Quantcast

DOES OBAMA HATE BISEXUALS? OR SHOULD GROUPS OF PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO MARRY?

damnyoumaggot 2012/05/10 11:02:10
Obama's still evolving.
Group marriage is unacceptable, here's why____
Group marriage is acceptable, here's why_____
damnyoumaggot!! is that Pandora's box I hear opening...?
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Wello there...'Heads.
I was thinkin'.
Now that Obama has come out....
in support of gay marriage
and shown us the way,
explaining that members LGBT community deserve the same rights as everybody else...

He thinks the gays should marry
He thinks the lesbians should marry
He thinks the transgendered should marry ( I'm assuming they should marry men, women, or other transgenders...

What about the Bi's? Should they not be allowed to marry the men and women they love? Why does Obama endorse "couples" marrying? Why not trios or quadroes?



Read More: http://www.youtube.com/user/damnyoumaggot?feature=...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • bill 2012/05/10 11:57:54
    Group marriage is unacceptable, here's why____
    bill
    +10
    If people can't see that Obama has no moral compass by now, they're blind!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Theresa 2012/05/10 14:58:07
    damnyoumaggot!! is that Pandora's box I hear opening...?
    Theresa
    +7
    Group Marriage is allowed in the Koran. So they are trying to change our laws to be complaint with Shariah.
  • Nestofasssps 2012/05/10 14:51:41
    Obama's still evolving.
    Nestofasssps
    +3
    Bi sexuals can marry either sex.Polygamy is a different kettle of fish.
  • Mrs. maggot 2012/05/10 14:46:27
    damnyoumaggot!! is that Pandora's box I hear opening...?
    Mrs. maggot
    +4
    I think it is interesting that so many who responded to your post, seem to think that you don't know the difference between bi-sexuals and polygamists.

    Seems to me that you were noting that obama neglected to mention bi-sexuals in his LG(B)T speech, and THEN you asked the question about groups of people. Hmmm?

    But then again, that might be what Pandora's box sounds like when it opens!
  • dominic garcia 2012/05/10 14:39:13 (edited)
    Obama's still evolving.
    dominic garcia
    +3
    Obama is the most conniving man I've ever known. He says he is evolving, so that he can flip flop whenever he wants. I have a new name for him. OBAMA THE FLIP FLOPPING PRESIDENT! Obama is very confused, too many people pulling his strings at the same time. I say don't give him any more ideas about who else can get married.
  • Zane 2012/05/10 14:26:54
    Group marriage is unacceptable, here's why____
    Zane
    +3
    This post makes little to no sense. Allow me to elaborate:
    Gays are considered to be a male and male relationship.
    Lesbians are considered to a female and female relationship.
    Transsexuals are considered to be a someone of one sex who is now apart of the opposite sex being in a relationship.
    BISEXUALS (please pay attention) are considered to a person of one sex who wants to take part in a relationship with a person of either sex. Not multiple.
    You are thinking of the word Polygamy--or having multiple persons take part in a marriage.
    Please think carefully before you post.
  • Mrs. ma... Zane 2012/05/10 19:05:01
    Mrs. maggot
    +2
    I think it is interesting that so many who responded to this post, seem to think that the poster doesn't know the difference between bi-sexuals and polygamists.

    Seems to me that he was noting that obama neglected to mention bi-sexuals in his LG(B)T speech, and THEN asked the question about groups of people. Hmmm?

    Is that the creaking of Pandora's box I hear?
  • Icono1 Mrs. ma... 2012/05/11 00:11:21
  • Zane Mrs. ma... 2012/05/11 01:12:03
    Zane
    The wording of the post makes the poster look ignorant to the difference between the two. Perhaps slightly better grammar on their behalf would have benefited them.

    Also, you misused a comma before the word, "seem." You should not begin a sentence with "Seems," try using its gerund form "seeming."

