# Obama Coming Out?



## TRENCHLORD

It's expected that in a moment Obama will be announcing his support for gay marriage despite state referendums being struck down repeatedly throughout the nation.

It's obviously a political move in which he's sacrificing his populist stance to hopefully (he hopes) sure up and slightly shift his base center.

They've (his staff has) made a point lately to grease the wheels for this announcement by repeateldy stating that his position is "evolving".

This is a very risky move, and I believe a sign of desperation.
Also another fine example of flip-flopping, something that we've gotten used to from canidates on both sides.

Feel free (as I already know you do ) to express personal belief opinions, but what I'm really interested in is;

How do people think this will effect his quest for those electoral votes on a state by state basis?
http://www.270towin.com/

This also (by design of course) places Romney in a position to have to defend his current traditionalist values.
Could work well for Romney in capturing some older center of the road democrats and right-wingers who are a bit dissapointed in their respective nominees,
and it can make Romney look like a mean old man to the younger demographic.


Here it is;

http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/obama-affirms-support-for-same-sex-marriage-29242313.html


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

I always find it weird how Americans are seemingly all for equal rights except when it comes to people who arent straight.


----------



## highlordmugfug

He won't get North Carolinas bigoted, shitheaded vote.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I always find it weird how Americans are seemingly all for equal rights except when it comes to people who arent straight.


 
don't be so quick to generalize!

it's really a regional thing at this point who supports what when it comes to social issues in the states

it's hard to find someone in my area ignorant enough to side against same sex marraige


----------



## Razzy




----------



## cwhitey2

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I always find it weird how Americans are seemingly all for equal rights except when it comes to people who arent straight.



Well we are hypocrites


----------



## darren

Equal treatment under the law isn't a social issue, it's a civil rights issue.


----------



## TemjinStrife

I don't think it's a sign of desperation.

I would be thrilled if he did, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Blake1970

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I always find it weird how Americans are seemingly all for equal rights except when it comes to people who arent straight.



I feel the same way man. I don't see an issue with two gay people wanting to get married.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

MrPepperoniNipples said:


> don't be so quick to generalize!
> 
> it's really a regional thing at this point who supports what when it comes to social issues in the states
> 
> it's hard to find someone in my area ignorant enough to side against same sex marraige



Yeah for sure, but compared to most wealthy & free nations the US ov A's stance on gay marriage is surprisingly backwards. Even the descrepency between Canadian and American stances on social issues is surprising. What always shocks me though is when minorities dont support equal rights for gays/trans/etc... Because its exactly like racial discrimination


----------



## Blake1970

^
I agree with that, what sucks is the people I have talked to here in Texas throw the whole bible thing into the mix to justify the ban on gay marriage.


----------



## Guitarman700

I'm sick of being treated like a second class citizen.
Got a problem with that? Fuck you.
End of story.


----------



## TemjinStrife

And he supports it. Good for him. He's stressing that he's leaving it up to states to determine this stuff, though. That's unfortunate, as North Carolina has shown us.

Now we need to get DOMA completely off the books.


----------



## SenorDingDong

highlordmugfug said:


> He won't get North Carolinas bigoted, shitheaded vote.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Also, take a glimpse at Fox's headline for their article covering the issue before they rushed off to change it for obvious reasons:


----------



## renzoip

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Yeah for sure, but compared to most wealthy & free nations the US ov A's stance on gay marriage is surprisingly backwards. Even the descrepency between Canadian and American stances on social issues is surprising. What always shocks me though is when minorities dont support equal rights for gays/trans/etc... Because its exactly like racial discrimination



Americans have a strange sense of individualism. I also know many homophobic racial minorities, racist homosexuals, sexist women, xenophobic immigrants, etc. People tend to see their particular struggle as unique, and are often willing to tolerate having someone discriminate them as long as they too have someone to discriminate against.

Some people remain married to imaginary social hierarchies.


----------



## renzoip

Also, despite all the hate Federal Government gets (justified), I think that more often than not, states rights is the problem when it comes to social/civil rights issues. I'm for Democracy, but not for democratizing the rights of minorities.


----------



## Razzy

renzoip said:


> Also, despite all the hate Federal Government gets (justified), I think states rights is the problem when it comes to social issues. I'm for Democracy, but not for democratizing the rights of minorities.



+1

Having the majority VOTE on the rights of a minority is fucking bullshit.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

Razzy said:


> +1
> 
> Having the majority VOTE on the rights of a minority is fucking bullshit.



+1

There should be a wide line seperating a representative democracy from an aristocracy, but it's things like that that essentially destroy that line.



SenorDingDong said:


> Also, take a glimpse at Fox's headline for their article covering the issue before they rushed off to change it for obvious reasons:


 
Stay classy, Fox.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Razzy said:


> +1
> 
> Having the majority VOTE on the rights of a minority is fucking bullshit.



Exactly. The 1 step method to marginalization.


----------



## Powermetalbass

dragonblade629 said:


> +1
> 
> There should be a wide line seperating a representative democracy from an aristocracy, but it's things like that that essentially destroy that line.
> 
> 
> 
> Stay classy, Fox.



When has Fox ever been classy?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> Also another fine example of flip-flopping, something that we've gotten used to from canidates on both sides.



Flip-flopping? So Obama has previously spoken out against gay marriage, then?

Also, this guy who hasn't said anything truly hateful in his entire presidency couldn't possibly just not have a problem with homosexuals, right? He obviously hates them and disapproves of gay marriage, and is only supporting it so he can get some votes past Romney, who is otherwise the posterboy of America.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

That North Carolina story pissed me off so much. I'm a supporter of equal rights for everyone. The day our government lets beliefs get in the way of that is the day it has failed its citizens.


----------



## BucketheadRules

So Obama is "coming out" (by using these words you imply a good deal of contempt for him for doing so) because he supports equal rights for gay people?

You're actually taking issue with that? Does that mean you don't think gay people deserve the same rights as the rest of us?

Unless I have profoundly misunderstood you, I think it's you that needs to do some explaining, not him.


----------



## Guitarman700

BucketheadRules said:


> So Obama is "coming out" (by using these words you imply a good deal of contempt for him for doing so) because he supports equal rights for gay people?
> 
> You're actually taking issue with that? Does that mean you don't think gay people deserve the same rights as the rest of us?
> 
> Unless I have profoundly misunderstood you, I think it's you that needs to do some explaining, not him.



If I remember correctly, besides calling Obama, a constitutional lawyer, a "Constitutional terrorist", No, he doesn't support equal rights.
Despite this line "despite state referendums being struck down repeatedly throughout the nation", Equality is gaining more and more support. 
I dare anyone who doesn't support it to come off your internet soapbox and say these bigoted, hateful things to our faces.


----------



## Waelstrum

TRENCHLORD said:


> It's expected that in a moment Obama will be announcing his support for gay marriage *despite state referendums being struck down repeatedly throughout the nation*.
> 
> It's obviously a political move in which he's* sacrificing his populist stance* to hopefully (he hopes) sure up and slightly shift his base center.
> 
> They've (his staff has) made a point lately to grease the wheels for this announcement by repeateldy stating that his position is "evolving".
> 
> This is a very risky move, and I believe a *sign of desperation.
> Also another fine example of flip-flopping*, something that we've gotten used to from canidates on both sides.
> 
> Feel free (as I already know you do ) to express personal belief opinions, but what I'm really interested in is;
> 
> How do people think this will effect his quest for those electoral votes on a state by state basis?
> 2012 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College
> 
> This also (by design of course) places Romney in a position to have to defend his current *traditionalist values*.
> *Could work well for Romney in capturing some older center of the road democrats* and right-wingers who are a bit dissapointed in their respective nominees,
> and it can make Romney look like a mean old man to the younger demographic.
> 
> 
> Here it is;
> 
> Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage - Yahoo!



The phrases that I've highlighted here send out some warning bells to me. I'll just go through them in order:

It is wrong to have the rights of minorities voted on by the majority. If on a state level there were a tonne of referenda to decide which minorities had the right to vote, do you think the US would have a better or worse democracy?

Describing the prevention of gay marriage as a populist stance has a few problems. The first one I already mentioned. The second is that it's not really true. If you look at the various polls on Wikipedia, you'll see that support has been steadily growing, and if that trend is to follow support will continue to grow as the older generation dies out and the younger generation gets to voting age. They've already tipped the scales in favour of marriage equality.

This next one I sort of agree with. The Republicans have been saying that Obama is some sort of extreme leftist, which has meant that Obama has been doing some pretty far right things (such as military spending, opposing marriage equality, etc...). There is the theory that in Obama's second term, he'll move back to the centre. That's why I was expecting not to see this until 2013. By doing this now, it means he thinks there's a chance he won't get to do it later, so he's trying to do some good before the election. Or he could be doing it so that Romney will have to oppose gay marriage (because no Republican will ever admit to agreeing with Obama) and as you said, will lose him most of the youth vote.

Traditionalist values. This is something I always find annoying. If you only hold a value because it's traditional, then it's not worth much, is it? If you can justify it with sound logic and reasoning, then it's not a traditional value, it's a good value. Doing things the same all the time for the sole reason that it's what used to be done is the opposite of progress; it's stagnation. That would only be fine if your society has reached some sort of utopia, but if there is a single problem on any scale, then there is an obligation to improve society.

You called marriage inequality a centre of the road issue. This might just be that thing where the American left/right divide is skewed in comparison to the rest of the west, I'm pretty sure you have to be quite a way along the right to think that gay people shouldn't marry. Most of the conservative I know are either for marriage equality or indifferent to it.

Other than that I like the post. It's good to know that America might take this step forwards, because if you guys do, then we might as well.


----------



## Xaios

Trench,

Please, just stop.

Sincerely,

A Conservative


----------



## TemjinStrife

Xaios said:


> Trench,
> 
> Please, just stop.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> A Conservative



So, he's embarrassing you and your positions?


----------



## highlordmugfug

TemjinStrife said:


> So, he's embarrassing you and your positions?


I was thinking more along the lines of embarrassing anyone who has conservative views that don't involve things like being a bigoted douche, but I'll let Xaios speak for himself.


----------



## Demiurge

I'm glad it happened, but I don't think it was as ballsy as a decision as it appears. Even though he has said before that he didn't really have a developed opinion on it, his detractors see him as a social-justice-minded liberal and figured that this was going to be where he landed anyway.

It was a shrewd decision, though. Obviously, the election is not going to hinge on this issue (economy, duh), but it will make things tough for Mitt Romney. This might open-up for some more social issues entering the political debate running-up to the election; Mitt's not a bad guy, but he comes off as condescending and really needs to score points in appearing somewhat lenient and open-minded to swing voters. If he answers for his position on gay marriage the wrong way, it could look really bad for him. With a changing platform, it may affect his decision as a running mate: he might need to go younger with his choice, taking a risk on a fiscal conservative that looks young and not-too-socially-conservative to appeal to moderates.

Additionally, Obama didn't attempt to step on the states' toes. He doesn't have to, really, since if all of these states are passing gay marriage bans, the Supreme Court is going to start picking them off.


----------



## Church2224

highlordmugfug said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of embarrassing anyone who has conservative views that don't involve things like being a bigoted douche, but I'll let Xaios speak for himself.



Yeah not all of us conservatives are like that  Do not let those batshit insane people speak on our behalf.


----------



## pink freud

highlordmugfug said:


> He won't get North Carolinas bigoted, shitheaded vote.



They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I'm short for time, so:


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Now guys, you are making false assumptions.
I could care less about the gay marriage issue aside from it's political ramifications on this general election.
For the record, I oppose the government getting involved with any form of marriage.
That's not the point of the thread.

The thread is to gather opinions about how and if this will effect the capturing of individual states for electoral vote accumilation.

And yes, Obama's veiws have changed.
Here it is from the man's own mouth.


I'm not even critisizing his flip-floppin, as both canidates will and have been doing plenty of that. That's just modern politics unfortunately.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Interesting. Though, he didn't outright say that he doesn't support gay marriage. He also said that he didn't think marriage was a civil right, which I also found interesting.


----------



## Necris

Flip-flopping isn't a good description for what he's done. To say his sudden shift to outright support of gay marriage after only a few days ago stating his stance on the issue "was developing" seems disingenuous is much more fitting.


----------



## Demiurge

Necris said:


> To say his sudden shift to outright support of gay marriage after only a few days ago stating his stance on the issue "was developing" seems disingenuous is much more fitting.



To an extent, too, Joe Biden stating his position on the matter was probably a mitigating factor. 

You can't have your veep saying X, Y, and Z comfortably while your official position is "tentative" on X, "can see it both ways" on Y, and "ask-me-after-November-if-I-win" about Z.


----------



## pushpull7

Planet has been and most likely will remain batshit crazy. I mean, we still live in a world that thinks if you don't like obama, you MUST be racist. Long ways to go the human race has......me thinks.


----------



## TemjinStrife

chrisharbin said:


> Planet has been and most likely will remain batshit crazy. I mean, we still live in a world that thinks if you don't like obama, you MUST be racist. Long ways to go the human race has......me thinks.



Uh... no. We live in a world where people don't like Obama because they're racist; not necessarily vice versa.


----------



## Church2224

TemjinStrife said:


> Uh... no. We live in a world where people don't like Obama because they're racist; not necessarily vice versa.



Can't we just say it is both? 

Because, well, that is probably the most true statement we can come up with. A lot of liberals are not a fan of him too, and most conservatives are not racist despite what everyone wants to think... 

Why do we always have to make everything a fuckin' race issue?


----------



## pushpull7

(shrug) I'm not, I don't like him. I support gay marriage (shrug)


----------



## Guitarman700

Church2224 said:


> A lot of liberals are not a fan of him too...




Still voting for him, but I'm not entirely happy about it.
Ah well, political realities.


----------



## Demiurge

chrisharbin said:


> Planet has been and most likely will remain batshit crazy. I mean, we still live in a world that thinks if you don't like obama, you MUST be racist. Long ways to go the human race has......me thinks.



To be fair, I haven't seen race brought up anywhere in this discussion. That said, in other times and other places, that _has been_ made an issue, but this is obviously a political topic where the color of the person making the proclamation isn't going to matter at all. People who feel that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals *and feel that the government ought to take measures to maintain that hierarchy* are kvetching about this, aside from the race of the guy saying something they don't agree with.


----------



## Church2224

Guitarman700 said:


> Still voting for him, but I'm not entirely happy about it.
> Ah well, political realities.



Yeah I am not a fan of this election myself. No matter the candidate it seems I am going to vote for someone I am not going to like entirely in the end.


----------



## MikeH

How the fuck is gay marriage still an issue with some people? People want to get married because they love each other. If you believe that love isn't a strong enough bond for two people to get married, regardless of gender, creed, religious beliefs, etc., you're a bigoted redneck who doesn't deserve to live on the same level as us in the modern world. Fuck anyone who opposes love.


----------



## pushpull7

Demiurge said:


> To be fair, I haven't seen race brought up anywhere in this discussion. That said, in other times and other places, that _has been_ made an issue, but this is obviously a political topic where the color of the person making the proclamation isn't going to matter at all. People who feel that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals *and feel that the government ought to take measures to maintain that hierarchy* are kvetching about this, aside from the race of the guy saying something they don't agree with.



wasn't my point. sorry, shouldn't have known not to venture here.......


----------



## Demiurge

MikeH said:


> How the fuck is gay marriage still an issue with some people? People want to get married because they love each other. If you believe that love isn't a strong enough bond for two people to get married, regardless of gender, creed, religious beliefs, etc., you're a bigoted redneck who doesn't deserve to live on the same level as us in the modern world. Fuck anyone who opposes love.



+1 

/thread. Why we need politicians sitting in front of TV cameras muddying the issue and diverting the focus from _this_ is beyond me.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

Today i was called a socialist for arguing for same-sex marriage when Obama came up

and that's when i lost faith in this country


----------



## Fiction

MikeH said:


> *How the fuck is gay marriage still an issue with some people?* People want to get married because they love each other. If you believe that love isn't a strong enough bond for two people to get married, regardless of gender, creed, religious beliefs, etc., you're a bigoted redneck who doesn't deserve to live on the same level as us in the modern world. Fuck anyone who opposes love.



Because it's been happening forever, whilst the situation is still terrible it's slowly turning around, for instance in 2005, less than 50% (Around 35%) of the population were against gay marriage, and now over 50% are for it. It's going to slowly change for the best, but unfortunately there will probably always be discrimination of minorities, *I guess it's just human nature to an extent.*

I do agree with everything you have said though, the opposition of love is a terrible terrible crime.

*Edit (Bolded the point i'm adding too):* I didn't mean to belittle the topic to simple human nature, I really do hope that it can be phased out completely. Education will be the greatest key to it, Obviously from the difference between Generation X and Y you can see the differences as paradigms shift between the mind set of each generation.


----------



## Church2224

MrPepperoniNipples said:


> Today i was called a socialist for arguing for same-sex marriage when Obama came up
> 
> and that's when i lost faith in stupid-ass pricks



Fixed 

Plenty of Libertarian Capitalists I know who have argued for same sex married, and they are Americans . You just encountered some dumb-asses today.


----------



## BlindingLight7

Political Discussion On SS.org: FOX SUCKS AND SO DOES EVERYTHING ELSE.


----------



## Razzy

Here's the video from the OP, but on youtube so it can be embedded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7F06_knuiGU#


 
He said the word evolution, which means he clearly worships Satan.


----------



## Guitarman700

BlindingLight7 said:


> Political Discussion On SS.org: FOX SUCKS AND SO DOES EVERYTHING ELSE.



How do you get that from the current discussion?


----------



## Church2224

Razzy said:


> He said the word evolution, which means he clearly worships Satan.



THAT SONOVABITCH!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Guitarman700 said:


> How do you get that from the current discussion?



+1. I only saw 2 jabs at Fox News in this entire thread.


----------



## Fiction

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> +1. I only saw 2 jabs at Fox News in this entire thread.



And only bigoted rednecks suck.


----------



## Church2224

Fiction said:


> And only bigoted rednecks suck.



You mean like these guys?


----------



## BlindingLight7

Guitarman700 said:


> How do you get that from the current discussion?


Aids.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

BlindingLight7 said:


> Aids.


----------



## Pav

Holy mother of god. As someone who doesn't have the most perpetually active interest in politics, my interpretation of this is as the most shameless ploy to appeal to one specific demographic. Regardless of my position on equality and gay marriage, etc., Obama now seems unbelievably desperate, not strikingly open-minded.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

If you think this is the most shameless ploy to generate votes, you should keep up with most of the other antics these people pull off.


----------



## Pav

It's just sad. I've taken an awful lot of flak throughout my life for "not caring about what's going on around me" or being "part of the problem and not the solution." Yet anytime I do take the time to learn what's happening so as to make educated decisions, I just...can't fucking believe it. It doesn't make any difference. So few politicians out there seem to have a genuine set of values, the D or the R or the independent, it makes no difference. They all flip-flop, they all change their opinions seemingly mid-term. I find American politics to be such a pointless endeavor; we're just shifting from one people-pleaser to another. The "change" that Obama touted in his campaign was, in and of itself, a ploy to get votes. And quite frankly, I'd rather let the animals deal with it themselves then drag myself into a world where talking heads regularly insult my intelligence, trying to pass themselves off as "the solution."


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Pav said:


> It's just sad. I've taken an awful lot of flak throughout my life for "not caring about what's going on around me" or being "part of the problem and not the solution." Yet anytime I do take the time to learn what's happening so as to make educated decisions, I just...can't fucking believe it. It doesn't make any difference. So few politicians out there seem to have a genuine set of values, the D or the R or the independent, it makes no difference. They all flip-flop, they all change their opinions seemingly mid-term. I find American politics to be such a pointless endeavor; we're just shifting from one people-pleaser to another. The "change" that Obama touted in his campaign was, in and of itself, a ploy to get votes. And quite frankly, I'd rather let the animals deal with it themselves then drag myself into a world where talking heads regularly insult my intelligence, trying to pass themselves off as "the solution."


 
It's called the art of appeasement .


----------



## flint757

^^I will agree with one point you are kind of making. People say if you don't vote you aren't fixing the problem and whatnot, but as a representative government when we are only presented with a list of idiots to choose from we still have to make a choice for civic duty and this is a year where I'd like to force them to re-pick candidates or just not vote at all. For my personal views Obama is the lesser of two evils, but it is sad that that is how we run our political system. Our voice is small...


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> For my personal views Obama is the lesser of two evils, but it is sad that that is how we run our political system.


 
 I remember in Micheal Moore's breakout documentary (Roger And Me),
he refers to it as "the evil of two lessers".


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> I remember in Micheal Moore's breakout documentary (Roger And Me),
> he refers to it as "the evil of two lessers".





That's a funny and sometimes very accurate way to put it.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

At least you guys have exciting elections, all of our candidates are always so hilariously/stereotypically bland in the most Canadian way possible


----------



## flint757

I'd prefer boring if they were the right candidates for the job.

Locally I have people running for office positions and there campaigns contradict themselves it is almost silly that they (no one) don't notice.


----------



## ZEBOV

I'm supportive of other people getting married, same sex or not.
I don't understand the point of getting married though. In this day and age, it's not a good idea.


----------



## Pav

Stealthdjentstic said:


> At least you guys have exciting elections, all of our candidates are always so hilariously/stereotypically bland in the most Canadian way possible



When you put it that way, I picture your candidates settling things by way of pond hockey, which I would be 110% in favor of.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

No, they debate in french 70% of the time. I shit you not, I have watched 3-5 canadian debates in my life but try to catch every American one. Its like a soap opera


----------



## Nimgoble

ZEBOV said:


> I'm supportive of other people getting married, same sex or not.
> I don't understand the point of getting married though. In this day and age, it's not a good idea.



Tax and insurance reasons. That's the only thing that really changes when you get married if you were already living with your spouse. Barring self-imposed restrictions, like "no sex before marriage" and things of that nature.


----------



## pink freud

Nimgoble said:


> Tax and insurance reasons. That's the only thing that really changes when you get married if you were already living with your spouse. Barring self-imposed restrictions, like "no sex before marriage" and things of that nature.



Power of Attorney, medical visitation/knowledge/decision power, demographical surveys (if you care about them).


----------



## TRENCHLORD

In Illinios, in the case of a domestic dispute or breakup, if the two un-married biological parents breakup or have a domestic dispute, the kids always go with the mother. 
It doesn't matter which one is leaving or staying at the residence, it doesn't matter if the mother has a rap sheet a mile long, it doesn't matter if the mother is the one yelling and screaming and behaving a fool.

On the other hand, if the couple is married, and the father is biological or adoptive either way, the children stay with the residence (for the moment until it can be heard by a judge.
So if the mother decides she's going to pick up and leave, then the kids stay with dad for the moment anyways.

So even if you're the documented biological father, you have less initial rights of custody if un-married.

Illinios is screwed in so many ways, we are now considered the least business freindly state, unless you're in the business of corruption (in that case we're #1).


----------



## flint757

That's crazy, sounds like a shortcut so they don't have to do as much work. That is how a lot of social services work in Texas. For instance say you lost your kids while under CPS investigation. If you have a baby during the investigation you can keep said child because the case is not against it. Forgive me, but if you are a bad parent should you be allowed to handle any child.


----------



## Nimgoble

TRENCHLORD said:


> Illinios is screwed in so many ways, we are now considered the least business freindly state, unless you're in the business of corruption (in that case we're #1).



HEY, AT LEAST WE'RE REALLY GOOD AT SOMETHING, RIGHT?!

...right?


----------



## Randy




----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

Powermetalbass said:


> When has Fox ever been classy?



I was being sarcastic.



Randy said:


>



You may not like him, Minister, but you can't deny: Obama's got style.


----------



## pink freud

Randy said:


>



Obama: Rides skateboard, no problem.
Bush: Rides self-balancing Segway, faceplants.


----------



## synrgy

I don't see what there is to discuss. It'll piss of those who oppose equal rights, it should at least satiate those who are for equal rights, and the people in the middle obviously don't care much either way, choosing to focus on other issues. In other words, I think it's effectively a wash, politically/electorally speaking.

Frankly, I really don't care if it's genuine or not, nor do I care that it comes this late in the game. I'll take any improvements I can get, however I can get them, and I think those complaining that it's politically motivated ought to appreciate the step forward for what it is: a step forward.

As for NC: I feel it worth pointing out that apparently only 1/3 of the contstituency even bothered to vote, so we can't in good conscious say that such a decision represents any majority opinion.


----------



## technomancer

darren said:


> Equal treatment under the law isn't a social issue, it's a civil rights issue.



This. The idea that this is being put to referendums instead of just enacted is ridiculous. If other civil rights issues had been put to referendum votes the south would still be segregated ffs. The whole thing is ridiculous


----------



## TemjinStrife

technomancer said:


> This. The idea that this is being put to referendums instead of just enacted is ridiculous. If other civil rights issues had been put to referendum votes the south would still be segregated ffs. The whole thing is ridiculous





Civil rights should NEVER be subject to a majority vote.

This dude has it right:


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

all of you conservatives out there may like this


----------



## TRENCHLORD

technomancer said:


> This. The idea that this is being put to referendums instead of just enacted is ridiculous. If other civil rights issues had been put to referendum votes the south would still be segregated ffs. The whole thing is ridiculous


 
I basically agree with Darren and yourself on this, except I prefer the wording that the interviewer in my posted 2004 video (the one with Obama and Allan Keys) couldn't get Obama to commit to at the time, 
which was "human right".
Of course at the time he wouldn't define it as a civil right either.

I know this is lala land thinking, because it would never happen in the immediate or distant future, but defining it as a human right, at least in my mind should remove the goverment out of the marriage business all together.

I just see marriage as a private commitment that should be made between the involved only.
If they want to include their church, family, community or who ever else it should be their choice.

Whatever rights the government "gives us", are the same ones that they can take away.

Having to go before a judge and ASK for divorce is just as bad IMO.



edit; Also, in response to some people assuming (on page 1 and 2) that I was implying his affirmation of gay marriage support was not geniune;
I do beleive it's genuine, but I don't beleive it ever wasn't his personal view. I think he's witheld this support for a very long time in fear of the political ramifications.
I do think the timing of his revealation was politically driven for certain. It's been widely reported now that this was an announcement planned for after the election, 
but some one forgot to close the gate and Joey B. got out again. lol Reports are that Jo has now been recaptured and returned to the White House.


----------



## technomancer

^ the problem is you're overlooking all the financial / legal stuff that goes along with it. You can make a life-long commitment to someone without being "married". But you then pay estate tax if that person leaves you stuff in their will, can't get family / couple rate health insurance, can't access medical records without making previous arrangements, etc etc etc

I'm hetero and married so the effect of this on my daily life is pretty much non-existent, I just think it's a common decency that two peole who love each other and are willing to commit to each other should have all the rights and responsibilities that commitment entails regardless of race, sexual orientation etc etc


----------



## TRENCHLORD

technomancer said:


> ^ the problem is you're overlooking all the financial / legal stuff that goes along with it. You can make a life-long commitment to someone without being "married". But you then pay estate tax if that person leaves you stuff in their will, can't get family / couple rate health insurance, can't access medical records without making previous arrangements, etc etc etc
> 
> I'm hetero and married so the effect of this on my daily life is pretty much non-existent, I just think it's a common decency that two peole who love each other and are willing to commit to each other should have all the rights and responsibilities that commitment entails regardless of race, sexual orientation etc etc


 
Yeah your right, it's so ingrained that it can't just be undone.


----------



## Volteau

SenorDingDong said:


>



Holy crap I laughed so hard at this.

Also, a bit torn on whether or not this is a political move. He seems to be open to so many other things, that approving gay marriage doesn't come as a surprise.


----------



## eaeolian

Adam Of Angels said:


> Flip-flopping? So Obama has previously spoken out against gay marriage, then?
> 
> Also, this guy who hasn't said anything truly hateful in his entire presidency couldn't possibly just not have a problem with homosexuals, right? He obviously hates them and disapproves of gay marriage, and is only supporting it so he can get some votes past Romney, who is otherwise the posterboy of America.



...I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with both the content and tone of one of your posts.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Gosh, I agree with a great deal of your posts - maybe I should speak up more often


----------



## flint757

Based on what I know from the 2 sides of the issue (not here just in general) is one is afraid of marriage being redefined, lowering it's quality/standard (hard to argue that when you have stripper marriages, shotgun weddings, quick divorces etc.) and perceive that marriages would only look worse and the other side want's all the full legal rights and respect about marriage. If people didn't look down on civil unions (second class citizen) and they were given the same rights when they got a civil union I think everybody would be much happier to define them separately. Marriage isn't strictly a christian thing in the first place (although I presume it was created through some religion or another) I agree with trenchlord marriage is a private thing, all marriages/relationships should be considered civil unions with same benefits as marriage in my book on a legal level. (Don't honestly care about the social level as long as everything is fair and equal) Insurance companies are going to fight this hard though because it means more people to pay for and less money coming in.


----------



## TemjinStrife

^ Except, we all know how well having two things that are separate and "supposedly equal" worked.


----------



## flint757

TemjinStrife said:


> ^ Except, we all know how well having two things that are separate and "supposedly equal" worked.



You misunderstood, I said ALL called civil unions and in your home, with your church or wherever else you feel like you can call it marriage gay, straight or whoever. I think the ritual itself has no business in politics. A church lenient towards gays would give them a marriage and then no one can say anything about it because legally they are ALL civil unions. (with everyone receiving all the benefits that come with it)


----------



## Nimgoble

flint757 said:


> You misunderstood, I said ALL called civil unions and in your home, with your church or wherever else you feel like you can call it marriage gay, straight or whoever. I think the ritual itself has no business in politics. A church lenient towards gays would give them a marriage and then no one can say anything about it because legally they are ALL civil unions. (with everyone receiving all the benefits that come with it)



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.


----------



## synrgy

As a side, I do think a pertinent question would be _why_ we grant social/economic benefits to married couples which single people aren't eligible to take advantage of? I can't help but presume that if we were to get to the root of these benefits, we'd find religious lobbies ultimately responsible..


----------



## BrianUV777BK

So. Tired. Of. This. Non. Issue.

Aren't there many more issues more deserving of the time and energy that people are wasting on this non-issuse? Who cares who wants to stick his what where? For the 99.9%of people who are opposed to gay marrige it isn't going to affect them anyway. Why is it such a problem?


----------



## synrgy

BrianUV777BK said:


> Why is it such a problem?



Because God.


----------



## flint757

synrgy said:


> Because God.







synrgy said:


> As a side, I do think a pertinent question would be _why_ we grant social/economic benefits to married couples which single people aren't eligible to take advantage of? I can't help but presume that if we were to get to the root of these benefits, we'd find religious lobbies ultimately responsible..



In a way it makes sense. When you;re married you're sharing burdens so getting tax breaks and what not would be similar to getting a discount for bulk buying in a way. I'm sure religion has something to do with it(promote family life through financial benefits), but that'd be rather pathetic on their end.


----------



## TemjinStrife

When two people marry, they are treated in many ways as one individual by the law. Thus the many benefits associated therewith.


----------



## synrgy

flint757 said:


> In a way it makes sense. When you;re married you're sharing burdens so getting tax breaks and what not would be similar to getting a discount for bulk buying in a way.



I don't disagree, but I do feel like that's kinda backwards, in that if 2 people are already combining incomes, they theoretically have a ginormous advantage over any single earner, before any additional tax breaks come into the equation.


----------



## flint757

synrgy said:


> I don't disagree, but I do feel like that's kinda backwards, in that if 2 people are already combining incomes, they theoretically have a ginormous advantage over any single earner, before any additional tax breaks come into the equation.



Hence the probable religious influence since if they taxed married people more why would anyone get married. 

Some people get married just to get the benefits, they may be together, but wouldn't consider it otherwise and if it cost someone more in the end I think most would say forget it.


----------



## Waelstrum

When people get married, it is assumed they will be raising children, and that is very expensive.



As an aside, letting gay couples adopt will help disadvantaged children who don't have suitable parents/any parents at all grow up in a stable environment.


----------



## Necris

Waelstrum said:


> As an aside, letting gay couples adopt will help disadvantaged children who don't have suitable parents/any parents at all grow up in a stable environment.


 In the eyes of a sane individual what you're saying rings true but a couple of nights ago I saw a Catholic Priest (big surprise there ) go on a rant about how only a heterosexual couple can adequately raise a child and that they should be given special treatment under the law due to that completely unverified "fact".


----------



## flint757

Agreed, i know a bunch of lesbian families who adopted and they are wonderful parents.

The fact that anyone can adopt should mean that the tax break shouldn't be if your married, but if you have kids


----------



## AxeHappy

I'm actually reasonably sure (I can't provide any links though and I'm far to lazy to go hunting) that studies have been done showing that gay parents are actually better parents.

Something about:

No accidental kids
and
Kids only when they're financial stable 

And stuff like that.


----------



## Konfyouzd

TemjinStrife said:


> I don't think it's a sign of desperation.
> 
> I would be thrilled if he did, but I'm not holding my breath.



Desperation is what people call a good idea when they don't like the party/candidate it came from. 

But he hasn't even done it yet so it's just speculation at the moment anyway. I think ppl should really give less of a fuck ab how other ppl live their lives if it's not causing a disturbance--perhaps it's not that he supports it per se but that he doesn't feel it should be explicitly restricted. Perhaps that's the "evolution"--figuring out how the fuck to say THAT... to America.  

Even if he does come out and say something to that effect and it really pisses ppl off it's good to have a president say it. Never know what kind of shift it could cause.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I could probably use google instead, but.. Can a single person adopt a child?


----------



## Konfyouzd

Adam Of Angels said:


> I could probably use google instead, but.. Can a single person adopt a child?



I would hope so. Otherwise it should be illegal for married couples with children to divorce as you'd effectively be left in the same position aside from the fact that it's a kid you always had.


----------



## Necris

Adam Of Angels said:


> I could probably use google instead, but.. Can a single person adopt a child?


Yes, single people can adopt children.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

So what does the church say about that? Is that a problem? And if not, is it only a problem when you throw another male, or another female parent into the mix?


----------



## flint757

Adam Of Angels said:


> So what does the church say about that? Is that a problem? And if not, is it only a problem when you throw another male, or another female parent into the mix?



Honestly I don't know, but I imagine not all branches of faith feel the same way after all I do know some religious gay people. 

My guess is they have a bigger problem with gay's and in particularly the Catholic church does have a problem with single parents since that implies sex before marriage or a divorce both not condoned in the faith.

Here's the part that makes no sense to me Catholic church doesn't condone gays or divorce, but divorce is legal and they don't seem to bothered they just handle that internally among their members. So why do they throw fuel on the fire about gay issues when they can essentially exclude the gay element from their church. 

After all not everything religions are against are illegal.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I know that, they were two separate inquiries


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ

TRENCHLORD said:


> For the record, I oppose the government getting involved with any form of marriage.


Well there's the rub, isn't it? Government is ALREADY involved in marriage, because marriage is both a religious and a legal construct. 


To allow religion to be used to determine who can and cannot enter into a legally binding contract which bestows certain legal benefits, and then enforce that determination by law, (IMHO) violates the 1st Amendment. But we in 'murca don't seem to have too much of a problem with that as long as white christian heterosexual men retain their rights. 

Hell, there are still several states in which BY LAW, I cannot run for office because of my atheism!


I say


----------



## Necris

If the government is going to define marriage and the benefits it bestows on people they cannot also simultaneously restrict those privileges to only certain citizens as that is an outright violation of section 1 of the 14th amendment.



> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*



Due to the first amendment the government has absolutely no authority to establish the Christian form of marriage as the only legally recognized civil union. 



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.





kgad0831 said:


> Hell, there are still several states in which BY LAW, I cannot run for office because of my atheism!



That is a violation of your rights and is actually *exactly* what the first amendment is supposed to protect you from.
The establisment clause (why the amendment was made):


> "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another


----------



## flint757

What is sad is the people who typically feel strongly against atheism or gay marriage are also the ones who are "constitutional purist" so to speak, but they just gloss over these things anyways


----------



## Konfyouzd

Ign'ance


----------



## Necris

I'm wondering why Obama, with his 12 years as lecturer/senior lecturer for the constitutional law course at the University of Chicago, seems to be glazing it over too.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Bc he has to pander to folks who do.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Necris said:


> I'm wondering why Obama, with his 12 years as lecturer/senior lecturer for the constitutional law course at the University of Chicago, seems to be glazing it over too.



Explaining the finer points of Constitutional law to people who don't study it does not make for quick, catchy soundbites.

Also, applying the 14th Amendment is tricky, and not nearly as straightforward as the provision seems on its face, unfortunately. The "equal protection" clause is particularly tough because all laws "discriminate" in some way, benefitting one group over another; and if anyone could sue because one law harmed them and benefitted someone else, well, we wouldn't be able to pass any laws.

The question becomes then, as a result, which groups and which classifications are Constitutionally protected? So far, no one has been willing to consider "sexual orientation" or the group of "homosexual individuals" as a "protected class" under the 14th Amendment (which, in my opinion, should have already happened, but hasn't), and therefore a state can provide a "rational basis" to justify its interests for discriminating against this unprotected group.

This "rational basis" scrutiny used to evaluate state actions that discriminate against unprotected groups or classifications is pretty much just "come up with a conceivable reason and we'll accept it" deference on the Court's part. There's only been a few times things have been struck down under "rational basis" scrutiny, and that was when the sole purpose of the statute was "bare animus" against a group with no conceivable state interest associated therewith. See the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans.

Also, keep in mind that two of the three justices who dissented in Romer v. Evans are still on the Court, and have written virulent dissents in other cases that do things like declare antisodomy laws unconstitutional (see the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas). Plus, the Court's makeup is currently very conservative, and the "swing vote" leans on the conservative end of things quite often, so it might well be quite difficult to get more protection for sexual orientation.

*takes a deep breath*

See, that's why Obama doesn't talk about this stuff. It makes very little sense to non-lawyers, and really doesn't make much sense when you stop to think about it even if you are a lawyer (or, in my case, are training to be one). It's also complex and unintuitive, and makes for bad speech material.

But, sadly, it's the way the system works. There are arguments to be made around it (Carolene Products Footnote 4, Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, etc.) but most of them require a judicial or Congressional declaration that sexual orientation has become a "protected class" and that seems to be rather unlikely right now :-/


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

TemjinStrife said:


> It makes very little sense to non-lawyers, and really doesn't make much sense when you stop to think about it even if you are a lawyer (or, in my case, are training to be one). It's also complex and unintuitive, and makes for bad speech material.



I have enough trouble when someone asks what we discussed in AP American Government and Politics, I can only imagine what trying to explain the nuances and intricacies of the Constitution to lay people must be like. I mean, just in my class we get fairly deep into the Constitution, since it's probably the most important basis of our government, but it just has so much depth and leaves so much open to interpretation I love/hate the document. I mean, it's so fascinating and the prospect of centering a job around the most minute details of it seems cool initially, it just gets way to ridiculous for me. I mean, I respect those who actually take the time to look through it and understand the document, and I find it fascinating listening to constitutional lawyers and scholars but that's because I've actually put in enough time to know enough to get the jist of it when the language gets explicitly legal, especially when it comes to an issue as pervasive as civil rights, someone who knows nothing or thinks they know everything must be hell, even worse if the person's understanding of it is just plain wrong. The only way you can understand it is to stop, take your time, and do research. Anyone who understands it off the bat is more than likely wrong.

Really, though, it's sort of a catch 22. If Obama does just come out and say something about the constitution without going it to the technicalities, the media will burn him for not knowing anything, while if he does he'll be labeled an elitist and "out of touch" with American people. He's a smart guy, though, and, like you said, he knows the best speech here is silence. By letting out small amounts he sates the media and gives them well rehearsed generic soundbites and quotes to work with to fit their political agenda but only just enough that it doesn't end up causing a huge backlash and take up time he can use on other, more pressing matters, anything the media does being something his press secretary can easily handle with more rehearsed generic responses.


----------



## TemjinStrife

The main problem is that the "Constitution" isn't just the actual document itself, but the hundreds and hundreds of decisions interpreting and narrowing and broadening and re-jigging its simple, albeit ambiguous, language, as well as all of the laws, rules, and regulations that interact with it.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

TemjinStrife said:


> The main problem is that the "Constitution" isn't just the actual document itself, but the hundreds and hundreds of decisions interpreting and narrowing and broadening and re-jigging its simple, albeit ambiguous, language, as well as all of the laws, rules, and regulations that interact with it.



And then you think you've figured out what the current status of an issue is until you see that it was overturned by another case because it's from a different court. And since an issue like this brings in religious arguments you have one of the most complex legal histories involving the Surpreme Court ever. 

I'd like to see a constitutional lawyer/scholar as a pundit, to be honest. Some sort of Neil Degrasse Tyson type fellow who could make it easier to understand or at least interesting to try to.


----------



## Waelstrum

If you go back before the constitution to the declaration of independence, a popular phrase on which your entire country was founded on is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The pursuit of happiness is a pretty hard thing to define, but I'd say that if you get a good spouse, that's a pretty clear indicator that you're happy (or at least pursuing happiness).


----------



## flint757

In all situations it seems like if there is no victim there shouldn't be a problem, but I suppose one side or another is always going to claim that they are being affected by X.

And this argument to me works with just about anything.


----------



## TemjinStrife

dragonblade629 said:


> And then you think you've figured out what the current status of an issue is until you see that it was overturned by another case because it's from a different court. And since an issue like this brings in religious arguments you have one of the most complex legal histories involving the Surpreme Court ever.
> 
> I'd like to see a constitutional lawyer/scholar as a pundit, to be honest. Some sort of Neil Degrasse Tyson type fellow who could make it easier to understand or at least interesting to try to.



I'd love to see that too. I'd learn a lot!

The problem with this is that there are no "facts" or "scientific laws" in law, especially Constitutional law, and a lot of how you interpret decisions and the Constitution itself breaks down to your own ideology, making it very hard for someone to keep it fairly neutral.

Someone can certainly sit down and explain how and why the court came to a particular decision, but that reasoning might not apply to a very similar situation with slightly different facts or where different judges are on the court.

This is what makes law so interesting and yet so completely maddening and obtuse. I'd love to see someone try, though; there was an interesting debate between a few Constitutional Law professors on a blog during the Affordable Care Act debate (one of whom was a professor of mine).

http://media.manhattan-institute.org/podcasts/4-3-12_copland_strossen_pol.mp3

Not the most fascinating or dynamic discussion, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## 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


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ




----------



## TankJon666

decypher said:


> 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

C2Aye said:


> 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

Nimgoble said:


> 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

Drew said:


> 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

ddtonfire said:


> 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


----------



## tacotiklah

Waelstrum said:


> 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 fucked. 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.


----------



## tacotiklah

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

flint757 said:


> 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

Necris said:


> 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.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Newsweek Cover: Obama 'First Gay President' - ABC News

Obama named

Newsweek's Next Cover: Obama 'First Gay President' - Yahoo! News

Twitter


----------



## Waelstrum

TRENCHLORD said:


> 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.



Immigration is at net 0% in the US. Is Romney planning on increasing immigration? I ask because the Republican party seems like the sort of party that doesn't like immigration.


----------



## flint757

People who oppose gay marriage probably wouldn't be voting for Obama anyhow so it won't hurt him or help him either.

It is an important issue, but like I had said earlier I honestly thought (whether he said it or not) that he was already pro gay marriage. What is more important is what is he going to do to help. I hate it when anyone uses something (abortion, gay marriage, economy, whatever) to get elected, but does nothing during their term involving said policies, it always makes me wonder what the point of bringing it up in the first place was.

[EDIT]
I always find it funny when someone opposes illegal immigration because I don't see the people complaining mowing lawns and construction would be far more expensive without it. This is only bad because the same party also wants to lower taxes. Increase cost, but lower taxes, how do you do that?


----------



## TemjinStrife

TRENCHLORD said:


> 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.



But then who will raise the children and clean the houses of the Wall Street crowd that loves to vote Republican oh so very much?

Also, if you think things were bad during the Obama term (where we slowly climbing out of a Republican hole), I'd hate to see the effects of President Romney's budget on the young, the sick, the elderly, and the poor.


----------



## flint757

I doubt Romney has the evangelical vote which was a big boost for Bush, after all he isn't a christian he is a Mormon.

I'm thinking all things considered this race isn't even going to be close...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

TemjinStrife said:


> But then who will raise the children and clean the houses of the Wall Street crowd that loves to vote Republican oh so very much?
> 
> Also, if you think things were bad during the Obama term (where we slowly climbing out of a Republican hole), I'd hate to see the effects of President Romney's budget on the young, the sick, the elderly, and the poor.



What I find ironic about people who vote Republican is that they are often the ones screwing themselves over. If I recall correctly, statistically speaking, people who vote democrat are on average wealthier and more educated than those who vote republican.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Waelstrum said:


> Immigration is at net 0% in the US. Is Romney planning on increasing immigration? I ask because the Republican party seems like the sort of party that doesn't like immigration.


 

Most republicans and most logical people love LEGAL immigration.

You can't possibly think that having more undocumented people here is a good thing, can you?

Asking, as a nation, for our best and bravest to risk their lives all over the planet protecting other lands, people, and borders, and then not even securing our own is complete dipshitism.
Some of you lefties are sucking dipshitism through a straw it seems .
And getting quite drunk on it by the way.


----------



## highlordmugfug

TRENCHLORD said:


> Most republicans and most logical people love LEGAL immigration.
> 
> You can't possibly think that having more undocumented people here is a good thing, can you?
> 
> Asking, as a nation, for our best and bravest to risk their lives all over the planet protecting other lands, people, and borders, and then not even securing our own is complete dipshitism.
> Some of you lefties are sucking dipshitism through a straw it seems .
> And getting quite drunk on it by the way.


Pointing out that many many many republicans have staunch anti-immigration views that they express quite vocally =/= saying that undocumented immigrants are awesome. Show me one popular republican who has embraced anything remotely pro-immigration recently(as in, they want policies that will encourage legal immigration, make the process quicker/etc) and I'll show you someone who is unelectable in the current political climate.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

highlordmugfug said:


> Pointing out that many many many republicans have staunch anti-immigration views that they express quite vocally =/= saying that undocumented immigrants are awesome. Show me one popular republican who has embraced anything remotely pro-immigration recently(as in, they want policies that will encourage legal immigration, make the process quicker/etc) and I'll show you someone who is unelectable in the current political climate.


 
Every one of the gop canidates spoke of simplifying the legal immigration procsess at nearly every one of the almost two dozen debates.

It's not up to me to do your research for you. Watch a little TV for a change .


----------



## flint757

Well to a point mug is right all of my local electee's are pushing on the illegal immigration "issue" quite hard.

I do think our system has flaws with legal immigration, I know people who deserve to be here (contributing to society) and are having a hard time so i get why people try and cheat (not a justification)

I do think though that if they are going to attempt to push even harder on the issue though that raising taxes would be in order because Americans don't work cheap, but we like to buy cheap which means subsidies would be in order. It is just a vicious cycle. personally I think trying to keep work in one specific country is asinine.


----------



## Waelstrum

flint757 said:


> I doubt Romney has the evangelical vote which was a big boost for Bush, after all he isn't a christian he is a Mormon.
> 
> I'm thinking all things considered this race isn't even going to be close...



Mormons are Christians. (A lot of Christians don't like that fact, but if you worship Christ, that defines you as Christian.)


----------



## flint757

Waelstrum said:


> Mormons are Christians. (A lot of Christians don't like that fact, but if you worship Christ, that defines you as Christian.)



Well you got my point though Christians who care (many do) won't vote on that ground alone especially in the evangelical crowd unless they unite to take down Obama or something (a reoccurring theme for the republican party it seems).

I'm neither so I have no stake  Mormonism is weirder as a religion to me than other branches of Christianity (what I really meant, I left off the evangelical part), but I have to say the absolute most upstanding Christian's I know are Mormons.

Poor phrasing on my part


----------



## Waelstrum

They said a similar thing about Kennedy and his Catholicism, and when it comes down to it, who will an Evangelist be more likely to vote for: a Democrat who is a friend of the gays, or Republican who isn't?

It might seem like Obama has this one in the bag, but you shouldn't underestimate the Republicans. Remember that guy who said if it came down to a choice between Obama and Romney he'd hold his nose and vote for Romney? I suspect that's how a lot of people feel about the upcoming election. There are some people who will have anyone but Obama.


----------



## ddtonfire

That is a very depressing trend I feel has blighted politics lately - people voting for someone not because they like and agree with him, but because they are voting against the opposition - anybody but the opposition! 

I believe it was present, though not prevalent, in the last presidential election. But then again, I've not been around long enough to know if it's always been this way or not.


----------



## TemjinStrife

TRENCHLORD said:


> Most republicans and most logical people love LEGAL immigration.
> 
> You can't possibly think that having more undocumented people here is a good thing, can you?
> 
> Asking, as a nation, for our best and bravest to risk their lives all over the planet protecting other lands, people, and borders, and then not even securing our own is complete dipshitism.
> Some of you lefties are sucking dipshitism through a straw it seems .
> And getting quite drunk on it by the way.



Have you ever tried to become a US Citizen? 

The system is broken, dude. Legal immigration is a joke. And improving the system is not something that you can just snap your fingers and accomplish in four, or even eight, years. People have been trying to improve the system for decades, but face opposition from mainly conservative groups and politicians.

-A friend of mine is dating a man she met in Vietnam who is currently here on a visa. It would take almost twenty years for him to become a full citizen if she ended up not marrying him. 

-My girlfriend's close friend is illegal, as her parents were illegal and she was brought in as a baby. She has lived in the States for 24 years; gone to school here, college here, and now graduate school here. Yet, still, the best option for gaining citizenship within ten years is is marrying someone who is American to get citizenship.

With that kind of a delay, is it any wonder that people seek to get into this country illegally?

So much for the land of opportunity, the land of "Give me your poor, your tired, your weak."


----------



## flint757

^^^My point exactly, I have a friend who is from Eastern Europe, an olympic world class swimmer, works every day and got a college degree from the states and yet it is the same, the best way for her to stay is to either keep taking classes or get married.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

TemjinStrife said:


> Have you ever tried to become a US Citizen?
> 
> The system is broken, dude. Legal immigration is a joke. And improving the system is not something that you can just snap your fingers and accomplish in four, or even eight, years. People have been trying to improve the system for decades, but face opposition from mainly conservative groups and politicians.
> 
> -A friend of mine is dating a man she met in Vietnam who is currently here on a visa. It would take almost twenty years for him to become a full citizen if she ended up not marrying him.
> 
> -My girlfriend's close friend is illegal, as her parents were illegal and she was brought in as a baby. She has lived in the States for 24 years; gone to school here, college here, and now graduate school here. Yet, still, the best option for gaining citizenship within ten years is is marrying someone who is American to get citizenship.
> 
> With that kind of a delay, is it any wonder that people seek to get into this country illegally?
> 
> So much for the land of opportunity, the land of "Give me your poor, your tired, your weak."


 
I hear ya .
Having illegals coming into the country has certainly been advantagous to so many business owners (business' that are owned by BOTH pubs and dems btw) for years.

Most people (myself included) can certainly understand and sympathize with the motivations for foreigners to get here any way they can.

Never the less, the problem of millions of undocumented residents still must be delt with, and securing our own border is key.

Sure, politics have played a huge roll in the continued side-stepping of the problem. The system is broke to hell.

We need to hold these poloticans accountable (pubs and dems alike) for a change.
Reagon, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, have all side-stepped the issue in an effert to remain cozy with their big doners and supporters.

If Romney is elected, and he doesn't tackle the problem head on, then I'll be the first to say "get him the hell out of the white house".


----------



## flint757

The problem is the public doesn't want to support making it legally easier until it has illegally harder and it isn't something that should be handled in sequence, Either the legal part should be handled first or both simultaneously. Illegal immigration honestly doesn't bug me since I'm short. (more short people )


----------



## Treeunit212

highlordmugfug said:


> He won't get North Carolinas bigoted, shitheaded vote.



Exactly.

I think this is a good move for Obama. It will effectively distract the left from all of the things he's failed to accomplish for them in the face of a divided and highly partisan congress, while those whom frown upon it are likely the same who frown upon everything he does no matter what it is.

It IS risky, though the risk isn't as big as some might think. The main focus of the coming election still remains and always will be the slowly recovering economy.

Bill Clinton taught us that before Bush completely ruined the surplus he inherited from him.


----------



## flint757

I love Bill and think he was a great president (according to my Govt teacher a few years ago he was on track to being an amazing president, but made overly safe choices), but it was for the most part a coincidence. The internet boom played a big part in our huge economy and the budget increased because of that. Now avoiding war for his terms (something presidents should try to do more often) definitely helped keep our budget low since it eats up quite a bit of it.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

I don't have the statistics with me at the moment, but I know there are studies that show that when Republicans are not satisfied with either candidate, they just won't vote, while Democrats are more likely to vote across party lines or just so the other party doesn't get in power.

Basically I'm saying that we probably won't see that many evangelical Christians at the polls come November.


----------



## flint757

Ya know I hear that term evangelical christian in politics all the time and have used it myself, but I have no clue what that entails as a faith. All I know is they are REALLY conservative, but they used to vote Democrats (like Catholics used too) until Bush did something they liked and they all changed bandwagons.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

flint757 said:


> Ya know I hear that term evangelical christian in politics all the time and have used it myself, but I have no clue what that entails as a faith. All I know is they are REALLY conservative, but they used to vote Democrats (like Catholics used too) until Bush did something they liked and they all changed bandwagons.



It wasn't that they voted democrat, it's that they were registered democrats stemming from their parents and so on not switching to Republican during the great changes that happened in the 40s and 60s.


----------



## flint757

See now I'm more confused  that being the case why did Bush have to try so hard to win them over...

So what defines an evangelical christian anyhow. Is there actually an evangelical church like Lutheran or catholic?


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

flint757 said:


> See now I'm more confused  that being the case why did Bush have to try so hard to win them over...
> 
> So what defines an evangelical christian anyhow. Is there actually an evangelical church like Lutheran or catholic?



Yeah, it broke off from Protestantism at around the same time the Methodist church did, I think.


----------



## flint757

^^^Christianity has so many sub groups it's ridiculous


----------



## Jakke

Very related:


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

flint757 said:


> ^^^Christianity has so many sub groups it's ridiculous



Christianity; the "metal" of religion.


----------



## Treeunit212

flint757 said:


> I love Bill and think he was a great president (according to my Govt teacher a few years ago he was on track to being an amazing president, but made overly safe choices), but it was for the most part a coincidence. The internet boom played a big part in our huge economy and the budget increased because of that. Now avoiding war for his terms (something presidents should try to do more often) definitely helped keep our budget low since it eats up quite a bit of it.



You're right. Some presidents just get lucky (both economically and with what happens in the oval office  ).

All *I'm* saying is that Bush still royally fucked that surplus in the face worse than Hoover handled the Depression.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

War spending has been out of control no doubt, but the total cost of the wars since 2001 is a bit over 1 trillion according to these guys
Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM


Now look at the national debt counter
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

With the national debt approaching 16 trillion, 

and the total war cost since 2001 being 1 trillion,

don't you guys think there just might be a little more to the story than the wars?

Both George Bush Jr. and Obama have handed over trillions and trillions of our money to the people that THEY seen fit.

In most of the cases, it was the same people that got the various companys/institutions in financial ruins in the first place.

That's not capitolism, that's cronyism!!!


----------



## tacotiklah

Read on my facebook feed earlier that Obama plans to repeal DOMA upon re-election. So he clearly seems serious, but my mistrust of politicians in general still hasm't fully gone away. Not even for Obama. I'm kinda at the point where my mindset is "It's cool that you have grown enough testicles to talk the talk, but I'll believe it when I see it." Harsh? Probably, but during an election season it's way more difficult to take what any person holding public office says at full face value. 

And we went from gay marriage to immigration?  "Yeah, let's stop those queerosexuals from crossing our border."  





























(relax, Im just f'n with you guys... )


----------



## flint757

Yeah i don't know if they are taking everything into account or not, but there are obviously more expensive things, however, 1 trillion isn't exactly chump change and is roughly 6% of the debt. Social Security I imagine eats up more, but I'm not really in favor of that either.

I will say that in terms of the financial crisis we were in and the bailouts, almost all of the companies have paid the debt off making it kind of a null issue. I didn't really agree with them doing it, but they paid off their debt. (most)

[EDIT]
And ghst honestly Obama is somebody I'd believe considering he campaigned hard on healthcare and did push it through eventually (buy the time congress was through with it it was mangled junk, but ...) so if there was anyone I think would actually do something that he campaigned it would be Obama.


----------



## tacotiklah

I know, but I have been duped before by politicians and I've become leery of people making elaborate claims right before an election. The more I read in the news though, the more I'm coming on board. In an attempt to read between the lines, I see that Obama was probably trying to save this for after the election, and Biden jumped the gun. Hence the white house being short-tempered with Biden, since it will male the presidents claims suspect. I could be woefully wrong on this, but that's what I'm gathering from the numerous stories on it. That, to me, would certainly lend credence to Obama being genuine, and things got rushed by bad timing. As in all things political, a wait and see attitude is best here. So far I like what I see, but you gotta understand that LGBTs are used to lies, false support, and overall disappointment when it comes to politicians that it should be no surprise that at least some of us are at least a little bit leery about big bombshells like this.

You have a fair point though. Obama has done at least most of what he set out to do. My one other hope is that he will place even more time and resources into finding alternate fuels. I think one of the things that could save our economy and even create a boon, is if we really focus on cutting off our dependence on foreign oil. New jobs would open up, gas prices would have to drop dramatically, thus freeing up even more money for spending, and we would also have a monopoly on a cheaper fuel source, making foreign policy so much easier for us, and less funding for terrorism. Obama made this a campaign promise last election and hasn't quite delivered yet. :/


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

You cant blame him if we was being cockblocked all the time.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> Yeah i don't know if they are taking everything into account or not, but there are obviously more expensive things, however, 1 trillion isn't exactly chump change and is roughly 6% of the debt. Social Security I imagine eats up more, but I'm not really in favor of that either.
> I will say that in terms of the financial crisis we were in and the bailouts, almost all of the companies have paid the debt off making it kind of a null issue. I didn't really agree with them doing it, but they paid off their debt. (most)


 
I agree for the most part.

About half has been paid back,
Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

What has stacked up the debt worse than anything though, are those stimulas packages that really sound like a good thing in theory, 
but when you start following the specific money chains from the fed to the states to the projects and, to most importantly, the contracts for all the various companys involved in the projects;
There has been corruption from start to finish, though mostly on the lower levels that no one who isn't involved ever sees.

I'll try to dig up some info later involving the mis-use of much of the stimulas $.

Bush is the one who really got us started on these shoot yourself in the foot to save your other foot stimulas deals that are just so politically based and not based on finacial logic.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Stealthdjentstic said:


> You cant blame him if we was being cockblocked all the time.


 
There's a thin squigly line (almost sperm like ) between compromise and cockblock.

We want the pres (whomever it is at the time) to lead, not dictate policy.


----------



## highlordmugfug

TRENCHLORD said:


> There's a thin squigly line (almost sperm like ) between compromise and cockblock.
> 
> We want the pres (whomever it is at the time) to lead, not dictate policy.


What exactly do you mean by lead, if not take part and make decisions when it comes to policy?
EDIT: Because there were a lot of instances of "goalpost moving" whenever Obama did compromise on things.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Well the pres can lead on issues but then it's unfair to blame him. When X isnt achieved right?


----------



## flint757

Yeah that is what irritated me the most about the healthcare bill. People diss it non-stop, republicans were never for it and now that something called the healthcare bill is out there and not working all that well the people against it are like see I told you so...Here's the problem though, if there is nothing but compromise and editing of an original idea, can the originator take any credit for it's poor delivery. The tea party set out to make everything Obama did not work by never voting in favor of anything the Democrats were for. They pretty much never compromised, but expected everyone else too.


----------



## Drew

TRENCHLORD said:


> Most republicans and most logical people love LEGAL immigration.
> 
> You can't possibly think that having more undocumented people here is a good thing, can you?
> 
> Asking, as a nation, for our best and bravest to risk their lives all over the planet protecting other lands, people, and borders, and then not even securing our own is complete dipshitism.
> Some of you lefties are sucking dipshitism through a straw it seems .
> And getting quite drunk on it by the way.



Oooh, I LOVE a good straw man. You realize net immigration at the Mexican border (because, let's be honest, I don't hear many conservatives talking about our Canadian border) is currently negative and has moved to the point where net illegal immigration over the last decade is currently believed to be zero? There was an interesting piece in last week's, I believe, Economist you may want to have a look at, talking about the GOP's increasingly problematic stance on the subject.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Drew said:


> Oooh, I LOVE a good straw man. You realize net immigration at the Mexican border (because, let's be honest, I don't hear many conservatives talking about our Canadian border) is currently negative and has moved to the point where net illegal immigration over the last decade is currently believed to be zero?


 
Ha, that's like the DEA trying to estimate total drug imports based on how much they FIND coming in.

The border in it's current state allows illegals and their cargo to move back and forth accross the border at will.

Their stuff comes in, our cash goes out.

And you can rest assured, they are not punching a card or registering these movements so that you can gather and analyze the stats.


----------



## highlordmugfug

TRENCHLORD said:


> Ha, that's like the DEA trying to estimate total drug imports based on how much they FIND coming in.
> 
> The border in it's current state allows illegals and their cargo to move back and forth accross the border at will.
> 
> Their stuff comes in, our cash goes out.
> 
> And you can rest assured, they are not punching a card or registering these movements so that you can gather and analyze the stats.


... Okay...

Then what proof do you have of that? Or is it all just speculation?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

highlordmugfug said:


> ... Okay...
> 
> Then what proof do you have of that? Or is it all just speculation?


 
And do you live under a rock or just grew up sheltered?

The drugs man, the drugs .

No seriously though for one moment.
You really believe that the border areas are not a nasty scene?
Wasn't Pheonix having a bad problem with murders and kidnappings?
El Paso area? 
Oh, they're just making it up?

Anyways, I bet a big chunk of you guys know of people getting mexican brick bud marijuana.
And where do you think their money ends up?
Mexico.

And when they spend that money down south, are they buying american made products?

Hell no.
They're buying the same asian made goods we are.

Bottom line is;
We lose billions over that border. Anyone with any common sense knows that.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

I thought Canada was one of the biggest exporters of marijuanna to US


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I thought Canada was one of the biggest exporters of marijuanna to US


 
But that stuff isn't a waste of money .


edit; and I do think we should be securing that border as well.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

OMG


----------



## TemjinStrife

Dude, have you ever tried to cross back in to the US from Canada? Most of the time, it's not a huge hassle getting into Canada itself, but getting back can be a real pain in the ass.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

I've never had problems going into the states and neither has my Dad, I go relatively often and he's down there like 2-3 times a month  

It does take a lot longer than it used to though.


----------



## tacotiklah

Good point on Obama getting cockblocked, Mehtab. I didn't take that into account. Well the only way to be sure is to give him a dem controlled congress, and see what use he makes of it. Hopefully he saw the goalpost moving for what it is, and will stop being the right's bitch. (so far he has, so kudos) We need the man to tell the right where to stick it and do what he originally set out to do. The tea party is all but wiped out, and even conservatives are scared of them now. The discomfort they show reminds me of the discomfort a teenager would show if their drunken came out and started flashing their friends.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

ghstofperdition said:


> Good point on Obama getting cockblocked, Mehtab. I didn't take that into account. Well the only way to be sure is to give him a dem controlled congress, and see what use he makes of it.


 

You are just a couple years late on this grand thought.

He had a demoncrat (see what I did there lol) controlled congress for his first 2yrs in office.

How was he being "cockblocked" when he had both the house and the senate?

I guess 2yrs really do fly by fast when you're playing golf that often.


----------



## tacotiklah

No, those two years were spent pandering to the repukes because he wanted to fulfill his campaign promise of bipartisanship. Hard to compromise when only one side is doing any compromising. Funny how you make it seem like Obama was a lazy ass, since bush spent FAR more time on vacation and as you say, playing golf. Obama? He was kicking ass right out of the gate trying to fix Bush's fuckups. The thing about our system is that it is setup to stall and stalemate into doing nothing. Teabaggers have even openly admitted that they purposely blocked helpful legislation JUST BECAUSE they wanted to stick it to Obama. Nevermind the fact that it could have created more jobs and improved things sooner, it was far more important to troll the fuck out of the president. 

Sorry dude, but again your arguments reek of misinformation. 

Edit: My reference to having a dem controlled congress is in regards to him getting it for a second time, since Im more and more convinced he has learned that the modern American right is beyond hope when it comes to compromise, and instead uses his resources better to help push through legislation that will actually help people.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

ghstofperdition said:


> No, those two years were spent pandering


 
See, I didn't even have to say it for you .

He's an appeaser, not a leader. oBama that is.


----------



## Waelstrum

I wish he didn't bother with trying to be bi-partisan, they're never going to work with him. He needed to kick their arses, not try to make friends.


----------



## Drew

TRENCHLORD said:


> Ha, that's like the DEA trying to estimate total drug imports based on how much they FIND coming in.
> 
> The border in it's current state allows illegals and their cargo to move back and forth accross the border at will.
> 
> Their stuff comes in, our cash goes out.
> 
> And you can rest assured, they are not punching a card or registering these movements so that you can gather and analyze the stats.



I'm away from home and on my iPhone - later this week i'll post the Economist article I referred to. Keep in mind that this is a _conservative_ British publication, not some hippy-dippy liberal lovefest journal. 

Now, of course, the war on drugs and the immigration question are two separate issues, both related to border security but also driven by other issues. They make convenient substitutes - say, when you're criticizing a president on the 'net on immigration and the facts start to turn against you - but they're completely different causes. 

Ironically though, immigration does teach us lessons on drug policy since they are both driven by supply and demand. Immigration has turned because both supply and demand have dried up - far fewer jobs are available to unskilled labor than they were a decade ago, and very few Mexicans have any desire to cross north for work. In fact, most seem to be crossing south. On the drug front, there is demand for illegal drugs in America and due to that a robust Mexican economy producing a supply. With this in mind, there's a growing international push
For legalization, to cut the economic underpinnings out from the Mexican cartels in the belief that the violence that the drug trade brings is far worse than the actual drug use. It's an interesting idea.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> See, I didn't even have to say it for you .
> 
> He's an appeaser, not a leader. oBama that is.



To be fair ALL politicians pander. Romney does and WILL without a second thought, Bush definitely did (both), Clinton pandered as well.


----------



## synrgy

Honestly, show me _any_ politician who doesn't pander?

Don't bother with posting a picture of Ron Paul, either. He's as bad (if not worse) than the rest.


----------



## TemjinStrife

TRENCHLORD said:


> You are just a couple years late on this grand thought.
> 
> He had a demoncrat (see what I did there lol) controlled congress for his first 2yrs in office.
> 
> How was he being "cockblocked" when he had both the house and the senate?
> 
> I guess 2yrs really do fly by fast when you're playing golf that often.



Aww, look who's resorted to name calling. How cute.


----------



## highlordmugfug

TemjinStrife said:


> Aww, look who's resorted to name calling. How cute.


He's been namecalling almost this entire time, where have you been?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

TemjinStrife said:


> Aww, look who's resorted to name calling. How cute.


 
Yes, demoncrat was a clever little name call .

I love how you guys get so sensative when the name calling isn't directed at guys like Bush, Santorum, Limbaugh, and Gingrich.


edit; "mommy mommy, he called the democrats the demoncrats, mommy mommy !!!" lol


----------



## Adam Of Angels

You don't see the ridiculousness in mentioning a shock-value-extremist radio personality along side politicians?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Adam Of Angels said:


> You don't see the ridiculousness in mentioning a shock-value-extremist radio personality along side politicians?


 
Rush Limbaugh= great american, traditionalist, conservative 

and just so conservatives don't feel left out, I'll call him fat lol


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

I hope you're trollin'


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> Rush Limbaugh= great american, traditionalist, conservative
> 
> and just so conservatives don't feel left out, I'll call him fat lol



I'm not sure it's worth arguing with that sort of logic.


----------



## Lagtastic

Many people are missing the key issue here:

*MONEY




*Let's talk taxes. The American government gives massive tax advantages to people that are married. To name a few:

1- Some situations allow for a deduction for simply being married.
2- Gifts to your spouse. Each year, you can give your spouse a percentage of your yearly income pre-tax as a gift if you share a household and they make less than a certain amount.
3- Some higher education costs accrued by your spouse can be paid with pre-tax dollars if your spouse is unemployed.
4- In some cases, pre-tax dollars can be used to pay a spouses medical costs.


When it comes down to it, if the American government allows same sex marriage, they are basically signing off on giving up millions in tax revenue each year. This is the reason the American Government is having such a difficult time passing this. It would be pretty stupid of them to give up that much tax revenue with no financial return, wouldn't it?


Another reason which could be even larger - the private health care system we have, and it's lobbyists. If you receive insurance through your job, almost all policies allow you to cover your spouse and/or children at a fraction of the cost of what you are paying. Same sex marriage being passed could cause millions of previously uninsured Americans to have the right to super cheap insurance through their spouses. Or, these people who are paying high amounts for insurance can now get married and get it for much cheaper. The insurance companies are having no part of this, and have lobbyists in place to block the bill. 


In my opinion, this should have been done during the big civil rights movement we had in this country several decades back. Unfortunately, I doubt many of us will see it in our lifetimes for one simple reason, money.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm not sure it's worth arguing with that sort of logic.


 

Well what about this logic;
"anyone who isn't a liberal by age of 20 has no heart, and anyone who isn't a conservative by age of 40 has no brain" Winston Churchill

Anyone who isnt a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isnt a conservative by age ..... - Winston Churchill


----------



## Necris

I could pick a name out of a phonebook at random and there would be a 99.9% chance that the person chosen was closer to being a "great American" than Rush Limbaugh could ever hope to be.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well what about this logic;
> "anyone who isn't a liberal by age of 20 has no heart, and anyone who isn't a conservative by age of 40 has no brain" Winston Churchill
> 
> Anyone who isnt a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isnt a conservative by age ..... - Winston Churchill




Old school british conservatism is very different then modern american conservatism though.


----------



## Mordacain

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well what about this logic;
> "anyone who isn't a liberal by age of 20 has no heart, and anyone who isn't a conservative by age of 40 has no brain" Winston Churchill
> 
> Anyone who isnt a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isnt a conservative by age ..... - Winston Churchill



Its not logic, its one man's observation. Logic is a system of reasoning that has defined structure.

That aside, Liberal and Conservative have different interpretations in the UK; they don't line up with modern American interpretations.

Also, the context is lost when that quote is cited (far too frequently by modern US conservatists IMO) without understanding the full historical context of the time & circumstances Churchill said it in.


----------



## Necris

But taking all of that into account would make the quote seem like less of a slam-dunk to him and every other American conservative who repeats it.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

I'll ignore the personal attacks for a bit and expouse some more real truth.

It wasn't Bush's policys that brought the economy down.
It wasn't Clinton's policys that set the stage.

It was this;

In the 90s far too many people began living well outside their means and the banks promoted this by entering into a huge loan grab competition.

They were loaning at super-low and sometimes 0% interest to people who couldn't even come close to earning the income it takes to live in $100,000+ houses and drive $35,000 SUVs.

It didn't take an economist or financial expert to know that Danny Dirt down the street coudn't afford that brand new Z71 package Chevy 4x4 while working at Chucky Cheese.

Did Clinton want to be the one to blow down the poorly stacked house of cards?
Of course not, can't blame him, as it would have greatly tainted his presidency.

Did Bushy want to be the one to topple the crippled giant?
Of course not, it would have been a double whammy for him with the war looming.

If the leaking banking intertube would have stayed afloat just a hair longer, it would have collapsed on Obama (although he'd likely not even been elected had it not imploaded on Bush).

If Obama would have been able to stall the problem off for another 4yrs you can guarentee he'd have turned a blind eye as well.

If any of these guys were true leaders, they would have sacrificed their own presidencys for the long-term good of the country.

But, they've ALL chose not to.


----------



## synrgy

Mordacain said:


> Also, the context is lost when that quote is cited (far too frequently by modern US conservatists IMO) without understanding the full historical context of the time & circumstances Churchill said it in.



Bingo. Many modern conservatives (here in the States) seem to miss that a Republican in the late 1800's/early 1900's would be a Democrat today, if measured by the same standards.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

synrgy said:


> Bingo. Many modern conservatives (here in the States) seem to miss that a Republican in the late 1800's/early 1900's would be a Democrat today, if measured by the same standards.


 
It's called evolution and improvement .


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Sorry trench, but alan greenspans lax regulation during the
Bush era is what led to crisis. I like you man, but you have to stop making claims like that


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> Did Bushy want to be the one to topple the crippled giant?
> Of course not, it would have been a double whammy for him with the war looming.


 Wouldn't want an economic collapse getting in the way of our ability to wage pointless wars.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Necris said:


> Wouldn't want an economic collapse getting in the way of our ability to wage pointless wars.


 
Exactly , now we're getting some where.
Have you had time to form an excuse for Clinton's dis-regaurd for the issue of the banks loaning to anyone who could sign their own name?


----------



## Necris

I'm not going to make an excuse for it since A. I don't support it and B. there isn't one. I'm not going to defend a democratic president for doing a shitty job any more than I would a republican president.


----------



## Mordacain

TRENCHLORD said:


> Exactly , now we're getting some where.
> Have you had time to form an excuse for Clinton's dis-regaurd for the issue of the banks loaning to anyone who could sign their own name?



Well, Clinton actually didn't have much to do with bank deregulation personally. The Democrats lost the Congress majority and Clinton, for 6 of his 8 years in office had a Republican majority in Congress; the same majority that Bush inherited when he took office at the end of the Bubble Economy. That Congress is what pushed the deregulation - see the financial markets strategy for more information.

That being said, Clinton didn't directly have much to do with establishing the bubble economy either; much as Democrats like to claim otherwise. What Clinton did do that was helpful, was raise taxes (which is probably what he got the most flak for in his first term).


----------



## flint757

The only power a president has is to set the agenda, veto and war power ( not on paper, but in practice). Everything unrelated to these things that go wrong is either ebb and flow of people/money or congresses fault.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Well if they pull a bush and appoint someone like Greenspan then it makes it pretty easy to screw over the economy. A recession may have been coming but being stripped of protections is what really fucked the US over and made things much more severe than they would have otherwise been.


----------



## flint757

It happened the last time before that too. Deregulation is in practice a bad idea.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Exactly, unless you're as naive as RP.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'll ignore the personal attacks for a bit and expouse some more real truth.
> 
> It wasn't Bush's policys that brought the economy down.
> It wasn't Clinton's policys that set the stage.
> 
> It was this;
> 
> In the 90s far too many people began living well outside their means and the banks promoted this by entering into a huge loan grab competition.
> 
> They were loaning at super-low and sometimes 0% interest to people who couldn't even come close to earning the income it takes to live in $100,000+ houses and drive $35,000 SUVs.
> 
> It didn't take an economist or financial expert to know that Danny Dirt down the street coudn't afford that brand new Z71 package Chevy 4x4 while working at Chucky Cheese.
> 
> Did Clinton want to be the one to blow down the poorly stacked house of cards?
> Of course not, can't blame him, as it would have greatly tainted his presidency.
> 
> Did Bushy want to be the one to topple the crippled giant?
> Of course not, it would have been a double whammy for him with the war looming.
> 
> If the leaking banking intertube would have stayed afloat just a hair longer, it would have collapsed on Obama (although he'd likely not even been elected had it not imploaded on Bush).
> 
> If Obama would have been able to stall the problem off for another 4yrs you can guarentee he'd have turned a blind eye as well.
> 
> If any of these guys were true leaders, they would have sacrificed their own presidencys for the long-term good of the country.
> 
> But, they've ALL chose not to.



Do you know what the recurring theme with what you're talking about is? 

First off, recessions and economic downturns tend to happen about ever 20 years, as one of my college professors pointed out. I'd like to take it a step further.

The key to these banks being able to loan money they know can't possibly be paid back is a lack of regulation. The Great Depression, the crash of 1987, the 2008 recession, all the result of economic bubbles blown up by credit on the backs of banks. It ALWAYS goes back to banks.

So, if banks aren't regulated to care about the loans they give out, they will do what makes them the most money. That's just capitalism.

You can argue personal responsibility all you want, but we still live in a country that encourages living beyond your means in almost every way. And this is why it deeply troubles me that the response to an economic recession caused by under-regulated banks is a call for smaller government. 

Most people don't act responsibly. Corporations are people. So where's the regulation there?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


> Do you know what the recurring theme with what you're talking about is?
> 
> First off, recessions and economic downturns tend to happen about ever 20 years, as one of my college professors pointed out. I'd like to take it a step further.
> 
> The key to these banks being able to loan money they know can't possibly be paid back is a lack of regulation. The Great Depression, the crash of 1987, the 2008 recession, all the result of economic bubbles blown up by credit on the backs of banks. It ALWAYS goes back to banks.
> 
> So, if banks aren't regulated to care about the loans they give out, they will do what makes them the most money. That's just capitalism.
> 
> You can argue personal responsibility all you want, but we still live in a country that encourages living beyond your means in almost every way. And this is why it deeply troubles me that the response to an economic recession caused by under-regulated banks is a call for smaller government.
> 
> Most people don't act responsibly. Corporations are people. So where's the regulation there?


 
Wrong again.
Making sure that the banks are loaning money to people and corporations that are very likely to pay it back DOES NOT require a huge bloating government, just a little common sense.

What's you excuse for so many other government agencies other than bank regulators running amuck?

Or are you just going to dig up some more liberal talking points to cushion the blame on your party and president?


----------



## synrgy

Can we just rename this thread to "Trench perpetually moves the goal posts"?


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> Wrong again.
> Making sure that the banks are loaning money to people and corporations that are very likely to pay it back DOES NOT require a huge bloating government, just a little common sense.


You say that, but history has shown time and time again that banks rarely exercise that common sense. 
So if the banks themselves won't exercise common sense when evaluating people for loans then maybe it's time to take a new approach or we could just assume that "things will be better this time around".


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> Or are you just going to dig up some more liberal talking points to cushion the blame on your party and president?



Am I wrong, or does debate/argumentation consist of presenting one point against another?


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Wrong again.
> Making sure that the banks are loaning money to people and corporations that are very likely to pay it back DOES NOT require a huge bloating government, just a little common sense.
> 
> What's you excuse for so many other government agencies other than bank regulators running amuck?
> 
> Or are you just going to dig up some more liberal talking points to cushion the blame on your party and president?



Government agencies don't worry me. Oil companies still getting hundreds of millions in subsidies because of a RAMCO loophole deal President Truman made to combat Soviet interest during the Cold War. That worries me. Farmers making 18k a year while the grocery corporations they supply keep them in line by drowning them in mortgage debt. That worries me. Corporations have no morals. They have no long term goals for the future of the country. 

What REALLY worries me is what Neil Degrasse Tyson spends so much time hammering into people's heads; the fact that the smartest 25% of China's population exceeds the entire population of the United States. China graduates half a million scientists and engineers a year, while America graduates only 70,000. Wanna know what America graduates half a million of? Lawyers. "That's a good thing, since we'll be quite prepared to litigate over the crumbling of our infrastructure."

Corporations don't invest in infrastructure.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Necris said:


> You say that, but history has shown time and time again that banks rarely exercise that common sense.
> So if the banks themselves won't exercise common sense when evaluating people for loans then maybe it's time to take a new approach or we could just assume that "things will be better this time around".


 
And why do you suppose that is?

Maybe it's because they get bailed out when they screw up.
Same with the folks, when they screw up it's bankruptsy, then 7yrs later their making the same mistakes again.

This nation, especially the liberals need to quit being so feminine and start manning up on things.

Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
Not me.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
> Not me.



By Obama like figure, you mean a well spoken, educated, positively oriented guy who scarcely has anything bad to say about even his direct opposition, and who tries to find the middle ground between he and said opposition? I don't need a guy like this to be my "master", but if I were to have somebody representing me in a leadership role, it would best be somebody at least vaguely similar.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> And why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Maybe it's because they get bailed out when they screw up.
> Same with the folks, when they screw up it's bankruptsy, then 7yrs later their making the same mistakes again.
> 
> This nation, especially the liberals need to quit being so feminine and start manning up on things.
> 
> Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
> Not me.



Don't generalize on party lines. It leads to gross oversimplification and bias based in misinformation.

Did you know that Richard Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency? Or how about realizing that our most glorified and successful war was presided over by arguably the most liberal democrat to ever hold office: Franklin Roosevelt. That hardly seems feminine. Unless you count the thousands of women who were finally allowed to have factory jobs because of the war effort. 

There's another thing that's missing today; a collective national effort during war time. There is no draft, and only 1% of the population is directly involved in the Military. That's a large reason people don't pay attention anymore.

But I guess talking about the femininity of liberals is a step back to the topic of the thread, since up until President Obama's term gay's couldn't "man up" and serve in the Military.

I can't see why this random jumping off topic for generalized personal attacks in an otherwise civil discussion is so appealing to you, but I can see how it could happen when you really don't have much of a response to real facts.


----------



## flint757

Trenchlord I'm slowly but surely losing every ounce of respect I have for you. Stop diverting and making personal attack. This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative



> Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
> Not me.



You may want and need banks and corporations as your master.
Not me.

Dude this is a discussion stop saying things like liberal talking points and whatever other garbage to make the things others say almost seem to insignificant to respond too or even walk over. Real rebuttals please.


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> And why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Maybe it's because they get bailed out when they screw up.
> Same with the folks, when they screw up it's bankruptsy, then 7yrs later their making the same mistakes again.


Great let them fail, and then what? Do we just assume the next bank or corporation to start up and eventually take their place won't do the exact same thing? Again we've fallen back on the idea that "it will be better this time around".
The last time I checked the list of corporations and banks that were bailed out was extensive far beyond the point that would make taking that point of view should seem reckless at best.


----------



## Electric Wizard

TRENCHLORD said:


> This nation, especially the liberals need to quit being so feminine and start manning up on things.
> 
> Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
> Not me.



Jesus, if you opened a Philosophy 101 textbook, you could probably find this as an example in the chapter that explains ad hominems.

This thread has devolved into political poo-flinging that is only tangentially related to the original topic at best. I've honestly seen more coherent political discussions on 4chan.


As for the actual topic, I'm unimpressed by Obama's announcement. It's nice that we share personal opinions, but the fact that he wants to leave the decision with the states is a let down. The fact that his announcement alone with no indication of changing the situation is seen as a bold political move is, in my eyes, a stark reminder of how prejudiced many Americans still are.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

TRENCHLORD said:


> And why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Maybe it's because they get bailed out when they screw up.
> Same with the folks, when they screw up it's bankruptsy, then 7yrs later their making the same mistakes again.
> 
> This nation, especially the liberals need to quit being so feminine and start manning up on things.
> 
> Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
> Not me.



Without the bail out you the recession would be a lot worse.


----------



## flint757

I agree, but who knows how the trail will end at this point. It definitely isn't bold, or surprising IMO, but this has brought it on to the table for discussion among citizens. You have celebrities (who have a lot of weight on others opinions sadly) speaking up, politicians picking sides to clearly define that if you want gay marriage to happen Romney isn't the guy (not like we didn't already know though ), in a way this forces Republicans to look like the bad guys in a lot of Americans eyes since they stand firmly on the other side. His word does have weight to it, but indeed he must do more than speak for me to give a shit about his opinion.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Plenty of baseless ad hominem and strawman arguments here. Sounds like someone is just out of real arguments, so we're just jumping around to absurd talking points faster than we can show that they're ridiculous and unfounded.

This thread's run its course, starting with its relatively insulting title, and now our OP is living up to his name by showing he's not just off the deep end, he's in the fucking Marianas Trench


----------



## tacotiklah

Electric Wizard said:


> Jesus, if you opened a Philosophy 101 textbook, you could probably find this as an example in the chapter that explains ad hominems.
> 
> This thread has devolved into political poo-flinging that is only tangentially related to the original topic at best. I've honestly seen more coherent political discussions on 4chan.
> 
> 
> As for the actual topic, I'm unimpressed by Obama's announcement. It's nice that we share personal opinions, but the fact that he wants to leave the decision with the states is a let down. The fact that his announcement alone with no indication of changing the situation is seen as a bold political move is, in my eyes, a stark reminder of how prejudiced many Americans still are.



Amazing post is amazing!
Sadly, anytime Obama is mentioned, we will see more of this shit-slinging. Of course I lost interest after I read "Rush Limbaugh is an upstanding American citizen."

my feeling on that is along the lines of ohgodwhy.jpg


----------



## groph

Pav said:


> When you put it that way, I picture your candidates settling things by way of pond hockey, which I would be 110% in favor of.



That'd be a total disaster dude. There were riots in Vancouver after one of our ice golf teams lost the big Daytona 500 game. Separation of Stadium and State are one of Canada's pillars.



BrianUV777BK said:


> So. Tired. Of. This. Non. Issue.
> 
> Aren't there many more issues more deserving of the time and energy that people are wasting on this non-issuse? Who cares who wants to stick his what where? For the 99.9%of people who are opposed to gay marrige it isn't going to affect them anyway. Why is it such a problem?



Ideally yes, but it's not a non issue if a fair proportion of a nation's population are restricted from doing certain things like marrying. Ideally it would be a non issue but it's not, especially as of late with all these horrifying Christian Right groups gaining bigger and bigger voices. And the West is so terrified of the same thing happening in the Middle East. Interesting standard there. I wouldn't want to equate Western societies with Middle Eastern societies though, maybe there are some unique conditions that make religious fundamentalist governments better or worse depending on where you are.



Necris said:


> In the eyes of a sane individual what you're saying rings true but a couple of nights ago I saw a Catholic Priest (big surprise there ) go on a rant about how only a heterosexual couple can adequately raise a child and that they should be given special treatment under the law due to that completely unverified "fact".



It's funny the other assumption he makes too. Heterosexual is the first one, "couple" is the other. As in, it takes TWO people to raise a child. Two, specifically.



flint757 said:


> What is sad is the people who typically feel strongly against atheism or gay marriage are also the ones who are "constitutional purist" so to speak, but they just gloss over these things anyways



These are the people who have a one-track mind and a preconceived narrative of what America is, has been, and will be. Everything Obama does will be interpreted as "socialist" even though these sorts probably have no shitting clue what socialism is (you can be a libertarian socialist), "liberals" are all conspiring in the institutions like universities to brainwash the college kids into voting Democrat (Communist) It's fucking enraging. These hard line "conservatives" (in quotations to emphasize the relative nature of what a conservative is or is not, not invoking the no true Scotsman fallacy) just seem to be scared of everything. I don't know what it is. 



C2Aye said:


> 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



Sorry dude, but this has always struck me as the weirdest notion ever. Why do so many people seem to have this fantasy that eventually human societies will all unite under a common banner and become spacefaring collectivists with a league of extraterrestrial nations? Science fiction I guess. I've as of late likened the science fiction fantasy of colonizing other worlds to be an extension of colonialist tendencies but that's another kettle of fish.

It's just a weird, oddly specific course of human progress to have. We're probably never going to make contact with what we recognize as intelligent life, let alone be able to meaningfully communicate with it. We have differences, and we have to fight to keep our heads above the water. Some of us have to fight a hell of a lot harder than others, and some of us are fighting against enemies that aren't even there.

Anyway.

Is this a political move on Obama's part? Well, he is a politician. He's also a person with political beliefs like any of us, and when asked about a position, he'll give an answer now I guess determining whether or not he's speaking genuinely or not is tough to determine. But I imagine if he expressed any opinion on gay marriage at any point during his term he'd be called out by some conservative group as trying to pander to the liberal hippie communist fag loving anti marriage Jesus haters anyway. 

I know that this thread wasn't supposed to be about "are you for gay marriage or not" but I don't want to talk about whether or not what a politician said was a political move or a genuine statement. How the hell do you prove that either way?

I would like two things.

1. Proof that America was supposed to be run on a fundamentalist Christian ideology. Not saying a formalized state religion necessarily, a de facto state religion would do just fine. I guess I can see how Christianity has become a de facto state religion given that most Americans are Christian and come from Christian European backgrounds if I understand correctly. But where's the proof that says all American citizens must be subjected to Christian rule?

2. Give me a good argument why gays shouldn't marry. Pro-gay marriage people have given PLENTY why they should, and so far from the anti-gay marriage crowd I've only heard "because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Gay people are free to get married to somebody of the opposite sex. Or gay people can't get married, but they can have civil unions that give them all the rights of married people. But they can't get _married_ like straight people can."

Even if that last point was 100% true, it's still an unequal situation because marriage has had a privileged status that gay people aren't entitled to. Even if the legal implications are exactly the same (they apparently aren't) until gay people are entitled to walk, talk, shit and breathe like everybody else, in *some way* they aren't like everybody else, IE this whole "second class citizen" thing.


----------



## flint757

You always sum things up so nicely groph. I agree with pretty much everything you said...


----------



## Treeunit212

IN CONCLUSION, Obama is being a politician and he won the gay vote while losing the votes he already lost from day one for being black.

Can this be over now?

EDIT: Just saw this supposed Fox News poll on Tumblr. Pretty much sums it up.

"4.(IF ROMNEY) What would you say is the main reason you are supporting Mitt Romney?(OPEN-ENDED &#8211; DO NOT READ)

(Not Obama) 43%
(He&#8217;s a Republican/conservative) 14%
(Positions on the issues) 10%
(Jobs/economy) 8%
(Business background) 5%
(Same-sex marriage) 5%
(Honesty/Character/Values) 4%
(Want smaller government/reduce debt) 4%
(Other &#8211; record verbatim) 5%
(Don&#8217;t know/Refused) 2%

*Romney 2012: NOT OBAMA*"


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> Trenchlord I'm slowly but surely losing every ounce of respect I have for you. Dude this is a discussion stop saying things like liberal talking points and whatever other garbage to make the things others say almost seem to insignificant to respond too or even walk over. Real rebuttals please.


 

Your obviously biassed respect isn't important to me.

And your point is a complete joke considering that everytime I site Fox News on anything most of you start yelling "right-wing talking points right-wing talking points".

This is not unexpected since you are obviously looking to remain in the center of the bandwagon.

If I only had more time, inclination, and quite frankly any hope at all for the exhibit of common logic by this clearly young and brainwashed demographic, 
it would be soooo easy to blast holes in all of you all's tainted recitals of quacky and desperately reaching extreme-left illogic.

Fortunately for this nation we still have enough people of basic good sense to thwart this failed administration's gross misconducts (mainly the ones concerning other people's money).


@ whomever accused me of "moving the goalpost" and not staying on point;

This must be a joke as well considering I started this thread and specifically asked for opinions concerning the state by state political ramifications of Obama's decision to announce his support for gay marriage and his other decision to support each state's right to legislate their own stance.

I proclaim that it is indeed many of you in this thread that can't stay on point and have an intelligent debate.

Because of the non-willingness to address the OP's focus, there is no farther point in continuing this thread.

But hey, if everyone just wants to keep petting each other and drooling over the extreme big government power play, have at it.

There is much more important work to do for so many of my fellow concerned americans, and with so many people finally waking up,
these forum-friendly degressive views will soon be fading into the extreme minority. 
Enjoy the last months of this most disturbing blame everyone but ourselves and look to anyone but ourselves platform. 

edit; like others have said, this thread has ran it's course, so it's obviously up to the mods if they want to close it. 
makes no real difference to me.


----------



## highlordmugfug

^ 
You're cute when you're wrong.

EDIT: TO clarify, there's no point in trying to actually talk to you when all you're going to do is shout "LIBRULS", say everything is "LEFT WING, LEFT WING" with no support other than you saying it, ignoring what people are actually saying and instead just brushing it off as "dumb yung LIBRULS", and insult everyone when they try to talk to you.




EDIT AGAIN: I also love that anyone with an once of sense is going to see that instead of actually rebutting, you just did exactly what Flint said you were doing and dismissed it while throwing out scary buzzwords like liberal and left wing without supporting it at all.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

highlordmugfug said:


> ^
> You're cute when you're wrong.
> 
> EDIT: TO clarify, there's no point in trying to actually talk to you when all you're going to do is shout "LIBRULS", say everything is "LEFT WING, LEFT WING" with no support other than you saying it, ignoring what people are actually saying and instead just brushing it off as "dumb yung LIBRULS", and insult everyone when they try to talk to you.


 
Aren't you the one who is always accusing people of name calling?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

highlordmugfug said:


> He's been namecalling almost this entire time, where have you been?


 
^ yelp


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> Aren't you the one who is always accusing people of name calling?



Did he call you a name in the quoted post? I think that you proved his point with your response, either way.

If we're to have an adult discussion, then actual debate should take place. But openly disagreeing without explaining why (and I mean explaining using substance rather than name calling) is not debate.


----------



## highlordmugfug

I accused you of name-calling because you've been doing it, without being provoked, for the last 5 or 6 pages. Me finally calling you out on it (since it is dickish behavior) doesn't make it any less true, nor does it make me wrong in doing so.

Nice try though. 

You see that up there, that's called formulating an argument, and supporting it. If I just said you were being a  and left it at that, or said it was because you were a conservative, then I'd be doing what you've been doing, and then I'd be in the wrong, and I'd be a  too.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Edit: :lock:


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I agree with what stealth is saying. I haven't a reason to start a mess with anybody here, and wouldn't want to. I agree with Trench on some of the actual points he's made - I agree that government should be limited in scope, but that market intervention is indeed a necessary evil... The problem is, it's like a gateway drug.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> Your obviously biassed respect isn't important to me.



I suppose I can say the same so fair. 



> And your point is a complete joke considering that everytime I site Fox News on anything most of you start yelling "right-wing talking points right-wing talking points".



Fox new is a joke, but that is neither here nor there (not so neutral by saying so don't you think ) Me personally I haven't called you names. Your perspective is quite immature considering your perspective. See if you felt that is is silly and immature to be that way then why act that way? All you are doing is stooping and then when you say everyone is doing X you actually have the high ground if you didn't stoop down to such levels.



> This is not unexpected since you are obviously looking to remain in the center of the bandwagon.



How does someone remain in the center of a bandwagon. I do pride myself on being polite and clear when I can. If someone logically calls me out on something I am the first to admit it and will even sway my position when new information is given that is strong enough to do so. Actually not sure what that has to do with a bandwagon because my perspective and opinion is based on what I know and how I was raised/personality so no bandwagoning at all here. Just because we don't share similar view points does not mean I'm bandwagoning it means we disagree. All I'm asking of you is to not resort to name calling and diminishing others view point via buzz words and actually give fact and information to support your view points nothing more nothing less. 



> If I only had more time, inclination, and quite frankly any hope at all for the exhibit of common logic by this clearly young and brainwashed demographic,
> it would be soooo easy to blast holes in all of you all's tainted recitals of quacky and desperately reaching extreme-left illogic.



The left have moved more into the center while the right have moved even further right. Conservative doesn't even mean the same thing it did 20 years ago. Reagon would be considered a Democrat today for instance. Here you go again resorting to name calling though. 




> Fortunately for this nation we still have enough people of basic good sense to thwart this failed administration's gross misconducts (mainly the ones concerning other people's money).



That is yours and probably many others opinion, but not all and no side is completely right. Politics is definitely guess and check. Could you be more specific though and I'm not being sarcastic I'd like to know what you are referring too who knows I may agree with you, but the way you wording it currently I have to disagree...



> I proclaim that it is indeed many of you in this thread that can't stay on point and have an intelligent debate.



Speak for yourself, I'm all up for an intelligent debate, but you have only offered up a handful of info at best to support your position and all positions (in other words both sides) should have enough info to support ones opinion otherwise it holds little weight. When it comes to information I avoid liberal and conservative biased news whether that is fox or NBC or whatever also.



> But hey, if everyone just wants to keep petting each other and drooling over the extreme big government power play, have at it.



Government got a lot bigger under Bush and the bailout was Bushes idea. Deregulation has done more harm than good every time it has been implemented and those too were under conservative leadership. Romney started the government healthcare according to something I read, too tired to link or look up, but I'm pretty sure that is correct as well. So if you are a staunch conservative republican you might want to look into your own party for its fallacies.



> There is much more important work to do for so many of my fellow concerned americans, and with so many people finally waking up,
> these forum-friendly degressive views will soon be fading into the extreme minority.
> Enjoy the last months of this most disturbing blame everyone but ourselves and look to anyone but ourselves platform.



Again your opinion. Unbiased polls are still pretty in the middle or leaning left. Most Americans are centralist neither far left or right as well. Yes we shall see, Romney may win, but if Obama does win I'd be happier and that is my opinion. (sadly resorting to lesser of 2 evils here, not an Obama fan personally)


----------



## groph

And what's so friggin bad about the "extreme left" anyway?

EDIT: inb4 totalitarian communist states, Pol Pot, and these other people who advocated "for the masses" but really just wanted absolute power. I see the extreme left and extreme right as more or less the same thing and I'm quite aware that such "governmental" situations would be/have been an absolute nightmare.


----------



## Waelstrum

Guys, leave TRENCHLORD alone. Yes, he disagrees with everyone else in this thread (myself included), but don't don't you think you're piling on a bit? He's said his bit (a few times) and we've said ours. It's not going anywhere, and people are getting upset.

EDIT: In b4 "Leave Brittany alone!"


----------



## flint757

I do feel bad for him. I'm against neg repping people personally and based on his page he has gotten a lot for his opinion. Yes I agree probably enough is enough, but I would like clarification not to drag it out or be a douche, but because it isn't like there isn't a redeeming conversation here. it is just a matter of fact, and civility necessary to continue forward. Just because 2 sides disagree doesn't mean the conversation should end and honestly he is right that we on this forum typically agree with each other so it is nice to have someone near and dear holding a position for the other side for good conversation if it can remain civil.


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> Your obviously biassed respect isn't important to me.


That made me laugh.  "Your non-conservative respect isn't good enough for me."


> If I only had more time, inclination, and quite frankly any hope at all for the exhibit of common logic by this clearly young and brainwashed demographic,
> it would be soooo easy to blast holes in all of you all's tainted recitals of quacky and desperately reaching extreme-left illogic.


"I could _____________ soooo easily, but I don't have the time or inclination." 
I don't have the inclination to believe you.
If it's so easy then here's a novel idea for you:
First write out your opinion. 
Does it contain...
Refutations rather than mere declaratory statements? 
Less mudslinging and more facts?
If it does then post it, if not then edit your post until it seems to look like that. Once you can start doing that a real discussion can be had rather than what we have going on now which is essentially:


> Random Poster: "(opinion)(facts supporting it)"
> TRENCHLORD: "You stupid fucking Liberal."





> @ whomever accused me of "moving the goalpost" and not staying on point;
> 
> This must be a joke as well considering I started this thread and specifically asked for opinions concerning the state by state political ramifications of Obama's decision to announce his support for gay marriage and his other decision to support each state's right to legislate their own stance.


In my opinion there aren't many ramifications of his decision. He took a move from the Ron Paul playbook and took a stance that wasn't an actual stance. "This is what I believe, but the states should be able to make their own decision on the issue."
The fact that he said he supports it doesn't mean shit if each individual state is allowed to vote on the issue, in fact if anything I'd expect us to have sodomy laws pop up again in multiple states long before equal rights for gays. But maybe he'll "man up" as you say and actually do something if he is elected to a second term and doesn't have to worry about his re-electability.


----------



## tacotiklah

SSO P&CE Forum: 
Where it's usually SSO verses Trenchlord.

With a few exceptions, usually when my opinion greatly differs with that large of a community of people, I tend to re-evaluate position and try to compare and contrast the facts supporting both sides. When the other side has a more compelling argument, and better facts supporting it, I generally say to myself (and others), "Hey, I was completely wrong about that. My apologies."

Sadly it seems some people are so defensive of a position that makes no logical sense whatsoever because they feel that not "flip-flopping" is a virtue that outweighs making any fucking sense whatsoever.


----------



## Varcolac

ghstofperdition said:


> SSO P&CE Forum:
> Where it's usually SSO verses Trenchlord.



Lib'rul bias.

As a European observer of a centre-left political slant, I find your centre-right President to be an acceptable choice. Not the best, but far from the worst. This changes nothing in real terms, but it is, if not a step, then at least a small shuffle in the right direction. 

It loses him nothing. If the respect of those "brainwashed lib'ruls" is worth nothing to our esteemed right-wing commentator TRENCHLORD, then the votes of homophobes should be worth even less to the leader of a country that practically says 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' on the front door.

Also, Limbaugh? Great American? Which American values does he embody? Limbaugh: patron saint of prescription drug addiction, misogyny, racism and privilege? He didn't drag himself up by any bootstraps, he hasn't lived up to any part of any American Dream, he's not even created anything other than book-versions of his radio rants. Hell, I may not think that Ted Nugent's a good guy. I may not aggree with even 1% of what he says, he may be a gun-nut and a madman of the highest order, but he's worked his way up to that from a lower-middle-class upbringing and in between threatening the democratically-elected leader of his nation's life and calling for a rather narrow interpretation of that old 'a well-trained militia being necessary...' clause he's managed to write and record some half-decent country-rock songs. 
Limbaugh? His creative output is 99.9% bile and hatred on a radio show whose entire purpose appears to be the spewing of bile and hatred of anyone not subscribing to his worldview, he's a college dropout from a rich family of lawyers. Hell, at least you can _dance_ to Nugent.

I do so hate to attack a man for his personal qualities, but if you're holding that oxy-popping shock-jock up as a fine example of American manhood, you need to ask what exactly it is that he's an example of.


----------



## Necris

synrgy said:


> Bingo. Many modern conservatives (here in the States) seem to miss that a Republican in the late 1800's/early 1900's would be a Democrat today, if measured by the same standards.





TRENCHLORD said:


> It's called evolution and improvement .


I'd love to know how the ideological shift from a party that advocated aggressive action against slavery and worked towards the freeing of slaves to that of one which is actively fighting against equality for gay and lesbian citizens as well as against the rights of women in this country is evolution and improvement in your eyes. Then explain how that same party being infiltrated by extremist religious demagogues who seem to want nothing more than to establish a theocracy is an evolution and improvement.


----------



## synrgy

TRENCHLORD said:


> @ whomever accused me of "moving the goalpost" and not staying on point;
> 
> This must be a joke as well considering I started this thread and specifically asked for opinions concerning the state by state political ramifications of Obama's decision to announce his support for gay marriage and his other decision to support each state's right to legislate their own stance.



And when you didn't like how we approached that topic, you shifted to economics, and then you shifted to mud slinging.. The whole thread is here for proof. For all the equivocating you've done here, I think you'd make a great politician yourself.


----------



## tacotiklah

Trenchlord makes me miss Orb even more. Didn't agree with everything he said, but he at least eschewed faux news talking points, used facts to support his opinions, and made me respect conservatives again. It's funny that people think I'm such a lefty liberal, but in truth I'm somewhere around slightly left of center. But in our political climate, that makes me such an extremely lefty liberal. 
In a vain attempt to get this back to being about gay marriage:
I'm among many that would love to hear a logical, non-religious line of reason as to why it shouldn't be allowed. I fear I may be old and shriveled up before I get one though. So until then, I can only assume there isn't one, and that the fact that it's still outlawed is a sad testament to America being unable to it's lessons the first time around. $20 says that after gay marriage is legalized, we still won't learn and yet another minority will emerge and will have it's rights downtrodden.


----------



## Randy

Trenchlord is so impossible to debate with. Everything is loose rhetoric, talking points and insults that only vaguely brush against whatever is being discussed.

How do you know you're debating a brick wall? You have some of the smartest posters on SSO throwing fact after fact at somebody and he concedes literally nothing. That's what I can't stand. Fine, feel free to disagree with somebody based on your ideology or to disagree with somebody on principle but playing hop-scotch over everything anyone tells you is just being stubborn.


----------



## Randy

ghstofperdition said:


> Trenchlord makes me miss Orb even more. Didn't agree with everything he said, but he at least eschewed faux news talking points, used facts to support his opinions, and made me respect conservatives again.



Eh, that's probably an over-romanticized version of what Orb was, skewed by the lens of time. He loved rhetoric, he loved heated name calling and he ended up getting banned only because he stepped over the line that he was always balancing on. I thought the same thing you did recently, until I saw him start posting on MG (shortly before getting banned) and was reminded of his tactics. He throws just enough facts in there for people to gloss over the nasty, condescending shit he'd lace into every post. 

Now, who was an awesome conservative debater? Renegadedave. I'd fight with the guy on here back-and-forth, page after page and walk away having to agree with most of what he said. His facts, his articles and his eloquence were all in line, IMO.


----------



## Jakke

I don't think I'm going to engage here, but I have to leave this observation:

Only in america is it considered far left to be for equality among sexual preferences and genders. Well, we have some real far left, and those guys are fucking scary. 
You who believe that have no clue what communism is, you have been indoctrinated by the post-McCarthyism that is still prevailant in the United States where fair means communism. Having the audacity to claim such a thing is an insult to people who lost their lives, and still do in communist dictatorships. 

All men are made equal (people do different things with their start however), and taking the moral prerogative to decide what they may or may not do is disgusting beyond belief. Over and over I encounter people who believe that they have the sole right to decide right or wrong for other people, yet they can never tell what gave them that authority. Luckily loads of americans recognize this issue, good on yer


And good on Obama for showing some basic human decency, but I find it repugnant that we even have to highlight that this is his stance. It should be the fucking default


----------



## ddtonfire

Randy said:


> Now, who was an awesome conservative debater? Renegadedave. I'd fight with the guy on here back-and-forth, page after page and walk away having to agree with most of what he said. His facts, his articles and his eloquence were all in line, IMO.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Jakke said:


> I don't think I'm going to engage here, but I have to leave this observation:
> 
> Only in america is it considered far left to be for equality among sexual preferences and genders. Well, we have some real far left, and those guys are fucking scary.
> You who believe that have no clue what communism is, you have been indoctrinated by the post-McCarthyism that is still prevailant in the United States where fair means communism. Having the audacity to claim such a thing is an insult to people who lost their lives, and still do in communist dictatorships.
> 
> All men are made equal (people do different things with their start however), and taking the moral prerogative to decide what they may or may not do is disgusting beyond belief. Over and over I encounter people who believe that they have the sole right to decide right or wrong for other people, yet they can never tell what gave them that authority. Luckily loads of americans recognize this issue, good on yer
> 
> 
> And good on Obama for showing some basic human decency, but I find it repugnant that we even have to highlight that this is his stance. It should be the fucking default



Thats the result of a two party system :/


----------



## flint757

Yeah people who saying things like Obama is a communist are just ridiculous, nothing about the american life even remotely reflects communism in the extreme sense they are meaning it.


----------



## Waelstrum

Jakke said:


> Only in america is it considered far left to be for equality among sexual preferences and genders. Well, we have some real far left, and those guys are fucking scary.
> You who believe that have no clue what communism is, you have been indoctrinated by the post-McCarthyism that is still prevailant in the United States where fair means communism. Having the audacity to claim such a thing is an insult to people who lost their lives, and still do in communist dictatorships.



Some might say that Stalinist Russia was as communist as the Democratic Republic of Congo is a Democratic Republic. The trouble is that we haven't seen it done 'properly' yet, so we don't know if Karl's ideas would ever work. 



Jakke said:


> All men are made equal (people do different things with their start however)



The trouble is that people aren't born equal. Some are born rich, some poor, some gay, straight, bi, etc., some are born to bad parents, some good, and some are born into racial minorities that carry stereotypes and prejudice. (I'm not saying that these distinctions make one a worse or better person, but they do affect one's standing in society, and some even make one less in the eyes of the law.) You need laws that even the playing field, other wise those with disadvantaged starts will fall behind.

Sorry for going off topic.


----------



## ddtonfire

Waelstrum said:


> The trouble is that people aren't born equal. Some are born rich, some poor, some gay, straight, bi, etc., some are born to bad parents, some good, and some are born into racial minorities that carry stereotypes and prejudice.[...] You need laws that even the playing field, other wise those with disadvantaged starts will fall behind.



I completely disagree with this. Laws leveling the playing field just reeks of an Orwellian Animal Farm. What do you propose these laws would do? Life is what you make of it; it's not whats given to you from 1) your parents, 2) society, or 3) some government laws which "even the playing field."

Some of the most inspiring success stories I've read are people breaking societal expectations of their upbringing or circumstance and rising to be Presidents (Andrew Johnson - born poor, Clinton - true father died before birth; abusive stepfather), businessmen (Andrew Carnegie - poor upbringing), actors (Mark Wahlberg - poor societal upbringing), musicians (Jimi Hendrix - born impoverished, with awful parents, and black, if you will), etc ad nauseam. 

The government shouldn't be the one coming to these people's rescue (have you ever seen a bureaucracy able to rescue anybody?!). If they _actually_ want to escape their "disadvantaged start," the burden's wholly on them to work hard and make the most of what they're given. And even then success - whatever it may be to you or to them - is no guarantee. Utopian dreams are just that, since there will always be human nature, or sin, or whatever else you want to call it, or people who want to bring everything/everyone down, or just plain bad luck, intervening.

And that's the beauty of humanity. Adapt and overcome. And those who can't or chose not to are instead the ones who fall behind, no matter how they began.

Sorry to make this even more off-topic.

On a side note - if these distinctions make one less in the eyes of the law, then why do you propose more laws?


----------



## TemjinStrife

That's very easy for you to say, as someone who doesn't seem to have been one of the "unlucky." Not that I have experienced it either, mind you; I'm just mindful of how incredibly lucky I am to have the opportunities I do, and I recognize how much of an advantage that gives me. Is it not fair to help those who, because of some poor luck, do not have that opportunity? At the very least, give them equal protections under the law, and make it possible for them to succeed? Any advantages and opportunities you or I have, have come as a result of our society; a society that we all draw on and rely upon, and we all must contribute to.

There's an ENORMOUS middle ground between Orwellian "everyone is equal" and "letting a sizable chunk of an entire population starve while others make record profits off their backs." Taxing those who have the benefitted most from the system (i.e. the wealthy and comfortable) to help others who bear the brunt of the system seems to make sense to me. Remember, we are citizens of the United States. We're better than the sort of abject selfishness I see these days, and the cries of "socialism" used to justify it are even worse. We're not supposed to have a class of "untouchables."

Plus, social Darwinism? Really? We're still stuck on that shit? "Working hard" doesn't mean you will be successful. A lot of the poorest people I know are also the hardest working people I know. The "success stories" are VERY rare, and the idea that you can succeed is motivating, but not something you can rely on or use to put food on the table.

Everyone argues like this is black and white, cut and dry. The answer is somewhere in the middle. Cut spending AND increase taxes. Protect the disadvantaged while putting them to work. And we need to stop this ridiculous political circle-jerk of picking a team and rooting for it. We're stuck living in this country together, and compromise is a necessary part of any democracy. 

I'm sick of people gambling with my future based on political pandering and brinksmanship, and I'm sick of people parroting talking points without thinking about what they actually mean, or trying to figure out why the other side disagrees and looking for common ground.

And, most of all, I'm sick of people actively working to deny people equal rights and protections under the law.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

ddtonfire said:


> I completely disagree with this. Laws leveling the playing field just reeks of an Orwellian Animal Farm. What do you propose these laws would do? Life is what you make of it; it's not whats given to you from 1) your parents, 2) society, or 3) some government laws which "even the playing field."
> 
> Some of the most inspiring success stories I've read are people breaking societal expectations of their upbringing or circumstance and rising to be Presidents (Andrew Johnson - born poor, Clinton - true father died before birth; abusive stepfather), businessmen (Andrew Carnegie - poor upbringing), actors (Mark Wahlberg - poor societal upbringing), musicians (Jimi Hendrix - born impoverished, with awful parents, and black, if you will), etc ad nauseam.
> 
> The government shouldn't be the one coming to these people's rescue (have you ever seen a bureaucracy able to rescue anybody?!). If they _actually_ want to escape their "disadvantaged start," the burden's wholly on them to work hard and make the most of what they're given. And even then success - whatever it may be to you or to them - is no guarantee. Utopian dreams are just that, since there will always be human nature, or sin, or whatever else you want to call it, or people who want to bring everything/everyone down, or just plain bad luck, intervening.
> 
> And that's the beauty of humanity. Adapt and overcome. And those who can't or chose not to are instead the ones who fall behind, no matter how they began.
> 
> Sorry to make this even more off-topic.
> 
> On a side note - if these distinctions make one less in the eyes of the law, then why do you propose more laws?



Fuck yea, lets keep those blacks enslaved! White power!!!


----------



## flint757

^^^I think it is obvious that is not what he meant.

In spirit I agree with him, but i also think that it isn't practical when a company will fire a completely functional individual for health reasons or fire someone for arbitrary differences. Corporations are leeches only looking for the next dollar they aren't looking out for their employees or anyone else 9/10. If we could these laws wouldn't need to exist. 

I think the issue is in the use of the word even the playing field, really these laws just stop people from being dicks or those more concerned with the next dollar while completely screwing someone else.


----------



## Waelstrum

ddtonfire said:


> I completely disagree with this. Laws leveling the playing field just reeks of an Orwellian Animal Farm. What do you propose these laws would do? Life is what you make of it; it's not whats given to you from 1) your parents, 2) society, or 3) some government laws which "even the playing field."
> 
> Some of the most inspiring success stories I've read are people breaking societal expectations of their upbringing or circumstance and rising to be Presidents (Andrew Johnson - born poor, Clinton - true father died before birth; abusive stepfather), businessmen (Andrew Carnegie - poor upbringing), actors (Mark Wahlberg - poor societal upbringing), musicians (Jimi Hendrix - born impoverished, with awful parents, and black, if you will), etc ad nauseam.
> 
> The government shouldn't be the one coming to these people's rescue (have you ever seen a bureaucracy able to rescue anybody?!). If they _actually_ want to escape their "disadvantaged start," the burden's wholly on them to work hard and make the most of what they're given. And even then success - whatever it may be to you or to them - is no guarantee. Utopian dreams are just that, since there will always be human nature, or sin, or whatever else you want to call it, or people who want to bring everything/everyone down, or just plain bad luck, intervening.
> 
> And that's the beauty of humanity. Adapt and overcome. And those who can't or chose not to are instead the ones who fall behind, no matter how they began.
> 
> Sorry to make this even more off-topic.
> 
> On a side note - if these distinctions make one less in the eyes of the law, then why do you propose more laws?



Just to clarify, by even playing field I mean everyone has equal access to health, education, and security. I don't mean everyone has the same salary, everyone has the same accommodation, everyone gets 30 grams of chocolate rations a month, etc.. There is a long way to go between the guaranty of life (health), liberty (security), and the pursuit of happiness (education) and Orwellian communism.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Waelstrum said:


> Just to clarify, by even playing field I mean *everyone has equal access to health, education, and security*. I don't mean everyone has the same salary, everyone has the same accommodation, everyone gets 30 grams of chocolate rations a month, etc.. There is a long way to go between the guaranty of life (health), liberty (security), and the pursuit of happiness (education) and Orwellian communism.


But, but, but, but, that's communist socialism, you far-left Nazi.


----------



## Necris

I just had a read through the GOP's 2012 platform, the whole thing is insane. 
*It contains (among other things*):
Outright denials of the evidence for global warming.

Calls for a complete cut of government funding for any organization that supports contraception.

Public Display of the 10 commandments.

Opposing removing the word god from the pledge of allegiance (no big deal), the declaration of independence (it doesn't actually appear within it to begin with) and currency (apparently the 1954 change that added "In God We Trust" to our money can stay).

Claims of the infallibility of our constitution, ardent opposition to any changes.

Opposition to National Healthcare.

Government support of homeopathy.

Judeo-Christian values and Scripture in Pubic schools.

Removing the term "Assault Weapon" from semi-automatic firearms.
*
This one needs to be read to be believed:
*1.7 We call for the repeal of the law denying a citizen&#8217;s right to bear arms based on a single conviction for simple misdemeanor domestic assault.


*The stuff that applies to gays and lesbians:
* (The entire "Marriage section" can essentially be summed up in two words. "No queers." so I won't bother posting it.)

1.1 We believe that the traditional family is the building block to a moral, healthy, and thriving society. 
*(No gays getting married.)*
1.9 We favor improving, strengthening, and simplifying the adoption process. * 
(wait for it...)*
1.10 We oppose adoption by homosexual individuals and couples.
*(There it is.)* 
1.12 We support non-familial adoption by heterosexual married couples consisting of one man and one woman, and believe that no law should infringe on faith-based adoptive service agencies that offer their services in accordance with their beliefs.
*(No, really, no gays.)*
1.7 We support a landlord&#8217;s right to refuse to lease property and a business owner&#8217;s right to refuse service based on moral grounds. *(They believe in a persons right to discriminate against literally anyone as long as they can claim a "moral grounds" for doing so, way to open the floodgates guys.)*


----------



## Waelstrum

So they want less science, more guns for criminals, less freedom for gays, and more freedom to discriminate. Brilliant.


----------



## Semichastny

Isn't legislating morality & failed socio-economic legislation the hallmark of Big Government and Fascism? ESPECIALLY when it lacks consistent scientific or factual basis? Can we honestly say that a government that steps into people's private lives to tell them what and who they can do isn't what these people "Socialism"?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Republicans arent actual conservatives


----------



## tacotiklah

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Republicans arent actual conservatives



Exactly! Even if I don't agree with everything they say, I can respect real conservatives. What we have here in America is a bunch of religious bigoted zealots who feel that what they believe outweighs anyone else's personal rights and freedoms. 

Even I uphold some conservative beliefs, like keeping the government in check or being fiscally responsible and people paying their fair share. But what I'm seeing is the extreme right becoming the new center. It's mind-numbing. Almost makes you wonder what their idea of extreme right would be..... 

Wouldn't it be great if we could rewind back to the time before bush jr and remember what it was like to have a solid economy again?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

ghstofperdition said:


> Wouldn't it be great if we could rewind back to the time before bush jr and remember what it was like to have a solid economy again?


 
Yes it would.
We can't even begin this really until we have a federal budget passed.
It's been about 3yrs. since the feds were beholdent to any budget numbers.
I think the last 2 fiscal year (for 12 and 13) Obama Budgets were voted down 0-97, and 0-99 respectively in the Democrat controled Senate.



@anyone really, anyone with answers lol. 
Is this some sort of political scheme by the Dems? Maybe so they and Obama are beholdent to no budget at all?
Is this simply that the Dems on capitol hill are too afraid for their own political future to get on board with Obama?
Is it that the Obama Budgets are so unreasonable that not even one single Democrat will give the thumbs up?

Or, is this something that the Republicans are behind?

Obviously, I have more questions than answers.


----------



## tacotiklah

Well the short answer is that it takes money to pay off debt. Obviously right? Now where do we get money to pay the bills? Taxes. It's basic economics 101 that in order to keep your bills paid you need to be bringing in AT LEAST as much as what you owe to break even right? Trouble is that thanks to that idiot Reagan, people have gotten this idea in their head that the solution lies in reducing taxes more and more in the slight hope that there will be more jobs; thus more people to tax. Sounds good right? Trouble is that you are making the ENTIRE economic system rely on corporations to make morally sound choices. Historically speaking, this a very rare occurance. So now we have less and less money coming in. Now take a look at the expenses. War is a huge expense and we have been at war for over 10 years now. So with less income due this crazy overconfident idea that more jobs will open up if we don't bring in enough tax, combined with the escalating costs of wars, it's a wonder we aren't at the point of insolvency.

AND THIS IS THE SITUATION OBAMA WALKED INTO WHEN HE WAS INAUGURATED. So how do we fix this? Do what any American citizen would do to stablize things, shift the spending from killing innocent people to paying off debts. Car industry about to fail? (a vital part of our economy btw) Gonna have to,write some blank checks to save it and our ass in the process. Banks going bankrupt? Gonna have to save their dumbasses too with blank checks. Obama was forced into a catch 22 there because either he lets the banks fail and our economy with it, or spend money we don't have in an attempt to fix things. Either way he becomes the bad guy.
He did screw the pooch on oversight of that money, and I'm certainly pissed about companies taking bailout money and pocketing it for bonuses.

Blaming Obama for this economic crisis makes about as much sense as blaming global warming on unindustrialized nations. Eschew the b.s. on tv and see that Obama walked into a shit sandwich and was expected to make it taste amazing. We all hear about how much he had to spend, but what they DON'T tell you is that you have to spend money to pay the bills. You have to spend a LOT of money to keep the economy in check. Now that we are on the tail end of things however; we need to out focus BACK on paying down that debt. While I have no ill regard to the chinese, I'm in no hurry to be owned by them.


----------



## renzoip

Still of topic, but somewhat related to the few last posts here: 



Come on, don't act like you've never gone off topic!


----------



## highlordmugfug

Daily Kos: Another study says watching Fox News makes you dumber

I've seen a few of these studies, this is in response (however late) to Trench's comments about Fox News being popular.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yes it would.
> We can't even begin this really until we have a federal budget passed.
> It's been about 3yrs. since the feds were beholdent to any budget numbers.
> I think the last 2 fiscal year (for 12 and 13) Obama Budgets were voted down 0-97, and 0-99 respectively in the Democrat controled Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> @anyone really, anyone with answers lol.
> Is this some sort of political scheme by the Dems? Maybe so they and Obama are beholdent to no budget at all?
> Is this simply that the Dems on capitol hill are too afraid for their own political future to get on board with Obama?
> Is it that the Obama Budgets are so unreasonable that not even one single Democrat will give the thumbs up?
> 
> Or, is this something that the Republicans are behind?
> 
> Obviously, I have more questions than answers.



I'm reading Bill Clintons book right now, and he breaks it down very well. 

It all started with Reagan, whom by stating "government is the problem" became the posterchild for the modern radical Republican party. The idea itself is not only an oxy moron being said by a government official, but also a sort of self fulfilling prophecy in the hands of Conservatives because if they fuck up (like Bush Jr did), the explanation is simply "see? We told you Government couldn't do anything right!". 

Anyways, Reagan was the first president to pass a budget that raised spending while cutting tax revenue at the same time, something never done during peacetime. George H.W. Bush noticed this, and sacrificed his second term trying to correct it by slightly raising taxes in an effort to bring the deficit down; a noble cause that Clinton worked with him to continue through his own two terms.

So Clinton passed a sustainable budget plan (in the face of another Newt Gingrich-headed anti-government congress shift that occurred in 1994), which based on projections would have obliterated all of the Federal Government's debt for the first time since 1832 by the year 2013.

Now comes the fun part. Within Bush Jr's first year in office he succeeded in passing big tax cuts and spending initiatives that doubled the debt, while also destroying banking regulations and allowing healthcare costs to rise at three times the rate of inflation. Compare that to Obama, who was mostly acting on damage control, and the idea that he's a big spender is pretty childish if you ask me.












"The first three decades of the anti-government movement have been more anti-tax and anti-regulation than anti-spending".


----------



## TRENCHLORD

^So, IF that was all true, then why does Obama keep striking out when his budget proposals go up for a vote in the Senate?

Wasn't his last two budget proposals voted down 0-97 (last year), and 0-99 just last wednesday?

Isn't the Senate controled by the Demacrats?
Why wouldn't even 1 demacrat give him the thumbs up?

Doesn't something smell a little rotten here?


----------



## flint757

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times

this is why:

"Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan."

Avoiding biased websites really helped me find a clear answer.


----------



## tacotiklah

Also no, both the House and Senate have Republican majorities right now; hence why Obama is being stonewalled at every turn. All I can say there is, if you elected them, you have nobody to blame but yourself. We need to re-elect Obama, and put Dems back in charge. Repubs need to separate themselves from the church and from crazy Reaganomics if they ever hope to have a snowball's chance in hell of effectively running this country again.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times
> 
> this is why:
> 
> "Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan."
> 
> Avoiding biased websites really helped me find a clear answer.


 
Thanks.
Any idea on why last years vote went 97-0 in the senate, surely it wasn't the same scenerio was it?
And now that I read that WT article, why did the budget proposal lose in the house by a vote of 414-0?

I can understand why republicans are blocking, but why are the democrats?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

ghstofperdition said:


> Also no, both the House and Senate have Republican majorities right now; hence why Obama is being stonewalled at every turn. All I can say there is, if you elected them, you have nobody to blame but yourself. We need to re-elect Obama, and put Dems back in charge. Repubs need to separate themselves from the church and from crazy Reaganomics if they ever hope to have a snowball's chance in hell of effectively running this country again.


 
Here is the wiki on the current congress for info sake.
112th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## flint757

From what I know it is because it is a republican amendment that included Obama's budget and Democrats don't think it is the same budget for both house and senate. In general it is odd that no one voted for it I mean what are the chances. 

As for last year no clue, but I suppose a similar scenario could be the cause however unlikely. Either way I wish Congress would just make a decision on anything at this point no matter where it falls on the party lines, they all have their heads up their asses at this point.


----------



## tacotiklah

TRENCHLORD said:


> Here is the wiki on the current congress for info sake.
> 112th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



My apologies. The senate has a SLIGHT democrat majority, provided you count the two independents that are caucusing under the democrat banner, otherwise it's basically even. The repubs still control the house, so I was 1 for 2.


----------



## Waelstrum

Don't they need 60 votes out of 100 to do anything?


----------



## Scar Symmetry

I was speaking to a gay man my age the other day in a bar and he said something I've never thought of before. He said that he doesn't want marriage to be legal between gay people. He sees marriage as a religious thing and therefore doesn't care if he can't get married to a man. All he wants is to have the same legal rights, that way he gets what he wants and the people who want marriage to stay as a traditional religious ceremony remain happy too; he doesn't want to upset them nor change tradition within their religion.

Needless to say I found this very interesting.

The only question left in my mind is what about religious homosexuals, but that is not a stance I know enough about in order to comment or muse on in any way.


----------



## signalgrey

i didnt realize Christians "owned" marriage


----------



## Scar Symmetry

signalgrey said:


> i didnt realize Christians "owned" marriage



If a legal equivalent exists for homosexual social union then both pro and anti gay marriage parties get what they want, is that not the perfect compromise?

I don't agree with the majority of anti-gay marriage stances as they are born of bigotry, but I can understand the concern for the respect of religious tradition and how it could be seen as taking something away from religious types that has been a certain way for years. 

I also understand that by not granting homosexuals "the whole hog" of the word marriage it would seem like they are some way not being granted full equality, but all the word marriage is the majority understands the definition as a certain thing. 

A parallel union for homosexuals sounds like a good idea to me. In that sense if any anything I see it as empowering homosexuals as having their own specific union.


----------



## tacotiklah

That WOULD make sense, but as has been said in this thread, christians don't have exclusive rights on marriage, despite their religion claiming otherwise. People have been getting married long before Christ left Mary's womb. As many have said, we want equal protection under the law and just equality in general. To say we can't have a marriage because it would upset religious groups is ludicrous. As a banner I once saw on my fb feed said, "If gay marriage is against your religion, don't get gay married." It really is that simple. Where it becomes a problem is religious groups trying to turn the US into a theocracy and cram their beliefs down everyone's throats. Misery loves company as they say, and it seems like their thinking is "Well since I have to live a miserable existence, then so does everyone else."

Many people try arguing that we already have civil unions, and should be grateful for that. Well as it stands, if I happen to be in a civil union and my partner ends up in the hospital, I'm forbidden from seeing them. I'm no better in the hospital's eyes than a friend or acquaintence. That's fucked up. How about being able to save on taxes by filing jointly? Nope, can't do that. What about if my partner is incapacitated, and needs me to act on their behalf? Nope. That would fall onto their next of kin, and if they happen to be bigots, they can do shit like get a restraining order against me just because they don't approve of me. Or at the very least, bar me from visiting my partner while they are in the hospital, even when friends are normally allowed to visit. It's amazing how many freedoms people take for granted until they are denied them.

Legal factors aside, what the hell makes us any less of people that we can't have a marriage. That very notion implies that we are less than other people and therefore we are not entitled to the same rights based on the who we sleep with. Being gay doesn't affect other people negatively in any way, it won't make you gay if you're not already, and I find it VERY unlikely that dudes banging dudes will bring about the next apocalypse. Why not just say fuck it, and legalize gay marriage? Because marriage is sacred? Please, divorce rates are so damn high these days. My dad is on his fifth marriage, and that one looks like it's about to flop too. 

No, America is still being led around on it's short leash by modern fundie christians. THAT'S the real reason it's still banned.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Scar Symmetry said:


> I was speaking to a gay man my age the other day in a bar and he said something I've never thought of before. He said that he doesn't want marriage to be legal between gay people. He sees marriage as a religious thing and therefore doesn't care if he can't get married to a man. All he wants is to have the same legal rights, that way he gets what he wants and the people who want marriage to stay as a traditional religious ceremony remain happy too; he doesn't want to upset them nor change tradition within their religion.
> 
> Needless to say I found this very interesting.
> 
> The only question left in my mind is what about religious homosexuals, but that is not a stance I know enough about in order to comment or muse on in any way.



The problem is, you run into concerns about "separate but equal;" a phrase that has enormously negative connotations for a large part of American history. That is why many states which allowed civil unions have gone on to legalize full gay marriage. Plus, many state civil unions are most definitely NOT "equal" to marriage.

Additionally, "gay marriage" has become synonymous with "gay acceptance," and is among the last bastions of homophobic inequality left in our legal system. This also means that the legal system discriminates against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation, treating them differently under the law. 

By preventing gays from doing things that heterosexuals are allowed to do, even in name only, those who wish to marginalize them can justify their prejudice on existing law, and use this as a basis to justify ever more restrictive regulations such as the ones preventing adoption or making it legal to bully an individual based on "moral" reasons.

Also, I am friends with a very religious and conservative openly gay individual. He wants to get married in a church, with just as much ceremony as his sister. Why should he be denied that right?



Waelstrum said:


> Don't they need 60 votes out of 100 to do anything?



To break a filibuster, yes.


----------



## Guitarwizard

American presidential votings. They're like an elephant and a donkey playing table tennis, just that it takes the ball a minimum of 4 years to get to the other side. 

Without having read the whole thread: Am I right in my (uneducated) assumption that the evergreen topics, gay marriage and abortion, have given the basis for 70% of all the voting related discussions for about the last 20 years?


----------



## Treeunit212

Guitarwizard said:


> American presidential votings. They're like an elephant and a donkey playing table tennis, just that it takes the ball a minimum of 4 years to get to the other side.
> 
> Without having read the whole thread: Am I right in my (uneducated) assumption that the evergreen topics, gay marriage and abortion, have given the basis for 70% of all the voting related discussions for about the last 20 years?



Maybe. Only because they are more of a person to person opinion issue instead of something based in facts and evidence like the economy or climate change or gun control.

The political reasons for support are much less deep, too. Like with gun control, a politician might be playing to his base AND financial interests of a lobbying group and whomever funded his campaign. That seems to happen more often with issues like that than civil rights. There's no real money in civil rights.

Ignoring the high emotions involved in these sorts of things, it seems to be much safer and easier to voice support for a social issue than something more complicated. And Obama finally figured that out.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

TemjinStrife said:


> The problem is, you run into concerns about "separate but equal;" a phrase that has enormously negative connotations for a large part of American history. That is why many states which allowed civil unions have gone on to legalize full gay marriage. Plus, many state civil unions are most definitely NOT "equal" to marriage.
> 
> Additionally, "gay marriage" has become synonymous with "gay acceptance," and is among the last bastions of homophobic inequality left in our legal system. This also means that the legal system discriminates against homosexuals based on their sexual orientation, treating them differently under the law.
> 
> By preventing gays from doing things that heterosexuals are allowed to do, even in name only, those who wish to marginalize them can justify their prejudice on existing law, and use this as a basis to justify ever more restrictive regulations such as the ones preventing adoption or making it legal to bully an individual based on "moral" reasons.
> 
> Also, I am friends with a very religious and conservative openly gay individual. He wants to get married in a church, with just as much ceremony as his sister. Why should he be denied that right?
> 
> 
> 
> To break a filibuster, yes.



I dont agree with making churches let gay people get married there. Thats just as wrong as banning gay marriage.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I dont agree with making *establishments *let black people *use the same water fountains* there. Thats just as wrong as *having Jim Crow laws.*


How about now?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Why on earth would a gay person want to get married by a church? Christianity is pretty explicitly homophobic.


----------



## Treeunit212

highlordmugfug said:


> How about now?





Right. But churches *are* privately owned and for the most part free of the governments grasp, as we saw with the healthcare debate.  

Nevertheless, I'm sure that certain more liberal churches, such as the one my parents go to, would allow such ceremonies.


----------



## Guitarwizard

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Why on earth would a gay person want to get married by a church? Christianity is pretty explicitly homophobic.



Word. We should ban marriage anyway. All kinds.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Thats like me being upset I cant go to a kkk paty


----------



## flint757

Not all churches are homophobic and not all care. In states where it is legal I'm sure some have gotten married by a church so no one is being forced to do anything. Gay people could just open up the Church of Fabulous then they can't be denied. 

I kid, I kid...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Yeah Im not saying they shouldnt, Im saying they shouldnt be forced to


----------



## flint757

I don't think that was even up for consideration. It's not an argument anyone was really making and honestly most marriages I've been to while religious were not hosted by a church or anything like that in the first place. Money talks they'll be able to find someone.


----------



## Treeunit212

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Yeah Im not saying they shouldnt, Im saying they shouldnt be forced to



Religious people get married in churches.

You don't HAVE to have a ceremony in a church. It can be anywhere.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Treeunit212 said:


> Religious people get married in churches.
> 
> You don't HAVE to have a ceremony in a church. It can be anywhere.



What are you on about, I didn't say anything like that 

I said that church's that do not support gay marriage should be made to host such marriages, that's all.


----------



## Waelstrum

Even if (when) gay marriage is legal, you still can't *force* a church to let you get married there, just like you currently can't *force* a church to allow a mixed faith marriage if it is against their doctrine. Churches are allowed to discriminate if they want, but if (when) it's legalised, churches that are okay with gay marriage will be *allowed* to marry gay couples.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Yeah exactly, i was just responding to Josh.


----------



## tacotiklah

Who says gays have to be married in a church? Go to the courthouse, pay the fees and voila! You're married.
Want a ceremony? Have one at a park or in your backyard. No church needed.


----------



## Waelstrum

Obviously a church isn't a necessity for most people (or it might be in America) but there are religious gay people, too. I know one, and I'm sure there are others.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I dont agree with making churches let gay people get married there. Thats just as wrong as banning gay marriage.



There are plenty of churches that are willing and able to do gay marriages. However, many of them are now barred from doing so by state law. 

The government can't "make" a church perform gay marriages. But, by making it legal across the country, you put a lot of pressure on churches (especially ones that are more liberal and congregation-centric dogmatically) to allow such marriages. And, with the growing rate of acceptance of homosexuality, there will soon be a time where some congregations will be putting a lot of pressure on their churches to allow such marriages if they do not do so already.

Just like you can get a mixed-race Catholic marriage at pretty much any church fifty years after the Civil Rights Act, I predict you will eventually be able to get a same-sex marriage in the majority (although certainly not every) church once gay marriage becomes nearly universal and a generation or two passes.


----------



## TemjinStrife

ghstofperdition said:


> Who says gays have to be married in a church? Go to the courthouse, pay the fees and voila! You're married.
> Want a ceremony? Have one at a park or in your backyard. No church needed.



My point was, I have a very conservative, deeply religious gay friend (I know, right? ) who wants to get married in a church, like his sister did last year. It seems reprehensible to me to deny him that right (from my own personal moral standpoint; it's not something that's legally supported in any way.)


----------



## Blake1970

I think somewhere in this thread someone mentioned to the effect that the church allows atheist to get married so why not gays? Thought that was a good point. I don't see what the big deal is with gay marriage anyways. People need to learn how to relax.


----------



## Xaios

This popped up on my Facebook feed. My usual response to this kind of thing is usually staggering indifference. However, this tickled me:


----------



## tacotiklah

TemjinStrife said:


> My point was, I have a very conservative, deeply religious gay friend (I know, right? ) who wants to get married in a church, like his sister did last year. It seems reprehensible to me to deny him that right (from my own personal moral standpoint; it's not something that's legally supported in any way.)



Well, I kind of agree with not forcing churches to marry people. I know of churches in the south that still refuse to marry interracial couples. I don't agree with it at all, but they are a private institution and it becomes a case of "Don't like it? Go somewhere else."
I would suggest the same to your friend. There ARE more liberal-minded churches out there that would marry your friend and his fiancee, so my advice should gay marriage be legalized is for them to find one. It's really a case of idiots having the constitutional freedom to be idiots and in this case, it is technically legal for a church to spout prejudice and claim protection under freedom of religion. I'm one of the types that believes in a middle of the road approach. Legalize gay marriage, but if a church doesn't allow it, don't force them. It will be rough going for LGBTs for a while after it is allowed, but as the civil rights movement has proven, things will eventually get to a point where bigots will be an overall minority. It will never go away entirely, but it will get better, but it will get worse first.

Case in point, the main topic of this thread. People pretty much didn't discuss gay marriage much, then when Obama made his speech about it, EVERY crazy bigot came out the woodwork to voice their hatred. Suddenly Obama is declaring war on marriage (according to Rush Limbaugh) and gays need to be thrown into concentration camps and god knows what else. Even here, there was hardly any discussion about LGBTs, but as soon as Obama said something about it, threads started opening. I'm not complaining, but merely observing that we've all be thrust into the spotlight, and it won't all go so well for us for a little while. But it needed to happen if change is ever gonna happen. So sorry fellow gay/bi/trans forumers, but we're gonna be up shit creek without a paddle for a little while. I do hang onto the hope that things will improve eventually. It's like an infected wound that has been festering for a while. There will be a very painful, but necessary cleansing that has been long overdue.


----------



## Waelstrum

ghstofperdition said:


> gay/bi/trans forumers



I read that as transformers at first.


----------



## renzoip

ghstofperdition said:


> There will be a very painful, but necessary cleansing that has been long overdue.



Rush Limbaugh will accuse you now of wanting to put homophobes in concentration camps.


----------



## Explorer

I haven't been keeping up with this topic, but I think I read this between the lines.

Religions which allow homosexuals to marry should be denied their religious freedom, and forced to live according to another person's religious views. 

Did I get that right?


----------



## flint757

Considering some religions have come into existence in more recent history I too find it odd that Christians who aren't Old testament about everything are in fact forced by law to follow the beliefs of far more radical Christian's.


----------



## Explorer

True fact: the majority of First Amendment cases about religion which reach the Supreme Court have Christians forcing their religion on others. 

For all the whining about not being able to worship as they wish, it appears that it's instead about being denied the ability to impose their beliefs on others. That's what all those court cases are about.


----------

