Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
How is that surprising? Romney and Obama had the same view on Gay Marriage: Let the states handle it.
Weren't the republicans planning on making an amendment defining marriage as only one man and one woman?
How is that surprising? Romney and Obama had the same view on Gay Marriage: Let the states handle it.
Weren't the republicans planning on making an amendment defining marriage as only one man and one woman?
And Romney remained support of giving equal rights to Gays, if not through marriage than atleast all the rights marriage grants through the states. Something pretty much along with what Obama was proposing.
And Romney remained support of giving equal rights to Gays, if not through marriage than atleast all the rights marriage grants through the states. Something pretty much along with what Obama was proposing.
I had no idea that Romney supported marriage equality. Perhaps you meant another type of "equality" that is completely irrelevant.
Obama doesn't have the same view on gay marriage as Romney does, he just has the same idea of what government should do.
I disagree, and I think you would too if you were sticking to your principles. I seem to recall you at one time saying that both political parties (Democrat and Republican) were both the same, using what you called "wedge issues" to divide people. I then brought up how important these issues, like abortion and homosexuality, are to people on both sides of the aisle. You seemed to admit the genuineness of these issues and how they truly divide people yet still claimed they were wedge issues. Maybe I just didn't get say enough times, "You can't both call them wedge issues and call them genuine issues expressing heartfelt differences of opinion among the masses.The economy has been suffering for how long now? Gay rights is just one issue; unless the governments of the western world have been doing nothing but passing laws on gay rights 24/7, it's ridiculous to put the burden of paying more attention to the economy on gay rights activists. You can't both call it a minor issue and at the same time claim it's big enough and there are so many people invested in it that it's taking undue attention from the economy.
In the past fifty years, homosexuality has gone from being derided and a criminal offence to gaining relative mainstream acceptance. Gays can now have their relationships acknowledged by the state (without the need for marriage), they occupy significant positions in politics, television and the media. The steps made have been so gargantuan that marriage seems almost irrelevant. I'm all for it, just don't see why time and money should be spent on pushing this through when there are so many more important issues in the country. This isn't a massive win for civil rights, it's an insignificant footmark, not to mention (in this instance, and, unsurprisingly, in the Obama instance) little more than a political plaything.
If I vote, it will be for Obama. It will also be an unhappy vote; there's little I can endorse of him or the democratic party in general as successful leadership.
On economic issues, I know and understand just a little. What I have learned is that the tax and legal policies put forward by the current republican party will do more harm to my family and friends and people across the US in economic positions similar to us than they will to help us - the democrats' policies will not put us in quite so much danger. On values issues and social policies relating to them, I've seen a lot of well-intentioned harm and injustice sought after by the large extreme-conservative base of the republican party. On this side of the coin I am far more involved and concerned, and it would be enough for me to fight against a republican leadership headed by Romney even if the economic matters swayed me to his side.
But basically this election sucks.
How much danger will America be in if it continues to add to a sixteen trillion dollar debt?
What kind of equality are Gays looking for? Are they looking for being able to go into a church and get married? If so they can do that already. Are they looking for full rights and privileges under the law? If so both Obama and Romney support the same thing: Let the States decide.
Well, don't sell short the kind of influence a president has, even if it's not directly because of their power.
It takes a hell of a lot more time, money, and resources to fix a sixteen-trillion-dollar debt than it does to give people equal rights.
I disagree, and I think you would too if you were sticking to your principles. I seem to recall you at one time saying that both political parties (Democrat and Republican) were both the same, using what you called "wedge issues" to divide people. I then brought up how important these issues, like abortion and homosexuality, are to people on both sides of the aisle. You seemed to admit the genuineness of these issues and how they truly divide people yet still claimed they were wedge issues. Maybe I just didn't get say enough times, "You can't both call them wedge issues and call them genuine issues expressing heartfelt differences of opinion among the masses.
I agree the President has the power of the bullypulpet and the power of his voting bloc, but at the end of the day it is usually up to the people of a state to decide, and as we saw in California in 2008, such a thing does not always work out.
It takes a hell of a lot more time, money, and resources to fix a sixteen-trillion-dollar debt than it does to give people equal rights.
It's a meta concept. 'Marriage' is more than the sum of a ceremony and all the observed rights of a couple.
I don't want gay rights to be the wedge that prevents people from working together on the economy. It would be one thing if Snorunt Conservationist actually demonstrated that relenting on the gay rights issue will directly lead to economic recovery.
I suspect however, that's just the way Snorunt Conservationalist talks about everything.
The gay marriage thing is also worth mentioning in another way, more tied to America, but applicable here too. It stems from the way in which gay marriage is used as a stick with which to beat others and further an agenda which moves much beyond gay marriage.
When we hear advocates of gay marriage talking, the buzzword is "fairness", or something similar to that.
Hence why an irrelevant issue like gay marriage is presented as some kind of major step forward for civil rights.
Those who oppose it are painted as bigots. Fast forward to a debate on the economy. Said "bigot" discusses sensible economic proposals, but their "bigoted" views on something like gay marriage are held against them and used as a stick in order to ignore their economic points. Gay marriage is a perfect embodiment of how minor issues are used to divert from other failures.
I'm pro gay-marriage, but I don't kid myself it's a big issue. Meanwhile, I resent the way that my opinion is used as a template for further "progressiveness".
What Agenda? Care to demonstrate it in action? Show us how LGBT community is using Gay marriage as a means for special treatment instead of just running your mouth.
The Buzzword is equality, and they have every right to it.
It's only irrelevant to you, many people find it important.
It's about perspective.
It is also the last hurdle, besides Gay adoption, that must be crossed for the LGBT community to be full equals.
Do you have evidence? I've never heard of an economic proposal being voted down because the person who presented it is against gay marriage.
And because it's worth repeating, it's not a big issue for you!.
But as evidence would dictate, it is a big issue for others, which is why it's being adressed. I think you just need to deal with it.
They have it for all intents and purposes. Any additions are merely superfluous (slightly different in America I'll grant you).
Don't care.
Yeah, and anyone with it can realise what a non-entity gay marriage is.
Yawn. It's a trifling matter in the grand scheme of things. It's a minor minor change in status.
Did you not follow the election? An election which should have been about the absolute catastrophic failure of the Obama administration to improve the economy was manipulated into a (mainly fictitious) campaign which painted Romney as some kind of women hating, poor despising gay basher (none of which he is, for all his faults), simply because it was easy to manipulate people by doing so. As I say, it ties into a wider collective about the notion of "fairness" that is used to demonise those who (in many cases) have perfectly fair(ish) objections to gay marriage, abortion etc.
Note I said "something like gay marriage", not "gay marriage". You've proved my point perfectly. A distortion in order to manipulate my point and make me seem bigoted. It's effective but incredibly duplicitous.
Not a big issue full stop. As long as millions suffer from immoral drug legislation, as long as the economy remains in the toilet, as long as many a civil liberty is being stripped in the name of security, gay marriage is not a big issue. Anyone who would prioritise gay marriage above almost any other issue needs to take a long, hard look at themselves. Believe in it, support it, but please don't pretend it holds a significant place in the grand scheme.
Deal with it? I couldn't care less about it, just the hysteria and BS that's spread around it. I just want everyone (on both sides) to stfu, live their lives and stop manipulating and using gay marriage as some worthwhile issue when it really isn't.
Doesn't matter how small, they still aren't equal.
Well in that case I don't care how much your struggling financially. Economically I'm fine and your problem isn't important too me.
Clearly people seeking to be treated as equals lack perspective in what matters.
Not to them.
Romney lost because his line of thinking simply isn't suitable for an increasingly liberal America.
The Republican party needs to realize that this is no longer the 1950's and social conservatism no longer jives with the public as strongly.
Him being painted those things is no different than how Obama was painted as an evil socialist.
Since we're talking about Gay issues in a thread about Gay issues yes, I did think you were talking about Gay marriage which is what we're talking about.
I take it that since you simply dodged the question without providing an example to mean that you have none.
It doesn't have to affect everyone for it to still be important and worthy of our time.
Until Gay marriage passes the LGBT community cannot live their lives the way they wish too.
Gay people not being able to get a trifling bit of paper in some Western countries
the absolute catastrophic failure of the Obama administration to improve the economy
As long as millions suffer from immoral drug legislation, as long as the economy remains in the toilet, as long as many a civil liberty is being stripped in the name of security, gay marriage is not a big issue.
Obama voters aren't liberals
actually, it's "Homosexuality and Politics in the 21st Century", not a Gay issues thread
Very few people do.
a "trifling bit of paper" that grants them what were, at last count, several hundreds of legal benefits not afforded under legal institutions separate from civil marriage