Out of that I still conclude that there's nothing wrong with choosing a straight approach to life if it doesnt impede on anyone else's rights. And I conclude its men that get henpecked the most when it comes to these social changes Its becoming "taboo" to do anything that looks like a defense of male sentiment. Or maybe not D&D compliant enough. Oh well, gotta take the lumps.