Shared publicly  - 
"You have chosen to be on the wrong side of history." Romney donor Bill White withdrawing support over equality:
John Paul's profile photoBenjamin Babeshkin's profile photoVincent Chiarella's profile photoNancy Parker's profile photo
Being anti-gay is not a choice is it? -- people are just born that way.
Well, I don't trust Obama with this either. Kind of convenient that he's all of the sudden on board with it right before elections when he wasn't previously.

To me it reads, I'll support it if it gains me some votes.
Let's not confuse a choice of not supporting gay marriage with being anti-gay.
It shouldn't be a federal issue anyway. It should be supported at the state level.
I don't blame this guy. If a candidate doesn't support an issue that is near and dear to your heart, vote for the guy who does.
Also, I think all civil rights should be supported at the federal level.
+Leila Jane That's how it should always work. Leave the drama out, pick the guy that best represents your values. And then stand up for the ones he doesn't.
Obama is right and Romney is a dinosaur.
Romney is anti-gay...he's just not going to say it at this point. He's still trying to get elected. If he comes right out and says that he's anti-gay, he will definitely be in jeopardy of losing this election. People will look at him and say, "Okay, if he is against gay people, then what else is against?" They will look at him negatively.
+David Dzado is that like not being racist when opposing apartheid? I'm confused..
+Matt Corby I think that's apples and oranges. You can love everyone and not support their actions. Don't be confused.
Obama is trying to win a second term as president. He's really got nothing to lose if he supports gay rights. He may lose the election, but hey...he's already been president so...But at this point, I don't see it hurting him at all.
+Matt Corby, it's actually a reasonable distinction. Being anti-gay-marriage does not equate with being anti-gay. In the same way that not all parallelograms are squares.
Ok so, not wanting black people to live where you do (which is something they wanted to do, because, you know, it was fair) is nothing like not wanting to give gay people the right to marry. Which, you know, is fair.

Ok. I got it. Thread muted.
+Matt Corby Marriage isn't a right. It's a religious ceremony that the government recognizes in order to regulate benefits associated with the family. I.E. Taxes, insurance, legal gaurdianship of offspring.. other things...
why would being anti gay marriage and not anti gay.
If it is a way to regulate by the government, then would you want regulate gay through marriage rather than "ban" them? 
My question is, lets say they allow gay marriage in every state, are the Catholic/Christians churches still allowed to refuse to marry a couple? Remember we have a separation of church and state.

Either way this person that is requesting their money back is BS, you didn't donate to him in the first place cause of his stance on gay marriage, you donated and were planning to vote in his favor cause of the other things he is promising to do while in office. Are you backing Obama just cause he wants gay marriage now or do you believe in his other policies now?

If Romney had 100s great policies that would help america and every american, but was against gay marriage. Is it fair to vote against him for your own personal gain. Just for a piece of paper and tax benefits.
If you think about it... people aren't being regulated. It's governments influence on the free market system. And also recognizing the family as an entity. I would think the government could just pull all those benefits so that no one has them. but still let marriage stay the same. Thus giving no one benefits through the government by being married.
+John Paul I don't think you should force religions to marry people. I belong to a church that would have that same issue. Obama and his contraception debacle makes it sound like they will order churches to marry gays. Why is this necessary?
+Will Palaia Good point. I mean... how do you know what side of history you are on until you are history?
Plain and simple...government should stay out of the church and the church should stay out of the government. I was raised in a Christian church to love everyone and accept everyone no matter what their differences or faults. I was also raised to be an independent woman...and to have someone trying to tell me what to do with my own body is simply and totally out of the question. Give the Dark Ages a rest already.
+Roger Henry please explain to me how you can be anti gay-marriage, but not anti gay. Not wanting gays to have the same rights as you, is anti-gay, whether you admit it or not.
This bandwagon that everyone is jumping on and riding through town will turn out to be a trojan horse.
marriage came about so they could keep track of families.
why not keep track of gays.
they aren't tracking families with marriage. that's what a census is for.
+Jeff Weiss I was simply arguing a point of logic. I believe the logic is correct. We're dealing with two distinct issues: being against gays, and being against gays getting married.

It's like guns. Consider:
(a) the second amendment, the right to bear arms.
(b) 'should people carry guns into bars when they're going drinking?'

Two distinct issues. Being against (b) does NOT by default mean that you're also against (a).

In the same way, being against gays getting married does not by default mean that you're against gays.

And, to reiterate, I'm arguing a point of logic, based on an earlier post and someone else's reaction to it.
+Roger Henry So am I reading your analysis correctly? Are you correlating a same-sex marriage to carrying a gun into a bar? So two people of the same gender entering into marriage is the same to you as someone looking to get loaded in a bar while carrying a gun? Now that's a new twist on shotgun wedding....
this is mind numbing.

I love women. Always have. They're amazing.
I certainly don't think they should vote, though.

Growing up I had plenty of black friends.
I'd prefer they all attended separate schools, however.

My favorite fruits are oranges.
I have to say though, I don't feel it should be permitted people use them as projectiles.

All logically the same. One is pointless in the context of this situation. The other two necessarily make me a bigoted, womanizing asshole.

Context is key, people. If you're against gay marriage, you are, inextricably, to at least a degree, against gay people. PERIOD. Any attempt to separate the two is merely a rationalization for something too socially uncomfortable to admit to.

Unless someone could explain, perhaps, how being against gay marriage is "pro-gay." Cuz I'd love to read that.
+Vincent Chiarella, your argument seems to be that anyone who is against gay people is inherently against gay marriage. That's sound logic. Still, from a purely logic-based point of view, the inverse is not necessarily logically valid. It's simple mathematics.

I've pointedly stayed away from the issue of the rightness or wrongness of a particular side of the present debate. Because it is a fact that right versus wrong does not always align with logically valid versus logically invalid.

+Mark Zanfardino do us a favor and look up analogy. I think there might be a workable definition with explanation in Wikipedia. You clearly don't get how it's supposed to work.
I disagree with Romney's position, but this election is far bigger than this one issue. In time, and a short period of time I am sure, this inequality will be made right.
Read before you write. Romney's position is exactly the same as Obama's was just a few days ago. Nothing has changed. Obama is all about words. He did say it should be decided by the states so whether he is for or against gay marriage doesn't change anything. This is sickening to ready all the psycho-bable on this non-issue.
+Roger Henry
Sure, agreed...I understand your perspective and I get the mathematics...BUT this is a normative question, after all. "Rightness or wrongness" is precisely what matters. Demonstrating that logical construction does little to inform the actual discussion without some contextualization, wouldn't you say? I mean, if you can point to an example of how some opponents of gay marriage are in fact not anti-gay, then that is something that will definitely help make this comment thread really interesting. If not, you're kinda only showing off how much you loved your Logic classes by giving a once-over to the semantics of the argument...there's nothing all that substantive being added there, no?
I mean, if we were to all forego making value judgments since they don't line up with some kind of "super-cultural" rationality, then I fear we wouldn't be getting much accomplished...
(Of course, I suppose the sociologist has never really had many kind words for the logician at any time in history :)
+David Dzado Marriage is a regulated religious ceremony, you are correct. But which religion? There are several faiths more than willing, anxious even, to unite gay couples in holy matrimony. For the government to deny a faith's right to marry whom they wish to marry, is the state declaring preference of one religion over another. The government needs to be ready to regulate all religious marriages, or no religious marriages. They have a choice, but that is the only choice they should have under the First Amendment. All religions treated equally, or get out of the marriage business completely.
I'm not surprised that churches of all faiths and congregants of all ethnicity would use the pulpit to critique the presidents now stated position that he's ok with Gay marriage ... My question is why? Because the parishioners needed leadership from the church on the issue? And the leadership many got was, a lesson in intolerance ... Many believe Homosexuality is immoral behavior, because of it's nature ... I believe things like adultery, Murder , Bearing false witness, failing to Remember the sabbath day, Taking other gods be for God .. Taking the Lords name in vain , coveting others possessions, Theft ... These are sins as laid out by GOD in the TEN Commandments -

Matthew 19 KJV -------And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.THIS IS THE MESSAGE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREACHED THIS WEEKEND ...IT'S THE MESSAGE SO MANY EVANGELICALS NEED TO HEAR MORE OFTEN.
+Vincent Chiarella you raise an excellent point - there is a value judgement to be made here. And you're right that a slavish adherence to a purely logical exercise brings nothing truly substantive to this discussion.

But in this case it's my judgement that the real issue is a marriage issue, and not a gay rights issue. And it is lame to discuss this as both a marriage issue and a human rights/gay rights issue at the same time because marriage is not a right for anyone. Some people in favor of marriage for gays are trying to fluff up their case by equating marriage for gays with rights for gays, which to me is wishy-washy, a false equivalency that actually weakens the argument. This is inherently counterproductive.

If the argument for marriage for gays is so strong, then surely there is a way to state that case (and that case only ) that doesn't depend on false equivalencies, wishful thinking, and heated emotional rhetoric.

Pardon me if I come across as dry and pedantic, but to me when discussing secular matters there's more to be gained by consistently presenting an irrefutable argument - yes, devoid of emotion, even - than there is to be gained from trying to win the day through emotion and obfuscation and guilt.
+Roger Henry
hmm...i think you're over-thinking this.

if i and my partner walk into our church, and are married by the pastor of that church...that marriage is not legally recognized by the state for no other reason than the fact that it is a marriage that happens to be between two gay men.

it's obviously not an issue of just marriage in and of itself, as the church has no problem performing the marriage whatsoever.

it most certainly is a gay rights issue:

if the state had a function of civil unions, and had no part in sanctioning marriages, then this would be a moot point. but it is through the state-sanctioning of marriage that various secular privileges are provided to united couples. privileges that do not apply to my union due only to my sexuality.

i honestly don't see how one goes about separating the two. as long as the state uses the recognition of marriage as the mechanism through which couples receive various state benefits, and as long as those benefits are denied to united gay couples due to the state not recognizing gay unions as valid, then recognition of gay marriage will of course continue to be a gay rights issue.

the point here is not for any random gay couple to walk up to any random evangelical church and that church be required to marry them. that's not how it works now for straight couples. it's to have the marriages entered into by gay couples be given legal recognition. how is that not a gay rights issue?
+Vincent Chiarella your next-to-last paragraph is a really strong point: if the state uses 'marriage' as the mechanism through which couples receive various state benefits, and as long as those benefits are denied to united gay couples because the state does not recognize gay unions as valid, then there's some clear inequality there.

That's a strong argument for gay marriage, but as a matter of the basic equality as laid out in the US constitution, not as a matter of specifically gay rights or of gay marriage itself.

If this is a problem with gay marriage, what's to stop a state from saying, "fine, get married, but now we're gonna get specific and say that these benefits accrue ONLY to heterosexual monogamous couples"? You end up with the same problem. My point is that the argument for gay marriage as a marriage issue will not solve the problem you laid out above.
the power of broadcast commercial..and here we go.
They should not be allowed to be married by a Christian / Catholic church, let them be married by the state and call it a legal union. Read Corinthians 6:9, then question you religious beliefs. If your god doesn't agree with it your life style, Either change your ways and habits or find a religion that suits you and your beliefs..I'll beat everyone to the punch. I'm unintelligent, ignorant bigot cause I don't understand why people can or would be gay, I want to be a father one day with a child that shares my blood "is that to much to ask for?". only recently through technology and Surrogacy..Which is not natural can to people of the same sex have a children of their own blood but again it only one of that couple actually shares that blood bond not both
Good point about finding a new religion that is not tied to the past. I wish more people would think like you and dump the dogma that has been brainwashed into them at a young age.
+John Paul "If your god doesn't agree with...your life style, (e)ither change your ways and habits or find a religion that suits you and your beliefs"

hmmm....sooo...if that's what we're doing - if this is the case...then it's not necessarily that people are "ignorant bigots" as a result of following outdated religious dogma; it's that the ignorance and bigotry are already present in someone...that discriminatory attitudes in a given congregation may very well precede its bigoted and ignorant religion.

you know what? that may be the single most accurate insight shared in this comment thread. bravo, sir.

so, then, you have chosen a religion that allows you to openly condemn homosexuality.
interesting choice.
now, i might have, if i were you, opted for one that allows me to love everyone unconditionally...but hey, it takes all kinds, i guess!
Marriage can be defined any way a religion wants to define it (and the various religions disagree). From a LEGAL standpoint, a marriage is a contract and the only interest a government has is to enforce it when it has been broken. Any competent pair (or even group; good luck with that) of adults should be able to make a contract. The meaning of that contract needs to be spelled out and taught to teenagers in school, and specified to immigrants who enter the country already married. (We do not have the right to dissolve an existing polygamous marriage, IMHO, but if one party seeks to exit the marriage after immigrating, it would be a divorce under US law). Marriages can be solemnized by civil authorities, there is no reason to suppose that religions will be coerced. Catholic priests are not now coerced to marry divorced parties, you know.
Add a comment...