obama endorses same-sex marriage

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Jave D » Fri May 18, 2012 3:43 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Why did Obama say that this issue is a States' rights issue? Aren't Civil Rights a national issue? If you really think these people are being denied rights, why would you say "Let's just wait for Alabama to come around"?


I would guess because he's still counting on votes from the "independents," the "moderates," and right-libertarians who might be in a position to allow gay marriage if a state is for it but not if the eeeevil big federal government mandates it. I can only hope he's willing to go further once the campaign is over, but maybe not. Even so, simply stating that he's for it is a bigger step than any previous president has ever taken, and I'll take it as a sign to be cautiously optimistic about the future of gay marriage in this country.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Dauric » Fri May 18, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Why did Obama say that this issue is a States' rights issue? Aren't Civil Rights a national issue? If you really think these people are being denied rights, why would you say "Let's just wait for Alabama to come around"?


I would guess because he's still counting on votes from the "independents," the "moderates," and right-libertarians who might be in a position to allow gay marriage if a state is for it but not if the eeeevil big federal government mandates it. I can only hope he's willing to go further once the campaign is over, but maybe not. Even so, simply stating that he's for it is a bigger step than any previous president has ever taken, and I'll take it as a sign to be cautiously optimistic about the future of gay marriage in this country.


That and making it a state-by-state determination doesn't alienate southern states as much (note the qualifier), and those who share Steroid's ideal that "Those people over there can do what they like." lets them not immediately write off Obama for his stance on gay rights. They'll still have written him off for other reasons (islamo-socialist-fascist out to destroy America for example) but declaring a state's rights issue frees up some support at the margins that he would definitely lose by making it a federal thing.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Lucrece » Fri May 18, 2012 4:01 pm UTC

The issue is, he's right, marriage is decided by the states unless the federal government mandates it through a uniform law, and then what you get is state suing against the constitutionality of that law. So, short of disctrict courts/SCOTUS finding marriage amendment bans unconstitutional or a federal law overriding state definitions of marriage constitutional, there won't be nationwide gay marriage for many decades to come.

Hell, DOMA is being challenged in the courts successfully right now in that it violates the states' rights of those that have accepted same-sex marriage.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby DSenette » Fri May 18, 2012 4:06 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
DSenette wrote:which is what i'm saying? i'm not sure why i want to make it known that we're in agreement though......

Yeah... I was trying to clarify, since your snark about sperm wasn't quite accurate, and I wanted to mention the sex is for babies bit. I shouldn't have started my reply to you with No, though. Force of habit, I guess?

Let's get back to something we can argue about, this agreement stuff is weird.

Why did Obama say that this issue is a States' rights issue? Aren't Civil Rights a national issue? If you really think these people are being denied rights, why would you say "Let's just wait for Alabama to come around"?

God(s) damnit, would you say something i don't agree with again? we're in danger of shifting the earth's rotation here.....
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

iamspen
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby iamspen » Fri May 18, 2012 4:24 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:God(s) damnit, would you say something i don't agree with again? we're in danger of shifting the earth's rotation here.....


Finally, a simple solution to Neil deGrasse Tyson's biggest pet peeve!

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Ghostbear » Fri May 18, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:An interesting question if we're going to the historical argument... Has Gay Marriage existed in any form prior to modern marriage? I'm not a historian, but if we're going to be talking about history and other marriages... it'd be best to come up with a solid historical example of gay marriage.

DSenette already covered this, but the mentioning of history isn't to validate same-sex marriage through precedent, but to invalidate the claim that marriage is a religious "property". The idea that christian's have some special right to determine what happens with marriage, that they created it and marriage is theirs -- it's all false. Yet, those claims are very frequently made by people opposing same-sex marriage, and very rarely pointed out as false. It especially hasn't been true recently in the US -- 38.4% of marriages in 1960 were civil. A less rigorous data source has ~40% of marriages in 18 states in 2003 were civil. They didn't come up with it, it was never their idea exclusively, and they haven't had an iron grip on it for -- at minimum -- the past 50 years. Yet there are continual claims that legalizing same-sex marriage runs roughshod over their religious rights, over their "property". It needs to be remembered that it is not theirs in the first place!

