Why Does Obama Hate Marriage?

Chantytown · 04-15-2008, 09:32 AM

I just got too big of a kick outta this.

The random statistics he just blantantly makes up is worth the read alone.

Satire couldn't be this hilarious.

Quote:

Townhall.com::Why Does Obama Hate Marriage?::By Kevin McCullough

Barack Obama despises the institution of marriage. This assumption can be made on sound reasoning and easy logic. Anytime someone works to oppose something - it is assumed.

But what causes such disdain for the union that gave he and Michelle their life together, and the precious gift of their two baby girls?

This week Barack Obama demonstrated his most recent opposition, some would even classify as hatred, of an institution that he benefits mightily from. His three most prominent family policy positions all speak to this. Each of them focused at punishing the definition of how a family is even constructed. Never before has the national political stage entertained such hostility towards a family's survival yet hardly a word is spoken of it.

Specifically Barack Obama wishes to pass "ENDA" the employment non-discrimination act. Or so it's called. What it really consists of is the most diabolical way ever conceived to punish every voice in America, who under present law, have every right, to speak to their houses of worship, family, and spouse as to the scientific, mental health, and diseased ridden drawbacks of engaging in homosexual behavior. So stifling would ENDA be in fact that if a Youth Pastor who works with young boys in a church program got caught in an inappropriate relationship with them, ENDA would make it nearly impossible for the church involved to fire the youth pastor. ENDA would directly challenge and seek to limit religious expression, doctrine, theology, and practice.

Senator Barack Obama knows this, and supports it with all his might.

The Senator also believes its time to do away with "don't ask, don't tell." On this limited point the Senator and I both agree. I think it's ridiculous to have such a mockery of law in place. Yet we couldn’t be more disagreeable on what takes its place.

It is your humble correspondent's view that we revert back to a ban on sexual immorality all together within the code of military practice and conduct. Effectively what I would call for is the cessation of access to pornography on tax-payer funded military bases, and bans all together on both adulterous and homosexual conduct while on base, under command, and on mission. General Peter Pace was under no delusion when he stated last year that moral discipline is healthy for morale, conduct, and most importantly effectiveness. To send the message otherwise is to only fool ourselves.

Senator Obama on the other hand would prefer for as much sexual expression as one could possibly express. Keep the porn. Adultery is no big deal, and let 'em have homosexual engagement and behavior on base to their heart's desire. Obama's maniacal view is that the moral question of disciplining one's choices is completely unrelated to protecting America's families.

By far the most disturbing family policy position that Barack Obama holds as it relates to advancing the radical sexual activist agenda, (as quickly as possible) has to do with repealing the only law in place that every overfed liberal Senator always cites as the primary reason why marriage must never be defined in the Constitution - DOMA.

I mean if Senator Ted Kennedy consumed an entire martini for every time he himself used the "Defense of Marriage Act" in speeches from the Senate floor as being some sort of solution for the problem of forcing redefined marriage upon the 97% of this nation who see no value whatsoever in changing it's definition - he'd be pickled for a generation. (I know, who's to say he's not?)

Asked again about his hostility towards the "Defense of Marriage" Obama cut to the chase in his interview this weekend with Advocate Magazine, a periodical specifically targeted towards those who seek to engage deeper in homosexual behavior, "Absolutely, and I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA."

Yet the truth is that the "Defense Of Marriage Act" signed by a liberal president in William Jefferson Clinton has already fallen far short of protecting the institution of marriage. The federal version of DOMA is intended to shield one state from the legal responsibility of accepting another state's "redefined" version of a sexual union and call it marriage. This protection foresaw that perhaps one state's group of voters would in no means agree with such an arrangement and therefore needed to protect itself against legal repercussions.

The problem was that in states that did not have a state-wide definition of marriage already established the law protected no one from anything.

Thusly when four black robed, self-superior, societal engineers (they prefer to be called "judges") decided to ignore the will of the people in their state, overreach their constitutional authority, and write new law demanding the changing of the definition of marriage in Massachusetts the federal DOMA was powerless to protect them.

What DOMA did protect voters against was sexual activists who attempted to have those faux marriages later ratified in states where they moved to.

But now Barack Obama wants to carry the mantle of the sexual activists and advance the cause of changing the institution of marriage to make it something it has never been before.

Perhaps it is important to note what it has always been: one man, one woman, in sexual monogamous fidelity for life. It was established by God for three purposes, to civilize men, to protect women, and to nurture children. Thusly a society - even a nation - can continue to exist for generations.

Barack Obama has tasted some of the fruit of that union. His attractive wife, and beautiful daughters provide him a reminder of the goodness that God has granted him, by His grace.

It seems to me at the very least indignant, and at worst arrogant for Obama to desire to work so hard to destroy that simple institution that God has given him so much joy in.

So why does he?

Well, it is an election year...

And homosexual couples do make nearly six times the average income of your normal married couple...

Prominent gay activists also hold many influential places of power in broadcast and print media industries...

Could it just be that even though he has the picture of a storybook family and marriage, that in reality Barack Obama just wants power and will destroy the institution of marriage to get it?

Is that why?

ibex · 04-15-2008, 09:52 AM

Townhall is one of the most jacked off, loud mouth right wing shit factories on the web. Leave it to a douchebag like this to say Obama is against families because he wants society to be more inclusive. You'd think that after years of disastrous policy cheered on by tools like McCullough, Michelle Malkin and Man Coulter, townhall would be facing bankruptcy right now. Two of their own columnists, Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Williams both got caught taking money from the Bushies to write columns in line with the Christian agenda of the administration.

babylonDon · 04-15-2008, 10:00 AM

Homophobic=Pro-marriage.

Jonesy · 04-15-2008, 11:14 AM

Someone should make a movie about a bunch of gay zombies who only eat homophobe brains.

babylonDon · 04-15-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Someone should make a movie about a bunch of gay zombies who only eat homophobe brains.

And then die of malnutrition.

guest1234567 · 04-15-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Someone should make a movie about a bunch of gay zombies who only eat homophobe brains.

Don knows a guy

babylonDon · 04-15-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guest1234567

Don knows a guy

Eat Sandwich

Chantytown · 04-15-2008, 11:34 AM

RUDE!!!!

Quote:

For in his latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "an adolescent biracial bondage dream"), McCullough asks "Why Does Obama Hate Marriage?" And if you can't guess why a self-hating homosexual would think Obama hates marriage, you haven't been alive for the last few years. Bottom line: Obama doesn't hate the happy persons. Therefore, he hates marriage.

It's pure high-larity to read McCullough screech, regarding Obama's support for the employment non-discrimination act (ENDA), "So stifling would ENDA be in fact that if a Youth Pastor who works with young boys in a church program got caught in an inappropriate relationship with them, ENDA would make it nearly impossible for the church involved to fire the youth pastor." Insert your own Pope-ready Catholic Church joke here.

As for Obama saying that he would like to get rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" in the military, McCullough declares, "Senator Obama on the other hand would prefer for as much sexual expression as one could possibly express. Keep the porn. Adultery is no big deal, and let 'em have homosexual engagement and behavior on base to their heart's desire." God, what a sweet image McCullough's latency conjures: entire barracks devoted to cocksucking and assfucking, with one corner set aside for the rim job brigade and another for the unit-fluffing unit.

McCullough brings it all back to the invisible sky wizard theory of social engineering: "Perhaps it is important to note what [marriage] has always been: one man, one woman, in sexual monogamous fidelity for life. It was established by God for three purposes, to civilize men, to protect women, and to nurture children." There ya go: the argument that you can't argue with because to do so would be to confront madness.

And to have to overcome the subtext of McCullough's attacks. Barack Obama has "tasted some of the fruit," he writes. The Senator supports gays "with all his might."

Puh-lease, girlfriend. Do us all a favor and learn to savor the delicious moment just before tongue touches dick head, the hip-shaking agony of release into the muscular ass of another. Really. And, you know, since anyone can make up any shit about God, let's say that the Big Guy wants you to be true to yourself.

guest1234567 · 04-15-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babylonDon

Eat Sandwich

They haven't confirmed my order yet.

I think I'm going to have to ask my daughter to drop the guy a note on his myspace page to let him know I ordered the DVD.

poetrychic · 04-15-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Perhaps it is important to note what it has always been: one man, one woman, in sexual monogamous fidelity for life. It was established by God for three purposes, to civilize men, to protect women, and to nurture children. Thusly a society - even a nation - can continue to exist for generations.

it is also important to note this guy has absolutely no sense of the reasons why marriage was instituted in the first place...wonder if he's ever read anything about history, ever

protect women!? ha! is he kidding with that?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode