This week, President Obama announced his personal support for same-sex marriage. The endorsement came a day after North Carolina voters passed a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage in their state.
So, we want to know - what does Obama's announcement mean to you? Will it make any difference in your life?
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
How come my posting won't display? LOL
If marriage is between any consenting adults without governmental restrictions, then it shouldn't matter how many are in the marriage or whether or not they are blood relatives. Honestly, how much are we ready to accept?
It matters because the consenting adults in the relationship are potentially not the only people involved. Any children would likely suffer genetic disabilities because of inbreeding, therefore the government steps in to protect them by preventing blood relatives from marrying. I'm sure you didn't really want a rational answer, but that's it.
What have you got?
If I had known in college that I could marry one of my frat brothers and it would be okay I probably would have engaged in sodomy on a daily basis. Instead I chose the hetero route and had three three children with a woman. What a mistake ! Why even consider a hetero relationship when it is much easier to have s*x with your own gender. It is a great lesson to the children of today...GO GAY !
I wish you had married one of your frat brothers. It would have spared the world three more people as stupid as you are.
Your comment makes no sense. So you are suggesting that all hetero people are always in monogomous relationships and gay people sleep around with their frat brothers? You're clueless.
So basically what you are saying is that you would have no problem swinging from both sides of the plate...sounds kind of bi- to me.
Well, I never said they shouldn't be able to visit their husband in the hospital or have a polygamous relationship, but nice try.
Polygamy is not based on an equal relationship. If someone wants to enter into that, it is certainly their choice. However, you are asking the government to endorse something that is unequal. And in the same breath, you are advocating for equality. Equality through inequality. That is a fun one.
One could also infer that you are saying that being gay is a choice just like entering a polygamous relationship is a choice.
Answer to the question:
If Obama approves of it, somehow in some way it will tear America down.
It effects my life becuase HE approves of it.
His record proves it.
You should learn the difference between affect and effect.
One should read the Bible. Romans Chapter 1 verses 21-32 is very clear on how God stands on the subject.
If I wrote a report in 7th grade using only one source, I'd get an F. How people base their entire life's beliefs around the words in a single book is baffling to me.
Don't you have any other argument aside from the circular reference to the bible???
Do you mean what Paul wrote in Romans? Or do you believe that God wrote the book of Romans?
That's your god's view on that subject. What's YOUR view? Don't reference another "person's" point of view.
God didn't write Romans. A man did.
Will traditional marrige with its 50% failure rate negatively influence and ruin gay marriage?
I have no desire to marry another man, nor do I have any desire to prevent other men from marrying whomever they choose. I applaud Obama for taking a stand most politicians would be afraid to express.
Where are the JOBS?? Without jobs it will not matter who gets married, they'll starve to death!
I love God and I love all people regardless of their sins, but I will not love, support or tolerate their sin. Just as
I hate my own sins. To teach tolerance of sin is wrong and will be judged by God who judges in truth.
There is only one universal truth, and as it sounds, it is the truth that all people can accept. Any other truth is only a truth to those who profess to know the truth, I wonder what makes them think that their truth is the only truth? Oh, I forgot, they like being told what to believe, hence they follow that human book the Bible, and those who profess to know more than over half of the worlds population. Even when the priest do their children, they still follow because that is all they know. Wonder when the next Religious War will start and what it will be called?
The "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach is so disingenuous and even offensive because it allows one to hold on to bigoted ideas yet avoid being labeled as such. It also ignores completely, the scientific findings and research that actually define what it is to be gay: It is biologically hard-wired into the brain and therefore part of the thoughts and psyche of the individual and, it cannot be changed. From the perspective of a gay man or woman the "sinner" and the "sin" are one and the same. Anti-gay sentiment is not an expression of religious freedom. It is a form of bigotry that must not be tolerated in any form.
Why should the religion of one American citizen effect – actually diminish – the life of another American citizen?
And your point is?
Romney's speech today at Liberty (wink, wink) University, which outright bans gay students and faculty, capped a week of cowardice. He could have used this occasion to have a Reagan, "tear-down-this-wall" moment, but ditched his dignity like usual. Thus, Romney spoke, knowingly and uncritically, at an openly bigoted school. This more than counterweighs any votes lost by Obama for supporting marriage equality. Game, set, match.
Anybody – anybody – who votes on social issues is an idiot.
"Idiot" might be a bit harsh, but I see your point. I see social change as inevitable- it's just a matter of when. The state of our national economy is certainly a more time-sensitive issue than social change in my opinion.
Since politicians seem incapable of doing anything about other issues (like the economy) voting on social issues actually makes the most sense.
Easy for you to say. Civil rights are an economic issue too you know.
I support people being allowed to pick the person who will be their legal partner. I would much rather that the government would get completely out of the "marriage" business, leave that to the churches or who ever, but if you want legal privileges, you should have to get a "civil union" certificate. Everyone married now would automatically get the certificate. Anyone getting married from here on would also have to apply for a Civil Union certificate as would any couple who wants to take advantage of the laws and benefits now enjoyed by married couples. But if "marriage" is what we are going to use, so be it.
It is a social issue and I believe its up to the state to decide the matter and it should not up to the politicians but the people (citizens of the state to decide). Sadly, out of all the states who did legalize gay marriage were not up to the people. Its clearly a social right issue and not a human right issue. Whats at stake is the definition of marriage. If gay marriage is included in the definition of marriage then why is marriage to animals, marriages to more than 1 person, or to inanimate objects included. Personally, I am ok with gay couples getting the same equal benefits as everyone else, but to include anything else beyond a man and woman in the definition of marriage is an insult and a degradation to belief.
And did the people of the southern states joyfully rise up and dispense with slavery? Did they vote out segregation? Did they vote to outlaw interracial marriage? Or in every instance, was it left to the judicial branch to intervene and protect a minority from the prejudices of the majority? Putting the fate of a persecuted group in the hands of those who have been persecuting them seems a bit counter-productive, no?
So its okay for the straight majority to vote (dictate) the rights of the gay minority? That's not Democracy. That's mob rule.
Her certainly lost my vote
Did he have your vote before? My guess is that people who already support President Obama will continue to do so and those already opposed will also continue. I don't think it will have any measurable effect.