Obama Coming Out?

[TankJon666]

Originally Posted by decypher

Secularity has to become the priority of any civilized country. If you believe in "god", great. But keep it where it belongs - to YOURSELF, I don't give a shit about it and there's not one single reason why your "god" would have any right to have an effect on my life. Thanks.

About the legal issue - there are many aspects that many people don't think of (naturally, as it can be quite complex) - in my case I was glad that Canada had gay marriage as it allowed me to stay within the country during my immigration process. I met my partner online, I spent 2 years (travelling back and forth between Canada and Germany every 3 months) over here as tourist, then we did get married and I applied for immigration. It did make the process easier, but I also did enjoy committing to my partner, we had a fun ceremony (at a gay art gallery in Toronto - with tons of sushi, gay guys LOVE fish). yes, some might say it was abuse of the system for me to use the advantages of the marriage rights to simplify the immigration, but I don't care, many people abuse those rights in far worse ways. And really I married him because of his money. NGD coming soon

Equality exists even in gold digging

I used to share a house with a gay guy ...was a serious business man outside but at home he was a massive 6ft fairy princess

Its sad that being gay in the USA still attracts so much hate.

[C2Aye]

In the future, I wish that the words gay, lesbian, straight, black, white, atheist, Christian, Muslim, republican, democrat, liberal, communist, etc etc, ad nauseum, wouldn't mean as much and we would all united ourselves under the term 'human' and we would all treat each other as such.

But until such time Aliens that are pure beings of energy raise us beyond our petty strifes to join the greater universal community, I don't really see that happening any time soon

[Demiurge]

Originally Posted by C2Aye

But until such time Aliens that are pure beings of energy raise us beyond our petty strifes to join the greater universal community, I don't really see that happening any time soon

The aliens will likely group us by flavor after they invade.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by Nimgoble

This has been my sentiment for a long time now. People are getting so worked up over the sanctity of marriage. Why not just replace everything that currently pertains to "marriage" in our laws with "civil unions". That way, religious people can get "married" in a church and apply for a civil union with the state. Gay people can get civil unions, just like everyone else, without "threatening" the "sanctity" of marriage.

OR just do away with marriage altogether. But that's an argument for another time, I suppose.

This is my stance too. It's really one of pragmatism more than anything else - marriage comes with numerous economic, social, and civil benefits, from it's tax-advantaged status to hospital visitation rights to getting health insurance for your spouse. I personally disagree with the church's decision to define marriage as between one man and one woman, but as the desire to worship in a particular manner is, provided it impedes no one else's civil liberties, a personal one that the federal government should not regulate any more than to ensure that everyone DOES have that freedom, I'm willing to let that slide.

However, since if marriage is a religious institution whose sanctity is evidently in need of protection, it also follows that the federal government should not be endorsing any one interpretation or definition of marriage. So, I agree - let's leave marriage to the churches, strike "marriage" from our legal system and in it's place insert "civil union." major religions can still perform marriages, as well as confirmations, baptisms, bar mitzvah, and any other ceremonies they want, free from the influence and recognition of the federal government and state governments. Meanwhile, if any couple, gay or straight, wants to enter into a civil union expressing their commitment to a long term relationship and in return receive all the rights and privileges that come with it, that is their constitutionally protected right.

Of course, since it follows that any straight couple who is married in a church but chooses not to file for a federal civil union as well would NOT get these rights, and furthermore many hardcore conservatives fundamentally opposed to public recognition of homosexual couples would refuse on principle, I imagine the likely outcome of this would be outrage on the fundamentalist conservative side of the spectrum. Frankly, I'm pretty ok with that.

[Waelstrum]

It seems like a good idea, but try to see it from a fundy's perspective: gay activist pushing for marriage leads to the government removing all marriages. They'll see it as 'the gay agenda destroying traditional marriage' which is exactly what they're saying will happen if you have marriage equality. (They won't realise that they're wrong, and trying to convince them with sound arguments will only make things worse.) It seems like a perfectly rational compromise, but I think the crosstitutes would see it as worse than merely legalising gay marriage .

[Necris]

Which is why it seems to me it's time to stop pandering to them altogether.

[Demiurge]

Originally Posted by Drew

However, since if marriage is a religious institution whose sanctity is evidently in need of protection, it also follows that the federal government should not be endorsing any one interpretation or definition of marriage. So, I agree - let's leave marriage to the churches, strike "marriage" from our legal system and in it's place insert "civil union." major religions can still perform marriages, as well as confirmations, baptisms, bar mitzvah, and any other ceremonies they want, free from the influence and recognition of the federal government and state governments. Meanwhile, if any couple, gay or straight, wants to enter into a civil union expressing their commitment to a long term relationship and in return receive all the rights and privileges that come with it, that is their constitutionally protected right.

This would seem to be sensible- I mean, what everybody is looking for is the status with the legally-defined parameters.

But that would pre-suppose that what's called "marriage"- as opposed to "civil union"- is something for the realm of religion only. While making "civil unions" the secular version of marriage might be a solution, it's really giving the bully what he wants. What has happened here is that religions want to be able to police the concept of marriage and make it under their definition- why should that be allowed?

I'm an atheist. I am married to my wife. I'm not going to concede to my government essentially acknowledging that religious people have that status while I have the "shareware" version: stripped-down to legal rights. No way should my gay, married friends accept anything less, either.

Making "marriages" and "civil unions" as separate arrangements is a band-aid measure that ultimately placates a special interest group and avoids having to face the reality that all classes of people have a right that shouldn't be interfered with by the government. We need the government out of the equation, not assigning this to religious groups and that to the secular groups.

[flint757]

This does raise an interesting point I'd say. If an atheist can get married in the christian sense how is the act even religious. I agree with everyone else that if marriage is defined religiously and we have separation of church and state marriage shouldn't even be legally relevant in the first place.

[Waelstrum]

Also, marriage as it is now came about long after Christ died. It's current form is a romanticisation of a property deal (women are people too now, apparently) that has its origins in the middle ages. The Bible is full of polygamy, treated women as property to be bought and sold (so there's a slight connection to the current system) and in many cases forced the women to marry against their will (if their father sold them, if they captured as spoils of war, etc.) The Mormons had a more Christian view of marriage (before they flip-flopped) than most Christians nowadays.

[SenorDingDong]

Anyone else seen the Newsweek cover?

Not sure how I feel about it.

[flint757]

It is a tad slanderous, supporting gay people does not make you gay. It all comes back to the macho attitude this nation has developed over its lifetime.

[Waelstrum]

Supporting gay rights makes you gay in the same way that supporting black rights makes you black.

[ddtonfire]

Newsweek has long since lost any relevance and they're desperate to have people even notice them.

[Demiurge]

Originally Posted by ddtonfire

Newsweek has long since lost any relevance and they're desperate to have people even notice them.

True. And one of their competitors just put a picture of a chick breastfeeding a kindergartener on their cover, so they must be desperate to compete.

[Necris]

I didn't know Trenchlord worked for Newsweek.

[Hemi-Powered Drone]

Seriously? Newsweek, why so ignorant?

[flint757]

It's a way to scare off macho men from supporting gay rights because if they can be called gay they will probably stand against it making their enemy much smaller. I certainly hope they don't truly believe that, I'd prefer that they are a bunch of dicks than stupid honestly. Too many stupid people running around as it is.

[Hemi-Powered Drone]

It isn't like being a dick and being stupid are mutually exclusive.

[flint757]

touche

What I meant was I'd prefer there goal was to slander and scare off supporters rather than actually believing Obama is gay now. if they believe the latter I'm worried their stupidity might rub off on others

[ghstofperdition]

Originally Posted by Waelstrum

Supporting gay rights makes you gay in the same way that supporting black rights makes you black.

Exactly. This thread title and the newsweek cover both ooze gobs of ignorance. CLEARLY people have to be gay just because they too are tired of seeing bigotry rule the minority and their civil rights.
Or you know, they could just not be douchebags, and decent people regardless of race, sex, creed, gender, or social status. Either way. But the former sure sounds like the talking point for all conservative-based media these days.

I am among many in the LGBT that are wondering why the hell it took Obama this long, and with the election coming up, if this is a voting ploy. But where I differ is that I feel reluctant acceptance is better than no acceptance at all. Bitching about supper being late doesn't detract from the fact that you still have supper, albeit later than expected. Same with presidential support. Sucks we had to wait this late in the game for any kind of help (too late for our NC brothers and sisters sadly), but it helps to have the president in your corner. Even if people don't support the president, they still tend to respect the office of the presidency and usually the word of whoever is still in office carries at least SOME weight because of this. So who knows, maybe this will bring about needed change. We sure as hell could use it. But I'm cautious too. I wanna see some deed backing this new stance. Nothing would piss me off more than Obama using our struggle for equal rights as a platform for re-election and then abandoning us completely when he does get re-elected.

I think this election season will be pretty interesting regardless, since with this stance I feel that it will become old voters vs. young voters, and with this issue on the table, I feel more young voters will come out to the polls.


Edit: on a similar subject, yet slightly OT,
I've noticed why dems got creamed in the 2010 election. (for congress)
It had nothing to do with the actual issues, but was all about American conservatives uncanny knack for buzzwords, fearmongering headlines, and persistent rhetoric. Case in point; the topic of this thread. How many slanderous headlines have there been of "Obama is DESTROYING marriage!" and the like have we seen already? Look on the facebook pages of tea party and other conservative pages and see how bad it's getting. If dems don't up their marketing game, we're ....ed. But imagine the change dems could do if we harnessed the power of the conservative right's ability to market. Hell, not only would we be dealing with issues that actually matter, but we'd be able to get people on board with that kind of change. To dream a dream......

[Grand Moff Tim]

Wait, that Newsweek cover is for realsies? I thought it was a joke someone made for the Onion or some similar site.

[ghstofperdition]

I'm honestly praying that it IS a joke cover Tim. But America has become so crazy in it's politics that the Onion is looking more and more like a real news network, and faux news is looking more like a joke t.v. news segment. That fact both saddens and scares me....

[flint757]

The talking points on Fox and Republican networks and candidates for the Republican ticket makes me think that it is more than possible that this is real. The only reason I see it could be fake is because it is incredibly slanderous and they could be sued to kingdom come.

[Waelstrum]

Originally Posted by flint757

It's a way to scare off macho men from supporting gay rights because if they can be called gay they will probably stand against it making their enemy much smaller. I certainly hope they don't truly believe that, I'd prefer that they are a bunch of dicks than stupid honestly. Too many stupid people running around as it is.

That's certainly part of it, but I also think it is in part a result of the bigoted mindset. To a bigot, everything is broken down into us and them. They are bad, we are good. If you aren't us, then you're them, so if you support them, you're not us (see Bush). It's a point of view rooted in our hunter/gatherer ancestry, and one I find increasingly frustrating.

However, just because most people (myself included) are ignorant and easily swayed isn't the end of it. If you get someone manipulative (or charismatic) enough to hold sway with the majority, but also has moved beyond a primitive world view, then you can see real change. This is (perhaps) what Obama is doing.

[TRENCHLORD]

Originally Posted by Necris

I didn't know Trenchlord worked for Newsweek.

Ha ha, I wouldn't work for them if they paid me a million, no wait, yes I would for a million .

No really though, these social issues play into the hands of the left.
Anyone planning on voting for Romney would rather just talk about the economy and border security.