President Endorses Gay Marriage

@snood,

Quote:

If he had waited to announce at the convention, you rightwingnuts would say it was political calculation. If he continued to

postpone taking a stand inevitably, you'd carp that he wasn't as "hopey changey" as he'd promised. No matter when he took this stand, you'd find a way to pronounce it as empty and useless and bray about how his supporters are naive and gullible.

Here's the thing snood, I myself am a homosexual male and should by rights be leaping about like a troll being told he just won a lifetime supply of bridges; however, I am not.

What I saw in President Obama's move was politics plain and simple. It was a calculated move and to deny it shows ignorance on your part. Now, if that makes me a rightwingnut then so be it. I do tend a little towards the right at times; however, I have been known to vote Democrat. You and many others prance around with blinders on pretending that all Democrats are saints, all Republicans are evil beasts who must be felled.

Yes, he spoke up; however, I am still not convinced it was real. We have seen President Obama speak on issues and have witnessed a fiery passion. His monotone delivery when speaking of gays having the right to marry was just scripted words exiting his mouth. I heard and saw nothing to even indicate he was alive; a hologram would have been more convincing.

He chose to do this in a one on one interview as opposed to a press conference. Too staged here for my liking.

So, yes, I am glad he said something and I do believe it is a positive step forward for the country; yet, there was something about his timing and even more, there was something lacking in his delivery which has left me cold. Further, I'd not be particularly surprised if come January or February of next year (if he is re-elected), to find him backing away from this as people push for him to work towards legalizing same sex marriage.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

In your estimation, how could he have made his statement so that he would NOT have appeared calculating and opportunist?

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

In your estimation, how could he have made his statement so that he would NOT have appeared calculating and opportunist?

In my opinion, the statement appearing "calculating and opportunist" was intended, since the statement was a red-herring of sorts. Meaning, that with the advent of gays (men and women) being allowed to serve in the military, a real benefit was gained (to the nation) in this "less than best of times." That being that we now, and probably more in the future, have a fair number of overseas military installations (air bases, naval ports) that are not like the old days, when military personnel were eager to get a pass to visit the local town. So, in this new paradigm of staying where it is safe overseas (aka, on base, on ship), who would be better to be a percentage of the military population than gay military? Plus, they might very well be content to have multiple tours of duty in these God forsaken places? So, getting back to the red-herring of sorts, the benefit is to let the gay community know that the administration is still in their dugout, so to speak.

In effect, without the practical benefit for gays in the military in these "less than best of times," perhaps, the admitting of gays in the military would not have happened? Or, at least not for another 20 years? Plus, how can it have been opportunist, since the gay vote is not enough to really mean that much in an already blue state?

0 Replies

@snood,

He had to be taught what was right by his children, for dog's sake, Snood.

People are being discriminated against in the same fashion as Blacks were and the president of the US says it's a "personal position" and the states can decide.

I'm always amazed at people of a certain "flavor" who after gaining some right/benefit are lackadaisical or worse when it comes to others.

0 Replies

This attitude - the "I can't even believe people still discuss this" attitude...

is NOT helpful. People DIFFER on this. Mocking those on the other side of the argument, or those who don't agree strongly or quickly enough with you, doesn't make you the more civilized or more anything.
____________________________________________
Snood,

I was reading through this thread, and when I saw your post above I was compelled to respond. When I see you say something like "people differ on this," it's the same to me as someone saying people differ on women's rights or civil rights - as if that's a legitimate reason to deny a specific segment of our society their basic human rights.

I DO think people who continue to deny gay people their basic human rights are unfairly discriminatory, thus less civilized than advocates of equality.

I wasn't instructing you. I was appealing to your sense of fairness.

0 Replies

@snood,

Knowing how loyal the vast majority of African-Americans have been to the Democratic Party, and we now having a Black President running for re-election, perhaps you should give credence to the thought that you might not be the best person to mentally joust with a non-Democrat, since it could appear to a non-Democrat that someone with your identity might reflect an ideological position that might not have the desire to remain intellectually honest in all rhetoric? Meaning, you being intellectually honest, it might still be easy for a non-Democrat to think that most African-Americans would never even admit to President Obama making a mistake.

Could you imagine anyone arguing in behalf of Senator Lieberman, that was Jewish, and not being suspected of being ethnocentric as a component of their rhetoric?

And, today's Democrats are not really the same Democrats as from earlier times. There is really a great gulf, in my opinion, as to how Democrats envision the country going forward, as compared to the Republicans. So, why bother with a discussion? Sort of like telling an Evangelical Christian that Salvation is gained through good works only. Politics today is just talking at cross-purposes, in my opinion.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Knowing how loyal the vast majority of African-Americans have been to the Democratic Party, and we now having a Black President running for re-election, perhaps you should give credence to the thought that you might not be the best person to mentally joust with a non-Democrat, since it could appear to a non-Democrat that someone with your identity might reflect an ideological position that might not have the desire to remain intellectually honest in all rhetoric? Meaning, you being intellectually honest, it might still be easy for a non-Democrat to think that most African-Americans would never even admit to President Obama making a mistake.

Could you imagine anyone arguing in behalf of Senator Lieberman, that was Jewish, and not being suspected of being ethnocentric as a component of their rhetoric?

And, today's Democrats are not really the same Democrats as from earlier times. There is really a great gulf, in my opinion, as to how Democrats envision the country going forward, as compared to the Republicans. So, why bother with a discussion? Sort of like telling an Evangelical Christian that Salvation is gained through good works only. Politics today is just talking at cross-purposes, in my opinion.

Yes, everyone operates from within their own set of biases - if your point is that I share this imperfection with the rest of humanity, I agree. My biases might make me less prone to admit Obama's mistakes, and that would be tempered only by my intellectual honesty. Others' biases might make them less prone to acknowledge his successes, and that would be balanced only by their ability to weigh objective fact with intellectual honesty.

You're not belaboring the obvious, are you?

1 Reply

My question was to Sturgis - in response to his statement to me. My question still stands, Sturgis.

0 Replies

Quote:

It won't be nearly as controversial as Time magazine's breastfeeding cover, but Newsweek's May 21 issue declares Barack Obama the country's "first gay president."

The accompanying cover story was written by Andrew Sullivan, the popular--and openly gay--political blogger. The magazine even gives the commander-in-chief a rainbow halo.

Sullivan's cover story is not yet online, but in a blog post published earlier this week, Sullivan wrote that Obama's support of gay marriage brought him to tears:

I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how calculated it is. What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn't know what to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.

So let me simply say: I think of all the gay kids out there who now know they have their president on their side. I think of Maurice Sendak, who just died, whose decades-long relationship was never given the respect it deserved. I think of the centuries and decades in which gay people found it impossible to believe that marriage and inclusion in their own families was possible for them, so crushed were they by the weight of social and religious pressure. I think of all those in the plague years shut out of hospital rooms, thrown out of apartments, written out of wills, treated like human garbage because they loved another human being. I think of Frank Kameny. I think of the gay parents who now feel their president is behind their sacrifices and their love for their children.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/newsweek-cover-obama-gay-president/story?id=16338110

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

If I remember aright, there is some suspicion that actually James Buchanan, the 15th prexy, may have been the nation's first gay president. (I'm sure Setanta can set me straight on that...oops...pls pardon unintended pun. Smile

)

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

You're not belaboring the obvious, are you?

I just think that many Democrats today have such a different vision for the future of the U.S. that I think it may just be an exercise in futility to have a discussion between many Republicans and many Democrats. Republicans tending towards a conservative view of the U.S. might wax nostalgic to a time when society was euphemistically more structured, and the world was willing to pander to the U.S. Democrats see a different vision, but I believe not necessarily one flavor. It might have to do with one's own constituency and resulting hoped for agenda. Regardless, the U.S. is too big to change its course that quickly, I believe, since there are many moneyed interests that value the status quo.

Anyway, I personally believe that with time, the agenda goes to the most fecund. In effect, those who produce the most future voters might have a greater say in the future, that is if they can discern what is true, or only cotton candy (aka, fluff). Just my opinion.

But, I believe that regardless of the Democrats being for the teeming masses, I think that changes that even they effect, do often, have a benefit to those who have played the game well, and not necessarily what is seen on the surface. I won't say more.

Regardless, this is still the best country to be a citizen, in my opinion.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

Regardless, this is still the best country to be a citizen, in my opinion.

You like being from a terrorist country, a country that commits many war crimes, right, Foofie.

“The crimes of the U.S. throughout the world have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented but nobody talks about them.”

― Harold Pinter

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

“The crimes of the U.S. throughout the world have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented but nobody talks about them.”

― Harold Pinter

Sounds as though Pinter does not read your posts, JTT!

2 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

It is often astounding how easily people will see what they want to see and If I were gay, I certainly wouldn't be unhappy that the president of the US has come out in favor of gay marriage, but I certainly would be asking the questions:

What took you so long?

Quote:

and

Why now?

The later being "I'm in it to win" ...

People have the right to be who they are.

But just check out the Kylie's and other singers that concentrate on getting their money from the believe, of "It's ok" I hope they are sincere but I am doubting it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Really? You're gonna encourage him?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I can't imagine where one would have to live for their countries' name not to fit in the spot Pinter has placed the U.S.

The Shetland Islands perhaps?

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

Nevis-St. Kitts

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Regardless, this is still the best country to be a citizen, in my opinion.

You like being from a terrorist country, a country that commits many war crimes, right, Foofie.

“The crimes of the U.S. throughout the world have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented but nobody talks about them.”

― Harold Pinter

You are putting words in my mouth; please do not assume you can read my mind. I think you are assuming that all people subscribe to your definitions of ethical behavior. You might not be allowing for circumstances that a world power may have to consider in a nuclear age, with some people in other countries that might not think a moment to steal your computer, and even your bathroom's toilet tissue. Yes, they have so little.

You may have a different view of mankind; however, as a Jew of Russian descent, I am aware of the rapaciousness of more than one of the 19th century Russian peasants, salivating before a pogrom. You may not understand that mankind can be quite atavistic. You do live in a country that has a fair degree of comfort, so you may not understand the histories of other peoples. Now, go play with your friends, and leave me to my feelings of gratitude towards the U.S.

In Canadian English do they have the word "intrusive"? You might think that it is ethical to intrude into someone's world, with apparent no concern for whether it is ethical. You did not take a course in ethics in college? I would proselytize to those that have more effect on the direction of U.S. politics. In directing your ire towards me, I just think you are being a bully, since I have every reason to bless my being in the U.S. Should I broach the thought of "Jew baiting," since you do know I am Jewish, and the people you are angry at, over the course of U.S. history, where not Jewish by any means? I say that since you do not seem to chastise other posters with the same vehemence and character accusations. I really would like you to not push your presence on me, or possibly use me to voice your political position.

Please go away, or kindly drop dead.

1 Reply

Foofie wrote:

Quote:

Please go away, or kindly drop dead.

AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

That was my point, Beth.

JTT obviously loathes the United States...and excoriates every facet of its being in post after post.

My remark that Pinter obviously does not read his posts pokes a bit of fun at Pinter saying "nobody talks about it!"

JTT certainly talks about it...and so do many others who seem to think we Americans are scum.

I happen to think we are not...not by a long shot. I think, like damn near every other country that has ever existed on planet Earth, we have lots of rough edges and ought really to so some sanding.

Be that as it may, if Pinter thinks nobody talks about our faults, he is being extremely naive.

2 Replies

President Endorses Gay Marriage

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know