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Fri May 18, 2012 6:58 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:An interesting question if we're going to the historical argument... Has Gay Marriage existed in any form prior to modern marriage? I'm not a historian, but if we're going to be talking about history and other marriages... it'd be best to come up with a solid historical example of gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Zhang_ ... _Zhongxian
http://books.google.com/books?id=mlFp0nFhvbwC&hl=en

Emperor Elagabalus and Hierocles
Emperor Nero (of fiddling fame) married one of his male slaves
(Legal status was a bit iffy on those two, though, since the romans defined marriage as a relationship with the mother of children. If she didn't have children, it may not have countered.)

The Romans did outlaw once they got their Christian emperors (and retroactively punished anyone who was gay married with death, from what I understand) so the Christian anti-gay bit certainly has historical precedent as well...

There were a couple historical ones in Spain, and....

I'm sure there's more examples.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Hawknc » Sat May 19, 2012 1:25 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TuIbEJz23uY

I know what my family is worth.

Penny Wong: certified badass, and one of the last Labor politicians I can respect.
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Jave D » Sat May 19, 2012 3:55 pm UTC

House Republicans have added a provision to a military budget bill that would prohibit gay marriages being performed at military chapels.

A key factor in GOP rhetoric on this issue is making it not seem like they're the ones prohibiting gays from having the right to marriage, they're the victims of an eeeevil liberal attempt to strip away their religious beliefs. It's the victim card, played by the victimizers. As Rep. Akin, one of the Republicans involved in this cognitive shenanigans, says in the above article: "Liberals may have successfully ended 'don't ask, don't tell,' but they should not be allowed to force members of our military to give up their religious beliefs". Because the rhetorical ploy here is that banning gays from getting married is just crucial to religious Republican's belief systems. This successfully distorts both true religious belief and the nature of the argument and turns people against religion while politicizing it, a fantastic quadruple fuck-up from the GOP. Thanks guys.

Of course, plenty of religious groups are embracing the catastrophiliac ideology of this subject, particularly the WAR ON MARRIAGE! EPIC BATTLE FOR JESUS! RISE AND FIGHT, CHRISTIAN WARRIORS! angle. Not exactly helping.

(Of particular amusement is the specificity of the reaction to Obama used the term "evolving," hitting the regressive right's fear of biology buttons. Of course, teaching evolution in science classes at school is also some kind of dastardly, unconstitutional threat to these people's "religious beliefs.")

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Greyarcher » Sat May 19, 2012 4:06 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:This successfully distorts both true religious belief and the nature of the argument and turns people against religion while politicizing it, a fantastic quadruple fuck-up from the GOP.
My "No True Scotsman" senses are tingling.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Jave D » Sat May 19, 2012 4:10 pm UTC

Greyarcher wrote:
Jave D wrote:This successfully distorts both true religious belief and the nature of the argument and turns people against religion while politicizing it, a fantastic quadruple fuck-up from the GOP.
My "No True Scotsman" senses are tingling.


That phrase does not really just apply whenever someone makes a distinction between something that is true and something that is not. I could argue, for example, that Jesus never taught that banning gay marriage was a core part of belief in God or in him as a savior. I could point out he never once even discussed gay marriage, nor that marriage was defined as "one man one woman." But that is just supporting the fact that yes, I do draw a distinction between "true belief" and just ill-disguised political hate rhetoric. Some people, I know, don't draw any such distinction at all, considering it all to be either the latter or the former. That doesn't mean to draw such a distinction is a fallacy.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Greyarcher » Sat May 19, 2012 5:10 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:That phrase does not really just apply whenever someone makes a distinction between something that is true and something that is not. I could argue, for example, that Jesus never taught that banning gay marriage was a core part of belief in God or in him as a savior. I could point out he never once even discussed gay marriage, nor that marriage was defined as "one man one woman." But that is just supporting the fact that yes, I do draw a distinction between "true belief" and just ill-disguised political hate rhetoric. Some people, I know, don't draw any such distinction at all, considering it all to be either the latter or the former. That doesn't mean to draw such a distinction is a fallacy.
Their rhetoric is pandering to other people's supposed religious beliefs; hence, I thought you were denying that their beliefs were truly religious, stating instead that they were a distortion of true belief. So I thought, "Hmm, a bit Scotsman-like".
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat May 19, 2012 5:18 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:That phrase does not really just apply whenever someone makes a distinction between something that is true and something that is not. I could argue, for example, that Jesus never taught that banning gay marriage was a core part of belief in God or in him as a savior. I could point out he never once even discussed gay marriage, nor that marriage was defined as "one man one woman." But that is just supporting the fact that yes, I do draw a distinction between "true belief" and just ill-disguised political hate rhetoric.

