Jeepers, I go to work for a few measly hours, and President Barack Obama has an epiphany about equal rights for citizens of different sexual orientations:
Barack Obama doesn't sound like a man waging war on marriage. He sounds like a decent, thoughtful man who respects a variety of beliefs, who has looked for reasonable policy solutions, and who has decided he needs to take bolder steps to ensure that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens enjoy the same basic rights he and other fellow Americans do to enjoy the full legal rights of committed, loving relationships.
President Obama also doesn't sound like a man who feels his marriage is threatened by all those non-heterosexual folks working on his staff and fighting his wars while hugging and kissing and raising kids. Barack and Michelle celebrate their 20th wedding anniversary in October. (My lovely wife and I mark Year 10 on Friday; we don't feel threatened by anybody else's kanoodling, either.)
Oh yeah, Mitt Romney offered a predictable, smiling response:
The big news, the good news, is that President Obama is doing the right thing. He's standing for inclusion, for declaring more citizens full members of the American family.
On the political side of things, the President's announcement may be a non-event. THe folks who love him for dropping Don't Ask Don't Tell and enforcement of the Clinton-signed Defense of Marriage Act will love him just a bit more for supporting same-sex marriage. The folks who think he's waging war on marriage already thought that, and there's no changing their minds.
But I take some pleasure in seeing the President announce his shift of conscience and policy in response to North Carolina's decision Tuesday to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. In the midst of a Presidential election, he's willing to look in the eye of 61% of voters in a state he narrowly won in 2008 and say, "Folks, you're wrong." (Yes, he could have pulled the trigger Monday and tried to help defeat North Carolina's odious amendment... but then the right would be screaming about the President's interference in a state ballot issue, right?)
More important (though not as important as the transcendent morality and justice of the President's decision) is the appearance the President gives of saying to Mitt Romney and the radical right running the GOP, "Game on." On an issue the Right is counting on, the President is abandoning triangulation for straight opposition. The President isn't speaking like a man worried that Romney could take him in November. The President seems to be daring Romney to tack harder right. And to motivate the Tea-ocrats and theocrats, Romney has to do just that.
The President today did the right thing. His clear words will force Mitt Romney to keep doing the wrong thing. GLBT brothers and sisters, congratulations on this latest step toward equality.
Wednesday (May 9) on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," they repeatedly used the word "evolving" with just a wee bit of whimsy, to describe President Obama's own way of talking about his position.
I thought it was cool that Obama admitted to having an attitude in flux. My own attitude on the issue is not entirely static, either, nor is that of the whole country.
However, I can also see how Obama's position might have "evolved to optimize his chances for reelection." That would be more like calculated adjustment, not evolution, in the view of cynics.
I wonder if Mitt Romney will latch onto that straw.
Actually, I don't care whether gays "get married" or not, as long as they are not discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. I can see, however, that some religious folks consider re-definition of marriage as a way of twisting the knife, adding a dose of real insult to an imagined injury.
Now if he could just get those elusive illegal aliens to somehow vote for him all would be swell in the world.
Stan, if the President made this move to boost his re-election chances, then it's a signal that the religious right has lost its argument with the majority of Americans. That's a good sign.
But listen to his explanation in the video again. I suppose those of us who like the President will trust him while the Bob Ellises and Ed Randazzos never will. But the President sounds sincere and serious in explaining how his experience, his conversations with his family, and his Christianity led him to this decision. If we look at the words alone, separate from the person and the politics, we hear a thoughtful, darn-near inspiring of why we our GLBT neighbors deserve equal rights.
It was the President's concern for the sense of insult and injury among some religious folks that kept the President on or just over the other side of the fence for so long. The President also has pretty strong respect for marriage himself, as evidenced by his commitment to his wife and daughters. But maybe by his example, we can learn that there is no real injury and no cause to take insult at what any two people do in their own bedroom.
Quick, Charlie, throw more mud! When you're losing on an issue, that's all there's left to do, right?
On so many occasions President Obama exhibits his preoccupation with representing the extreme center of the US electorate. It can be so maddening to those of us who rather have a transsexual Fourth World Lesbian running the country.
I trust that this really was an evolution in the President's thoughts and beliefs. I know it is a shocking concept to some people, but it is possible to change your beliefs on things. I had a good friend in college (UNL) whom for years said she did not believe in same-sex marriage...nothing against homosexuals, they just shouldn't get married, Bible says so, etc. We debated it constantly.
Then, she moved to California and actually started interacting with openly gay people whom were in committed, loving relationships. Her landlords were an elderly gay couple whom had been in a monogamous relationship with each other for over 30 years. Her next trip home, she told me that she saw what I had been talking about all along. Spending time with them changed her thought process and opened her eyes. She is now very much for same-sex marriage.
I was very proud of our President for taking this step. It seems he really thought about this and after various discussions over the years with friends, family and exposure to same-sex couples, he had a change of heart. Good for him to being open to change! Unfortunately, there are too many people whom are against any form of change in their thought process, no matter what the argument or situation.
[CAH: Amazing what we learn when we leave our familiar, homegeneous small towns and go so how real people live elsewhere, isn't it, Becca? We need to get our kids out to travel more.]
