Obama Backs Gay Marriage

His Name Is John · Post by **His Name Is John** » Thu May 10, 2012 7:15 am

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?

Slopeshoulder · Post by **Slopeshoulder** » Thu May 10, 2012 5:15 pm

Even if it is political pandering, I'm struggling to see what it gets him. I assumed he had the LGBT vote already (to the extent that an LGBT person might vote based on that issue). I'm sure they thought it through though.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu May 10, 2012 5:52 pm

He's just doing it to stop gays from coming to Canada to get married. Weddings and tourism are big money and Obama, being the American president, wants that money spent in the USA.

Next he'll legalize marijuana and destroy the B.C. economy.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Thu May 10, 2012 6:09 pm

Slopeshoulder wrote:Even if it is political pandering, I'm struggling to see what it gets him. I assumed he had the LGBT vote already (to the extent that an LGBT person might vote based on that issue). I'm sure they thought it through though.

The "latino" vote is at risk. The RCC force is strong in that one. However, the way they did it makes one wonder why now. Maybe they needed another shiney object to get the attention off of the economy again. Even Crugman is starting to call it a depression. Of course, according to him it's because of the supposed decrease in government jobs. Classic demand side economics. However, Crugman's agruement is not really catching on. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the hypnotic trance with something as mundane as the economy.

Obama bucks

Hope

Change

You are getting sleepy.

His Name Is John · Post by **His Name Is John** » Fri May 11, 2012 5:46 am

connermt wrote:Again, true.
But what/who defines what's wrong (or right) in society? The majority? The people in charge?

I would say what is right and wrong within a society is absolute, as objective moral values exist independent of what anyone thinks. The majority simply define what is 'socially acceptable' and change the laws to follow suit.

Or is it an individual thing which, if this is the case, why would anyone else care?

This is a very good point. With so many different people of different religions all claiming to 'know God's law', how can you distinguish between them? Each of them truly think they are the exception. Each truly believe they are right.

I guess the individuals must work within the confines of a democracy, and even if they continue holding their views about what is objectively right / wrong, they simply vote according to those views. It is the only workable system.

Surely gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone (no more so than straight marraige).

I disagree with this.

Being homosexual means that you will be much less likely to have a long term relationship, and you are much more likely to have STD's. Now gay marriage isn't really changing this, but the fact is if homosexuality is wrong (and harmful) why legally recognisee it as being ok?

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.

I think when people have such 'prophecies' even if they could come turn out to be correct, just make the argument emotional, and I find them very unhelpful. It would be better to just discuss it on purely logical grounds than getting angry, upset and shouting about the fall of society.

I think I believe the state has the right to introduce civil partnerships (as it is a purely legal agreement). However I do not agree with it in any case. I think in this way it is similar to the death penalty. I do not personally believe it should be allowed, but I do believe the state has the right to introduce it.

So what then is the difference between a purely secular gay marriage and a civil partnership? Changing the definition of marriage is symbolic. No longer would it say 'this is the norm: one man and one woman' and 'this is the exception: one woman and one woman', but instead it would say 'both are the same'. Which simply isn't true. I don't want homosexuality to become so ingrained within our culture that we say it is the same (and just as normal) as a normal marriage between one man and one woman.

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...

Living in a purely relativist society would mean that anything can, and given time anything will, happen.

The USA have their constitution, which presumably they consider to be 'absolute moral rights' or 'absolute moral laws'. Anyone who wants to argue against the benefits of an absolute moral system needs to first argue that it would be better to remove the US constitutions.

I really do understand where you are coming from though, and I respect your opinions.

MyReality · Post by **MyReality** » Fri May 11, 2012 6:29 am

The USA have their constitution, which presumably they consider to be 'absolute moral rights' or 'absolute moral laws'. Anyone who wants to argue against the benefits of an absolute moral system needs to first argue that it would be better to remove the US constitutions.

Already in the works.

Quath · Post by **Quath** » Fri May 11, 2012 4:36 pm

My guess is that he was probably ok with gay marriage back in the 2008 election. However, to make it a non-issue, he just agreed with John McCain. (The sad thing about politics is that a honest politician is not electable.)

I think Obama would have been happy to keep this a non-issue for this election. However, Biden pushed the issue into the spotlight again and Obama needed to respond.

His response is still very measured. He thinks it should be a state issue, which translates as "I support gay marriage, but I am not making it a platform issue."

Eventually the Supreme Court will have to decide on this issue and make it legal in all states (or invalidate their ruling making interracial marriage legal). So Obama's best bet is to play some lip service to it while doing nothing spectacular until it is decided by the courts.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri May 11, 2012 5:40 pm

MyReality wrote:
The USA have their constitution, which presumably they consider to be 'absolute moral rights' or 'absolute moral laws'. Anyone who wants to argue against the benefits of an absolute moral system needs to first argue that it would be better to remove the US constitutions.
Already in the works.

You are both aware that the constitution provides for it's removal or amendment, right? It is, therefore, not a set of 'absolute moral laws'. It is merely the rules by which the federal government is able to impose intself upon the various states and their citizens. The preamble and tenth ammewndment to the constitution make it clear that the final arbitors of morality are the states and the people.

Eventually the Supreme Court will have to decide on this issue and make it legal in all states (or invalidate their ruling making interracial marriage legal).

It need not do either. It could merely refuse to hear the cases and let the decisions of the curcuit and state courts stand. As with the 'birther" issue, since marrage is established by that various states, the states could be left with establishing the criteria and qualifications of the candidates.

Guy Smiley · Post by **Guy Smiley** » Sat May 12, 2012 4:32 am

It's not pandering to take a position that you sincerely believe in. I think Obama is on record as far back as 1996 as being ok with gay marriage.

I think the reason he announced this now is that his "evolving" stance on gay marriage was just absurd and untenable. Better to get this out now and over with than to have reporters asking him to clarify his "evolving" position for the next 5 months. I don't think he wants to run on this particular issue. I mean, it's just not a clear winner.

Slopeshoulder · Post by **Slopeshoulder** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:09 am

His Name Is John wrote:
I would say what is right and wrong within a society is absolute, as objective moral values exist independent of what anyone thinks.

Sounds good.

Now please tell me:
- what is the source of these absolute objective moral values?
- what are they?
- where do they exist?
- how do we get access to them?
- upon what basis should others agree?
- who decides?
- is agreement voluntary, or is it imposed? by whom? under what authority?
- what is your meta-ethical theory, and its supporting epistemology? How does this translate to granular proscriptions, partuclarly regarding gender, genitalia and marriage?

Until I get satisfactory answers, and ones that contradicts the religious and civil tendencies toward love and inclusion, I'm going to favor freedom, libery, and individual choice.

His Name Is John · Post by **His Name Is John** » Mon May 14, 2012 6:43 am

Slopeshoulder wrote:Sounds good.

Now please tell me:
- what is the source of these absolute objective moral values?

God.

- what are they?

Too numerous to list.

- where do they exist?

In the will of God.

- how do we get access to them?

Looking at the Bible and natural law theory.

- upon what basis should others agree?
- who decides?

In answer to both these questions I will refer you back to the post you are replying to:

This is a very good point. With so many different people of different religions all claiming to 'know God's law', how can you distinguish between them? Each of them truly think they are the exception. Each truly believe they are right.

I guess the individuals must work within the confines of a democracy, and even if they continue holding their views about what is objectively right / wrong, they simply vote according to those views. It is the only workable system.

- is agreement voluntary, or is it imposed? by whom? under what authority?

Voluntary.

- what is your meta-ethical theory, and its supporting epistemology? How does this translate to granular proscriptions, partuclarly regarding gender, genitalia and marriage?

Let me get back to you on this. It is a long time since I have looked at meta-ethical theories (I find it extremely boring, even though I understand their importance).

Until I get satisfactory answers, and ones that contradicts the religious and civil tendencies toward love and inclusion, I'm going to favor freedom, libery, and individual choice.

I am simply saying what I believe, not that you have to agree with me.

I understand how this must look to atheists, and as such I don't expect you to understand or see any reason to believe what I do. But it is my view, and I am just trying to be honest.