Obama Backs Gay Marriage

[His Name Is John]

Probably old news to most here, but as no one else was discussing it, I thought I might bring it up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102

I think the 'gay marriage' issue is different to the 'is homosexuality moral' issue. In England most people don't really have a problem with homosexuals, and support civil-unions, however recently when our Prime Minister brought up trying to push through gay marriage, there was a huge backlash from all parties and many within the gay community.

This seems to be a risky move by Obama, and it will be interesting to see if a similar backlash happens in the USA as it did in England.

Discussion: Is this Obama pandering for votes? Is it going to do more harm to his presidential re-election campaign than good? Should gay marriage be legal? What about civil unions?

[Choir Loft]

Probably old news to most here, but as no one else was discussing it, I thought I might bring it up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102

I think the 'gay marriage' issue is different to the 'is homosexuality moral' issue. In England most people don't really have a problem with homosexuals, and support civil-unions, however recently when our Prime Minister brought up trying to push through gay marriage, there was a huge backlash from all parties and many within the gay community.

This seems to be a risky move by Obama, and it will be interesting to see if a similar backlash happens in the USA as it did in England.

Discussion: Is this Obama pandering for votes? Is it going to do more harm to his presidential re-election campaign than good? Should gay marriage be legal? What about civil unions?

OF COURSE Obama is pandering for votes. Last Sunday was his official kick-off day for reelection. Barely three days later he gives his blessing on gay marriage. Coincidence? Not so much.

POTUS is sucking up to the gay community for their votes. Many of them, by the way, have been put out of work by his economic policies. When gay folk are hard up for cash to pay bills and buy necessities I don't think a pat on the head by a big shot in Washington will matter much.

A lot has been said by the gay community that they are the same as everyone else, politically speaking. If that is so, then Obama's statement will hardly suffice to comfort them in their economic distress. They aren't stupid, you know, and pretty much know when a politician is trying to use them for his own ends - not theirs.

As an aside, I watched a network news story which was a follow up to the Obama blessing. It quoted statistics which said about half of Americans favored gay marriage. I also watched for and didn't see any sort of documentation of the numbers. What organization conducted the survey? What polling population was involved over what span of time? What geographic region or regions were included? No such verification was provided, which leads me to believe that the news group was lying. An accounting professor of mine once said that figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

The bottom line for me is to be on the watch for lies and deception. Lies come from the American news almost daily. Deception comes from politicians more and more lately. It is, after all, the campaign season when lies flower like cactus in the desert.

Here are some reflections on American politics by the great humorist WILL ROGERS......

"The short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office."

"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."

"Our public men are speaking every day on something, but they ain't saying anything."

"If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these acceptance speeches there wouldn't be any inducement to go to heaven."

It's the political campaign season, folks. Plug your ears and hide your money.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft.....

[connermt]

I'm not uber-pro-Obama, but I'm not anti-Obama either. However, if Obama thinks he has fooled anyone into thinking he's not playing politics with his decision, he's a fool himself.

While Obama's "decision" may indeed be a benefit to the pro-gay marriage groups as a whole, he might have just alienated those others that see what he's doing here.

It's a shame that politicians play politics with the lives of the people in their own nation. And this goes for any and all politican parties.
Politics aren't used to benefit the people any more, but to benefit the politicians.

[His Name Is John]

I'm not uber-pro-Obama, but I'm not anti-Obama either. However, if Obama thinks he has fooled anyone into thinking he's not playing politics with his decision, he's a fool himself.

While Obama's "decision" may indeed be a benefit to the pro-gay marriage groups as a whole, he might have just alienated those others that see what he's doing here.

It's a shame that politicians play politics with the lives of the people in their own nation. And this goes for any and all politican parties.
Politics aren't used to benefit the people any more, but to benefit the politicians.

I guess to be honest though, I would vote for someone's policies, not always the reasons behind making those policies. Let me give an example:

If someone was in a 60% Muslim country and there was 30% Christians, and in order to pander to the Christian vote he said he would give better rights to Christian's, I would still vote for him. I want what he is offering, and in one way, the reasons he is offering it doesn't matter as much as the fact that he is offering it.

I think this is probably true of a lot of the homosexual community. But I may be wrong (and if I am please correct me).

[connermt]

I'm not uber-pro-Obama, but I'm not anti-Obama either. However, if Obama thinks he has fooled anyone into thinking he's not playing politics with his decision, he's a fool himself.

While Obama's "decision" may indeed be a benefit to the pro-gay marriage groups as a whole, he might have just alienated those others that see what he's doing here.

It's a shame that politicians play politics with the lives of the people in their own nation. And this goes for any and all politican parties.
Politics aren't used to benefit the people any more, but to benefit the politicians.

I guess to be honest though, I would vote for someone's policies, not always the reasons behind making those policies. Let me give an example:

If someone was in a 60% Muslim country and there was 30% Christians, and in order to pander to the Christian vote he said he would give better rights to Christian's, I would still vote for him. I want what he is offering, and in one way, the reasons he is offering it doesn't matter as much as the fact that he is offering it.

I think this is probably true of a lot of the homosexual community. But I may be wrong (and if I am please correct me).

Perception!
Very true, you are (says Yoda).
I suppose it depends on the persons involved and the end result.
Every decision can benefit some, and not others.

Does the end justify the means?

[His Name Is John]

Perception!
Very true, you are (says Yoda).
I suppose it depends on the persons involved and the end result.
Every decision can benefit some, and not others.

Does the end justify the means?

I don't think 'ends' can justify 'means' if said 'means' are inherently (or objectively) wrong.

For instance, I don't think any 'ends' can justify the slaughter of innocent life. But defiantly think that the expected 'ends' should be seriously weighted up. It would be irresponsible not to.

We do things because of their effects, if our 'causes' had no 'effects' why do anything at all? I think that is one of the problems with absolute morality. It seems to totally discard 'effects' in total favour of the 'means', I think both should be taken into account.

[bluethread]

It is interesting how politicians and the press play on the confussion over personal preferences and proposed legislation. Obama has not stated that he will propose legislation, but that it is now his personal view. It is presumed by some that he will now press for legislation. It was the same with Santorum during the primaries. He was hard pressed on his personal views on this isssue. When he presented those views, it was presumed by some that Santorum would seek to impose those views as a dictator to the exclusion of all other considerations.

[His Name Is John]

It is interesting how politicians and the press play on the confussion over personal preferences and proposed legislation. Obama has not stated that he will propose legislation, but that it is now his personal view. It is presumed by some that he will now press for legislation. It was the same with Santorum during the primaries. He was hard pressed on his personal views on this isssue. When he presented those views, it was presumed by some that Santorum would seek to impose those views as a dictator to the exclusion of all other considerations.

That is a good point. Although I do think several times Santorum did say his aims to act upon his personal views. As for Obama, I read somewhere today that he has said that he will leave it up to each state to decide. So no real change what-so-ever.

Massive pandering.

[connermt]

Perception!
Very true, you are (says Yoda).
I suppose it depends on the persons involved and the end result.
Every decision can benefit some, and not others.

Does the end justify the means?

I don't think 'ends' can justify 'means' if said 'means' are inherently (or objectively) wrong.

For instance, I don't think any 'ends' can justify the slaughter of innocent life. But defiantly think that the expected 'ends' should be seriously weighted up. It would be irresponsible not to.

We do things because of their effects, if our 'causes' had no 'effects' why do anything at all? I think that is one of the problems with absolute morality. It seems to totally discard 'effects' in total favour of the 'means', I think both should be taken into account.

Again, true.
But what/who defines what's wrong (or right) in society? The majority? The people in charge? Or is it an individual thing which, if this is the case, why would anyone else care?
Surely gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone (no more so than straight marraige). The states and countries that have it legal haven't seen any 'down fall of sociry', a rise in people eating babies, or any other such none-sense that can be directly attributed in total to legal gay marriage. And yet, there are still people who say "it's wrong", which points to (as you said) absolute morality.
And when things point to that, we are all in for a world of hurt...

[bluethread]

It is interesting how politicians and the press play on the confussion over personal preferences and proposed legislation. Obama has not stated that he will propose legislation, but that it is now his personal view. It is presumed by some that he will now press for legislation. It was the same with Santorum during the primaries. He was hard pressed on his personal views on this isssue. When he presented those views, it was presumed by some that Santorum would seek to impose those views as a dictator to the exclusion of all other considerations.

That is a good point. Although I do think several times Santorum did say his aims to act upon his personal views. As for Obama, I read somewhere today that he has said that he will leave it up to each state to decide. So no real change what-so-ever.

Massive pandering.

However, it does appear that he was for it as a senator, before he was "evolving". Politics makes for strange bedfellows, if you will pardon the pun.