2013 Election

#76
#76
volinbham said:
I see GV's point. If the immediate reaction to someone not supporting gay marriage is to label that person a homophobe, bigot, hater, etc. then in effect the labeler is also using a negative stereotype without really understanding the objection or accepting that another viewpoint could be valid.

On moral issues it seems best to state your position and withhold labeling of someone with a different position at least until you understand the "why" of their position.
Click to expand...

I don't care about viewpoints I care about actions. That is how I view a person being bigoted. Most who say the good book told them it was bad actively look to diminish the rights of others. Someone looking for equal rights is not even close to the same

for that argument to be valid anyone taking a stand would instantly be a bigot. That can't be true
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#77
#77
utvolpj said:
I don't care about viewpoints I care about actions. That is how I view a person being bigoted. Most who say the good book told them it was bad actively look to diminish the rights of others. Someone looking for equal rights is not even close to the same

for that argument to be valid anyone taking a stand would instantly be a bigot. That can't be true
Click to expand...

but the point in question is that one poster immediately lableled people who don't support gay marriage as homophobes.

that poster knows not why someone holds the position and if said person ever takes action.
 
#78
#78
volinbham said:
I see GV's point. If the immediate reaction to someone not supporting gay marriage is to label that person a homophobe, bigot, hater, etc. then in effect the labeler is also using a negative stereotype without really understanding the objection or accepting that another viewpoint could be valid.

On moral issues it seems best to state your position and withhold labeling of someone with a different position at least until you understand the "why" of their position.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
#79
#79
volinbham said:
Here's my take:

1) The VA governor race closed rapidly at the end - KC got closer than was ever predicted and that is an Obamacare issue.

2) Byrne in Alabama is no surprise - he's an establishment guy that everyone was shocked did not win the gubernatorial race. He was a shoe in but Bentley beat him in the primary then sailed to victory in the general. I don't see the Byrne win as any indication of TP strength or weakness.

The big take aways for me are:

1) Obamacare and those linked to it are in bad and increasingly worsening shape for 2014. If KC can get that close with so little money relative to McAuliffe and so little support from women then all Dems up for re-election should be soiling themselves.

2) I feel bad for the people of VA - McAuliffe is a first-class sleaze bag and as corrupt as the day is long. Don't know if KC would have been better but McAuliffe is just rotten.
Click to expand...

1. The governors race did close in most polls. As I posted earlier Emerson College had McAuliffe winning by 2%. He won by 2.5 %. The majority had ir a 6-7 point race. The Washington Post is the ONLY poll that had it a 12 point race per RCP which says that was an outlier poll.

2. The Alabama race is the first race I am aware of that the establishment actively campaigned againsta tea party member.

!A. I think the shutdown had more effect on the race than Obamacare. If not for the shutdown , which is heavily blamed on the Tea Party, Cuccinelli may have won.

2A. I agree. McAuliffe is scum, imo. I strongly believe a better GOP candidate not tied to the Tea Party wins this race.

I see the downfall of the Tea Party due to the fact that the GOP Establishment, The Chamber of Commerce, Big Business have decided they have had enough and are going to throw money into races against Tea party Candidates. The tea party threatening to and running a primary campaign against the moderate incumbent republican will not have as much teeth as it had the last couple of cycles. That appears to me to be one of their big strengths, "fall in line or we will primary your ass" will no longer be as scary as it has been.

Add to that the vast majority of the voters are tired of getting nothing accomplished in DC. jmo of course, but I am correct :):)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#80
#80
utvolpj said:
obvious huh? Who is trying to get rid of your right to believe whatever you want? No one

simply believing everyone should enjoy the same rights in this country does not make one a bigot. In fact it pretty much the exact opposite
Click to expand...

I have zero issues with people enjoying the same rights. The fact I object on moral and religious grounds to homosexuality is the core problem in this. For that, I'm a "bigot" and a "religious nut job" as categorized by those on the other side of the equation. I don't march in anti-gay parades or get on YouTube and spout off my religious agenda. So why am I unfairly stereotyped? Is that not reverse bigotry?

I'll give you a hint, the answer to that last question is "yes."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#81
#81
volinbham said:
but the point in question is that one poster immediately lableled people who don't support gay marriage as homophobes.

that poster knows not why someone holds the position and if said person ever takes action.
Click to expand...

because like it or not it's probably true when someone says they disagree on moral grounds. Sure they'll trot out the old "I have a gay friend/coworker/relative" but the vast majority hate it because the Bible says it's wrong and would vote to restrict if ever given the chance
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
Grand Vol said:
I have zero issues with people enjoying the same rights. The fact I object on moral and religious grounds to homosexuality is the core problem in this. For that, I'm a "bigot" and a "religious nut job" as categorized by those on the other side of the equation. I don't march in anti-gay parades or get on YouTube and spout off my religious agenda. So why am I unfairly stereotyped? Is that not reverse bigotry?

I'll give you a hint, the answer to that last question is "yes."
Click to expand...

no matter how much you want it to be yes it likely isn't (and that's not just because reverse bigotry/racist doesn't exist)

If offered a chance to prohibit gay marriage would you do it?
 
#83
#83
utvolpj said:
I don't care about viewpoints I care about actions. That is how I view a person being bigoted. Most who say the good book told them it was bad actively look to diminish the rights of others. Someone looking for equal rights is not even close to the same

for that argument to be valid anyone taking a stand would instantly be a bigot. That can't be true
Click to expand...

Sadly, your personal views do not represent what actually happens in the real world. Anyone who objects on moral or religious grounds IS instantly categorized as a bigot. And vilified. And demonized. And informed they are just WRONG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#85
#85
utvolpj said:
because like it or not it's probably true when someone says they disagree on moral grounds. Sure they'll trot out the old "I have a gay friend/coworker/relative" but the vast majority hate it because the Bible says it's wrong and would vote to restrict if ever given the chance
Click to expand...

I think this is what he's talking about.
 
#88
#88
utvolpj said:
no matter how much you want it to be yes it likely isn't (and that's not just because reverse bigotry/racist doesn't exist)

If offered a chance to prohibit gay marriage would you do it?
Click to expand...

A better question to ask is why should government have anything to do with marriage?

Or, why do married couples receive any monetary gain by being married?

Or, If gay marriage is adopted on a large scale, will gay couples receive monetary gains over single people?

After all, the equality clause is the only constitutional leg that gay marriage has to stand on. If not, why is gay marriage ever brought up?
 
#90
#90
tnmarktx said:
A better question to ask is why should government have anything to do with marriage?

Or, why do married couples receive any monetary gain by being married?

Or, If gay marriage is adopted on a large scale, will gay couples receive monetary gains over single people?

After all, the equality clause is the only constitutional leg that gay marriage has to stand on. If not, why is gay marriage ever brought up?
Click to expand...


In a perfect world the gov't would get out of marriage completely. Give everyone civil unions, with the same benefits, and if you want to be "married" go to a Church, Temple, etc to have it done in the religious sense.

Easily the fairest solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#91
#91
tnmarktx said:
A better question to ask is why should government have anything to do with marriage?

Or, why do married couples receive any monetary gain by being married?

Or, If gay marriage is adopted on a large scale, will gay couples receive monetary gains over single people?

After all, the equality clause is the only constitutional leg that gay marriage has to stand on. If not, why is gay marriage ever brought up?
Click to expand...

I have no issue with the govt getting out of marriage altogether and would prefer it. But as long as they are forcing themselves into it they should not be able restrict the rights of some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
utvolpj said:
no matter how much you want it to be yes it likely isn't (and that's not just because reverse bigotry/racist doesn't exist)

If offered a chance to prohibit gay marriage would you do it?
Click to expand...

My answer? Very simple.

It's not a government's job to determine right and wrong in morality/religious cases like this.

Evasive answer? Maybe. But the point is, this comes down to a spiritual debate where the government does NOT need to get involved. I still have yet to understand why government needs to get involved in marriage of any sorts anyway. Why is a license required? Blood tests? All that nonsense?

Which brings us back to gay marriage. If the government didn't stick it's nose in where it really didn't belong anyway for tax revenues and profits, this would be a moot point. Marriage is a spiritual and emotional bond between two people. Some do it in religious ceremonies, others do it as common law. And either way, it is NOT necessary for any government, local, State or Federal, to get involved in it.

So would I vote? The answer is, I would not vote either way. Mainly due to the fact it's not a government's job to enforce that particular brand of morality on anyone.

ETA: I see many others posted the same thing while I was typing.
 
#93
#93
utvolpj said:
I have no issue with the govt getting out of marriage altogether and would support it. But as long as they are forcing themselves into it they should not be able restrict the rights of some.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, there is precedence per the SCOTUS. Who is exactly forcing restrictions, the voters of California? Why continue to harp on it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#94
#94
Burhead said:
Give everyone civil unions, with the same benefits, and if you want to be "married" go to a Church, Temple, etc to have it done in the religious sense.
Click to expand...

One wonders why this was ever changed to begin with.
 
#96
#96
Burhead said:
In a perfect world the gov't would get out of marriage completely. Give everyone civil unions, with the same benefits, and if you want to be "married" go to a Church, Temple, etc to have it done in the religious sense.

Easily the fairest solution.
Click to expand...

That is still government intervention.
 
#98
#98
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top