Obama Gambles On Gay Marriage - Page 3

Sirisian · 2012-05-12, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Call it what it is, it isn't equal rights, it is more rights. Subtle but important difference, especially from the opposition's point of view.

This is interestingly enough the same logic that was used to block interracial couples. Very effective.

Speaking of this conversation, I was hanging out with some friends the other day. I never talk politics with any of them since we're all like minded except one of them who holds a complete ignorance is bliss viewpoint about anything. Anyway this friend turned to the rest of us and was like: "Did you see that Obama is supporting gay rights now? That's so wrong." I was like "and this affects you in what way?" and the person was like "I never thought of it like that. I guess it doesn't." and dropped the conversation. It made me realize how many people out there probably don't think about these topics at all. It reminded me of Tim Minchin's Storm story in that people can go their whole life like this.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-14, 08:58 AM

That's a cool quote, Cutter. Anatole France. I wasn't even really familiar with him until just now. I need to get more culture.

Sobekeus, I am not trolling. You'd know it if I were trolling because my posts would be shorter and there would be a lot more ad hominem. I legitimately have a very hard time following your logic.

I think the reason for this is you have convinced yourself that your opposition to same-sex marriage is based not on bigotry but instead on reasoned logic. I think you only need look as far as the general reaction here to suggest that you may perhaps need to take a closer look at your opinions and from whence they have come. What you are saying makes little no no reasoned sense.

"Rights Equilibrium" is a term that makes almost no sense standing on its own. You say that homosexuals are looking for 'more' rights than heterosexuals. Even if that were the case, which is very much is not, how exactly would that be a bad thing?

Baneblade · 2012-05-14, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I think the reason for this is you have convinced yourself that your opposition to same-sex marriage is based not on bigotry but instead on reasoned logic.

As I said before, I'm all for gay marriage.

What you are saying makes little no no reasoned sense.

*shrug* not everyone is into sociology.

"Rights Equilibrium" is a term that makes almost no sense standing on its own. You say that homosexuals are looking for 'more' rights than heterosexuals. Even if that were the case, which is very much is not, how exactly would that be a bad thing?

It is very clear, you just want to muddy it up to make it fit your perception of me. Everyone currently has the right to marry, gay or not. What is being pushed for is more rights (for everyone) on top of those. The rights to marry someone of the same sex. Whether gay or straight is not relevant. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the same sex and that is what I think many people fear... is that it somehow diminishes them and their fourth marriage.

Do you understand yet?

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-14, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

As I said before, I'm all for gay marriage.

[snip]

Everyone currently has the right to marry, gay or not. What is being pushed for is more rights (for everyone) on top of those. The rights to marry someone of the same sex. Whether gay or straight is not relevant. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the same sex and that is what I think many people fear... is that it somehow diminishes them and their fourth marriage.

Do you understand yet?

Not really. I mean 'Everyone has the right to marry someone of the same sex and that is what I think many people fear... is that it somehow diminishes them and their fourth marriage' is a very oddly-worded sentence. Whose fourth marriage?

Are you for same sex marriage? Are you playing Devil's Advocate?

Baneblade · 2012-05-14, 11:03 AM

Just because I strive to understand the position of people who stand opposed to my views, doesn't mean I am somehow less firm in my position. In many cases it is homophobia, in many others it is simply ignorance, and still others fear of change. There are multiple reasons to be against it just as their are to be for it. Is everyone that supports gay marriage gay? Certainly not. It's a silly conclusion just like the one where you must be a homophobic bigot to be opposed to it.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-14, 01:23 PM

Yeah, I love that. "What's to stop someone from marrying a turtle? Or Ice Cream?!"

Well, turtles and ice cream don't have legal standing and can't sign marriage licenses. That's a good start, and we can move on from there.

Figment · 2012-05-14, 02:50 PM

In the strict sense it's indeed an "addition of rights", of course how it is defined by "equal rights" is by marrying not just someone of the opposite sex, which they indeed are capable of legally, but a person they love.

So is one of the things they fear... let's see... something that wouldn't influence one bit, but would still be possible... Hmmm. Polygamy? Group marriage? Commune hippies?

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-14, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Just because I strive to understand the position of people who stand opposed to my views, doesn't mean I am somehow less firm in my position. In many cases it is homophobia, in many others it is simply ignorance, and still others fear of change. There are multiple reasons to be against it just as their are to be for it. Is everyone that supports gay marriage gay? Certainly not. It's a silly conclusion just like the one where you must be a homophobic bigot to be opposed to it.

I would agree that you don't have to be a homophobe or a bigot to oppose gay marriage. You could also be religious, or ignorant.

I'm not sure there are many positive qualities that would make a person oppose it, however.

Figment · 2012-05-14, 04:04 PM

What if they called it gayriage which by law would be the same thing? Technically it wouldn't be marriage, yet it would be.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-14, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

What if they called it gayriage which by law would be the same thing? Technically it wouldn't be marriage, yet it would be.

Separate, but equal?

Sirisian · 2012-05-14, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I would agree that you don't have to be a homophobe or a bigot to oppose gay marriage. You could also be religious, or ignorant.

I'm not sure there are many positive qualities that would make a person oppose it, however.

The problem with the religious standpoint is that their religious evidence is cherry picked out of many passages. Most of which are ignored through varying interpretations. This invariably leads to a defenseless bigotry which most religious people have figured out. It's one of the reasons why every Christian I know of eats pork even though it's listed as an "abomination" in the Bible. Or they use the defense that Leviticus and other passages in the Bible only pertain to the children of Israel which is a kind of complex interpretation. Needless to say the religious defense is more of a weak scapegoat for bigotry. It's akin to saying "I'm not intolerant, God is" with no justification.

Figment · 2012-05-14, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Separate, but equal?

Indeed.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-15, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

The problem with the religious standpoint is that their religious evidence is cherry picked out of many passages. Most of which are ignored through varying interpretations. This invariably leads to a defenseless bigotry which most religious people have figured out. It's one of the reasons why every Christian I know of eats pork even though it's listed as an "abomination" in the Bible. Or they use the defense that Leviticus and other passages in the Bible only pertain to the children of Israel which is a kind of complex interpretation. Needless to say the religious defense is more of a weak scapegoat for bigotry. It's akin to saying "I'm not intolerant, God is" with no justification.

If you want to have some fun, ask a bible apologist to locate and identify the passages of the bible that outright forbid slavery. When he or she fails (there aren't any), point out all the ones that are for it.

Then ask: are we wrong, or is god wrong? Because there's a disagreement there.

And yes, there are pro-slavery passages in the New Testament so they can't even wriggle out that way. Jesus comes right out in favor of it.

That should provide a lot of leverage at cutting away any credibility the bible has as a moral guidebook.

Warhound · 2012-05-15, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Text.

Incoming info graphic backing this fine gentlemen up. Sorry if this is pointless but just trying to help out.

Warborn · 2012-05-18, 08:59 AM

This isn't a gamble. Right-wing conservatives won't vote for Obama because he's black and a Democrat. Him supporting gay rights doesn't make a difference to those people at all. I guess they'll be able to call him a ***-lover on top of "Obongo the Kenyan Muslim Socialist-nazi-communist", but that's about all that'll change. What this will do is help galvanize support for him amongst liberals who may be rather dismayed at how right-wing and conservative his Presidency has otherwise been, and maybe win him some independents.

Either way, there's no gamble here. The bigoted shitheads who think gays being able to marry is a bad thing are not going to vote for Obama one way or the other. This is a move that can only help Obama, and will be yet another empty promise he'll leave unfulfilled after the end of his second term.