SubscribeObama 2004: For Hitting Iran, Even Pakistan
From the September 24, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune:
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
By David Mendell, Tribune staff reporter
September 25, 2004
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama’s Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.
Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.
Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.
But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.
“… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now–if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”
A last resort
Obama’s willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle East comes despite his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also has stressed that he is not averse to using military action as a last resort, although he believes that President Bush did not make that case for the Iraq invasion…
Also during the session, Obama said that, if elected, he likely would make the health-care crisis his first priority. He said he would seek to expand the federal program that gives aid to poor children without health coverage, improve the COBRA program to allow for greater portability of coverage, and push for small businesses to receive tax credits to help pay for employee health insurance.
Views on gay marriage
Earlier Friday, Obama clarified his position on gay marriage after several days of criticism from [GOP Senate candidate Alan] Keyes on the issue. Keyes, a vehement opponent of gay marriage who has called homosexuals “selfish hedonists,” charged during a campaign swing Downstate this week that Obama favors gay marriage.
But during a taping of WBBM-AM’s “At Issue,” Obama said that his Christian faith dictates that marriage should be between a man and woman.
“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” Obama said.
Obama said he would not let his religious beliefs dictate the way he approaches public policy. He said he would supports civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.
“Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn’t cause discrimination,” Obama said. “I think it is the right balance to strike in this society.”
Hmmm. There is a lot of saber-rattling here. Mr. Obama would attack Iran if they continue with their nuclear program unabated.
He would even have the US invade Pakistan and take away their nuclear weapons if Mr. Musharraf were to be overthrown.
Both of which sound very much like the kind of “pre-emptive warfare” he now so eloquently and adamantly attacks.
Also, Mr. Obama’s remarks that “marriage should be between a man and a woman,” might not play so well with the homosexual community he is now so assiduously courting.
But, to be fair, this from way back in 2004, when Mr. Obama was merely a lowly Illinois state senator. Not the omniscient being he is today.
And thankfully for his campaign, this article has been expunged from the Chicago Tribune’s website and from the internet, so nobody will ever hear about his untoward comments.
Related Articles:
- Obama Is Pushing Harder For Homosexuals
- Dems Won't Promise US Out Of Iraq By 2013
- Pakistan Killed 250 "Miscreants" In Last Month
- WP: Dems Must Change Tune With Surge Success
- Obama: Troops Must Do More Than Kill Civilians
- Obama: No Use Of Nukes In Any Circumstances
- Obama Wants To Send Troops Into Pakistan
- Howard Blasts Obama's Iraq Surrender Plans
30 Responses to “Obama 2004: For Hitting Iran, Even Pakistan”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Amazing that you were even able to unearth this, SG.
And doesn’t it just show that some politicians are simply not to be trusted. They will change their “deeply held principles” at the drop of a hat to be more in step with the voters they’re trying to capture. That was then, this is now.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
It will be interesting to see how long the Hillary camp takes to get this out.
I think they set a new land speed record with our Obama in “Muslim garb” photo.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
What’s his name was for the Iran/Pakistan war before he was against it.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Great job, SG.
I’ve read more than one article over the past few days noting that Obama’s opposition to our involvement in Iraq is not for any peaceful reason but because it distracts us from attacking the countries he feels we should attack.
Besides, if held to account for these comments, I’m sure he’d just say he’s “grown,” and the crowds would cheer.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Nice find!
It doesn’t seem completely expunged from the Chicago Tribune Website, it turns up in the archive for September 25, 2004 but they charge a fee for access to the article itself. Here’s a link with a shorter version of the same URL that still seems to work.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Hey, if it is okay for Bubba to bomb the asprin factory, why not Obama? Surgical — don’t you love it? Wonder what ANY of the candidates think about bombing the Turks that invaded Iraq last week? I don’t think the Muslims are going to like Obama’s Jorge-Bush cowboy attitude. What will the Euros think of us, now? Can’t we just get along. Perhaps Obama will talk them into oblivion. Even Jorge Bush has chosen not to get the Paki people ticked off at us. No one will love us, anymore. Hillary’s response? If he puts on his Muslim garb as suggested, maybe no one will notice the bombing. At least it’ll be okay with the U.N. Use rockets and human bombers like in Israel, the U.N. likes them. Airplane missiles and bombs bad.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“And thankfully for his campaign, this article has been expunged from the Chicago Tribune’s website and from the internet…”
Yep, a whole lot of that going on these days. Have you tried to Google any old articles lately? Sheesh.
