Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

As I already said, yes it theoretically could, but in the case of California, you answered your own question - Californians went Democrat again, so it didn't make a difference there. There's still no way of knowing for certain how the vote would have gone if there wasn't a ballot initiative. Suppose that Obama supported maintaining the legality of same sex marriages in California. (In effect, this is true. Obama said he thinks it's an issue for each state to decide, so if it was legal in California, he was fine with it being legal.) Further suppose that McCain opposed it. (Which again, is true - McCain stated that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman.) I personally do not believe that if Prop 8 wasn't on the ballot that Obama would have lost California. So if you're asking specifically about California, no, I do not think it would make a difference in which candidate gets elected. However, if we're talking about a different state with a different set of demographics, perhaps it could.

No, I understood your point perfectly - I just didn't agree with it. Your statement is only true if we add two caveats: 1.) The politician in question has to act against the wishes of the people on an issue that is important to them. As I've said repeatedly, I don't think that many people view the issue of gay marriage as extremely important. 2.) Not only does the issue have to be important to individual voters, but it has to alienate people who had previously supported the politician in the past. To use the Obama/McCain example again, most people who vehemently oppose same sex marriages were McCain voters. If Obama were to go against "their will" he isn't costing himself many votes, because those were people that don't support him anyway.

One closing point on Prop 8 in California. African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Obama (93%) and also voted overwhelmingly for prohibiting gay marriage (62%). Proposition 8 probably doesn't pass if African Americans don't show up to the polls in record numbers to vote for Obama. You're kidding yourself if you think for a minute that gay marriage is important enough to African Americans that a significant number of them would actually vote against Barack Obama because of it. That's why I still maintain that it is difficult to say that the results of a ballot initiative are reflective of a general election. In fact, California is a case in point where it is not.

 

Okay, that didn't come across in the original statement...

And you assume that I dislike them? Again, you are wrong. I have nothing personal against them, I just believe that what they do is immoral. And that "big eye in the sky", as you disrespectfully call Him, is very real. Just because you don't believe doesn't invalidate my point.

They are no different from any other unrepentant sinner. WE are not to hate them or dislike them, but we cannot condone their actions either--which is what some here are demanding that I, and society in general, do.

The only thing you've proven is your own bigotry. You have repeatedly expressed desires to destroy something very personal and very important to a vast majority of people just because you don't share their beliefs. You seek to degrade what we value because you can't separate doctrine from abuses of power that happened centuries ago. You spout lies about who I am and what I believe in order to drag me down. You are not part of the solution, but instead you add to the problem.

---------- Added 0 hours, 30 minutes and 31 seconds later... ----------

Supporting something before sufficient information is available about what the people want is one thing. Knowing the will of the people yet imposing something that is the opposite of that is quite another.

Like Florida? Where the numbers would have been a lot closer and the religious voters that supported Obama would be very upset if he did push for Gay Marriage...

I think you underestimate the Religious folks here. In 2004, George W Bush, no matter how maligned, was viewed as the lesser evil. Slap the religious faithful in the face and the Democrats might be the greater evil in 2012...

I believe it would anger Christians that had supported Obama this time around...

So you're saying that because Obama is Black he can get away with anything he wants? Looking at it the other way, I think both sides on the Prop 8 campaign spent a large amount of money to encourage people to head to the polls. How many people that came out in support of Marriage would have voted for Obama, but would not look kindly on him dictating against their wishes?

 

Then I apologize; to me (haha as the writer) it was clear that I was asking if there was an alternative argument to two main ones: 1. the religious argument, and 2. the homophobic (not-legitimate, in my previous words) argument.

o.0 How on earth did you pull that out of what Aldeth said? To me it looked like he said that the overwhelming majority of black people in California supported Obama, and that a majority of them did not support gay marriage; if the black voters had not come out to vote, then prop 8 would have lost a large number of supporters. So in a way, prop 8 passed because Obama won in California. Not that he can do what he wants because he is black...

 

I misread it the same way, as saying that the religious view was being homophobic.
It's weird how you can write one thing & have 4 people look at it & see 4 different things.

 

Haha yes, it is. I edited my post to clear up any confusion

 

Don't feel bad, Saber. I interpreted your original comment the way you intended it to be interpreted.

We all know Gnarff and martaug have reading disabilities.

 

Are you deliberately ignoring the point I've made repeatedly about the people who are most opposed to gay marriage being the same people who are least likely to support a Democrat? I've said it three or four times now. When someone wins an election they most try to please the people who voted for them, and the people that didn't vote for them are lower on the list of priorities. If by "religious faithful" you are talking about Christian Conservatives - over 90% of them vote Republican anyway. So I'm not underestimating them - I'm simply pointing out the obvious that you cannot lose support from people who already do not support you.

You cut and paste sentence after setence of my posts, while leaving out critical points. At first I was willing to assume it was an honest mistake, but when it happens this frequently, I'm begining to think you're deliberately ignoring any point I'm attempting to make.

WTF Gnarff? Not only did I never say that, I never even implied that. I'll give this one more attempt to have a reasoned debate with you, but if you continue to deliberately be contrary, just for the sake of being contrary (because there's no way you just misinterpreted what I said even if you had the reading comprehension skills of a 5th grader), then I'm done with it.

I was giving an example of a group of people (African Americans in California) who opposed legalizing gay marriage, yet at the same time voted for the Democratic candidate who was OK with it. It was supposed to show (and I thought it was pretty damn clear) that this happens because gay marriage isn't that important to these people. If you ask them in a ballot initiative they'll tell you they are opposed to it, but it's just not high enough on their list of concerns to vote against the guy they like on all the other issues.

It has nothing to do with Obama being black. Obama could be pink with polka dots, and it still wouldn't make gay marriage a major issue for most people - even people who in this case oppose gay marriage.

 

That's Gnarff's modus operandi.

Geeze, Aldeth, for someome as smart as you, I'm surprized it's taken you this long to figure that out.

 

o.0 Jeez, I thought I had cleared it up. Guess not. Okay, round three!

Tal, what I was trying to ask (earnestly) was if there is an argument against legalizing gay marriage that is not a religious argument or is not an argument based on homophobia (i.e. They shouldn't be married because gay people are gross and evil and wrong). By using the word legitimate, I was implying that the homophobic argument is NOT a legitimate argument in this, or any, debate (because arguments based on hate aren't really credible...). I am not calling all arguments against gay marriage homophobic, I am just asking if there are arguments outside of the two main ones. BTA explained it perfectly. I apologize for the confusion...

It didn't seem obvious to me... I thought I was making it clear that I was asking for alternatives to religious and homophobic arguments.

 

Some people feel marriage is more about family, homosexuals can't produce a family themselves and thus have no need to marry. So there's that argument as well. There's usually an overlap with the groups that believe homosexuals shouldn't adopt with this group - not from hatred, but from the honest view that a child *needs* a mother and father figure, and that children can be cruel to one another over something as simple as who the parents are.

 

I believe you are in earnest, Saber, but the fact is that many people just throw the term "homophobic" around against any and all arguments against homosecual behaviour. In other words, the very fact that an argument exists makes it homophobic in the eyes of these zealots.

But their no worse than people from the other side of the fence who say things like "you're just a little faggot, why should I listen to you?" Both sides need to stop throwing around the ad hominem attacks and actually listen to each other, even if at the end they must agree to disagree.

Anyhow, 8people made a good case that didn't once seem to me to denigrate homosexuals or advocate violence against them. Yet some loonies out there would still label her statement as homophobic.

 

Perhaps. But what about heterosexual couples who can't (or in a case such as my wife and I, choose not to) have children? Those same people should probably be objecting to our marriage because we don't want to raise a family, but they don't. They might wonder why we bothered with it, but they don't object.

 

Nah, just questioning Mrs Splunge's sanity.

 

Maybe they do object. Doesn't mean they'll go out of their way to object to homosexual marriages - they just certainly won't put themselves out to support it either.

There are also those that think all marriage is a sham anyway and simply don't care who does or does not get it, they may object to your marriage too but they're hardly going to go out of their way to annul it or enable others to follow the same path.

I am simply throwing ideas out there, I believe marriage can be a beautiful thing and should be a union made in love and trust, whether religion is involved or not. My personal belief is that it should not be denied to a gay couple that is in love, especially when there are enough straight couples who abuse the concept as it is. But my beliefs are neither here nor there, I have no wish to offend anyone as I know my views are often quite unusual

 

Perhaps, but I really doubt that their objections would be as strong as they are about homosexual marriages. Nonetheless, point taken.

Actually, the first thing she said after "I do" was "What the hell was I thinking?!?"

 

Ah the power of a word, apparently I am a zealot by LKDs standards just as he is a homophobe by me. Yes, by my definition opposing gay marriage makes you a homophobe but that is a definition of a word. For me homophobe means someone who have a problem with with homosexual people simply as that. Using it as a clinical term for a medical condition is rather silly in my eyes and I would say that my definition of the word is by no means extreme. For me there is no distinction between "person who disaprove of homosexuals" and the word "homophobe" and yes, any argumentation against gay marriage boils down to "I do not approve of homosexuals". However, everyone is entitled to their opinion I just don't understand why this issue is argued when it would be sufficient for hte people who oppose gay marriage to say: I do not approve of homosexuals or their ,in my opinion, choice of lifestyle so they should not enjoy the same rights as one man one woman couples. There, that is the entire argumentation against gay marriage laid out and it can be elaborated and it can be put in different words but this is what it all amounts to. For me, people who hold that opinion are homophobes and I do not understand why they dislike the epitath so strongly.

I believe this opinion is wrong and discriminating but as has been pointed out, when all things are said and done the majority rule although I think this is an issue where the checks in place to stop the majority from discriminating the minority should come into power.

 

The problem with using your own definition of a word that differs from the dictionary is that it will inevitably lead to misunderstandings. If I called you a paranoid psychotic maniac, but personally defined “paranoid” as “really”, “psychotic” as “nice”, and “maniac” as “guy”, then rather than insulting you, I would actually be complimenting you (assuming you don’t mind being called a really nice guy).

Words have definitions for a reason.