So why did Obama lose

[Ryan25]

So basically "My marriage won't survive if a small fraction of people around me don't have the same kind of marriage I do?" What gives you the right to define what a family is and isn't? Or better yet what gives you the right to enforce your definition of family onto other people?

I agree with you, that stance is not right on many levels. I am not for gay marriage but i don't challenge someone else's belief on it. The thing is though i think he is just voicing his opinion like everyone else on the topic. We don't have to agree with each other but we should respect everyone's right to there opinion even if its an unpopular one.

Like i said we are on different sides of the fence but you are right, a family doesn't have to be a man and a woman and child. It doesn't even have to be blood but rather a social unit that lives together and functions as one. Its when people come together in support of each other and and do it unconditionally and no matter what anyone says that does not require a certain make of people.

 

[obvious Child]

So basically "My marriage won't survive if a small fraction of people around me don't have the same kind of marriage I do?" What gives you the right to define what a family is and isn't? Or better yet what gives you the right to enforce your definition of family onto other people?

Anyone who feels threatened by SSM shouldn't get married. If you need society to dictate to you what your marriage is worth, you should not be married.

 

[Jetboogieman]

You see Bob loses on this issue every single time because he's never able to demostrate how it's actually an attack on marriage.

How it harms anyone.

How it effects him and his marriage.

And how it causes social ills in society.

Oh he'll continue to say it but he has never and will never be able to tell you how Gay Marriage does all these things.

The only thing he knows for himself is that Homosexuality is evil because well... it is.

I just end up feeling sorry for people who've been brought up to believe their fellow man is evil because of who they choose to love... it's a sad state of affairs.

 

[Vallista]

That made me a little uneasy, but I don't think Obama will do anything about assault weapons, no reason they should be banned.

I'm sorry, there are many reason. Make an argument on why citizens should have access to military grade weapons for civilian use. If you can, then let me buy a nuke so I can defend myself.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

So these aren't families? This is the antithesis of a family? This is what is destroying the fabric of American society?

Not to divert your attention from Bob's ever so intelligent and rational argumentation roll, but I noticed something.

They say couples who've been together tend to start looking alike. In my experience, this is true.

But seeing several long-standing gay couples at once, man, gay couples REALLY start to look alike! :2razz:

 

[Your Star]

I'm sorry, there are many reason. Make an argument on why citizens should have access to military grade weapons for civilian use. If you can, then let me buy a nuke so I can defend myself.

Assault rifles and nuclear armaments are no where near the same thing.

 

[Vallista]

:2bigcry:No, I most certainly would not. “Same sex marriage” is a direct attack on the family, and is just the latest manifestation of the very sickness that is responsible for the destruction of the family and the social ills that result therefrom.

Oh please tell us how SSM is attacking families? I would love to hear that one.:violin......opcorn:

 

[OnWisconsin]

The most damaging thing was

1) what Obama promised

2) what he has not delivered

good night all

Are you aware of the congress that has been fighting to block every bit of legislation Obama has conceived? Or does that float under your radar?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Plus you know... the whole idea of Same Sex Marriage is so redundant.

Anyone who's been married for a long time already knows its always the same sex.

 

[Vallista]

Assault rifles and nuclear armaments are no where near the same thing.

I disagree. It's just a different armament. If I feel threaten then I should have the right to defend myself the best way possible. I feel a nuclear gun will protect me better than a assault rifle. Why should the government play favorites on what armaments should or shouldn't by you logic?

 

[Vallista]

I agree with you, that stance is not right on many levels. I am not for gay marriage but i don't challenge someone else's belief on it. The thing is though i think he is just voicing his opinion like everyone else on the topic. We don't have to agree with each other but we should respect everyone's right to there opinion even if its an unpopular one.

Like i said we are on different sides of the fence but you are right, a family doesn't have to be a man and a woman and child. It doesn't even have to be blood but rather a social unit that lives together and functions as one. Its when people come together in support of each other and and do it unconditionally and no matter what anyone says that does not require a certain make of people.

?:failpail: what are you saying?

 

[Vallista]

Are you aware of the congress that has been fighting to block every bit of legislation Obama has conceived? Or does that float under your radar?

Please don't hit him with facts. Conservatives can't handle facts, they tend to shoot people.

 

[Your Star]

I disagree. It's just a different armament. If I feel threaten then I should have the right to defend myself the best way possible. I feel a nuclear gun will protect me better than a assault rifle. Why should the government play favorites on what armaments should or shouldn't by you logic?

First off, there's no such thing as a nuclear gun.

Now, there obviously is some limits to what the second amendment means, it obviously does not allow a person to own a nuclear bomb, hell I don't believe countries should have nuclear bombs, but that's beside the point.

I do believe however that the 2nd grants the right for someone to own assault rifles, period. The fact is that criminals will always have guns, making guns illegal will just keep them out of the hands of good law abiding citizens.

 

[Crosscheck]

No, I most certainly would not. “Same sex marriage” is a direct attack on the family, and is just the latest manifestation of the very sickness that is responsible for the destruction of the family and the social ills that result therefrom.

Everyone is given one life to live. Thats it. Live it how you like. You can be straight, gay , or twisted. You can be an atheist, catholic, protestant, hindu, muslim or believe in reading grape leaves.

But some people are so weak in there own lives they demand others live like them. Kind of like some of the extreme muslims.

 

[Vallista]

First off, there's no such thing as a nuclear gun.

Now, there obviously is some limits to what the second amendment means, it obviously does not allow a person to own a nuclear bomb, hell I don't believe countries should have nuclear bombs, but that's beside the point.

I do believe however that the 2nd grants the right for someone to own assault rifles, period. The fact is that criminals will always have guns, making guns illegal will just keep them out of the hands of good law abiding citizens.

There are no limits but nice try. Have you really read the 2 amendment? It has nothing about assault rifles. Arms is the language that is used not guns. So I should be be able to own any type of arms I want. If I want a tank so I can drive on the freeway, so be it. Or if I want have access to a nuke then I should. If I want to carry a loaded assault rifle on the public domain as "protect" myself from skinheads by you logic I should. If I use that any of those weapons in "self-defense" then I shouldn't be held responsible for any of the damage if I can prove it was in self defense right? So the fact you want to limit it to just assault rifles isn't fair to the public since, the public should have weapons to defend from assault rifles, in my case I want a nuke or a tank.

 

[melons]

You see Bob loses on this issue every single time because he's never able to demostrate how it's actually an attack on marriage.

How it harms anyone.

How it effects him and his marriage.

And how it causes social ills in society.

Oh he'll continue to say it but he has never and will never be able to tell you how Gay Marriage does all these things.

The only thing he knows for himself is that Homosexuality is evil because well... it is.

I just end up feeling sorry for people who've been brought up to believe their fellow man is evil because of who they choose to love... it's a sad state of affairs.

Just because someone believes a particular action is evil certainly does not mean that person thinks the people committing the act is evil. That is a misconception. However we do live in a free country where we are all allowed to believe the way that we choose. We are also allowed to vote the way that we choose. We can vote our beliefs and if the majority of the country agrees with us then it sticks. If not, then it doesn't stick. That is the greatness of living in a free society. None of us should down the other for what they believe...not people who believe in gay marriage or people who don't believe it. Lots of hate spewed in both directions. We should be able to stand for what we believe without it being treated as making us good or evil people.

 

[Rokkitsci]

So basically "My marriage won't survive if a small fraction of people around me don't have the same kind of marriage I do?" What gives you the right to define what a family is and isn't? Or better yet what gives you the right to enforce your definition of family onto other people?

This is silly - Romney said nothing relative to SSM. He was referring to the lack of parental guidance that marriage and children are supposed to provide for the youth of a culture. What we have now is a wholesale assault on the family unit that has guided civilization for 10,000 years. The violence being discussed in the question over 'guns' is centered in inner city ghettos where an intact family with a strong father image is hard to find.

The number of 'families' represented by SSM is a drop in the ocean. And they have an even less effect on the subject of violence - with or without guns.

The problem with non-traditional family advocates is that they see every issue as a reason to interject their version of family onto everyone else. Mostly we don't care. Live with who you want to. Do whatever you want to do with them. Don't expect those who believer the traditional family is still the best model for advancing and protecting civilization to be losing sleep over the fact that you don't get all the attention you crave.

 

[Vallista]

:2bigcry:This is silly - Romney said nothing relative to SSM. He was referring to the lack of parental guidance that marriage and children are supposed to provide for the youth of a culture. What we have now is a wholesale assault on the family unit that has guided civilization for 10,000 years. The violence being discussed in the question over 'guns' is centered in inner city ghettos where an intact family with a strong father image is hard to find.

The number of 'families' represented by SSM is a drop in the ocean. And they have an even less effect on the subject of violence - with or without guns.

The problem with non-traditional family advocates is that they see every issue as a reason to interject their version of family onto everyone else. Mostly we don't care. Live with who you want to. Do whatever you want to do with them. Don't expect those who believer the traditional family is still the best model for advancing and protecting civilization to be losing sleep over the fact that you don't get all the attention you crave.

so what is the best model? please enlighten me? Since Divorce is at 60% across the board. This sounds more like crying more than anything else.

