• 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

Did Obama really do the right thing? One has to remember that the whole "gay" vs. "straight" idea is being discredited and queer theory is emerging as the new way to think about sexuality.

IMHO, these labels--"gay" and "straight", which are supposed to be only temporary, are doing more damage than good. When people lock themselves into labels that don't do justice to their true nature, they'll just end up limiting themselves.

Which is why the proper term for the issue is same sex marriage, since it doesn't matter what your sexuality is, you will still be able to marry the person you want to marry. Gays already technically can get married, but only to a person of the opposite sex, just like straights. But neither straights, gays, nor inbetweeners can get married to someone of the same sex. That is why this is really a case of sex discrimination.
 
IMHO, these labels--"gay" and "straight", which are supposed to be only temporary, are doing more damage than good. When people lock themselves into labels that don't do justice to their true nature,
What's their "true nature"?
 
What's their "true nature"?

Not sure, but it's probably more interesting than "gay," just as I'm the sum of more than "not gay."
 
IMHO, these labels--"gay" and "straight", which are supposed to be only temporary, are doing more damage than good. When people lock themselves into labels that don't do justice to their true nature, they'll just end up limiting themselves.
I think the people are doing the labeling are the ones who are telling others that they can't marry the person they love because they're "queer".
I think you have it backwards. Labeling came about with the rather new invention of "sexual orientation." 100 years ago, people understood sexual behavior and sexual feelings but did not recognize that as a central characteristic to one's person. That is, a person might engage in sodomy, but that person was not "a homosexual". "Homosexuality" was not understood as an immutable characteristic that should be protected from discrimination. Labeling has helped the "gay rights movement" more than it has hurt it.
 
Last edited:
I think you have it backwards. Labeling came about with the rather new invention of "sexual orientation." 100 years ago, people understood sexual behavior and sexual feelings but did not recognize that as a central characteristic to one's person. That is, a person might engage in sodomy, but that person was not "a homosexual". "Homosexuality" was not understood as an immutable characteristic that should be protected from discrimination. Labeling has helped the "gay rights movement" more than it has hurt it.

It's a matter of toxicity, I'd say. At the very least it's a double edged sword: a label can give a name to a problem, but it can also reduce a person to a caricature. So it's not the labeling, but how it's used.
 
Not sure, but it's probably more interesting than "gay," just as I'm the sum of more than "not gay."
So, do away with the idea of "sexual orientation" or what?
 
It does seem disingenous for the pro-gay marriage side to know that their president likely shifted his stance for additional votes. It'd be great if he actually held to his true beliefs; the same can be said for any president.
 
It does seem disingenous for the pro-gay marriage side to know that their president likely shifted his stance for additional votes. It'd be great if he actually held to his true beliefs; the same can be said for any president.

I wonder how many that have praised him, realized he said that states should decide. Um, that kinda means he supports what NC did, for they decided. Hmm..
 
It does seem disingenous for the pro-gay marriage side to know that their president likely shifted his stance for additional votes. It'd be great if he actually held to his true beliefs; the same can be said for any president.

I'd rather a President actually grow and learn than stubbornly hold to discriminatory beliefs. If Romney came out before the election and said he was for same sex marriage (don't think it is very likely at all to happen, but lets play along anyway), I'd be basically back to not caring who won. I might vote for a third party or something. I would consider it progressive thinking and willingness to actually consider the other side.
 
I'd rather a President actually grow and learn than stubbornly hold to discriminatory beliefs. If Romney came out before the election and said he was for same sex marriage (don't think it is very likely at all to happen, but lets play along anyway), I'd be basically back to not caring who won. I might vote for a third party or something. I would consider it progressive thinking and willingness to actually consider the other side.

It really depends on if he's "grown," or is lying to gain votes. Note, this is a politician we're talking about so it wouldn't be surprising.

Personally I detest how politicians tend to lie and "change" their views to garner the most votes.
 
a label...can also reduce a person to a caricature
Most (all?) labels that describe a person do that to some extent, do they not? I suppose it's a good idea for people not to "lock themselves into labels that don't do justice to their true nature" - regardless of the label.
 
It really depends on if he's "grown," or is lying to gain votes. Note, this is a politician we're talking about so it wouldn't be surprising.

Personally I detest how politicians tend to lie and "change" their views to garner the most votes.

I don't see one coming up who doesn't do that. I have no doubt in my mind that Romney has done that too. I also have no doubt that at one point in his life, Obama believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter to me whether that was one week ago, one year ago, 4 years ago, or 10 years ago. I understand politics enough to know what goes on. I don't like it but it won't change until we are able to get a better educated voting public that doesn't go off of anything they hear about an issue, whether right or wrong.
 
Tell me how? He already has the gay vote.........who will he gain?

People who actually believe in respect and dignity. Let me ask you...who is he going to lose? The bigots were already against him. Nice try though.
 
He condemns all sex out of marriage.

What about you Navy.....you seemed obsessed with gay issues. Do you have the same passion to speak out against those who commit adultery and premarital sex? What about heterosexuals that engage in oral and anal sex?
 
It does seem disingenous for the pro-gay marriage side to know that their president likely shifted his stance for additional votes. It'd be great if he actually held to his true beliefs; the same can be said for any president.
I find it rather disingenous that he's attacking Romney today for positions he held up until yesterday. Can you believe how "backwards" that Romney guy is? Doesn't even support same sex marriage! Psshht!
 
I don't see one coming up who doesn't do that. I have no doubt in my mind that Romney has done that too. I also have no doubt that at one point in his life, Obama believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter to me whether that was one week ago, one year ago, 4 years ago, or 10 years ago. I understand politics enough to know what goes on. I don't like it but it won't change until we are able to get a better educated voting public that doesn't go off of anything they hear about an issue, whether right or wrong.

Romney isn't excused for his shifty behavior, either. It would not surprise me if our president has hidden reservations on the issue of gay marriage. At this time he needs all the support he can get. When it comes to public education on voting, I'm not getting my hopes up. It is what it is.
 
I find it rather disingenous that he's attacking Romney today for positions he held up until yesterday. Can you believe how "backwards" that Romney guy is? Doesn't even support same sex marriage! Psshht!

Thus why I will not vote for either.
 
Romney isn't excused for his shifty behavior, either. It would not surprise me if our president has hidden reservations on the issue of gay marriage. At this time he needs all the support he can get. When it comes to public education on voting, I'm not getting my hopes up. It is what it is.

I go with what I think will get the best results. I honestly wish the SCOTUS would just strike down all anti-ssm laws and get this whole argument over with. The support is not there for a Federal Marriage Amendment so once the SCOTUS rules that all anti-ssm laws are discriminatory and against the 14th Amendment, including DOMA, that will make this whole issue go away. We might see one or two additional side items, but likely most people will just go on with their lives.
 
I go with what I think will get the best results. I honestly wish the SCOTUS would just strike down all anti-ssm laws and get this whole argument over with. The support is not there for a Federal Marriage Amendment so once the SCOTUS rules that all anti-ssm laws are discriminatory and against the 14th Amendment, including DOMA, that will make this whole issue go away. We might see one or two additional side items, but likely most people will just go on with their lives.

Whatever people on Earth want to do.
 
I find it rather disingenous that he's attacking Romney today for positions he held up until yesterday. Can you believe how "backwards" that Romney guy is? Doesn't even support same sex marriage! Psshht!

I'm sorry....I didn't hear Obama attacking Romney on this issue. Care to direct us to a link?
 
I don't care if Gays get married. Still not going to vote for him. He will most likely lose more of the christian and catholic vote. I do wonder if the WBC will pickett the White House now?

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
 
I go with what I think will get the best results. I honestly wish the SCOTUS would just strike down all anti-ssm laws and get this whole argument over with. The support is not there for a Federal Marriage Amendment so once the SCOTUS rules that all anti-ssm laws are discriminatory and against the 14th Amendment, including DOMA, that will make this whole issue go away. We might see one or two additional side items, but likely most people will just go on with their lives.

It's certainly easy to fear how the courts may rule based on the past, but this notion that one states license is automatically retroactively applied to all states doesn't make sense to me.

Is not how it works today? for example, with a drivers license. In Minnesota you can be licensed at 16. Many other states are 17. Can a 16 year old Minnesota teen cross state lines, and drive legally? Can he move and retain his license even while 16? I didn't think so, byt I'm now not sure.

Anybody know how this works?

My number # concern is that I want to preserve the republican form of government as this is the best way as a nation to remain unified. The more we have one central agency ruling on issues, the more likely we become divided.
 
I don't care if Gays get married. Still not going to vote for him. He will most likely lose more of the christian and catholic vote. I do wonder if the WBC will pickett the White House now?

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

50% of Catholics support marriage equality.

After yesterday I bet that number will go up.

People who know in their hearts that marriage equality is the right thing, the American thing, and the Christian thing to do... can now come out of the closet.

Thank you, President Obama.

Thank you for leading, finally...
 
I'm sorry....I didn't hear Obama attacking Romney on this issue. Care to direct us to a link?

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's campaign is using his support of gay marriage to draw a contrast with Republican rival Mitt Romney.

The morning after Obama publically embraced same-sex marriage, his campaign released a web video titled "Mitt Romney: Backwards on Equality."

The video opens with Obama saying same-sex couples should be allowed to get married, followed by a clip of Romney saying Wednesday that he opposes gay marriage
and favors rolling back some rights for same-sex couples.
Obama Campaign Touts Support For Gay Marriage, Hits Mitt Romney
 
It does seem disingenous for the pro-gay marriage side to know that their president likely shifted his stance for additional votes.

You're not suggesting that anyone--least of all Obama--believes this will result in a net gain in votes, are you?

I wonder how many that have praised him, realized he said that states should decide. Um, that kinda means he supports what NC did, for they decided. Hmm..

Are you implying that acknowledging jurisdiction means that someone agrees with decisions made there? Ditto the status quo?

Both sides agree that Obama plays a deep game and knows a thing or two about constitutional law. Right now he's waiting for the SCOTUS to kick these laws and amendments to the curb. Personally, I wouldn't bet against it.

-o-
 
Back
Top Bottom