Helios Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I don't consider someone's support being used as leverage for reelection is a bright side. I call that shoddy, and taking tactical advantage of current pre-election events. This. Same reason why he declared Osama, the world's biggest terrorist, dead. Obama's pretty much got reelection in the bag, but what's funny is he probably is the best man for the job right now because the rest of the candidates are shit-tier. But that's getting off topic. I think it's just the older generations for the most part that have a problem with homosexuality. Even if all these bills DO pass, I think in due time things will change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helios Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Also pic related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) I don't consider someone's support being used as leverage for reelection is a bright side. I call that shoddy, and taking tactical advantage of current pre-election events. I don't really disagree that it's a situationally skeevy move, and think he could've picked a much better time to do it to avoid making it a sketchy thing, but I hope it can at least serve to force some of the constituencies that have supported him to think about the issue, themselves. He kind of seemed to be mentioning it then shoving it under a rug, though, which I'll admit also sucks. Edited May 11, 2012 by Rehab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlegnomes Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 About Obama's statement, this isn't the first time he, or any other candidate has done anything like this. Look at Iraq. Convenient that he decided we should pull out the year before the election. It's not like the time he does any of these things affects how he actually feels. It's just that as a person in the public eye, you have to understand how the public works and play to that. Since we only tend to remember recent things, it's in his interest to talk about these big things at a time that benefits him most; it doesn't mean that he feels any differently about them at another time. As for him announcing the gay marriage thing now, it also makes sense given all the press it's getting. So it's both topical and helps him get reelected. I don't really have a problem with it. Personally, I hope he gets reelected. He's been a pretty good president so far, IMO, and he's the best of the candidates out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 However, something like that shouldn't be reserved until it can be pulled as a support-card. If Obama supports gay marriage, it shouldn't have had to wait until this point to be said--it should have been obviously endorsed from the very beginning. Playing the game of politics shouldn't endorse such conniving behaviour. Shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlegnomes Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) However, something like that shouldn't be reserved until it can be pulled as a support-card. If Obama supports gay marriage, it shouldn't have had to wait until this point to be said--it should have been obviously endorsed from the very beginning. Playing the game of politics shouldn't endorse such conniving behaviour. Shouldn't. Just playing devil's advocate here. Perhaps he thought the amendment wouldn't pass so he felt no need to voice his support for gay marriage, but since the vote turned out the way it did, he felt that he should let his stance be known. He should have but that's the nature of politics. At least he voiced his opinion on it at all, instead of just avoiding the topic altogether, which probably would have been the best decision from a purely strategic point of view because, as it stood, no one could get on him one way or the other, barring people who are really adamant about it and aren't happy with him taking a stance one way or the other. Edited May 11, 2012 by bottlegnomes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) I mean, it's in their constitution. This may have to take some work. It probably would have to go to the Supreme Court, if anything. North Carolina is not the first state or even the tenth to write a definition of marriage into their constitution. Although we can hope it's the last; North Carolina was previously the only southern state to lack a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It's a bit silly, really, to describe this as a ban; same-sex marriage is already not legal in North Carolina, this merely enshrines it in the constitution. I don't consider someone's support being used as leverage for reelection is a bright side. I call that shoddy, and taking tactical advantage of current pre-election events. Not really. You can criticise Obama for not making his opinion public earlier, but does that mean he has to keep it quiet forever? If taking a firm stance is going to help him win the White House, we should be glad that he's done it. Just playing devil's advocate here. Perhaps he thought the amendment wouldn't pass so he felt no need to voice his support for gay marriage, but since the vote turned out the way it did, he felt that he should let his stance be known. Actually, it's to help him win the election. One in six of Obama's big donors are gay. And opinion polls now suggest a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Moreover, by moving the new cycle back towards social issues, Obama reduces the scrutiny on his economic record. By the way, I think what's going on in Colorado is a lot more interesting. Edited May 11, 2012 by Anouleth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st Mate Bob Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Obama's endorsement didn't win him any votes for the election. The vast majority of members and allies of the gay community were going to vote for him anyway, since the other side has already stated they're fully and completely against it. If anything he lost a few votes, but not many. All the endorsement really means is that he's probably going to push for DOMA to be repealed, and the people who care about that most already assumed he would if he were to get a second term anyway, regardless of if he made the endorsement or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ein Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Apparently this ban on gay marriage in NC also bans certain hetero relationships with names I can't recall because I'm an idiot so yeah... Kind of hilarious if what I heard on the Colbert Report is true and I'm guessing it is because I don't bother to look these things up. Da best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlegnomes Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Actually, it's to help him win the election. One in six of Obama's big donors are gay. And opinion polls now suggest a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Moreover, by moving the new cycle back towards social issues, Obama reduces the scrutiny on his economic record. I'm aware, hence the "playing devil's advocate" part. By the way, I think what's going on in Colorado is a lot more interesting. ? Apparently this ban on gay marriage in NC also bans certain hetero relationships with names I can't recall because I'm an idiot so yeah... Kind of hilarious if what I heard on the Colbert Report is true and I'm guessing it is because I don't bother to look these things up. Da best. Oh it has a ton of other shit that makes things harder for everyone. It makes it harder to prosecute spousal abuse, and makes it so basically anyone who isn't legally married can't share benefits; that includes engaged couples, civil unions, and the other one I can't remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breezy Kanzaki Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 And they actually celebrated the passing of the amendment with a little party later that night. That is just TONS of wrong. North Carolina is honestly just an absurdly terrible state in general. The last time they ratified their constitution for anything related to marriage, it was to ban interracial marriage. So bleh. My kind will eventually see equality, I hope. I really do wish that some politician would go and cite the parts of the bible that are much more clear about things that would make a much better point. Such as how if you wear two garments of different cloth as a woman, you are to be stoned to death. Honestly, I wonder what hope there is in a world with so much ignorance and hatred... And this is why I think the world is just stupid. Who has the right to say what someone can and can't do? This is just so stupid I can't put it in to words. So I'll put in this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Obama's endorsement didn't win him any votes for the election. The vast majority of members and allies of the gay community were going to vote for him anyway, since the other side has already stated they're fully and completely against it. I hate logic like this. "well they were going to vote for him anyway..." This announcement increases enthusiasm among his party base. And perhaps there were many independents who supported gay rights but excused voting for Romney under the basis that "well Obama's not doing anything about gay marriage anyway". Obviously this announcement alone does not win him votes, but it's all part of presenting a picture of himself as being socially progressive. It's becoming increasingly difficult for the Republican party to use culture war issues to win. And especially in the light of recent developments with Romney, with that thing with his foreign policy advisor, and that bullying thing, Romney is increasingly being represented as a retrograde homophobe and Obama as progressive and enlightened. More than 50% of the population support gay marriage. And there are many who might not support gay marriage specifically but be in favour of civil unions, against DADT and so on. It's not like there aren't gay people in the Republican party, either, or people who support gay marriage. Could this motivate them to switch sides? Could this motivate some of the many people in the US who don't vote to vote Democrat? If anything he lost a few votes, but not many. All the endorsement really means is that he's probably going to push for DOMA to be repealed, and the people who care about that most already assumed he would if he were to get a second term anyway, regardless of if he made the endorsement or not. It also increases enthusiasm among his financial supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Not to mention it's become tactical mud-slinging already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esaka Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I hate politics, not even for the people. Well whatever, this just is disgusting in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Oh, to support my earlier statement about support for gay rights (even if that doesn't extend to supporting gay marriage) in the republican party, this has turned up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Sholes Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I'll never understand why some people feel they can and have the need to tell other people what they can or can't do. This is beyond stupid especially considering IIRC you can marry your first cousin in NC. Also saying your against being gay because of religion is like being mad at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet, but so many people use it as an argument. Also the argument of it being evil because two men or women can make children is stupid because, and this may come off as extreme but... There are children right now with no families who could die, so why would not making more children be evil? Just my ten cents, but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I had a discussion with my brother who is a bigoted anti-homosexuality. He says its just wrong to be gay. I was going to ask this in the homosexuality topic in serious discussion, however, its closed. So, how do you even begin to discuss how wrong he is? He said gay people shouldn't have the same right as heterosexual people I just facepalmed. Then went to tell him what he is doing was no different than people before Martin Luther King (forgot the year) were saying about black people... The conversation finished but he still finished with "I still believe its wrong." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlegnomes Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 In defense of those against homosexuality, at least on the religious side, homosexuality is considered a sin. So them not wanting homosexuality recognized and protected legally is the same as them wanting adultery to be illegal. If it is, in their minds, it's saying it's okay to do something that's a sin. On the flip side, there's so much stuff that's not illegal that religion says is wrong that either the people have to want to radically redefine the laws or are big hypocrites. Then there's the whole thing about the US not being a theocracy. As for people who just think it's wrong, not much to say there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) In defense of those against homosexuality, at least on the religious side, homosexuality is considered a sin. So them not wanting homosexuality recognized and protected legally is the same as them wanting adultery to be illegal. Religion has no right to infringe upon the rights of individuals. Specially if they were born like that. Homosexuality is not harming anybody. Discrimination because of religion should not be tolerable. In other words, there is no defense for those that oppose the equal treatment of homosexuals under the law. Edited May 12, 2012 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I had a discussion with my brother who is a bigoted anti-homosexuality. He says its just wrong to be gay. I was going to ask this in the homosexuality topic in serious discussion, however, its closed. So, how do you even begin to discuss how wrong he is? He said gay people shouldn't have the same right as heterosexual people I just facepalmed. Then went to tell him what he is doing was no different than people before Martin Luther King (forgot the year) were saying about black people... The conversation finished but he still finished with "I still believe its wrong." Good job not presenting any of his arguments or ideas on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Good job not presenting any of his arguments or ideas on the subject. I forgot a lot of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Envoy of the Beginning Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Related: North Carolina governor Bev Perdue on the Amendment 1 Passage: "We look like Mississippi" Mississippi governor Phil Bryant responds to Perdue's remark It's sad that Perdue has to compare her state to Mississippi because of the NC amendment passage. But it's true. Edited May 13, 2012 by BLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uguu Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 On the Obama thing, sure this was a long time ago, but he actually has stated that he supports gay marriage before. It is horrible that people being against gay marriage is so prominent that it's notable when a politician comes out and says they support it, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nayr Farros Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Maybe they should just ban marriage altogether. Think about it. 1. People vow before God to be together for the rest of their lives, when a lot of them don't even make it through the year before wanting a divorce. 2. When a married couple have problems and one cheats, it's considered very bad, wheras if they aren't married, it's still bad, but not as bad. 3. Marriage in general is just a way of establishing ownership over someone and trapping them with you. So if they just abandoned the whole thing and everyone went about their usual business, we'd be a lot better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunwoo Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 While I personally wouldn't care at all if marriage was disestablished and/or banned or just rid of by tomorrow, I'm sure a whole lot of people would raise a whole lot of protest over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.