• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriage

Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Visbek said:
Then why did you bring it up?



It's a meaningless difference, in the context of this discussion.

Allowing same-sex marriage will have no impact on marriages between a man and a woman. It does not have any effect on procreation. It does not encourage more people to become homosexual.

In addition, we do not require citizens to reproduce. Nor do we restrict marriage to couples that want to reproduce. If a 50 year old man and a 50 year old woman choose to marry, we do not stop them on the basis that a childless marriage somehow threatens the institution.

In other words, there is pretty much no reason to block same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

I already said I have no problem with gay marriage. I could care less about the social constructs of marriage or homosexuality blah blah; I was discussing it from a purely biological standpoint saying its fair game to say that heterosexuality is a biologically necessary feature, but considering marriage is a social construct, I really could care less about whether they wish to marry or not. Really. :coffeepap
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

ReformCollege said:
I already said I have no problem with gay marriage. I could care less about the social constructs of marriage or homosexuality blah blah; I was discussing it from a purely biological standpoint saying its fair game to say that heterosexuality is a biologically necessary feature, but considering marriage is a social construct, I really could care less about whether they wish to marry or not. Really. :coffeepap
Click to expand...



Right. But why are people acting like heterosexuality is "threatened" by homosexuality ? Sounds like your side has "issues"....................................
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Paschendale said:
Fair enough. I apologize for misconstruing your post. Many people have referred to the securing of SSM rights as granting special rights for gays. I assumed that's what you were doing. Consider my comment a rebuttal to that, even though that's not what you were saying.
Click to expand...

Not at all. My comment came up as an agreement to someone else posting about how they are for gay marriage, but hate when homosexuals purposely put on circuses in public just to piss people off. Its also contradictory to the whole "I am no different then you" mantra (one which I want to believe) that they often put forth. I consider it "special" because I would be equally pissed off if I saw a bunch of couples parading around town with signs about how "heterosexual they are," yet it seems that homosexuals think themselves above any and all social norms. It just gives me the impression that homosexuality is about defiance rather then attraction, which implies that it is a display of insecurity rather then affection.
This is an impression that I strongly do not wish to have or believe.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

ReformCollege said:
Not at all. My comment came up as an agreement to someone else posting about how they are for gay marriage, but hate when homosexuals purposely put on circuses in public just to piss people off. Its also contradictory to the whole "I am no different then you" mantra (one which I want to believe) that they often put forth. I consider it "special" because I would be equally pissed off if I saw a bunch of couples parading around town with signs about how "heterosexual they are," yet it seems that homosexuals think themselves above any and all social norms. It just gives me the impression that homosexuality is about defiance rather then attraction, which implies that it is a display of insecurity rather then affection.
This is an impression that I strongly do not wish to have or believe.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that very few people express affection to each other merely to anger others around them. Gay pride parades aren't about angering people. They're about visibility. Showing that there are many homosexuals in a community and that they're a part of it, and cannot be ignored or marginalized. Overt displays of sexuality or affection might indeed offend some people, but overt displays of religiousness do, too. That's some of the things that we all need to tolerate to live together in one country. But if you don't like looking at them, by all means look at something else.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

MrLiberty said:
My belief is you'll have the republican party which will be democrat lite, and then you'll have a true conservative party who stand on principle and believe in small government.
Click to expand...

And "the true conservative party" will support gay marriage on principle and because it believes in small government, while the Democrats-lite will support it out of sheer political calculation. Everbody lives happily ever after.

One question: What happens to the "social conservatives" - the statist breed eager to use the Big Government for ramming their taboos down other people's throats. Are the going to fuse with rejects of the mainstreem Left, and form something like the Front national of Le Pen in France?
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

MrLiberty said:
I think we are seeing the beginning of a split in the republican party, perhaps even a viable third party. My belief is you'll have the republican party which will be democrat lite, and then you'll have a true conservative party who stand on principle and believe in small government. Right now the repubs are in a shambles and don't know what to stand for.
Click to expand...

A small govt. that leaves everyone "on their own" but rules with an iron fist on personal matters. Sounds like paradise to me.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Fiddytree said:
Progressives were in American government long before Richard Nixon was alive. Nixon was simply being prudent much of the time.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, a Republican said something bad about Tricky Dick. That's gotta count for something.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
Who says that Rove speaks for anyone other than the establishment, progressive wing of the GOP?
Click to expand...

What's funny here is that you're completely missing what he actually said. He didn't say they "should" be in favor of gay marriage, he said he "could imagine" that it would happen. Big difference.

What he's saying is that potentially the next candidate makes a political calculation and decides to try to get elected. Strangely enough, Republicans like to win once in a while. Trust me, if they think being anti-gay marriage is going to lose them the election, the GOP will suddenly think it's an idea whose time has come.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

ReformCollege said:
Not at all. My comment came up as an agreement to someone else posting about how they are for gay marriage, but hate when homosexuals purposely put on circuses in public just to piss people off. Its also contradictory to the whole "I am no different then you" mantra...
Click to expand...
Gays don't "put on circuses in public to piss people off." Gay Pride Parades are ultimately political in nature, both as a celebration of their culture and a display that they are an oppressed minority, who will not be ashamed of their sexual preferences.

And it's not that there is "no difference." It's that they want to be afforded protections against discrimination in order to receive the same rights as everyone else.


homosexuals think themselves above any and all social norms.
Click to expand...
They don't. They have different norms.


It just gives me the impression that homosexuality is about defiance rather then attraction, which implies that it is a display of insecurity rather then affection.
Click to expand...
If you were harassed on a daily basis because of your sexual preferences, you might feel a little defiant about it.

I.e. you're putting the cart before the horse. The political stridence of some members of the gay community is a reaction against discrimination, not the cause of their sexual preferences.

This has had an impact on gay culture, but not on the underlying nature of homosexuality itself. You don't become gay because you want to be defiant; you are gay if you're sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Dragonfly said:
Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriage <-- hahaha

Things could get real fun on the right over the next few years....
Click to expand...

I could as well. I could also imagine that nominee getting a couple million less votes than this last one got, and 6,000,000 - 6,500,000 less than McCain did. Not a real smart strategy if you're looking to WIN an election.

As for those who say.... But they'll be offset by the moderates voting for him/her...... I figured that into the figures. I could see the Republican Party losing half its support over the issue. There are no amount of potential moderates that can be gained to offset that sort of loss.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Tigger said:
I could as well. I could also imagine that nominee getting a couple million less votes than this last one got, and 6,000,000 - 6,500,000 less than McCain did. Not a real smart strategy if you're looking to WIN an election.

As for those who say.... But they'll be offset by the moderates voting for him/her...... I figured that into the figures. I could see the Republican Party losing half its support over the issue. There are no amount of potential moderates that can be gained to offset that sort of loss.
Click to expand...

If the republicans lose that kind of percentage over something that's basically an equal right issue then they're truly a pathetic and weak party to the very core.

Which I think many of us can agree is probably the case.

At any rate - that's part of the "fun" I was referring to.
Seeing if the party implodes or evolves over time.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Fiddytree said:
Progressives were in American government long before Richard Nixon was alive. Nixon was simply being prudent much of the time.
Click to expand...

No doubt. And I don't think that Nixon was necessarily a bad President, he did get us out of VN for instance. However, Progressivism is a disease, a scourge on government that has a nice name, but is in the end little more than another name for collectivist trashing of a nation. A stepping stone Authoritarianism if you will. At least that has remained constant.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

ReformCollege said:
Well, I by no means am a homophobe, but I will say that whether his comment is a fact or fiction depends on its context. To say heterosexuality is socially normal, is in fact, an opinion.
However, in strictly biological context, the only purpose of our species is to be able to reproduce. That is the theory of evolution. Considering homosexual couples cannot naturally conceive children with third party participants, it is fair game to say that heterosexuality is biologically necessary for survival while homosexuality is not. That would be a fact. Just something to think about.
Click to expand...


Well, then you are anti-gay marriage which makes you a homophobe. Religion does this to a person. There are many male/female people that cant reproduce, should we prevent them from getting married? Hell, im willing to bet that there may be a bit more male/females that cant reproduce due to infertility problems than homosexuals.
This question is always dodged.

If you are gonna be bigoted against homosexuals then i expect you to feel the same towards those with fertility issues.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Dragonfly said:
If the republicans lose that kind of percentage over something that's basically an equal right issue then they're truly a pathetic and weak party to the very core.
Click to expand...

Some of us still actually belive in Principles, Dragonfly. I understand that the Centrist/Moderate philosohpy doesn't actually believe in anything, but some of us still do.

Dragonfly said:
At any rate - that's part of the "fun" I was referring to. Seeing if the party implodes or evolves over time.
Click to expand...

Hopefully it Implodes, if it comes to that.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

rocket88 said:
What's funny here is that you're completely missing what he actually said. He didn't say they "should" be in favor of gay marriage, he said he "could imagine" that it would happen. Big difference.

What he's saying is that potentially the next candidate makes a political calculation and decides to try to get elected. Strangely enough, Republicans like to win once in a while. Trust me, if they think being anti-gay marriage is going to lose them the election, the GOP will suddenly think it's an idea whose time has come.
Click to expand...

You'll excuse me if while I think that Rove is/was a brilliant campaign strategist for Bush, as a wanna be player in the GOP trying to mold GOP politics, and commentary, I find him to be a tad bit arrogant for me.

That said, I believe that "marriage" is a term that describes a union between a man, and woman, and God. What government issues are licences for a "union" to exist. So, if benefits and recognition are what the 'gay community' are in search of, then a civil union would accomplish the same thing. If it is just about pushing the Church, and religious community around some more, then I say no.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

In my experience politicians will say whatever they think will get them elected. If they perceive that a pro gay marriage stance will get them elected then that's what they will do. It doesn't take Carl Rove to tell you that.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
You'll excuse me if while I think that Rove is/was a brilliant campaign strategist for Bush, as a wanna be player in the GOP trying to mold GOP politics, and commentary, I find him to be a tad bit arrogant for me.

