Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Obama on same-sex marriage


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Could the president have found his spine?

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll believe it after the election

Paizo Employee Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post. Popcorn posts are not productive in any way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Could the president have found his spine?

About time he entered the 20th century.


"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," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

At roughly the same point he was losing voters by the thousands.
Coincidence?


"You know, when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality," he said.

This I believe 100%. It's not about the social issues anymore. It's the fiscal ones.

Shadow Lodge

Samnell wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Could the president have found his spine?
About time he entered the 20th century.

Pssst.. its the 21st century.


Kryzbyn wrote:

"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," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

At roughly the same point he was losing voters by the thousands.
Coincidence?

I think it would be naive to suggest there was no political calculus, but I'm not sure the numbers will work out in his favor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Marriage is a state issue not federal.

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

"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," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

At roughly the same point he was losing voters by the thousands.
Coincidence?

I think it would be naive to suggest there was no political calculus, but I'm not sure the numbers will work out in his favor.

I think they will.

The folks that are really against gay marriage aren't voting for him anyway, and are already riled up against him for being an atheist muslim socialist fascist spineless dictator*.

This could hopefully get a little life in a presidency thats been rather blah about living up to the expectations some had.

*please note the grouping for easy reference of the oxymorons.


I have no problem with North Carolina admitting that they are a bunch of bigots. Its their right to be wrong. Just like it's my right to boycott businesses located in North Carolina, while letting them know why I'm boycotting them until the law is overturned or they leave North Carolina.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Samnell wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Could the president have found his spine?
About time he entered the 20th century.
Pssst.. its the 21st century.

I know. I said what I meant. By my standards Obama is at least twenty years behind the times.


Ouch.


Kryzbyn wrote:

"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," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

At roughly the same point he was losing voters by the thousands.
Coincidence?

by the thousands? Gonna need a source on that, though it's not outside the realm of possibility. Also, despite the slings and arrows and outrageous claims made of him, to me he will always be a politician, and acts like one far too often.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
*please note the grouping for easy reference of the oxymorons.

Noted and appreciated. :)


I agree.

Samnell wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Samnell wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Could the president have found his spine?
About time he entered the 20th century.
Pssst.. its the 21st century.
I know. I said what I meant. By my standards Obama is at least twenty years behind the times.


I actually have no idea. I figure 1-3% of Americans is L,G, B or T.


Freehold DM wrote:
Also, despite the slings and arrows and outrageous claims made of him, to me he will always be a politician, and acts like one far too often.

I thought that Clooney/Gosling movie from a few months back ("Ides of March?") really illustrated the idea that you have to sell out to play the game. I hardly think it likely that Obama is an exception and no one has hooks in him.

Don't get me wrong, I usually agree with the guy, and he is obviously very intelligent, but if he were a man of high integrity I seriously doubt he would be president of, well, anything...


I like this step.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I actually have no idea. I figure 1-3% of Americans is L,G, B or T.

We don't have a clue what the real number is, and I doubt we ever will.


Kelsey, do you think that's a high or low estimate?


I honestly don't know which it is. I've heard both lower estimates and higher estimates, from .5% to 10%. I don't really know which to believe or how we could know which to believe.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

"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," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.

At roughly the same point he was losing voters by the thousands.
Coincidence?

I think it would be naive to suggest there was no political calculus, but I'm not sure the numbers will work out in his favor.

I think they will.

The folks that are really against gay marriage aren't voting for him anyway, and are already riled up against him for being an atheist muslim socialist fascist spineless dictator*.

This could hopefully get a little life in a presidency thats been rather blah about living up to the expectations some had.

*please note the grouping for easy reference of the oxymorons.

I hate to say it, but I have to disagree. The independent voters are the ones who will determine the election, and some of them may have strong opinions on this issue. The pro-gay marriage people were already going to vote for him.

It's the blue collar, small town people who tend to side with Democrats on economic issues and Republicans on social issues who can go either way, depending on the election. And he probably just lost a lot of their votes because of this.

Andoran

I'm certainly not an expert, but I've heard the figure placed at around 10% of the population has those tendencies. Rather they act on them or not is influenced by tons of other factors. (And it is possible for people who don't have those tendencies to still act on them, such as when they have no access to the opposite gender, as in prison.) However, that's only hearsay, take it with a grain of salt.

I do believe that more than 1 - 3% of America cares about LBGT issues, which is a more important (and measurable) number with regards to this issue anyways. (IMO at least.)


I wasn't trying to mimimize the impact or suggest that there's so few of them so who cares. I was just talking about the number of actual gay voters Obama was losing by not picking a side.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

Fromper wrote:
It's the blue collar, small town people who tend to side with Democrats on economic issues and Republicans on social issues who can go either way, depending on the election. And he probably just lost a lot of their votes because of this.

I think he was damned if he did it and damned if he didn't; after Biden's remarks.

He was open to being targeted for not taking a stand by the GOP, and it would have given Romney's some cover on all his flip-flopping.

He's made a decisive stand, and now the Republican's have to attack him for it. But in my opinion I think the "evolving opinion" was easier to attack than actually going after him for an actual stance.

Now to go after him, they also have to decisively attack GBLT people directly. Including those people who secretly are part of the GOP. They have to adopt the bigot label if they want to launch a smear campaign. It's kinda of "put up or shut up" time.

Though, I don't necessarily disagree with you at all. I'm talking about the GOP and public politicians. Your small town, blue collar person might not care what other people think, and they can believe whatever they want in privacy and vote how they feel. I.. I.. have no counterargument to that. That is their right.

I have to hope for the best in people.

EDIT: If he was going to do it, or felt he was going to be dragged kicking and screaming towards it- better to drop the bomb bravely and early. There is at least time for those people who are genuinely unsure to get their head around it (and there's nothing wrong with getting used to something unfamiliar). Better in early May than October. All dust settles eventually.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I wasn't trying to mimimize the impact or suggest that there's so few of them so who cares. I was just talking about the number of actual gay voters Obama was losing by not picking a side.

Probably not many. What were they going to do, vote Romney?

It's all about the independents, and I don't pretend to know whether this will ultimately hurt or help the president. Given what just happened in NC, I don't think it's fair to say Obama is just taking the path of least resistance...so there is that.

Shadow Lodge

Its oddly enough the karl rove strategy: You assume that there are no independents left and try to fire up the base.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its oddly enough the karl rove strategy: You assume that there are no independents left and try to fire up the base.

Is it? Seems a bit counter-intuitive, but then again it also seemed to work..


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A) It's about time and B) no this is not a state's issue, this is a human rights and decency issue. You can't decide to take away someone's rights by vote, even if it seems that so many states are doing that on a monthly basis.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay folks, let's be honest here:

Obama, in that interview is full of s@~~.

Specifically, he's full of s!@@ that his view was ever 'evolving'. Obama's a very smart, pretty decent, guy, with liberal views socially, and he's always been in favor of gay people being able to marry.

It just was politically disadvantageous to admit that previously. At this point, for whatever reason, he thinks it is now an advantage (or perhaps simply not a disadvantage) to admit that, so he's doing so publically.

And maybe he really did think for a while that civil unions were a more practical thing to work towards. A more achievable goal. It certainly looked like it for at least a bit in there.
.
.
.
I actually really like a couple of things about Barack Obama that people here seem to be villifying him for. Specifically, Obama is smart, a skilled politician, and above all a pragmatist.

He has a lot of irons in the fire, domestically, and he's willing to compromise on some of the things he might like to do in order to achieve other things he thinks are more important. That's...really in no way a bad thing in a President.

Sticking to your guns on every possible thing you believe in and not compromising no matter what is considered some kind of ultimate virtue in America, and that's a good thing in some situations...but not always. For example, it's a very bad attitude to have when it comes to politicians interacting domestically with other politicians, at least it is if you want to accomplish anything.

Being a politician on the national level in the current system requires compromising on some issues (and making a devil's bargain for corporate funding, but we won't get into that). What I like about Obama is that he compromises all the time. On this specific thing. For now. And then, like this, returns to the position he actually believes in as soon as he can arrange to do so.

A lot of politicians really change their spots when they make those deals, they accept their new positions with a convert's fervor, whatever they really believe. Obama just chills and blends in, then returns to whatever he was gonna do before the deal as soon as he can arrange it without actually breaking said deal.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

“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,”

Does this mean Obama is leaving his wife?

Shadow Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Sticking to your guns on every possible thing you believe in and not compromising no matter what is considered some kind of ultimate virtue in America

ONLY if you're a republican. Otherwise it makes you a communist socialist fascist treehugging hippie pinko

Shadow Lodge

NPC Dave wrote:

“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,”

Does this mean Obama is leaving his wife?

No, it means its what he BELIEVES but not what he'll legislate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Kelsey, do you think that's a high or low estimate?

I reckon 1-3% would be a VERY low estimate.

5-10% seems a common estimate when looking at the issue globally.

Besides which, every time I go out to a club its as if at least half the chicks are one drink away from a girl on girl experience.

The hassle is defining the label, and then the next hassle is getting people to accept being defined by it.


Was only talking in the US Shifty.
Only US Citizens can vote in the US. <knock on wood>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You suspect there are LESS gays in the US than the global averages?

You reckon American women aren't setting trends for behaviour globally?

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
DJEternalDarkness wrote:
A) It's about time and B) no this is not a state's issue, this is a human rights and decency issue. You can't decide to take away someone's rights by vote, even if it seems that so many states are doing that on a monthly basis.

Yup. This is why it pisses me off when conservatives go on and on about how a majority of Americans don't want gay marriage to be legal (which isn't even true any more). Back in the 60's, something like 88% (I forget the exact number, but it was around there) of Americans opposed inter-racial marriage when the Supreme Court ruled that it had to be allowed.

Letting majority vote decide minority rights is like asking two lions and a lamb to vote on what's for dinner.

Taldor

Kryzbyn wrote:
Kelsey, do you think that's a high or low estimate?

They say one in every 10,000 That number has actually gone down though as more people come out as transgendered. So figure it out based on total population


BigNorseWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:

“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,”

Does this mean Obama is leaving his wife?

No, it means its what he BELIEVES but not what he'll legislate.

This exactly; Obama very rarely speaks from a preferential point of view; I'll freely admit he's more conservative than I'd like, but this is the first time I've heard him say "my personal preference is," rather than "Constitutional law dictates."


Think about how awesome it would have been if he'd said this when it wasn't an election year!

I don't think Obama is pro-equality. Black Christians are who created the term "down low". I think he knows that making pro-equality statements right now will help to mobilize leftist voters. He, also, believes that he'll be held to his words regarding equality to the same extent he was held to the same sort of words he made in 2007.

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Think about how awesome it would have been if he'd said this when it wasn't an election year!

I don't think Obama is pro-equality. Black Christians are who created the term "down low". I think he knows that making pro-equality statements right now will help to mobilize leftist voters. He, also, believes that he'll be held to his words regarding equality to the same extent he was held to the same sort of words he made in 2007.

I think this does the man a deep disservice. You can argue he doesn't care enough about equality for people of other sexualities, or that he won't do enough about it because he cares about other things more, and I might even agree with you. But there are no indications that he is personally prejudiced in the least, and saying that he is because he's Black and Christian is, if not precisely racist, certainly highly prejudiced in some fashion.


ShadowcatX wrote:

I'm certainly not an expert, but I've heard the figure placed at around 10% of the population has those tendencies. Rather they act on them or not is influenced by tons of other factors. (And it is possible for people who don't have those tendencies to still act on them, such as when they have no access to the opposite gender, as in prison.) However, that's only hearsay, take it with a grain of salt.

For a long time there was this myth that 10% of the population was gay, but recent polls find this to be woefully inaccurate. The 10% myth came from the Kinsey studies in the 40s and 50s. His results were of conversational polls about recent sexual activity, and a disproportionate amount of those polled were male convicts. Which is to say, the numbers are skewed because they polled guys being bummed in the shower about whether they had homosexual sex, not about what they were ATTRACTED to.

The actual numbers for homosexuality is about 2-3% of the population. I'd probably guess at least as many people identify as bisexual, and another 1% as transgendered. So, realistically, the LGBT community is probably a good 6% of the overall population. Just as an aside, I think a lot of bisexuals end up in an opposite sex relationship and just don't talk about their proclivities because there's no need. Also bisexuals tend to end up in "procreating relationships" and end up defaulting to that when the drive to reproduce kicks in. No I don't have studies, but there's a good summary on wikipedia. Search for demographics on sexual orientation.

The problem with these statistics, I gather, is a definitional one. The high numbers that sometimes crop up (37% of men?!) usually have a loose question attached to it like "have you ever achieved orgasm from physical contact with a man." A bit of experimentation does not make one gay, or even bi, as those definitions are statements of general trend.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Think about how awesome it would have been if he'd said this when it wasn't an election year!

I don't think Obama is pro-equality. Black Christians are who created the term "down low". I think he knows that making pro-equality statements right now will help to mobilize leftist voters. He, also, believes that he'll be held to his words regarding equality to the same extent he was held to the same sort of words he made in 2007.

I think this does the man a deep disservice. You can argue he doesn't care enough about equality for people of other sexualities, or that he won't do enough about it because he cares about other things more, and I might even agree with you. But there are no indications that he is personally prejudiced in the least, and saying that he is because he's Black and Christian is, if not precisely racist, certainly highly prejudiced in some fashion.

Anyone who does nothing about inequality (especially when given opportunity as POTUS) can't be said to actually care about inequality.

As for trying to call me prejudice against a group of people because I dare to point out a negative quality of that group, that's just being silly.

Andoran

Jim Groves wrote:
But in my opinion I think the "evolving opinion" was easier to attack than actually going after him for an actual stance.

That's probably especially true when your opponents don't believe in evolution...

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Anyone who does nothing about inequality (especially when given opportunity as POTUS) can't be said to actually care about inequality.

Presidents are not all-powerful. Nor has his life been free of other problems to work on. Do I wish he'd done more on this issue? Sure. But the fact that he didn't doesn't mean he doesn't care, it means he cares more about other things.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
As for trying to call me prejudice against a group of people because I dare to point out a negative quality of that group, that's just being silly.

Saying that someone who happens to be of Group X must be the same way as all the other members of Group X is the definition of prejudice.

Or to put it another way: You're not prejudiced for noting that many Black Christians are homophobic, you're prejudiced for claiming someone's homophobic simply because they're a Black Christian. Or at least you are if you mean it.


meatrace wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

I'm certainly not an expert, but I've heard the figure placed at around 10% of the population has those tendencies. Rather they act on them or not is influenced by tons of other factors. (And it is possible for people who don't have those tendencies to still act on them, such as when they have no access to the opposite gender, as in prison.) However, that's only hearsay, take it with a grain of salt.

For a long time there was this myth that 10% of the population was gay, but recent polls find this to be woefully inaccurate. The 10% myth came from the Kinsey studies in the 40s and 50s. His results were of conversational polls about recent sexual activity, and a disproportionate amount of those polled were male convicts. Which is to say, the numbers are skewed because they polled guys being bummed in the shower about whether they had homosexual sex, not about what they were ATTRACTED to.

The actual numbers for homosexuality is about 2-3% of the population. I'd probably guess at least as many people identify as bisexual, and another 1% as transgendered. So, realistically, the LGBT community is probably a good 6% of the overall population. Just as an aside, I think a lot of bisexuals end up in an opposite sex relationship and just don't talk about their proclivities because there's no need. Also bisexuals tend to end up in "procreating relationships" and end up defaulting to that when the drive to reproduce kicks in. No I don't have studies, 0but there's a good summary on wikipedia. Search for demographics on sexual orientation.

The problem with these statistics, I gather, is a definitional one. The high numbers that sometimes crop up (37% of men?!) usually have a loose question attached to it like "have you ever achieved orgasm from physical contact with a man." A bit of experimentation does not make one gay, or even bi, as those definitions are statements of general trend.

4% is a common figure for self-identified homosexuals in the US.

This, however, raises the question of whether people can be gay and not self-identify to other people (the pollsters) as such.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Anyone who does nothing about inequality (especially when given opportunity as POTUS) can't be said to actually care about inequality.

If he DID do anything about inequality he'd be lambasted as making unilateral moves, being a dictator, hoarding and expanding executive power, shoving the gay agenda down everyone's throats, being a socialist...

Oh, wait, he's accused of all that anyway. I think he just decided he's got nothing to lose.

It COULD be that he just believes marriage is a states rights issue, but then he could have used that as a shield against detractors. Personally that's the way I feel. But then, I think legalization of marijuana is a states' rights issue as well, and the Obama administration has continued to prosecute federal bans on it in California, among other places.

Honestly I have no idea and have no intention to defend him on this issue other than to say: better late than never. I think assuming that it's just an election year stunt is kind of unfair. I think it's just that, as he begins to gear up into campaign mode, he's becoming more keenly aware of the dramatic shift in public opinion and, deciding it's no longer political suicide to say so, voiced his convictions.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Anyone who does nothing about inequality (especially when given opportunity as POTUS) can't be said to actually care about inequality.

Presidents are not all-powerful. Nor has his life been free of other problems to work on. Do I wish he'd done more on this issue? Sure. But the fact that he didn't doesn't mean he doesn't care, it means he cares more about other things.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
As for trying to call me prejudice against a group of people because I dare to point out a negative quality of that group, that's just being silly.

Saying that someone who happens to be of Group X must be the same way as all the other members of Group X is the definition of prejudice.

Or to put it another way: You're not prejudiced for noting that many Black Christians are homophobic, you're prejudiced for claiming someone's homophobic simply because they're a Black Christian. Or at least you are if you mean it.

Presidents are not all powerful, I agree. He could have done something about equality, though. I didn't say that he had to succeed in what he did. But, he did nothing as far as I know to move us towards gay marriage.

I didn't say that every black Christian is a homophobe. I do not believe that every black Christian is a homophobe. However, it is a fact that the term "down low" came from that group because there is a very strong homophobia in that group. Obama is a politician who was raised in that and for whom a lot of his power comes from that group.

1 to 50 of 525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Obama on same-sex marriage All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.