Does he look greenish in the screen capture where the video is frozen? I always thought he might be an alien...
And Romney looks so orange... He must be another type of alien...
I, too, find myself struggling with this topic.
The idea that people who love each other and want to enjoin in a more permanent relationship should enjoy equal protection under the law, no matter color, creed, or sexual orientation, makes good sense under our founding documents. This means if the Federal government wishes to reward unions with tax breaks, inherent rights to property, and assumed decision-making authority in legal and medical matters, it should extend to everyone. Hetereosexual couples. Homosexual couples. And I dare say even polygamous couples (if we reject the argument that a union can only be between a man and a woman, I don't see any legiitmate argument against recognizing polygamy... heck, with the way this world is going, we might need extra bread winners per household just to get by).
My thoughts then go to the term "marriage"... If marriage is traditionally held as having deep roots and association with religions, and is generally recognized as between a man and a woman, then let it be reserved for that specific type of unionization (In the same way that a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares). My fiance and I may be married by a church officiant, but to the Federal government, it should just be a civil union by a different name.
Let the Federal government recognize all forms of Union, and give them equal sway, but it seems wrong to coop the language of a demographic against their will.
"Stan, if the President made this move to boost his re-election chances, then it’s a signal that the religious right has lost its argument with the majority of Americans. That’s a good sign."
Yes, the New Age Theocrat's government school indoctrination has set up the mob rule by the majority attack on the religiouys rights of Biblical Christians. There you have a democracy destroying a republic that is based on God-given rights, which do not include sodomy. Read about Sodom in the Bible. Yes, New Age Theology is very old paganism, which includes the worship of sex.
As usual, Sibby has it half-backwards. Religious beliefs that result in some people having more human and civil rights than others is a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.
I agree with WayneB (I think). There's no real need to call civil unions "marriage" for any gender. Get married at a church, get civily unionized by a judge, for straights, for gays, for anyone. If your church allows gay marriage, then gays can get married at it. If it doesn't, they can't. Then gays have equal rights, and there is religious freedom. Problem solved! The idea of marriage as a religious concept is fairly accurate, and so we might as well sever the ties between state and church by renaming the whole thing.
Also, Obama used to be a supporter of gay marriage when he ran for Illinois State Senate back in 1996, but changed his stance when he ran for US Senate. It's possible his opinion just happened to coincide with improving his chances at reelection, but I would venture to guess that it was political expediency.
That said, maybe his family did convince him to come clean about his views on gay marriage, or maybe he thinks it'll up his chances. 49% of Americans, after all, support gay marriage, and only 40% are against it.
It may be the Obama administration trying to push Romney farther right, as you suggest Cory, because the farther right Romney goes, the more he alienates less extreme Republicans, many of whom understand quite well that Obama is a centrist.
It's a semantic distinction, but to LGBT folks a distinction with a difference.
e.g. How about if we said, "okay you can marry that American Indian woman, but we'll just call it a civil union."
A distinction with a difference.
And the resistance reveals the prejudice.
No, no. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying only gay people should have civil unions. I'm saying ALL partnerships that involve the government should be civil unions. A man and woman, for example, attending a Catholic church, would marry at the Catholic church. They would be married in the eyes of the Catholic church, but would have nothing in the eyes of the government. Then, they would sign their documents in the courthouse, and would then have a civil union in the eyes of the government, giving them all the current legal benefits of marriage.
No special distinction for LGBT people. No one can get legal benefits by getting married by any church, and the government gives you a civil contract of sorts, as opposed to you being married. Religion and government should be two entities that are not bound together in any way, and therefore getting married (or civilly unionized) by one should not have any effect on the other. Change the name of one of the institutions to take away any implications of sameness.
I'm not sure that accomplishes social equality, Carter. I hear you though, and take your point. What needs to change, imho, is the zeitgeist.
Quite so. Everyone just needs to chill out.
Solution: Make smoking marijuana mandatory. Then everyone is relaxed all the time.
"Gay people are getting married? That's cool, man. I need some chips."
Also, no more road rage. Two birds, one stone(r).
Cool, Carter.
Speaking of chilling out, let's listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T_EOA9k898
As per Joni:
"We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall, keeping us tried and true..."
Hey. I changed my mind. Instead of killing two birds with one stone, we just chill out with three little ones.
Yup, Carter & I are speaking the same language.
It's a very progressive thought... rather than trying to force fit a diversity of concepts under an established institution, create the language that encompasses all aspects. It'll take a large effort on the part of the nation to redefine how we speak about the subject...
After reading how NPR was comparing Obama to Romney on this issue, I wonder what the reaction would be if Mitt came out in support not only of homosexual marriage, but polygamous marriage as well? Given the Mormon traditions, it'd make sense (and hey, why make bisexuals choose just one?), but I have a feeling we as a nation aren't ready to handle that discussion, either. Would the Left embrace his comments or denounce him as a religious wacko?
As for me, I am 100% in favor of polygamy as a religious institution. If you want to marry 5 women (or 5 men, or 3 men and 2 women, or 1 man, 3 women, and 1 person who lists their gender as "other", or any combination thereof), I don't think anyone should be able to tell you otherwise. The only people it concerns are you and the other people involved in the marriage.
