The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Why cant it just be some one articulated his position in a way that was a "eureka" moment and thus he realized that by being against equality for gays, he was no better than "separate but equal."

 

For better or worse, I have changed peoples opinion with argument. On the internet its hard, but in person, when you know someone, they dont want to be the only guy in the room with a terrible ideology.

 

Opinions about what you personally believe is right or wrong, unless you're young, don't get swayed by arguments. It takes a personal experience IMO to change that view. Especially for a guy who is what, 50? and makes his living telling other people what he believes and why on a daily basis.

[StrangeSox]

So fine, he didn't believe what he said before, which just means he was, again, selling out on his beliefs to get votes. Still reflects poorly on him and it's ridiculous that people are applauding what he's just done (even while agreeing that the end result is what they want).

 

You can't draw that conclusion from my post. Maybe he really did support civil unions over marriage rights back in 2008. But my point was that he wasn't antagonistic towards homosexuality in the same way that groups like the FRC are. He supported and implemented pro-LGBT policies like ending DADT over the objections of the anti-gay Republicans in Congress. So while he wasn't an ideal supporter of gay rights, he was almost there. Shifting from the position of supporting civil unions to supporting full and equal marriage doesn't necessarily represent changing a deeply held conviction. That doesn't mean that he was selling out his beliefs then or now but that his beliefs legitimately changed.

 

I'm going to criticize Obama for taking this long to come out in support of gay marriage as I did in the first couple of responses to this news item, which people seemed to be ignoring to pretend that there was uncritical praise for this move. But I will applaud him for changing his stance because it will only help the LGBT community. Even if it's a completely political ploy, they will still have one of the two candidates for President openly advocating for gay marriage. That is huge.

 

Why shouldn't people who support gay marriage be happy that Obama is taking this position?

[StrangeSox]

Opinions about what you personally believe is right or wrong, unless you're young, don't get swayed by arguments. It takes a personal experience IMO to change that view. Especially for a guy who is what, 50? and makes his living telling other people what he believes and why on a daily basis.

 

Or thought and introspection and talking to people effected by these policies, as I'm sure Obama has done.

[CanOfCorn]

Opinions about what you personally believe is right or wrong, unless you're young, don't get swayed by arguments. It takes a personal experience IMO to change that view. Especially for a guy who is what, 50? and makes his living telling other people what he believes and why on a daily basis.

 

I hope I am never as rigid in anything I do as that statement just made you out to be.

[Soxbadger]

Opinions about what you personally believe is right or wrong, unless you're young, don't get swayed by arguments. It takes a personal experience IMO to change that view. Especially for a guy who is what, 50? and makes his living telling other people what he believes and why on a daily basis.

 

I dont think Obama has ever said "gay marriage is wrong", I think that he supported a position similar to "separate but equal" and finally realized that he was no better than the people who thought "separate but equal" was equality.

 

I dont know, Im just speculating, but I can speculate he did it for altruistic reasons if I want. I am fully willing to cede he did them for political gain, I just dont care and no one has convinced me why I should care. The best argument has been that you cant trust Obama, but I never trusted him to begin with, so that really isnt relevant.

 

The only relevant thing would be if Romney came out in full support of equality and argued that he was more for equality than Obama. Then it would be relevant who actually believed. But as of now, Obama's lie is better than Romney's truth.

[StrangeSox]

You can't draw that conclusion from my post. Maybe he really did support civil unions over marriage rights back in 2008. But my point was that he wasn't antagonistic towards homosexuality in the same way that groups like the FRC are. He supported and implemented pro-LGBT policies like ending DADT over the objections of the anti-gay Republicans in Congress. So while he wasn't an ideal supporter of gay rights, he was almost there. Shifting from the position of supporting civil unions to supporting full and equal marriage doesn't necessarily represent changing a deeply held conviction. That doesn't mean that he was selling out his beliefs then or now but that his beliefs legitimately changed.

 

I'm going to criticize Obama for taking this long to come out in support of gay marriage as I did in the first couple of responses to this news item, which people seemed to be ignoring to pretend that there was uncritical praise for this move. But I will applaud him for changing his stance because it will only help the LGBT community. Even if it's a completely political ploy, they will still have one of the two candidates for President openly advocating for gay marriage. That is huge.

 

Why shouldn't people who support gay marriage be happy that Obama is taking this position?

 

This article captures this sentiment:

 

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

First, this is why I respect Dennis Kucinich. The man's a rock in his beliefs. I don't care for his beliefs but I would trust this guy before the hack that's in office now.

 

Next, by this same logic, you all should love you some Dick Cheney. But you hate him. He supports you on this issue, so why isn't he the saint of all saints? Oh, because he doesn't have a (d) behind his name. Sheeple.

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

By the way, just so it is clear for the reading impaired, I'm pretty much right where SS said on the issue. It's not for me to judge it. I do not believe in oppressing people for their choices - if it's "wrong", so what, I do wrong things all the time and don't expect the same judgement.

 

[StrangeSox]

Next, by this same logic, you all should love you some Dick Cheney. But you hate him. He supports you on this issue, so why isn't he the saint of all saints? Oh, because he doesn't have a (d) behind his name. Sheeple.

 

I like Dick Cheney's stance on gay marriage. I hate his stance on just about every other possible issue. Why would I treat him like a saint, and why does disliking him make me a "sheeple?" Remember my first two posts, which came before your first post, that were a) happy he came out in favor but b) critical that it took him this long? And the several people who agreed? Is that the mark of someone being treated as a "saint of all saints?"

 

Just about any progressive position out there is going to be supported by some Republican somewhere. So what. Though, perhaps notably, it's very difficult to find any currently holding elected office who support SSM.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Next, by this same logic, you all should love you some Dick Cheney. But you hate him. He supports you on this issue, so why isn't he the saint of all saints? Oh, because he doesn't have a (d) behind his name. Sheeple.

 

He has to be the saint of all saints because we agree with him on one issue out of a hundred?

 

[Soxbadger]

First, this is why I respect Dennis Kucinich. The man's a rock in his beliefs. I don't care for his beliefs but I would trust this guy before the hack that's in office now.

 

Next, by this same logic, you all should love you some Dick Cheney. But you hate him. He supports you on this issue, so why isn't he the saint of all saints? Oh, because he doesn't have a (d) behind his name. Sheeple.

 

I assume you actually havent read Nietzsche because you are using "sheep" the exact opposite way.

 

As for Dick Cheney, I like him about issues he agrees with me on.

 

I dislike him for issues he disagrees with me on.

 

The same way I treat Obama.

 

In fact, Ive said both Bush's have done good things, Ive said Clinton did good things, Ive said Reagan did good things.

 

We all know your position, you dislike Obama. You will do anything you can to detract from Obama. Its like a broken record, Obama is the worst, Obama is untrustworthy, I would never do this that or the other.

 

Guess what, I dont care whether you would vote for Obama or not. Im not going to fall into your oxymoron argument that somehow you are doing more for equality by not voting, than by voting to support the only President who has ever come out in support of gay marriage.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I hope I am never as rigid in anything I do as that statement just made you out to be.

 

Because I'm sure you'd be so open minded to someone telling you that homosexuality is wrong. GMAFB. People have beliefs about moral and ethical issues and it's rare for them to change without some sort of personal reason to. You don't get to a point of believing that homosexuality is wrong or abortion is wrong or whatever without having a pretty solid conviction that your belief is the right one (and why you think that way). Otherwise you'd let people know up front that you're not 100% sure.

 

[Rex Kickass]

First, this is why I respect Dennis Kucinich. The man's a rock in his beliefs. I don't care for his beliefs but I would trust this guy before the hack that's in office now.

 

Next, by this same logic, you all should love you some Dick Cheney. But you hate him. He supports you on this issue, so why isn't he the saint of all saints? Oh, because he doesn't have a (d) behind his name. Sheeple.

 

I think that Dick Cheney is worthy of some respect for his belief that gay marriage should be legal. However, when in office he's been on the opposite end of the issue for political expediency, and even today - he certainly isn't using his power within the GOP to change that position in his own party.

[StrangeSox]

Doing the Right Thing Was the Right Thing

 

We all seem to be in agreement here: SSM should be fully legalized. So Obama took the policy we'd all like to see and set up a stark contrast with his opponent, who reiterated his anti-SSM law stance. Why should he be attacked for that?

[StrangeSox]

Because I'm sure you'd be so open minded to someone telling you that homosexuality is wrong. GMAFB. People have beliefs about moral and ethical issues and it's rare for them to change without some sort of personal reason to. You don't get to a point of believing that homosexuality is wrong or abortion is wrong or whatever without having a pretty solid conviction that your belief is the right one (and why you think that way). Otherwise you'd let people know up front that you're not 100% sure.

 

But Obama didn't appear to believe that homosexuality was morally wrong, he just believed in an ahistorical "one man, one woman" definition of marriage. He still ended DOMA and DADT, hired a transgendered staff member and never expressed any antagonism or derision towards the LGBT community.

[CanOfCorn]

Because I'm sure you'd be so open minded to someone telling you that homosexuality is wrong. GMAFB. People have beliefs about moral and ethical issues and it's rare for them to change without some sort of personal reason to. You don't get to a point of believing that homosexuality is wrong or abortion is wrong or whatever without having a pretty solid conviction that your belief is the right one (and why you think that way). Otherwise you'd let people know up front that you're not 100% sure.

 

In fact, a very good friend of mine who is gay, is against SSM. His reasoning isn't based in morality but financially. He is much smarter than I am, and I can't recall all of his reasons, but they were well thought out and on the money. Morally, I disagree with him. But, that doesn't mean that a) I didn't listen and b) he made me think about it to the point that I actually did doubt myself.

 

Am I right? Is he right? Does it matter?

 

(Full disclosure: I knew him before he was out of the closet. He is also a practicing Catholic who occasionally goes to Latin mass, conservative Republican and a lawyer.)

 

If it's true and his children asked him why he doesn't believe in SSM, isn't that personal? Can't he change?

[kapkomet]

MOST of you are sheeple because you are praising a man who whored out one of your hard fought beliefs after in no uncertain words saying he didn't believe in it, all for the same political gain. He's a whorebag, and you all love him for his "evolution"... he doesn't even know what he thinks, because he's told what to think and goes on camera to tell you what you believe.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, this thread is full of unremitted love for Obama, especially on this very topic.

 

Obama is telling me what to believe re: gay marriage, a position I've supported long before he did? kap, for your own sake, don't hit the drinks so early!

Edited May 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

But Obama didn't appear to believe that homosexuality was morally wrong, he just believed in an ahistorical "one man, one woman" definition of marriage. He still ended DOMA and DADT, hired a transgendered staff member and never expressed any antagonism or derision towards the LGBT community.

 

True, we don't know what he truly believed, but what he said is a pretty good indication that he viewed marriage as a separate, religious tradition that was designated for a man and a woman, not same sex couples. To me that's still a fundamental belief change. If he had said "you know i'm personally against this, but it's not the government's role" then it would be a different story.

[Soxbadger]

MOST of you are sheeple because you are praising a man who whored out one of your hard fought beliefs after in no uncertain words saying he didn't believe in it, all for the same political gain. He's a whorebag, and you all love him for his "evolution"... he doesn't even know what he thinks, because he's told what to think and goes on camera to tell you what you believe.

 

I think you mistyped what you meant.

