Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Silver Soul]

Obama Advisor: Sir. Some of the polls have you dangerously close to Rmoney. We need to do something. I suggest you make a clear statement in support of homosexual marriage in order to rally your homosexual supporters and boost your poll numbers.

Obama: Yeah. That sounds good. Get me an interview and let me know what I need to say.

Cynical much? Sure, Biden has been a blabbermouth but at least Obama was finally honest about it and made history. Meanwhile, Romney has other problems right now.

[BigLutz]

Cynical much? Sure, Biden has been a blabbermouth but at least Obama was finally honest about it and made history. Meanwhile, Romney has other problems right now.

And to save space, why don't you post over in the political thread what kind of problems you think he has.

[Vern]

Valid question Rebecca,
This is a current topic/policy, so should be open for legitimate debate and scrutiny. Please I do emphasize legitimate... I hate mud throwing by either side.

And what exactly would be an example of "legitimate debate and scrutiny?"

[Malanu]

I'd go with asking why he waited till a majority of state's supreme courts voted (30 of 50). His stance should have started before the total reached 25?

If re elected what will he do to get this nations economy back on track?

Start with questions like that.

[Vern]

I'd go with asking why he waited till a majority of state's supreme courts voted (30 of 50). His stance should have started before the total reached 25?

If we take him at his word, then he didn't have a stance until earlier this year. There is no point in taking a stand for anything if one doesn't believe in it. If I recall correctly, he was against gay marriage a few years ago.

If re elected what will he do to get this nations economy back on track?

This doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand so I cannot answer. Sadly, politics wouldn't be the piece of crap it is if only the important questions were asked but 24-hour cable news would have nothing to dramatize if they did.

[Malanu]

Have you even known someone to not have a stance? In politics if you have no opinion you support the status quo! His nation has spoken fairly loudly when 58% of your state supreme courts have decided to make a stand. The president is now representing the minority, not a strong place/time to take a stand. This is a bill Clinton type move. Make a statement, expose dirt discrediting the opposition. in this case it pretty much will backfire I think. What someone thought or did when they were stupid teens in high school does not mean he would do the same now. Just once in my life, I would love to see BOTH side fight respectfully. Have adds that say, "I'm planning to do this if elected."

I didn't limit myself to just one topic since it would be a policy debate, not just a gay marriage debate. The government would probably work better if they didn't worry so much about popular opinion and did the job needing done, then see if they did the right thing at election time.

[BigLutz]

If we take him at his word, then he didn't have a stance until earlier this year. There is no point in taking a stand for anything if one doesn't believe in it. If I recall correctly, he was against gay marriage a few years ago.

And in 1996 he was for Gay Marriage, now obviously he could have "devolved" on it, and then "evolved" again. But isn't it more likely he was for it the whole time, and wanting to have it both ways for as long as he could. Looking like he was against it and for it the same time, with the "evolving" non sense?

[Kaiserin]

Personally, I couldn't care less whether Obama is doing this as a political move and is still actually on the fence about it or what. He's still milking it, and as far as I'm concerned, it accomplishes two things for the LGBTQ community: 1) raising awareness and making it an okay thing for people to start standing up for that group because the president is doing it (even if, as I said, he's not 100% sincere, though I do believe there's some measure of sincerity in it regardless of reasons or methods); and 2) getting the panties of the anti-gay crowd in a massive, massive bunch over their own hypocrisy.

Speaking of hypocrisy, an interesting post that came up on my Tumblr lately that I felt was worth sharing:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

[Vern]

Have you even known someone to not have a stance?

Yes, it's possible to not have a stance on something.

In politics if you have no opinion you support the status quo!

He probably did have an opinion but you can't argue what that opinion was because you don't know what it really was.

His nation has spoken fairly loudly when 58% of your state supreme courts have decided to make a stand. The president is now representing the minority, not a strong place/time to take a stand.

Just because "58% of states" (as you claim) have banned same sex marriages does not mean that 58% of people oppose same sex marriage. Is Gallup a credible poll in this forum? I can't remember if it is or isn't but if it is then 50% of Americans support it. It has a 3% margin of error so even if it is a pretty small divide.

This is a bill Clinton type move. Make a statement, expose dirt discrediting the opposition.

You mean a very politician type move. I doubt that Bill Clinton is the only one to ever do this.

in this case it pretty much will backfire I think. What someone thought or did when they were stupid teens in high school does not mean he would do the same now. Just once in my life, I would love to see BOTH side fight respectfully. Have adds that say, "I'm planning to do this if elected."

They already have speeches for that kind of stuff.

I didn't limit myself to just one topic since it would be a policy debate, not just a gay marriage debate. The government would probably work better if they didn't worry so much about popular opinion and did the job needing done, then see if they did the right thing at election time.

Well, this is the homosexuality in politics thread so yeah. Of course, if they didn't focus on the popular opinion then that would hurt their chances of being elected.

And in 1996 he was for Gay Marriage, now obviously he could have "devolved" on it, and then "evolved" again. But isn't it more likely he was for it the whole time, and wanting to have it both ways for as long as he could.

Of course it is possible. I haven't stated anything that would suggest he was secretly for it or against it the whole time. What I've said was that it would make no sense to support something that you publicly don't support which is what Malanu was suggesting he should've done.

Looking like he was against it and for it the same time, with the "evolving" non sense?

I'm not arguing whether or not it was nonsense or what he truly believed him the whole time. I'm not arguing about whether or not it was a political move. I'm arguing that it makes no sense to support something that you publicly do not support or have a stance on which is something that we can all agree on.

[Malanu]

Gallup is pretty respectable... I was a member for a while! 30 of 50 states (or 58%) have laws against now. Remember the saying, If you choose not to decide you have still made a choice. By choosing to not take a stance he/we choose the status quo.

Of course not, Billy was just my example.

And they both have stuff like "Oh he bullies gays... (In High School) Do you really want him in office!" It's scummy for both parties.

[Vern]

Gallup is pretty respectable... I was a member for a while! 30 of 50 states (or 58%) have laws against now.

That's 60% Malanu. You're slipping old timer.

Remember the saying, If you choose not to decide you have still made a choice. By choosing to not take a stance he/we choose the status quo.

Yes, but it would be better not to choose a side than to be a hypocrite in the eyes of the public. If you're a politician anyway.

Of course not, Billy was just my example.

And they both have stuff like "Oh he bullies gays... (In High School) Do you really want him in office!" It's scummy for both parties.

Yes, I agree then. It's truly ashame we have such tactics but it's what catches people's attention and it seems to have worked up to this point.

[Malanu]

LOL Yeah... I actually divided by 51 instead of 50! Embarrassing, I know!

Politician and hypocrite share a definition or 7!

[marioguy]

I found a picture about slippery slopes.

[Dragon Trainer X]

Well, recently, Obama has announced that he was Pro-Gay, meaning that makes him the first President to be so. Honestly, I'm happy he did so, although I don't believe he did it for the gay population, just for his own reasons.

[Malanu]

I don't know Dragon. If he always was why not shout it from the rooftops? I have pretty much always been pro gay ... by that I mean I have never discriminated or been disrespectful. I may discriminate against an individual who I just cannot reach an accord with, but I pretty much try to give everyone the chance to be friends.

[BigLutz]

I don't know Dragon. If he always was why not shout it from the rooftops?

Because you do not usually get elected to a national office, especially the Presidency, by taking a view that is not popular with a majority of the public, or with a significant part of your base. Gay Marriage only crossed the 50% threshold in support in the last year or so, and Gay Marriage is still not supported highly in the Hispanic or black community. In a tightly contested race against Hillary he couldn't risk turning off his voters, thus you get the 'Evolving' stance ever since the election. Now granted I personally think Obama would love to have waited till after the election to make a tough decision like this, but eventually they took a calculated risk that the money they get in from wealthy Gay doners is needed, and that the Blacks and Hispanics will rally around him because of skin color and not because of his stand on gay marriage. If that is true has yet to be seen, but so far the results are not encouraging for Obama if this last Sunday was any indication.

[CSolarstorm]

It really annoys me that Newsweek put out a headline calling Obama 'the first gay president'. Do they not understand how being gay works? You're not gay just because you support gay marriage. Or maybe they just use that word more generally now to describe someone who subscribes to those beliefs that would go with being gay, such as the beliefs that being gay is not a choice, possibly that it's genetic, and everyone goes through a bi phase. I hope not. If that's the case, I never heard it until now.

My mother, who claims to be an anarchist and has never voted in her life, talked about voting for Obama. It's not because he came out in support of gay marriage, but because he supported her union - but still, the sides are coming together...

[Malanu]

Sunny, the last time I looked I was not gay just because I will support my gay friends right to marry. Now I'm not a Politician so I may have missed a memo or two

Oh and Her Union or her union?

[CSolarstorm]

Her homecare workers union, little 'u'. For our income. She actually doesn't want to get a civil union with my other mom, government recognized partnership is like a non-issue for her. XD

[marioguy]

I thought Lincoln was the first gay president.