As always, great article SG!
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Kudos SG!
Another example of Deeply Held Beliefs of Washington politicians.
It doesn’t matter though. By tomorrow night, everyone will be fawning over The Clinton Comeback (again & again & again & again).
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I guess that the smartest woman in the World is not having a good day - first Gloria Steinem mocks McCain’s POW status - in TX (largest land base in the US - oh my) then she can’t unearth this little John Kerry imitation of Obama’s (I was for Pre-emptive War before I was against it) and combine that with the he said/he didn’t say brough haha over exactly what was said to the Canadians about NFTA and she could have gone into Super Tuesday the Redo in better shape.
Perhaps she isn’t the smartest woman in the World - wouldn’t that make Bill Clinton - gasp - a liar?!?
March 4th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Ann Coulter will be on Hannity & Colmes talking about some of these points raised in this article.
You can catch the re-run right now (or later, if you are not in the East).
March 4th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Ah.. Well I’m not exactly sure what his official stance on gay marriage is right now, but it’s unfortunate he only supported “civil unions” and wanted to allow the states to decide. What we need is a constitutional amendment to ALLOW gay marriage.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:08 am
oops, Vivian,wrong site….we’re pretty unanimous here that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman and anything else is not marriage. Marriage/not marriage. Very simple. Let me ask you—if a man can marry a man, why couldn’t he marry, say, 2 men? Or a man and a woman? Or…his dog? Or…..a man, a woman, and his dog? Any deviation from the original thousands of years old model would render marriage meaningless. Right?
March 4th, 2008 at 8:48 am
I think Ann Coulter has a “crush on Obama”. :-)
March 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Ann Coulter will be on Hannity & Colmes talking about some of these points raised in this article.”
For those who missed it:
YouTube - Coulter Defends Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLe6PZLJ1LY
March 5th, 2008 at 5:59 am
ptat,
haha, there was no “oops.” It’s very blatantly obvious that you are all “pretty unanimous” in your conviction that gay marriage is wrong. Just throwing out another opinion. Nothing wrong with a little dissent. It’s what keeps democracy healthy, right? And, no, I don’t believe that allowing two human beings who are in love to marry opens the door to ” a man marrying his dog.” Opposition to gay marriage is a religious value- not a cultural value. If it was a cultural value, it wouldnt be such a hotly contested topic. And when it’s just a religious value, well.. You shouldnt force that on other people. I’d like to see your response when a Jewish man told you you couldnt eat pork because his religion dictates it is a sin. Do you wear poly-cotton blends? Just curious.
(And it’s Viviane)
March 5th, 2008 at 7:24 am
viviane—you didn’t answer the question!!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:21 am
“Opposition to gay marriage is a religious value- not a cultural value.”
And?????
IMHO This argument is goofy. I don’t give a flip how others choose to live their life, just don’t MESS WITH AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION!
When did you ever have a Jewish man tell you that you couldn’t eat pork? And the poly cotton blends? I don’t get how this explains why America should change it’s Constitution and definition of marriage. Sorry, I just don’t get your point?
March 5th, 2008 at 8:47 am
viviane;….”not a cultural value….”
