Shared publicly  - 
Photo of the Day: President Obama greets a baby along the ropeline at Reno-Tahoe International Airport in Reno, Nevada.
Chad Hernandez's profile photoИван Цыбиков's profile photoDan Kasberger's profile photoabdelfattah harzalaoui's profile photo
So many trolls trolling on a nice picture.
Woah. It's Smith in the background. Run, Mr. Anderson
I want to say, "Hi" to see of Papa G will call me names today.
If only that kid knew what type of world he is in coming to. One of debt, poor infrastructure, and corrupt cronyism.

One a side note why do you think the President has grey hair? That's the classic sign of HOLY SHIT syndrome.
I refuse to believe that the people posting negatively, here, are Americans. This is the White House's Google+ feed. That is a picture of the President of the United States. Show some respect for your country and yourself. Go campaign on Obama's personal feed or your own.
+Peter B If you had really served in the military you would understand the difference between how you treat the man and the office of the Commander In Chief.
I heard Obama is Muslin, is HE?
Gosh we go so nuts over a politician and his photo op. This isn't newsworthy. Yet because the "White House" puts it up it's not political, and no one gets to speak his or her opinion. We are all so over serious. Mr. Sherman, really, pick your battles.
Great picture of a great president.
As one unimportant resident of a red state, I hope President Obama will win his second term. 4 more years !
The Right Man For The Right Job At The Right Time. Thank you, Sir.
i want Obama to win again his second term
We need to get unemployment turned around, just so that the winged monkeys have something better to do, that troll the White House posts. The posts from the economic idiots, and fundamentalist zealots really is depressing. My absolute favorite is the soldier who hasn't the first clue what he fought for. Wish he hadn't bothered. Would have been no skin off my teeth.
No troll he. Rabid bomber, but no troll. I'm sure that he doesn't believe that only orthodox with the party line have First Amendment rights. I realize I am about to incur the wrath of the magician, but I just have to say that I'm sure he is no troll: +Drew Heyen
+Dennis Griess I believe in the first amendment as well, but you DO NOT have the right to come yell at me in my living room. Free speech has absolute limitations. This is, however, not about free speech. This is about decorum and civility. This is about people with nothing better to do, than spew their bile where it is unwarranted.

What kind of a dick mentions the occupation of the person he is talking to? Is your position so weak, and your bigotry so strong, that you think doing so gives you some kind of leverage? Do you somehow believe having gone to my profile, and checking me out, makes you seem clever? Have you considered that there really are decaffeinated brands on the market that taste just as good as the real thing?
+Maxim Kovaliov - very strange: how you can estimate what ALL Nevada said? Even if you live in Nevada, I think you are mistaken what the rest of people have to say about our president.

Some people are soooooo predictable.

I have to say, that you are so much more than a magician. You are a master at making noise in one place to distract from what is real and really important.

In your living room you are free to call names, but if you're going to talk about civility, first learn what it means. No one forces you to read what I and others say here and certainly nothing but your own predisposition compels you to comment, and that, quite rudely.

To be balanced you have a fair point once in awhile which is why I haven't blocked you. But your buttons, oh they are so big and red, who can resist pushing them?

Oh and decaf, yeah, you should look into that. ROFL
Give the guy props for putting up with all the negativity (cough, cough). I know I couldn't handle it as well as he does!
+Dennis Griess Why, by gum you are right. I DON'T have to listen to the excrement pouring from your keyboard. Sound advice. I believe I shall avail myself of it, and stop wasting my time on someone pretending to be reasonable.
Ben H
What is Agent Smith doing in the background?!? Where's Neo?
The best president of America !!!!!!!!!!!!
Es chino. el traductor de google.
"ES CHINO" CHE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love how he got down to eye-level with the child. That says a lot (all good) about our president.
Mr. Johnson, you win won internet. Thank you for your lolz.
Everyone look at the language in this piece of trash that AIPAC is pushing. Here is an excerpt.

"Whereas top Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened the existence of the State of Israel, pledging to ``wipe Israel off the map'"

This is a blatant lie. Ahmadinejad NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING! Yet here it is in SENATE RESOLUTION 380 and amendment to H. RES. 568.

