Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[WizardTrubbish]

So, can somebody explain to me what the voting age has to do with homosexuality and politics?

Anyway, Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, came out in favor of gay marriage today
He's joining Robert Portman, Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Claire McCatskill, and Jay Rockefeller, all of whom came out in favor in the past few months. We're seeing more and more politician backing gay marriage, public support hit an all time high, and the Supreme Court just heard cases on Prop 8 and DOMA. We're seeing that gay marriage is going to be legalized, it's inevitable. Just about everyday, you're seeing some senator or governor or congressman coming out in favor of gay marriage, public opinion is shifting in favor of gay marriage and they know it. Gay marriage will be legalized in the United States not too far into the future, and there's nothing that's going to stop. The support has never been larger, and it's growing, in both public opinion and Capitol Hill. It's just a matter of time at this point.

 

[BigLutz]

So, can somebody explain to me what the voting age has to do with homosexuality and politics?

It goes back to the topic of having artificial lines when it comes to marriage, such as gender, race, age, etc etc.

We're seeing that gay marriage is going to be legalized, it's inevitable. Just about everyday, you're seeing some senator or governor or congressman coming out in favor of gay marriage, public opinion is shifting in favor of gay marriage and they know it. Gay marriage will be legalized in the United States not too far into the future, and there's nothing that's going to stop. The support has never been larger, and it's growing, in both public opinion and Capitol Hill. It's just a matter of time at this point.

You know I am curious as to how deep that support actually is. Take the support among the African American community, it may be relatively high now, but blacks also make up a disproportionately high number in the adoption system.. Will that support remain when the number of adopted kids going to gay married couples are also highly black as that is what makes up a significant part of the system? It should be curious if the support holds, or is merely paper thin when it begins to significantly effect their community.

 

[Byzantine]

The taxation without representation cry was just that, a rallying cry. The simple truth is England offered representation and it was turned down because it wasn't enough, so using that as the basis of an argument is like using any piece of political propaganda: backed by air.

Yes, those are two possible scenarios. There are also the high school dropouts who have a job because their parents forced them to, but really spend the whole day doing drugs. I've met a couple of them. And many students at college actually ARE good students. You can't cite the two most extreme cases and then claim that invalidates the entire idea. Also: I don't think the highschool dropout has the time or extra energy to find out enough to vote wisely, rather than for talking points, which isn't a good thing, and the college student will probably just vote for whoever his friends vote for. Of course both of these people are likely to remain this way their entire life, to some degree, so your idea of basing voting on work, due to considering those working more "mature" is a false conclusion from a false premise. The truth is msot people are mentally highschoolers their whole lives. It isn't surprising. It also isn't a big deal.

Regardless, if we were actually capable of measuring maturity I would be fine with using that as a basis, but we can't, so we have to find some arbitrary restrictions or leave it open to everyone. Just as letting a 2 year-old vote doesn't make sense neither does letting a 10 year-old who doesn't know beyond the first thing about life get married. On the other hand there is no factual reason to prevent gay marriage, because it doesn't do anything negative to anyone.

 

[7 tyranitars]

Well may I ask, what would you find more scary in having rights associated with being an adult? The 15 year old high school drop out, working a low paying job. Or the College student? The law says the College Student as we expect at that age the person to be more mentally mature. But lets look deeper into this? The 15 year old is a drop out and working long hours at a Pizza Place, but he dropped out because his father is in prison, and his mother uses the welfare checks to support a drug habit. At that point the only way for the high school student to take care of his younger siblings is to drop out and find a job. Meanwhile the College Student spends most time at the fraternity house than in class, and coasts along with Ds and Cs, while spending his nights drinking and engaging in stupid activities.

Now which one of those would you rather have voting? The responsible drop out, or the Frat loving College Student?

Interesting how you put it, lets turn it arround okay?

We have our 15 year old highschool drop out who dropped out because he spended most of his time doing drugs drinking alcohol and getting arrested. He doesn't care about learning and had to take that pizza place job to pay for his drug and alcohol needs. Meanwhile this hardworking college student is studying hard to make sure he passes the year and be able to get closer to that much wanted degree to play a bigger role in life then that guy in a pizza place.

That is true, but Taxation without Representation is a pretty big thing in America atleast, our country was founded upon it, those that are working now, and are taxed with out being able to vote goes against the very founding of this country, and as such atleast deserve a vote.

To put it another way, should rights we now associate with age, honestly be given out because of age, or because of mental maturity? Should a 18 year old college student or drop out, be able to sign a contract to get a credit card, or join the army even though they both have the mental maturity of some one that is 15?

Thing is, it is very hard to test every single one, I agree that different people age differently. But you have to draw a line at one point, and for most countries that is 18.

 

[BigLutz]

The taxation without representation cry was just that, a rallying cry. The simple truth is England offered representation and it was turned down because it wasn't enough, so using that as the basis of an argument is like using any piece of political propaganda: backed by air.

As true as that may be, it was one of the founding moments of this country, and as such it is hard to then turn around and deny some one representation while they are being taxed.

Regardless, if we were actually capable of measuring maturity I would be fine with using that as a basis, but we can't, so we have to find some arbitrary restrictions or leave it open to everyone. Just as letting a 2 year-old vote doesn't make sense neither does letting a 10 year-old who doesn't know beyond the first thing about life get married. On the other hand there is no factual reason to prevent gay marriage, because it doesn't do anything negative to anyone.

Well what age would you define it as being okay to marry? 13? 14? 15? 16? 17? 18? For that couple that is say 14 and 18 or 19, should they wait 4 more years before allowing to get married even though say the 14 year old is mentally mature enough to understand the consequences? Does that not negatively effect them?

Interesting how you put it, lets turn it arround okay?

We have our 15 year old highschool drop out who dropped out because he spended most of his time doing drugs drinking alcohol and getting arrested. He doesn't care about learning and had to take that pizza place job to pay for his drug and alcohol needs. Meanwhile this hardworking college student is studying hard to make sure he passes the year and be able to get closer to that much wanted degree to play a bigger role in life then that guy in a pizza place.

And that is a possibility too, the whole point of this however is you cannot deny rights merely based on a quick look at someone's age, as it does not tell the whole story.

Thing is, it is very hard to test every single one, I agree that different people age differently. But you have to draw a line at one point, and for most countries that is 18.

Except the 18 year old thing is kind of silly now, back in the late 60s, and early 70s, at the age of 18 the person was recognized as being a man, and for the vast majority of the population had been groomed to take on a somewhat adult mindset and set off on their own. Now days, many 18 year olds still live off their parents, and continue to play video games all day instead of getting a job and preparing for life, I admit, I was one of these 18 year olds as well. I would dare say that mentally a 18 year old, 40 years ago, when the discussion of the 26th Amendment was going around, is more akin to a 21 or 22 year old by today's standards in terms of being prepared for the adult world and willing to take responsibility for one's self.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

As true as that may be, it was one of the founding moments of this country, and as such it is hard to then turn around and deny some one representation while they are being taxed.

But this is America, and we do that all the time. Taxation without representation never really meant anything. Just ask anybody who lives in the District of Columbia.

Anyway, Rob Portman isn't alone. Republican Senator Mark Kirk now supports marriage equality

“When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others,” he said. “Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle.”

Like I said, everyone's coming out in favor now, and now we've got two Republican senators who favor gay marriage. That brings the total number of pro-gay marriage Republicans in Congress to four. My prediction is that the next to come out in favor will be Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Bill Nelson. Collins is the most moderate Republican in the senate, and beside Kirk, the only moderate Republican. She's up for re-election next year and there doesn't seem to be a major primary challenger. She represents Maine, so coming out in favor can only help her, seeing as Maine voters voted in favor of marriage equality last November. Bill Nelson on the other hand, he won in 2012 by a comfortable margin, so his seat looks safe, especially in a state like Florida, which Obama barely won. He won't be up for reelection until 2018, and by then it's possible that same-sex marriage will become a non-issue. There are a few senators we won't see coming out anytime soon, Democrat Joe Manchin for example and Republican Marco Rubio are both long-shots, to say the least, but right now, the tides are changing quickly. If one senator, just one, be it Nelson or Collins or somebody else, a majority of the Senate will be pro-gay marriage. Kirk brought the number up to 50, half of the senate.

 

[7 tyranitars]

And that is a possibility too, the whole point of this however is you cannot deny rights merely based on a quick look at someone's age, as it does not tell the whole story.

That is true, but like I said, you have to draw a line at some point. Which is 18 in most countries, including yours and mine.

Except the 18 year old thing is kind of silly now, back in the late 60s, and early 70s, at the age of 18 the person was recognized as being a man, and for the vast majority of the population had been groomed to take on a somewhat adult mindset and set off on their own. Now days, many 18 year olds still live off their parents, and continue to play video games all day instead of getting a job and preparing for life, I admit, I was one of these 18 year olds as well. I would dare say that mentally a 18 year old, 40 years ago, when the discussion of the 26th Amendment was going around, is more akin to a 21 or 22 year old by today's standards in terms of being prepared for the adult world and willing to take responsibility for one's self.

That 18 year olds play video games or live with their parents does not mean they aren't mature enough to vote. I live with my parents, play video games yet I do have an idea what is going on and have a far better understanding of politics then your average person. Which I admit is partialy because of what I want to be later and my college education. This is however me, there are most likely example of the otherside of the spectrum aswell.

Point is, it is very hard to rate someones maturity.

 

[miles0624]

You also have to add in the fact that many more people are stayinh with there parents to keep down the debt and help their parents out financially. Maturity is a hard thing to grasp and can't be judged in terms of lifestyle. Despite this, we have to set a standard to something.

 

[BigLutz]

That is true, but like I said, you have to draw a line at some point. Which is 18 in most countries, including yours and mine.

Yet drawing such artificial lines is no better than drawing artificial lines for marriage. It's like saying "We have to draw the line somewhere so why not just keep it Man/Woman"

 

[Byzantine]

Yet drawing such artificial lines is no better than drawing artificial lines for marriage. It's like saying "We have to draw the line somewhere so why not just keep it Man/Woman"

There is a difference between drawing a line at age and drawing a line elsewhere. Age changes, people get older, so anything involving it is a temporary restriction.

 

[BigLutz]

There is a difference between drawing a line at age and drawing a line elsewhere. Age changes, people get older, so anything involving it is a temporary restriction.

I would still say that denied rights are denied rights, even if you only need to get older, or seek out a different mate.

 

[Byzantine]

I would still say that denied rights are denied rights, even if you only need to get older, or seek out a different mate.

The entire point of age restrictions in terms of marriage is to prevent kids from being taken advantage of by adults when they are (in most cases) too young to understand what is going on, or to fully comprehend the consequences. That is why we don't let kids vote, they wouldn't understand it very well and would end up mimicking their parents, probably. If a kid can prove that they fully understand it, etc, I don't see why we couldn't make an exception, but the general rule needs to stand.

 

[BigLutz]

The entire point of age restrictions in terms of marriage is to prevent kids from being taken advantage of by adults when they are (in most cases) too young to understand what is going on, or to fully comprehend the consequences. That is why we don't let kids vote, they wouldn't understand it very well and would end up mimicking their parents, probably. If a kid can prove that they fully understand it, etc, I don't see why we couldn't make an exception, but the general rule needs to stand.

Well that is all I am asking for, to change a hard and fast rule on rights, to one that is more case by case. Providing artificial barriers for any kind of rights be it age, gender, etc etc, seems silly for me if those people can understand what they are getting into.

 

[Byzantine]

Well that is all I am asking for, to change a hard and fast rule on rights, to one that is more case by case. Providing artificial barriers for any kind of rights be it age, gender, etc etc, seems silly for me if those people can understand what they are getting into.

But who would judge, and what criteria would they use? It isn't so simple, if it was a viable solution I would agree with you, but it really isn't.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

Anyway, Rob Portman isn't alone. Republican Senator Mark Kirk now supports marriage equality


Like I said, everyone's coming out in favor now, and now we've got two Republican senators who favor gay marriage. That brings the total number of pro-gay marriage Republicans in Congress to four. My prediction is that the next to come out in favor will be Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Bill Nelson. Collins is the most moderate Republican in the senate, and beside Kirk, the only moderate Republican. She's up for re-election next year and there doesn't seem to be a major primary challenger. She represents Maine, so coming out in favor can only help her, seeing as Maine voters voted in favor of marriage equality last November. Bill Nelson on the other hand, he won in 2012 by a comfortable margin, so his seat looks safe, especially in a state like Florida, which Obama barely won. He won't be up for reelection until 2018, and by then it's possible that same-sex marriage will become a non-issue. There are a few senators we won't see coming out anytime soon, Democrat Joe Manchin for example and Republican Marco Rubio are both long-shots, to say the least, but right now, the tides are changing quickly. If one senator, just one, be it Nelson or Collins or somebody else, a majority of the Senate will be pro-gay marriage. Kirk brought the number up to 50, half of the senate.

I was right, Nelson's in favor, along with Donnelley and Hietkamp. so we officially have a majority. Tim Johnson came out later, leaving only four Democrats left, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Manchin. In the case of Landrieu, I'm sure she supports it personally (possibly Pryor as well) but has to worry about winning reelection in a deep red, anti-gay state. Manchin on the other hand, well, it's hard to call him a Democrat, and I believe he genuinely thinks gay marriage is a sin. He's not going to come out in favor anytime soon. As for Susan Collins, who I discussed earlier, well, I'm not sure. She said she favors a strict state's rights approach, and won't say how she feels about it on a personal level. I don't see why she wouldn't come out in favor, she represents Maine, one of the most gay friendly states in the union, where favoring gay marriage only provides political gain.

 

[7 tyranitars]

And this is number 12, not france not the uk but uruguay:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...marriage_n_3057458.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

 

[Silver Soul]

And this is number 12, not france not the uk but uruguay:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...marriage_n_3057458.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

That's nice to hear.

Also, rising GOP star Ben Carson steps down as commencement speaker of John Hopkins University due to his controversial comparisons with same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/ben-carson-cancels-graduation-speech-89925.html

 

[WizardTrubbish]

And this is number 12, not france not the uk but uruguay:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...marriage_n_3057458.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

That's some good news. In other news, New Zealand will be joining Uruguay.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/...rriage-equality-bringing-country-count-to-14/

 

[Eterna]

2 more countries in the span of 2 weeks? I can almost feel the Right wing loonies trembling in fear.

 

[BJPalmer85]

Well that is all I am asking for, to change a hard and fast rule on rights, to one that is more case by case. Providing artificial barriers for any kind of rights be it age, gender, etc etc, seems silly for me if those people can understand what they are getting into.

Age is a necessary restriction when it comes to certain things. Like Byzantine say, most young people dont really understand what is going on. If you lower the voting age, why not lower the enlisting age? give 15-16 year olds the right to fight for their country...

on the flip, i do feel that things like the minimum drinking age should be lowered. If you are old enough to fight and die for your country than you are old enough to drink

2 more countries in the span of 2 weeks? I can almost feel the Right wing loonies trembling in fear.

That gave me a chuckle or 2.

B