Obama about to announce support of marriage rights for all?

[NCRAVEN]

Wanting to be treated equally, is what everyone wants. What Darb is saying however, is that most gay people don't care about marriage. Like "TheEP" said, why would gay couples want approval from a group who views their actions as sinful (paraphrasing).

Gay couples who do care about marriage should have the option available to them since the government is involved. But people I know who are gay (which I admit is not more than a handful or two) don't care about being married, they care that they are told they can't.

[CptJesus]

Wanting to be treated equally, is what everyone wants. What Darb is saying however, is that most gay people don't care about marriage. Like "TheEP" said, why would gay couples want approval from a group who views their actions as sinful (paraphrasing).

Gay couples who do care about marriage should have the option available to them since the government is involved. But people I know who are gay (which I admit is not more than a handful or two) don't care about being married, they care that they are told they can't.

That's absolutely the core of the issue . Couldn't have said or any better

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

[darb72]

I know more gay folks than most folks on this board because of my job. Admittedly we don't sit around discussing the political ramifications of being gay, but every so often, like Obama saying he's pro-gay marriage, the topic comes up. It's really about a 50/50 split with gay males leaning more towards anti-gay marriage while the lesbians want it legalized.

[Galen Sevinne]

I have a lot of white friends. I must be reaching.

I have a lot of female friends. I must be reaching.

I have a lot of male friends. I must be reaching.

See what I did there?

You're more than welcome Galen, to meet my wife and I next time we are in Fells and meet our friends. We will share a pint of Resurrection and you can see just how much "reaching" we do.

The truth is gay people are everywhere. When people start bragging about knowing gay people it just always sounds odd to me. Who doesnt know gay people? You make it sound like they are exotics or something. I am sure you know gay people, how can you not. Trap probably even knows gay people...in fact statistically speaking he has probably had a gay person sit next to him in church but he would never know it.

You dont need to preface conversations about gay people with "my wife knows a gay couple so I am like in the know here". When you do that it just demonstrates how unusual it must be for you.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

[darb72]

Thief, who in the hell was bragging about knowing gay people?

Unlike you and the rest of the thieves, I don't lump people together based on race/religion/sexual preference. Hence my original statement of "...gay folks I know..." I don't know every gay person on the planet so I don't know what everyone of them thinks.

Of course there's no chance a racist thief like you could ever grasp that concept. You're way too busy forcing everybody to fit in your comfortable little pigeon holes.

[AirFlacco]

The truth is gay people are everywhere. When people start bragging about knowing gay people it just always sounds odd to me. Who doesnt know gay people? You make it sound like they are exotics or something. I am sure you know gay people, how can you not. Trap probably even knows gay people...in fact statistically speaking he has probably had a gay person sit next to him in church but he would never know it.

You dont need to preface conversations about gay people with "my wife knows a gay couple so I am like in the know here". When you do that it just demonstrates how unusual it must be for you.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

I actually agree with Galen on this post. HR was doing a lot of self edifying saying he
knew those gays and one was in his wedding singling them out. They wouldn't want
that, same as a minority saying one is your best friend.

Galen is right that I knew gays. I'm sure there were gays in church and I didn't know it. At least they didn't come in holding hands like they did when we were all drafted and they tried to get out of the Army by pretending to be gay, and I've said our church
wouldn't turn them out.

When I was 15 I had a gay superior who was the manager of the entire dept store. I
knew he was gay because he tried to go down on me. I was a big dude and built like
a defensive tackle and played on the line and people still say I look like a defensive tackle (even DeCosta called me a big dude when I asked him questions at a Nest 1
meeting). So I kicked him in the nuts and ran home and told my dad and he almost killed him. He kicked the hell out of him. Then took me down town to the VP of the co.

The store didn't do a damn thing to him other than to keep him away from me and he did. No one did things to them back then. By the time I was an adult and realized I could do something to him ala Sandusky of Penn State he was dead.

So Galen is right. I have known them but it is the sin we hate, like God, not the
sinner, not even the guy who tried to make me gay.

[wickedsolo]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...rt/?hpt=us_mid

The POTUS's announcement could have some major ramifications throughout black communities.

[JStruds]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...rt/?hpt=us_mid

The POTUS's announcement could have some major ramifications throughout black communities.

I think you've commented several times that religion has no place in politics, but here again is evidence that it does have a place - whether we like it or not.
Voters will continue to consider religion as a factor in who they vote for; although I think (hope?) that for most of it is a minor factor.

[wickedsolo]

I think you've commented several times that religion has no place in politics, but here again is evidence that it does have a place - whether we like it or not.
Voters will continue to consider religion as a factor in who they vote for; although I think (hope?) that for most of it is a minor factor.

IMO, religion does not have a place in politics and this piece on CNN that I posted up is exactly why.

Religion is emotional and personal. Things that go against your religion cause emotional stress and pressures that can influence decision making, which is bad for public policy because not everyone agrees with one's religious convictions.

Here we have something as simple as the definition of "marriage" impacting people's potential votes because according to their religion "marriage" is defined by the union of a man and a woman.

Emotional decision making = irrational decision making in a lot of circumstances and THAT, IMO, has no place in politics. That is why the Framer's agreed upon the separation of church and state. They knew how religion can negatively impact public policy and political agenda being that they had just fought for independance from a religious monarchy.

[JStruds]

IMO, religion does have no place in politics and this piece on CNN that I posted up is exactly why.

Religion is emotional and personal. Things that go against your religion cause emotional stress and pressures that can influence decision making, which is bad for public policy because not everyone agrees with one's religious convictions.

Here we have something as simple as the definition of "marriage" impacting people's potential votes because according to their religion "marriage" is defined by the union of a man and a woman.

Emotional decision making = irrational decision making in a lot of circumstances and THAT, IMO, has no place in politics.

I do not disagree. But, how do you propose to make it disappear as a factor? There are many people who depend on their clergyman to tell them what to do and how to think.

I think the candidates all know better than to use religion (at least directly) either as an attack against an opponent or to bolster themselves. However, they do express views that maybe are driven by their mores and morality or beliefs and could be construed as "religious".

Following one's emotions doesn't always lead to bad decisions.

[wickedsolo]

I do not disagree. But, how do you propose to make it disappear as a factor? There are many people who depend on their clergyman to tell them what to do and how to think.

I think the candidates all know better than to use religion (at least directly) either as an attack against an opponent or to bolster themselves. However, they do express views that maybe are driven by their mores and morality or beliefs and could be construed as "religious".

Following one's emotions doesn't always lead to bad decisions.

It shouldn't even have been a factor in the first place.

To get rid of it? I have no idea. I suppose you can't as long as organized religion exists.


Candidates should be able to make decisions based on what is good for the public not what falls in line with their religious convictions. Piers Morgan interviewed Chris Christie not too long ago about same-sex-marriage and he blatantly said that he didn't care what other states were doing or if the majority of NJ wanted to approve SSM, he'd veto it because it violates his beliefs on what defines marriage. However, he did say that he would rather call a referendum and actually put the issue on the ballot and let the NJ constituents decide. It was a smart and unbiased move on Christie's part to (a) recognize that he doesn't believe in the issue so therefor he couldn't be impartial about it and (b) allowing the populace to truly decide on the matter is the only fair way to go about it.

I didn't say that following your emotions always leads to bad decision making. I said emotional decision making CAN lead to IRRATIONAL decision making. That doesn't mean that it's a bad decision, but it could have been irrational and potentially handled better.

If a co-worker comes at you in the office hollering and screaming at you about something really trivial and you get emotionally charged and fire back at your co-worker, you could say some things that could get you in trouble. It's not necessarily the worst decision to fire back because you're standing up for yourself, but due to high emotions and getting into that "fight/flight" mentality, there could be some irrational responses. If the same thing happens and you let them blow up at you and then you allow your emotions to dissolve a bit then you can likely think about handling the situation in a much more controlled and effective manner (i.e. talking to the person behind closed doors with a mediator present [boss], etc).

[AirFlacco]

Even the black churches are vs his endorsement. Doubt they vote vs him but they
don't like it.