That said, I believe that "marriage" is a term that describes a union between a man, and woman, and God. What government issues are licences for a "union" to exist. So, if benefits and recognition are what the 'gay community' are in search of, then a civil union would accomplish the same thing. If it is just about pushing the Church, and religious community around some more, then I say no.
Click to expand...

If you can craft the civil unions so that there are the same benefits, that would be fine. I've always been of the opinion that marriage is something that happens in a religious ceremony and I'm not comfortable with the government being involved in religious ceremonies. Would you be prepared to give gays the same rights as straight people who are "married" by a judge?

Most people who favor SSM are not in favor of forcing any churches to do anything they're against. It's just giving the same rights to people joined in a civil ceremony regardless of sexual orientation. I'd never support making a church marry two gay people if they're opposed to it. Some churches are not opposed to it, and I don't see why they can't. Any government saying what churches can or cannot do sounds like an abridgment of First Amendment rights to me.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

fmw said:
In my experience politicians will say whatever they think will get them elected. If they perceive that a pro gay marriage stance will get them elected then that's what they will do. It doesn't take Carl Rove to tell you that.
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly what Rove's saying. If it's seen as a big enough problem for the GOP, they're views will suddenly "evolve."
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

j-mac said:
That said, I believe that "marriage" is a term that describes a union between a man, and woman, and God. What government issues are licences for a "union" to exist. So, if benefits and recognition are what the 'gay community' are in search of, then a civil union would accomplish the same thing. If it is just about pushing the Church, and religious community around some more, then I say no.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement that marriage should be religious, however, that is not how it is being applied now. So in the meantime, if marriages can be issued by the state as in justice of the peace, then gay marriage should also be legalized. Also, keep in mind that there are religions that DO allow gay marriage.

I'm definitely not for FORCING any church to marry gay people, just like I am not for FORCING a Catholic church to recognize my marriage when I'm not Catholic.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Jetboogieman said:
I'd love to see a Republican Presidential nominee endorse same sex marriage.

The far right evangelicals will absolutely crap themselves.

Bryan Fischer and Tony Perkins will have a ****ing stroke.
Click to expand...

About as much as a Catholic, or Christian democrat endorsing a pro life stance consistent with their religious tenants. You don't generally see it happening on the left, as to do so, would mean a tougher climb to the rank and file. The argument that gay marriage or tolerance of homosexuality should be given due to no material harm to society seems to be the consistent argument from the left on gays, yet, the argument falls apart when applied to abortion rights. With abortion, regardless of what constitutes life, and when, material harm comes to the human being in the womb, and to that, there can be no mistake. What I would like to see is honest, principled integrity on both the left and the right, and let the chips fall as they may.

Tim-
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

rocket88 said:
I think that's exactly what Rove's saying. If it's seen as a big enough problem for the GOP, they're views will suddenly "evolve."
Click to expand...

Possibly, but not necessarily. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They know that satisfying either end of the political spectrum (Conservatives vs. Moderates/Liberals) will lose them the other group. They will have to make a decision as to which group means more to them.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

rocket88 said:
If you can craft the civil unions so that there are the same benefits, that would be fine. I've always been of the opinion that marriage is something that happens in a religious ceremony and I'm not comfortable with the government being involved in religious ceremonies. Would you be prepared to give gays the same rights as straight people who are "married" by a judge?
Click to expand...

Absolutely....With my wife being in the artsy type community as a graphic artist for so long, I've known a few gay couples committed in a long term relationship. They were good people, and should have the same rights, benefits, and access when sick as any couple I know. They are good people.

Most people who favor SSM are not in favor of forcing any churches to do anything they're against. It's just giving the same rights to people joined in a civil ceremony regardless of sexual orientation. I'd never support making a church marry two gay people if they're opposed to it. Some churches are not opposed to it, and I don't see why they can't. Any government saying what churches can or cannot do sounds like an abridgment of First Amendment rights to me.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Bonzai said:
Right. But why are people acting like heterosexuality is "threatened" by homosexuality ? Sounds like your side has "issues"....................................
Click to expand...

I dunno, why don't you ask them?

There are plenty of libertarians who either support gay marriage or say that the government has no business in marriage
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

So much angst and attention given to this genetic mutation of a lifestyle. We fiddle over these absurd "issues" while Rome burns. God forbid we vote based on economic and foreign policy; instead, 47 percent of the country is obsessed only with their right to abortion, entitlements, and whether Bobby and Steve can marry, adopt, and join the PTA.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Erod said:
So much angst and attention given to this genetic mutation of a lifestyle. We fiddle over these absurd "issues" while Rome burns. God forbid we vote based on economic and foreign policy; instead, 47 percent of the country is obsessed only with their right to abortion, entitlements, and whether Bobby and Steve can marry, adopt, and join the PTA.
Click to expand...

Well if the right would stop arguing those things, then we can move on to more important issues. But alas, the right wants this distraction and they themselves focus on it by trying to stop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom