After Biden was ealrier announced 'being comfortable with same-sex marriage', now Obama, being the first US president doing so, openly backs gay marriage.

From the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009) :
In a nod to a dramatic shift in public opinion, Barack Obama on Wednesday became the first sitting president to announce his support for same-sex marriage.

In a sit-down interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, Obama completed what has been a markedly long and oft-mocked evolution on the matter.

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,”Personally I think it's a good move, same-sex marriage should be a normal thing in a modern free Western society.
(And to be honest I'm baffled why a modern country like the US doesn't already have same-sex marriage, but that's on the side).

Although I do feel it as a risky move as there'll be quite a lot of voters, even for Obama, who thinks it's a bridge too far, the catholic hispanics for instance.

A brave move, but will it effect his re-election? In a good way? In a bad way?
What do you think, is Obama pushing his luck?

Well, fresh from an interview today in response to the Vice President Biden's remarks and other White House advisors:

“At a certain point,” Mr. Obama said in an interview in the Cabinet Room at the White House with ABC’s Robin Roberts, “I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

In honor of long-standing CFC tradition, I have started us off with the vomiting smiley and a fantastic poll (coming, if you clicked on this too fast). So, any thoughts from the crowd?



Source: NYTimes (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/obama-likely-to-speak-about-same-sex-marriage-in-interview/?hp), although you can probably find it anywhere and everywhere now.

Hurray. Am i dreaming. USa Nr1. Let's see what congress says.

Threads merged

EDIT: never mind, threads were merged.

Finally.

To what??

Studies show that gay couples only last in average for 18 months………

And won't you think of the children?
Had made long post, not posted, don't want to re-write everything

An interesting departure from President Obama's prevailing tactic of sliding ever toward the right in hopes of picking up moderates. Perhaps he's trying to reach out to alienated progressives? I can't imagine many LGBT people would vote Republican, given the GOP's hostile attitude toward anything 'different'. Give the tea party power and they'd start criminalizing homosexuality. :rolleyes:

To what??

Studies show that gay couples only last in average for 18 months………

And won't you think of the children?
Had made long post, not posted, don't want to re-write everything

What's the equivalent figure for heterosexual marriages? With something like a coin flip's chance of divorce it can't be too high.

Does your high school sweetheart that you didn't marry count as a couple? Not every straight relationship leads to marriage.

I put "this seriously will hurt him politically".

To what??

Studies show that gay couples only last in average for 18 months………

And won't you think of the children?
Had made long post, not posted, don't want to re-write everything

I've had straight relationships that lasted for 2 months at most. Your point being?

I've had straight relationships that lasted for 2 months at most. Your point being?

That gay relationships usually don't last as long and have a higher tendency to be wrought with affairs.

That gay relationships usually don't last as long and have a higher tendency to be wrought with affairs.

That's untrue and based in harmful stereotypes.

That gay relationships usually don't last as long and have a higher tendency to be wrought with affairs.

Can we leave the partisan guff behind? Any appropriate response doesn't belong in the Chamber.

That's untrue and based in harmful stereotypes.

Just look at the studies.

@ Arakhor, I don't even care that much about SSM anymore, I have more important things to worry about. I was just explaining what someone said.

Anyway, if Romney is smart he can use it too his advantage.

Well, if their marriage isn't going to last anyway, why not allow it? ;)

Just look at the studies.

Find a single nonpartisan, objective, recent (relatively) study that says this.

Find a single nonpartisan, objective, recent (relatively) study that says this.

And while you're at it, contrast it with the increasing US divorce rate.

Find a single nonpartisan, objective, recent (relatively) study that says this.

most studies are partisan either way, but I'll look to find one soon.

That gay relationships usually don't last as long and have a higher tendency to be wrought with affairs.

It seems to me by my example, gay relationships last nearly 10 times longer.

It's a fairly tenuous use of the word "backs" .

I'm also jaded enough to suggest the consultations that brought him to this stance were less with "friends , family and neighbors" than they were with poll driven advisors .

But yeah , of course gay people should be able to marry as long as divide by 2 add 7 age laws are
introduced and at the completetion of the ceremony the happy couple are not allowed to kiss as we don't want gays foisting their lifestyle on us.

I put "this seriously will hurt him politically".

We know the conservative base is going to turn out strongly and they'll be trumpeting this as an issue. But they were going to be at the polls to vote against him in any case, and I doubt his statement today is going to swell their ranks.

As far as socially conservative Blacks and Hispanics go, well, the GOP has been trying for ages to find a wedge issue that would peel off enough of their votes to swing an election. If they haven't been able to do it with, say, abortion, I doubt that they'll have any more success with same-sex marriage. Especially since Obama's statement is still pretty measured. He isn't calling for a marriage equality amendment, or talking about challenging state constitutions in federal court under the equal protection clause.

It's pretty crazy timing coming on the same day that North Carolina, an important swing state, voted for an amendment to block gay marriage AND civil unions. It seems to be a move to galvanize youth and his base that seems a bit complacent. I'm happy with any public support of this super easy issue that we should all be for (assuming we have all our cognitive faculties).

Well at least it's some improvement on his human rights record.

So Obama shows he might have a brain while the people of NC prove they don't. As for same-sex relationships lasting, they're not much different from straight ones. You just have smaller groups to use, especially when comparing marriages.

This will help Obama Politically. Maybe.

Perhaps he made the calculus that the young and/or liberal turnout he might lose (due to complacency, lack of enthusiasm to vote for a guy who won't take a stand on important social issues, let them down on a bunch of "progressive" points, etc.) was more than the social conservative democratic/independent votes he might lose by backing it. He probably also sees the polling that over half of independents support gay marriage and that the black vote is too enthusiastic with Obama to not vote for him over this.

Or he is a man of principle and conviction and was sick of lying about his views on an important social issue of the day....

....naaaaaah! Can't be that.

I personally was surprised and proud of him to come out and say this, albeit admittedly in the back of my mind it makes me a tad nervous for swing states like NC, Ohio, etc.

I chose Eh, could care less. even though it's the opposite, I couldn't care less.

I don't see why anyone would consider this politically risky. What percentage of people very much opposed to gay marriage were going to vote for Obama in the first place? In other words, how many votes is Obama going to lose for this? I wager not many. Offsetting this is a galvanized base. Now let's see Obama follow through making Republicans look anti-future with their hard line stance on extending Pell Grants.

To what??

Studies show that gay couples only last in average for 18 months………

And won't you think of the children?
Had made long post, not posted, don't want to re-write everything

Okay, and?

That gay relationships usually don't last as long and have a higher tendency to be wrought with affairs.


Okay, and?

I put "this seriously will hurt him politically".

If he keeps this stance through the elections and actually follows it up with a vow to push for it on the national level, I will actually register to vote AND vote for him. This is the kind of kick in the pants he needs to motivate the youth vote that he's trying to recapture for this election.

If he keeps this stance through the elections and actually follows it up with a vow to push for it on the national level, I will actually register to vote AND vote for him. This is the kind of kick in the pants he needs to motivate the youth vote that he's trying to recapture for this election.

Woah, and you live in an important swing state too!

Not suprisingly, Romney flip flopped to contrast himself with Obama.

Woah, and you live in an important swing state too!

I don't need your patronizing. His wishy-washiness on topics young people actually care about like this one are why he lost the youth vote in the first place.

I don't see why anyone would consider this politically risky. What percentage of people very much opposed to gay marriage were going to vote for Obama in the first place? In other words, how many votes is Obama going to lose for this? I wager not many. Offsetting this is a galvanized base. Now let's see Obama follow through making Republicans look anti-future with their hard line stance on extending Pell Grants.
I don't know about that. One of the problems with the polling on gay marriage is that its support is usually considerably higher in telephone polls than it is during the actual vote. There's a pretty considerable chunk of the population, perhaps 10% or more, that are privately uncomfortable with gay marriage but also feel uncomfortable telling pollsters this. Thus, the polls themselves are now showing 50+% support for gay marriage, but virtually every ballot initiative returns an anti-marriage result.

So I think it was a pretty risky decision for Obama. My estimate of the number of balls he possesses has increased from 0.3 +/- 0.1 to 0.6 +/- 0.2. Still below average, but he's doing somewhat better than he was earlier. :thumbsup:

Finally.

Increases my odds of voting for him. Honestly I dont see how this hurts him, the people who are rabidly anti-gay marriage to the point that its an issue that will swing their vote likely werent voting for obama anyways.

panderer in chief strikes again...how many more times is lucy going to promise charlie brown that she aint going to move the ball.....you know charlie is going to end up on his back, right?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bs_WC9fykAU/TJmPa8Fu8nI/AAAAAAAAAA4/PDblqHTqJYk/s1600/charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg

Increases my odds of voting for him. Honestly I dont see how this hurts him, the people who are rabidly anti-gay marriage to the point that its an issue that will swing their vote likely werent voting for obama anyways.

Pretty much. If I were so bold, I'd say there are extremely high odds that the vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage are already opposed to Obama so it's really a zero sum sort of thing.

It's not surprising in the least now that a majority of Americans support it.

Support for Gay Marriage Outweighs Opposition in Polls (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/)

President Obama’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage undoubtedly entails some political risk, but recent polls suggest that public opinion is increasingly on his side.

According to surveys included in the PollingReport.com database, an average of 50 percent of American adults support same-sex marriage rights while 45 percent oppose it, based on an average of nine surveys conducted in the past year.

This is a reversal from earlier periods: support for same-sex marriage has been increasing, and opposition to it has been decreasing, at a relatively steady rate of perhaps two or three percentage points a year since 2004.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5151/7166516408_07da400dae.jpg

Baby steps.

And the people who are vehemently opposed to it would never vote for Obama anyway.

It would be nice to see the U.S. finally grow up on this issue. We've had gay marriage in Canada for years now, and I don't remember seeing straight married people dropping dead in the streets.

I still think that the state should get out of the business of regulating marriage. There is nothing about a state-recognized marriage that is a right. We should not be granted special legal privileges due to marriage. Individuals can devise their own wedding contracts. Churches can decide what relationships to endorse and what rituals to perform. There is no good reason why hospitals should have policies only allowing visits from a spouse rather than whomever the patient wants to see.

What's the equivalent figure for heterosexual marriages? With something like a coin flip's chance of divorce it can't be too high.

Does your high school sweetheart that you didn't marry count as a couple? Not every straight relationship leads to marriage.


The odds of a first marriage ending in divorce today is actually only about 1 in 5, not 1 in 2. When you include subsequent remarriages of those who have been divorced before then the overall divorce rate is still only about 1 in 3.

The commonly quoted statistic that half of all marriages end in divorce is based on several unfounded assumptions and has not been updates in decades. We don't have great data, as some of our largest states refuse to report anything, but what data we do have suggests that the real divorce rate peaked at just over to 40% during the late 1970s and has been gradually decreasing ever since. The best estimate in 2001 was that 21% of men and 23% of women over 15 years of age had ever been divorced. The best data in in 2008 indicated that 30.8% of the adult population were never married, 50.2% were married, 2.2% were separated, and 10.6% were single but formerly married. Remarriage and widowhood complicate this though.

(I also recently learned about a flaw in the statistics that show that couples who cohabitate before marriage are more likely to get divorced. Apparently if you count the length of the relationship from when the couple moves in together and ignore the timing of the wedding itself, there is no statistically significant difference in the length of the relationship. Those who move in together sooner divorce sooner simply because they move past the honeymoon stage of the relationship sooner when measured relative the wedding date.)


He did say couples rather than married couples, so I don't see how we can exclude non-married heterosexual couples and have fair comparison. That would certainly bring the average length of the relationship down. I believe the main reason for the drop in the divorce rate is that fewer couples are getting married.

It's not surprising in the least now that a majority of Americans support it.

Support for Gay Marriage Outweighs Opposition in Polls (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/)



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5151/7166516408_07da400dae.jpg

Baby steps.

And the people who are vehemently opposed to it would never vote for Obama anyway.
Just because support for gay marriage measures 50% in polls doesn't mean that actual support is that high. Silver notes in that post, and others dealing with this issue, that there are a significant number of voters who are telling pollsters that they support gay marriage, but then voting against it. Popular opinion has reached the point where some people with anti-gay marriage opinions have stopped admitting this in public. Thus the true approval rate of gay marriage is likely shifted 5-10 percentage points down from what the polls tell us, based on all the ballot initiatives where the outcome is worse than the polls indicate. The rate of change is still just as positive, however.

I'm sure within 20 years there will be overwhelming support for gay marriage, but at the moment the true number as measured in elections is almost certainly in the low 40s or so. It also would not surprise me if the 5-10% of voters who are still anti-gay marriage but not open about it come disproportionately from the "undecided voters". I'm not sure how much this one issue will swing them on who to vote for, but I don't think the numbers are there to call this a politically wise decision. Still, I applaud his actually taking a controversial stand on an issue.

Perhaps, when he gets re-elected, knowing that there is nothing to lose anymore, will try to push aggressively to overturn DOMA.

Over the time that my father has been in his current relationship, there have been a couple of Newt Gingrich, a couple of Rudy Giuliani, and a couple of Donald Trump divorces and remarriages. My father and his partner had the commitment ceremony many years ago - it is well past time they get the same government recognition as straight couples.

The fact a segment of people try to paint this as "defending" marriage is laughable, as though homosexuals who love each other getting married is so horrific to an institution that is now reality TV and tabloid fodder.

The fact a segment of people try to paint this as "defending" marriage is laughable, as though homosexuals who love each other getting married is so horrific to an institution that is now reality TV and tabloid fodder.
"But that's not REAL marriage then, too! The marriages these people are having should be forbidden as well!"

See what I giant No True Scotsman their argument is?

I wonder how many couples actually meet the criteria of their REAL MARRIAGE (tm).

Marriage equality for LGBT people is long overdue. The conservatives have only been delaying the inevitable.

Every time in America there has been a voter initiative it has always favoured those who view marriage a a relationship between one man and one woman, every single time. The only states that have legalised it have never done by people vote but unelected judges. Every time the people have the say they overwhelming reject the idea of "Gay Marriage". 32 out of 32 states is a decisive victory for those who are pro marriage.

Every time in America there has been a voter initiative it has always favoured those who view marriage a a relationship between one man and one woman, every single time. The only states that have legalised it have never done by people vote but unelected judges. Every time the people have the say they overwhelming reject the idea of "Gay Marriage". 32 out of 32 states is a decisive victory for those who are pro marriage.

You mean pro-discrimination, pro-marriage hardly makes sense seeing as you are limiting marriage.

Also, the argument isnt so much that you pro-discrimination types dont have the numbers now, its that you wont have them in the future. The youth arent on your side by a large majority, this discrimination is destined to fall just like its past brethren. Enjoy the twilight of your power.

But you can make anything sound good by adding "pro-" to the front. It's not discrimination when it's religious!

Every time in America there has been a voter initiative it has always favoured those who view marriage a a relationship between one man and one woman, every single time. The only states that have legalised it have never done by people vote but unelected judges. Every time the people have the say they overwhelming reject the idea of "Gay Marriage". 32 out of 32 states is a decisive victory for those who are pro marriage.

Don't have the time to respond in full now, but I think several of the states where same-sex marriage was recognized first by the judiciary have passed legislative acts upholding the same, so votes did take place. And yes, the votes can overturn the judiciary, since they are bound by statutory language. Also, take a look at New York.

Furthermore, do you not think there was a bit of self-selection in the states that chose to propose hetero-only marriage laws and tolerant marriage laws?

Every time in America there has been a voter initiative it has always favoured those who view marriage a a relationship between one man and one woman, every single time. The only states that have legalised it have never done by people vote but unelected judges. Every time the people have the say they overwhelming reject the idea of "Gay Marriage". 32 out of 32 states is a decisive victory for those who are pro marriage.
And every time humanity has made a civilizing step ahead, people have quickly adapted to think of it as normal.

Of course people think of marriage as a relationship between one man and woman, because it currently is. That's more of an argument that people derive their convictions from the status quo than anything else.

Every time in America there has been a voter initiative it has always favoured those who view marriage a a relationship between one man and one woman, every single time. The only states that have legalised it have never done by people vote but unelected judges. Every time the people have the say they overwhelming reject the idea of "Gay Marriage". 32 out of 32 states is a decisive victory for those who are pro marriage.
Actually, as has been mentioned, it has been passed legislatively in some state. If during the 1960's, you had put interracial marriage bans on the ballot, it would have the same track record. There was a time that if you had put a vote for banning the practice of Catholism, it would have a similar referendum track record. If you put banning the practice of Islam up for referendum, you just might get similar results.

Majorities will bully minorities, there is nothing shocking about this.

Every time in America there has been a voter initiative it has always favoured those who view marriage a a relationship between one man and one woman, every single time. The only states that have legalised it have never done by people vote but unelected judges. Every time the people have the say they overwhelming reject the idea of "Gay Marriage". 32 out of 32 states is a decisive victory for those who are pro marriage.

And how many voters initiative would you have been able to push through regarding segregation?

At the end of the day, you cannot leave equality up to the ballot box, because the unavoidable result of doing so is going to be "Equal, except when the majority feel we should be different". That's not equality in any appreciable or useful sense, and, when the people's will stands in the way of equality - equality before the law, that is - the people's will needs to be ignored.

The right to be equal before the law trumps the right of the majority to chose what the law should be.

Every time in America there has been a voter initiative it has always favoured those who view marriage a a relationship between one man and one woman, every single time. The only states that have legalised it have never done by people vote but unelected judges. Every time the people have the say they overwhelming reject the idea of "Gay Marriage". 32 out of 32 states is a decisive victory for those who are pro marriage.


All that really tells you is that in many places many of the people are not moral enough to put bigotry behind them.

All that really tells you is that in many places many of the people are not moral enough to put bigotry behind them.

Indeed. Most of the reason we have a legal system in the first place is to prevent the majority from riding roughshod over the rights of the minority.

I think it has more to do with being opposed to change than with bigotry but that certainly plays a part.

panderer in chief strikes again...how many more times is lucy going to promise charlie brown that she aint going to move the ball.....you know charlie is going to end up on his back, right?

What exactly is he promising here?

pro marriage.

Do you actually hold a straight face when you say that?

"No! They cannot be married! I am pro marriage!"

For a bunch of dudes that complain so much about changing the meaning of words, you'd think you'd have a little more respect for, you know, the meaning of words.

Every time in America there has been a voter initiative it has always favoured those who view marriage a a relationship between one man and one woman, every single time. The only states that have legalised it have never done by people vote but unelected judges. Every time the people have the say they overwhelming reject the idea of "Gay Marriage". 32 out of 32 states is a decisive victory for those who are pro marriage.

I wouldn't call Prop 8 overwhelming, and if the same initiative was to come up to bat today, or at most 4 years from now, I think it would fail.

Exactly how many marriages have been destroyed by allowing gay marriage (in the countries/states its legal in)?

Exactly how many marriages have been destroyed by allowing gay marriage (in the countries/states its legal in)?

I know it was one of my dad's old female classmates that made my dad ruin his, that's a certainty. Or it could have just been his own fault. No gays involved.

From a legal point of view, i think it was about time. If i want to marry a squirrel or a horse for example and if i delegate half of my assets when we will separate then i don't know why it shouldn't be possible.

From a religious point of view...

I know it was one of my dad's old female classmates that made my dad ruin his, that's a certainty. Or it could have just been his own fault. No gays involved.
I'm pretty sure that could only happen because gay marriage undermined the moral authority of REAL MARRIAGE (tm).

From a legal point of view, i think it was about time. If i want to marry a squirrel or a horse for example and if i delegate half of my assets when we will separate then i don't know why it shouldn't be possible.
Squirrels and horses don't have contract rights, primarily because they are incapable of signing contracts, let alone understanding them.

If I may recommend an approach for your next argument, try polygamy or consensual incest among adults. Since those are actually between consenting adult humans, they're more effective arguments than anything involving bestiality, pedophilia, etc.

What exactly is he promising here?

"hope" and "change"?

Interesting Article I found

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/obamas-homosexual-america-833943949/

From the Washington Times? Lol.

We are one step closer to becoming like secular, post-Christian Europe.
I can only congratulate you, America!

Interesting Article I found

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/obamas-homosexual-america-833943949/

Started trying to read the article: the phrases "traditional America" and "homosexual agenda" appeared within the first 2 sentences. All I needed to know about that article, and, judging from HC's response, the entire newspaper.

Every time in America there has been a voter initiative it has always favoured those who view marriage a a relationship between one man and one woman, every single time. The only states that have legalised it have never done by people vote but unelected judges. Every time the people have the say they overwhelming reject the idea of "Gay Marriage". 32 out of 32 states is a decisive victory for those who are pro marriage.

Being anti-gay marriage is being pro-marriage? :crazyeye: Are gays prohibiting other people from marrying when they marry, or what? Or perhaps you would want to force gays to marry into the opposite sex?

This should have been a non-issue all along, everywhere in the secular world where religion has had no say about how states recognize marriage for a long time already. Certain religions campaign against gay marriage because they desire to get back their control over everyone's lives enforced through the state. Recognizing gay marriage in no way harmed the freedom of religious groups to have their own marriages, but they don't want freedom, they want control over everyone. And they're ready to whip up fear and old prejudice among their congregations to try to get it. They won't get it.

Interesting Article I found

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/obamas-homosexual-america-833943949/

From the article:

We are one step closer to becoming like secular, post-Christian Europe.

Well that's nice! Now you can celebrate!

It's funny how the article has a problem with the liberal media calling anti-gay campaigns bigoted.

And it's funny how many people I imagine will rejoice at the above quote. :)

EDIT: Lol, look at this article! Seriously, these quotes; I want to believe it's satiric, but...

- a naked attempt by a minority to impose its neo-pagan immorality upon the majority. The homosexual agenda is a manifestation of the totalitarian impulse at the heart of liberalism: the desire by a ruling cartel to impose a social revolution from above.

Every major religious faith - Christianity, Islam, Orthodox Judaism - teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. Homosexual behavior, especially sodomy, is unnatural and immoral. It is absurd, bordering on social madness, to elevate gay and lesbian relationships to the sanctified status of marriage - a form of moral anarchy characterized by radical individualism, hedonism and sexual liberation. Same-sex marriage is a symptom of cultural decay.

Americans should understand that it's stuff like that which makes you look silly from over here.

Started trying to read the article: the phrases "traditional America" and "homosexual agenda" appeared within the first 2 sentences. All I needed to know about that article, and, judging from HC's response, the entire newspaper.

DC-native here. The WashTimes is the conservative, red-headed stepchild of the WashPo.

Not suprisingly, Romney flip flopped to contrast himself with Obama.

No Romney's position "is evolving" his position to contrast himself with Obama.

I think that this is a complete Political BS move. I could publicly announce my support for Gay marriage and the LGBT community would be as close to getting their rights as when Obama made his announcement. The guy has made so many promises that he hasn't followed through with why would a weak remark with no action promised get them anything.

Obama's statement isn't so much important because it promises something for the future; it doesn't. It's important because it says a lot about how far things have progressed since eight, or even four years ago. Obama's support doesn't help "win" anything; but the fact that a president of the United States is willing to openly proclaim support for gay marriage while standing for reelection is a major victory in terms of how socially acceptable gay marriage has to have become for him to do it.

lol neo paganism, seriously?

Obama's statement isn't so much important because it promises something for the future; it doesn't. It's important because it says a lot about how far things have progressed since eight, or even four years ago. Obama's support doesn't help "win" anything; but the fact that a president of the United States is willing to openly proclaim support for gay marriage while standing for reelection is a major victory in terms of how socially acceptable gay marriage has to have become for him to do it.

Sorry but I have to disagree he thought this one through. The non-white church goers are still going to vote for him.

The anti-gay group was 99% not going to vote for him already

The whole point of this was to get gin up the vote among students and recent graduates. My facebook is lit up with people from my college talking about how amazing this is and how much they support him again.

lol neo paganism, seriously?
They will do everything to construe an anti-Christian narrative here.

"hope" and "change"?

I admit I haven't heard the whole interview, do you have a link or something?

lol neo paganism, seriously?

Homosexuality was common in Pagan Greco-Roman culture. Then when most people in the West converted to Christianity, homosexuality became rare.

EDIT: someone's probably going to mention King Edward III's homosexuality, but that was rare for the times.

Thanks for that Article Celtic.

It's hilarious. :thumbsup:

Interesting Article I found

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/obamas-homosexual-america-833943949/

You are obviously using 'interesting' in some dimly remembered british sense of the word.
Time to let go.

Thanks for the offering though, it was a real hoot.

EDIT: someone's probably going to mention King Edward III's homosexuality, but that was rare for the times.

Especially as the alleged homosexuality was attributed to his father, Edward II.

That gay relationships usually don't last as long and have a higher tendency to be wrought with affairs.

so male homosexuals marry more often than heterosexuals. and?

also, even if dicorce rate was any kind of argument against marriage, denying female homosexuals marriage because male homosexuals divorce more often than heterosexuals is incredibly sexist.

Not all that interesting, Obama already held this view, this was just a public statement of the obvious.

My estimate of the number of balls he possesses has increased from 0.3 +/- 0.1 to 0.6 +/- 0.2.

So statistically, the number of balls he possesses has not changed.

Homosexuality was common in Pagan Greco-Roman culture. Then when most people in the West converted to Christianity, homosexuality became rare.

Aaah. So because I'm part of the gay agenda, I also praise Hades? Thank you for telling me the truth. I have been so blind.

Then when most people in the West converted to Christianity, homosexuality became rare.

I wonder, did it really become rare, or were people just forced to keep it secret for their own safety?

Aaah. So because I'm part of the gay agenda, I also praise Hades? Thank you for telling me the truth. I have been so blind.

No, you're one of those godless Vikings who prance around trees and wear animal masks!

I don't know about that. One of the problems with the polling on gay marriage is that its support is usually considerably higher in telephone polls than it is during the actual vote. There's a pretty considerable chunk of the population, perhaps 10% or more, that are privately uncomfortable with gay marriage but also feel uncomfortable telling pollsters this. Thus, the polls themselves are now showing 50+% support for gay marriage, but virtually every ballot initiative returns an anti-marriage result.


I don't agree with this analysis. Public support for marriage equality has only shifted above 50% nationally in the last year. The only ballot initiative we've seen in that time frame was North Carolina, and the results of that were hardly surprising.

I think, rather, the reason polls indicate more support than is evident in the voting both is that there are still more people fervently opposed than fervently in favor. It's that enthusiasm gap again.

Bristol Palin: "We know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home."

Homosexuality was common in Pagan Greco-Roman culture. Then when most people in the West converted to Christianity, homosexuality became rare.

EDIT: someone's probably going to mention King Edward III's homosexuality, but that was rare for the times.

An early Christian marriage:

http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/S%26B.jpg

Homosexuality was common in Pagan Greco-Roman culture. Then when most people in the West converted to Christianity, homosexuality became rare.

EDIT: someone's probably going to mention King Edward III's homosexuality, but that was rare for the times.

I'd imagine it was still practiced nearly as widely, just not out in the open. Mostly due to the horrific penalties for sodomy that were prevalent in Christian Europe.

Is being publicly burnt really such a high price to pay for all the morality that comes with it?

yes, and i guess that's why christians pay a good price for the bones of people who payed this price.

"But that's not REAL marriage then, too! The marriages these people are having should be forbidden as well!"

See what I giant No True Scotsman their argument is?

I wonder how many couples actually meet the criteria of their REAL MARRIAGE (tm).

<raises hand> My marital happiness does not feel threatened by the marital happiness of others.

Actually, I would guess some of these people might find a problem with a Catholic/Protestant union, but it would have to be from some evangelical fringe as the Pope himself is fine with that these days.

Aaah. So because I'm part of the gay agenda, I also praise Hades? Thank you for telling me the truth. I have been so blind.

:mischief: Nay you seem more of a Artemis or Dionysus kinda fellow maybe a bit of Hera but that's just cause I think you eventually want to get married to your significant other :mischief:

I don't agree with this analysis. Public support for marriage equality has only shifted above 50% nationally in the last year. The only ballot initiative we've seen in that time frame was North Carolina, and the results of that were hardly surprising.

I think, rather, the reason polls indicate more support than is evident in the voting both is that there are still more people fervently opposed than fervently in favor. It's that enthusiasm gap again.
The reason I'm saying this is that the actual results for ballot initiatives are essentially always 5-10 percentage points more conservative than they were predicted to be by polls before the election. So, for instance, Maine's 2010 proposition to ban gay marriage was generally predicted to fail by ~2%, but it actually passed by 6% or so. Meanwhile a proposition on medical marijuana actually did much better than expected (passed by almost 20 points rather than by the single-digit margin that was predicted).

Social desirability bias is a huge problem in polling on ballot issues. For gay marriage, the level of support is clearly inflated in the polls. This is the reason that the anti-gay marriage side always mysteriously does better than expected in ballot initiatives. See this study (http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf).

So statistically, the number of balls he possesses has not changed.
That's sort of what I was going for. :lol:

I put "this seriously will hurt him politically".
In that case you'd have to commend him for speaking his mind so honestly despite the political backlash wouldn't you?

An interesting departure from President Obama's prevailing tactic of sliding ever toward the right in hopes of picking up moderates. Perhaps he's trying to reach out to alienated progressives? I can't imagine many LGBT people would vote Republican, given the GOP's hostile attitude toward anything 'different'. Give the tea party power and they'd start criminalizing homosexuality. :rolleyes:

Bachman might, but I don't think the average Tea Partier wants to do that. In fact, the Tea Party is really bound together by fiscal issues more than social ones anyways.

I think there's really only a very small minority that wants homosexuality criminalized anymore. Its more we don't want it socially accepted.

That's untrue and based in harmful stereotypes.

There is no such thing as a false stereotype. Every stereotype comes from somewhere.

In that case you'd have to commend him for speaking his mind so honestly despite the political backlash wouldn't you?

If he's actually serious (I'm not actually sure it will hurt him politically, gay marriage is pretty much equally supported and opposed in the US, and a lot of the people who are opposed are either voting Romney or someone else anyway. Granted, there will probably be some people that won't like it, but I'm not sure it will actually hurt him. If it actually hurts him though, than yeah, I'd applaud him for actually going with his conscience for once.

As for the poll, I put "Who cares" because I really don't care what the President's personal opinion is. He still says it should be the decision of the states, and if that remains, I really don't care if the President is personally OK with or against gay marriage.

If there were ever a constitutional amendment, supreme court decision, or Federal law legalizing gay marriage nationwide (In ascending order of how much I'd care) I'd actually care. That's more out of state's rights principles than the specific issue though.

Bachman might, but I don't think the average Tea Partier wants to do that. In fact, the Tea Party is really bound together by fiscal issues more than social ones anyways.
Pure rubbish or the movement would have been bigger during the W years.

There is no such thing as a false stereotype. Every stereotype comes from somewhere.
Therefore all Americans are inbred, racist, sexist, rednecks who go around shooting people just for fun.

Pure rubbish or the movement would have been bigger during the W years.

Tea Party formed because of the bank bailouts. The stirrings of the Tea Party movement started during the W years but no one realized how bad it was getting.

There were people screaming about spending then but they have formed a much stronger group with the poor policies of Obamacare and TARP. It started forming in Bush' final years. I remember getting plenty of e-mails about how bad the debt and deficit was getting then

There is no such thing as a false stereotype. Every stereotype comes from somewhere.
You're definitely reinforcing one right now.

Therefore all Americans are inbred, racist, sexist, rednecks who go around shooting people just for fun.

Now that's not true!

... those are Southerners you're thinking.

Social desirability bias is a huge problem in polling on ballot issues. For gay marriage, the level of support is clearly inflated in the polls. This is the reason that the anti-gay marriage side always mysteriously does better than expected in ballot initiatives. See this study (http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf).


I didn't read the whole study, but it looks to me like the authors didn't find any statistical support for your arguement. In their abstract, they state (emphasis is the authors'):

No support is found for two reasons—social desirability bias and voter confusion–
typically offered to explain the gap between surveys and election results. There is no
immediate evidence indicating that the discrepancies are caused either by poll respondents’
reluctance to express anti‐gay sentiment to survey researchers or respondents’ confusion
about the meaning of a “yes” and “no” vote.

And in their conclusion:

It does not appear that voters are particularly reluctant to express
their support for banning same‐sex marriage, and no support is found for the hypothesis that the
gap is due to confusion among survey respondents about the meaning of a “yes” and “no” vote.
Therefore an understanding of the reasons for this gap remains outside our grasp, and more
investigation is needed.

I just don't think the people who are most vehemently opposed to marriage equality are likely to pretend otherwise to a pollster.

I think it's more likely the case that a phone poll samples a large number of people who are OK with it in principle, but don't care enough about it to make a trip to the voting booth. I expect this would be especially true in an off-election. To be fair, I don't have any studies of my own to cite in support of this, it's just my perception.

We know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.

We know that nobody has ever shown a difference between kids that grew up in a mother/father home and kids that grew up in a parent/parent home, even though a lot of people would be thrilled with such a disgusting excuse to discriminate. We know that in general kids do better growing up with parents who've made a legally recognized commitment to partnership.

2 + 2 = 4

We know that in general kids do better where homosexual parents can marry.

We know that nobody has ever shown a difference between kids that grew up in a mother/father home and kids that grew up in a parent/parent home, even though a lot of people would be thrilled with such a disgusting excuse to discriminate. We know that in general kids do better growing up with parents who've made a legally recognized commitment to partnership.

2 + 2 = 4

We know that in general kids do better where homosexual parents can marry.

This would be an awesome study. We know one parent can't raise children as well as two parents on average but does this mean two homosexuals can't do it as well as one male one female.

You could argue that a child needs the motherly personality and the fatherly personality but then again most homosexual couples I know have a more feminine and more masculine person.

You're definitely reinforcing one right now.

Huh?

Note that I'm not saying all stereotypes are true, in fact, they are all false. However, they all have some basis in fact. Some more than others.

For instance, and I am not sure where it came from, but while the "All blondes are dumb" idea is false, its probably not random that its blonds rather than a different hair color. Rather, there was probably at least one famous dumb blonde that started the stereotype.

There is no such thing as a false stereotype. Every stereotype comes from somewhere.

Note that I'm not saying all stereotypes are true, in fact, they are all false.

These posts directly contradict one another.

However, they all have some basis in fact. Some more than others.

No they don't. Stereotypical Vikings wear completed ahistorical horned helmets, for a Civ related example. The racist and bigoted stereotype in particular tend to lack a factual basis.

The people of Kentucky have the sixth highest rate of divorce in the country.

link (http://www.cnbc.com/id/44078431/10_Most_Divorced_States?slide=6)

What I don't understand is how we haven't passed some sort of law forbidding Kentuckians to marry.

There is no such thing as a false stereotype. Every stereotype comes from somewhere.


That is patently untrue. Even the stereotypes that do come from somewhere are so exaggerated as to be essentially totally untrue.

These posts directly contradict one another.



No they don't. Stereotypical Vikings wear completed ahistorical horned helmets, for a Civ related example. The racist and bigoted stereotype in particular tend to lack a factual basis.

"Has some basis in fact" =/= true. It just means that in one (Or more) cases the "Stereotype" was true and that case was so well known that it became common to believe that the stereotype was always true.

"Has some basis in fact" =/= true. It just means that in one (Or more) cases the "Stereotype" was true and that case was so well known that it became common to believe that the stereotype was always true.

The thing is, your basis in fact comes from an outdated image of gay culture that wasn't ever anywhere near universal anyways.

I didn't read the whole study, but it looks to me like the authors didn't find any statistical support for your arguement. In their abstract, they state (emphasis is the authors'):



And in their conclusion:



I just don't think the people who are most vehemently opposed to marriage equality are likely to pretend otherwise to a pollster.

I think it's more likely the case that a phone poll samples a large number of people who are OK with it in principle, but don't care enough about it to make a trip to the voting booth. I expect this would be especially true in an off-election. To be fair, I don't have any studies of my own to cite in support of this, it's just my perception.
Actually, you're right that they found no support for social desirability bias. Sloppy researching on my part.

However, I'm reasonably sure that this gap still persists even when only presidential election years are considered. Perhaps there are systematic reasons to explain this (e.g. gay marriage support is low among poor people and minorities, who are also typically underrepresented in polls). I'm sure the study goes into more detail about this; I haven't read it thoroughly, as you've probably guessed by now. ;)

What's important is that there is still a marked difference (this paper says 7%; not sure if lower when midterms are excluded) between poll results for gay marriage and ballot initiative returns. So even if the polled support rate is 50%, the true percentage among actual voters is around 43%.

So I still think this was a risky move by Obama. I don't know whether to expect a positive or negative outcome for him - I could see it going either way. It does increase uncertainty though.

This would be an awesome study. We know one parent can't raise children as well as two parents on average but does this mean two homosexuals can't do it as well as one male one female.

You could argue that a child needs the motherly personality and the fatherly personality but then again most homosexual couples I know have a more feminine and more masculine person.

There have been some studies, to be fair, many are flawed, but what I said about the disgusting excuse is the sort of contrapositive proof that no significant difference exists.

Any argument that a child needs a man parent and a woman parent is pretty much worthless if one cannot explain why that's necessary and point to the deficiencies in the children that have been raised by two parents of the same sex and by any measure possible are completely normal. "Because they do" is all I've ever heard.

That is patently untrue. Even the stereotypes that do come from somewhere are so exaggerated as to be essentially totally untrue.

I don't disagree, I just said there's no such thing as a TOTALLY false stereotype:p:)

There have been some studies, to be fair, many are flawed, but what I said about the disgusting excuse is the sort of contrapositive proof that no significant difference exists.

Any argument that a child needs a man parent and a woman parent is pretty much worthless if one cannot explain why that's necessary and point to the deficiencies in the children that have been raised by two parents of the same sex and by any measure possible are completely normal. "Because they do" is all I've ever heard.

My arguments are, admittedly, not the best, but I gave a better argument than that.

Then again, my argument stops short of saying "Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt" so I guess we have yet to see if that argument can be made.

Bring it.

So, GhostWriter, what are you arguing, exactly? That Sterotypes are true, but they aren't, but they sort of are, but no they aren't, but not really, so this sterotype of Teh Gay must be true and we should keep them from marrying because of it and something like that?

Bristol Palin: "We know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home."



An early Christian marriage:

http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/S%26B.jpg

Adelphopoiesis was not marriage.

Would you mind explaining exactly what that long Greek word was then?

That would be nice:)

The people of Kentucky have the sixth highest rate of divorce in the country.

link (http://www.cnbc.com/id/44078431/10_Most_Divorced_States?slide=6)

What I don't understand is how we haven't passed some sort of law forbidding Kentuckians to marry.

Kentuckian is not a behavior.

Divorcing more often than all but five other places in the country is certainly a behaviour.

Adelphopoiesis literally means "brother-making." It is a form of sworn brotherhood, which replaced an older pagan practice of blood oaths that the church had banned. Each man was adopted into the other man's family, and would share the responsibility of taking care of relatives like elderly parents. It can be likened to how in John 19:26-27 when Jesus saw his mother and the beloved disciple present at his crucifixion told his mother to behold his son and the disciple to behold his mother. There was nothing sexual about it.

Kentuckian is not a behavior.
More like a set of behaviors.

The racist and bigoted stereotype in particular tend to lack a factual basis.

except for red-headed stepchildren? or only conservative red-headed stepchildren? ;)

Adelphopoiesis literally means "brother-making." It is a form of sworn brotherhood, which replaced an older pagan practice of blood oaths that the church had banned. Each man was adopted into the other man's family, and would share the responsibility of taking care of relatives like elderly parents. It can be likened to how in John 19:26-27 when Jesus saw his mother and the beloved disciple present at his crucifixion told his mother to behold his son and the disciple to behold his mother. There was nothing sexual about it.

sounds like marriage to me. whether the two participants have sex or not is their thing anyway.

except for red-headed stepchildren? or only conservative red-headed stepchildren? ;)

"Red-headed stepchild" isn't a stereotype.

I will be extremely shocked if I don't live to see national same-sex marriage legalized.

I will be extremely shocked if I don't live to see national same-sex marriage legalized.

I hope so.
Glad somebody stepped up to say this.
It may hurt him politically but Romney is probably too... disconnected to be president. Also: he is a Mormon, people will start caring about this the more support he gets.

Kentuckian is not a behavior.

Homosexuality is not a behavior either.

Didn't we just have all these arguments in the NC thread? It just seems like everything's going in circles, but I'll bite anyway.

Wanting to ban SSM for religious reasons is stupid because we have hundreds of religions in our country, and many of them, including several Christian ones, don't have a problem with it.

As for marriage and tradition, tradition changes, just like it did for interacial marriage and women's rights.

The Sanctity of marriage? Hmm, let's see, famous people have day-long marriages, the divorce rate especially among us 'breeders,' you can get married by a Vulcan, etc.

Kids grow up better in homes with at least 1 loving, caring, and understanding parental figure. They only have problems outside this in they're taught that different = wrong. In other words, kids grow up in non-traditional households when idiot adults teach their kids their own idiotic, bigoted views.

Hetero-marriage for breeding purposes? Aren't we overcrowded enough?

I'm glad Obama backed SSM, but I'll believe it when he actually does something legally. I mean, this is the guy who originally opposed it because, "It's a religious institution," despite the fact that his own church supports it!

Did I miss anything?