 

[tech30528]

It struck me, that when that question came up, Obama didn't have the faintest clue what he was talking about. Neither did whoever formed the question. Some lady asked about Obama having pledged to “Keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals”, and asked what Obama has done toward that purpose. Obama went on to talk about AK-47s and automatic weapons, and “assault weapons”, in a manner that made it painfully clear that he had no clue about what any of these terms were suppose to mean, or what the present legalities were concerning them.

Romney picked up in a manner that demonstrated that he had considerably more knowledge of the subject than Obama did, but he really wasn't interested in talking about gun control.

The highlight, for me, of the portion of the debate which I saw, was when Romney went on from there to discuss the terrible impact that the destruction of the family has had on society, the importance of a man and a woman being married before they have children, and how this failure leads to the sort of crime and violence that those on the left want to “solve” with such useless measures as gun control.

I expected to come on to this forum tonight, and find several threads condemning Romney for these remarks, for how “bigoted” and “narrow-minded” they show him to be; but he was absolutely right in making these remarks. The undermining and destruction of the family is almost certainly, in my mind, the single overwhelmingly biggest cause of nearly all of the social ills that we face in this time. It was refreshing to see Romney standing up for this important principle.

They both missed on assault weapons. I was disappointed when Romney stated that automatic weapons are illegal here in the states. They are not, they require a $200 ta stamp that takes about 4 months to get just like supressors, SBRs and SBSs.

 

[j-mac]

They both missed on assault weapons. I was disappointed when Romney stated that automatic weapons are illegal here in the states. They are not, they require a $200 ta stamp that takes about 4 months to get just like supressors, SBRs and SBSs.

Yeah, I didn't like either of their answers on that one either....But as far as the way one goes about obtaining full auto's, or even weapons in the first place, I thought that Romney had within his long answer the best one line that summed it up...."Enforce those laws already on the books, we don't need more...."

 

[American]

Again...I don't think Obama lost...I call a draw.

Props to Obama for showing up this time.

He gets no props for showing up, WTF are you talking about? Everyone knew he'd show up. Romney showed up too, and didn't back down from Obama either, especially on Libya. Crowley ****ed that up big time, trying to come to Obama's rescue, and getting it wrong.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I thought Obama performed much better than he did the first time but I wouldn't say that he had any sort of decisive victory. I would probably give it to him about 8-7 mostly because his stage presence was better than Romney. As far as substance goes I think the President set himself up to get hammered in the next round over Libya. The administration was CLEARLY trying to advance the narrative that the attack was because of the video and when he tried to say that he was clear from day one that it was an act of terror it was *shocking* to me. I was disappointed that Romney let it go so easily but maybe it is strategic to save it for the next round which will center on foreign policy?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Just because someone believes a particular action is evil certainly does not mean that person thinks the people committing the act is evil. That is a misconception

I call bull**** on this.

There is an acute, concetrated hatred towards homosexuals from far right Christians.

And this "hate the sin not the sinner" crap is such a cop out it boggles the imagination because when it comes to sin... if all sin is equal and it's all disainful then why are there so many double standards?

I'm thinking of selling my daughter into slavery as sanctioed by Exodus 21:7... what would a good price for her be?

Unfortunately I have to work on sundays... Exodus 35:2 clearly says I should be put to death now am I morally obligated to kill myself for my own transgressions against god or is someone else obligated to call the police?

Here's an important one because there's alot of football fans in America, touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

You know, when it comes to far right Christians and Homosexuality I gotta give a point to the racists of this world because at least they have the balls to admit that they hate the people that they do.

The "I find the action evil but not the people" is a cop out, a cowards way out, a smoke screen to hide their prejudice and their hatred which I don't hold against them in the sense that I just feel sorry for them, that growing up they were lead to believe these things about their fellow man.

 

[KWA]

sure you did? I'll agree its clever.

It is not clever coming from a Democrat. Think about it: Liberals are much more likely to get an abortion, meaning the Democratic Party is the one that would stop growing.

 

[JRog]

“Same sex marriage” is a direct attack on the family.

*sarcasm* Because heterosexual American family values are doing so well right now. */sarcasm*

If anything, I'd say that religions are direct attacks on family. I see more families torn apart by religion than I do by homosexuality. Gays are looking for acceptance from family, religion dictates that theological beliefs subpersede the family. Which is more damaging to family values?