Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

I'm going to respond from a different angle. I'm slightly perplexed as to where your numbers are coming from. I completely understand that you think civil unions passing now can delay the movement for marriage, but I'm not quite sure why you believe that a rejection of civil unions now will lead to marriage in that timeframe.

Well, first, the time frame I was speaking of were just number, estimates in my own view. The reason I made them so drastic was because I believe major social shifts require an impetus behind them, a driving force like public sentiment. If you give us civil unions at the federal level and you have a President proclaiming this is equality it removes a good deal of the pressure on a majority of states (I'm thinking of Hawaii, of Rhode Island, of Oregon, of Washington, etc) that may at some point be inclined to consider gay marriage. They'd have the federal government and President Obama to point to and say that civil unions are equality.

Now, the other end of that, and the reason why it would eventually change (but maybe not for a while) is that some states (such as we saw in California and Massachusetts) give greater protection based on gender. In those cases a handful of states WILL be required to have gay marriage and that will inherently place a bit of pressure on other states nearby and ideologically inclined to do so to grant gay marriage. Still, with civil unions firmly entrenched it's a much different and more difficult argument to make. even if it doesn't take 40 years i don't see it taking less than 20 (assume for a moment Obama gets re-elected, that's 8 years lost, if we get a conservative Republican after that they wouldn't necessarily be inclined to support gay marriage, they'd have a statistically good shot at 2 terms... yeah, at least 20 years to get the public angry enough, 40 is more reasonable)

First of all, this isn't a strike negotiation. It's not like a rejection of Obama will be interpreted by all as a rejection of this poor compromise. I don't think that there will be news stories discussing the election day results of a McCain victory with an analysis about how this was due to the gay community standing strong and preferring marriage or nothing. Second of all, with McCain at the helm, explain to me how this might not just lead to it being 10 years before even civil unions are back on the table?

I don't view a rejection of Obama as a rejection of second class relationships either. That's just one of the effects that will happen. However, with McCain ensconced in the whitehouse with a Democratic congress there WILL be no FMA and essentially no change at the federal level. Meanwhile, more states will mobilize, and I think it's only a matter of time before a state (possibly Rhode Island or Washington, maybe even NY if the legislature loses a few of it's Republicans) is inclined to LEGISLATIVELY enact gay marriage. That will cause a major shift in public attitudes and thinking on the subject. Once it's been done once it'll be easier to do again. I just don't see the same push with Obama as President supporting civil unions and opposing gay marriage, the states that might be inclined to do so will be more likely to knuckle under to Obama and support his policy and explicitly enact civil unions for us.

 

[Zaptruder]

Honestly, I think I've been completely consistently libertarian in my objections to Obama. I'm known very publicly as a libertarian and not an Obama supporter, I think you're looking too hard into this. And I still think you're dismissing the concern that civil unions today may mean gay marriage in 30 or 40 years rather than 10 or so too quickly. As I said, I'm not sure many gay voters WILL be less inclined to support Obama over it, I just think they SHOULD because it's rational to oppose second class relationships.

I've dismissed it, because there's no substance to the fear.

I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time, I can simply say that knocking down part of the wall now, will make it easier to justify knocking down the rest in the future.

There's a fear of delay for the whole hog, but on the upside there's also hope that one thing will lead to another. You simply don't have the numbers or facts or figures to back up your position, just like I'm not going to bother finding the numbers facts and figures to justify my spin.

Instead, I'm saying that people are taken a negative spin, because of other concerns in regards to the candidate; because they see the candidate as negative/disagreeable on a few positions, they'll also spin this position negatively.

 

[Gaborn]

I've dismissed it, because there's no substance to the fear.

I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time, I can simply say that knocking down part of the wall now, will make it easier to justify knocking down the rest in the future.

There's a fear of delay for the whole hog, but on the upside there's also hope that one thing will lead to another. You simply don't have the numbers or facts or figures to back up your position, just like I'm not going to bother finding the numbers facts and figures to justify my spin.

Instead, I'm saying that people are taken a negative spin, because of other concerns in regards to the candidate; because they see the candidate as negative/disagreeable on a few positions, they'll also spin this position negatively.

And that's where we have to agree to disagree. I sincerely believe enacting civil unions today will have a chilling effect on marriage equality and that is a strong reason for gays to look askance at him (aside from the Donnie McClurkin incident and his deputy campaign manager referring to the "gay lifestyle" of course).

