MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos

MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/)
-   The Lounge (http://www.mmaforum.com/lounge/)
-   -   Obama turned politician (http://www.mmaforum.com/lounge/10503-obama-turned-politician.html)

pt447 03-16-2007 08:02 AM

Obama turned politician
 
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...lity-and-gays/

well, Obama pulled a "politician". when he was asked whether or not he believed homosexuality was a Sin, he staved off the question--as did hillary--only to release a statement later about it. in the end, he supported homosexuality--surprisingly since he's a self-professed christian--but only after he had time to confer with his political team on the right way to say so.

i applaud his move to announce his support for homosexuality--only because it's a fact of life--but he acted so "political" about it, it sickens me. my hopes for this election, and obama are slowly waning, as the time winds on and he continues to show his political side. just once i want someone who's not a politician to be president!

was that a silly statement?:dunno:

WouldLuv2FightU 03-16-2007 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pt447
Obama Echoes Clinton on Morality and Gays - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

well, Obama pulled a "politician". when he was asked whether or not he believed homosexuality was a Sin, he staved off the question--as did hillary--only to release a statement later about it. in the end, he supported homosexuality--surprisingly since he's a self-professed christian--but only after he had time to confer with his political team on the right way to say so.

i applaud his move to announce his support for homosexuality--only because it's a fact of life--but he acted so "political" about it, it sickens me. my hopes for this election, and obama are slowly waning, as the time winds on and he continues to show his political side. just once i want someone who's not a politician to be president!

was that a silly statement?:dunno:

Was this his response to that one guy (Don't remember who it was, maybe the secretary of defense or something) saying homosexuality was immoral? And then Hillary came out and said it WASN'T immoral? Personally, I believe that homosexuality is, by definition, immoral. I don't think you can argue that it is indeed immoral, since morals like that all derive from religion, and there is not one religion on the face of the earth that says homosexuality is actually a moral thing. But, just because it is by definition an immoral lifestyle, doesn't mean it has to be outlawed or anything. I just wish homosexuality wasn't something you could visibly see. Everytime I turn on tv now there is always a homo in the mix with all the other people, and you can tell he's a homo cuz of the way he acts, and I don't care to see that. If you wanna be a queer, keep it to yourself, you don't need to flaunt it. Also, ever since Big Willy was prez, this country seems to actually ENCOURAGE homosexuality, not just making it seem like it's ok to be homo, but also to make it seem like it is "cool" to be a homo. And I'm about sick of that shit personally.

But I though Obama was a politician a while ago. How he never even acknowledges the fact that he went to a Muslim moccocas (sp?) in Indonesia or somewhere. It's not just that he doesn't talk about it, he never even acknowledges that he's been to one, let alone says whether or not he still agrees with anything he learned there at all.

Bonnar426 03-16-2007 09:31 PM

You'll never get a straight answer from Politicians. That's a fact of life!

Zapatista 03-18-2007 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WouldLuv2FightU
But, just because it is by definition an immoral lifestyle, doesn't mean it has to be outlawed or anything. I just wish homosexuality wasn't something you could visibly see. Everytime I turn on tv now there is always a homo in the mix with all the other people, and you can tell he's a homo cuz of the way he acts, and I don't care to see that. If you wanna be a queer, keep it to yourself, you don't need to flaunt it. Also, ever since Big Willy was prez, this country seems to actually ENCOURAGE homosexuality, not just making it seem like it's ok to be homo, but also to make it seem like it is "cool" to be a homo. And I'm about sick of that shit personally.

First off, you may think you see homosexuality, but you have no idea. There are still so many people who are homosexual but don't tell anybody for fear of what may happen to them. If you don't want to see homosexuals engaging in personal acts, then how do you think homosexuals feel about seeing heterosexuals engaging in personal acts? They are more emerged in that than you are in homosexual activity, so I don't see how you can really complain.

Also, you may not think that homosexuality should be banned, when religion makes its way into the government that is exactly what you get. When a religious politician doesn't separate the religion from politics, you get things like the attempt to make gay marriage illegal (Federally, not just individual states). Laws are supposed to stop immoral acts (such as ****, murder, tax evasion, etc.) and when you take the religious view is that homosexuality is immoral, it only makes sense to make things that the politicians thinks of as immoral and then make that illegal.

WouldLuv2FightU 03-18-2007 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatista
First off, you may think you see homosexuality, but you have no idea. There are still so many people who are homosexual but don't tell anybody for fear of what may happen to them. If you don't want to see homosexuals engaging in personal acts, then how do you think homosexuals feel about seeing heterosexuals engaging in personal acts? They are more emerged in that than you are in homosexual activity, so I don't see how you can really complain.

Also, you may not think that homosexuality should be banned, when religion makes its way into the government that is exactly what you get. When a religious politician doesn't separate the religion from politics, you get things like the attempt to make gay marriage illegal (Federally, not just individual states). Laws are supposed to stop immoral acts (such as ****, murder, tax evasion, etc.) and when you take the religious view is that homosexuality is immoral, it only makes sense to make things that the politicians thinks of as immoral and then make that illegal.

Gay marriage? What is that? I'm not familiar with that term. Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I don't care if gays are "submerged" in heterosexual activity. That's their tough shit. Heterosexuality is NORMAL. Yes, I said it. SUE ME! Homosexuals are not normal, nor are they the majority, therefore they shouldn't have rights that upset the majority of the country. This country is supposed to be based on majority rules, and the majority of America does not believe in gay marriage...and in fact the majority of gays also do not believe in gay marriage. It's just a small percentage of the gay community pushing for this "gay marriage" horseshit. I wish I could remember the site that had the study but it's true.

Personally, I couldn't give 2 shits if gays want to be together for the rest of their lives. But that doesn't mean they have to be married. Once you bring marriage in to the picture you are saying that the State condones two homosexuals to be married, even though homosexuality is considered immoral, and goes against the natural order of life, and does nothing to contribute to society, AND "marriage" by definition is a legal unity between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, not a woman and a woman. If you want to be married, by the State, then you have to be hetero. Gay couples do nothing to contribute to society....how do gay people have kids? How do gays reproduce to further our species and contribute to the human society? Why should the state condone such behavior? What's the benefit for them? Just to look "politically correct"? Well some states would rather not look politically correct and that's their choice and IMO it's the right one.

And anyway, religion has nothing to do with why it is immoral. We just had a discussion a week or 2 ago about morals and religion. Morals don't come from religion. Homosexuality always has been immoral. Every religion on earth considers homosexuality immoral. What that tells me is that the people who started all those religions all instinctively knew that homosexuality was immoral, which is how it got added to their religion of morals. Like I already said, homosexuality goes against the natural order of life, whether religion is true or not, homosexuals cannot reproduce, therefore they do nothing to contribute to the expansion of our species. They are essentially worthless, but don't take that term the wrong way. They are worthless in terms of the biological order of life. Which is why it is immoral. Much like murder is immoral because it also effects the expansion of our species and our societies.

But, don't get me wrong. I don't care if people want to be gay or whatever. I really don't, it's their business, if it makes them happy then good for them. I don't like when people judge me for being a pothead so I don't judge them for wanting to **** the same sex, even though I find it horribly disgusting and disturbing. But what I have a problem with, is people encouraging this behavior. Gay marriage encourages homosexual behavior. It tells people it's ok to be gay, you can get married now. And all the stuff on tv makes it even worse. They don't need to show gays constantly, and gays don't need to separate themselves and make themselves standout by dressing the same and talking the same. There's no need for that. They are always on shows on MTV and shows that teenagers watch and it puts it into their head that it's "cool" to be gay because then you can be on MTV talking to all the celebrities and making a ton of money gossipping or doing makeup. It influences the audience to think this way over time, it's just brainwashing. It wouldn't be so bad but it is literally happening on every single tv show they air on mtv or vh1 and it's just basically shoving it down their throats.

Zapatista 03-18-2007 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WouldLuv2FightU
Gay marriage? What is that? I'm not familiar with that term. Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I don't care if gays are "submerged" in heterosexual activity. That's their tough shit. Heterosexuality is NORMAL. Yes, I said it. SUE ME! Homosexuals are not normal, nor are they the majority, therefore they shouldn't have rights that upset the majority of the country. This country is supposed to be based on majority rules, and the majority of America does not believe in gay marriage...and in fact the majority of gays also do not believe in gay marriage. It's just a small percentage of the gay community pushing for this "gay marriage" horseshit. I wish I could remember the site that had the study but it's true.

Personally, I couldn't give 2 shits if gays want to be together for the rest of their lives. But that doesn't mean they have to be married. Once you bring marriage in to the picture you are saying that the State condones two homosexuals to be married, even though homosexuality is considered immoral, and goes against the natural order of life, and does nothing to contribute to society, AND "marriage" by definition is a legal unity between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, not a woman and a woman. If you want to be married, by the State, then you have to be hetero. Gay couples do nothing to contribute to society....how do gay people have kids? How do gays reproduce to further our species and contribute to the human society? Why should the state condone such behavior? What's the benefit for them? Just to look "politically correct"? Well some states would rather not look politically correct and that's their choice and IMO it's the right one.

Your argument for "majority rules" went out the window in 2000.

Do you even know why homosexuals want to have the right to marry? It seems to me like you don't. They just want the rights that a heterosexual couple receives when they marry. The simple thing to do is to remove marriage from the state (it shouldn't have had anything to do with the state to begin with) and remove the benefits from being married. And you'd have your solution.

So you're claiming that homosexuals don't deserve to get legal rights because they can't reproduce? This must mean you are against heterosexual that can't reproduce for any reason (such as low sperm count, problems with eggs, or just impotent) getting married? And what about those heterosexuals who have kids (a lot of them too) and don't do anything to support them so the kids end up at child services and are supported by tax payer dollars and when they turn 18 they will most likely commit crimes. This will happen and guess what, they take away from society but since they have different genitalia they can marry.

Prove to me that the majority of the country is against same sex marriage. I don't want a poll of 100 people surveyed at random, I don't want 1,000 people surveyed at random, I want millions of people surveyed (and several more times that). Once you can provide accurate statistics along with sources that are unbiased from the start, I'd be more likely to believe you, until then, saying that the majority are for or against something is basically hollow when it is over 300,000,000 people you're referring to.

WouldLuv2FightU 03-18-2007 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatista
Your argument for "majority rules" went out the window in 2000.

Do you even know why homosexuals want to have the right to marry? It seems to me like you don't. They just want the rights that a heterosexual couple receives when they marry. The simple thing to do is to remove marriage from the state (it shouldn't have had anything to do with the state to begin with) and remove the benefits from being married. And you'd have your solution.

So you're claiming that homosexuals don't deserve to get legal rights because they can't reproduce? This must mean you are against heterosexual that can't reproduce for any reason (such as low sperm count, problems with eggs, or just impotent) getting married? And what about those heterosexuals who have kids (a lot of them too) and don't do anything to support them so the kids end up at child services and are supported by tax payer dollars and when they turn 18 they will most likely commit crimes. This will happen and guess what, they take away from society but since they have different genitalia they can marry.

Prove to me that the majority of the country is against same sex marriage. I don't want a poll of 100 people surveyed at random, I don't want 1,000 people surveyed at random, I want millions of people surveyed (and several more times that). Once you can provide accurate statistics along with sources that are unbiased from the start, I'd be more likely to believe you, until then, saying that the majority are for or against something is basically hollow when it is over 300,000,000 people you're referring to.

I'll try to find one....no guarantees though. I'm being honest when I tell you I have heard several times that the majority of gays do not agree with same sex marriage. But, they never said how many were surveyed, so it might not hold much water.

But, about the other stuff. It's not like the state knows before hand that a couple who is getting married is going to neglect their child or whatnot. With gays, you already know for a fact that they will not contribute to society. And yes, sterile people should be able to get married, if they are heterosexual, because the word MARRIAGE, is by definition a legal joining of a man and a woman. So yes, just because the guy may be sterile doesn't mean he can't marry a woman.

This is actually a hard topic to debate, because I can see good points in both sides of the arguement, but I still feel that gay marriage is not only an oxymoron, but it does too much to encourage homosexuality. It is up to the state to decide if it wants to condone such behavior, that's their job. If they don't want to, nobody should judge them, and the media shouldn't harrass them and label them as 'homophobes' just because their opinion is different than their own. I have just as much right to disagree with gay marriage and gays have a right to **** whoever they want as long as the other person is willing.

pt447 03-18-2007 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WouldLuv2FightU
I'll try to find one....no guarantees though. I'm being honest when I tell you I have heard several times that the majority of gays do not agree with same sex marriage. But, they never said how many were surveyed, so it might not hold much water.

But, about the other stuff. It's not like the state knows before hand that a couple who is getting married is going to neglect their child or whatnot. With gays, you already know for a fact that they will not contribute to society. And yes, sterile people should be able to get married, if they are heterosexual, because the word MARRIAGE, is by definition a legal joining of a man and a woman. So yes, just because the guy may be sterile doesn't mean he can't marry a woman.

This is actually a hard topic to debate, because I can see good points in both sides of the arguement, but I still feel that gay marriage is not only an oxymoron, but it does too much to encourage homosexuality. It is up to the state to decide if it wants to condone such behavior, that's their job. If they don't want to, nobody should judge them, and the media shouldn't harrass them and label them as 'homophobes' just because their opinion is different than their own. I have just as much right to disagree with gay marriage and gays have a right to **** whoever they want as long as the other person is willing.

LUV, saying allowing gay marraige "encourages" homosexuality implies that it is a decision to be made. no gay/lesbian person would choose to feel how they do. it is just a prty of who they are. and don't say it's not natural because there are plenty of examles of homosexuality in nature. there are chimps who just have sex with male chimps when females aren't in heat!!!

our only objection to gay marraige is the judao-christian oppression we've lived under for too long. if nobody ever said it was bad, we wouldn't care. religion only wants man/wife combinations to produce more good little religious clones!

WouldLuv2FightU 03-18-2007 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pt447
LUV, saying allowing gay marraige "encourages" homosexuality implies that it is a decision to be made. no gay/lesbian person would choose to feel how they do. it is just a prty of who they are. and don't say it's not natural because there are plenty of examles of homosexuality in nature. there are chimps who just have sex with male chimps when females aren't in heat!!!

our only objection to gay marraige is the judao-christian oppression we've lived under for too long. if nobody ever said it was bad, we wouldn't care. religion only wants man/wife combinations to produce more good little religious clones!

It encourages it because once you bring LEGAL MARRIAGE into the picture, then the STATE has to CONDONE it. When the State condones gay marriage, it encourages it. I don't buy into the crap that every gay person was "born" gay. I can understand maybe most of them but I don't think all of them were. And just because animals in the wild can **** the same sex doesn't make it any better, in fact that just makes it sound worse. Wild animals are wild animals, they do a lot of sick disgusting shit, that doesn't mean it's okay for humans to do it too. What I have a problem with is them getting MARRIED. I know marriage is a religious thing, but it doesn't matter. It's more than just a religious thing when you actually do get married. In my opinion, and a lot of other people's opinion, allowing gays to marry takes away the sanctity and meaning of marriage. It doesn't matter if you're religious or not. When I hear about gays getting married, it just makes my marriage seem less significant. If gays want to get married to have the "benefits" of other married couples, that's their tough shit. The word "marriage" does not apply to homosexuals. Look, would you allow some freako wierdo to marry his cat because he "wants the benefits of a married couple" but he can't help it if he likes cats. He was born like that. He can't help it. We should create new laws to make his life easier because who are we to judge if he wants to marry another species and have sex with it every night? He should be allowed to marry whoever or whatever he wants, right? What about people who never find Mr. or Mrs. Right, but they want the benefits of being married too. Should we just let everyone marry whoever and whatever they want for any reason at all? No, because that would just totally ruin what marriage is supposed to be.

And you're wrong about the last thing you said I think. "If no one said it was bad, we wouldn't care". Why is it that every culture on earth since the dawn of time has always frowned upon homosexuality and called it immoral. It's a natural moral, it wasn't just something ONE guy thought of a long time ago. It would be like saying "if no one said murder was bad, we wouldn't care."

And it's not religion that wants man/wife relationships...it's the NATURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ORDER OF LIFE. You can not procreate and further the species if you are not in a heterosexual relationship. That is a proven fact. So even if religion never existed, I'm pretty sure we as humans, know that in order to continue our species, we need to **** the opposite sex, because when you do the same sex, it just doesn't work now does it?

The point of sex is to reproduce. Sex feels good and it is fun. We all know that. But the #1 reason sex exists is to reproduce. Gays cannot reproduce. Therefore it is unnatural, and immoral.

spiritofbattle 03-18-2007 06:59 PM

being gay is a chemical imbalance in our brain, there is something mentally wrong with you if you activly pursue it. men are for women and women are for men.

period.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8 , Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2