Support NeoGAF

[The Lamonster]

I'm honestly curious now, what was the point of your last line? the same is true of... well, literally anything. I can only speak for myself but I find Obama's positions on gay issues to be frankly troubling, and I'm expressing that. It won't change anyone's minds any more than the 5300 odd posts are going to convince people of their own positions.

I am stupefied that you guys are so angered about Obama's gay positions. How the fuck would you let something like that endanger voting for him?

Get real. Iraq. The economy. Our worldwide reputation.

Shit needs to get fixed and you're bitching about gay issues? Civil unions provide the same benefits as marriage. Not an ideal situation, but better than nothing.

Get. Fucking. Real.

 

[The Lamonster]

dp

 

[Clevinger]

I'm honestly curious now, what was the point of your last line? the same is true of... well, literally anything. I can only speak for myself but I find Obama's positions on gay issues to be frankly troubling, and I'm expressing that. It won't change anyone's minds any more than the 5300 odd posts are going to convince people of their own positions.

There was no good point and I shouldn't have put it in. Express away.

 

[Gaborn]

I am stupefied that you guys are so angered about Obama's gay positions. How the fuck would you let something like that endanger voting for him?

Get real. Iraq. The economy. Our worldwide reputation.

Shit needs to get fixed and you're bitching about gay issues? Civil unions provide the same benefits as marriage. Not an ideal situation, but better than nothing.

Get. Fucking. Real.

I absolutely care about those issues, but they don't fundamentally affect ME as much as the gay marriage issue. I certainly think Obama is right that we need to get out of Iraq for example if it makes you feel any better but for ME the fact of his campaign's support for McClurkin, his condemnation of gay marriage and promotion of separate but equal status is utterly unacceptable. I have a BAD feeling about him on gay rights, when he's talking about them it feels more like pandering than something he actually believes in.

Clevinger - fair enough

 

[GhaleonEB]

Nah, remember Ben Smith was a big-time Hillary shill. He's been working on that piece for months.

This. Read the comments on Ben Smith's blog. They hate him. :lol

Also: Rasmussen has Obama leading by 11 in New Hampshire, and SUSA has Obama leading in Iowa by 4 (but losing the miniscule black vote to McCain, somehow).

State polling continues to look good.

 

[guess]

I absolutely care about those issues, but they don't fundamentally affect ME as much as the gay marriage issue. I certainly think Obama is right that we need to get out of Iraq for example if it makes you feel any better but for ME the fact of his campaign's support for McClurkin, his condemnation of gay marriage and promotion of separate but equal status is utterly unacceptable. I have a BAD feeling about him on gay rights, when he's talking about him it feels more like pandering than something he actually believes in.

Clevinger - fair enough

Don't you support Bob Barr, or maybe that was another poster. You don't have a bad feeling about his position. Considering what he has done.

 

[Gaborn]

Dont' you support Bob Barr, or maybe that was another poster. You don't have a bad feeling about his position. Considering what he has done.

Well, I wouldn't support Barr if he was the Republican nominee. In the case of third parties right now I view them as unelectable but though Barr as a candidate is personally troubling to me I view him more as an avatar of the Libertarian party, he's representing that party's views and HIS personal views matter less for that reason. His promotion of Libertarian ideals will help in the long term even though he personally is not what I'd call particularly strong on a lot of those issues. (and, as I previously mentioned, he's 100000000x better than Mary "I support the right to child porn" Ruwart)

 

[The Lamonster]

I absolutely care about those issues, but they don't fundamentally affect ME as much as the gay marriage issue. I certainly think Obama is right that we need to get out of Iraq for example if it makes you feel any better but for ME the fact of his campaign's support for McClurkin, his condemnation of gay marriage and promotion of separate but equal status is utterly unacceptable. I have a BAD feeling about him on gay rights, when he's talking about them it feels more like pandering than something he actually believes in.

Clevinger - fair enough

All I'm saying is that while it is an important issue, it should not detract anyone from voting Democrat this year.

Plus, I bet deep down Obama really does care a lot about gay rights but at this point he has to appear more center-leaning than liberal so he can maximize Indie and GOP voters' support.

 

[Gaborn]

All I'm saying is that while it is an important issue, it should not detract anyone from voting Democrat this year.

Plus, I bet deep down Obama really does care a lot about gay rights but at this point he has to appear more center-leaning than liberal so he can maximize Indie and GOP voters' support.

Sorry, but I think if anything it's the other way around, deep down Obama wouldn't prefer to give gays civil unions or anything much else I believe. And there's no good reason to support the Democrats if you're gay and want gay marriage, sorry. Supporting the lesser of two evils on the issue of EQUALITY is frankly stupid.

 

[Mumei]

I am stupefied that you guys are so angered about Obama's gay positions. How the fuck would you let something like that endanger voting for him?

Get real. Iraq. The economy. Our worldwide reputation.

Shit needs to get fixed and you're bitching about gay issues? Civil unions provide the same benefits as marriage. Not an ideal situation, but better than nothing.

Get. Fucking. Real.

Would you stop posting "you guys"? It's really irritating.

And I've donated to his campaignn, I've volunteered for his campaign, I voted for him in the primary, and I'll vote for him come general election time.

But that doesn't mean for a moment that I'm going to be willing to compromise on this issue, nor should it.

 

[worldrunover]

Would you stop posting "you guys"? It's really irritating.

he should use "my friends" instead lol.

 

[Mumei]

he should use "my friends" instead lol.

:lol

I approve.

 

[Door2Dawn]

You guys need to calm the hell down. Seriously.

 

[The Lamonster]

he should use "my friends" instead lol.

:lol

At least I didn't say "you people!"

 

[Mumei]

You guys need to calm the hell down. Seriously.

I'm not angry. =(

 

[Gaborn]

You guys need to calm the hell down. Seriously.

Why should we? If you don't like it you're free to ignore us, but why should we shut up about Obama supporting second class status for gays?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I agree somewhat. Realistically, you have four choices for this issue during the election.

1. A vote for Obama, which, although it's not the leap forward that's ideal, is a step forward on the issue. A step that will encourage more.
2. A vote for McCain, which would keep the issue the same or step (or leap) backward.
3. A vote for Bob Barr, who won't get elected and therefore will do nothing.
4. Don't vote for anyone, you contribute to nothing.

You can be sure, though, that bitching on an internet forum about your less than ideal choice will do nothing to help your cause.

Ehh. Thanks to the electoral college, most of our individual votes won't matter. Talking online and affecting someone else's point of view could have a slightly-greater-than-zero effect in the long run.

 

[mckmas8808]

I agree somewhat. Realistically, you have four choices for this issue during the election.

1. A vote for Obama, which, although it's not the leap forward that's ideal, is a step forward on the issue. A step that will encourage more.
2. A vote for McCain, which would keep the issue the same or step (or leap) backward.
3. A vote for Bob Barr, who won't get elected and therefore will do nothing.
4. Don't vote for anyone, you contribute to nothing.

You can be sure, though, that bitching on an internet forum about your less than ideal choice will do nothing to help your cause.

Exacty! And what pisses me off is some gays not seeinf the forest for the trees. They don't understand what the word progress means.

They would have get 0 percent today and a less than possible 100 percent in 10 years than get 90 percent today and a more likely 100 percent in 10 years.

 

[Mumei]

Why should we? If you don't like it you're free to ignore us, but why should we shut up about Obama supporting second class status for gays?

Gaborn, please don't take this the wrong way, but you're annoying me, too... to be quite honest.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Well no church should be forced to recognize gay marriage. That's not for the government to decide, it's for the churches to. But gay marriage should be recognized by "marriage" in the same sense as any other marriage would be. "Civil Unions" just has too much of a separate-but-equal vibe to it.

I agree. I've also never heard any gay marriage proponents suggest that a church should be forced to perform a same-sex marriage.

A lot of you gays guys here aren't as smart as you think you are. Would you honestly not vote for Obama over this? Or is this basically you guys ranting about his views but with Obama support.

Because I hope you guys realize that a non-vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. And McCain don't play. He will put sepreme court justices on the court that will strike your near victory for civil unions to the stone age.

You problems won't get to the level of civil unions and McCain won't strip away the DOMA law like Obama will.

You gay guys have to get your priorities in order believe me.

Black people during the civil rights era would be taking every little extra right that they could get and then fight for more. You guys don't want these extra rights one by one. You want everything at once and that's not something that tends to happen. Learn and read up on some history. Black people didn't get full rights after we were freed from slavery. But you didn't hear them saying some dumb shit like "nope I want to stay a slave until I can get every right that my white master had."

No they took freedom first then they continued to fight for more rights. That's what you guys nned to do.

A couple things:
1) If you start off a post telling people they aren't as smart as they think they are, don't leave your own post a nonsensical mess.

2) Gay people HAVE been struggling for equality bit by bit. I think you need to do some reading up.

Obama can't have it both ways. He wants to be Mr. Hope, Change and New Politics but he espouses regressive, homophobic stances that are beginning to lag behind public opinion. And that's not exactly what I'd call leadership.

You guys need to calm the hell down. Seriously.

This is like when white people call black people uppity.

