• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama and the Gay Military...

Darth Rotor said:
No to the first, yes to the second.

I don't believe that President Obama considers gays a bunch of freaks.

I agree with your take on his list of priorities, at the moment, holding those down his list a ways.

Whether or not that changes in time is anyone's guess.

I don't think your pessimism is warranted, unless you are impatient, or do not believe he'll hold his Congressional advantage after the 2010 elections. I don't see the GOP getting sorted out by then, so he's got until 2011-2012.

DR
Click to expand...

Well I guess I have no other option than to be paitient but my pessimism is based on the facts of what he has done and said thus far.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Well I guess I have no other option than to be paitient but my pessimism is based on the facts of what he has done and said thus far.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

FWIW, and IMO, he is far more likely to be flexible, and adjust his position, than any of his predecessors were. ;)
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
I don't think your pessimism is warranted, unless you are impatient, or do not believe he'll hold his Congressional advantage after the 2010 elections. I don't see the GOP getting sorted out by then, so he's got until 2011-2012.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that while he will retain a congressional advantage, I think he will lose seats in both the House and Senate. He's having a hard enough time pushing something divisive about health care through, even with what technically amounts to an overwhelming (filibuster-proof) majority.

With forty-five Republicans in the Senate instead of forty, even the equivalent of a three-line whip couldn't guarantee passage of a controversial bill.
 
drkitten said:
I disagree. I think that while he will retain a congressional advantage, I think he will lose seats in both the House and Senate. He's having a hard enough time pushing something divisive about health care through, even with what technically amounts to an overwhelming (filibuster-proof) majority. With forty-five Republicans in the Senate instead of forty, even the equivalent of a three-line whip couldn't guarantee passage of a controversial bill.
Click to expand...
It takes 51 votes to pass a change in the rules, but the filibuster could run this bill into the ground. Is that the problem?

I agree with you that this is a risk, but in two years time, he won't be "the new guy" anymore. President Obama will be in a better position to make a stand, or let the GOP make a spectacle of themselves over this bill which in the long term they lose face over, and may cost them in a fight over other legislation.

It may not be Obama -- maybe David Axlrod or a few other advisers -- but my take away on Obama from the election campaign is that he is capable of sound strategic thinking, as well as applying strategy and tactics to a particular problem.

Alt+F4's strongest point for pessimism is "When does this get to a spot on the priority list" and thus get legislative action?

As I mull this over, I better appreciate that concern.

Look at how Bush's inner circle took advantage of the Fundy consituency. (Forget the author, and the book, vintage 2006/2007 that describe this, only read a review). The is politically analogous to the Fundy position on banning abortion: "Why didn't that get to the top of the list?" Or, on the Nativist position "When is Bush gonna fix that border with Mexico?"

Were, or are, perish the thought, the gay voters being used or taken for granted by the Democratic party's strategists?

"They'll never vote GOP, so we can take their vote for granted, no matter what we do on issues X, Y, and Z that our gay constituency cares deeply about."

That is possible. I don't know.

DR
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
That still does not support what Alt+F4 said in the quote. I will have to look for it.
Click to expand...

Because he is taking them to their extreme. If you can't marry someone because they are too young it is pedophilia, if you can't because you are related it is incest.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because he is taking them to their extreme. If you can't marry someone because they are too young it is pedophilia, if you can't because you are related it is incest.
Click to expand...

It's she darling. :)

I wasn't taking them to their extreme. A marriage between an uncle and neice is incest. And while the age of consent in New Jersey is now 16, I don't believe it was in 1958 when the case mentioned in the brief was heard.

Even if you don't want to use the words pedophile or incest what does this brief say about the administration take on gay issues?
 
Alt+F4 said:
It's she darling. :)

I wasn't taking them to their extreme. A marriage between an uncle and neice is incest. And while the age of consent in New Jersey is now 16, I don't believe it was in 1958 when the case mentioned in the brief was heard.

Even if you don't want to use the words pedophile or incest what does this brief say about the administration take on gay issues?
Click to expand...

You might want to research the meaning of "pedophilia" if you think that describes marriage to a 16-year-old.
 
zooterkin said:
You might want to research the meaning of "pedophilia" if you think that describes marriage to a 16-year-old.
Click to expand...

Do you have an opinion on the case in question: Wilkins v. Zelichowski? Did the judge rule incorrectly in this case?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Do you have an opinion on the case in question: Wilkins v. Zelichowski? Did the judge rule incorrectly in this case?
Click to expand...

What relevance does that have to your decision to use a word like 'pedophilia' to refer to that case?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Is the legal definition prepubescents or just "children"? What was the legal definition in 1958?
Click to expand...

Pedophilia is not a crime, as such it has no legal definition. That tends to be sex abuse of a child or in this case not being able to be legaly married.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Pedophilia is not a crime, as such it has no legal definition. That tends to be sex abuse of a child or in this case not being able to be legaly married.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The pedophilia in itself is not a crime, it's the sex that is. I had the link at work, can't find it right now, that the age of consent in New Jersey was 18 in 1958. Therefore, the marriage was declared void due to it being sexually criminal in New Jersey at that time.

Perhaps statutory rape might be a more appropriate term? Ok, the Obama administration was not comparing gay marriage to pedophilia, it was comparing gay marriage to rape.

Obama, homophobia we can believe in!
 
Alt+F4 said:
You are correct. The pedophilia in itself is not a crime, it's the sex that is.
Click to expand...
There. Was. No. Pedophilia.



Ok, the Obama administration was not comparing gay marriage to pedophilia, it was comparing gay marriage to rape.
Click to expand...
Only inasmuch as they were examining how differences in marriage laws between the states were treated. And in some of the states (not to mention many European countries), sex with someone who is 16 is not statutory rape.
 
zooterkin said:
And in some of the states (not to mention many European countries), sex with someone who is 16 is not statutory rape.
Click to expand...

The case didn't involve some states or Europe. It involved the law in effect in New Jersey in 1958.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom