President Obama, please:

AmericanSignlanguage#1 no longer endorses Tue Nov 18 12:16:04 -0800 2008 3 comments
Icon_24
0pc
AmericanSignlanguage#1 Tue Nov 18 12:19:19 -0800 2008

Love is blind. Love doesn’t choose. If it did, it would be your way. Love = peace. Love=respect. Love=haromony. Please look at their love, not their body.
Icon_24
72pc
oterj0 (endorses) Fri Jan 01 23:10:29 -0800 2010

What are you talking about?
Icon_24
11pc
Okie (opposes) Tue Jan 05 11:36:03 -0800 2010

If the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch.
Hambone02 endorsed at priority #23 Tue Nov 18 13:00:04 -0800 2008 6 comments
Icon_24
2pc
Hambone02 (endorses) Tue Nov 18 13:07:55 -0800 2008

You describe love very well. Marriage isn’t blind, marriage does choose, marriage doesn’t equal peace, love doesn’t equal respect, and while love may be harmonious, marriage isn’t always harmonious. In short, love does not equal marriage or the right to it. Otherwise people who love their cats and dogs should have the “right” to marry them.
Show 3 more comments
Icon_24
3pc
Nick616 (opposes) Mon Nov 24 17:24:50 -0800 2008

Ugh. Again bestiality is between something that can consent and something that cannot.

Humans make things legal or illegal. If you’re talking about what makes things moral, you had no argument why it was immoral except to say it was against God, and then you said “let’s keep God out of this.” How is it immoral?
Icon_24
72pc
oterj0 (endorses) Fri Jan 01 23:09:59 -0800 2010

Nick,

Perhaps you should look up the HIV contraction rate for homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. Morality is arguably arbitrary. Statistics on STD infection rates are not arbitrary, they tell us that homosexuality is a significantly riskier sexual preference. I guess natural selection would have homosexuality disappear if not for the war on AIDS. If morality is defined by negative consequences of an action, then homosexuality is immoral compared to heterosexuality.

On the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, I grant you the argument about consent, So, nix the bestiality and replace is with polygamy. Why can’t consenting adults agree to a polygamous marriage? Why just 2 people? Who are you and I to judge? If you believe homosexual marriage should be allowed on the count of it doesn’t violate anyone’s human rights, then the exact same argument applies to polygamists. Oh, oh, wait, I know. You all just don’t like those stupid Mormons, so you don’t want to go there.
Big Wilt opposed at priority #17 Fri Nov 21 15:04:35 -0800 2008 3 comments
Icon_24
0pc
Big Wilt (opposes) Fri Nov 21 15:08:25 -0800 2008

Somebody update me on why this is an issue. Why do we care what gay people do in their own backyards. Last time I heard, the divorce rate in the U.S. was like 50%. Doesn’t appear that the institution of marriage is really sacred when it comes to that point. Why are we all of sudden so concerned that gays are gonna ruin the institution of marriage?
Icon_24
3pc
Nick616 (opposes) Mon Nov 24 17:25:47 -0800 2008

Upsets some people (notice all the comments and vitriol here) and gets social conservatives out to the polls.
Icon_24
72pc
oterj0 (endorses) Fri Jan 01 23:02:30 -0800 2010

We could do away with the inequality much more easily by elimination federal and state recognition of marriage. Society has no interest in the relationships individuals choose. Let’s eliminate all federally sanctioned marriage and this discussion becomes moot. Adding homosexuals to the federally recognized marriages list makes no sense. If there’s little value in recognizing heterosexual marriage, there’s even less value in adding homosexual unions to the list.
mr mckenzie posted a comment Mon Nov 17 12:55:04 -0800 2008 52 comments
Icon_24
0pc
mr mckenzie Mon Nov 17 12:56:30 -0800 2008

Homosexuality is caused by uncontrollable hormonal balances in the womb. For you to deny somebody the chance to find love and happiness while alienating them from society is the most selfish thing you could do.
Show 49 more comments
Icon_24
3pc
Nick616 Thu Nov 20 21:21:14 -0800 2008

“Maybe I missed something. I don’t see anyone banging menstruatign women trying to make that act a constitutionally-protected right.”

You did miss something. YOU & OTHER SUPPORTERS of this priority are the ones trying to change the Constitution.

  1. Is gay marriage not allowed by the Constitution? If so, then why are YOU trying to pass amendments to add “one man and one woman”?

You missed that this issue (Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman amongst other stipulations) was brought up by the Republicans in 1996 to get social conservatives to the polls. We only talk about in election years.

It is YOUR issue. The Constitution has no view on it, unless you count it’s proclamations of equality, and that’s the way I want it to stay.

  1. How do you want the President to “limit marriage to one man and one woman?” Do you deny that this is a states’ right issue?
  1. What do you mean, bringing their private acts into view?

    NO ONE is in favor of homosexuals bringing homosexual sex acts “into public view” (nor heteros either). Pride parades are a pretty benign (and easily avoidable) reaction to public stigma / discrimination against their “lifestyle.” Current public reaction is a response to your social conservative movement that we legislate as unlawful their love being allowed the stabilizing, nurturing institution of marriage.

Or do you mean the scary word “gay” and people in the public eye that happen to be gay?

(BTW: I do not think that instituting gay marriage should be on Obama’s agenda. I support it, but think he has bigger fish to fry (wars, economy, health care, and 6 or 7 of Bush’s other failures), and should instead take the positive step of ensuring “civil unions” enjoy the same benefits as “marriage,” limiting this to a purely linguistic issue: http://whitehouse2.org/priorities/729-ensure-civil-unions-enjoy-the-same-benefits-as-marriage- )
Icon_24
6pc
healthychicken (endorses) Thu Jun 04 16:16:26 -0700 2009

Sex Change Operations, but they are voluntary surgery.
BuyAmerican endorsed at priority #49 Fri Jan 30 21:38:36 -0800 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
11pc
ranger (opposes) Sat Jan 31 14:16:34 -0800 2009

Why?
Benny posted a bulletin Sat Jan 24 18:18:22 -0800 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
0pc
Benny (endorses) Sat Jan 24 18:18:22 -0800 2009

Why do you people thing God made a man and a woman ? He ment for a man and a woman to marry , NOT two men or two women ! a man and a woman are to replinish the earth with children something two men or two women cannot do, not only that but gay life is a SIN in Gods eyes, believe it or not, Gods word won`t change for anyone, just because so called preachers and liberals say its ok to be gay its NOT and you cannot be gay and Christian , sorry Gods word says otherwise.
hopeful posted a bulletin Tue Jan 20 09:40:23 -0800 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
3pc
hopeful (opposes) Tue Jan 20 09:40:24 -0800 2009

I agree. Only Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie should be allowed to marry. For the rest of us, it is simply blasphemous.
Miakoda opposed at priority #15 Tue Dec 16 16:31:22 -0800 2008 4 comments
Icon_24
1pc
Miakoda (opposes) Tue Dec 16 16:32:04 -0800 2008

Freedom of religion means ALL religions. MY religion has nothing against gays being married. If a Christian church doesn’t want to marry gays, then dont!
Icon_24
3pc
Cracker Cowboy (endorses) Wed Mar 04 14:20:50 -0800 2009
And your religion wasn’t thought of when mine was the foundation for the Liberty you enjoy. It was my religion that gave faith to the men that purchased the Liberty you have, it was my religion that the forefathers of this Counrtry had and used its text to outline the Constitution, it was my religion that sent men to the battlefields to die in a liberty worth having and preserving for their wives and children, it is my religion that preserved Liberty for 200 + years, evidentally it works. Does the Country that endorses your kind of religion have a Republic or Liberty or a Democracy that ever worked? I think not. So join a New Testament Fundamental Church, get saved and then you’ll be enlightened to the hope of the world.
5pc
James Atkinson (opposes) Mon Apr 27 17:06:47 -0700 2009

Cracker raises a good point. We should reverse & freeze society to the standards of 1789, when our civilization ratified the constitution and was at its highest point. I can’t wait to be a slave!
Icon_24
98pc
Recluse Tue Apr 28 10:13:12 -0700 2009

“And your religion wasn’t thought of when mine was the foundation for the Liberty you enjoy.”

Jews, Hindus, Pagans, and a bunch of other religious people want you to back up this claim.
dudeman opposed at priority #98 Fri Nov 21 14:44:56 -0800 2008 2 comments
Icon_24
0pc
dudeman (opposes) Fri Nov 21 14:45:38 -0800 2008

Please dont deny Civil rights
Icon_24
0pc
dudeman (opposes) Fri Nov 21 14:48:20 -0800 2008

also Gayy dont try to say that marriage =Man+Man and Lesbians dont try to say Marriage =Women+Women so whey should we pass a law saying marriage=Man+Women
doodle'smom endorsed at priority #2 Mon Nov 17 18:32:38 -0800 2008 6 comments
Icon_24
-1pc
doodle'smom (endorses) Mon Nov 17 19:04:51 -0800 2008

one male and one female “what”……better say one man and one woman…..otherwise people will be marrying dogs and parakeets!
Show 3 more comments
Icon_24
27pc
donkeyfly69 (opposes) Mon Dec 29 11:58:51 -0800 2008

or not.
Icon_24
2pc
youbetcha12 (endorses) Mon Dec 29 21:17:04 -0800 2008

0101001000 binary

White House 2 is a multi-partisan network of 10550 citizens imagining how the White House might work if it was run completely democratically by thousands of people over the internet. It's free and all U.S. citizens can join.

We're setting priorities, collaborating on policy, and creating a massive database of 2867 talking points covering all sides of every important issue facing our country. Watch the video intro.

Getting involved is easy and fun. Just join and start setting your priorities, like a todo list. The more people who endorse a priority, the higher it rises in the charts. The more people who join the network, the more clout we will have with the President and the media.