|
|
On May 10 2012 05:26 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 04:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Obama has endorsed same sex marriage. Hold on to your Butts, this is Historic. He just guaranteed his victory in the election.... by a larger margin.
Hmm I don't know how much of an effect the announcement will have. But I am the type of person he might have just won over with it. Don't think there are too many people like me though lol. Its hard because I don't necessarily agree with him on a lot of issues and I am more in line with Republican core tenents (minus the social conservatism) but I am gay.. so its a pretty big deal obviously to have a president who openly supports your future marriage.
|
On May 10 2012 06:15 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 05:55 TheToast wrote:
Also, there are people who oppose same sex marrage on grounds other than religion, and not everyone who does oppose it on the grounds of religion are bigots. It's not about denying people their civil rights, but rather it's about what some people would term "traditional values". "Traditional values" or "family values", as used in American politics, are codewords for the privilege of white, straight conservatives and the oppression of others.
And I have yet to ever hear an argument against same sex marriage that did not reference the bible.
|
I moved to a new state like three months ago. Gonna go register to vote in this state so that I can vote for Obama. Frankly, the mere possibility that I could see gay marriage become legalized is enough of an incentive for me to go vote.
|
You could also do a surgery to cut off the nerves that make you feel pains from being kicked in balls (kinda)
easy solution lol
|
On May 10 2012 06:28 overt wrote:
I moved to a new state like three months ago. Gonna go register to vote in this state so that I can vote for Obama. Frankly, the mere possibility that I could see gay marriage become legalized is enough of an incentive for me to go vote.
Except that the US president cannot currently do anything about legalizing same sex marrage. That choice of what marraiges are legal is still entirely up to the states. Granted, he may be able to act as an advocate; but he can't really do anything about it.
On May 10 2012 06:25 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 06:15 Mindcrime wrote:On May 10 2012 05:55 TheToast wrote:
Also, there are people who oppose same sex marrage on grounds other than religion, and not everyone who does oppose it on the grounds of religion are bigots. It's not about denying people their civil rights, but rather it's about what some people would term "traditional values". "Traditional values" or "family values", as used in American politics, are codewords for the privilege of white, straight conservatives and the oppression of others. And I have yet to ever hear an argument against same sex marriage that did not reference the bible.
Well, I think in a lot of people's minds marraige is synonomous with child rearing and having a family. It's a bit weird, as it's one of those issues that's highly emotional and so logic doesn't necessarily apply as it should.
|
On April 20 2012 01:25 Grumbels wrote:
I find a lot of Americans laughably uninformed about European politics. Hey, we don't live in a socialist hellhole with no free speech here. (not to say it's perfect)
1. there is a higher variety of opinions available, since we have relevant political parties for pretty much all political ideologies.
2. a higher percentage of sane opinions, since denying science, mocking gay people etc. isn't really acceptable here. It's actually shocking how little scientific consensus means in the US.
3. public debate has more to do with actual policy than in the US, where politicians just debate made-up controversies with no connection to reality.
4. less corruption: we actually have a lot of politicians that would probably never get close to congress in the United States and that I would honestly call intelligent well-spoken people with morally sound principles that they live by. Even in positions of power.
I see a lot of misinformation in this thread too, it's unfortunate that people spend so much time quibbling about the national debt when they couldn't themselves really explain why it's the most important issue of their time. I can't really respect people who consider that the most important rationale behind making their decision for President, when, say, the near-complete control of multinational corporations over US politics scarcely deserves a mention. If you look at opinion polls about what sort of policy the public wants, it has no connection to what politicians consider acceptable, which means the US is not a functional democracy.
Not trying to pull the "Europe is better, Amerikuh sucks" card, but yeah the first 4 points are simply very true (in most cases).
Thing is our politics are starting to get inspired by the american way, and thats fucking scary, it's all about image and controversy (well, guess France did the contrary of that but we still had 18% people voting for a far-right, known to be almost facists, so...).
Yeah, to me the US seems kinda fucked up on that point, but not judging, since I believe we'll join you guys in a few decades going at this rate. "Funny" how humanity can regress while getting so many tools to evolve in the twentieth century, people dont even bother reading candidates plans and details, most of them simply get convinced by a catch phrase, or some negative comments about mexicans / arabs / black (depending on where you're from), or even worse, by the image and physical appearances.
Obama is a thousand years from what I think would be good for the US, but as always, Romney is even worse, so lets go for Obama
|
On May 10 2012 06:34 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 06:28 overt wrote:
I moved to a new state like three months ago. Gonna go register to vote in this state so that I can vote for Obama. Frankly, the mere possibility that I could see gay marriage become legalized is enough of an incentive for me to go vote. Except that the US president cannot currently do anything about legalizing same sex marrage. That choice of what marraiges are legal is still entirely up to the states. Granted, he may be able to act as an advocate; but he can't really do anything about it.
The Federal government allowing gay marriage would still be huge. And would likely lead the way to more states allowing gay marriage while also recognizing Federally gay marriages that exist in the handful of states where it is legal. It's a step in the right direction.
I'm also originally from North Carolina so the gay marriage issue hits pretty close to home right now for me.
|
On May 10 2012 06:41 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 06:34 TheToast wrote:On May 10 2012 06:28 overt wrote:
I moved to a new state like three months ago. Gonna go register to vote in this state so that I can vote for Obama. Frankly, the mere possibility that I could see gay marriage become legalized is enough of an incentive for me to go vote. Except that the US president cannot currently do anything about legalizing same sex marrage. That choice of what marraiges are legal is still entirely up to the states. Granted, he may be able to act as an advocate; but he can't really do anything about it. The Federal government allowing gay marriage would still be huge. And would likely lead the way to more states allowing gay marriage while also recognizing Federally gay marriages that exist in the handful of states where it is legal. It's a step in the right direction. I'm also originally from North Carolina so the gay marriage issue hits pretty close to home right now for me.
I was under the impression that Obama instructed the executive branch to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act so, in effect, the Federal Government does recognize gay marriages. Am I misunderstanding the details of how that works?
|
On May 10 2012 06:34 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 06:28 overt wrote:
I moved to a new state like three months ago. Gonna go register to vote in this state so that I can vote for Obama. Frankly, the mere possibility that I could see gay marriage become legalized is enough of an incentive for me to go vote. Except that the US president cannot currently do anything about legalizing same sex marrage. That choice of what marraiges are legal is still entirely up to the states. Granted, he may be able to act as an advocate; but he can't really do anything about it. Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 06:25 Klondikebar wrote:On May 10 2012 06:15 Mindcrime wrote:On May 10 2012 05:55 TheToast wrote:
Also, there are people who oppose same sex marrage on grounds other than religion, and not everyone who does oppose it on the grounds of religion are bigots. It's not about denying people their civil rights, but rather it's about what some people would term "traditional values". "Traditional values" or "family values", as used in American politics, are codewords for the privilege of white, straight conservatives and the oppression of others. And I have yet to ever hear an argument against same sex marriage that did not reference the bible. Well, I think in a lot of people's minds marraige is synonomous with child rearing and having a family. It's a bit weird, as it's one of those issues that's highly emotional and so logic doesn't necessarily apply as it should.
In a lot of people's minds marriage is synonymous with two white people having white babies and not one white person and one white person having a mixed baby. It's a bit weird, as it's one of those issues that's highly emotional and so logic doesn't necessarily apply as it should.
Edit: I disagree with your view that not everyone who opposes it are religious bigots. Taking away extremely minor exceptions, I would say pretty much everyone who opposes it are religious bigots. Like, I hazard a guess at 99%. It's a lot like evolution. You can guarantee that if someone says they don't 'believe' in evolution, that they will be Christian. So much that it's not worth saying: "Not everyone who doesn't believe in evolution is Christian," because 99% will be Christians so a generalisation can validly be made.
|
On May 10 2012 05:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On May 10 2012 04:35 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2012 04:24 BlackJack wrote:
Obama has always been in favor of same sex marriage. He's just never had the courage to admit it. He cares more about being a politician and getting elected than he cares about fighting for what he believes in. Romney and Obama are well-suited for each other. Two empty suits that can change their positions at any time depending on which way the wind is blowing.
I have a lot more respect for people like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Even if some of their ideas are ridiculous, at least they will stand behind them even though they will be hurt in the polls.
Bill Maher mocks Republicans by saying they live in a bubble for believing Obama is a radical when his policies have been centrist. But if you listen to both sides, the liberals believe it too. Whenever Obama takes a position like anti-gay marriage or anti-marijuana they say he is "forced into the position" and that he will have more flexibility in his second term. You can't mock the Republicans for fear mongering about Obama's second term while at the same time believing that Obama will be able to do a lot more in his second term. That would make one a hypocrite. Please explain why these two ideas do not go together, they seem rather complementary. You seem to assume that Romney and Obama are entirely alike, and yet you back this assertion up with very little in the way of concrete evidence. And if you look at their political platforms issue by issue, even historically, it becomes quite clear that both men have entirely different ideas of what political solvency means. Who exactly are you listening to? Of course the two ideas are complementary. That's why you can't support one and not the other without being a hypocrite, as I said. If you look at Obama's and Romney's records you will see that they are not much different. If you look at their rhetoric then you will think they are very different. But everyone knows their rhetoric is bull. The only winner in this election will be the status quo. You say that, but what have you in the way of evidence? They both come from very different places, with very different sentiments on a variety of policies/issues. Both have changed positions on certain things given issues of political climate, but that hardly makes them "not much different". In fact, I think a good case can be made for arguing that Romney's total 360 on a healthcare reform program that is almost the same as his Massachusetts initiative all in the name of Republican consensus puts him on a different level of flippancy. In any case, an insistence on the two being overtly similar is simply lazy, nothing is so simple, especially in politics.
You don't have to convince me, you should convince his fans of that. It only took 3 years before his supporters went from "yes we can" to "hes the lesser of 2 evils." The kind of people that will never say a bad word about him in public but behind closed doors they will all yearn for something more from him.
I think every fan base of his has been disappointed.
Environmental crowd - We have more oil drilling under Obama than under Bush. A lot more permits have been approved and a lot more land has been opened to oil exploration. It took a ton of hand wringing just for him to do something about Keystone.
Anti-war crowd - He's bombed 5 countries under his Presidency. That's more than Bush. He's ramped up the war in Afghanistan, failed to close Guantanamo like he promised.
Anti-drug war crowd - He's raided more marijuana dispensaries than Bush and he went back on his promise that he wouldn't circumvent state laws regarding medical marijuana.
Financial reform crowd - His rhetoric is much bigger than his record. Wall Street firms have given Obama more cash than the entire Republican primary field combined. The 1% have benefited more than anyone during the recovery. Still nobody in prison for causing the mess in the first place. Still many Dodd-Frank reforms that have not been implemented.
Gun control crowd - Didn't do much of anything on this front despite high profile shootings such as the Gabby Giffords shooting. Gun ownership is at an all time high.
Gay Rights crowd - Has been against gay marriage almost his entire presidency. He ended DADT so I guess that's something.
|
On April 19 2012 17:54 ioFilip wrote:
I'm curious how many liquipedians would be in favor of Ron Paul as an alternative to both.
I would for sure. I dislike both of the candidates and Ron Paul would have been a much better pick.
|
On May 10 2012 06:56 Chronos. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 17:54 ioFilip wrote:
I'm curious how many liquipedians would be in favor of Ron Paul as an alternative to both. I would for sure. I dislike both of the candidates and Ron Paul would have been a much better pick.
How do you feel about Ron Paul's personal anti-gay marriage stance? His position is that it is for the individual States to decide - so presumably he is happy with North Carolina.
|
United States18840 Posts
On May 10 2012 06:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 05:42 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2012 05:11 BlackJack wrote:On May 10 2012 04:35 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2012 04:24 BlackJack wrote:
Obama has always been in favor of same sex marriage. He's just never had the courage to admit it. He cares more about being a politician and getting elected than he cares about fighting for what he believes in. Romney and Obama are well-suited for each other. Two empty suits that can change their positions at any time depending on which way the wind is blowing.
I have a lot more respect for people like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Even if some of their ideas are ridiculous, at least they will stand behind them even though they will be hurt in the polls.
Bill Maher mocks Republicans by saying they live in a bubble for believing Obama is a radical when his policies have been centrist. But if you listen to both sides, the liberals believe it too. Whenever Obama takes a position like anti-gay marriage or anti-marijuana they say he is "forced into the position" and that he will have more flexibility in his second term. You can't mock the Republicans for fear mongering about Obama's second term while at the same time believing that Obama will be able to do a lot more in his second term. That would make one a hypocrite. Please explain why these two ideas do not go together, they seem rather complementary. You seem to assume that Romney and Obama are entirely alike, and yet you back this assertion up with very little in the way of concrete evidence. And if you look at their political platforms issue by issue, even historically, it becomes quite clear that both men have entirely different ideas of what political solvency means. Who exactly are you listening to? Of course the two ideas are complementary. That's why you can't support one and not the other without being a hypocrite, as I said. If you look at Obama's and Romney's records you will see that they are not much different. If you look at their rhetoric then you will think they are very different. But everyone knows their rhetoric is bull. The only winner in this election will be the status quo. You say that, but what have you in the way of evidence? They both come from very different places, with very different sentiments on a variety of policies/issues. Both have changed positions on certain things given issues of political climate, but that hardly makes them "not much different". In fact, I think a good case can be made for arguing that Romney's total 360 on a healthcare reform program that is almost the same as his Massachusetts initiative all in the name of Republican consensus puts him on a different level of flippancy. In any case, an insistence on the two being overtly similar is simply lazy, nothing is so simple, especially in politics. You don't have to convince me, you should convince his fans of that. It only took 3 years before his supporters went from "yes we can" to "hes the lesser of 2 evils." The kind of people that will never say a bad word about him in public but behind closed doors they will all yearn for something more from him. I think every fan base of his has been disappointed. Environmental crowd - We have more oil drilling under Obama than under Bush. A lot more permits have been approved and a lot more land has been opened to oil exploration. It took a ton of hand wringing just for him to do something about Keystone. Anti-war crowd - He's bombed 5 countries under his Presidency. That's more than Bush. He's ramped up the war in Afghanistan, failed to close Guantanamo like he promised. Anti-drug war crowd - He's raided more marijuana dispensaries than Bush and he went back on his promise that he wouldn't circumvent state laws regarding medical marijuana. Financial reform crowd - His rhetoric is much bigger than his record. Wall Street firms have given Obama more cash than the entire Republican primary field combined. The 1% have benefited more than anyone during the recovery. Still nobody in prison for causing the mess in the first place. Still many Dodd-Frank reforms that have not been implemented. Gun control crowd - Didn't do much of anything on this front despite high profile shootings such as the Gabby Giffords shooting. Gun ownership is at an all time high. Gay Rights crowd - Has been against gay marriage almost his entire presidency. He ended DADT so I guess that's something.
Your decision to divide up the population into "crowds" is something someone with conservative leanings is far more likely to do, as the liberal party, by virtue of what it means to be a "progressive", emphasizes equality through acceptance rather than change. The hilariousness that is the Republican primary process this voting cycle is good evidence of how Republican candidates are effectively bullied into their platforms through a conservative interest group push and pull on the big issues, singling out Romney as the man most willing to adopt the most stances as his own.
I think a perspective that overemphasizes the importance of issues in isolation doesn't do the interconnected political reality of today much justice, the fact of the matter is that well informed, reasonable voters will come to an internal decision in terms of which issues they care most about and vote pragmatically, much like a politician in todays system must do with their platform.
|
Well his decision did seem a little forced because of Biden, but it couldnt have been a better time to endorse gay marrige one day before one of his biggest fundraisers, it was expected to bring in 12 million, I have a feeling that will be beat.
|
On May 10 2012 06:46 Sakata Gintoki wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 06:34 TheToast wrote:On May 10 2012 06:28 overt wrote:
I moved to a new state like three months ago. Gonna go register to vote in this state so that I can vote for Obama. Frankly, the mere possibility that I could see gay marriage become legalized is enough of an incentive for me to go vote. Except that the US president cannot currently do anything about legalizing same sex marrage. That choice of what marraiges are legal is still entirely up to the states. Granted, he may be able to act as an advocate; but he can't really do anything about it. On May 10 2012 06:25 Klondikebar wrote:On May 10 2012 06:15 Mindcrime wrote:On May 10 2012 05:55 TheToast wrote:
Also, there are people who oppose same sex marrage on grounds other than religion, and not everyone who does oppose it on the grounds of religion are bigots. It's not about denying people their civil rights, but rather it's about what some people would term "traditional values". "Traditional values" or "family values", as used in American politics, are codewords for the privilege of white, straight conservatives and the oppression of others. And I have yet to ever hear an argument against same sex marriage that did not reference the bible. Well, I think in a lot of people's minds marraige is synonomous with child rearing and having a family. It's a bit weird, as it's one of those issues that's highly emotional and so logic doesn't necessarily apply as it should. In a lot of people's minds marriage is synonymous with two white people having white babies and not one white person and one white person having a mixed baby. It's a bit weird, as it's one of those issues that's highly emotional and so logic doesn't necessarily apply as it should. Edit: I disagree with your view that not everyone who opposes it are religious bigots. Taking away extremely minor exceptions, I would say pretty much everyone who opposes it are religious bigots. Like, I hazard a guess at 99%. It's a lot like evolution. You can guarantee that if someone says they don't 'believe' in evolution, that they will be Christian. So much that it's not worth saying: "Not everyone who doesn't believe in evolution is Christian," because 99% will be Christians so a generalisation can validly be made.
Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations.
|
On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations.
The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions.
I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)?
Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear.
|
On May 10 2012 05:34 Sakata Gintoki wrote:Obama's not an idiot. The Democrats obviously scrambled to do polling once Biden made his statements and you can guarantee that Obama would not have come out to endorse it if they weren't showing that the demographics have changed on this issue and that due to the increase in Generation Y'ers becoming eligible to vote, that it was electorally wise to endorse same sex marriage. Even a lot of younger people in Churches these days are not following in the footsteps of their bigoted/irrational elders in their views towards homosexuals. What makes me cringe is how Obama explains it - how it was due to him talking to his friends and family blah blah blah. For once I just want to hear a politician say: "Yeah, truth be told I've always held the view that Christians who are against gay marriage are retarded but I needed to be careful not to alienate any of them when I first ran for President which is why I pretended to believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman and was willing to sacrifice the rights of the homosexuals but now that I'm President and people no longer have to consider me a 'risk' in order to be elected for a second term I can take this political gamble and endorse gay marriage now because gay marriage is now more generally accepted by the public and only a minority of Bible thumping evangelicals whose votes I was unlikely to win anyway are going to get their hypocritical holier than thou panties in a twist about it."
We pretty much know that's what he thinks, but he's got to play the game the way it needs to be played. That's politics.
Unfortunately, you can't always announce your true beliefs or run on your favorite platforms 100% of the time, especially if most people would find them unfavorable.
But I'm happy he's said it now. I'll take that over someone who's clearly against it and will always be against it.
|
Looking from Ukraine here.
While Obama probably was not the worst president, he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised.
That is quite a big issue, because there is a HUGE difference between the president that is actually proposing a program and doing it with reasonable success, and the gue who Makes program, and than does something absolutely different.
Romney looks better, Yes he IS rich, and yes he is former corporate executive, but IS it bad?
Simple fact is, the president that UNDERSTANDS how the system IS working can make intelligent decisions, which is good.
Than, a rich man that earned his money, proves that he can get the job done.
The "poor" man(i know Obama is millionere himself)on the other hand, is far more inclined to become rich, than to run the country right, to preserve and increase his investments.
Than, there is a US system, which is working, but kinda bad.
In Ukraine, a country with less than 500USD average monthly wage, there is full government covered Healthcare, 12 years of school, and while Healthcare may be not the best in the would in terms of new technologies, it certanly does cover most of the really big issues, Government also pays for about 50% of University students(and pays each enrolled by the goverment student about 1/2 of minimum wage on top of tuition fees).
And University education quality is more than enough to be employed in foreign company or to emigrate to europe and finish education/employ there.
And we spent far less in % of budget for that, and we have rampant corruption, and more, and more. Seriously, the idea that US can not support the single-payer healthcare, single-payer education, and Goverment-funded higher education is simply stupid, when far less wealthy countries, can afford it.
And while I see why Romney wouldn`t go for it, i can not see why Obama wouldn`t do push for single-payer healthcare rather than that bullshit he created in form of individual mandate.
No to mention it is very constitutionally questionable.
Then instead of trying to enhance US ability to compete against China, what exactly do we see from US?
Nothing.
Chinese currency issue?
Nothing.
Chinese unfair worker conditions?
Nothing.
How about the US court system, absolutely unreasonable prices and fees lawyers take, and ridiculous bills tax payers has to foot?
Nothing.
How about the Hollywood and IP-industry lobby, way extended author "rights" from initial 14 years, to almost 90(afaik)?
Nothing.
How about signing ACTA and depriving congress of right to legislate it?
Seriously, while i do not believe that either can actually make things right, the Obama`s record looks very unimpressive from the "things he could fail not that hard or not fail at all".
Then again, for some reason Americans prefer observing the Gay-marrige show(which is irrelevant really, because marrige is mostly a formality which makes managing the children and inheritance stuff easier, which is not a trouble of gays at all, since they cant have children of each-other anyways),
the "should the goverment pay for your condoms" show(again condom industry will no doubt raise prices, and get more revenue in case it would be implemented, so who is getting lobbied and why is obvious)
the "should we invade country X, or withdraw forces, or what",
and all the other irrelevant bullshit, american politicians love to feed.
As for the entire campaigns about "allow/prohibit" I will tell you an interesting story.
Our current President went on campaign to make Russian language a second official language since 2004.
He is in the office since 2010, and he has the parliament majority, but as soon as he got in the office the "second language promice" just gone from the screen. Before becoming president, he speached in Russian.
As president he speaches in Ukrainian.
The "second language" is quite painful debate in the country, but IF he does legislate it, he will loose one of strong aces in his/his party election promises deck, while alienating the ones that do not want second state language. Lose/lose situation.
Same will be for the Gay marriages, AND Drugs, and many other things. Democrats will not push for gay marriages strong because there is no danger to loose the votes of this folks any time soon,(because there are only two parties, and Republicans have other position) and after legislation is done, and country moved along, gays can look at other issues, and vote based on preferences other than Gay-marriage position.
|
On May 10 2012 08:16 naastyOne wrote:
Looking from Ukraine here.
While Obama probably was not the worst president, he simply failed like 90% or more of what he promised.
That is quite a big issue, because there is a HUGE difference between the president that is actually proposing a program and doing it with reasonable success, and the gue who Makes program, and than does something absolutely different.
Can you elaborate on this statement... that he failed at 90% or more of what he promised? Source, please?
|
On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear.
My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
