Gay marriage salt thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
GhaleonEB said:
Sure, of course it does. Obama's approach to big social issues has been to move the needle in the right direction, often slowly. Because he's a politician, he took a public policy position that was compatible with the prevailing views of the public. And then slowly, systemically worked for the normalization of gay rights throughout his presidency, from small actions like granting benefits to same sex partners of federal employees to working to end DADT. (It's a pretty long list, all in all.) When public opinion reached a tipping point, he tipped with it; his coming out in support of marriage equality had a large, measurable impact. And now here we are.

Was it political expediency? Probably, given what we know of his views of marriage before he ran for President. One could even call it cynical, or cowardly. Does Obama pushing for equality while falling short of calling for gays to be able to marry until it was politically tenable make him as bad as those fighting adamantly against it? Of course not. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

To his point, though, if we're going to call people who are against marriage equality at all bigots, then even someone who is against marriage equality is still a bigot even if they never tell anyone else their opinion or vote in a manner to keep gay marriage illegal. By that definition, Obama qualifies as having been a bigot before he was not a bigot. I still disagree with him that the term implies a state of permanence, though.
 
Art said:
Holy shit, such drama queens.

Same sex marriage has been legal almost 2 decades in The Netherlands and no one is lobbying to get the bible or religion banned.

No lifers.
Click to expand...
and

The netherlands have not been wiped out the face of the earth
 
Mecha said:
Uhhhhhh..
Click to expand...

The problem with shit like this is done one who isn't mentally all there is going to see this and take it literally as a battle call and go shoot some people up. And when it happens she (and others who have been calling for war and violence and taking up arms) won't take responsibility for their part and say that they obviously weren't serious and it's just the fault of some one crazy why it happened. Ignoring that they have been publicly advocating for "war".

It's totally irresponsible and then they won't even acknowledge their part in it all.
 
A very vocal local christian I know posted a comment to a gay pride parade article on FB. Even though his comments were just boring and safe, the comments of his friends and friends of those friends that spun the thread were disgustingly bigoted. Had to unfollow that shit.
 
GhaleonEB said:
Sure, of course it does. Obama's approach to big social issues has been to move the needle in the right direction, often slowly. Because he's a politician, he took a public policy position that was compatible with the prevailing views of the public. And then slowly, systemically worked for the normalization of gay rights throughout his presidency, from small actions like granting benefits to same sex partners of federal employees to working to end DADT. (It's a pretty long list, all in all.) When public opinion reached a tipping point, he tipped with it; his coming out in support of marriage equality had a large, measurable impact. And now here we are.

Was it political expediency? Probably, given what we know of his views of marriage before he ran for President. One could even call it cynical, or cowardly. Does Obama pushing for equality while falling short of calling for gays to be able to marry until it was politically tenable make him as bad as those fighting adamantly against it? Of course not. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton fought against not only gay marriage, but gay rights generally in the 1990's and then again in the early 2000's as a senator. The HIV travel ban was enacted by her husband and congress, one of the most aggressive anti-gay bills ever passed at the federal level. She never had a strategy of advancing gay rights, she had a strategy of getting herself elected.

If this is the equivalent of 1964, that makes her a George Wallace figure in American History, since he probably never believed it all as well. This isn't my analysis of course, its the logical extension of whats being said here.
 
Art said:
Holy shit, such drama queens.

Same sex marriage has been legal almost 2 decades in The Netherlands and no one is lobbying to get the bible or religion banned.

No lifers.
Click to expand...

Well there's Wilders and his campaign against Islam, but that's entirely unrelated.
 
TheHeretic said:
Hillary Clinton fought against not only gay marriage, but gay rights generally in the 1990's and then again in the early 2000's as a senator. The HIV travel ban was enacted by her husband and congress, one of the most aggressive anti-gay bills ever passed at the federal level. She never had a strategy of advancing gay rights, she had a strategy of getting herself elected.

If this is the equivalent of 1964, that makes her a George Wallace figure in American History. This isn't my analysis of course, its the logical extension of whats being said here.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders > Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton of 2015 > Anyone in the GOP list of candidates.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Sorry, meant his point was "she was a bigot in the 1990s."
Click to expand...

Yes she was.

Edit: If we're holding her to the standard we're using for everyone else. Even if she were saying bigoted things and working to pass bigoted laws in the name of gaining and maintaining power, it doesn't make her actions any less bigoted, even if she claims she did it with no ill will toward homosexuals.

The meaning behind the action is moot if the consequence is indiscernible from the same action being done out of spite or hatred.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Haha, there is no way you can assume that. How is it not equally possible that he wasn't for marriage equality and only said he was "evolving" to pander to gay marriage advocates? As opposed to saying he was "evolving" to pander to voters who didn't want to hear he was for marriage equality.
Click to expand...

Well I think if he was truly against gay marriage he would still be against it because it's not like he needs your votes anymore. This is his last term.
 
Mecha said:
Uhhhhhh..
Click to expand...

Why do these people think all laws should have to adhere to their religious beliefs? This isn't a fucking church, it's a country. A country full of all different types of people. Your fairy tale beliefs don't get to determine the rights of those that don't believe your hateful bullshit.
 
Bill Clinton signed DOMA too. I think it's fair to call that bigoted.

Also, look at all the people in this very thread who've said that they gave up their bigoted views. It's clearly a thing that's happened, and faster that it did with racism.
 
Ryuuroden said:
Well I think if he was truly against gay marriage he would still be against it because it's not like he needs your votes anymore. This is his last term.
Click to expand...

I agree it's unlikely. There's just no way of knowing is really my only point. The LGBT and LGBT-sympathietic voting bases are high turn out portions of the Democratic electorate, his party needs them and he may have still lied to maintain the Democrat coalition.

I mean, y'know, only in the realm of hypothetical thought.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Bill Clinton signed DOMA too. I think it's fair to call that bigoted.

Also, look at all the people in this very thread who've said that they gave up their bigoted views. It's clearly a thing that's happened, and faster that it did with racism.
Click to expand...

Yeah. People have changed their minds, and quickly.
TheHeretic said:
So given she's never apologised for any of it, why does the HRC love her, and why is she a shoe in for the Democratic nomination?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the HRC is so I certainly can't speak for them, but I think it's in large part because of the fact that she changed positions, and for her record since then. The public view on this is changing rapidly. People are going through the same kind of process she has; those who who have changed their own minds can empathize with those who have also changed theirs.
 
Mecha said:
Uhhhhhh..
Click to expand...

BTW, why did God establish the U.S. but not any other nation?

If you think he did establish others then why is it only the actions of the U.S. that brings about the end days and the point of no turning back? Like when Canada legalized SSM or France. Why are they not responsible for the end days?
 
Rebel Leader said:
but only in money and isn't god agianst vasts amount of wealth held in 1 area?
Click to expand...
Err, no?

God is against greed in general. Unless there are some of those 427 other commandments like "you shan't suffer a witch to live" and such that preclude wealth accumulating in the same area.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
I agree it's unlikely. There's just no way of knowing is really my only point. The LGBT and LGBT-sympathietic voting bases are high turn out portions of the Democratic electorate, his party needs them and he may have still lied to maintain the Democrat coalition.

I mean, y'know, only in the realm of hypothetical thought.
Click to expand...

Wait you sincerely think Barack Obama he who repealed DADT, stopped defending DOMA in court and ha been a vocal supporter of same sex marriage for a few years is secrelty against all that?
 
TheHeretic said:
So given she's never apologised for any of it, why does the HRC love her, and why is she a shoe in for the Democratic nomination?
Click to expand...

It's fine if you don't vote for her in the primaries but if she is the democratic nominee and you refuse to vote for her you are giving a vote to the republican party that panders to preachers who say shit like "we can solve AIDS by putting all gays into gas chambers" , etc.
 
Art said:
Holy shit, such drama queens.

Same sex marriage has been legal almost 2 decades in The Netherlands and no one is lobbying to get the bible or religion banned.

No lifers.
Click to expand...
Didn"t you watch the video,there are only two nations foundez BY god, the holy saint nation of Israel and the USA, he's totally involved into the peaceful and humane ways they were stablished in, and those are God's favorite nations. Africa can go fuck themselves.
 
slit said:
BTW, why did god establish the U.S. but not any other nation?

If you think he did establish others then why is it only the actions of the U.S. that brings about the end days and the point of no turning back? Like when Canada legalized SSM or France. Why are they not responsible for the end days?
Click to expand...

You're asking logical questions at the kind of people operating under an illogical state of mind. They exist in a bubble.
 
Soph said:
I guess everybody wants to be part of the winning team, good thing it's never going to drop lower than that anymore in America. I do wonder where it will end up though, do we have any similar numbers for the Netherlands?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the trends in other countries, sorry; google might be able to help. As for where it will end up, scroll down to the second graph, showing the generational divides. Recent generations support it on the order of 75%. As the older generations die, overall public opinion will move closer to that number. (Which is, also, increasing.)
 
excelsiorlef said:
Wait you sincerely think Barack Obama he who repealed DADT, stopped defending DOMA in court and ha been a vocal supporter of same sex marriage for a few years is secrelty against all that?
Click to expand...

Um, no. That's why I took the time to write out "only in the realm of hypothetical thought."

My point is just that you can't know positively and without a shadow of a doubt that his "evolution" on SSM was sincere or born of political expediency. That doesn't mean that you can't use reasonable evidence to conclude it's pretty likely it was sincere.
 
I appreciate GAF even more now. The overwhelmingly supportive demeanor of the thread and others has surprised me.
 
Ryuuroden said:
It's fine if you don't vote for her in the primaries but if she is the democratic nominee and you refuse to vote for her you are giving a vote to the republican party that panders to preachers who say shit like "we can solve AIDS by putting all gays into gas chambers" , etc.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton used the issue for political gain (or necessity) just as republicans are doing now, I don't see a moral distinction at all. If she never really believed it that makes it even more heinous in my view.
 
DOWN said:
I appreciate GAF even more now. The overwhelmingly supportive demeanor of the thread and others has surprised me.
Click to expand...

We hear about a lot of horror stories and even loss of life in the LGBT community on GAF, so it doesn't surprise me to see the average Gaffers opinion on this. The amount of support we see in the depression OT and others is delightful. GAF is just a great home for everyone regardless of your background. All are accepted with open arms besides the bigots, haters and general nasty people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
9K
Dr.Morris79 replied
  • Poll
AI Doomer thread
2
59
3K
Sophist replied
  • Poll
UFC 307: Pereira vs. Rountree Jr. - Salt Lake City (4,265 ft) - October 5
Poll Event  2
54
2K
GymWolf replied
New School Music Thread
20
826
Audiophile replied
Snow & White | Review Thread
Community  2
80
5K
GymWolf replied
Top Bottom