Are you out of your feeble little mind? The only time it isn’t a cultural value is when groups of individuals exibiting this aberrant behavior congregate in one area and repulse everyone else to the point that, normal, yes normal, individuals leave town. At that point, abnormality becomes culturally acceptable, even as a culture unto itself. And don’t bother telling me that homosexuality of any stripe is normal. If it were normal, humankind would have ceased to exist millenia ago. Homosexuals are seeking preferential treatment. They want not to be left alone. Rather, they persist in getting in my face with their sick affliction. Even to the point of corrupting the English language–gay–homophobe–and the like–these words with their current meanings weren’t even in the dictionaries thirty to forty years ago. Yet they have been forced into usage by a twisted bunch of degenerates seeking legitimacy. You’re right, opposition to all pratices surrounding homosexuality spring from religious convictions and principles. Principles upon which this nation was founded. You have the freedom to practice the religion of your choice, or no religion at all. In case you haven’t noticed, secularism is itself a religion that, rather than allow the free expression of all religious values, seeks the subjugation or destruction of those commonly held religious values of others. Your example of a Jew telling me I can’t eat pork is lame. He doesn’t tell me I shouldn’t eat pork, he informs other Jews that adherents of Judiasm don’t eat pork. He’s not forcing you to become a Jew. Catholics don’t insist that everybody abstain from meat on Lenten Fridays, only that Catholics do so. Mitt Romney didn’t insist that everyone become a Mormon nor does he force those beliefs on anyone else. But morals spring from religious belief whether you like it or not. If you want to be queer (that’s the word queers gave to one another) have at it. But don’t tell me it’s normal, and don’t force me to subsidize it through payroll deductions, insurance premiums, “civil unions” then subsequent “divorces” paid for by tax revenues, child custody battles brought on by two hedonistic individuals who bring a child into the world or adopt a child as another status symbol in an attempt to have their abomination of a lifestyle be recognized as normal. When the moral fiber of this country is frayed by secularists to the point that it is non-existent, the “mother of all religious intollerance”, islam will rule. Take your case to those folks and argue it. In the meantime, maybe we’ll find a cure for AIDS–just as soon as we can find two white rats willing to screw each other in the ass!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:53 am
“not a cultural value. ” Absolutely right, gay marriage has no cultural value.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
“Opposition to gay marriage is a religious value- not a cultural value. If it was a cultural value, it wouldnt be such a hotly contested topic.”
And of course, religion and culture are two mutually exlusive things, right? Please, explain to me how this sentence makes any kind of sense. Find one “culture” on the planet that is not significantly influenced by religion. Even “gay culture” is heavily influenced by religion, not simply by opposition to it but by those within “gay culture” who are religious themselves.
By the way, the word “culture” is probably the second least understood word in the English language, right after “fascist.” For one thing, “culture” is completely subjective. What is culture to one is an “abomination of a lifestyle” to another. For another, “culture” exists on every level of human interaction, from friends to families to neighborhoods to communities to towns to counties to states to nations. Two people cannot exist in the same space without developing some kind of culture between them, and that culture will be defined not by some magical happy consensus of the pair’s opposing views, but rather by the aggregate of them. Any religious beliefs will therefore be present in the culture.
And in case you’re wondering, culture can also have a profound effect on religion. Look at the various sects of Christiansity that sanction abortion, gay priests, gay marriage, female priests, etc. Were religion and culture mutually exclusive as your statement implies, there would be none of these things, as Christianity would have remained impervious to the Enlightenment. Indeed, were religion and culture so separated, there would have been no Schism, no Reformation, and therefore, no Enlightenment. So, no science, no human rights, no small-L liberalism, no working democracy.
Although I am no great theological scholar, I do know a fair amount of Jewish history, particularly where it intersects with that or Rome. From what I understand of the Torah, from my own readings of the Old Testament, and from my admittedly limited knowledge of the traceable origins of these texts, it seems to me that the Judeo-Christian tradition of opposition to promiscuity and homosexuality originated during the period of the Roman conquest and subesequent occupation of Judea. Considering the Romans wildly different interpretations of sexuality, is it really so surprising that Jewish attitudes towards sex seem to intensify in this era? In other words, Roman culture had a significant effect on the attitudes and practice of the Jewish (and therefore Christian) religion. These attitudes spread with Christianity across the Roman Empire, taking root in the various cultures of Europe so that when the authority of the Pope was challenged a millenia later, the breakup of the church was not the breakup of the Christian religion, or its opposition to homosexuality. These values were by that time entrenched in the culture. I recognize this line of logic seems shaky, and it may upset a few people, but the evidence I see points to cultural friction between Romans and Jews as the catalyst (if not the outright origin) for Judeo-Christian opposition to what they view as deviant sexualities. So the widespread opposition to gay marriage is, to put it most accurately, the generally religious expression of inherited cultural values.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Gay marraige is not about marriage, it’s just a subsidy for AIDS. The Gay and Lesbian community couldn’t give a damn about the law but corporations and municipalities would HAVE to cover these peoples perverted diseases and lifestyle. What a bunch of crap.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Whoa. Haha, this is crazy. Okay.
ptat- I’m pretty sure I did answer the question…You asked if allowing marriage between two men would open to door to marriage between three men, a man and a dog, etc, correct? I believe I answered. I said no. I guess maybe you’re asking if it renders the meaning or marriage meaningless? No, it doesnt. Check dictionary.com and read all the definitions of marriage. I’d define marriage as a union between two people in love.
texaspsue- Well, I said I that under the assumption that most vehemently opposed to gay marriage would also support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Also, I think your logic of “leave the constitution alone” is slightly flawed- without amendments to the constitution, we’d still have slavery and women wouldnt be able to vote. I have nothing against the constitution- I am a huge American history buff. But I think we need to recognize the fact that while it is the foundation of our country…I was also written in a time very different from the present. Oh, and my point about pork and poly cotton blends was that banning gay marriage is essentially forcing religious beliefs on others. And the most referred to (I believe) Bible passage on homosexuality also forbids the wearing of clothing made of more than one type of fiber.
JohnMG- I say it’s not a cultural value because not only are gay and lesbians not opposed to gay marriage (duh), but there is a large body of perfectly straight people (myself included) who completely support it. And, yes, I do believe that in the most clinical sense of the term there is something “abnormal” about homosexuality. It’s true, if everyone was gay, the human race would die out. I’m no doctor, but I do believe that it is the result of some sort of genetic mutation (or, some suggest, severe stress undergone by the mother). But I do not think that warrants discrimination, just as i don’t believe that the mentally and physically retarded should be discriminated against. I don’t want special treatment for gays- just equal treatment.
pagar- ? I said “opposition to gay marriage” is not a cultural value
invertigo- I’m not denying that religion has profound effects on culture (and though I’m no expert, I am taking a sociology class in my high school, so I do have some understanding of what “culture” really means..But, again, it’s a half-year high school course), but I think there is a seperation between the two. For example, my earlier example of eating pork. That’s not something associated with America, it’s associated with the Jewish faith. Abstaining from alcohol isnt a value all Americans hold (we learned that from Prohibition) though it is one Muslims and some Christian denominations hold. We dont pass laws forbidding these things because they are specific to each religion. Why should gay marriage be any different? Alcohol hurts more people than gay marriage does. And, I am a huge history buff and I see your point about the Romans and the Jews. But, still, I don’t think opposition to gay marriage is something the vast majority of Americans can rally behind and support. And, if this is not the case, I dont see how preserving the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman can be considered a cultural value.
Lipstick- I’m sure the Gay and Lesbian community is happy to have you speaking for them.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
“I’m no doctor, but I do believe that it is the result of some sort of genetic mutation (or, some suggest, severe stress undergone by the mother). But I do not think that warrants discrimination, just as i don’t believe that the mentally and physically retarded should be discriminated against. ”
A little proof? Oh wait there is none. HaHa
“It’s what keeps democracy healthy, right?”
Our country isnt a democracy. The classic billie Joe, lead singer of green day “theres nothing more american than questioning things” card, a genius play. I can tell you really know how to think for yourself….
Ahhh the gentle mannered troll that tries to subtly coax everyone into a lull, somehow convincing us of the crazyness of it all with their pure liberal reasoning, which really isnt liberal you see….
hey now hey, soon you’ll be telling us that you’re a black republican.Yes im sure you personally think gay marriage is abnormal or wierd or whatever but even you as an extremely conservative pretend black republican have to admit that being mean to gays by not letting them get married in frilly pink outfits and sodomize the institition of marriage is super dooper wrong, and we believe you since you know so much about our democracy(oops*) and constitional law.
I mean your extremely intense examination of the institution of marriage and constitutional law has led you to dictionary.com, the holy compendium of all knowledge on this earth. I believe dictionary.com also officially recognized and defined “fo’ sheezy” as a real word recently. If they can do that Im sure they they can bend time and space as well.
Haha. Woah. This crazy you guys. Okay…
“Why should gay marriage be any different? Alcohol hurts more people than gay marriage does.”
Hrmmm…. Let me tell you kid, im sure an addiction to peach flavored snapps is alot easier to kick than a case of the AIDS, not to mention the hemorrhoids…..
Invertigo- And judaism isnt the only religion that was opposed to homosexuality, the ancient sumerians and alot of other ancient cultures were also opposed to homosexuality as well.
Umm yes im sure the jews became more opposed to homosexuality under the yoke of their roman oppressors, that is logical. But im sure they didnt see alot of open homosexuality before the romans came around since i believe homosexuality and fornication was punished by stoning and death in the jewish community? So there probably wasnt that much to complain about before that?
“I’m sure the Gay and Lesbian community is happy to have you speaking for them.”
Hey kid what has the Gay and lesbian community ever done for the world? What do you want to force the lifestyle of a minority on an entire country? Eh? Why do you care?
March 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
to:candy
“A little proof? Oh wait there is none. HaHa”
Well, there was a study done in Germany examining childbirths during WWII. The number of homosexuals born during that time increased dramatically. That’s one point for the stress-in-the-womb argument. And homosexuality has been observed in animals as well, so I don’t see how there can be any doubt that homosexuality is genetic..
“Our country isnt a democracy. The classic billie Joe, lead singer of green day “theres nothing more american than questioning things” card, a genius play. I can tell you really know how to think for yourself….”
Sorry, I don’t listen to Green Day, so I dont really understand the reference. I prefer The Decemberists, myself. And that comment was a joke, anyway… And, true, it’s not a pure democracy. I believe it is a democratic republic. But, still, argument is essential to our American democratic republic.
“Ahhh the gentle mannered troll that tries to subtly coax everyone into a lull, somehow convincing us of the crazyness of it all with their pure liberal reasoning, which really isnt liberal you see….
hey now hey, soon you’ll be telling us that you’re a black republican.Yes im sure you personally think gay marriage is abnormal or wierd or whatever but even you as an extremely conservative pretend black republican have to admit that being mean to gays by not letting them get married in frilly pink outfits and sodomize the institition of marriage is super dooper wrong, and we believe you since you know so much about our democracy(oops*) and constitional law.”
You kind of lost me here. I personally think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but, again, in the most clinical sense, I think it could be called a mutation. I don’t really understand anything you’re saying… Am I a black republican..? No…
“I mean your extremely intense examination of the institution of marriage and constitutional law has led you to dictionary.com, the holy compendium of all knowledge on this earth. I believe dictionary.com also officially recognized and defined “fo’ sheezy” as a real word recently. If they can do that Im sure they they can bend time and space as well.”
Um, alright. Are you maybe thinking of urbandictionary.com? I think that might be the site to look for “fo’ sheezy” on. Dictionary.com most certainly does not have it.. Because, like you said, dictionary.com is in fact a compendium of many different dictionaries. Hey, it’s the only place I could find the definition of “izzat” (which is an Anglo-Indian term, by the way). But, this really isn’t an argument about the reputability of dictionary.com. I only referred to it as an example of how, in the modern world, marriage does not necessarily have the same strict defintion of being between a man and a woman only. Language changes, the meanings of words change with the times. “Dilettante” had none of the negative connotations that it has today hundreds of years ago.
“Hrmmm…. Let me tell you kid, im sure an addiction to peach flavored snapps is alot easier to kick than a case of the AIDS, not to mention the hemorrhoids…..”
First of all, as the child of an abusive alcoholic, I think it’s in horrible taste that you would downplay alcoholism as “an addiction to peach flavored snapps.” And, true, I’m willing to bet alcoholism would be a bit easier to beat than HIV, but you operate under the assumption that every homosexual in America is infected or completely reckless.
“Hey kid what has the Gay and lesbian community ever done for the world? What do you want to force the lifestyle of a minority on an entire country? Eh? Why do you care?”
On the whole? Not much I can think of. But I can think of a few gay individuals who have done a lot. I’m not advocating the forcing of a minority lifestyle on an entire country.. No one’s saying that every man should be married to another man. I’m advocating the equal treatment of all the law-abiding citizens of this country. You dont want to marry someone of the same gender, then don’t! But don’t stop someone else from being with the one they love just because your religion says it’s wrong (I’m assuming your opposition to gay marriage stems from Christianity). And I care because I think discrimination of any kind is wrong.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Viv: You argued your point well, but you missed the fact that no one is discriminating against the homosexual community when it comes to marriage. They still have the right to get married, just as you and I, straight people, have. Only the right that we all enjoy is to marry someone of the opposite gender. The queer community complain that they don’t have the right to marriage when in fact they do…feelings aside…
But if you change the right to marry as you please, where will it stop? One person will say that I, a man, want to marry a man. The next argument will be “I want to have the right to marry as I choose as well, and I want to marry my boyfriend and my girlfriend.” The next argument will be: “I want the right to be fulfilled and pleased with myself, too…I want to marry my two girlfriends and my dog…” And where will it stop? With harems…of any species?
March 5th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Retired_Chief: It’s true, they do have the right to marry another person of the opposite gender. I just think they should have the right to marry who they love. I honestly don’t think that allowing marriage between two men (or women) would lead to polygamy or beastiality. I don’t see the connection. It stops at the union of two human beings. End of story.
Thank you for saying I argued my point well, though. It is quite exasperating.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I suggest you take in the next gay pride parade in San Francisco, Viv. I sincerely don’t think you know what you are encouraging here.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I see where you are coming from now, viviane—-you mistakenly believe that your opinions are fact. “I don’t believe those planes are really flying into those buildings—it is just your opinion….” Rather than deal with the inescapable logic put forth here that same gender sex will lead to ever more bizarre couplings, thus literally rendering marriage meaningless, you counter argue that you simply don’t believe that will happen. Such sophistry truly is a dialogue killer—perhaps you can see how faulty your logic, or lack thereof, is?
March 5th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Can you demonstrate any logic in connecting the marriage of two people to the marriage of three men and a dog? You think allowing TWO HUMANS to marry will lead to “ever more bizarre couplings”? I could say the same about you- You mistakenly believe that your opinion is fact.
Inter-racial marriages were once banned too. I bet people back then thought they’d lead to such things beastiality. Your logic is hardly “inescapable.”
And, this: “I don’t believe those planes are really flying into those buildings—it is just your opinion….” is completely meaningless and irrelevent.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
“Can you demonstrate any logic in connecting the marriage of two people to the marriage of three men and a dog? You think allowing TWO HUMANS to marry will lead to “ever more bizarre couplings”?”
Actually, polygamists have been quite active lately, citing the same arguments homosexuals use for gay marriage, i.e. the equal protection clause. And unless I am much mistaken, O’Reilly ran a story last year about a man trying to marry some animal, citing the same arguments. I don’t clearly remember the details, and for all I know the story could be a complete farce as Bill hasn’t followed up on it, but I do remember the story. O’Reilly has his radar on for nonsense like this, so either he feels the story no longer as merit or that the gay marriage issue just isn’t relevant at the moment. I’m not sure which.
“I don’t think opposition to gay marriage is something the vast majority of Americans can rally behind and support.”
Then why is it gay marriage bans pass by overwhelming margins wherever they are put up for referendum? I seem to remember Democrats braying treason because many key states in the 2004 election had gay marriage bans on their ballots, and all of them passed by large margins, all of them drawing significant numbers of supposedly conservative Republican voters. Strange, then, that in those same states, President Bush’s margin of victory was substantially smaller than the margin of approval for the gay marriage bans. In my home state of Michigan, the ban passed with something like 66% of the vote, meanwhile Bush LOST the state by I think 5% (I’m fuzzy on the precise numbers but I know I’m in the right ballpark).