"Any doubt that this is the intention of the backers of this approach was removed back in March, when the Senate was considering new Iran sanctions. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Bob Casey (D-PA) offered their own “no containment” language to the sanctions bill and the Senate moved to quickly to accept it."
+Peter B if you only showed respect for the institution of our government because you feared the consequences, then I'm very sorry for you. I don't go around spitting on the White House out of respect, no matter who happens to be in residence there. It's why I don't burn the flag or spray paint the seal of office on my laptop.

Of course, I've differed with Presidents. I've differed with this one. But I keep that to unofficial venues like Obama's personal feed on Google + or my own.

When someone can't do that, they display a lack of respect for the nation not the man.

Again, this is a distinction that I was under the impression was being taught in the military, but perhaps that's no longer true...
+Peter B But you're not criticizing +Barack Obama you're criticizing +The White House in an extremely public forum. If you want to wander over to +Barack Obama and explain how you feel about his policies, that's your right as an American, and I wish you the best. But when you flame +The White House you're talking to me and 300 million of my best friends.
+Latweef Shen Myint-Thu will you support a law to ban women who are infertile from getting married? Will you support a law to require that men who get vasectomies, before fathering children, to get a divorce? If marriage is about children then we can't allow such offensive couplings to continue, can we?
+Latweef Shen Myint-Thu you're dead-wrong about women. Women who have had their ovaries removed are extremely common. See:

By your definition, there is no reason for these women to get married, but if you talk to an infertile woman and ask her if she should be allowed to get married, first off, she's likely to become extremely angry, but she'll also be confused by the question. Why wouldn't she get married?! If she's in love with a man she certainly should! Marriage isn't about her ability to get pregnant, she will argue, it's about love, support and a desire to be with the same person for the rest of your shared life.

And then we return to the original topic: gay marriage is a 3-fold thing: first, it's about love. Gay couples love each other no less for being gay. Love is love. Second, it's about building a life together, pure and simple. Love is important, but so is the desire to tear down the walls you've build for the rest of society and invite someone in to make a home and a future with you. Third is the legal implication. Marriage is how the government recognizes a concept that is so important that most of us don't even recognize it: kinship. When you marry someone, they become your kin in the eyes of the law, and that changes everything. From inheritance to hospital visitation to the obligations that judges have to remove themselves from cases involving their kin; kinship is at the core of all law that deals with families, and there are only three ways to establish kinship: marriage, birth or adoption. This is why it's important for gay families to be able to marry: so that they can be families in the eyes of the law and be granted all of the same rights and obligations as straight families. Even civil unions can't grant all of these rights because they don't confer kinship.
+Latweef Shen Myint-Thu on a side note: I'll point out that you're bringing this up in the wrong forum. This is a picture of the President greeting a baby at a rope line. It's probably a good thing to keep these conversations contained to threads where they make sense.
Handle your business Mr. President! These critics will always doubt your qualified choices.
I strongly believe that president Obama is not in support of the so called "same sex marriage" but merely trying to add mandate for his upcoming election.
+John Fields How about the overwhelming evidence that suggest that the healthiest family model for all involved is one in which both biological parents are in the home raising their children? Study upon study confirms this. The statistics take a tragic downward turn when either one of the the biological parents are removed from the equation, this is true even if a suitable step parent is present. What results for all involved (especially the children) is increased odds of substance abuse as well as myriad of psychological disorders and often criminal behavior which in turn is a detriment to society in general. Obviously the optimal family model isn't possible in a same sex relationship.

You see, it's not really about equal rights, it's about the nature of marriage and its impact on society. We all know that the institution of marriage is in trouble. The state of society reflects this sad fact. But do we really want to add to the detriment by promoting any variation of the family model that is less than optimal?

And I'm aware that there are those who survived divorce and came out ok. There are single parents and blended families that beat the odds. But is that grounds for advocating for single parenting or divorce or any other variation that is less than the healthiest, best for society family model when we know what the odds of success are? Doesn't it make sense to promote what gives everyone (especially our kids) the best chance of having a successful family life and in turn contributing positively to society in general?
+Chad Hernandez - Yes, because marriage is a part of civil secular law. The law does not state that marriage is for reproduction. We allow sterile people to get married, as well as people who do not want children.
+Alan Foster That really doesn't address my post though. Anyone can have a ceremony and say they're married. Or not. As in the example of cohabitation. If some do not believe that a piece of paper or contract should define their relationship they're free to not partake. They're not now oppressed or considered second class citizens because they're relationship isn't recognized with a marital status, right?

The question was though, should we be promoting these family models when there is such overwhelming evidence of failure... Especially when it affects kids and society so profoundly....
+Chad Hernandez - Sure, anyone can say they are married. I can say I'm the president. It doesn't make it legal. Marriage is a part of civil law, it is not an informal arrangement. The protections of the law are unobtainable to homosexuals.

My gay neighbors marriage wouldn't affect my family at all. And denying them marriage won't force them to impregnate women.
Agree. It's about recognition. But again +Alan Foster You're not really addressing my posts.
For one thing, like those who believe in cohabitation, yes... Marriage is obtainable. If they conform to the standards. But nobody is forcing them either way. In both scenarios (cohabitation or homosexual relationships) they're living as they choose and its their right to do so. The recognition of marital status doesn't make either couple second class citizens. It just makes them citizens exercising their freedom.

And as stated... Study after study shows that the healthiest family model is one in which both biological parents are in the home raising their children. There's no disputing the detrimental effects that occur when one or the other is removed. These affect society as a whole. Again, this is not really disputed by anyone. So how can we advocate for this or any other variation of the family model that is clearly less than optimal or healthy for society?

I'm not sure where forcing anyone to impregnate anyone else fits into our conversation... Explain?

+Chad Hernandez Following your logic, we could also deny homosexuals the right to form LLCs? No one is forcing them to be gay, so we can deny them the right to form a corporation? No one is forcing them to be gay, so we can deny them the right to enter into a legally recognized marriage to obtain the protections that we give others?

Should we make it illegal for sterile individuals to marry? Or people who cheat on their wives?
+Christopher Caro We are sophisticated enough, as a species, to discuss multiple problems at once. Many of us here are educated and competent adults who handle multiple problems in their lives every day.

And I feel as though many of us would define equality as a real issue.
+Christopher Caro For one, taking a break from some of the other issues that you refer to.

For another, it is important to me personally.

And lastly... Because Obama wants us to of course. Why would he want us talking about the economy when he could "drop a bombshell" and distract us to anything else better for him?
(sarcasm in case you didn't know)
+Alan Foster Again, I agree. Many are defining this as a equality issue. But I think my points show otherwise..... It really isn't.

It's about the nature of marriage and its impact on society.

We are all free here. That means we'll undoubtedly have different beliefs and live our lives in different ways, ways that we feel comfortable with. If it were the governments job to conform to every one of those beliefs... Well why even discuss it, it's an impossibility....

I think we should not be promoting anything but what's healthiest for families and in turn our society... 
+John Fields Of course that's not a blanket statement John. Human nature dictates that not all situations are the same. We all know that there are some biological parents that plain just shouldn't have kids, by the same token there are situations where two loving parents of the same sex are better than unfit biological parents. But those are the exception, not the rule. Because you can show that there are some who came from broken homes well adjusted, would you then become an advocate for divorce?

If you can find a study that doesn't show a dramatic downward turn when (all things being equal) the two biological parents aren't in the home raising their children it's going to be a contradiction to the huge majority of such studies.

I think my earlier posts at +Alan Foster address the points of exclusion and limitations. They really don't exist. 
+Chad Hernandez The issue isn't promoting different parenting styles, the issue is the 14th amendment and the special rights granted to married couples. The government has never granted licenses to marry based on reproductive capabilities. When two men marry, it doesn't affect my wife or my daughter.
+John Fields What law excludes anyone from anything? This is about recognition. I go back to my example of the couples who believe that their relationship shouldn't be defined by any document at all and so they engage in cohabitation.

Both can conform to the standards that would allow them to make the marital status. Nobody is attempting to force or stop them from living either way. They are both exercising there freedom to live in the ways that suite them best. And both couples can access any legal rights that someone with marital status can. They just go about it via different avenues. I don't see the exclusion you're talking about. Are you saying that all those who believe in cohabitation are being treated as second class citizens because their relationships aren't recognized as marriage? If so where are the cries of oppression from these folks?
+John Fields Oh I'm not saying it's the same as any other voluntary group. As I stated before that is what this is all about. The nature of marriage and it's profound affect on society. Marriage supersedes government. It's been around since the beginning of human civilization. In every culture, even though it's differed slightly, it has existed. And the overwhelming majority of time it's been a man and a woman. Even if you ignore the all evidence that supports it being the best model for society, government doesn't have the authority even to redefine it. It's one of those unalienable rights the Constitution refers to. The government rather is obligated to protect it I think.

Another point I'd like to throw out there, and I know it's not new but I think it's valid nonetheless.

It seems that all the arguments for the recognition of homosexual marriages could be made in support of any consensual relationship of any kind. No?

In response to the story you posted. It seems politics as usual to me. By that I mean simply that judges are chosen and rejected all the time based on their politics and personal views on any given subject. I don't think that qualifies as discrimination. If so there are many qualified people in the past that received the same treatment. It's why the two parties place so much importance in having their guy in when it's time to appoint supreme court justices. Is it right? I won't go that far. Par for the course? I'd have to say yes. 
+John Fields To address your assertion that we're "making marriage smaller". Recognizing same sex marriage wouldn't really be expanding marriage, it would be replacing the historical meaning with a counterfeit. We'd lose all rational arguments against things like polygamy or incest. As I pointed out before the argument for homosexual marriages could be made in support of any consensual relationship of any kind.

As to your question about how marriage is protected by not recognizing homosexual relationships as marriage, I point to places that have permitted the unions to be recognized as marriages. Places like the Netherlands for example. The institution has all but died there since the change was made in 2001. Instead of it strengthening the institution fewer Dutch bother to marry at all now. Children are no longer even connected to marriage. How can that be a good thing for anyone?

I'll have to reread the story about the Judge. I didn't see where he was fired. I read it as he was denied a nomination. Which, as I said would be par for the course... Not right, but all nominees are subject to denial for any number of personal and or political views.

To my cohabitation point. I'm not changing the subject. I believe it's a valid argument. We have two groups of people who are in the exact same boat because they're exercising their freedom to live as they see fit. If you say one is being denied civil rights and being treated as second class citizens then you have to say they both are. To dismiss one group because you claim they don't want those rights you say are being denied the other isn't a fair argument. You don't know what any given person wants. Your points as far as the cost and the inconvenience of accessing certain legal rights are valid to an extent... so how can you say that this doesn't affect both groups the same? Are you asserting that those who engage in cohabitation don't care about money or convenience?

The point is that neither group is being denied anything. We all have equal rights even if they are accessed differently. That goes for a variety of different types of rights and every variety of persons.

And you're definition is accurate, but you'll notice behaviors aren't listed in the group of categories ...
May Oo
hi,,he was cool hun? favorites president is Obama..
+John Fields Good morning!
The thing you are overlooking is that anyone can marry.... someone of the opposite sex. Like the those who believe in cohabitation, homosexuals would have to sacrifice their way of living to do so, but they have the right to do that or not to.

And as I stated in my explanation of how not recognizing homosexual unions as marriages protects the institution ... The reason for the legal framework is as such.... polygamy and incest. Which brings us to another very important part of the equation, the argument against these things dissolves away if homosexual unions are recognized as marriages.
+Chad Hernandez You are bringing up cohabitation again. We are talking about government issuing marriage licenses. Cohabitation doesn't require a license. Marriage does require a license. We used to deny that license to blacks. (they were allowed to cohabitate, amiright?) Then we used to only deny it to blacks who wanted to marry whites/hispanics (they were allowed to cohabitate, amiright?)
i luv americana................
+John Fields Just found your post. I'm in, just been a bit busy last portion of the week. I'll answer to some of those in a bit.

I'm seeing an obvious difference in opinion concerning one key argument you keep offereing. I don't see the governments lack of recognition as a mandate telling people who they can love. You seem to. Certainly you are not asserting that only a government recognized marriage equates to love?

I may not be making my point very well. We're all protected from discrimination due to race, sex or religion under the constitution. A just society doesn't apply consequences (positive or negative) based solely on any of these. Behavior is a completely different proposition. Natural law dictates that every behavior have consequences (again, either positive or negative). We can argue the "why" any given person behaves in any given way all day long, but its really irrelevant. The fact is that as Americans we all have the right to choose how we will live. Who we will love. How we will worship and so on. For good or bad. In the case of homosexuality I honestly don't think there are any more positive or negative consequences to the way they live than any other group. Especially considering the treatment they may get in other parts of the world. Iran for instance.

We are a nation of diversity. There are a wide range of belief systems, economic factions, races, and religious beliefs represented here. Not everyone has everything exactly as they would want it. But it's as close as possible I believe. Any more attempt to accommodate every single faction will result in an erosion of religious freedoms, a core foundation of our nation.

I have other points to make concerning some of your agree/disagreements but I've got to get to some other pressing things at the moment... I will definitely get back to them... 
+John Fields Ok. I'm not going to rewrite everything. I'll number your points starting with "Anyone can legally marry" as number 1. And on that point... Agreed.

2. I don't think I agree with the term "discrimination" in that context.

3. Sure. Agree

4. Disagree. Mating involves the natural complimentary interactions of male and female sexual organs. Procreation is not necessarily a result of mating. This is definitely exclusive to the natural concept of marriage.

5. Agreed

6. Agreed

7. Disagree with the premise. It's not happening. You're free to love whom ever you choose in America.

8. Agree

9. "Outcome" is a tricky word. I prefer to say government has the responsibility to set a "social standard".

10. Agreed.

11. Again I disagree with the premise. "Single option" isn't happening. Nobody is proposing it. America is incredibly diverse as far as "family structure".

12. Encourage? Question the wording. Support is the better term I'd say.

13. Not sure how much the government should be involved in this. There are professionals in the adoption field that should have discretion in this area. There is a certain amount of moral discretion involved as well, say in the case of religiously based adoption agencies. Some regulation is definitely necessary though.

14. Agree and disagree. Theocracy? No. But the constitution was definitely influenced by religion. Don't really want to get to deep into this sub debate but I will offer this. It's almost unbelievably from Barack Obama. Although I disagree with most everything the man stands for, I agree whole heartily with this statement of his. Whether or not he does, not sure. Either way, it's very eloquently put.

" Securlarists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther king - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christion tradition. "
Barack Obama.

15. Disagree. One thread of commonality runs through all of these. They all involve sexual behavior....

To you sir....
+John Fields I agree. We may end up in disagreement, but there is definitely respect. This is something all of society needs more of. It leads to open discussion and exchange of ideas. Plus 1 to you as well.
+Alan Foster The point of the comparison I believe is that we have two groups who are in the exact same boat because they're exercising their freedom to live as they see fit. They both lack legal marital status. They both can gain that status if they conform to the standards. If one is being denied civil rights, they both are. And both groups can access all legal rights in question. They just access them via different avenues than do those with marital status. Nobody is oppressed in America.
+Chad Hernandez a straight couple who lives together can get a marriage license (and a tax break, and hundreds of legal protections) on a whim. A homosexual can not upgrade the status of his relationship in the eyes of civil law. 14th amendment
+Alan Foster But in both cases the option to alter their behavior so as to obtain a marital status is there. Both groups have the right is the point.

Put another way. They are not being denied marital status on the grounds of race, religion, or sex. It's their behavior in both cases that keeps them from meeting the civil requirements needed to obtain the status. And nobody is forcing them to alter any behaviors either way. In both cases they have the right to their behavior.

Barak Obama is the candidate to the presidency of homosexuals! I waited for the citizens of America, a flood of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, and this be the end of America and the terminus of the American people as the end of the people of Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) who BOARD MEMBERS Prophet and many of them homosexuality was a painful punishment and reward the wrath of God. When Obama failed policy in Afghanistan and Iraq to fight terrorism alleged Here is betting on the very end of gay people to be Riisl for a new term at the head of America
Add a comment...