 

[Zaptruder]

And that's where we have to agree to disagree. I sincerely believe enacting civil unions today will have a chilling effect on marriage equality and that is a strong reason for gays to look askance at him.

Alright, that's fair enough. It's your opinion. It's good we've had this conversation, clears up where we're coming from.

 

[SouthernDragon]

This is why I respect people like Gaborn and JayDubya. Even if I disagree with their stances, they've thought out their stances and present them in a coherent and understandable manner. I'm constantly dismayed by people who just go "Obama's scary" or "McCain's old!"

 

[Gaborn]

Alright, that's fair enough. It's your opinion. It's good we've had this conversation, clears up where we're coming from.

Absolutely! It's always a good idea to air respectful disagreements whenever possible

Thanks FlightOfHeaven, I appreciate the way you've taken the time to make sure you understand my positions in this thread

 

[Joe]

george bush waveless video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2L9zeHWktus

:lol

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I'm constantly dismayed by people who just go "Obama's scary" or "McCain's old!"

The reason why these statements fly I think again has to do with poor education on how to properly structure an argument. Often times, people think they can either preface their statements with "in my opinion" or rationalize them after the fact with that statement. Instead of learning how to actually swim, people cling to the life preserver that is being able to say whatever you want whenever you want because of the first amendment.

Untrue assertions masquerading as an opinion are no less untrue. The other area of concern is people making controversial statements on issues of importance where it doesn't seem like they've taken so much as ten seconds to think about how this will sound to the world at large. Surely, we've all heard someone at some point make a statement similar to "After 9/11, I think we should have just bombed all Middle-Easterners straight back to hell!" A quick consideration for the concern of sounding ignorant should tell them that this is in fact an ignorant and dangerous position to hold. Even if you ignore the obvious affront to any sane person's definition of morality, they have to understand that there would be a massive fallout from such a move, both from appalled citizens of this country and from those around the world. Being an opinion, or the exercise of one's right to free speech doesn't make it okay to actually say.

Mind you, these are extreme examples to illustrate my disdain for most forms of public discourse concerning politics and world affairs.

 

[masud]

The reason why these statements fly I think again has to do with poor education on how to properly structure an argument. Often times, people think they can either preface their statements with "in my opinion" or rationalize them after the fact with that statement. Instead of learning how to actually swim, people cling to the life preserver that is being able to say whatever you want whenever you want because of the first amendment.

Untrue assertions masquerading as an opinion are no less untrue. The other area of concern is people making controversial statements on issues of importance where it doesn't seem like they've taken so much as ten seconds to think about how this will sound to the world at large. Surely, we've all heard someone at some point make a statement similar to "After 9/11, I think we should have just bombed all Middle-Easterners straight back to hell!" A quick consideration for the concern of sounding ignorant should tell them that this is in fact an ignorant and dangerous position to hold. Even if you ignore the obvious affront to any sane person's definition of morality, they have to understand that there would be a massive fallout from such a move, both from appalled citizens of this country and from those around the world. Being an opinion, or the exercise of one's right to free speech doesn't make it okay to actually say.

Mind you, these are extreme examples to illustrate my disdain for most forms of public discourse concerning politics and world affairs.

Yes, some people are dumb.

 

[Gaborn]

Yes, some people are dumb.

indeed, I find partisans on both sides who resort to ad hominem or believe something negative because they want to believe it to be distasteful.

 

[AmishNazi]

Don't forget the people that believe something positive or less scary than the alternative, because they wouldn't like what they'd have to do if that wasn't true.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

McCain nabs videogame score for campaign ad; composer pissed

http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_b...t=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;10

Electronic Arts' Medal of Honor series has always been noted for its sound design, from authentically reproduced gunshots to rousingly epic scores. Republican John McCain apparently hopes the music from the series will help rouse the electorate, as the presidential candidate used a selection from Medal of Honor: European Assault in a recent campaign ad, as reported by GamePolitics.

(snip)

The composer of that piece, Christopher Lennertz, has taken exception to the use of his music for a political ad. While he told GamePolitics that McCain's use of the music wasn't illegal, he still didn't approve of it.

"I am dismayed that my music has been used to promote his platform and even more disappointed that a candidate who claims to be the best voice for American entrepreneurs and business owners in this troubled economy so flagrantly ignored the most basic values and tenents of copyright and intellectual property," Lennertz said in a statement to Game Politics. "What, I ask, does such an action or oversight say about Mr. McCain's regard for the intrinsic value of American products, services, or creations? Where does the line get drawn? Is it reasonable to use my music to sell tobacco, alcohol, or pornographic materials? Is it reasonable to use it to promote a religion in which I do not believe? Is it legal?...yes, perhaps, is it ethical?...I don't believe so. Is it American?...definitely not by my standards. ... As an artist, business owner, and patriot, I proudly support Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency of the United States of America."

McCain is obsessed with war.

 

[Azure Dream]

I don't know why that struck me.

 

[speculawyer]

Wow . . . could this be a "thumpin'"?

The nationwide poll conducted by Newsweek showed Obama leading McCain by a margin of 51-36 percent, indicating that he might have got a bounce from his recent primary victory over Hillary Clinton.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080621/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Wow . . . could this be a "thumpin'"?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080621/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

I try not to get caught up in polls, especially if I favor the outcome. It's too easy to get despondent when your guy loses a point or two and then we have days of endless speculation.

I just like to follow the trends so far and it just looks like Obama is putting together a better looking argument to be president.

 

[avatar299]

McCain nabs videogame score for campaign ad; composer pissed

http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_b...t=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;10

McCain is obsessed with war.

It couldn't be becuase the music is realllly good.

 

[Mumei]

I'm going to respond from a different angle. I'm slightly perplexed as to where your numbers are coming from. I completely understand that you think civil unions passing now can delay the movement for marriage, but I'm not quite sure why you believe that a rejection of civil unions now will lead to marriage in that timeframe.

Honestly, his timeframe is probably overly enthusiastic.

Democrats as a group at the national level are better on gay issues than their Republican counterparts, but not by much. It is at the state and local level that it really makes a difference. I imagine that in ten years will see several more of the especially liberal states on the East / West coast go for marriage equality; New York seems like a good possibility, as they already recognize marriages between homosexuals from out of state, so the only thing changing there would be to allow their own citizens to marry in New York, rather than having to go to CA in order to marry, and then fly back to New York.

First of all, this isn't a strike negotiation. It's not like a rejection of Obama will be interpreted by all as a rejection of this poor compromise. I don't think that there will be news stories discussing the election day results of a McCain victory with an analysis about how this was due to the gay community standing strong and preferring marriage or nothing. Second of all, with McCain at the helm, explain to me how this might not just lead to it being 10 years before even civil unions are back on the table?

Well, the thing is, I'd prefer nothing now over civil unions.

A lot of you seem to believe that this means that we are idealistic children who want to have everything right now. This isn't the case. As you yourself mentioned in an earlier post, you are a part of a generation that simply doesn't see this as a problem. The opposition to gay marriage is generational. I'm willing to bet that waiting 15 years would change demographics enough to the point where it is possible to get marriage equality - until that happens, though, I'll wait.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I don't know why that struck me.

:lol

 

[Uncooked]

indeed, I find partisans on both sides who resort to ad hominem or believe something negative because they want to believe it to be distasteful.

Like this?

McCain nabs videogame score for campaign ad; composer pissed

McCain is obsessed with war.

 

[Gaborn]

Like this?

Yes, although McCain does seem to have rather a fondness for war.

 

[Uncooked]

It's incredible the gulf of difference between the two candidates, if only you simply stop and pay a little attention.

It really is a case of light versus dark, good versus evil, the differences are that dramatic.

I mean... Americans don't want to couch in such terms... they want to think that their democratic system isn't so broken that they would legitimately make a choice between good and evil and find it a difficult situation. No... not been able to make the right choice resoundingly with that sort of obvious choice in place would simply make them outright stupid. They fool themselves with this sort of thinking... but no. It really is that simple.

This time around, there shouldn't be any sort of debate... you have one guy, constantly doing the right thing, or as right as he can be given the circumstances and difficulties... and pulling it off spectacularly... representative of how a person in a utopian democracy should behave

and you have one guy that's haggard, old representing everything that's screwed up about democracy on the otherside; doesn't focus on issues, simply wants to president for the sake of the title; doesn't really have any critical positions other than wanting to carry on current policies (cruise control/or simply a maintainer of a (bad) status quo)... only been motivated to do some things right by his opponent... otherwise there's no way...

I shouldn't be able to fathom how this is even supposed to be a choice... and yet, the pragmatist in me understands exactly why this is a choice for the people of America. It's the political game... not all its participants are about the issues, about the direction of the country, nor the merit of the job. It's a game of manipulation, numbers, power, strategy, etc, etc... everything a democracy shouldn't be.

Obama really isn't that old, nor would I consider him haggard, take it easy son.

Kidding aside, this is why Obama supporters scare me. Do you honestly believe what you are typing here? Can you give me some good reasons why he is the greatest thing since Jesus?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Yes, although McCain does seem to have rather a fondness for war.

bomb bomb bomb Iran!!

 

[guess]

Kidding aside, this is why Obama supporters scare me.

I would hope that you would be scared of all candidate supporters right? (blanket statement) Unless you believe that only Obama supporters make statements like that.

Someone says something you don't like, then you throw out a blanket statement, then you end it off with "Jesus." I think you should be scared of yourself.

 

[Gaborn]

bomb bomb bomb Iran!!

Actually the Capitol Steps have done numerous parodies with that song.

 

[Karma Kramer]

God watching this morning news is like watching the world slowly collapsing into darkness. Everything is fucked.

 

[Uncooked]

I would hope that you would be scared of all candidate supporters right? (blanket statement) Unless you believe that only Obama supporters make statements like that.

Someone says something you don't like, then you throw out a blanket statement, then you end it off with "Jesus." I think you should be scared of yourself.

Where did I say I wasn't scared of other candidates supporters? Wow you are really sensitive aren't you, do you always get mad when people don't agree with the mounds of flattery heaped on Obama? Yeah I said Jesus, but unlike you I am not afraid of Him just as I am not afraid of Obama, rather only their overzealous supporters who say and act in strange ways at times.

God watching this morning news is like watching the world slowly collapsing into darkness. Everything is fucked.

It's TV news, they want you to watch so they show the most sensational stuff, stick to newspapers and the internet.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I feeling good about Obama at the moment though... or actually more importantly feeling good about our countries growing understanding of solid politics.

With the way things are going, McCain is going to have a ton of problems in November.

 

[guess]

Where did I say I wasn't scared of other candidates supporters? Wow you are really sensitive aren't you, do you always get mad when people don't agree with the mounds of flattery heaped on Obama? Yeah I said Jesus, but unlike you I am not afraid of Jesus, just as I am not afraid of Obama, rather only their overzealous supporters.

There you go again, your post conveys the same attitude that you seem to dislike.

 

[Karma Kramer]

It's TV news, they want you to watch so they show the most sensational stuff, stick to newspapers and the internet.

I've watched TV news all my life and shit has never seemed this bad before.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I've watched TV news all my life and shit has never seemed this bad before.

To me, it's never been more blatant that the TV media wants it to be close, no matter what.

Also, Rasmussen daily tracking has Obama back up to 46-40 over McCain.

Two details about Ohio that didn't occur to me until now.

Obama, though, has an ace in the hole when it comes to organizational help in Ohio: Gov. Ted Strickland. Strickland endorsed Clinton early on but was quick to make it known that he would do everything he could to help Obama win Ohio this fall - everything, that is, except be Obama's running mate, a job he said last week he does not want.

For a presidential candidate, it is always a good thing to have a popular governor with a state party organization behind him on your side.

Strickland may not be interested in being Obama's running mate, but what he has done, though, is loan the Obama campaign Aaron Pickrell, the campaign manager who engineered Strickland's smashing victory over Ken Blackwell in 2006. Pickrell will be the Ohio director for Obama's campaign.

Kearney said Obama already has staff on the ground in Southwest Ohio, an area he won by an impressive margin over Clinton in March. The team will include Spencer Hattemer, who, as a freshman at the University of Cincinnati this year, impressed the Obama campaign by registering more than 600 Cincinnati area high school seniors as new voters.

Having the governor's political machine behind Obama will make a big difference. And loaning him the Strickland's campaign manager is a very savvy move.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080621/NEWS01/806210345

 

[bob_arctor]

Eating at a diner with my brother last night he asks me "What the fuck is this crap about Obama giving up money or some shit with the financing?". I figure that's been the general reaction around the country.

 

[User 10639]

Eating at a diner with my brother last night he asks me "What the fuck is this crap about Obama giving up money or some shit with the financing?". I figure that's been the general reaction around the country.

This is America, dude. I guess.

Spoiler

Americans are smart enough to grasp the nuances of the Israeli-Arab conflict - HA!

 

[soul creator]

Just to throw an interesting factoid into the whole gay marriage discussion:

Nationally, the list of prominent Black clergy supporting the right of lesbians and gays to marry has grown exponentially over past several years to include: Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. William Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Church, Rev. Peter Gomes, Harvard University Chaplain, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, his wife Rev. Marcia Dyson, and Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ.

Yes, that’s right, the pastor whose comments were inaccurately portrayed by the media as being unpatriotic and then used by presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s opponents to distract voters, is and has been a supporter for equal rights of lesbian and gay couples. That somehow was missed in all of the criticism being hurled at Wright.

And it seems to be an official policy of his (former) denomination

The resolution "In support of equal marriage rights for all", supported by an estimated 80% of the 884 General Synod Delegates, made the United Church of Christ General Synod the first major Christian deliberative body in the U.S. to make a statement of support for "equal marriage rights for all people, regardless of gender," and is hitherto the largest Christian denominational entity in the U.S. supporting equal marriage rights (although other denominations have affirmed committed relationships for LGBT people in other forms).

 

[bishoptl]

GOD DAMN AMERICA




butGodblessgayAmerica

 

[Gaborn]

Just to throw an interesting factoid into the whole gay marriage discussion:



And it seems to be an official policy of his (former) denomination

And it's a shame that Obama disagrees.

 

[mckmas8808]

Honestly, his timeframe is probably overly enthusiastic.

Democrats as a group at the national level are better on gay issues than their Republican counterparts, but not by much. It is at the state and local level that it really makes a difference. I imagine that in ten years will see several more of the especially liberal states on the East / West coast go for marriage equality; New York seems like a good possibility, as they already recognize marriages between homosexuals from out of state, so the only thing changing there would be to allow their own citizens to marry in New York, rather than having to go to CA in order to marry, and then fly back to New York.



Well, the thing is, I'd prefer nothing now over civil unions.

A lot of you seem to believe that this means that we are idealistic children who want to have everything right now. This isn't the case. As you yourself mentioned in an earlier post, you are a part of a generation that simply doesn't see this as a problem. The opposition to gay marriage is generational. I'm willing to bet that waiting 15 years would change demographics enough to the point where it is possible to get marriage equality - until that happens, though, I'll wait.

This tells me that you aren't really struggling with gay right issues then. Because Martin Luther King and his follows would never accept nothing and choose to wait 15 years for possible but not guaranteed ALL.

 

[Gaborn]

This tells me that you aren't really struggling with gay right issues then. Because Martin Luther King and his follows would never accept nothing and choose to wait 15 years for possible but not guaranteed ALL.

Different situation. Blacks were never offered civil unions or partial rights. If this was about for example the "word" marriage but only some of the rights that'd be a partial step. Creating an entire institution with the sole purpose of stigmatizing and separating gay relationships from straight relationships as recognized by the state and federal government is NOT the same thing, it's not a gradual step towards equality it's a wholesale march toward segregation and stigmatization.

 

[Frank the Great]

Different situation. Blacks were never offered civil unions or partial rights.

YOU'RE the one who refers to civil unions as "separate but equal," and now you're saying blacks were never given "partial rights" which they then had to struggle against? It's not like segregation was made illegal overnight. First came the schools, then came public transportation, the military, etc. until they finally won full equality in the eyes of the law.

 

[Gaborn]

YOU'RE the one who refers to civil unions as "separate but equal," and now you're saying blacks were never given "partial rights" which they then had to struggle against? It's not like segregation was made illegal overnight. First came the schools, then came public transportation, the military, etc. until they finally won full equality in the eyes of the law.

Well, what I'm saying is that they didn't have to fight for marital status, that was assumed once citizenship was established (with of course the restriction in some states of miscegenation laws). That's a real, practical difference. Once a school is built the building is there and it's a matter of busing students in fairly or not, and if unfairly the correction is easy, just mandate more balanced geographic busing. It's a LOT harder to change a social institution once you've got a completely alternate system set up by the government. Once you have civil unions it's not clear that they can just be folded into civil marriage on a whim, there's a lot less "reason" to do so once the system has already been created and begun to be utilized.

 

[soul creator]

And it's a shame that Obama panders to religious voters

fixed?

I actually think this is one of those things where he fundamentally agrees, but words his statements very carefully to play both sides of the fence

Spoiler

not a bisexual reference, honest!

. Shame that he does that, but meh, that's politicians for you.

Then again, I'm one of those people that does think Obama mostly agrees with Wright on a lot of things, but has to be careful with how that's expressed (being a mainstream politician and all). So take my position with a grain of salt I guess.

 

[maximum360]

Lou Dobbs rips into McCain here on NAFTA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x149857

 

[Gaborn]

fixed?

I actually think this is one of those things where he fundamentally agrees, but words his statements very carefully to play both sides of the fence

Spoiler

not a bisexual reference, honest!

. Shame that he does that, but meh, that's politicians for you.

Then again, I'm one of those people that does think Obama mostly agrees with Wright on a lot of things, but has to be careful with how that's expressed (being a mainstream politician and all). So take my position with a grain of salt I guess.

Always possible but regardless of whether he believe in gay marriage on an equal level or whether he secretly believes gays should burn in the fire pits of Hell and sodomy should be illegal (not likely, I'm just comparing extremes) I care more about what he'll DO, and from his rhetoric he supports second class status for gay relationships, and I view that as inherently harmful and threatening to the cause of equality.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Obama is a Muslim bigot terrorist that discriminates against gay people and hates America.

 

[Gaborn]

Obama is a Muslim

No.

bigot

Yes.

terrorist

No.

that discriminates against gay people

Yes.

and hates America.

Probably not.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

It's a LOT harder to change a social institution once you've got a completely alternate system set up by the government. Once you have civil unions it's not clear that they can just be folded into civil marriage on a whim, there's a lot less "reason" to do so once the system has already been created and begun to be utilized.

Perhaps. I mean, if the community at large continues to fight the good fight, embracing civil unions while still fighting for full marriage rights, then I don't really agree that there's a lot less reason to fight. If, of course, most of the gay community is perfectly content with civil unions, and they lose sight of the ultimate goal of being able to be married, that might just suggest that more people agree with the dismissive argument of "marriage vs. civil unions" being an exercise in semantics.

 

[Gaborn]

Perhaps. I mean, if the community at large continues to fight the good fight, embracing civil unions while still fighting for full marriage rights, then I don't really agree that there's a lot less reason to fight. If, of course, most of the gay community is perfectly content with civil unions, and they lose sight of the ultimate goal of being able to be married, that might just suggest that more people agree with the dismissive argument of "marriage vs. civil unions" being an exercise in semantics.

The problem isn't the gay community, it's more nearly the straight community that identifies itself as allies of the gay community. They're going to see a lot less of a problem with the situation and will require a lot more effort on the part of the gay community to be convinced, and they're a much larger part of the fight for equal marriage rights than the gay community itself.

 

[WickedAngel]

indeed, I find partisans on both sides who resort to ad hominem or believe something negative because they want to believe it to be distasteful.

I wonder how many times you've used the word "bigot" in this thread or have openly stated that Obama is discriminating against homosexuals (Despite the fact that equal rights with a separate name falls under the flag of neutrality, not discrimination).

 

[Gaborn]

I wonder how many times you've used the word "bigot" in this thread.

By my definition, Obama is bigoted against gays, you can quibble over the definition, but he has a discriminatory attitude towards them and chose to associate himself with an ex-gay opponent of homosexuality, in addition to his condescending support for second class relationships. Sorry, he's a softer form of bigot than many people but the term is accurate.

 

[WickedAngel]

By my definition, Obama is bigoted against gays, you can quibble over the definition, but he has a discriminatory attitude towards them and chose to associate himself with an ex-gay opponent of homosexuality, in addition to his condescending support for second class relationships. Sorry, he's a softer form of bigot than many people but the term is accurate.

Actually, no. Your usage of both terms has been fundamentally flawed throughout this thread, as have your historical comparisons to the African American civil rights movement.

 

[Gaborn]

Actually, no. Your usage of both terms has been fundamentally flawed throughout this thread, as have your historical comparisons to the African American civil rights movement.

Do tell.