    If we would correct small grammatical errors such as these, then we could have avoided this.
  • Mrs. ma... Zane 2012/05/11 21:34:12
    Mrs. maggot
    +1
    I didn't realize that I was being graded for spelling and punctuation. You must go nuts when social network users text type!

    Do you proof every keystroke you type? Must have too much time on your hands.

    BTW, I shouldn't begin the sentence with the word must...I did it just to get under your gerund.
  • damnyou... Zane 2012/05/12 11:54:42
    damnyoumaggot
    +1
    you again? Good Lord it's the grammar police...

    conformity is thy name. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...
  • damnyou... Zane 2012/05/12 11:52:35
    damnyoumaggot
    +1
    Hi there....I'm maggot
    I produce things, and you are on my stage. You're doing fine with your part, standing where you're supposed to stand and all that...atta boy!
    My favorite part in your scene is that you dont think that each word of my original question/blog wasn't placed there "carefully"...

    Do you know what phrase I produced specifically for you?
  • maggiemay 2012/05/10 14:06:16
    damnyoumaggot!! is that Pandora's box I hear opening...?
    maggiemay
  • heirsoftheking 2012/05/10 14:05:38
    Obama's still evolving.
    heirsoftheking
    +2
    Obama has evolved to where he and Biden are trying to re-invent marriage. The question is "What will Obama evolve into next?" Obama martian
  • Theresa heirsof... 2012/05/10 15:03:21
    Theresa
    +3
    When will he finally out himself from the closet?
  • DeCaf 2012/05/10 13:56:04 (edited)
    damnyoumaggot!! is that Pandora's box I hear opening...?
    DeCaf
    +2
    Would there be any other response.........

    and you people are way tooo serious......
  • TheMadChameleon 2012/05/10 13:34:13
    Obama's still evolving.
    TheMadChameleon
    +4
    Hi. One of the many monogamous bisexuals you will meet here. Bisexuality is simply being attracted to men and women. It does not mean we need, or necessarily want, to be in a relationship with both at the same time. A man could be capable of loving two women, but if he is in a relationship with one, he does not marry both, does he? Not unless he belongs to a polygamous sect, or polygamy is legal in general. For me, and for many bisexuals, gender is simply just not something we care about. Frankly, that's like saying a woman should be allowed a black husband and a white husband simply because she does not have a racial preference. It is a fallacy. She can have the black husband OR the white husband, but not both, unless polyandry is legal in general. So, I will marry the man I love, or the woman I love, but no, I am not deprived if I can't marry two people any more than anyone else is. It is, however, lovely to know that Obama now endorses my ability to marry the person I love for who they are, without their genitalia being the defining factor.
  • TheTailor TheMadC... 2012/05/10 15:54:51
    TheTailor
    +2
    But, genitalia IS a defining factor in marriage.
  • TheMadC... TheTailor 2012/05/10 21:25:52
    TheMadChameleon
    Nonsense. Only in places where inequality is legalized is that the case. Which, sadly, is most of the world, but I have confidence that we as a people are not so selfish and amoral as to not move past that.
  • TheTailor TheMadC... 2012/05/10 21:44:30
    TheTailor
    +1
    Oh? What inequality is that? Marriage is and has been between those of the opposite sex since it began, who are a few gay activists to say it's to be redefined?
  • TheMadC... TheTailor 2012/05/10 21:46:34
    TheMadChameleon
    Marriage also used to be a sale of property in which the woman was essentially sold to the man. It used to be arranged by the parents of the people involved. In some cultures people were allowed multiple spouses. Who were we and our recent ancestors to say it was to be redefined?
  • TheTailor TheMadC... 2012/05/10 22:16:48
    TheTailor
    +1
    Yes, marriage has evolved, but it's always been between men and women, it hasn't been redefined and shouldn't be for the wants of a very few gay activists.
  • TheMadC... TheTailor 2012/05/10 22:20:00
    TheMadChameleon
    'Wants of a few gay activists'? More and more support is growing, especially amongst the young. Because young people are less likely to vote, it's harder to pass a referendum, but approximately 53% of the population supports gay marriage--a much higher proportion than the proportion of gay to straight people. (I don't have the source for the statistic off the top of my head, but I can try to dig it up if you would like.)

    Words evolve and grow in meaning. It happens. Deal with it.
  • TheTailor TheMadC... 2012/05/11 04:54:23
    TheTailor
    No, words don't evolve, language evolves. Yes, let's see that source for your claim. There's nothing to deal with but those who for their own passive/aggressive want to upset others, without reason.
  • TheMadC... TheTailor 2012/05/11 08:16:17
    TheMadChameleon
    Here are a couple sources. Apologies that they require some reading, and some numbers do vary. The second link, I will admit, I did not read all the polls, because there are a LOT. But they are nice, because they show change over time, and its gradual increase even with its minor fall-backs in certain years, and on certain polls. If you only have time for one link, that one is most useful.
    http://www.dispatch.com/conte...
    http://www.pollingreport.com/...
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/p...


    And nonsense. While we are on the subject of homosexuality: Gay used to mean happy. Then, it was a derogatory word for homosexual men. Now, it is just a word for homosexual. Fag can mean a pile of sticks, a cigarette, or a homosexual, depending on who you ask; however, the term has only been recently applied to mean homosexual. Queer used to just mean strange, but now carries the context of association with homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, transgender--essentially anything other than cisgender heterosexuals. Words do indeed evolve, and meanings change. Simple fact. Sorry hon.

    And "no reason"? These are peoples' LIVES, sweetie! Their legal status has no effect on you, but it sure as hell has an effect on them!
    Here are a couple sources. Apologies that they require some reading, and some numbers do vary. The second link, I will admit, I did not read all the polls, because there are a LOT. But they are nice, because they show change over time, and its gradual increase even with its minor fall-backs in certain years, and on certain polls. If you only have time for one link, that one is most useful.
    http://www.dispatch.com/conte...
    http://www.pollingreport.com/...
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/p...


    And nonsense. While we are on the subject of homosexuality: Gay used to mean happy. Then, it was a derogatory word for homosexual men. Now, it is just a word for homosexual. Fag can mean a pile of sticks, a cigarette, or a homosexual, depending on who you ask; however, the term has only been recently applied to mean homosexual. Queer used to just mean strange, but now carries the context of association with homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, transgender--essentially anything other than cisgender heterosexuals. Words do indeed evolve, and meanings change. Simple fact. Sorry hon.

    And "no reason"? These are peoples' LIVES, sweetie! Their legal status has no effect on you, but it sure as hell has an effect on them!
    (more)
  • TheTailor TheMadC... 2012/05/11 13:49:03 (edited)
    TheTailor
    +1
    Well no, words don't evolve, only those that want new meanings claim that. Language evolves by the addition of new words. Fact is, marriage is now and has always bee between men and women. Gay activists insist on so called "gay (of same sex) marriage" because they deliberately want to antagonize heterosexuals by claiming gays are "the same" when in fact they are not. Gay activists know that heterosexuals are offended by this and adopt an "in your face" attack which stems from their hatred of those who object to their lifestyle.

    Frankly, if gay activists weren't sucking dick on a float in a public parade, maybe they would gain some respect. There is no legal reason for "gay marriage", a general and durable power of attorney is far more powerful in law than a marriage license, but don't expect the "gay" community to do the right and civil action, they are simply looking for trouble.

    EDIT:

    I find your second link laughable as it lists mostly left leaning news organizations that I have no faith in whatsoever. Beyond that polls in general are mostly skewed, the only real poll is at the polls, count the votes. The public never knows who was asked, if they were really asked. What I found amusing was the question to the public if gays should serve in the military, when only about 1% of the pubic serves. If it were an honest poll, they would ask only military members.

    Polls mean nothing, put it to a vote after an honest public forum on the issue.
  • TheMadC... TheTailor 2012/05/11 22:14:50
    TheMadChameleon
    So "gay" only means happy, "queer" only means strange, a "fag" is just a pile of sticks, "black" and "white" are just literal colors with no reference to people, "marriage" refers to an exchange of human property. Interesting.

    If you are offeded by gay people, you are the problem. Most heterosexuals do not.

    Really? You think people who no one knows exist, because they do not make their existence known, get respect? Interesting.

    Marriage licenses give benefits that you cannot get without one. Yes, marriages are useful legally.

    And I see that you paid no attention to the polls from Fox News, also included on that list. Sweetie pie, of COURSE you do not know who was asked. Polls are supposed to be random, not pander to demographics. If you want polls on acceptance in the military from only military members, I can druge those up too.

    Polls are made of randomly selected people, which actually averages them out better in the population. The voting population is skewed towards the old, who are more likely to vote, the rich and middle class, who have more efficacy in general and are more likely to vote, white people, who are more likely to vote, and those who work salaried jobs, who are more likely to be able to make it to the voting booth. Not sure if there is a gender difference in votin...
    So "gay" only means happy, "queer" only means strange, a "fag" is just a pile of sticks, "black" and "white" are just literal colors with no reference to people, "marriage" refers to an exchange of human property. Interesting.

    If you are offeded by gay people, you are the problem. Most heterosexuals do not.

    Really? You think people who no one knows exist, because they do not make their existence known, get respect? Interesting.

    Marriage licenses give benefits that you cannot get without one. Yes, marriages are useful legally.

    And I see that you paid no attention to the polls from Fox News, also included on that list. Sweetie pie, of COURSE you do not know who was asked. Polls are supposed to be random, not pander to demographics. If you want polls on acceptance in the military from only military members, I can druge those up too.

    Polls are made of randomly selected people, which actually averages them out better in the population. The voting population is skewed towards the old, who are more likely to vote, the rich and middle class, who have more efficacy in general and are more likely to vote, white people, who are more likely to vote, and those who work salaried jobs, who are more likely to be able to make it to the voting booth. Not sure if there is a gender difference in voting behavior. Therefore, votes on the matter are actually less reliable. Obviously, for making decisions, voting is better than polling random samples, but for statistical data, polls are superior. Just because you disagree with the data in front of you does not mean you can write it off. That's just silly. I disagree with the data on support for immigration policy, but that does not mean it is not factually correct. Grow up.
    (more)
  • TheTailor TheMadC... 2012/05/12 03:50:26
    TheTailor
    +2
    Marriage doesn't refer to "... an exchange of human property.", it's defined as --> "1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex...", nice attempted deception though.

    You appear confused, I'm not offended by "gay people", I'm offended by "gay activists".

    Marriage licenses don't come close to the legal authority of a general power of attorney, so a marriage license isn't needed at all for gay couples.

    Sure, polls are supposed to be random, but there's no knowing they are, and as I said, the real polls are at the polls, when we vote. 30 states don't allow so called "gay marriage" and the number is growing, THAT is the poll.

    Children use words like "grow up" and "sweetie pie" or "hon", please refrain as I find it tiresome. And anyway, at 18 you aren't in very good health, I don't find you attractive so you are wasting your time :P
  • TheMadC... TheTailor 2012/05/17 04:07:46
    TheMadChameleon
    Marriage used to be an exchange of property. But the idea in peoples minds has changed. Therefore, the meaning has changed.

    So, if we just shut up and sit in our little closets where you can pretend we don't exist, you are not offended by us. I see.

    And yet Federal marriage gives married couples an extra 1,138 benefits, I believe it was. State marriage gives an extra 500-some.

    30 states where the elderly are most likely to vote, as are the rich, the white, and the educated. Not the most representative sample of our population. As the young age, the tide will turn--it's already changing.

