National Cathedral to perform same-sex weddings

Wasn't really interested in having the discussion with a mindless lib like yourself.

Earl, you're a Liberal robot.

....?

 

Seriously: lets see if you have a brain:

Cite people who are attacking normal marriage. Not people who support gay marriage....people who attack regular marriage. Lets see if you can back up your statement.

Speak to Newt Gingrich entirely and completely changing his perspective on gay marriage. In the 1990's he was speaker of the house when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed. He ripped gay marriage then.

During the election last year and in 2011 when he was campaigning in 2011 and 2012 Newt Gingrich signed petitions and fervently attacked gay marriage, gay anything. He just came out and said Gay marriage is okay, its part of the landscape, accept it. BTW: He has a gay married half sister.

Newt, of course can go mean, vicious and verbally more conservative than just about anyone. He just changed course. E.N.T.I.R.E.L.Y

reference those changes and then answer your own comments about Obama changing his political perspective on the gay issue.

come on. lets see if you have a brain.

 

Uh oh, the psycho liberal rage is setting in.... Stand clear!

Obama fan boy.

 

Again. No substance. You made claims. I responded to the claims, identifying them as worthless; unsubstantiated whines that are additionally misleading.

GR: misleading means lies.

You have nothing to back up your comments.

maybe your thinking will improve when you get to start school.

 

ha ha ha... 99% of your posts on this forum (that you think make sense and are fact) are fueled by your liberal biased.

Do they promote normal marriage or just ignore it?

Is the left so obsessed with the issue because they "care so much more about gay people and their marriages", or is it just so they can earn a few extra votes?

Yes, he did. Because he's a manipulative snake.

He changed his mind to get all of his little soldiers (like yourself) rejoicing and ignoring the fact that he's accomplished nothing in his first 4 years.

Mr. "Stand Still" Obama

Nah, it has more to do with treating gay marriage as equally as normal marriage.

And, it should not be.. (that is another discussion entirely).

What was the point of mentioning gay marriage in an inauguration speech?

 

Why are you so obsessed with what other men do with their penis'?

 

Stox: You know there is a long history of evangelical Right Wing Christian "leaders" who have been discovered to be cheats, scumbags, liars, closet gays, cheated on their families and stole money from their congregations all in the name of evangelical christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians

Not only is the list long but the scandals have really taken off in the 1990's and 2000's. It appears more crooks, liars, and thieves realize the dumbest most gullible people out there seem to be the right wing evangelicals.

Their extremist thinking is bizarre at the least. Obama included in his inauguration speech references to gays and a willingness to expand the gifts of democracy, freedom, and extensions of rights to them. Through history America has extended these rights of freedom, democracy and basic decent treatment of people to more and more folks. It is the advancement of civilization.

Obama is a married man in a heterosexual marriage. His life is an example of support for that practice. What more be said.

Its only in the weak minded perspective of right wing extremists that are tied to evangelical credo's that a person speaking about expanding rights to more Americans is branded anti traditional marriage.

If I were speaking about physics, apple farmers could accuse me of being anti apples because I didn't mention apples. What a crock of nonsense.

Of course you can go back to the list of scandals from their leadership, and realize that the scandals and scumbag rip off artists have expanded in the last decade. I suppose it suggests their supporters are getting more weak minded.

Alternatively, as you suggest they may have a strong strong interest in where men's penises seem to go.

The right winger, moralist ex Senator Larry Craig seemed to have that interest. Its probably pretty common

 

Classic... As if support for gays and gay marriage is such a breakthrough that's going to launch us in to prosperity! What a breakthrough.

I happen to think that we were created for the p to go in to the v. I also think that being gay IS NOT NORMAL. To think that makes me "weak minded", a racist, a hater, or anything else is just plain idiotic.

I'm glad that Obama has been able to keep his marriage going - at least he's accomplished and followed through on something in his life. I congratulate him.

The left want to completely ignore how this country was founded and what has made us prosper. Just another thing to add to the list.

And with the help of people like Earl and Stox - morons will continue to get elected in to office. Failed wanna-be leaders that accomplish nothing, but make you feel good about yourself. People that are more interested in defending homos and putting women on the front line! Yeah, rock on!

No one is willing to stand up for themselves, have some true convictions / morals and completely forget how they came to this earth.

Next on the list for being normal and OK - Polygamy.

 

looks like 80 prominent members of the GOP are going to support same sex marriage in a signed brief to the supreme court: http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-supporting-gay-marriage-write-supreme-court-amicus-224207764.html

Bet they would have a whooping good time at a same sex marriage at the National Cathedral.

 

Comedy. From your article, the following quote:

I always love the editorial discretion in wording these articles. The margin of error on that poll could be no less than 3%, making Americans evenly divided on the issue, yet that didn't fit the desired message of having the Republicans be out of touch with Americans, so better to just say the Republicans are in opposition to the majority of Americans, even if it isn't so.

Funnier still is the fact that California Democrats are the ones who put Prop 8 over the top. The very same people who voted for Obama, by a margin of 96% to 0%. Hmmm. Someone is out of touch with half of America (as if that is relevant), but to mention them by name is taboo.

 

how suprising o-nation: you missed the point of the article. I'll print the first 2 paragraphs for you, that you don't want to discuss:

 

And clearly you missed the point of my post. The article is written by a partisan hack. Once you digest that factoid, the rest of the article becomes a propaganda hit piece of little importance. It is a fact of life lost on many modern day "journalists".

 

....and your point is a convenient way to avoid the topic: 80 prominent members of the GOP are going to take the extraordinary step of petitioning the Supreme court with an amicus brief supporting gay marriage.

That is newsworthy, surprising, and pretty astonishing. Submitting a "friend of the court" brief is a totally unnecessary step by any group. To do so is a stark statement of a strong interest in the topic and a willingness to be heard publicly let alone within the Supreme Court.

That these members of the GOP are willing to do so, is a dramatic step in challenging the status quo interests of the family values segment of the GOP and directly challenge them from a strictly GOP perspective.

You can sit there and brand some writer a hack, because you don't like the story...but the facts remain that there is dissension in the GOP on this issue and its gaining prominence.

 

It might be astonishing and newsworthy, but the only reason it is actually being pushed as news by your article and you is to perpetuate the idea of discord in the GOP. I notice you aren't pushing articles about the widespread and longstanding opposition to gay marriage in the black community, which is equally newsworthy. I notice you aren't pushing articles about the Obama administration's serial failure and disinformation scheme regarding Benghazi.

Sorry if I can't be bothered to get my hackles up every time some liberal reporter cry's trouble in the GOP or Mikael decries the evilness of Israel. Some people have an ax to grind.

 

And here is another person of note with strong GOP leanings, who actually spoke in front of the GOP Presidential Nominating Convention: Don't get more prominent in GOP circles than speaking before the Presidential Nominating Convention;

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...rop-californias-ban-on-same-sex-marriage?lite

O-nation: Do you have an opinion on this topic? Do you agree with Clint Eastwood and Meg Whitman or do you agree with grpaul????

 

I believe grpaul, Eastwood, Whitman, and I are all in agreement with the idea that calling Obama a horrible president is a gross understatement. Like the idea of gay marriage being legal, it is something the Black Community overwhelmingly disagrees with.

If you are asking my opinion on gay marriage, I believe I made that clear already, but for the record I am indifferent to it, though I do support redefining our country's legal view of marriage. It seems our marriage law was defined with a very traditional (Christian) view of marriage, with the wife as a dependent at home with the kids. People tend to forget that at will divorce, or divorce for no other reason than irreconcilable differences, is a legal notion no more than a few decades old, even in liberal California. Hard to believe considering the idea of the state refusing to allow a wife to leave her husband sounds like something out of the middle east.


In other words, the definition of a what we call the committed relationship or marriage has already changed so much, it takes a bit of work to understand why we still have marriage laws at all. The specialized income tax categories, and rules surrounding inheritance which bypass the tax code, seemed to have all been perks to encourage staying with your spouse/raising children in "nuclear" families. American culture. New American culture can be found on TV shows like Jersey Shore, The Real Housewives of Orange County, and Babies' Mamas. It isn't very pretty.

If the State wants to be in the business of promoting marriage with tax dollars, it should only be doing so for people raising children, in my opinion. Outside of that, they should give anyone who wants to get "hitched" a legal structure like a joint venture, or an LLP they can jump into at the nearest chapel. You want to marry your dog, or cat, no problem. Four wives, five husbands, no problem. Hook it up with a donkey if that is what floats your boat.

Gay marriage has very little to do with raising children, in my opinion. Hell, straight marriage has little to do with raising children anymore.

 

You did not answer my question. Do you agree with Clint Eastwood or do you agree with GRPaul on this gay marriage issue?

 

Jesus man, I spelled out my position in nauseating detail. Why not just admit your request is worded in a way that is meant to divide people. You must be taking notes while the president speaks. I swear the man could get buddhists and other sworn pacifists to bash each other's brains in. Let me spell it out in bullet points.

Clint Eastwood, Meg Whitman, grpaul, and I all agree that:

• Obama is a horrible leader
• The US would have been better off if Obama had not won election in 2012
• Obama's policies breed dependency
• The African American community opposes gay marriage, while supporting Obama at 96%
• The fate of Prop 8 will be decided by the court and we will all live with their decision
• The issue of gay marriage is trivial in consideration of the fact the federal government is borrowing 1.6 trillion dollars a year
• Obama runs a federal government that is opaque and overtly hostile to those who question it, including and specifically those in the press.

Nothing but agreement here pal, so you focus on some point where you think we disagree all you like. Just don't ask me to participate.

 

I guess you won't, can't, or refuse to answer a simple question.

OTOH: Like the rest of the tea party type members of the GOP you are still involved in the post 2008 election: Attack Obama every day.

Maybe you didn't get the news. Obama won in 2008. He won again in 2012. BTW: That means he isn't running anymore. That obviously doesn't stop you from droning on with the same stuff the public didn't buy in 2008 and 2012.

Meanwhile, you are showing us:

A). You are still campaigning against Obama
B). You can't answer a simple question.
C). Take A and B together and indicates you have policy suggestions on nothing substantial, you can't deal with the simplest of issues, and your entire focus is on attacking a guy who is never running for office again.

No wonder the GOP is engaged in a series of deadly internal battles. There is a zombie like mentality that can't seem to deal with real life and current conditions.

Getting back to my point above about 80 fairly noteworthy and active members of the GOP are dealing with a current issue, making news by taking an action they clearly don't need to do, and contacting the Supreme Court to address the issue of Gay marriage.

...and where does o-nation stand??? oh yeah...back in 2008.

 

Oh Earl. Stay with me now.

I'm going to take the time here in this post to respond to the substantive points in your post.

...

And there it is.