 

I am praising a man who whored himself out to my belief, to try and get my vote. He used to disagree with me, but in an attempt to placate me has decided to change his opinion to ensure I vote for him.

 

I dont love him for his evolution, I dont love him for changing his mind, I like his position because he changed to mine.

 

Call me a sheep all day long, it just shows ignorance on your part. Because you clearly are using the term, to try and make people go the opposite way to prove that they arent sheep, which is nothing more than a trick tactic.

 

I dont fall for tricks I used in 5th grade arguments, thats for the birds.

 

Call me a sheep, call me a goat, call me a slug, it doesnt change the fact that this sheep was able to get the most powerful man in the world to change his opinion for my vote and money.

 

Sheep power!

 

You really seem to think I care why I made some one change their mind. I dont care if the reason is that they just dont ever want to speak with me again. Winning is winning and that is Machiavellian, which quite frankly, would be far more Ubermensch than Sheep, but Im sure you are just referring to internet memes and havent actually read the books.

[StrangeSox]

True, we don't know what he truly believed, but what he said is a pretty good indication that he viewed marriage as a separate, religious tradition that was designated for a man and a woman, not same sex couples. To me that's still a fundamental belief change. If he had said "you know i'm personally against this, but it's not the government's role" then it would be a different story.

 

No one is saying it wasn't a change in belief because it clearly is. But framing Obama's position prior to this announcement as morally opposed to homosexuality is not an honest depiction. Obama also never advocated for Federal or state-level bans on SSM, so his prior position is much closer to your 'different story' than to painting him as anti-gay.

[StrangeSox]

Call me a sheep, call me a goat, call me a slug, it doesnt change the fact that this sheep was able to get the most powerful man in the world to change his opinion for my vote and money.

 

The pitfall here is that, if Obama is just pandering, he may fall through and not actually do anything about this after he has your vote and money.

 

But his current record on LGBT issues almost uniformly speaks the other way.

[StrangeSox]

Glenn Greenwald, who's generally incredibly critical of Obama on the civil liberties front, has an excellent article expanding on much of what soxbadger is saying.

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/

 

It may very well be true that Obama took this step not out of any genuine conviction, but because he perceives that high levels of enthusiasm among the Democratic base generally and gay donors specifically are necessary for his re-election, or because Biden’s comments forced his hand, or any number of other tactical reasons. I don’t know what his secret motives are, but even if they could be discerned, I think it’s irrelevant.

 

When it comes to assessing a politician, what matters, at least to me, are actions, not motives. If they do the wrong thing, they should be criticized regardless of motive; conversely, if they do the right thing, they should be credited. I’ve had zero tolerance over the last three years for people who pop up to justify all the horrible things Obama has done by claiming that he is forced to do them out of political necessity or in cowardly deference to public opinion; that’s because horrible acts don’t become less horrible because they’re prompted by some rational, self-interested political motive rather than conviction. That’s equally true of positive acts: they don’t become less commendable because they were the by-product of political pressure or self-preservation; when a politician takes the right course of action, as Obama did today, credit is merited, regardless of motive.

[farmteam]

If you firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, unless you have some personal experience, why would that view change? He could be (and appears to be) pro civil unions, but not marriage. I don't see a logical reason for that opinion to change except to get some votes, especially in the time frame we're talking about here.

 

Admittedly this is different because my views changed in my general young/formative years (ie, high school and college) when you're still just learning a lot of things and whatnot, but I actually made the switch you have trouble believing. I used to think "civil unions" were enough if they were identical to what straight couples could get; but over time, I realized that was basically the same "separate but equal" logic that was discarded in Brown. By telling a group of people you have to call what they're getting a "civil union" you're essentially telling them they aren't as good as the people who get to call it a "marriage."

[BigSqwert]

Glenn Greenwald, who's generally incredibly critical of Obama on the civil liberties front, has an excellent article expanding on much of what soxbadger is saying.

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/

I already quoted this last night. Sheesh