    Would you rather I called you princess? I generally save that one for those who truly seem to have no grasp on reality, whereas you seem to retain some. I can make an exception though, honey-bear.
  • TheTailor TheMadC... 2012/05/17 19:05:49
    TheTailor
    Oddly I've been married and the only benefit I got was a child.

    You must really have a chip on your shoulder to write something like this--> "So, if we just shut up and sit in our little closets where you can pretend we don't exist, you are not offended by us. I see.", I'll add there's not a word of truth in it. Don't put words in my mouth, you don't know me.

    Whether marriage had property involved or not, it was always between men and women.
  • TheMadC... TheTailor 2012/05/18 01:28:44
    TheMadChameleon
    Really? You don't get to include your spouse on your census and tax statements? You do not get to visit your spouse in the hospital when only relatives are allowed to see them? Those are the two I can think of off the top of my head, but I found a list of the lot of them at one point.

    Then what do you mean by this? If we don't speak, no one knows we exist, and any time someone is found out, they are thought to be an aberration, an anomaly, someone so strange and inhuman that it is all right to attack them. If we do speak, sure now people know that we are their friends and neighbors and children, and yet other people will scream and cry that we are 'shoving our lives in their faces'. Good for you if you've found a middle ground--a lot of people have not. I will go with the latter option, myself.

    The woman WAS property, at the beginning. That was the original marriage--the exchange of the woman from being the property of her father to the property of her husband. I don't know many men who legally own their wives these days. Are they not married?
  • TheTailor TheMadC... 2012/05/18 05:05:24
    TheTailor
    We did our taxes separately. The patient decides who he/she sees in the hospital, not doctors or the law.

    Nobody cares if you are gay.

    Again, regardless of whatever monetary customs, marriage, billions of marriages, have always been between men and women, that's the tradition.
  • damnyou... TheMadC... 2012/05/12 12:00:43
    damnyoumaggot
    +1
    53% support something that 32 States have rejected?
  • TheMadC... damnyou... 2012/05/17 04:09:32
    TheMadChameleon
    Yep. There is an interesting shift between elections and polls, considering polls are administered at random, while certain blocks of people are more likely to vote than others. Since most support for gay marriage is among the young, who are one of the groups least likely to vote, there is a break between poll results and election results. That will change as the younger population starts voting. Believe me, I'm amongst those who wish more of us WOULD vote.
  • Cliff 2012/05/10 13:30:05
    Obama's still evolving.
    Cliff
    +7
    Actually Obama doesn't really care about perverts. All he really cares about is creating another distraction so folks won't talk so much about jobs, debt and government squandering our money.
  • Diana Cliff 2012/05/10 17:31:36
    Diana
    You are so right.
  • LadyBGood 2012/05/10 13:17:11
    Obama's still evolving.
    LadyBGood
    +3
    Adults have the right to have sexual relationships the way they desire but shouldn't pressure others into having to accept that way of life.
  • TheTailor LadyBGood 2012/05/10 15:58:02 (edited)
    TheTailor
    +3
    Right, 1% wanting a change to the definition of marriage isn't realistic. Whatever sexual relationships they want they can have, don't involve the rest of us by insisting we change to suit the wants of the very few.
  • LadyBGood TheTailor 2012/05/10 16:05:33
    LadyBGood
    +2
    Hi, how are you?

    It is no longer the Majority Rules....that rule is not the rule any more. It's the few that demand and push their agenda on the majority that win! It takes one persistent person to change it for everyone.

    One case that comes to mind is Madeline Murray O'Hare.... who took on Prayer in Schools and won her case to banned it.
  • TheTailor LadyBGood 2012/05/10 21:40:41
  • LadyBGood TheTailor 2012/05/11 00:12:30
    LadyBGood
    +2
    I'm good, thanks

    BTW it's not sand they want to pound! LOL Oh here they come now!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/20 13:12:57

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals