• 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!

Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

AGENT J said:
1.) i enjoy yours too
2.) why? has my posts prove i have no questions for him, that is still the lie and strawman you made up that you cant support and continue to dodge makign your posts fail.
while i already know you will dodge this request again, Like i said, when you can defend your claims with any facts or logic what so ever please let us know, id love to read it it, thank you
Click to expand...

Hey sunshine! I'll give you the last word because it means so much to you to have my attention and to get me to educate you on the feelings of a public figure who made his feelings, well - public (it's so neat when they do that).

Here's a website that may help you if you don't feel like calling his office:

https://www.google.com/

Good luck and I hope you find what you're looking for. xxoo for now....
 
Samantha Brown said:
The simple answer for that is for people unaffected by the issue of gay marriage because it's none of their business and their lives remain unchanged, is to just let it happen and forget about it.

If they don't want to do that, it will get challenged by people who believe they are wrong. It doesn't mean bigger issues don't matter - that's just silly.
Click to expand...

There is more to being a Senator than SSM, sorry. People will vote for someone because of one single issue, even if they are unaffected. Plenty of people around here are involved in the SSM debate who are not gay nor want to get married, and will vote on a single issue. But you're right I don't really care about SSM one way or another.
 
tres borrachos said:
Hey sunshine! I'll give you the last word because it means so much to you to have my attention and to get me to educate you on the feelings of a public figure who made his feelings, well - public (it's so neat when they do that).

Here's a website that may help you if you don't feel like calling his office:

https://www.google.com/

Good luck and I hope you find what you're looking for. xxoo for now....
Click to expand...

another post, more desperate pushing of your failed strawman and zero support for your claims. Facts win again. Let me know when this change, thanks.
 
American said:
Again we have a thread full of single issue voters, like SSM is the most pressing issue of our times. Terrorism, decaying economy, Putin, China, the Middle East........none of that matters as long as we get to stroll down the aisle.
Click to expand...

SSM is a small and peripheral issue probably important to less than 5% of the population. But when it is added to other social issues it takes on an importance way above that 5%. Then too, on DP you have political active folks, the insiders so to speak while 95% and more of all Americans do not pay the attention to these things we do, they just shrug their shoulders and continue on with their daily lives.
 
cpwill said:
TD claims to be a buddy of his (and may very well be), who thinks that he does, and was pushing for him last time around as Romney's VP pick.



Yeah. We tried the "let's pick a moderate Republican candidate who isn't strong on social conservatism but who is good on fiscal issues" in 2008 and 2012. It turns out, when you don't do a good job of turning out your base, you loose elections.
Click to expand...

You believe there's enough conservatives who would rather Obama be president sitting out elections in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc?

I somehow doubt it. The states the GOP Needs to win for electoral college votes do not have enough extreme right conservative voters
 
tres borrachos said:
Libertarians support gay marriage.

The Libertarian Party platform states that "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws."

So no, you have it wrong. You may want to read up on how the Libertarians view SSM.
Click to expand...

While you as a Libertarian may support gay marriage, every time anyone has made the statement "Government out of marriage now" within the context of smm, every time I've ever looked to the left that poster's lean said "Libertarian."
 
CRUE CAB said:
So anyone that isn't for gay marriage is a bigot? Is that your contention?
Click to expand...

How else would his career be over, as you predict? To not vote for him solely because of his view on something he has no power over anyway (supreme court will decide this) and would not affect those voters even if he did sounds awfully bigoted to me.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
You believe there's enough conservatives who would rather Obama be president sitting out elections in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc?

I somehow doubt it. The states the GOP Needs to win for electoral college votes do not have enough extreme right conservative voters
Click to expand...

Oh there's plenty of those in michigan believe me. They'd still show up if he was the VP pick, because odds are the prez candidate would oppose SSM or they'd both at least throw the right wing fanatics *something* they can get behind, like anti abortion. It doesn't take much to get them riled up and post "Jesus not Hillary" signs on their front yard trees.
 
American said:
Again we have a thread full of single issue voters, like SSM is the most pressing issue of our times. Terrorism, decaying economy, Putin, China, the Middle East........none of that matters as long as we get to stroll down the aisle.
Click to expand...

Obviously it's going to matter to gay people, which is easy to dismiss if you don't have your rights deprived in that way. The real thing you should be mocking is that anyone who is NOT affected by it at all - they don't even know anyone gay - would base their vote on this single issue. The answer of course is religious fanaticism
 
Zyphlin said:
The same idiotic labeling is part of what hurt Huntsman at the start of his campaign as well. Liberals look at one or two issues, agree with the politician on that, and just decide to label said political as a "liberal" or even a "moderate" or "sane" or whatever else...ignoring the multitude of actual conservative views that make up the vast majority of their actual view points.
Click to expand...

right like no conservative has ever voted against someone or labelled them insane or immoral cause of their views on a single issue like gay rights, abortion, gun control, to name a few
 
EMNofSeattle said:
You believe there's enough conservatives who would rather Obama be president sitting out elections in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc?
Click to expand...

Well, you tell me. How many liberals were apparently willing for the Republicans to pick up the senate by sitting out the election we just went through?

I somehow doubt it. The states the GOP Needs to win for electoral college votes do not have enough extreme right conservative voters
Click to expand...

You are confusing "social conservatives" with "extreme right", a common, but no less inaccurate conflation. Social Conservatism is, for example, a major path by which Republicans picked up the Reagan Democrats. George W was no "extreme right" conservative (the Tea Party has its 'roots in the conservative revolt against him), but ran and won as a social conservative.
 
Cardinal said:
While you as a Libertarian may support gay marriage, every time anyone has made the statement "Government out of marriage now" within the context of smm, every time I've ever looked to the left that poster's lean said "Libertarian."
Click to expand...

Oh.

And?
 
chromium said:
right like no conservative has ever voted against someone or labelled them insane or immoral cause of their views on a single issue like gay rights, abortion, gun control, to name a few
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. My post should've read "Some liberals" rather than liberals. Mistake on my part. And in no way was it meant to suggest that some conservatives aren't gungho on defining people based on singular issues (god knows its happened ot me). However, as it relates to the person that was being discussed in that post...Huntmsan...my impression was that the "liberal" and "moderate" label being applied to him was something I saw first coming from first, and in larger percentages, from liberals on this forum than conservatives. Thus the focus on that side when discussing huntsman specifically.
 
cpwill said:
Well, you tell me. How many liberals were apparently willing for the Republicans to pick up the senate by sitting out the election we just went through?

Most Americas are not extremely liberal either

You are confusing "social conservatives" with "extreme right", a common, but no less inaccurate conflation. Social Conservatism is, for example, a major path by which Republicans picked up the Reagan Democrats. George W was no "extreme right" conservative (the Tea Party has its 'roots in the conservative revolt against him), but ran and won as a social conservative.
Click to expand...

Reagan used social conservatism to get elected in a far different era. Gay marriage failed everywhere it was put to a vote or court challenge at that time, now it's supported by independents and liberals and a sizable minority of conservatives
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Reagan used social conservatism to get elected in a far different era. Gay marriage failed everywhere it was put to a vote or court challenge at that time, now it's supported by independents and liberals and a sizable minority of conservatives
Click to expand...

People are more pro-life now than they were at that time, and SSM remains a 50/50 ish issue in this country. Social Conservatism is not collapsible to a single issue like SSM, which continues to fail the vast majority of the votes to which it is put.

But I didn't say "Reagan". I said "George W Bush". 2004 wasn't "a far different era". It was a decade ago.
 
Cardinal said:
So the sentiment I see coming from Libertarians is consistently one of antipathy toward ssm rather than the support you assign to them.
Click to expand...

Antipathy? You can be in support of something without it consuming you. I'm pro-choice, but I'm not like the posters who spend 100% of their time down in that section chanting about abortion. I don't think the government should be involved in abortion.

It sounds like unless a person/party/politician makes SSM a pet project, you don't believe they actually support it.
 
tres borrachos said:
Antipathy? You can be in support of something without it consuming you. I'm pro-choice, but I'm not like the posters who spend 100% of their time down in that section chanting about abortion. I don't think the government should be involved in abortion.

It sounds like unless a person/party/politician makes SSM a pet project, you don't believe they actually support it.
Click to expand...

Antipathy, not apathy.
 
Cardinal said:
Antipathy, not apathy.
Click to expand...

Not enough coffee. Sorry.

I can't speak for any other Libertarian but I personally have no dislike for or aversion to gay people.

But anyway, wasn't what concerned you was that Libertarians talk about keeping government out of marriage? How is that an indication of antipathy to anything other than government intrusion?
 
tres borrachos said:
Not enough coffee. Sorry.
Click to expand...

No sweat.

tres borrachos said:
I can't speak for any other Libertarian but I personally have no dislike for or aversion to gay people.
Click to expand...

And that's commendable of course, it's just not representative of my experiences when talking to Libertarians in general.

tres borrachos said:
But anyway, wasn't what concerned you was that Libertarians talk about keeping government out of marriage? How is that an indication of antipathy to anything other than government intrusion?
Click to expand...

Because of the implication that the system has failed us in some way for including gays in marriage, rather than recognizing it as a step forward.
 
Cardinal said:
No sweat.



And that's commendable of course, it's just not representative of my experiences when talking to Libertarians in general.



Because of the implication that the system has failed us in some way for including gays in marriage, rather than recognizing it as a step forward.
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, I'm pro-SSM for the same reason that I'm pro-choice. Because I don't think the government has a right to intrude on my life or get involved in my body or in the decision of who I marry. I didn't let the government pick my husband for me, and I wouldn't expect them at the same time to say I couldn't marry my husband. To me it isn't about the genders or colors or even the quantity of spouses you want. As long as both parties consent and are of age, Uncle Sam needs to find something else to do.

That said, marriage is also a legal contract so I don't expect our Uncle to not be aware of marriage, just not be able to say who the parties to the legal contract specifically are, if that makes sense.

NH is filled with Libertarians. Up here the Libertarians in our state legislature were all in favor of SSM.

Just poured another cup so the cobwebs are almost gone. ;)
 
tres borrachos said:
Well, to be honest, I'm pro-SSM for the same reason that I'm pro-choice. Because I don't think the government has a right to intrude on my life or get involved in my body or in the decision of who I marry. I didn't let the government pick my husband for me, and I wouldn't expect them at the same time to say I couldn't marry my husband. To me it isn't about the genders or colors or even the quantity of spouses you want. As long as both parties consent and are of age, Uncle Sam needs to find something else to do.

That said, marriage is also a legal contract so I don't expect our Uncle to not be aware of marriage, just not be able to say who the parties to the legal contract specifically are, if that makes sense.

NH is filled with Libertarians. Up here the Libertarians in our state legislature were all in favor of SSM.

Just poured another cup so the cobwebs are almost gone. ;)
Click to expand...

It's a fine argument if government is continuing to determine whether or not gays can marry, but as laws are coming around to acceptance of ssm the argument that government should remove itself from marriage is rapidly becoming obsolete. And keep in mind the Libertarians I'm encountering are calling for government to remove itself from marriage in reaction to the new laws recognizing ssm.

Still, I understand libertarianism covers a wide spectrum, but just as importantly if I were a libertarian I would be careful to state what kind of libertarian I was, since the term seems to describe a highly disparate range of views.
 
cpwill said:
People are more pro-life now than they were at that time, and SSM remains a 50/50 ish issue in this country. Social Conservatism is not collapsible to a single issue like SSM, which continues to fail the vast majority of the votes to which it is put.

But I didn't say "Reagan". I said "George W Bush". 2004 wasn't "a far different era". It was a decade ago.
Click to expand...

Opposition to abortion goes up and down like a wave and there is no indication that this is likely to change anytime soon. There is not a huge difference in support/opposition to abortion in younger generations, unlike with same sex marriage.
 
Cardinal said:
So the sentiment I see coming from Libertarians is consistently one of antipathy toward ssm rather than the support you assign to them.
Click to expand...

WTF? I don't suppose you have some sort of, I don't know, backing to this claim, do you?
 
TeleKat said:
WTF? I don't suppose you have some sort of, I don't know, backing to this claim, do you?
Click to expand...

This is one of those "not all mammals are monkeys, but all monkeys are mammals" kind of statements. In this case it would be, "Not all libertarians call for the removal of government from marriage, but only libertarians call for the removal of government from marriage."

I just googled "remove government from marriage site:debatepolitics.com" (without quotation marks) because DP's own search engine sucks, and found this thread right away. It's highly representative of my experiences with libertarians and discussions on removing government from marriage, especially as it pertains to ssm.

Feel free to use that search term up there and hop from thread to thread. It's very consistent.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/93008-why-marriage-recognized-government-anyway-2.html


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom