75% is great, it will only increase when it's seen as more normal. Looked up some dutch statistics, but can't find anything but conjecture about backwards christian communities or blaming "muslim youth" for the overt intolerance, which should always be taken with a grain of salt. There's also some inflated results from Amsterdam which is by no means a good representation of the whole dutch society. Being the gay capitol of the world and all.
Gay marriage salt thread
- Thread starter ChouGoku
- Start date
- Status
75% is great, it will only increase when it's seen as more normal. Looked up some dutch statistics, but can't find anything but conjecture about backwards christian communities or blaming "muslim youth" for the overt intolerance, which should always be taken with a grain of salt. There's also some inflated results from Amsterdam which is by no means a good representation of the whole dutch society. Being the gay capitol of the world and all.
User 463088
Banned
She has explained her evolution on the issue. She did so via the video from 2013. She also stated a few times that her issues with marriage equality were personal, not political.
I'm willing to take her word on that. There are a lot of people who have been wrong on this issue. President Obama, Secretary Clinton, former President Clinton, former President Carter, etc. When they held onto these viewpoints, they were bigoted. They were wrong, and they have changed their opinions. HIllary did a lot of things right by LGBT people when she was at the State Department. She's made the right comments regarding the issue since coming out in favor of it.
And, if you really can't see the difference between using an issue to bring people together (ie Hillary) and using an issue to spread division (ie every member of the GOP clown car), then...wow.
As a gay man, if I sat down and held a permanent grudge against every single person who wasn't always, 100% on the right side of history on every single LGBT issue...then I'd be freaking living in a one bedroom apartment in the middle of the Castro talking to no one other than my cat.
I think it's better than having someone in office who actually really believe gays are subhuman or some shit like what is in the republican party. If you actually think a politician can be elected without pandering you are extremely naive. It shouldn't be that way but it is reality that the majority of American voters who actually go out and vote you have to pander to them. Democrats lost many elections due to refusing to pander and our country suffered with presidents like Reagan.
IrishNinja
Member
Hey check out this one.
Her and her husband list all the companies that are going to persecute them because they came out in favor of the decision. LOL
TheHeretic
Banned
The argument wasn't that gays weren't human, it was that homosexuality was behaviour, not an identity. Opposing gay marriage in that framework is understandable. Believing they really are a minority and opposing them anyway is worse, I'd say.
Badlucktroll
Member
But seriously is John Roberts a conservative traitor? Is he the new David Souter? I know he didn't rule in favor of gay marriage but he saved obamacare twice.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Play the game, gain a foothold, and then taste the rainbow.
JigglesBunny
Banned
Regardless of religious beliefs, why would something that harms no one and has no effect on your personal day to day life matter to you so much that you actively protest and picket against it?
As someone who is good friends with many gay individuals, I can tell you never once have I felt threatened in any sense, nor have I felt that my religious foundations have been shook by their actions.
That's what makes this sort of response not just sad, but comical. These people truly are the lowest sort of individual.
Oh and as someone who primarily identifies with the Republican Party on certain issues, the opposition to gay marriage was always stupid and baffling to me.
As someone who is good friends with many gay individuals, I can tell you never once have I felt threatened in any sense, nor have I felt that my religious foundations have been shook by their actions.
That's what makes this sort of response not just sad, but comical. These people truly are the lowest sort of individual.
Oh and as someone who primarily identifies with the Republican Party on certain issues, the opposition to gay marriage was always stupid and baffling to me.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Saying "I'm against gay marriage" in order to get elected in a stupid fucking country where saying such things is/was a requirement to hold national office, then using that elected position to help tear down the walls of intolerance is somehow worse than actually believing that all those in the LGBT community are wicked, selfish, sinful people who deserve fewer rights than heterosexuals because what they're doing is an affront to a god who will cause them to suffer and burn for all eternity for their homosexuality?
I don't follow.
Or he passes judgement based on what he truly believes is right according to how he interprets the Constitution, no matter what the party that put him in power believes.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
A lot of people are under the mistaken belief that the concept of marriage was religious (many think specifically judeo-christian) first and civil second. Marriage in some form has existed as a civil institution in every culture regardless of religious practices. So, people who believe that marriage is primarily a religious function find it an infringement on their religion to appropriate that religious rite for people who practice something their holy book explicitly says is wrong.
blitzcloud
Banned
This is simply the "your favorite leader Lincoln didn't really care about slaves but then ended up helping them but for non-altruistic reasons!" argument redressed to fit this issue.
She's the love child of Obama and Rush Limbaugh. He's the love child of Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong.
GameGuru59
Banned
This one is great because they specifically mention YouTube, and they're on You Tube.
