Trump says he’d consider overturning same-sex marriage in shock U-turn

[Kujako]

I always wondered, Why do you care?

Like, if I got with some dude and started pounding him in the butt, how does that effect you? Can you feel it or something? If me and dude get married, does someone report it to you ASAP? Are you forced to be in the wedding? Are you legally obligated to be present each time we make love?

Cause for the life of me, I can't see how the fuck it is any of your concern? And even on a religious basis, I can go out and sacrifice baby goats to SATAN and piss on the cross, AT CHURCH and you would still like me more than a gay couple I bet. So what is the REAL story?

Well... they seem to think that gays cause earthquakes and hurricanes.

[Breccia]

Well in any event, after two divorces, four corporate bankruptcies and two hilarious Birther attempts, Trump has no business telling ANYONE what a legally-defined contract is.

Oh, and since his second wife didn't beget an heir, he has no business discussing "traditional" marriage, either.

[Sky High]

why is he even bringing that up? he has a sizable enough chunk of the GOP base in his corner. why he is now trying to appeal to the religious or libertarians on this is beyond me. it's like he either has no clue this will hurt him in the general or what...?

[Rukh]

He needs the religious support who view him very unfavorably. In typical Trump fashion he'll say anything to appeal. But you know, real honest talker here. Says what he thinks and doesn't act like a politician.

[BrerBear]

Nuance is hard.

Clinton signed DOMA means "Clinton is against gay marriage." Facts like this are true in the minds of people who have trouble with nuance.

Seriously. At the time polls on gay marriage were about 3 to 1 against and it passed by wide margins in both houses. If Clinton hadn't signed DOMA, not only would he have been overridden we probably would have ended up with the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Constitution, as well.

[Sky High]

He needs the religious support who view him very unfavorably. In typical Trump fashion he'll say anything to appeal. But you know, real honest talker here. Says what he thinks and doesn't act like a politician.

god that video of him acting like he has EVER touched a bible is hilarious.

[Roostercogburn]

Well... they seem to think that gays cause earthquakes and hurricanes.

Oh, well that is perfectly sane and reasonable then. I mean, If each time two people had sex it caused world disasters, I would march for abstinence too. No point in us all dying if a few billion folks decided to have sex at once.

It's a good thing most of the anti-Gay marriage folks do not believe in science at all. Cause if they did this would be embarrassing.

[Orlong]

It is... The same exact license is issued to both, gay couples and straight ones. The license covers the same exact contracts, such as next of kin and visitation rights.

All of which could be taken care of with power of attorney and wills. As its been for decades. They dont need to be married

- - - Updated - - -

This. This right here is my biggest complaint about anti-gay rights conservatives. How in the name of all that is holy could gay marriage or gay sex even possibly concern you? Why do you people care what other people do in their bedrooms?

I care because they get tax breaks for being married meaning they arent paying as much in taxes as they used to meaning the rest of us now have to pay more to make up for it. I also find it to be disgusting when I see them kissing in ublic

[Xada]

Churches are not required for a marriage license, only the government issues license. A church performs weddings, which gay marriage has no impact on at all. Gay people have the right to seek a wedding in a church regardless of a marriage license. They could do it now, 10 years ago, 50 years ago... It's why when gay marriage becomes recognized, lines form at government buildings, not churches...

- - - Updated - - -



It is... The same exact license is issued to both, gay couples and straight ones. The license covers the same exact contracts, such as next of kin and visitation rights.

I think you're misinterpreting my statement, I'm saying either everyone has the right to marriage, or marriage is not a status recognized by the government for anyone. A wedding would be a religious thing, like a bar mitzvah. Marriage would be open to everyone as it goes unregulated by any institution. Almost every culture and religion recognizes a union between two (or more) individuals, nobody would be able to claim "ownership" of it. I really don't care if the gays could get married 10 or 50 years ago, both of these ideas don't care about that.

[spinner981]

Can I just say.. surprise? This is really a suprise to anyone? Trump is the biggest celebrity tv whore in the news right now, he'd sleep with anyone to win power and money, so appealing to bigots really doesn't come off as a surprise.

"Appealing to 'bigots'." *sigh*

Being against gay marriage isn't the same thing as bigotry. People really need to learn what that word means, instead of just applying it to anything and everything they personally don't think is 'right'.

Well... they seem to think that gays cause earthquakes and hurricanes.

I don't think I've ever met anybody ever that thought that gays caused earthquakes and hurricanes.

This. This right here is my biggest complaint about anti-gay rights conservatives. How in the name of all that is holy could gay marriage or gay sex even possibly concern you? Why do you people care what other people do in their bedrooms?

Asking myself that question is what lead me to be a supporter in the long run. I realized it doesn't affect me, it doesn't harm me, everyone involved is consensual. It's an expression of love, two people who want to live their lives together, and who am I to stand in the way of that? Just because it's a little weird? Well so what, a lot of things are weird. Weirdness doesn't make it wrong.

I liked the way Joe Biden's father explained it to a 17 year old Joe Biden, upon seeing two gay men. "Joey, they love each other. It’s simple. They love each other. It’s simple."

It's simple.

People need to realize that supporting something because you support its individual components doesn't mean that everyone else therefore must also support it. Of course, if you want to have an actual honest discussion about gay marriage you have to dive into meaning, which apparently nobody on these forums likes to do. They tend to just prefer sticking to the PC/SJW definitions of all things.

[Breccia]

Being against gay marriage isn't the same thing as bigotry.

It depends on your argument. Say what you want about Orlong, at least he says he's against gay marriage because of the tax breaks. Now he's wrong, in much the same way that people could be against interracial marriage because now they get tax breaks, and he could also be lying based on his "disgusting" comment that followed. But at least that argument is based on some kind of logic. A lot of people, however, are against gay marriage as part and parcel of being against homosexuality in general. That, by definition, is bigotry.

[Felya]

All of which could be taken care of with power of attorney and wills. As its been for decades. They dont need to be married

Yes, which increases bureaucracy and increases cost on the tax payer, due to increased amount of time spent with these contracts. Any other areas you are interested in increasing bureaucracy and wasting tax payer money?

[spinner981]

It depends on your argument. Say what you want about Orlong, at least he says he's against gay marriage because of the tax breaks. Now he's wrong, in much the same way that people could be against interracial marriage because now they get tax breaks, and he could also be lying based on his "disgusting" comment that followed. But at least that argument is based on some kind of logic. A lot of people, however, are against gay marriage as part and parcel of being against homosexuality in general. That, by definition, is bigotry.

So, being against something, is bigotry then, no matter what it is your against? That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from your own 'logical' conclusion.

The actual definition of bigot is as follows:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

That could be interpreted to refer to any person who is basically against anything. But it seems to me that people tend to prefer to apply it arbitrarily to whatever situation they like, regardless of what is actually going on.

Of course, also going by this definition, being utterly intolerant of the opinion that murder is acceptable would also be bigotry, the same kind of bigotry as being utterly intolerant of X marriage, or X religion, or X political stance. Yet people treat 'bigotry' as something that is inherently wrong, inherently worthy of slander.

[Felya]

Being against gay marriage isn't the same thing as bigotry. People really need to learn what that word means, instead of just applying it to anything and everything they personally don't think is 'right'.

There is nothing else it can really be. Marriage license does not hinge on religion, so that's a red herring. Lacking a marriage license does not inhibit ceremonies or buying celebratory goods by gay people, so that's a red herring. Not having a marriage license increases bureaucracy and role of government by requiring several contracts to represent the same thing, so that's a red herring as it opposes fundamental conservative values. Being against all marriage, is not synonymous with being against all marriage, which makes that a red herring. If not bigotry, then what is it?

- - - Updated - - -

That could be interpreted to refer to any person who is basically against anything. But it seems to me that people tend to prefer to apply it arbitrarily to whatever situation they like, regardless of what is actually going on.

Only if they don't know the meaning of intolerance.

[Breccia]

So, being against something, is bigotry then, no matter what it is your against?

That is exactly the opposite of what you read and responded to. The very first line I wrote was "It depends on your argument". Please try to keep up.

[spinner981]

There is nothing else it can really be. Marriage license does not hinge on religion, so that's a red herring. Lacking a marriage license does not inhibit ceremonies or buying celebratory goods by gay people, so that's a red herring. Not having a marriage license increases bureaucracy and role of government by requiring several contracts to represent the same thing, so that's a red herring as it opposes fundamental conservative values. Being against all marriage, is not synonymous with being against all marriage, which makes that a red herring. If not bigotry, then what is it?

Wait, "Being against all marriage, is not synonymous with being against all marriage"? I assume that was a typo? I am guessing the first was intended to say 'gay marriage'.

What is it? I dunno, because if mere disagreement is the same thing as bigotry, then why isn't everyone labeled a bigot all the time?

Only if they don't know the meaning of intolerance.

Not knowing the meaning of intolerance is probably going to be so basic to our culture in a few years that it might become genetic.

That is exactly the opposite of what you read and responded to. The very first line I wrote was "It depends on your argument". Please try to keep up.

I ignored that, because "It depends on your argument." is really saying "I get to decide what is or isn't bigotry, based on which arguments I do or don't like.". It's a cop-out, an arbitrary PC cop-out, basically. Please try to keep up.

[Breccia]

I ignored that, because "It depends on your argument." is really saying "I get to decide what is or isn't bigotry, based on which arguments I do or don't like.". It's a cop-out, an arbitrary PC cop-out, basically.

This is once again a fun demonstration that you didn't read what you responded to. I was very specific in saying Orlong was probably wrong, when he said he was against gay marriage because of tax breaks. It's a bad argument. But it wasn't, at face value, bigotry. Why? The definition you posted. He wasn't demonstrating intolerance towards a creed, belief, or opinion. He didn't want to pay more money. That's not bigotry. It doesn't fit the definition. Whether I like it or not, isn't relevant.

By contrast, someone who is against gay marriage because they are against homosexuality in general, just because they think homosexuality is wrong, possibly but not necessarily because of their religion, is demonstrating bigotry. By the definition. Which you quoted.

[Roostercogburn]

I always take issue when someone puts words in your mouth to argue against.

If someone says "It depends" then that is what they said. DO NOT write "So you hate all XXX" and then proceed to argue against it. It makes you look stupid as shit.

It shows you do not care about what they said and refuse to understand. It shows how your brain is actually working. As in, you are just fabricating shit you don't like that you can try and pin on the other person. It means you disagree on pure bias alone, and you actually cannot even understand why you disagree. You just do.

[Felya]

Wait, "Being against all marriage, is not synonymous with being against all marriage"? I assume that was a typo? I am guessing the first was intended to say 'gay marriage'.

What is it? I dunno, because if mere disagreement is the same thing as bigotry, then why isn't everyone labeled a bigot all the time?

Yes to the first thing.

The fact that you don't know, at least implies intolerance that is inherent in bigotry. Being against something for no discernible reason is what intolerance means. It's not just disagreement, as being called an ass hole has an obvious reason for disagreement. Being against the idea of a primordial atom, is not intolerance, because there is a disagreement on what data is used. Being against gay marriage, without a reason for it, is the intolerance in bigotry.

Not knowing the meaning of intolerance is probably going to be so basic to our culture in a few years that it might become genetic.

Going to be? It's already heavily misused when talking about insults. There are already many people on this forum alone, who think not being able to insult is intolerance, completely ignoring what accepting an insult actually means.

I ignored that, because "It depends on your argument." is really saying "I get to decide what is or isn't bigotry, based on which arguments I do or don't like.". It's a cop-out, an arbitrary PC cop-out, basically. Please try to keep up.

Depending on the argument is how you separate intolerance and difference in opinion. Saying gay marriage shouldn't be without a reason is bigotry. Giving a reason, but ignoring what makes it illegitimate, is bigotry. The reason behind the argument is what makes it bigotry, the fact that you would suggest it's a cop out, is absurd.

I'll go on a limb and combine your whole reply... Saying that any disagreement results in calls for bigotry, is because you think asking for explanation is a PC cop out... Instead of the reason for being called bigoted...

[spinner981]

This is once again a fun demonstration that you didn't read what you responded to. I was very specific in saying Orlong was probably wrong, when he said he was against gay marriage because of tax breaks. It's a bad argument. But it wasn't, at face value, bigotry. Why? The definition you posted. He wasn't demonstrating intolerance towards a creed, belief, or opinion. He didn't want to pay more money. That's not bigotry. It doesn't fit the definition. Whether I like it or not, isn't relevant.

By contrast, someone who is against gay marriage because they are against homosexuality in general, just because they think homosexuality is wrong, possibly but not necessarily because of their religion, is demonstrating bigotry. By the definition. Which you quoted.

Intolerant:

not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

Tolerant:

to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.

Respect:

to hold in esteem or honor:

So if we go by these definitions, any belief, opinion, usage, manner, etc. that you don't hold in esteem or honor, or allow to exist as a presence, practice or act without prohibition, is the same bigotry that you claim people exhibit when saying that they think homosexuality is wrong.

If we do want to go by these definitions, that means that you must respect or allow the practices of all people, beliefs, worldviews, etc. or else that makes you a bigot. Which in that case it's kind of pointless because then everyone would be a bigot, the same kind of bigot, by definition that is.

Unless you want to adopt a different definition. These definitions from Dictionary.com seem to be very wide ranging, basically able to be applied to anything. But if you say X is bigotry because of how they respond to Y, but then you don't say that Y is bigotry despite responding in the same exact way to X, you're being a hypocrite, by definition.