That said, polygamy should not be allowed to be a legal marriage. The reason for this is that marriage presents many legal benefits to the people involved, such as tax breaks. It becomes a whole other story when you have 10 people all married to one other person, all reaping tax benefits. But maybe that wouldn't be a problem. Who knows.
WayneB, only if he (Romney) said "marriage is between a man and a woman, or between a man and any number of women, or a man and a man, or any number of men, or a woman and a woman and/or any number of women and/or men, because like ...whatever...."
Think he'll go there? If not, then no.
I would pay literally all the money to hear Romney say that, even if he didn't go through with it, Bill.
And I mean all the money. Not just all my money. I would rob every single person I saw and throw the money at Mitt by the handful just to hear those exact works. Especially the "because like ...whatever...." part. Thank you, Bill. Somehow, that cracked me up.
Actuall, my personal way of looking at marriage limits my ability to even consider any form of polygamy or group marriage, and I think there is a difference between the two. In a group marriage, everyone is married (i.e. "belongs") to everyone else in the group. It's not centered around one person, which is how I understand polygamy and polyandry to be.
And it is this "belonging to" that gives me pause. I don't think I'm capable of promising that. But maybe some people are.
Glad you liked it, Carter, It was fun to write. :^)
...ultimately, that's what I think marriage is socially... people promising to give themselves to one another, and society witnessing, supporting and approving that bond. (...and by extention, I suppose, expecting those who made the promise to keep it so the rest of us can count on it.) We thus, in essence "bless" the relationship.
And that's where it gets sticky (religiously speaking.)
I don't worry so much about the need for society to approve. It shouldn't matter if society doesn't like you marrying someone (or someones, as the case may be). It's not their business. If they're offended by your personal choices that don't effect them in any way, they that's their own problem.
As for the idea of keeping the promise of marriage ('til death do us part, and all that), I think that's a little bit antiquated. It's asking people to either predict the future, or ignore their feelings just to keep a promise that neither of them likes anymore.
I've been dating a girl for three years, for example. If we get married, right now I might say "Yes, I want to be with you for the rest of my life", but I can't predict that that feeling will continue for five more years, or ten more years, or twenty-five more years. Feelings and personalities change over time. Just because a marriage goes bad doesn't mean someone failed, or something is wrong. Things just change.
Yes, there's a problem with people getting married too soon, or people wanting a divorce as soon as they have a fight, but realistically, two people staying together in marriage should only be done because they want to stay in that marriage. It shouldn't be an obligation to stay married because you said you would love them forever. No one can promise that. It's not a thing that can be controlled.
It is called "marital bliss" after all. If you don't have the bliss part, why should we say you need to stick with the marital part?
"Religious beliefs that result in some people having more human and civil rights than others is a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment."
Like females having the right to kill their kids and fathers don't.
"After reading how NPR was comparing Obama to Romney on this issue, I wonder what the reaction would be if Mitt came out in support not only of homosexual marriage, but polygamous marriage as well?"
Romney invented gay marriage and ObamaCare in Massachusetts before Obama was even in the White House.
Wait, Romney invented gay marriage?
Huh...
"As for me, I am 100% in favor of polygamy as a religious institution. If you want to marry 5 women (or 5 men, or 3 men and 2 women, or 1 man, 3 women, and 1 person who lists their gender as “otherâ€, or any combination thereof)"
Then how about marrying your dog, your own children, your mother?
I believe Pres. Obama has always supported same-sex marriage, he was just afraid to publicly say that (at least after his state senate days). The only thing that has evolved is his willingness to support same-sex marriage as public policy rather than in theory or in private.
Why now? Besides the GLBT vote - the youth vote. Young people are widely in favor of same-sex marriage. They haven't adopted the prejudices of their parents and grandparents, except those hard-core young Republicans who wouldn't vote for Pres. Obama anyway. He's motivating the youth vote. Hope and Change 2012.
To the youth, Pres. Obama need only make Willard Romney look rich, old, and out-of-touch. Willard will do most of that work himself, without knowing it of course.
One of the few conservative publications to expose Romney's liberalism is the conservative weekly Human Events which (in a 2005 article) listed Romney at number eight on its list of "Top Ten Republicans in Name Only (RINOs)." Indeed, this report will demonstrate that Romney was probably the most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official in the nation for the last decade. The idea that he has suddenly become a conservative after a decade of liberal actions and statements would be merely amusing were it not for the fact that he's running for the presidency and that many conservatives are falling for this act.
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
"Actuall, my personal way of looking at marriage limits my ability to even consider any form of polygamy or group marriage, and I think there is a difference between the two."
So Bill, you have evolved into a god who can say who can and who cannot get married. Typical New Ager.
"Then how about marrying your dog, your own children, your mother?"
Sure, no, no.
Dogs: Yes. I don't see how it negatively impacts anyone else. If you like doing the hoohaa with you dog, who cares?
Children: No. Incest leads to horrible deformities in children and therefore negatively impacts more than just yourself.
Mother: No. See above.
"Young people are widely in favor of same-sex marriage."
Due to the New Age Theocrats establishing their religion in the government schools.
"Sure, no, no."
So Carter who died and made you Pope?
Changed my mind. Dogs can't consent, so no to dogs, too.
"Wait, Romney invented gay marriage?"
After reading the link I left above regarding the Romney deception, you should now understand what I was saying on another thread about Jesus giving us a warning on deceivers. What to gain discernment Carter? Then start reading the Bible.
Marriage requires consent, otherwise it's all messed up, so there's that.
Religion has nothing to do with it. Science makes incest babies deformed. If it's all about religion, then mothers should be free to start taking thalidomide again, too, right?
"Dogs can’t consent, so no to dogs, too."
So you are now saying no to the mentally handicapped, who can't consent?
Carter who says you are going to have babies, when you get married. How are two men going to have babies. Are you now saying only those who plan on having babies can get married. If so, then gay marriage is out.
The potential is there, Steve. They're certainly going to copulate, and male+female+sex=babies.
If you're saying that incest would still be illegal, even if the mother and son, mother and daughter, brother and sister, or whatever, are married? Then sure. I suppose they can get married all they want, as long as they're not having babies.
And yes, Steve. If a mentally handicapped person is incapable of consenting, no one should be doing the deed with him, or marrying him. How are we supposed to know if he want it?
"What to gain discernment Carter? Then start reading the Bible."
If I were to learn something from the Bible, Steve, it would be how prone to contradiction non-primary sources are.
History lesson: Caesar was known as the king of kings, and so they called Jesus the king of kings to proclaim that they followed Jesus, not Caesar. Bible won't tell you that one.
@Steve:
“Then how about marrying your dog, your own children, your mother?â€
Dog,cat,cattle,sheep etc. No. They are not capable of consent.
Marrying a parent or sibling: No. It's incest and,frankly, any mind that would counter the idea of same sex human couples marrying and being entitled to the same civil rights as heterosexual couples with bestiality and incest is crazy. What two consenting adult humans do with their relationship together is no one else's business. They are not hurting you.
Same sex couples marrying doesn't negate your love,commitment,and vows to your heterosexual union does it? If it does,there are professionals that can assist you with those issues.
“Young people are widely in favor of same-sex marriage.â€
"Due to the New Age Theocrats establishing their religion in the government schools."
Young people are not as dumb as certain people seem to think.
On a side note: I find it both amusing and somewhat sad that,for whatever reason,you can't carry on a conversation with anyone here without being so anal about slapping some silly label on everyone.
Carter, since you are not using the Bible, then where are you getting all of these rules as to how can and can't get married?
Sorry, who not how.
Vickie, the same quewstion I just asked Carter, where are you getting all of these rules as to who can and can’t get married?
You're the one that suggested people could marry animals and family members Steve. It wasn't me nor was it Carter.
"you can’t carry on a conversation with anyone here without being so anal"
Did you know it is scientifically proven that putting a penis into an anus is a huge health risks?
Well duh. As long as it's not your penis or anus why do you care?
"You’re the one that suggested people could marry animals and family members Steve. It wasn’t me nor was it Carter."
I ask the questions to determine if you also draw lines in the sand in regard to the institution of marriage.
The ability to reason, Steve. If no one is hurt by a particular marriage, then there's nothing wrong with it. Problem solved.
Why would I get my rules on marriage from a 1700 year old book, anyway? It's just the opinions of a bunch of Nicaean priests, anyway. What made them so qualified to decide arbitrary rules?
Reason trumps pretty much everything, Steve-o.
"As long as it’s not your penis or anus why do you care?"
So Carter, as long as it is not your baby who is deformed, why should you care?
Yes, it is a huge health risk. So is porking a prostitute, but guess what? No one is hurt but you. So, as Vickie said, why should I care? It's not my business.
I have no problem with marriage between consenting adult humans Steve.
Because the baby is a separate life form, Steve. The baby didn't decide to have incest. You did. Why should the baby suffer because you decided to have a romp in the hay with your first cousin?
So we should base married on Carterism? What about Flemingism, or Heidelbergerism? Who was it this week that brought the concern of anarchy?
"The baby didn’t decide to have incest."
The baby didn't decided to rape its mother, so why should it be aborted?
Nope. We should base marriage on freedom and empathy. No reason to go into Carterism. But hey! If people want to believe that I'm some sort of god, and that following me is the path to eternal salvation, I suppose I'll be willing to accept tithes.
Steve why do you turn so many things into an abortion debate? If you don't want an abortion then you don't have to have one.
So again the mentally handicapped question, should they should be forbidden to marry?
Because the baby isn't alive yet when it's aborted, Steve. It's just a group of cells. People pick flowers. Do you have a problem with that? People also shoot all kinds of animals all the time, and it's generally accepted. Why is aborting a not-human group of cells worse than shooting actual sentient creatures for fun and pleasure?
And with every breath we take we produce CO2 and are killing the earth. Perhaps we should ban the marriage of man and women and only allow homosexual sex? Planned Parenthood would go out of business.
Who says mentally handicapped people can't get married? It would depend upon the extent of the handicap. If the person/persons in question aren't mentally able to give informed consent then I seriously doubt that they are even considering marriage.
"Why is aborting a not-human group of cells worse than shooting actual sentient creatures for fun and pleasure?"
If they are not human cells, then they are animal cells? Dog or horse? We have to ban hunting before we ban abortions. So pantheistic and New Age.
Late Breaking News: Steve,Planned Parenthood isn't all about abortion.
"Who says mentally handicapped people can’t get married? "
I thought Carter wanted to avoid deformed babies.
"Planned Parenthood isn’t all about abortion."
I know they are the militant arm of the New Age movement and are about sex worship.
You're having a reading comprehension problem Steve.
So for either Vickie or Carter, If I disagree with Carterism or Vickieism, should you be allowed to indoctrinate other people's kids with your worldview?
Sex worship?! LOL FYI Steve,they provide valuable health screenings for those that can't afford them. Thanks to Planned Parenthood,my sister was able to get a free mammogram that helped to diagnose breast cancer. That was the beginning of her life being saved.
"You’re having a reading comprehension problem Steve."
Yes, I am. I am confused on why you and Carter can make up rules about marriage and Christians can't.
So for either Vickie or Carter, If I disagree with Carterism or Vickieism, should you be allowed to indoctrinate other people’s kids with your worldview?
Why not? You seem to think that you can and damn anyone that doesn't agree with you. :)
"That was the beginning of her life being saved."
So she accepted Jesus Christ?
Christians can have all of the rules they desire. They just don't have the right to demand that everyone share their beliefs.
"Why not? You seem to think that you can and damn anyone that doesn’t agree with you."
So you can, but I can't?
Seriously? Now you're mocking my sister having cancer. Gee,you're such a swell guy.
"They just don’t have the right to demand that everyone share their beliefs."
And you just said that you can push yours onto other people's children. Better stop and think about it for a while.
I'm not damning anyone. That's your style not mine.
"Now you’re mocking my sister having cancer."
No, our physical lives are temporary. Eternal life is what I am hoping for your sister.
I'm very clear. Again,your comprehension is way off.
Now Vickie, I am hoping for eternal life for you sister, and you accuse me of damning people to hell.
My sister has fought and won three different forms of cancer in her life. She does not need your hopes,especially since you chose to mock her in situation first. Now you backtrack with some sort of apology.
Comprehension Steve. I never said anything about hell. You assumed.
This thread is so offensive even I won't take part. Steve: you are unfit to serve South Dakota as a legislator.
I need to apologize for hoping you sister enjoys eternal life?
"Steve: you are unfit to serve South Dakota as a legislator."
Yeah I know Larry. I tell the truth.
My comment was limited to what I personally would and would not be willing to commit to in a marriage arrangement, and what I personally think the institution of marriage is all about. It doesn't have anything to with my evolving into anything, or having any authority to tell anyone else anything about anything. It was a personal testimonial. One man's opinion on the subject of marriage.
I also have an opinion about Sibby's ideas about dating zygotes and marrying goats, but I think I'll just keep those to myself until after he's taken his meds and climbed down off the ceiling.
I didn't say that you needed to apologize Steve. I just pointed out that you mocked my statement about how my sister had her breast cancer diagnosed with the help of a free mammogram at Planned Parenthood and it helped save her life and you responded with "So she accepted Jesus Christ?" That is blatantly mocking her situation. Then you stated that you had hopes for her eternal life and after that you admonish me for stating what a swell guy you are. You're a hypocrite.
...and a jackass.
He always goes off with those kinds of insults, Vicki. I think it's pathological. I don't really think he understands how despicable he sounds. We have to tell him so he knows when to back off.
Yeah. I'm very familiar with what Steve says and believes. I read here a lot along with what he writes to the editor of The Daily republic. I typically don't respond to his rantings,I just shake my head and read what's posted by the people that actually discuss things.
"That is blatantly mocking her situation."
You mocked your own sister by using her as a political pawn to justify the killing of millions of babies.
It is worth the price of admission to see Fleming resorting to personal attacks when he loses the debate. It is also very sad to watch a bunch of self-rightoeus bigots act like they are so tolerate becauce they accept sin, as they condemn those for restricting what they themselves want to restrict.
Steve,how does my sister having cancer and how she was diagnosed even remotely relate to anything political...except in your own mind? You refuse to see anything about Planned Parenthood except the abortion and contraceptive services.
Bill's right. You're a jackass....and delusional at that.
Give it up already.
"how does my sister having cancer and how she was diagnosed even remotely relate to anything political"
I am saying it should not, but you brought her up. And yes, your personal attacks shows you lost the debate. Give it up.
"He always goes off with those kinds of insults, Vicki"
like jackass and "after he’s taken his meds and climbed down off the ceiling"
and Vickie says I am the hypocrite? and delusional?
How is driving people from Cory's blog in disgust doing the Lord's work, Steve?
I never lose a debate Steve. :) I can agree to disagree,but you have a habit if stirring up crap when there is no need,except for your own need to argue about pretty much everything on Earth.
As for the personal attacks: you started it and you know it. Your constant labeling and judgement of others and picking and choosing who to call names yourself. ie. "self-righteous bigots."
I'd love to sit here and debate with you all day. Unfortunately,Larry is correct. This is turning people away from Cory's thread....and I actually have more productive things to do.
...and a jackass. Yes, Steve. Precisely.
There is by my count not a single person one here who agrees with you in case you haven't noticed. In fact, you have turned everyone's stomach, insulter our intelligence, and made a fool of yourself... again.
If you has a shred of decency you would apologize to Vicki, fold up your snake oil tent, slink off and call it a day.
(...man was that a crappy typing job, or what? Sorry.)
"you started it and you know it. Your constant labeling and judgement of others and picking and choosing who to call names yourself. ie. “self-righteous bigots.â€
The "self-righteous bigots" came toward the end of this thread, not at the beginning Vickie. So saying I started it is delusional.
"How is driving people from Cory’s blog in disgust doing the Lord’s work, Steve?"
Sorry people don't like the truth, but that is more important than my popularity.
Cory is being far more generous than ip would be, Steve: you would have been blocked two years ago.
Sibby has been banned from more blogs than anyone I know. All kinds of blogs. Left, right, centrist. He's an equal opportunity offender.
Wow, hey. This thread has really taken off since I went to work. And to think just the other day I defended Steve because he's honest and caring. I think his craziness might just occasionally overlap with honesty and empathy, like a Venn diagram.
I hope nobody ever questions Cory's dedication to freedom of speech. Although I really wouldn't mind being able to have a nice, reasonable discussion, someday...
Vickie, I appreciate the effort and regret the insulting behavior to which you were subjected. Alas, on Sibby, your effort is wasted. He continues to derail all discussion to focus on his chosen slogans and fantasies. Oh, the narcissism.
Wayne mentioned his discomfort with coöpting one demographic's term. I guess I'm guilty of that myself. I refer to my relationship with Erin as marriage. The wedding happened in a Christian church, yet we carefully chose vows that would allow me to avoid making untruthful statement about relating to the God I don't believe in. Erin is Christian, I am not. Who does more mockery to the institution of Christian marriage: my wife and I, or two Christian men who live in a lifelong homosexual partnership?
Carter: Steve has made my point about his detachment from humanity. I maintain civility by ignoring most of what Steve endlessly repeats.
Carter, your comment way above at 12:41 gets me thinking about lifelong commitment. I understand the reasoning about not establishing a lifelong obligation, given the concern that feelings can change and "bliss" can fade. Yet my wife and I made just such a commitment ten years ago (actually ten and a half, the night we got engaged, which we defined as the point of no return). We did promise to love each other until death do us part. We justify that promise with our view that love is not some external force that possesses us. We take the position that love is that choice to commit. That choice is not normative; it is not required of everyone. But as long as we have hearts that beat, minds that reason, and hands that reach out, we can make that choice every day. We choose bliss of our own making.
Congratulations on ten years, Cory. Hopefully, you're one of the lucky ones and your marriage stays happy for your entire life.
I'm not saying that marriage commitments should be for any time other than life. I just think that it shouldn't be considered such a bad thing for a couple to end their marriage if they're no longer happy with it. People talk about how horrible it is that divorce rates are so high, but no one seems to be concerned over whether or not the people getting divorced are happy with their decision.
I would much rather have a high divorce rate where people can change their minds, and fall out of love, and move on when their lives take them in different directions than I would have a low divorce rate and many people who are stuck with someone they don't love, or someone they don't even like, just because society frowns on marriages not working.
Unfortunately, not everyone can make the choices you and your wife make. For many people, the choice isn't to commit to a person every day, but a choice to stick through something they aren't enjoying. In my opinion, people should be free to be happy, and if divorcing their partner to move on with their lives is what will make them happy, then society shouldn't have a problem with that.
Well said, Cory. Carter, the promise is about making it through the hard times. it presumes we need one another. It's easy to make it through the good times. As one wise man once wrote, "What was it that you thought needed to be loved?"
I wrestle with that question of happiness, Carter... and that's why I say our choice is not normative for everyone. I also agree that a relationship gone bad can do more harm if sustained than ended.
But people ending marriages do more damage to the institution of marriage than people of the same-sex entering them. We do more to uphold the institution of marriage by preventing people who can't do commitment right from signing on in the first place than by banning dedicated same-sex partners from joining.
Bill, there is a difference between making it through hard times and simply not loving someone anymore. I'm not talking about the people who marry someone and divorce them a month later because they had a fight. I'm talking about the countless marriages that last years, or decades, and end for entirely good reasons.
If you make it through a long enough relationship, you're going to have made it through good times and bad. Who are we to say when someone's relationship is going through a "rough patch" or if the whole relationship has become a rough patch?
What about the times when things are good? No one has done anything wrong, the money is fine, the jobs are fine. Everything is great, except the couple simply don't really care about each other anymore? Should they stick with it just because they promised they would?
Do we place peoples' words so highly on a pedestal that their happiness doesn't matter anymore? Is a promise worth so much that it's worth giving up your happiness, and the other person giving up their happiness, just so you can say you kept your word?
Life is too short to force yourself to stick with something you regret forever. And with so much suffering in the world already, why add to that just because you said you'd stick with something?
Maybe I just don't understand this idea of the "institution of marriage". I don't think marriage should be anything other than between two people (or more, as was discussed previously, but we won't get into that for obvious reasons). I'm not married to my girlfriend, but that doesn't mean I have no faith in the relationship because I've seen other couples break up.
If all the other couples in the world broke up, and we were the only couple left, why should I have lost faith in relationships? If I'm happy, and she is happy, then that's proof enough for me that relationships can work.
If two people are married, I don't think it should matter what other couples do. If the divorce rate was 99%, why should that matter to the 1% of couples who are happy in their marriage, and love their spouse for their entire life? When it comes to relationships, it isn't about what other people feel, or other people think, or other people do. It's about what you and your partner feel, and think, and do, and you shouldn't let the success or failure of any number of relationships affect how your relationship, because your relationship is yours, not theirs, and your feelings are yours, not theirs.
Sure, if you get to a point where you can't keep your promise any more, you break it. But why decide that at the beginning, before you make the promise?
It's like applying for a job. You wouldn't go in and say, "Well I don't know if I'll be able to do this job or not" Right? Who knows how long you'll work there? And what difference does it make?
A relationship takes work, just like anything else.
The promise is about a committment to do the work.
Bill, I'm not saying that when you get married you shouldn't say "I'm in this for life". I'm saying that society shouldn't worry so much about people giving up on that promise. Society doesn't shun you for quitting a job because you've moved on to a different desire. It should be okay to throw in the towel, not something that people say, "Well, I guess you failed."
Maybe I am still in the old hippy mode,.why should anyone tell me or Sibby or.....millions of other people to adhere to the Christian standards of any liaison? If the sex act is between 2 consenting adults, it should be their business, not any government.
Sibby, if you have sex and will only use the missionary position, that is your business. If I want to be a swinger and go to Planned Parenthood, that is my choice. I am being a responsible adult to make sure that I do not have any socially contracted diseases to pass on.
Sibby, I really find you quite funny because you are so out there and I wonder if you have ever had fantastic sex. I do not know if you are married or not, but I would feel sorry for your wife. I would feel sorry for her because you are so redgid in your views...or should I say frigid? OMG....have you ever had oral sex? I am not sure that is legal in the Bible! Have you ever masturbated, as that is spilling your seed? I was thinking the Bible said that was not "legal". So should you be stopped from masturbation too?
Over my 62 years, I have never known a man who has not masturbated. All that sperm is potential children....are you killing children? You love to talk about abortion. Let's go back here, if you masturbate are you killing children?
What I do not understand is why your ilk thinks it is so your privilege to tell me how I should act sexually.
You might be an intelligent person, but you are pretty off the wall person. What happened to my rights as being a NON-believer in the Bible and your ancient laws from the Bible?
Keep me in our prayers Sibby, Actually, if there is a god, who is all loving, I will be ok.
Carter, yes.
You and your partner make a committment to paint a masterpiece and you give it all you've got. Lose yourselves in it. Become it.
No one can ask more of you than that.
Failure has no role in the process. Failure is the absensence of the process.
People who actually do that together usually stay uncommonly close for life. And yeah, society is just the witness to it all. They're not in it.
Plus, if you get really, really lucky, you and your partner become witnesses too. Because your art takes on a life of its own.
Thank you for your kind words and understanding Cory. It is much appreciated.
I can respect the beliefs of others quite easily,but I will not back down when it comes to some narcissist behaving the way that they do.
"Who does more mockery to the institution of Christian marriage: my wife and I, or two Christian men who live in a lifelong homosexual partnership?"
It is the same mockery Cory. Sex worshipping is sex worshipping. Amazing how you socialists have to sick together in order to mock those that lay reality in front of you faces and makes you feel guilty. Your reactions makes it obvious that accepting sexual sins as perfectly OK is not an act of tolerance. It is an act of hopelessness...since we don't have faith in Jesus Christ and His promise of eternal life, lets have fun, fun, fun.
"I do not know if you are married or not, but I would feel sorry for your wife."
Go ahead and mock my wife as I am falsely accused by a bunch of hate-filled bigots for mocking a sister that was used as a political pawn to justify the killing of millions by the militant arm of the New Age Theocracy.
Steve, you ignorant slut. My marriage is based on infinitely more than "sex worship" of "fun, fun, fun." You demonstrate your complete disconnect from reality, not to mention your brutish insensitivity to anyone or to anything other than the slogans into which you insist on shoehorning every argument.
President Obama's comments in the interview at the top make clear that he's not talking about sex, either. He's talking about the very serious business of lifetime commitment. Nobody needs marriage to have sex. Banning gay marriage doesn't stop sex. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't increase sex.
Rasputin could not have framed it better, Sibson. You are rotting from the inside out.
"What happened to my rights as being a NON-believer in the Bible and your ancient laws from the Bible?"
You have the same rights as a believer, and as the Declaration states, they are God-given. Now you should understand that God does not provide rights that include pagan sex worshipping.
"Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t increase sex."
It provides a right that is NOT God-given and a violation of the most important founding principle found in the Declaration. You can mock God at your own rist, but stop pushing your immoral beliefs onto others, especially children. Time to have you employer ban sex so-called education. It should be considered child abuse.
Irrelevant, Steve.
Great come back Cory. What is irrelevant is atheists. Just ask John Locke.
From Jesus, Make Me Worthy: A Prayer-Book for the Young Boy and Girl. In a language so simple that every child can understand: Rev. Robert J. Power, C.M. 5 January, 1960 (yes, i kept it).
"I shall not think impure thoughts or touch myself in an impure manner."
Galations 5:13:
For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don't use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love.
Commenters, I urge you not to be drawn into another day-long celebration of Sibby's narcissism. Instead, celebrate the fact that the commitment my wife and I made stands, ten years old today. Celebrate the President's new declaration of commitment to equality and morality. Celebrate love and liberty and decency to our fellow citizens.
From Darmok, "Shaka, when the walls fell. Tshinza at Court. The Court of Silence. Kalimash at Bahar."
For those New Agers that worship science:
http://www.newworldorderwar.com/science-shows-that-homosexuals-are-not-born-that-way/
"new declaration of commitment to equality and morality"
Making immorality equal with morality does not make it moral. Simple logic Cory.
This USGS archive shows the James River's lead and mercury pollution steadily rising since the 1940s. Those neurotoxins are likely responsible for Sibson's diminished capacity:
http://sd.water.usgs.gov/pubs/biblio/bibliodata.html
If Sibson is going to keep doing this, I'm leaving this blog as a commentor in protest. I'll come back when he's gone. He makes my ass tired.
This thread is frigging ridiculous! A serious comment gets swallowed up in the middle of so much BS.
I'm tempted to agree with Bill, actually. I'll give it a bit more time first, and see if Steve calms down enough to make him semi-tolerable.
I think we should just ignore him. Let him say whatever. Let him say that God wants all the African babies to die in a fire, if he wants. Just ignore him. I'm officially done responding to Steve.
"If Sibson is going to keep doing this, I’m leaving this blog as a commentor in protest. I’ll come back when he’s gone."
Oh yes, the tolerant left. Make the Christian Conservative shut up, chase him off. You all expect me to leave America too. I thought Cory had a thread on that tactic no too long ago. So where to you all want the Christian Conservative to go into exile? Us Christian can't be allowed to restrict marriage, that is the job for the New Age Theocrats.
Wasn't that you Fleming that said no body else on this thread agreed with me. Coudl that be they have been bullied off like you are trying to do to me know? What is wrong when a policy position that can not withstand scrutiny? Perhaps it needs to be discarded. But no, instead the New Agers will keep it by getting rid of the scrutiny.
This is a human rights issue, way above a homosexual sex issue. Who can be against equality for all humans? For this, I applaud President Obama. I wish it had happened a long time ago, but I think it's very human to go through questioning before coming to a conclusion.
My pessimism comes in here: while I will be voting against a Republican for President, I cannot help but think this monumental announcement will be followed up with something else "monumental". Approval of Keystone XL, for example?
This seems to be a pretty common occurence. One good announcement, one bad announcement.
"I’m officially done responding to Steve."
Sore loser.
http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/advertisers-fine-time-breast-feeding-cover/234715/
Happy anniversary Cory. May you enjoy many more happy years together. Salute!
@Taunia: I completely agree with you. I'm hoping that we don't get that bad announcement though...
"President Obama’s comments in the interview at the top make clear that he’s not talking about sex, either. He’s talking about the very serious business of lifetime commitment."
Cory, Carter made the same assumption and said we can't marry our children or mothers because we would produced deformed babies. Why didn't you call him an ignorant slut? Oh yeah, he is a fellow anti-Christian liberal.
This thread proves that the anti-Christian left attacks those who draw the line on gay marriage, but all too happy to draw lines of their own. Hypocrisy, intolerance, and a complete lack of reasoning and logic.
Sibby: You have the same rights as a believer, and as the Declaration states, they are God-given. Now you should understand that God does not provide rights that include pagan sex worshipping.
That is your god, what about mine? If I chose to be a sex worshiper, what business is it of yours? Why is it that you think we need to live by your principles and your god? Why are WE all wrong and you are right? I do not have a problem you worship your god and have strange beliefs, from my point of view. I am not telling you not to or you should not have a right to your beliefs, just that you need to quit putting your biases in my bedroom, options for medical care, schools etc.
Cory, may your wife and you, have many more happy years together.
Gayle
Sibby you never answered my questions. You have given me a bit of rhetoric, but no answers. Are you blind? Have you masturbated too much? Is it only the missionary position in your marriage? How many law have you broken of your god?
Damn.............you want to get into my bedroom, so I am going to get into yours too. Damn..... Rush wanted to have videos of the slut. Are you a dittohead?
How many children do you have and was your wife taking birth control? Did it go on insurance? Why am I paying for it with my policy?
I may not be a word smyth, but I deserve answers.
No, I did not MOCK your wife, I said that I felt sorry for her, how is that mocking?
PrairieLady @ 15:57
It's called overgodding. That's what cost Mr. Howie the guberatorialship election and that's how Mr. Sibby's insanity expresses itself today. Through overgodding.
Gayle, folks like Sibby don't engage in politics to answer your questions or to learn from others. They speak to exclude others, to play word games, pronounce judgments, and reassure themselves that they are right and righteous.
That exclusivity, practiced by Sibby and Howie, stands in stark contrast to President Obama's approach to politics. In declaring his support for same-sex marriage, President Obama continues his rather regular pattern of trying to include as many people as possible in the blessings of American liberty and prosperity. Think "Yes We Can!" versus Romney and the Republicans who seem to always campaign on "No You Can't!"