In the 1990s and up until the late 2000s, I was okay with a Democrat that wasn't in favor of marriage equality. I was convinced that this issue would eventually be resolved via the Supreme Court, and that court appointees were of much more importance than what the President thought. The only issue that would've made it through Congress in the political climate of those years was maybe the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, and Clinton has always said that he'd sign a bill if it made it to his desk.
So legislatively, I was being realistic/strategic with my vote. I don't have any data on-hand, but my suspicion is that many other LGBT voters from those years had similar thought processes. Looking at where the country was, we were playing the long game.
The year after Bill Clinton was elected, he appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg - general counsel of the ACLU. Yeah! That was all I needed to know about whether he was worth my vote as far as gay issues were concerned.
Overturning sodomy laws was of utmost importance back in that era; it was 1986 when the Supreme Court had ruled sodomy laws constituional in Bowers v Hardwick. Laws deeming our private consensual acts criminal were given the stamp of approval; this horrified many of us, and I (along with many others) voted while hoping that Clinton's appointees would greatly help in removing them. No other progress on gay rights issues could be made until that first key obstacle was removed.
This voting strategy paid-off handsomely in 2003, when the Supreme Court - with help from Bill Clinton's two appointees - overturned Bowers in Lawrence v Texas. After Lawrence, marriage was the next goal. And legal success that occurred at the Supreme Court reinforced my belief that Supreme Court appointees were of utmost importance when considering a politician's LGBT rights stance.
Would I have liked Obama and Hillary and Bill to come out in favor of marriage equality sooner? Absolutely. But they ended-up in the right place, explained their thought processes, and still helped the cause along in a prudent manner, even if it had to be a bit covert because of the electoral climate. Instead of turning my fire on folks who are now in a good place, I'd rather focus my fire on folks who wouldn't hesitate to appoint judges that would restore Bowers.
So legislatively, I was being realistic/strategic with my vote. I don't have any data on-hand, but my suspicion is that many other LGBT voters from those years had similar thought processes. Looking at where the country was, we were playing the long game.
The year after Bill Clinton was elected, he appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg - general counsel of the ACLU. Yeah! That was all I needed to know about whether he was worth my vote as far as gay issues were concerned.
Overturning sodomy laws was of utmost importance back in that era; it was 1986 when the Supreme Court had ruled sodomy laws constituional in Bowers v Hardwick. Laws deeming our private consensual acts criminal were given the stamp of approval; this horrified many of us, and I (along with many others) voted while hoping that Clinton's appointees would greatly help in removing them. No other progress on gay rights issues could be made until that first key obstacle was removed.
This voting strategy paid-off handsomely in 2003, when the Supreme Court - with help from Bill Clinton's two appointees - overturned Bowers in Lawrence v Texas. After Lawrence, marriage was the next goal. And legal success that occurred at the Supreme Court reinforced my belief that Supreme Court appointees were of utmost importance when considering a politician's LGBT rights stance.
Would I have liked Obama and Hillary and Bill to come out in favor of marriage equality sooner? Absolutely. But they ended-up in the right place, explained their thought processes, and still helped the cause along in a prudent manner, even if it had to be a bit covert because of the electoral climate. Instead of turning my fire on folks who are now in a good place, I'd rather focus my fire on folks who wouldn't hesitate to appoint judges that would restore Bowers.
Lol, I was literally just thinking about the Lincoln comparison although Lincoln was always against slavery, his original belief was compensation of all slave owners and shipping the slaves to Liberia for colonization. He's beliefs on what to do with the slaves evolved over the war as he started to see them as just as American as everyone else when he saw how hard they fought for the union as well as getting to actually know former slaves on a more personal level.
excelsiorlef
Member
So we're now arguing the most of semantical of all semantics.
Probably to get elected, doesn't make it right but that's the political climate for ya.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
It was just in response to someone's claim that Obama was 100% totally for marriage equality all along and only used the "evolving" angle to get elected when SSM didn't have broad public support. I wasn't arguing for anything other than the possibility he actually did experience an evolution in thinking on the issue and that his use of that phrase wasn't code for "just wait it out guys, I got this." It was tangential discussion alongside the "can people who were once anti-gay marriage but now aren't be considered to have once been bigots" discussion.
TheHeretic
Banned
Well voting for Reagan would have produced the same result, so I'm not sure this tells us anything.
So, at this point, does it really fucking matter? When you are just pointing out hypotheticals to that extent it's pretty much unnecessary arguments that don't contribute anything.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Rhetorical exercise is fun :'(
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
So fucking dumb. Replace gay couples with interracial couples and try to make it seem like he's not actually a bigot. These people are so clueless.This has been showing up on my Facebook feed
http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/
#WhosTheBigot #DeepThoughts #MakesYouThink
I honestly don't disagree with there but they are only fun for the exercisee. They typically cause annoyance to everyone else.
jackissocool
Member
They've all always been bigots.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
What does this mean? People can stop being bigots. People can mature or evolve their thoughts.
Well yeah, thoughts evolve over time. Do you really think that everyone supporting homosexuality now were in full favor of it before? Obviously no. As people mature or research more about topics, they develop good understanding of it. Taking out past comments and now trying to prove as an argument is just stupid and doesn't serve any purpose.
jackissocool
Member
Sure, theoretically. But I don't trust liberal politicians one bit to be sincere. They are opportunistic and deceptive because their goal is maintaining the status quo and will do whatever it takes to achieve that. Hillary is now pro gay marriage because it suits her hyper corporate agenda - it co-opts true efforts for queer liberation and turns it into a liberal bourgeois movement that seeks to give wealthy gay white people a space in the ruling class as a concession that will slow and weaken efforts at actually abolishing systematic sources of oppression.
Maybe it's more important to say that it's irrelevant whether or not Obama or Clinton are bigots - all that matters is that their policies ultimately create a more stable and bearable form of oppression rather than end oppression.
*For votes
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Her husband doesn't give two shits lol. Also mentions youtube, yet is using youtube.
Is making a push to, and successfully legalizing gay marriage "opportunistic and deceptive"? I really don't think so. I would have hard time believing Obama and Hillary are sitting in a corner of the White House rubbing their hands together menacingly saying "Hahaha, now we have everyone in a false sense of security since we pushed that gay marriage thing, now is our chance!" in a Skeletor voice. Hillary is using as it as her platform because that's something that benefits everyone, not just herself and her campaign.
That would be nice were it not for the fact he believes people are secondary to corporations.
The goal of liberal politicians is to maintain the status quo, and your evidence for it is them supporting a change to the status quo?
Byakuya769
Member
Bigotry, y'all.
Wait, it sounds like they want people to stop using these companies and yet they outright call out youtube while using it!
The husband kind of looks like he doesn't want to be there.
jackissocool
Member
Does it benefit the trans kid kicked out of his house for his gender expression? Does it benefit the black lesbians trapped in poverty due to systematic racial, gender, and class oppression? Their intent is irrelevant. What gay marriage does is incorporates a limited sort of queer expression into an oppressive system. True queer liberation would require the dismantling of all oppressive systems and liberals want to maintain the most important oppressive system of all. They only give partial concessions when the demand is too overwhelming to deny it and the public rage threatens to boil over. It's a well-oiled machine that's managed to make "progress" for a hundred years while people's material conditions remain essentially the same.
The status quo being capitalism. They do it by giving minor concessions like this. Is gay marriage really a change in the status quo? It was inevitable step and they delayed it as long as they possibly could and now act like the heroes who swept in and saved the day.
There is not corruption or conspiracy. There is a system that is designed to perpetuate itself at the expense of the vast majority of people. That system is capitalism.
This is a contrarian fallacy- basically the opposite of the slippery slope fallacy, inferring previously incompetent corruption is now supernaturally competent in a nuanced conspiracy.
Nothing is good enough or fast enough to meet an ever-intensifying demand for change.
Oh. ...Oh.
Sorry, I'm past the "discuss capitalism in uncertain, imprecise, fact-defying terms" phase of my life. Carry on.
Precisely.
jackissocool
Member
Solid argument there, pal. Maybe once I grow up I'll be as smart and dismissive as you.
TheHeretic
Banned
Queer liberation has thankfully lost to conservative gay integration into the cultural norms of society. No offence, but those ideas were deadly to the gay movement in the 80s and 90s.
jackissocool
Member
I'm curious what you mean by this. Do you mean the ideology of queer liberation or the opposition to it that was so extreme?
We can't solve all the problems so it's opportunistic if you solve any problems! Change comes all at once or not all as we all know.
TheHeretic
Banned
The ideology itself was popular in left wing circles but not on the ground, where gay people wanted to live ordinary lives. American society would never have accepted liberationism, and it was defeated by the conservative argument. Rightly so, I think.
You are right that this is a conservative victory, though very few people know the history of the movement deeply enough to understand why.
jackissocool
Member
Is any pace of progress acceptable? We take one win every five or ten years and we're on the right track? Why stick with the system that makes progress such a long and difficult struggle? Why tolerate all the oppression that exists just because we get these small scale victories?
So I guess your argument is that it wouldn't have gotten anywhere? I just want to be sure I know what you're saying.
Sincerely insane and racist, I suppose. They don't hide their disgusting hate-filled ideology. Not that that's a particularly admirable trait but, as far as sincerity goes... sure. I actually have a quote about this I like.
/u/jailbot said:
Do you trust conservative politicians to be sincere?
excelsiorlef
Member
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Sounds like they might advocate for a more... boisterous form of demonstration than relying on the democratic process to solve the issues.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll