4% is a common figure for self-identified homosexuals in the US.
That's not an outrageous figure and I could believe that.
I will point out that this sort of language gets me a big concerned. The whole "well how do you know they weren't lying to the pollsters" thing, insinuating that the number is probably higher. You could LITERALLY say the same about anything. How can any polls ever be trusted?
Regardless, certainly people can not self-identify as gay but really be gay. They can also identify as bi and answer the pollster either way depending on his current partner and level of comfort with his (or her) sexuality. I think it's a bigger grey area than being binary, as is presented for statistical analysis in this way.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'd probably say I'm a 0.2 on the Kinsey scale. I'm not sexually attracted to men, but have no problem seeing beauty in the male form. Also, I'd totally blow David Bowie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell did a little something about equality; Maybe only a little, but judging by the example of Obama as re military integration, we could have an out president in 50 years. That's a little something.
We've already seen him use equality as an election year stunt in 2008. That makes it fair to point it out now.
How exactly do you mean that he used equality as an election year stunt. That's vague terminology.
Letting majority vote decide minority rights is like asking two lions and a lamb to vote on what's for dinner.
Fromper, I hope you don't mind, but I'm stealing the bloody heck out of this line.
Obama didn't end DADT. SCOTUS did.Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell did a little something about equality; Maybe only a little, but judging by the example of Obama as re military integration, we could have an out president in 50 years. That's a little something.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.
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.
Actually, we're both wrong, it was congress. Obama did however sign it into law; once again, that's a little something.
|
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.
Well, he got involved in repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. Nothing on Gay Marriage to my knowledge...but on the other hand, beyond saying he supports it there's not much he can do as President. He could try and talk congress into doing things about it...but that didn't work so well when he tried it on several other things, and his political capital is limited.
Personally, I might've made it a priority, but the fact he didn't doesn't make him prejudiced or uncaring. He probably cares about human rights abuses in Africa, too, but that doesn't mean he has the ability to directly do a lot about them without serious repercussions.
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.
He was actually raised by his white grandparents mostly, aside from some time living with his mother outside the U.S. He got involved in African American culture somewhat later.
And his support is a bit more far-reaching than that, but they are indeed part of his core constituency. That has little to do with his personal beliefs on the subject, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Marriage is a state issue not federal.
Ahem (thanks to a Facebook friend for the link).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to recap . . .
- while President Obama's party had control of both houses of Congress, he stayed mum on the issue,
- he waited until after the vote in North Carolina to say anything, even cancelling an event on primary day in NC,
- and, by his own words, he still supports the rights of states to decide the issue on their own.
President Obama did what he is good at: He said some words, and his supporters are swooning as if he's performed some majestic act.
He's done less than former VP Cheney, but I don't recall the proponents of gay marriage being excited when Cheney articulated a more consistent view during the VP debates 12 years ago.
This was a political stunt by Obama to drum up (financial) support amongst his gay supporters. Prediction: Obama won't actually DO anything with his newfound conviction.
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.
I think it was in Palimpsest where Gore Vidal talks about how he served as Kinsey's liaison with the hipster/hustler/proto-Beat scene of post-war Times Square.
Anyway, when Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was published, Kinsey gave Vidal a signed copy with the inscription: "Thanks for all the hard work" or some such; to which Vidal replied "It wasn't all work!"
Hee hee!
|
Marriage is a state issue not federal.Ahem (thanks to a Facebook friend for the link).
Disagree it is neither.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree it is neither.Marriage is a state issue not federal.Ahem (thanks to a Facebook friend for the link).
In other countries, unions recognized by the state/nation are secular, and marriages are religious. In the U.S., they've been rolled up into the same thing. I don't think anyone is arguing that Catholic priests should have to perform same-sex marriage, anymore than they would be expected to perform a Islamic or Jewish union. But the state should recognize same-sex civil unions, regardless if it's called a union, a marriage, or something else.
To turn it around, why should Catholicism or Mormonism or Baptists or whomever get to decide a binding secular union between two consenting adults; yet others, like Unitarianism, who recognize same-sex unions, don't.
And since U.S. history has proved individual states cannot be blinded trusted to uphold equality -- even when it's in a Federal Constitutional Amendment -- then the Federal government unfortunately needs to get involved.
|
Next Obama will be stating that he "really is for imigration reform" even though he has done little in that regard over the last 3 + years. Oh wait he already did that recently. Ninja'd by Obama!
It must be election time because the politicians are flip flopping so that they can claim to be on every side of every issue. You can bet that within a week or two Obama will be talking about how the marriage thing is just a personal opinion and does not reflect an official position of his administration. That way he has made gay marriage advocates happy but not alienated Catholics and Jews.
DOOH! Already Ninja'd by Obama again. He has already come out with a statement that despite his feelings marriage is a state issue. This within 1 day of his statement of disapproval of the Carolina law!
Amazing!
The Onion: "Obama Blasts Obama's Evasive Stance On Gay Marriage"
I actually have no idea. I figure 1-3% of Americans is L,G, B or T.
Your under estimating, sexuality demographics points to atleast 6%, without taking into account under reporting.
We've minorities rights in the hands of the states enforcing the will of the majorities before. It didn't go well.
|
|
So to recap . . .
- while President Obama's party had control of both houses of Congress, he stayed mum on the issue,
- he waited until after the vote in North Carolina to say anything, even cancelling an event on primary day in NC,
- and, by his own words, he still supports the rights of states to decide the issue on their own.President Obama did what he is good at: He said some words, and his supporters are swooning as if he's performed some majestic act.
He's done less than former VP Cheney, but I don't recall the proponents of gay marriage being excited when Cheney articulated a more consistent view during the VP debates 12 years ago.
This was a political stunt by Obama to drum up (financial) support amongst his gay supporters. Prediction: Obama won't actually DO anything with his newfound conviction.
Just a moneymaking scheme.
He is out on my side of town (Beverly Hills/Century City) tomorrow to do his regular West Coast ATM withdrawal (and f~~+ up traffic).
I think some deep pocket gay donors have been holding out on him this time around and he really needs their money.
|
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.
I always just figured they did a poll in San Francisco.
Let us not only compare Obama to the perfect, but to the alternative.
*shudders*
|
Fromper, I hope you don't mind, but I'm stealing the bloody heck out of this line.Letting majority vote decide minority rights is like asking two lions and a lamb to vote on what's for dinner.
Go for it. It wasn't mine to begin with.
As for the rest of the discussion, as has been pointed out, Obama pushed for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and also refuses to enforce the Defense of Marriage [sic] Act. He has been pushing in favor of gay rights all along, just in his slow, pragmatic way that infuriates his supporters. But coming out in favor of gay marriage (no pun intended) is consistent with this. I think he means it, but I also think he'll never have a chance to do anything about it, even with another 4 years in office.
As an independent voter he has lost my vote not just because of this issue but on many others. I will not cast a vote for Romney either.
A political science professor of mine once said two things that have stuck with me:
1. If voting truly changed anything someone would have made it illegal a long time ago
and
2. We always elect who we deserve.
Ninjaed, but I would still strongly suggest you look at the actual definition of the word "prejudiced" as there is more to pre-judging than simply misliking the look of someone. Attaching negative qualities in the form of a blanket statement counts too. You don't see cops pulling over actors because booth shot Lincoln, do you?
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.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.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obama didn't end DADT. SCOTUS did.Doesn't really matter, since the UCMJ still hasn't been changed. I guess technically you can be openly gay in the military as long as you don't actually engage in homosexual activity.Technically it bans oral sex as well. If it's enforced on homosexual activity as strictly as on heterosexual activity, I don't think it'll make any difference.
Has there been a case since the repeal of DADT of someone being charged for homosexual activity? If not, then I'd say things have changed.
Not to say the sodomy section shouldn't be removed from the UCMJ.
indeed, sodomy is becoming old hat.
Next Obama will be stating that he "really is for imigration reform" even though he has done little in that regard over the last 3 + years. Oh wait he already did that recently. Ninja'd by Obama!
It must be election time because the politicians are flip flopping so that they can claim to be on every side of every issue. You can bet that within a week or two Obama will be talking about how the marriage thing is just a personal opinion and does not reflect an official position of his administration. That way he has made gay marriage advocates happy but not alienated Catholics and Jews.
DOOH! Already Ninja'd by Obama again. He has already come out with a statement that despite his feelings marriage is a state issue. This within 1 day of his statement of disapproval of the Carolina law!
Amazing!
It's almost like he's a politician or something!
No one is talking about the economic consequences of banning gay marriage. Wouldn't some in the LGBT community still want a wedding cake so why do you hate bakers by not given them business. Also what about people that are catering business won't they get more jobs with more weddings. Oh and people selling tuxedos and wedding dresses or even renting them. This also will hurt divorce lawyers as with fewer people married less people will have a divorce.
Let us not only compare Obama to the perfect, but to the alternative.
I've got your alternative right here:
Democrats are lame, Obama is a war criminal and homosexuals are crazy for wanting to get married.
Goblins do it in the street!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I find that those pushing for marriage being only between those of the opposite sex is that it is primarily by decree or fiat because of quoting instructions from a book. "This chapter and verse says I must do this." Most are familiar with the drill.
Let me turn up the incendiary to eleven. This was all the rage beginning in 1926 and up through 1945:
"A state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2
Unfortunately, there are folks out there that still see interracial marriages as the equivalent. But in 2012, the irony is that if you replace the last word with 'man' or the third-to-last and last word with 'woman', it's essentially the same ideology.
Deep down inside, it's going to make people uncomfortable. Attempts will be made to redefine a word in eloquent Clintonian two-step is-pedantries. Mountains will be moved to attempt a check-mate with some reductio ad absurdum or ad hominem. "NO! IT'S NOT THE SAME!" *gasp* *sputter* *social_networking_media_invective_defriending*
But when you wield Occam's razor and cut the wheat from the chaff and essentially get down to the binary prime root of the issue, you cannot avoid the reductio ad hitlerum.
Hate.
"HATE THE SIN, NOT THE SINNER!" is a common foil.
Here's my quid pro quo; "HATE THE BELIEF, NOT THE BELIEVER."
White Pawn to E4. #Godwin
Mountains will be moved to attempt a check-mate with some reductio ad absurdum or ad hominem. "NO! IT'S NOT THE SAME!" *gasp* *sputter* *social_networking_media_invective_defriending*
I've been thinking about this comparison, and I'm all in favor, for the sake of argument, of saying that "miscegenation" is not like gay marriage.
So, in order that there should be an object for fair comparison, I think we should ban Christian marriages, too. At least for a little while.
What's Romney's view on same-sex marriage?
What's a waffle iron's position, up or down?
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.
Evidence that boycotts do little to end discrimination.
The boycott of buses in Montgomery lasted 381 days. In the end, it was a court decision that forced the bus company to change their policy, not the boycott. The boycott did help raise the level of awareness on the issue though, but it did not directly end it.
The free market didn't get rid of Jim Crow laws. People pressuring their elected officials did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree.
The state's rights argument is a cop out.
The states do not get to decide who is covered by the Bill of Rights or parse out constitutional rights to who they see fit.
Americans can marry. Americans. Gay, straight, color etc. should never enter the equation.
Those things are the kind of leeway a state can have.
Age of consent, relation degrees are not race color creed or gender.
So to recap . . .
- while President Obama's party had control of both houses of Congress, he stayed mum on the issue,
- he waited until after the vote in North Carolina to say anything, even cancelling an event on primary day in NC,
- and, by his own words, he still supports the rights of states to decide the issue on their own.President Obama did what he is good at: He said some words, and his supporters are swooning as if he's performed some majestic act.
He's done less than former VP Cheney, but I don't recall the proponents of gay marriage being excited when Cheney articulated a more consistent view during the VP debates 12 years ago.
This was a political stunt by Obama to drum up (financial) support amongst his gay supporters. Prediction: Obama won't actually DO anything with his newfound conviction.
Obama has already demonstrated that he is willing to make headway in the equal rights movement despite widespread cultural opposition. This is an overly cynical viewpoint that almost seems as though it's purposefully trying to ignore the times Obama has spoken or acted out against the further restriction of equal marriage rights.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Marriage is a state issue not federal.
Civil rights are a human issue. Individual states do not get to legislate human rights into non-existence. That's why they're called rights.