• 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!

Obama Declares Support For Gay Marriage

Voting results have suggested otherwise.

My response from another thread:

Basically, the demographic groups which tend to support SSM are less likely to go out and vote on such an issue than the groups which are opposed. That would at least partially explain the discrepancy between the polling data and voter turnout.
 
My response from another thread:

Not everyone votes. A lot of people who do favor (even slightly) dont go vote. There are a lot of anti gay organizations out there who are very capable of getting a lot of people to vote. I honestly do not think the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.

Plausible assumption, but I'm simply basing my evaluation on the only tangible results available.
 
Not at all. Beliefs have more to do with it than race. Just because a person is black does not mean they have to vote some predetermined thing. That is just stereotyping. The fact is the majority of people don't oppose gay marriage. Those that strongly support gay marriage are likely democratic voters anyhow. Those who strongly oppose gay marriage are largely going to be republican voters. It is going to depend even more so on the black people that you poll. Go into a black southern baptist church and take that poll. then take that same poll in a black night club. Bet you get different results. And yet they are all black. I think for the majority of Americans gay marriage is not something that will be a deciding factor because most people dont feel strongly enough about it either way. Like I said before Obama will get some votes because of it, and will lose some because of it. His staff determined somehow that it would bring in more than it would lose so he said it. Whether or not he really believes it, who knows. Doesn't matter. It is all about the votes. That is all he cares about.
I think Obama is well aware how the black community feels about SSM and he's always said he was for "civil unions" which was a way to say he believed that Gays deserved civil rights protection like everyone else and to avoid conflicting with his own religious belief about it. Because I don't think he really believes that it is the governments business to say who a person can or can't marry because that would be like the government dictating who you can love. It would probably be against the constitution as well since the states are passing laws based on religious belief in order to deny equality to a minority group of citizens. I think that is why Obama kept saying his opinion was "evolving" as he waited to see how the NC election turned out. Now he knows.

But I really don't know why the president needs to take a stand on this issue at all unless people want the federal government to get involved in their personal choices. Now who in their right mind would want that?
 
I think Obama is well aware how the black community feels about SSM and he's always said he was for "civil unions" which was a way to say he believed that Gays deserved civil rights protection like everyone else and to avoid conflicting with his own religious belief about it. Because I don't think he really believes that it is the governments business to say who a person can or can't marry because that would be like the government dictating who you can love. It would probably be against the constitution as well since the states are passing laws based on religious belief in order to deny equality to a minority group of citizens. I think that is why Obama kept saying his opinion was "evolving" as he waited to see how the NC election turned out. Now he knows.

But I really don't know why the president needs to take a stand on this issue at all unless people want the federal government to get involved in their personal choices. Now who in their right mind would want that?

I wouldnt mind seeing something at a federal level stating that states could not outlaw gay marriage.
 
But I really don't know why the president needs to take a stand on this issue at all unless people want the federal government to get involved in their personal choices. Now who in their right mind would want that?

Many people on this forum and anyone wanting government to be involved in marriage in general.
 
But I really don't know why the president needs to take a stand on this issue at all unless people want the federal government to get involved in their personal choices. Now who in their right mind would want that?

Support for gay marriage bans is people wanting government involved in peoples personal lives. Support for gay marriage is the opposite.
 
Support for gay marriage bans is people wanting government involved in peoples personal lives. Support for gay marriage is the opposite.
It would seem the opposite is true - government is only involved in marriages that it recognizes. People for same sex marriage are asking for more government involvement - mainly government protections.
 
It would seem the opposite is true - government is only involved in marriages that it recognizes. People for same sex marriage are asking for more government involvement - mainly government protections.

And I see no movement amongst heterosexuals to get rid of those. Oh well unless one happens to marry a person of the same sex.
 
It would seem the opposite is true - government is only involved in marriages that it recognizes. People for same sex marriage are asking for more government involvement - mainly government protections.

Either get rid of all marriages or make them equal then. You can't have an in-between that is discriminatory.
 
I see President Obama's support for gay marriage more along the lines of whats best for the nation, not all about his personal convictions.

'Millions' of religious minorities will flock to Willard's party because of same sex marriage? Now that is wishful thinking! More likely millions of moderates will reconsider the balance and see Obama as the more inclusive candidate.

Now banking on Catholics to vote en masse for Willard because their Priest attacks same sex marriage... millions of Catholics regularly use contraceptives against the Priest's pronouncements, you REALLY think they will line up for this during an election year?

No, I think the lines are drawn fairly hard between gays and uber religious, whats in play are the moderates. Just who convinces them to get on board is complicated, some radical right wing brains may not understand all that, but what the hey, those few won't change even if JC came down and knelt before Obama.
 
I'm getting the feeling this is a campaign move with little punch. He left himself wide open to not move on his new-found support.
 
And I see no movement amongst heterosexuals to get rid of those. Oh well unless one happens to marry a person of the same sex.

I see a trend in people not marrying and saying they can do just fine without the government involved in relationships though.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Hussein Obama..........With that statement you just lost the election..........You did it to get votes but the problem is you already have the gay vote and you will lose millions of religeous Hispanic, Blacks and Catholics vote..

What a scumbag this guy is............He runs for president saying he does not support Gay Marriage and then when he is elected he does a flip flop and supports it............

So, if Obama has "flip floped" on the issue, Mitt Romney has as well since he once supported equality.

Mitt Romney seeking the US Senate seat (against Ted Kennedy) in 1994:

To the Members of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts:
I am writing to thank the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts for the advice and support you have given me during my campaign for the US Senate and to seek the Club's formal endorsement of my election. The Log Cabin Club has played a vital role in reinvigorating the Republican Party in Massachusetts and your endorsement is important to me because it will provide further confirmation that my campaign and approach to government is consistent with the values and vision of government we share.

I am pleased to have had an opportunity to talk with you and to meet many of you personally during your September meeting. I learned a great deal from those discussions and many thoughtful questions you posed. As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.

I am not unaware of my opponents considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent's record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.

We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employee Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.

As we begin the final phase of this campaign, I need your support more than ever. By working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and our nation.

Sincerely,

W. Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney - Gay Marriage
 
I'm getting the feeling this is a campaign move with little punch. He left himself wide open to not move on his new-found support.

If same-sex marriage is a strong enough issue for someone where it would swing their vote, they weren't the sort of person who was going to vote Democrat anyway.
 
If same-sex marriage is a strong enough issue for someone where it would swing their vote, they weren't the sort of person who was going to vote Democrat anyway.

He needs a winning coalition to get it through without a serious backfire. I don't see that coalition. I see polling data that theoretically supports gay marriage, but time after time again, you don't have enough states on that fence to make this thing stick.
 
I see a trend in people not marrying and saying they can do just fine without the government involved in relationships though.

The first part I agree with. As far as the second part I see no evidence of that.
 
Oh no, he's playing politics! The horror!

He always was in favor of it, now it seems advantageous to say it. Big deal. That's what you do when you're running for office, which is what he is doing.

Was anybody who was super against gay marriage going to vote for him anyway?

The point is -- there is a question as to whether or not it will be an advantage.

Intelligent people know he took a huge risk -- probably ignored his advisors.

Intelligent people now respect him even more.

By risking everything, he'll will it all.

Congrats to Obama for showing how a leader should act.
 
The point is -- there is a question as to whether or not it will be an advantage.

Intelligent people know he took a huge risk -- probably ignored his advisors.

Intelligent people now respect him even more.

By risking everything, he'll will it all.

Congrats to Obama for showing how a leader should act.

So there is an outcry due to the results in NC, people are hammering Obama to take a position instead of his weak 'evolving' BS, he is taking hits on the campaign trail and needs to do something that he thinks might help out... and you think this is his actually giving a crap about SSM? You think he actually will act on it when he never has in the past?

Silly stuff there.
 
Yeah but a lot of Hispanic, Blacks and moderate Catholics might have...They are history now. I can already see Father Thomas at Mass giving his sermon on the evils of Homosexuality.......He will not mention Hussein Obama but he does not have to.

You are delusional as usual.
 
:shrug: Perhaps not in the same homily, but certainly hopefully. The church has fallen pretty hard when it comes to alot of such things; most especially with regards to remarriage.

The stance of the Catholic Church on sexual matters is hardly a slam dunk among Catholics. I am willing to bet most Catholics have had premarital sex, used birth control. many have had abortions, etc.

They just don't talk about it. But clearly they don't agree in many cases with the church.
 
The first part I agree with. As far as the second part I see no evidence of that.

I see both and usually when I meet someone of the former they are of the later.
 
I see both and usually when I meet someone of the former they are of the later.

I don't think I've ever run into any one whose reason for not getting married was because of government involvement.
 
The stance of the Catholic Church on sexual matters is hardly a slam dunk among Catholics. I am willing to bet most Catholics have had premarital sex, used birth control. many have had abortions, etc.

Knowing several Catholics, I can validate that statement.
 
I don't think I've ever run into any one whose reason for not getting married was because of government involvement.

After a bit of pushing they admit openly they see nothing favorable in the benefits. Though you're right its usually not their reason they give up front.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom