Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I think I just heard Obama lose 5% or so of the black vote, and at least that of the hispanic vote.

See what happened when large minority voter turn out happened in California to elect Obama, they also spoke very loudy how they feel about gay marriage in 2008.

It may surpress numbers going to the polls but it won't get them to flip and vote for Romney.

It doesn't bother me if gays get married. What does bother me is that the government needs to get involved in our love lives. That is an issue for me.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I think I just heard Obama lose 5% or so of the black vote, and at least that of the hispanic vote.

Hispanic, sure, but I have my doubts about the black vote being materially impacted.

dogma wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I think I just heard Obama lose 5% or so of the black vote, and at least that of the hispanic vote.

Hispanic, sure, but I have my doubts about the black vote being materially impacted.

I just did a paper on anti-gay rhetoric.
And well one of the articles i used as a source was explicitly about homophobia in black culture and hyper masculinity.
And yeah, there is massive homophobia in black culture(as is every racial culture)
Mainly because of the "Gangsta rap" culture that prevades through it that show women as objects, and a man that acts like a women deserves to be treated like one.
Granted, it all comes down to the individual in the race,
And god i hope i dont sound extremely racist here. but i probably Do.
More Ot: I can see the ad's now
"Obama supports gay marriage, he wants it tought in our schools the being gay is ok, he wants to take away your religious freedom. Vote for Romney, he believes in religious freedom"
Its funny how the anti-gay crowd turns it into an issue about religious freedom often, making it seem as if they are the ones being hurt by gay marriage.

I do have to wonder if the votes he would gain from gay marriage advocates will outbalance the ones he will lose from gay marriage opponents and voters traditionally opposed to it. Though I suppose he has a great many people with hard data telling him it does, and I'm just an idiot musing on the internets.

Personally, I don't think the government has any role in the marriage business at all, state or federal. I think it's a private contract between 2 consenting adults and their house of worship or a nonreligious equivalent capable of consecrating marriages.

Ouze wrote:I do have to wonder if the votes he would gain from gay marriage advocates will outbalance the ones he will lose from gay marriage opponents and voters traditionally opposed to it. Though I suppose he has a great many people with hard data telling him it does, and I'm just an idiot musing on the internets.

Personally, I don't think the government has any role in the marriage business at all, state or federal. I think it's a private contract between 2 consenting adults and their house of worship or a nonreligious equivalent capable of consecrating marriages.

I'd say he gains very little from it, because the majority of folks in that pool where going to vote for him anyways, but he may alienate quite a few moderate dems. But take a look at the California vote a couple years back. Whites where pretty even on it, 51 against to 49 for. Hispanics where pretty close as well. Blacks though... 70% voted against legalizing gay marriage. That could create a big rift over a small social issue if he tries to make a big push for it.

Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

This is politics. Numbers are everything!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

As I told a friend earlier today, you can scream about how right or wrong it is all day long. It's not going to change a thing. Take the victories you can get. We can all hope for the perfect world, but it doesn't exist, and bitching about this is doing nothing but expanding your carbon footprint.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

Because the President did this for political reasons, so it should be analyzed under the political microscope.

He's trending left 6 months before the election, which is not a winning strategy.

biccat wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

Because the President did this for political reasons, so it should be analyzed under the political microscope.

He's trending left 6 months before the election, which is not a winning strategy.

I thought trending left ever in America wasn't a winning strategy...

purplefood wrote:

biccat wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

Because the President did this for political reasons, so it should be analyzed under the political microscope.

He's trending left 6 months before the election, which is not a winning strategy.

I thought trending left ever in America wasn't a winning strategy...

It usually isn't, unless your in the primaries. His campaign strategy this year is confusing. It was flawless in 2008, but it seems to be real amateurish this time around.

purplefood wrote:

biccat wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

Because the President did this for political reasons, so it should be analyzed under the political microscope.

He's trending left 6 months before the election, which is not a winning strategy.

I thought trending left ever in America wasn't a winning strategy...

You'll notice being black wasn't a winning strategy either, until recently. One can still hope...

So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?

Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?

Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.

edit

This will help with the youth vote. In all honesty the second "he" killed bin laden he pretty much guaranteed a second term. I think it's a smart move on his part though. Some black voters might stay home because of it but it's not like they're all of a sudden going to vote for Romney.

Crablezworth wrote:This will help with the youth vote. In all honesty the second "he" killed bin laden he pretty much guaranteed a second term. I think it's a smart move on his part though. Some black voters might stay home because of it but it's not like they're all of a sudden going to vote for Romney.

It is hardly a gaurantee. I think the moderates in this nation are going to be more concerned about his explanation for the 5 trillion in debt, and the extremely lack luster economy that we have after it. So far no one has really been forced to have him answer for it, but the debates are coming up, and Romney isn't going to be the Mr. Nice Guy that McCain was.

Romney isn't going to be anything other than a guy with the personality of a dead moth.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?

Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.

The country will also allow Nazis to march through a Jewish suburb, but won't allow me to take my neighbor's house by right of conquest.

I'm being oppressed.

djones520 wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:This will help with the youth vote. In all honesty the second "he" killed bin laden he pretty much guaranteed a second term. I think it's a smart move on his part though. Some black voters might stay home because of it but it's not like they're all of a sudden going to vote for Romney.

It is hardly a gaurantee. I think the moderates in this nation are going to be more concerned about his explanation for the 5 trillion in debt, and the extremely lack luster economy that we have after it. So far no one has really been forced to have him answer for it, but the debates are coming up, and Romney isn't going to be the Mr. Nice Guy that McCain was.

Its funny the people with short term memory. Bush started this recession with his horribly expensive war, and continued deregulating the banks, and started the bail out of the banks. Obama inherited this mess and has done a decent job of it. It will be a sad day for america if Etch a Sketch gets elected. At least if Obama gets reelected on his second term when he no longer has to worry about getting elected again, he'll just go and put an end to this marriage issue and just say "marry who you want" No one should have to ask the government for permission to marry someone.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

Because he has more ability to influence and create policy as the sitting President of the United States then he does as a lame duck, sitting out the rest of his term, because he made well-meaning but politically poor decisions. I mean that last bit "in general" because I'm not sure yet where this puts him numberswise.

Crablezworth wrote:This will help with the youth vote.

I always LOL at the "youth vote". First off, he's already pretty firmly got them no matter what he does, and second, it doesn't matter because young people by and large don't actually vote anyway. It makes way more sense to pander to Matlock viewers (7 out of 10 of which show up to vote) vs the youth, 2 out of 3 of which stay home no matter who is running. I also suspect that the disproportionate percentage of young people unemployed will further hurt Obama (and it should, if Romney plays it right). I have no idea why anyone would think Obama has this one in the bag, I think it's going to be a very close election and it's very much in play.

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?

Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.

The country will also allow Nazis to march through a Jewish suburb, but won't allow me to take my neighbor's house by right of conquest.

I'm being oppressed.

Wait, hold on...

You think that gay marriage is the same as stealing someone's house?

Some of my fellow democrats come up with strawmen republicans. You know, like completely exaggerated and crazy versions of them to try and make republicans look bad. Well, right now it feels like I"m talking to a real life strawman. You're something that Michael Moore or Bill Maher would make up. I'm 99% that you're trolling with this. At least, I hope you are.

CptJake wrote:So now explain why the heck you want a Federal law to cover lying about your marriage status to pick up a date. Or do you ignore questions you don't like the answer to?

Because marriage is discussed and regulated at the Federal level to begin with (see DoMA, tax benefits, rules regarding insurance, etc). Thus lying about your marital status to prospective partners is like lying about your tax records to prospective employers.

*shrug* I don't respect state rights due to the nature of state politics-- it tends to grab the most extreme examples of any particular view instead of the more moderate ones.

I've never seen anything so heartwarming as matty's soft-side.

I'm glad he made his position public.
America takes one more step closer to coming out of the social darkages.

alarmingrick wrote:I'm glad he made his position public.
America takes one more step closer to coming out of the social darkages.

And yet we'll still have people who say that marriage should be between just a man and a woman and nothing else.

Suffice to say, I'd think it would be a better idea to make marriages a subset of civil unions; have the definition of union supersede that of a marriage or gay marriage or whatever and make the Federal law recognize civil unions as the legal form of partnerships and that marriage is simply one form of it.

WarOne wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:I'm glad he made his position public.
America takes one more step closer to coming out of the social darkages.

And yet we'll still have people who say that marriage should be between just a man and a woman and nothing else.

Suffice to say, I'd think it would be a better idea to make marriages a subset of civil unions; have the definition of union supersede that of a marriage or gay marriage or whatever and make the Federal law recognize civil unions as the legal form of partnerships and that marriage is simply one form of it.

Civil bromances?

Civil until "someone has to clean up this mess".

Sorry, but I feel marriage shouldn't be dictated by sexual preference, period.
If you start "making marriage a subset" of anything, then the (not)Right will
say "see, he's trying to change marriage", "lessen marriage" or what the hell
ever they dream up his current "socialist policy" is.

And Obama attempts to take down another hundreds-years old institution. When will these lefties stop this fiasco??

Barksdale wrote:And Obama attempts to take down another hundreds-years old institution. When will these lefties stop this fiasco??

Sorry, i must have missed the other 100's of years old intitutions he's already taken down?
Care to refresh me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And some institutions need to be taken down.