Or you just fail to recognize that traditional Christian doctrine extends beyond the sayings of Jesus.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Jave D » Sat May 19, 2012 5:38 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Jave D wrote:That phrase does not really just apply whenever someone makes a distinction between something that is true and something that is not. I could argue, for example, that Jesus never taught that banning gay marriage was a core part of belief in God or in him as a savior. I could point out he never once even discussed gay marriage, nor that marriage was defined as "one man one woman." But that is just supporting the fact that yes, I do draw a distinction between "true belief" and just ill-disguised political hate rhetoric.

Or you just fail to recognize that traditional Christian doctrine extends beyond the sayings of Jesus.


Or I do recognize that, and am hereby declaring that to be ill-disguised political rhetoric rather than spirituality as taught by the man they pretend to follow.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat May 19, 2012 7:49 pm UTC

Which is, again, to ignore the fact that few Christians regard their faith as limited to the teachings of Jesus.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby IcedT » Sat May 19, 2012 8:13 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Jave D wrote:That phrase does not really just apply whenever someone makes a distinction between something that is true and something that is not. I could argue, for example, that Jesus never taught that banning gay marriage was a core part of belief in God or in him as a savior. I could point out he never once even discussed gay marriage, nor that marriage was defined as "one man one woman." But that is just supporting the fact that yes, I do draw a distinction between "true belief" and just ill-disguised political hate rhetoric.

Or you just fail to recognize that traditional Christian doctrine extends beyond the sayings of Jesus.


Or I do recognize that, and am hereby declaring that to be ill-disguised political rhetoric rather than spirituality as taught by the man they pretend to follow.

Most of the "rules" of Christianity are derived either from Jewish tradition or from ecumenical councils. Jesus was pretty fuzzy on a lot of the details but even the most fundamentalist of Christians accept the value of the Old Testament and most accept several of the Sacraments. Which is weird, I know, but that's how a lot of people think.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Jave D » Sun May 20, 2012 12:40 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Which is, again, to ignore the fact that few Christians regard their faith as limited to the teachings of Jesus.


Yeah, I totally ignored that other than pointing it out and condemning it. Please enlighten me as to what else I am just ignorant of.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sun May 20, 2012 1:10 am UTC

You seem to be under the impression that Christianity is about Jesus and only Jesus.

If you are passionate that it should be so, you should join or start a sect that ascribes to that view. Otherwise, there's truly nothing to be gained by telling people they're doing their religion wrong - they're not going to take YOUR word over their family, friends, and religious authorities. All you're going to do is make people angry, even Christians who don't have a problem with homosexuality.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Jave D » Sun May 20, 2012 3:05 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:You seem to be under the impression that Christianity is about Jesus and only Jesus.

If you are passionate that it should be so, you should join or start a sect that ascribes to that view. Otherwise, there's truly nothing to be gained by telling people they're doing their religion wrong - they're not going to take YOUR word over their family, friends, and religious authorities. All you're going to do is make people angry, even Christians who don't have a problem with homosexuality.


Yeah, I could start a religious sect. Or, you know, I could just express my opinions on the internet when it comes up, just like anyone else?