 

[Gaborn]

Exacty! And what pisses me off is some gays not seeinf the forest for the trees. They don't understand what the word progress means.

They would have get 0 percent today and a less than possible 100 percent in 10 years than get 90 percent today and a more likely 100 percent in 10 years.

The problem is if we take 90% today there will be a LOT less urgency to get the 100% in ten years. Accepting 90% now means that we're pretty much accepting 90% for the next 30 years.

Mumei - fair enough, and I can understand that, I was a LITTLE harsh there. There are rational reasons for people to support Obama, I just think that people are burying this issue and I'm TIRED of being told "lol, just accept it now" because that's what we've been doing for too long.

 

[reilo]

The problem is if we take 90% today there will be a LOT less urgency to get the 100% in ten years. Accepting 90% now means that we're pretty much accepting 90% for the next 30 years.

As opposed to having what? The 25% you have now? And if McCain is elected President, you will have that 25% for the next 30 years.

Hey, you can bang this 9/10 model that's throwing herself/himself at your feet, or you can wait 30 years until you maybe, hopefully, god-willing bang that 10/10 model.

 

[Mumei]

Exacty! And what pisses me off is some gays not seeinf the forest for the trees. They don't understand what the word progress means.

They would have get 0 percent today and a less than possible 100 percent in 10 years than get 90 percent today and a more likely 100 percent in 10 years.

I see it as "0% today, and likely 100% in 10 years" over a "75% (hooray for arbitrary numbers!) today over a much less likely 100% in 10 years", myself.

I'll vote for Obama and all, I'd just prefer that he didn't enact civil unions at all. Just leave the issue alone.

Of course, if he picks Supreme Court justices well enough and a case ends up reaching them, all would be forgiven. =P

 

[Door2Dawn]

Why should we? If you don't like it you're free to ignore us, but why should we shut up about Obama supporting second class status for gays?

Because no matter how you bitch and complain(on the fucking internet,no less),hes not going to change his stances,like I said before,its his belief(religious or otherwise) that marriage should be between a man and a women. And its downright crazy call someone a bigot for not supporting your views. I was pretty disappointed when he said it,but thats how it is.

 

[Gaborn]

As opposed to having what? The 25% you have now? And if McCain is elected President, you will have that 25% for the next 30 years.

Hey, you can bang this 9/10 model that's throwing herself/himself at your feet, or you can wait 30 years until you maybe, hopefully, god-willing bang that 10/10 model.

No, I think if McCain is president we'll have continued gradual progress towards full equality. There will be active grassroots campaigns all around the country working towards gay marriage. The moment we get federal recognition for civil unions but NOT marriage is the moment the public decides that civil unions are the way to go on the issue and start considering it settled. It won't even occur to anyone there's something wrong with setting up a completely different status for a particular group of people. They won't see the stigmatization that represents, all they'll see is "separate but equal means equal this time"

 

[The Lamonster]

The problem is if we take 90% today there will be a LOT less urgency to get the 100% in ten years. Accepting 90% now means that we're pretty much accepting 90% for the next 30 years.

Mumei - fair enough, and I can understand that, I was a LITTLE harsh there. There are rational reasons for people to support Obama, I just think that people are burying this issue and I'm TIRED of being told "lol, just accept it now" because that's what we've been doing for too long.

Listen man. I smoke pot. I care about marijuana legalization more than anything. Obama supports decriminalization. I'm not going to question my support for Obama just because his position only goes half-way to my desired outcome.

Key words here are progress and patience.

 

[reilo]

No, I think if McCain is president we'll have continued gradual progress towards full equality. There will be active grassroots campaigns all around the country working towards gay marriage. The moment we get federal recognition for civil unions but NOT marriage is the moment the public decides that civil unions are the way to go on the issue and start considering it settled. It won't even occur to anyone there's something wrong with setting up a completely different status for a particular group of people. They won't see the stigmatization that represents, all they'll see is "separate but equal means equal this time"

Whaaaaat? How? What the hell has McCain shown or done that convinces you a presidency under him will give gay people more rights? I see nothing but the reverse.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama can't have it both ways. He wants to be Mr. Hope, Change and New Politics but he espouses regressive, homophobic stances that are beginning to lag behind public opinion. And that's not exactly what I'd call leadership.

I think that's a bit excessive. He's not as progressive as I'd like, but he's in full support of granting gay couples the exact same rights as everone else. That's a HUGE step forward from the way things are today.

And FWIW, this issue is one of the two big reasons I left my church (LDS). I couldn't stay active in a church that preaches bigotry like this. I'm not gay, but I think the issue is a very important one for the country - we need to treat everyone equally.

 

[Gaborn]

Whaaaaat? How? What the hell has McCain shown or done that convinces you a presidency under him will give gay people more rights? I see nothing but the reverse.

It's not what McCain has done, McCain won't have anything to do with it by himself. By more or less keeping the status quo on marriage at the federal level there's a greater impetus for state movements to equality. With federal recognitions for civil unions... that's what states will grant. Why recognize gay marriages when the federal government doesn't have to?

 

[Tamanon]

It's not what McCain has done, McCain won't have anything to do with it by himself. By more or less keeping the status quo on marriage at the federal level there's a greater impetus for state movements to equality. With federal recognitions for civil unions... that's what states will grant. Why recognize gay marriages when the federal government doesn't have to?

Then explain California. The government does not recognize gay marriages, and yet they passed it. That's a bit of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

 

[Mumei]

Mumei - fair enough, and I can understand that, I was a LITTLE harsh there. There are rational reasons for people to support Obama, I just think that people are burying this issue and I'm TIRED of being told "lol, just accept it now" because that's what we've been doing for too long.

Well, the primary difference between us is that this doesn't affect my support for Obama's candidacy - my enthusiasm, certainly, but not the Yes / No of whether I support him. I still do. I'm under the impression that you think he's better than McCain, but not your first choice among those currently running.

What I think we both agree on is that if Obama becomes president - and we both agree that he is better than McCain on this issue - that we would prefer that he have nothing to say about the civil unions issue; we don't want him to make it an issue in the way that Bill Clinton made gays in the military an issue from the beginning of his first term.

You may not agree with this next part of it, but I also would like to see his only real involvement, if he will not or cannot make gay marriage a reality, to be in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Is that accurate for you, as well?

 

[Mercury Fred]

I think that's a bit excessive. He's not as progressive as I'd like, but he's in full support of granting gay couples the exact same rights as everone else. That's a HUGE step forward from the way things are today.

I understand where you're coming from and this has been argued to death on GAF, but I still have yet to see any reasonable reason to oppose same sex marriage which leads me to believe that those in opposition are, at least in some way, homophobic.

I want Obama to be a good leader. I want for him to reach out to my community. I want to donate money to the campaign. I want him to be who he says he is. And so far, I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Just weighing in on the gay rights issues. Doesn't civil union and marriage mean the same shit as far as rights?

 

[Tamanon]

Well, the primary difference between us is that this doesn't affect my support for Obama's candidacy - my enthusiasm, certainly, but not the Yes / No of whether I support him. I still do. I'm under the impression that you think he's better than McCain, but not your first choice among those currently running.

What I think we both agree on is that if Obama becomes president - and we both agree that he is better than McCain on this issue - that we would prefer that he have nothing to say about the civil unions issue; we don't want him to make it an issue in the way that Bill Clinton made gays in the military an issue from the beginning of his first term.

You may not agree with this next part of it, but I also would like to see his only real involvement, if he will not or cannot make gay marriage a reality, to be in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Is that accurate for you, as well?

You've hit a problem with him, he's a firm supporter of strict constructionist judges.

Agent: Yes it does, but they're making it as a "separate-but-equal" argument.

 

[Gaborn]

Then explain California. The government does not recognize gay marriages, and yet they passed it. That's a bit of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Exception rather than the rule, in a handful of states the state's Constitution explicitly grants more protections (including specifically full and equal protection of the law based on gender) then our own. You're right, those states will have gay marriage most likely but for the majority their state constitutions won't be a bar towards granting separate but equal status.

Mumei - Tamanon has it mostly right, although I would literally become a max donor to Obama if he said he'd nominate either Bill or Hillary to the Supreme Court, just for the epic lulz of the confirmation hearing.

 

[reilo]

Just weighing in on the gay rights issues. Doesn't civil union and marriage mean the same shit as far as rights?

Yes. Like I've pointed out before, they are arguing over nomenclature. That's it. Not once have they brought up whether or not they get the same rights as "married" couples. They just want to be termed under the same umbrella name of "marriage."

Of course, I propose that the entire word marriage be removed from any legally binding documents.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Yes. Like I've pointed out before, they are arguing over nomenclature. That's it. Not once have they brought up whether or not they get the same rights as "married" couples. They just want to be termed under the same umbrella name of "marriage."

Of course, I propose that the entire word marriage be removed from any legally binding documents.

Not to crazy about that proposition.
Marriage is a sacred thing to some people in this country.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I understand where you're coming from and this has been argued to death on GAF, but I still have yet to see any reasonable reason to oppose same sex marriage which leads me to believe that those in opposition are, at least in some way, homophobic.

I just think that's far too strong a term for someone who supports equal rights. I consider the guys who lobby against equal rights to be homophobic (which I would also call bigoted). I would say Obama's position is progressive - but not ideal.

But it's important progress to make. McCain would take things the other way. It's a choice between someone who will move things in the right direction, but not all the way, or someone who will move things in the wrong direction.

 

[Mumei]

You've hit a problem with him, he's a firm supporter of strict constructionist judges.

Really? I had heard differently:

Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with "empathy." Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. "He loves his wife. He's good to his dog," he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

 

[avatar299]

Then explain California. The government does not recognize gay marriages, and yet they passed it. That's a bit of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

California kinda proves Gaborn point.

By the way, Gaborn. Let it go.

Edit: Whoop I'm late

 

[Tamanon]

Really? I had heard differently:

No no no no. I meant Gaborn is a big fan of them. Obama is of course not. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[Gaborn]

Not to crazy about that proposition.
Marriage is a sacred thing to some people in this country.

Which is why, although I'd support that proposal as well, I suspect it's even less popular than gay marriage, even though civil unions are "supposedly" equal in every way I can only imagine the outcry if some state gave heterosexual couples civil unions and gay couples marriage. It's not just a word afterall, it's dignity, it's acceptance, it's the thing that everyone thinks about doing at some point, no one thinks "I'm going to get unioned some day!" they think "I'm going to get married to the one I love"

Tamanon - Although, I maintain that the federal government doesn't have the right to discriminate based on the sex of individuals. If a state recognizes a marriage so should the federal government. Similarly, I'm wary of the judiciary imposing gay marriage on a federal level because that would make people more resistant and less accepting of it at this point.

Mumei - yes I'm a libertarian, and no, I'm not happy with a lot of political things going on right now.

 

[Mumei]

No no no no. I meant Gaborn is a big fan of them. Obama is of course not. Sorry for the confusion!

Ohhh.

:lol

It must suck being a gay libertarian in this day and age. (He is a libertarian, right?)

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Yes. Like I've pointed out before, they are arguing over nomenclature. That's it. Not once have they brought up whether or not they get the same rights as "married" couples. They just want to be termed under the same umbrella name of "marriage."

Of course, I propose that the entire word marriage be removed from any legally binding documents.

So they are arguing over terminology? Man, I thought it was deeper than that. It is just a word, a word that doesn't mean much to a lot of people given the divorce rate in this country. People wanted equal rights, they are appearing to get it and that is wonderful. Isn't the world 'marriage' derived from church ideology? Why would you want to be associated with a word from an institution that seems to shun homosexuality?

 

[Mercury Fred]

I just think that's far too strong a term for someone who supports equal rights. I consider the guys who lobby against equal rights to be homophobic (which I would also call bigoted). I would say Obama's position is progressive - but not ideal.

It's like a merry-go-round

It's still separate but equal to me as others have pointed out in this thread. And in this case, civil unions are not equal to marriage for a variety of reasons. But again, I appreciate your stance.

 

[Gaborn]

So they are arguing over terminology? Man, I thought it was deeper than that. It is just a word, a word that doesn't mean much to a lot of people given the divorce rate in this country. People wanted equal rights, they are appearing to get it and that is wonderful. Isn't the world 'marriage' derived from church ideology? Why would you want to be associated with a word from an institution that seems to shun homosexuality?

It's NOT just a word, it's what the word represents in society.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Don't you support Bob Barr, or maybe that was another poster. You don't have a bad feeling about his position. Considering what he has done.

He's not voting for Bob Barr, he's voting for the Libertarian Party in order to get their general platform more exposure. Since Bob Barr isn't insane, Gaborn feels comfortable voting for him.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It's like a merry-go-round

It's still separate but equal to me and as others have pointed out in this thread. And in this case, civil unions are not equal to marriage for a variety of reasons. But again, I appreciate your stance.

Fair enough. I disagree - but I'll drop it there.

On a different note, Obama is apparantly going to release a statement about FISA today.

 

[reilo]

So they are arguing over terminology? Man, I thought it was deeper than that. It is just a word, a word that doesn't mean much to a lot of people given the divorce rate in this country. People wanted equal rights, they are appearing to get it and that is wonderful. Isn't the world 'marriage' derived from church ideology? Why would you want to be associated with a word from an institution that seems to shun homosexuality?

 

[Gaborn]

He's not voting for Bob Barr, he's voting for the Libertarian Party in order to get their general platform more exposure. Since Bob Barr isn't insane, Gaborn feels comfortable voting for him.

Well said!!!!!! Atleasthe'snotRuwart2008