[release](CNN) - Asked how he plans to engage the gay community in his bid for president, Newt Gingrich on Tuesday told a voter he wouldn't be the right choice for those basing their decision on the issue of same-sex marriage.
"If that's the most important (issue) to you, then you should be for Obama," Gingrich told Scott Arnold, a man who identified himself as gay.
"Okay. I am, but thank you," Arnold replied.[/release]
[url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/gingrich-to-gay-man-vote-for-obama/]Source[/url]
ok i vote for obama
Hahahah oh wow.
Please don't tell me I'm the only one who thinks this was a logical and friendly thing for Gingrich to say.
[QUOTE=Andokool12;33866413]Please don't tell me I'm the only one who thinks this was a logical and friendly thing for Gingrich to say.[/QUOTE]
He already knows that he's lost a lot of groups who would have voted for him. He's not exactly clean and is just extremely desperate to get elected.
I wonder what percentage the gay population makes up of the general election population.
Still, stupid move on Gingrich's part. Gay rights are inevitable at this point.
There is [b]no[/b] reason to oppose gay marriage besides being a bigot or an asshole.
Then when you think about the fact this guy is running on "traditional" values and fucked around behind his dying wifes back? I mean, come on. How could you glaze over these facts and vote for this asshole?
Well, uh, at least he was honest I guess.
Huh. Refreshing, if a bit sad.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;33866469]There is [b]no[/b] reason to oppose gay marriage besides being a bigot or an asshole.
Then when you think about the fact this guy is running on "traditional" values and fucked around behind his dying wifes back? I mean, come on. How could you glaze over these facts and vote for this asshole?[/QUOTE]
but but but but
butt sex is WRONG and AGAINST LORD JEHEZUS CHRIAST!
Well kudos for being honest, but he's still a douchenozzle.
[QUOTE=J!NX;33866594]but but but but
butt sex is WRONG and AGAINST LORD JEHEZUS CHRIAST![/QUOTE]
Your avatar makes this post all the better.
At least he's honest.
Even if I were gay, I wouldn't vote for someone only depending on their views on gay marriage.
Still wouldn't vote for Newt though
I was planning to do that anyway, Gingrinch. I wouldn't vote for you or anyone in your party anyway.
[sub][sp]Yes, Gingrinch.[/sp][/sub]
While I do want to get married someday, I admire his honesty. Still voting for Obama regardless.
So he's instantly lost, what, 7-10% of the electorate?
Smooth.
Gingrich is a dickwipe, and this is coming from a Republican.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;33866469]There is [b]no[/b] reason to oppose gay marriage besides being a bigot or an asshole.
[/QUOTE]
oh goody
ignoring the arguments for gay marriage, it's always much easier just to blanketly demonise those who oppose you. yes that's very intelligent humanabyss, good on you.
e: honestly that is such a ridiculously small-minded thing to say - akin to saying anyone against abortion hates women, or anyone religious is stupid.
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867797]oh goody
ignoring the arguments for gay marriage, it's always much easier just to blanketly demonise those who oppose you. yes that's very intelligent humanabyss, good on you.[/QUOTE]
well it's not like any arguments used against it are logical anyways
it's honestly true that gay marriage would not really be a problem to those who actually oppose it. it would simply bother them that it exists, and that's not fair to ban something on that retarded paranoid basis
Everyone has to deal with a bit of conservative apologism occasionally.
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867797]oh goody
ignoring the arguments for gay marriage, it's always much easier just to blanketly demonise those who oppose you. yes that's very intelligent humanabyss, good on you.
e: honestly that is such a ridiculously small-minded thing to say - akin to saying anyone against abortion hates women, or anyone religious is stupid.[/QUOTE]
can you point out to me an argument against gay marriage that isn't being a bigot or an asshole
look down.
[QUOTE=KingKombat;33867839]well it's not like any arguments used against it are logical anyways
it's honestly true that gay marriage would not really be a problem to those who actually oppose it. it would simply bother them that it exists, and that's not fair to ban something on that retarded paranoid basis[/QUOTE]
there's a number of arguments such as
- marriage is a convention, by definition, between a man and a woman. opponents of gay marriage often use historical precedent to support this by saying gay marriage (not gay partnerships) have never existed. this argument does not rest on a hatred for homosexuals, nor an inherent "asshole"ishness. it is commonly used in conjunction with supporting civil partnerships for gay couples which are given the same legal status under secular law as a marriage, but not considered a marriage by definition.
- religious reasoning - christianity, for instance, believes that christ defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. this is also not based on a hatred for gays, or on being evil. it is again a case of marriage having a definition.
- the above arguments are often supported by the "not just love" line. gay marriage proponents often suggest that for a marriage, "all you need is love". opponents may argue that if all you need is love, what is to stop a marriage between a man and a child, or a man and an animal, or multiple people. this is also based on logic, rather than on blind hatred.
- gay marriage can also be opposed on grounds of its effect on children. opponents of gay marriage often also associate marriage as a social institution vital to producing children, as it would provide the most stable upbringing for a developing mind and body. they argue that there are potential ramifications for a same-sex couple therefore raising a child in terms of psychological development, and that insufficient evidence exists to prove that having two daddies and no mummy produces no adverse effects from having the dual gender influence of one mummy and one daddy.
there you go. there's arguments against gay marriage. none of them are based on bigotry, or being an asshole. feel free to disagree, but your disagreeing with them doesn't suddenly make opponents into evil people.
e: the lack of empathy in facepunch is astounding. i often disagree with people on a range of issues. however, i don't consider them necessarily immoral for doing so. it's a common trick of the left to try and take the moral high ground when an issue is really quite complex, and that's sad. i suggest a number of you try developing your interpersonal skills, particularly in the area of empathy - it'll be quite a boon down the track, i assure you.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33867621]So he's instantly lost, what, 7-10% of the electorate?
Smooth.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Gingrich or any of the GOP was trying to represent homosexuals in any way from the start. He was just saying things as they were, and it's nice to have a nice upfront answer in politics once in a while.
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]- marriage is a convention, by definition, between a man and a woman. opponents of gay marriage often use historical precedent to support this by saying gay marriage (not gay partnerships) have never existed. this argument does not rest on a hatred for homosexuals, nor an inherent "asshole"ishness. it is commonly used in conjunction with supporting civil partnerships for gay couples which are given the same legal status under secular law as a marriage, but not considered a marriage by definition.[/quote]
"The traditional institution of marriage" is a myth. Marriage in its current form by and large didn't exist until about 200 years ago. Before that, it was more of a contract between families, and/or saying that the man owned the woman. Granted, not all marriages were like this, but a significant fraction were. To claim that gay marriage should not be allowed because it violates the tradition of marriage implies that this particular tradition is A Good Thing. Problem is, you can't selectively pick the good things about it and ignore the bad - you have to include the parts where the woman was property of the man, otherwise you're not arguing from tradition, you're arguing from your idealised version of tradition. This reduces to bigotry.
[quote]- religious reasoning - christianity, for instance, believes that christ defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. this is also not based on a hatred for gays, or on being evil. it is again a case of marriage having a definition.[/quote]
Definitions are not intrinsic things. Humans beings are where definitions come from. If Christ said that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, that isn't a statement about marriage, it's a statement about Christ - namely that he was a bigot.
[quote]- the above arguments are often supported by the "not just love" line. gay marriage proponents often suggest that for a marriage, "all you need is love". opponents may argue that if all you need is love, what is to stop a marriage between a man and a child, or a man and an animal, or multiple people. this is also based on logic, rather than on blind hatred. [/quote]
Faulty logic, maybe ...
Children and animals can't give informed consent, as for polygamy why not? In doing this, there's the implicit degradation of gay relationships to be on the level of animals and children, hence: asshole.
[quote]- gay marriage can also be opposed on grounds of its effect on children. opponents of gay marriage often also associate marriage as a social institution vital to producing children, as it would provide the most stable upbringing for a developing mind and body. they argue that there are potential ramifications for a same-sex couple therefore raising a child in terms of psychological development, and that insufficient evidence exists to prove that having two daddies and no mummy produces no adverse effects from having the dual gender influence of one mummy and one daddy.[/quote]
Granted, I'll admit that this one doesn't fall within the purview of "bigot" or "asshole". Rather, it falls within the camp of "scientific illiteracy". In short, there's insufficient evidence presented to disprove the null hypothesis (that gay relationships have not effect on child-rearing).
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]
e: the lack of empathy in facepunch is astounding. i often disagree with people on a range of issues. however, i don't consider them necessarily immoral for doing so. it's a common trick of the left to try and take the moral high ground when an issue is really quite complex, and that's sad. i suggest a number of you try developing your interpersonal skills, particularly in the area of empathy - it'll be quite a boon down the track, i assure you.[/QUOTE]
You're right, you don't consider the people who disagree with you to be immoral, you just consider them to be deceptive and unempathic.
Well Gingrich, I appreciate your honesty and frankness on the matter. You have gained +2 respect in my eyes.
That still leaves you at -62 respect, though.
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]e: the lack of empathy in facepunch is astounding. i often disagree with people on a range of issues. however, i don't consider them necessarily immoral for doing so.[/quote]
Swing ...
[quote]it's a common trick of the left[/quote]
... and miss
It must take some extraordinary feat of mental gymnastics to not see the hypocrisy there.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;33866469]There is [b]no[/b] reason to oppose gay marriage besides being a bigot or an asshole.
Then when you think about the fact this guy is running on "traditional" values and fucked around behind his dying wifes back? I mean, come on. How could you glaze over these facts and vote for this asshole?[/QUOTE]
Amnesia
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33867621]So he's instantly lost, what, 7-10% of the electorate?
Smooth.[/QUOTE]
Is that what running candicacy is all about? Telling people what they want to hear so you get some votes?
As much as I loathe Gingrich, I think the world would be a much better place if all politicians were atleast as forthcoming as him. Then again, this is probably also some sort of PR stunt so I wouldn't even trust his motivations behind the statement being genuine honesty.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