It's not just that they're "Christians" - you know, followers of Jesus Christ, Jesus their "personal savior" - and not being "only" centered around Jesus. It's that they're also deliberately ignoring what Jesus taught. It's hypocrisy, and if I'm offending someone here by saying that then I apologize to them, but I'm still not going to walk on egg-shells on the topic. To get back to that topic, you know, rather than what a radically ignorant asshole I apparently am, it is NOT forcing anyone to contradict or compromise their own religious beliefs for someone ELSE to be able to get married.

User avatar
ameretrifle
Vera
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:32 am UTC
Location: Canada (the flat bit)

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby ameretrifle » Sun May 20, 2012 3:20 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Which is, again, to ignore the fact that few Christians regard their faith as limited to the teachings of Jesus.

Wait, is this really, statistically true? 'Cause it is not at all the zeitgeist of the Christianity I was raised with (southern Baptist and the like). I went to churches, and a Christian school, and the message I always heard about religion was that it was, in fact, based on the teachings of Jesus. There was respect for the Old Testament, but it was all kind of New-Covenant-Theology-- all the inconvenient archaic stuff was null and void. Nominally, theoretically, it was all supposed to be straight from Jesus. Sure, you'd take the good stuff from the other books, because Jesus accepted them as an authority, but Jesus' words took higher authority. Sola scriptura, saved-by-grace-- to be sure, in practice? Totally cultural/social/whatever the preacher says is the interpretation. Without the faintest shadow of a doubt. But few of them would've realized or admitted that. What they would have told you was that they believed in the teachings of Jesus, and all the quirks of their denomination were actually the correct interpretations of the teachings of Jesus, and their leaders were appointed by the authority of Jesus. I think that if I asked (though I have no intentions of making the experiment, I'm a semi-secret atheist and I am not opening that can of worms), anyone I knew would have told you that their faith was indeed "limited to the teachings of Jesus", even if, observationally, that was obviously not the case. So that statement seems entirely backward to me.

I mean, I know damn well Southern Baptists aren't the whole of Protestantism, much less Christianity, but I really thought that was an evangelical mindset that was a lot more widespread than everyone's implying. I'm the last person to deny that they were damn weird, but-- is it really that rare a belief? I'd like to know just how freaky the church I was raised in was. :D

...Also, I've got to admit, PM's comments did strike me as disturbingly... Steroid-esque. "Disagree with the mainstream? Go get your sect a commune and STFU!" What, no evangelizing to the evangelists?...

(though i've no doubt it wasn't meant that way)

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sun May 20, 2012 3:30 am UTC

Jave D wrote:To get back to that topic, you know, rather than what a radically ignorant asshole I apparently am,
You have not been called radical, ignorant, or an asshole by anyone in this discussion. All that's been said is that you have no place from which to judge how Christian someone is. The argument you make when you do that is that you know someone's religion better than they do, and moreover, you know how wrongly they're doing it. My point is that you're never going to win that argument, ever, no matter the religion.

ameretrifle wrote:...Also, I've got to admit, PM's comments did strike me as disturbingly... Steroid-esque. "Disagree with the mainstream? Go get your sect a commune and STFU!" What, no evangelizing to the evangelists?...
There's a difference between disagreeing with someone's religion or the legitimacy of their application of it (as in disagreeing that shellfish are an abomination, or disagreeing with Christian attempts to impose their rules on the country), and with trying to correct someone about their religion itself.

Jave D is saying "You're not even Christian!" - the equivalent of a Christian assuming that gayness is all about rampant anonymous sodomy, and telling self-identified homosexuals "but you don't even go to gay orgies every night, how can you properly call yourself gay?" This is worse than useless: not only does it not further an argument, all it DOES do is raise negative emotions and tension.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Sun May 20, 2012 4:40 am UTC

And this is all an incredibly irrelevant tangent, thats got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And the original point was that the republicans were talking out their ass with a crap justification. And they were.

(And it IS a distortion of any TRUE religious belief, by which we could also say ANY, because no one believes the thing they are saying people believe. No one believes gay marriage is going to magically make them, themselves, stop believing in god or no longer have a faith. And if they DID, they would have already reached that point, and thus no longer believe it.)
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby netcrusher88 » Sun May 20, 2012 5:05 am UTC

I'mma go off on a little side rant about Abrahamic religion here, if you'll indulge me: You be as apologist or as pick-and-choose about what you obey from the Old Testament as you like, you're still holding up a book that says gays should be put to death and women have no value except as effectively slaves to their husbands and slavery is a-ok as long as the slaves are foreigners as the word of a deity and no matter how much you personally say all that inconvenient bullshit isn't relevant anymore somewhere someday someone is going to read all of that and say hey why aren't we following this stuff too and somebody's getting lynched and you've contributed to it.

Rant over.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Hawknc » Sun May 20, 2012 5:21 am UTC

Somewhere along the way we veered wildly off-course here. Can we get back to the topic, please?
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Malice » Sun May 20, 2012 5:33 am UTC

Griffin wrote:(And it IS a distortion of any TRUE religious belief, by which we could also say ANY, because no one believes the thing they are saying people believe. No one believes gay marriage is going to magically make them, themselves, stop believing in god or no longer have a faith. And if they DID, they would have already reached that point, and thus no longer believe it.)


I think what people actually tend to believe on the issue (if they're against gay marriage) is some combination of:

-being gay is a choice
-having the government approve of gays will make it easier for my kids to choose the wrong path
-my kids will have to learn about gays in school, making it easier for my kids to choose the wrong path
-my church will be forced by the government to perform gay marriages
-gay marriages are less wholesome and overall that hurts society
-there's no fundamental differences between homosexuality and polygamy/incest/beastiality/etc. because they're all wrong, so gay marriage will lead to all of those things being legalized

They're beliefs are based on a different perspective, a lack of experience with the issue, or simple ignorance of the legal realities. But I think they are honestly held, and what regular people mean when they latch onto smokescreens like "marriage is traditionally x".
Image

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Sun May 20, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

And had that been what the Republicans were arguing, that would have been fine. It wasn't.

So - anyone have any recent polls or data? I know Obama has really dipped lately - is there evidence this is due to the gay marriage thing?
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Lucrece » Sun May 20, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

Hardly. I know Democrats like to point fingers at their more unpopular members of the base (they liked to blame gay marriage for Bush 2004), but at some point that crock of shit will stink bad enough for people to realize it's their terrible campaigning that got them killed in 2010 and can threaten them in 2012.

It killed Martha Coakley as well. When Democrats just sit on their thumbs and refuse to engage the public and control the conversation in a populist way like the Republicans do, they're setting themselves up for failure. And while Romney's struggles supposedly hurt him during the primaries, he's been receiving a lot of free publicity from it while the Obama campaign has been pretty passive thus far.

I can't count the amount of lies and fearmongering the Republicans spread on a daily basis that Democrats fail to take seriously and retaliate by framing the conversation on their own terms instead of constantly and meekly defending themselves against Republican accusations.

I mean, when Republicans say Democrats used gay marriage for political reasons (especially Karl Rove), why aren't Democrats pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the constitutional emndment drives Republicans carried out just a few years ago?
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Ghostbear » Sun May 20, 2012 7:29 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Hardly. I know Democrats like to point fingers at their more unpopular members of the base (they liked to blame gay marriage for Bush 2004), but at some point that crock of shit will stink bad enough for people to realize it's their terrible campaigning that got them killed in 2010 and can threaten them in 2012.

Whoa there, relax -- Griffin wasn't blaming anybody here. I haven't seen any sentiment here (or elsewhere) of "if only it weren't for supporting same-sex marriage...". Even with 2004, I've seen it as blaming the people opposed to same-sex marriage for being able to be used as political tools. I 100% agree that democrats are terrible -- I mean really, really fucking awful -- at framing these issues properly, at making the messaging work for them and not against them. I haven't seen any widespread passing of the blame onto gays though. And I especially didn't see that from Griffin's post.

Griffin wrote:So - anyone have any recent polls or data? I know Obama has really dipped lately - is there evidence this is due to the gay marriage thing?

I think the dip in polls is just pre-summer campaigning flutter. That said, I think the overall impression is that, by electoral votes, Obama coming out in support of same-sex marriage hurts him. Many of states seen as key to an Obama victory -- Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa -- are seen as being more opposed to it (see the recent NC amendment :(). I haven't seen any clear impression of what it does for him in Colorado yet -- there's apparently a lot of "megachurches" there, and it'll hurt him with those people, but Colorado is also (I believe) one of the younger states in the country. I could see it being a wash there. The only swing state where I think it'll help him is New Hampshire. Looked at more broadly, I think it'll end up being a net wash for him overall despite that -- many of the wealthier donors that lean democratic have same-sex marriage as a big issue for them, and it will held energize the base, which is something that he needed.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Lucrece » Sun May 20, 2012 7:40 pm UTC

I don't know Griffin's political affiliation, so my words were not directed at him. I was talking more about the Democrat establishments like the DNC and progressive blogs like DailyKos boards. The hyperpartisan people that see party victory as paramount, and tend to point fingers in anger when their party doesn't win (which must be somebody else's fault).

I can't count the amount of gay and liberal blogs who went and started fretting about Obama coming out with this stance pre-election, as if the people of this country had same sex marriage as the sole deciding factor of their vote. For gay people and fringe evangelicals, maybe. Obama's support for single payer healthcare and reduced costs of education (AMG SOCIALIST KENYAN) are bound to cost him way more votes, yet the progressive blogs were not so concerned when he voiced his support for those views.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Ghostbear » Sun May 20, 2012 9:10 pm UTC

Well, I can't speak for those blogs because I haven't trawled through them. I don't see it as unreasonable to ask "How does this affect the upcoming election?" though, and that's all we had in this thread. I don't think it'll make a difference except in the closest of elections, and even then, I don't think which way it will swing it is particularly clear. That's true of many things that impact elections though -- how many singular issues can be said to have changed the outcome of a presidential election?

If people are playing the blame game though, I'd agree that it's short sighted. Especially since Obama was planning on announcing his support for it at the convention anyway. Plus the fact that it isn't 100% obvious how it will influence things. I'm tentatively hoping that support will increase faster than usual now that a sitting president has come out in support. Even if it doesn't, at the current pace, it'll be about 1-1.5% more popular in November than it is now. If this ends up being a pivotal moment for support amongst minorities (and there's some evidence that it will be, at least for blacks) then we could end up seeing an even bigger jump.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby omgryebread » Mon May 21, 2012 2:20 pm UTC

I'm really unconvinced that anyone who would even stay home because of his announcement was a reliable voter anyway.If you care that much about gay marriage that this would change your vote, you probably weren't voting for Obama anyway when his views were "evolving." I highly doubt too many voters are going to stay home because of this if they weren't going to stay home anyway.

Most political analysts and journalists are about as useful as astrologers, so talking about this kind of thing is a great way to obscure that. They can say "oh this totally hurts Obama" and on the surface, it makes sense that it would, so they seem insightful. I don't see a way you can predict reliably if this will have an impact or what it could have. You can predict it will get Obama more money.


That being said:
Lucrece wrote:The hyperpartisan people that see party victory as paramount, and tend to point fingers in anger when their party doesn't win (which must be somebody else's fault).


That's me! I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice a few planks to see a party win, even one as important to me as my eventual marriage. That being said, I've got my list of things I'll blame if we lose already written up. (Poor communication from the WH on health care, Citizens United, failure to capitalize on liberal populist movements like GOP did with Tea Party, among other things.)
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Mon May 21, 2012 2:42 pm UTC

I've only got one plank I'd never give up to see others win, and both parties are fundamentally opposed to it, so... yeah, you know, I'd give up the gay marriage thing to win. Especially since its one of those things that feels incredibly inevitable, it's already legal in my state, and if the Republicans ever try to change that they are going to be handing the pro-marriage side a huge victory.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby CorruptUser » Mon May 21, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:I've only got one plank I'd never give up to see others win, and both parties are fundamentally opposed to it, so... yeah, you know, I'd give up the gay marriage thing to win. Especially since its one of those things that feels incredibly inevitable, it's already legal in my state, and if the Republicans ever try to change that they are going to be handing the pro-marriage side a huge victory.


Marijuana? Yeah, legalizing it would at the very least reduce the number of hard drug dealers; it's a gateway drug for dealers, not users.

Bassoon
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Wisconsin

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Bassoon » Mon May 21, 2012 5:17 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:I've only got one plank I'd never give up to see others win, and both parties are fundamentally opposed to it, so... yeah, you know, I'd give up the gay marriage thing to win. Especially since its one of those things that feels incredibly inevitable, it's already legal in my state, and if the Republicans ever try to change that they are going to be handing the pro-marriage side a huge victory.


You're so right! You really can't speed up progress at all, so there's no point in trying. I just wish the gays would stop pushing it so hard all the time, you know? I mean, we're trying to get this thing passed, but they just keep pressing us about it, and it's really getting annoying. I mean, jeeze. We're working on it, leave us alone already! Don't alienate the people who are helping you! Progress takes awhile, and it really can't be helped, so there's no use pushing too hard, because that requires more effort than we can afford to give. Frankly, human rights always take a back seat to the economy.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Mon May 21, 2012 5:28 pm UTC

That's a wonderful crock of shit you've got brewing there. Are you claiming to get it from me? Because I'm pretty sure you cooked it up yourself.

Seriously, if you don't want to bother responding to what was actually said, don't bother responding.

You are talking about an issue that is, at best, small potatoes. It's a pride thing. An ego thing. Mostly symbolic in 95% of cases - usually, it points them on par with the unmarried, which aren't really all that poorly off. (though the immigration issue is the biggest deal, in my mind, but no one ever talks about that). And I fucking support it. But in the big scheme of things, its not something that's super important. Like, seriously. There are important issues where people are having their lives ripped away from them, where people are fucking dying, where every ideal I hold dear is getting ripped up to make room for security and demonizing the wrongdoers, drug addicts, the poor.

I have no interest in sacrificing an inch of ground in a meaningful fight for something that is damn well going to happen anyways.

If I could make it happen right no, instantly? Yeah, I would. And hey, we can work on multiple things at once! It's pretty cool. But if its doing active harm to the causes I care about, and I need to choose one or the other or loose both, I'd give it up without a second thought.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Bassoon
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Wisconsin

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Bassoon » Mon May 21, 2012 8:19 pm UTC

Again, you're so right! Visitation rights aren't important, especially if you've lived with someone for fifty years, and then they get sent to a hospital where you're not allowed to see them. Small potatoes, man. And those tax breaks for married couples? Not important either. Filing jointly, property ownership, right to attorney, last wills and testaments? All water under the bridge. It's way more important to legalize a luxury item instead of furthering the rights of people who are legally discriminated against. I mean, equality is going to happen eventually, right? Why push super hard for it when it'll get here on its own? Waste of time, I say.

Know what else is a waste of time? An inclusive Employer Non-Discrimination Act. Man oh man, talk about a waste of time. If you thought marriage rights were unimportant, think about how important employment rights are! Seriously, what's the problem with firing people for an inherent quality about themselves? We have luxury items to be defending!

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby DSenette » Mon May 21, 2012 8:30 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:That's a wonderful crock of shit you've got brewing there. Are you claiming to get it from me? Because I'm pretty sure you cooked it up yourself.

Seriously, if you don't want to bother responding to what was actually said, don't bother responding.

You are talking about an issue that is, at best, small potatoes. It's a pride thing. An ego thing. Mostly symbolic in 95% of cases - usually, it points them on par with the unmarried, which aren't really all that poorly off. (though the immigration issue is the biggest deal, in my mind, but no one ever talks about that). And I fucking support it. But in the big scheme of things, its not something that's super important. Like, seriously. There are important issues where people are having their lives ripped away from them, where people are fucking dying, where every ideal I hold dear is getting ripped up to make room for security and demonizing the wrongdoers, drug addicts, the poor.

I have no interest in sacrificing an inch of ground in a meaningful fight for something that is damn well going to happen anyways.

If I could make it happen right no, instantly? Yeah, I would. And hey, we can work on multiple things at once! It's pretty cool. But if its doing active harm to the causes I care about, and I need to choose one or the other or loose both, I'd give it up without a second thought.

this entire post is horrendously offensive to people who are actually fighting for their civil rights to be equal to everyone else's. imagine saying the exact same things to black people in the 40's, 50's, and 60's when you say that fighting for equal rights is "small potatoes". it's, well, it's stupid at best.

was it a pride thing for blacks to get the right to marry whites?
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Mon May 21, 2012 8:34 pm UTC

Those are all good things, and I am in full support of extending them to everybody. And not just the married either. The whole situation is, quite frankly, bullshit. But yes. Those are all small potatoes, a thousand times over compared to people losing years of their life in jail for something that harms no one at all. and those people are going to be overwhelming. The drug war ruins lives and gets people killed. A lack of gay marriage leaves people... exactly as bad off as most people already are in this country.

Seriously, making a couple more people a member of a privileged class is not as important as saving lives (healthcare reform), getting people out of prison and giving them their freedom back (ending the drug war), or even saving lives by pulling out of overseas wars and protecting our essential freedoms by dialing back the security state.

And if you think otherwise, I'll honestly state I have no fucking clue where you are coming from. Yes, gay people should be just as able to enter a privileged class with the person of their choice as straight people. But, especially since it's going to happen anyway and the worse that comes from ignoring it is that a few people can't enter a fucking privileged class, no.

It is not more important than any of those other things.

It is not even fucking close.

And your retarded rhetoric isn't a fucking argument - all your empty hyperbole results in is making you look like an idiot. So either say something worthwhile or shut the fuck up.

was it a pride thing for blacks to get the right to marry whites?

Yes, it was. It was about pride and cultural acceptance with a good deal of symbolism in there and it's a damn good thing. And gay marriage is a damn good thing. But if it was "mixed marriages" or "female suffrage" on the block? Yeah, one of those is way more important. It doesn't mean the other ISN'T important, but that's never what I've argued. The relative importance is not the same.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Bassoon
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Wisconsin

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Bassoon » Mon May 21, 2012 9:09 pm UTC

Here's your worthwhile thing: I agree that the drug war is stupid, reckless, and tearing families apart. However, it requires more effort to remedy than same-sex marriage does. I can say with a good amount of certainty that it would be much, much harder to stop the war on drugs and release all of the inmates wrongly convicted under terrible drug laws. This is only one aspect of the problem, however. Mexico has to take care of the gangs and the drug lords as well as many South American countries. The drug war certainly caused the situation, but stopping the war and freeing the inmates certainly isn't going to solve the problem. Other countries have to get involved as well, and they have to do the awkward inter-country diplomacy dance. And don't think that the gangs and drug lords will just stop when the US stops chasing them. This is a many-faceted issue, and it's one that the American public and government is extremely reluctant to pursue.

On the other hand, there's same-sex marriage. It's completely contained within our country. Approximately 50% of the populace supports allowing it. Other nations don't really have to become involved with its legalization, and it provides many tax benefits for citizens, as well as other benefits that I've listed before. And hundreds of others that I haven't listed.

Know what's easier than getting a dozen countries to agree on international drug policy? Giving a minority their rights. And no, I'm not saying we should do it because it's easy. I'm saying we should do it because it's close and it's right, and frankly, the drug laws aren't going to be solved with as much effort as people have put into same-sex marriage. It needs more. Way more. From all sides of the situation. At this point, same-sex marriage is so close to legalization that going to work on something else now would be like writing an essay but never turning it in. If you're going to do the work, what's the point if you don't follow through?

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Griffin » Mon May 21, 2012 9:12 pm UTC

And I still don't understand your point.

My original argument was "I could see sacrificing same sex marriage if I thought it would allow us to accomplish some other thing I valued more than it, but I don't see that in any aspect of the current situation so I hope they go all out for same sex marriage".
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests