| |
dirty guru
|
I think this link below raises some Alarm bells.
Obama is cool with same sex marriages...
Ok so what's that got to do with us?
Heaps!!!
Imagine the flood of dykes shopping in Asia for a little sweet pussy to take home?
Prices might get raised....
Then again as emotive as some get..reselling a favourite bar girl back to a dyke outside a club could be interesting.
But seriously, it means now it's gonna be game on...it won't just be jocks hunting.......the dykes will be playing ""getting to know you ""....also now there are going to be loop holes and the girls of Asia can become their property in bed back home also ?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/obama-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married.html
«
President Obama; file photo by Olivier Douliery/Pool-Getty Images
Updated 4:14 p.m. | President Barack Obama declared Wednesday afternoon that he now supports gay marriage.
"Same sex couples should be able to get married," he said in an interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts.
The president said he has been going through "an evolution" on the subject and that he hesitated to throw his support behind gay marriage because he thought civil unions would be sufficient.
"I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word 'marriage' was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth," he said.
According to ABC, Mr. Obama reiterated that he still supports the rights of states to decide the issue of same-sex marriage on their own.
Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont currently allow same-sex marriage.
Obama spoke about his newly announced support for gay marriage in deeply personal terms, saying his young daughters have friends whose parents are same-sex couples.
"Malia and Sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated different," he said. "It doesn't make sense to them, and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."
The president said first lady Michelle Obama also was involved in his decision and joins him in supporting gay marriage.
The president's remarks come a day after voters in North Carolina -- a battleground state he'd like to keep in his column this November and where his convention is being held -- approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The shift in position is likely to please his more liberal political base and upset conservatives.
Earlier on Wednesday, Mitt Romney, the president's presumed Republican opponent in the general election, said he unequivocally opposes "marriage between people of the same gender."
Polling suggests Americans are now evenly divided on the issue. This chart shows how Americans' support and opposition of gay marriage has changed over time.
On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden touched off a political firestorm by saying he now believes same-sex marriages should be protected under law. In the wake of Biden's remarks, Gwen Ifill led a debate on the topic Monday between Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage and gay rights advocate Richard Socarides:
Reactions from politicians and organizations poured in after the president's statement:
Log Cabin Republicans called the president's statement "cold comfort":
"That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous," said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans' executive director. "Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign's ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short."
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg hailed the march of freedom:
"This is a major turning point in the history of American civil rights. No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people -- and I have no doubt that this will be no exception. The march of freedom that has sustained our country since the Revolution of 1776 continues, and no matter what setbacks may occur in a given state, freedom will triumph over fear and equality will prevail over exclusion. Today's announcement is a testament to the President's convictions, and it builds on the courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village."
Theodore B. Olson, lead co-counsel for the American Foundation for Equal Rights said:
"Today is a proud day for all Americans. The bedrock American principles of freedom and human dignity are central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. President Obama's words remind us that marriage and equality are universal values that unite us all. They remind us that we are al l-- as a People and a Nation -- striving to form a more perfect Union."
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 8:28 pm on May 9, 2012
|
|
Loung Steeb
|
As I see it, the problem with gay marriages is in deciding which one is going to stay home barefoot and pregnant....
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 4:26 am on May 10, 2012
|
|
|
|
atl
|
why should gay people be denied the right to be as miserable as us straight married people? 
But seriously, I will quote Clint Eastwood on the matter:
"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a f*** about who wants to get married to anybody else. We are making a big deal about stuff we should not be making a big deal out of. They go on and on about "sanctity!" Dont give me that sanctity crap! Just give everyone the chance to have the life they want!"
Clint Eastwood - GQ 10/11
Tough to argue with Clint 
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 7:22 pm on May 11, 2012
|
|
dirty guru
|
Though I agree with private rights...
I think it might be confronting to hear and see gay men kissing touching bums and being decadent in public..
Society seems f***ed up enough without a Bruce hitting on you in a straight pub...with full protection of law....
And lesbians will act freely in a frenzy of their ""already mental illness of men hate"" and twisted distorted reality....thought crime will be the norm.
f*** that shit
Too easy in theory....but might be hell in practice.
But you know what?
As I don't value western woman and am accustomed to Thailand where whatever is the norm...however..here it will be in your face....
So I can't say...I would think it will be same same...it won't be.
Then watch airfares and Asian p4p rtes rise....
It's curtains for cheap sex once the endless supply of dykes hit...and men seeking boys so Thai families have two incomes ( sister and brother)
This is a very wrong move on so many levels.
Both home and away..
Clint is old in his 70s so he doesn't have to have creepy future shock.
No more Jack and Jill stories..no PC will kick in
Gay activists will want more than equal rights..kids will be taught all their sick shit in schools.
The extreme fundamentalist Muslims will wage all out holy war on the great Satan of this perceived social evil.....to them killing us will become a very good deed
I don't care.
But it might spell the beginning of the end of society.
The Muslims will watch the west self implode...
Praise be to Obama
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 7:33 pm on May 11, 2012
|
|
|
|
Oosik
|
I can only write from the U.S. standpoint, but I think the government should get the hell out of the marriage business, period. They should separate the secular and religious aspects of the relationship. Religious orders should be free to determine who may marry whom, and even how many, in accordance with their writings, history, or, more often, prejudices.
The government, on the other hand, should discard the term “marriage”, relegating it to the same status as, say, the achievement of Eagle Scout level or being named an Esteemed Lecturing Knight in the B.P.O.E. (Elks). In other words, insignificance. Let private groups have their traditions and ceremonies. Those are not the government’s business unless they cross the rather vaguely drawn legal threshold, e.g., the government doesn’t care WHAT your good book says, you are NOT going to have human virgin sacrifices, or at least not without a permit.
On the other hand, the secular side of the arrangement IS the dominion of officialdom. To the best of my limited knowledge, having a priest/rabbi/imam/guy with a funny hat declare you married does not mean squat as far as inheritance, medical benefits, and so forth. No, those issues are settled by a justice of the peace or other government functionary when he signs the marriage certificate.
So we have two very different processes, unhappily sharing the same name. I think this is a large part of the friction: With the shared term, any time a change is proposed to the secular side, the religious side screams bloody murder: “They are telling us we have to marry sodomites!”
No, you silly sots, THEY are going to marry sodomites. For you it’s business as usual.
Why not just have civil unions for all on the secular side? Religious orders marry, governments, uh… unionize. Okay, that term would stir up the conservatives even more. How about “hitch” or something? As it would be entirely separate, essentially a business arrangement (basically what many marriages were during the hallowed time of the Founding Fathers), it would neither influence nor be influenced by the "marriage" issue. For example, maybe Mormons would want to go back to polygamy. Sure... but they only get to name one as their "partner" (or whatever it would be called) in the legal arena.
I’m with Clint here: If two people care enough for each other to want this folly, why deny them that misery based upon gender? As far as BK’s slippery slope goes, Mister Ed died in 1970, and with him went the chances of a barnyard animal giving verbal assent to enter a union/hitching/whatever. Other forms of communication are too wrought with interpretation difficulties (“But Spot loves me – see how she licks the peanut butter off my balls?”) to be considered legally acceptable.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 9:14 pm on May 11, 2012
|
|
|
|
Oosik
|
"...he heard a loud noise around midnight..." - Any reputable goat f*cker knows better than to go for the screamers. Just looking for trouble.
Presumably Mr. Alifi had enough business savvy to invest the $50 in lipstick so he could eventually marry off even his homeliest of goats.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 10:01 pm on May 11, 2012
|
|
|
|
| |
|
