Con_Alma;1171570 wrote:I vote for candidates not parties.

I would not vote for an individual that didn't believe in a black person's right to vote. Would you?

I thought you already asked that!?

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

cruiser_96;1171583 wrote:I thought you already asked that!?

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

I do my best to answer his questions when addressed to me. I am hoping he will do the same.

in our society people have core beliefs about marriage and race.
it is easy to support black suffrage in 2012 when it is just about universially accepted. It is not hard to support mixed marriage in 2012, it is widely accepted it is a little more difficult to accept gay marriage an issue that produce some controversy but 50% of the American people accept it
in 1856 it was difficult to accept black suffrage, neither major party accepted it. Almost no one believed in mixed marriage. And gay marriage was not even considered. Tolerance has increased and people's core beliefs have changed for the better.

Yes, we have covered that.

It doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't vote for someone who didn't believe a black man should vote. Would you?

Basically a couple more generations need to die out for this thing to get passed....that has historically been how it has worked with other civil rights issues.

Con_Alma;1171622 wrote:Yes, we have covered that.

It doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't vote for someone who didn't believe a black man should vote. Would you?

no one grows in your world, it remain a land of munchkins and lillipudlians.

isadore;1172145 wrote:no one grows in your world, it remain a land of munchkins and lillipudlians.

Of course they grow...or at least I hope they do. That's not the focus of the question.

The question is would you vote for them before they had grown to a point that would be acceptable to you? Would you know for certainty they would grow to that point?

Would you vote for a candidate that didn't believe in letting a black man vote?

Con_Alma;1172635 wrote:Of course they grow...or at least I hope they do. That's not the focus of the question.

The question is would you vote for them before they had grown to a point that would be acceptable to you? Would you know for certainty they would grow to that point?

Would you vote for a candidate that didn't believe in letting a black man vote?

of course i would support black suffrage, intermarriage and gay marriage. Even though in 1787 none of the founders would have. of course if they had lived in current times the core beliefs of many would have evolved. Washington's core beliefs on slavery evolved during his life time to support manumission of his slaves in his will. lincoln's core beliefs on blacks evolved so he was able to support suffrage for black veterans by his death. our greatest leaders evolve in their core beliefs.

isadore;1172652 wrote:of course i would support black suffrage, intermarriage and gay marriage. ....

I don't doubt that but that's not what I asked.

Would you vote for a President who didn't believe in letting a black man vote? I wouldn't.

New poll in North Carolina:

Romney 51
obama 43


Welcome back home to the RED states.

Con_Alma;1172765 wrote:I don't doubt that but that's not what I asked.

Would you vote for a President who didn't believe in letting a black man vote? I wouldn't.

And would you vote for a Muslim????

Con_Alma;1172765 wrote:I don't doubt that but that's not what I asked.

Would you vote for a President who didn't believe in letting a black man vote? I wouldn't.

the good thing for me is the
Abe Lincoln and George Washington showed the ability of change their core beliefs toward greater tolerance as they became increasingly informed, so they would of course support black suffrage, intermarriage and gay marriage. They were able to grow and not frozen in position like you.

isadore;1173198 wrote:the good thing for me is the
Abe Lincoln and George Washington showed the ability of change their core beliefs toward greater tolerance as they became increasingly informed, so they would of course support black suffrage, intermarriage and gay marriage. They were able to grow and not frozen in position like you.

Washington's slaves were not released until after his death. That is more of an attitude of others should not own slaves than it is of him changing his beliefs in regards to him owning slaves.

isadore;1173198 wrote:the good thing for me is the
Abe Lincoln and George Washington showed the ability of change their core beliefs toward greater tolerance as they became increasingly informed, so they would of course support black suffrage, intermarriage and gay marriage. They were able to grow and not frozen in position like you.

It is not an issue of tolerance, for the most part, as most of us do not care if two people of the same sex want to share/spend their life together. The issue for many is calling it 'gay marriage', because there is no such thing. The term marriage, by definition, precludes such a thing as gay marriage. Most do not want the term re-defined by progressives. Therefore it is probably best to call the relationship something other than marriage, and simply move on, instead of continually attempting to re-define it, and infringing on those who are married according to its historic meaning and context.

Obama has raked in some serious campaign cash since stating his position on gay marriage (which was nothing more than, "I support it personally, won't do a thing about it legislatively or policy-wise, and believe it should be left up to individual states").

Anyone who thinks he didn't do this for political reasons is sorely deluded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-gay-marriage-announcement-followed-by-flood-of-campaign-donations/2012/05/10/gIQA2ntCGU_story.html

QuakerOats;1173272 wrote:The term marriage, by definition, precludes such a thing as gay marriage. Most do not want the term re-defined by progressives. Therefore it is probably best to call the relationship something other than marriage, and simply move on, instead of continually attempting to re-define it, and infringing on those who are married according to its historic meaning and context.

Or we could realize that the definition of many words have evolved or even come to mean something completely different over time. That way, we can give up weak, disingenuous arguments like this one to deny people the same rights we enjoy.

I just don't understand how we as a society wish to or have the right to make these type of decisions for other people. If they want to get married from a legal perspective in the courts than it should be allowed. No one is trying to get "married" in a church, therefore the religious definition of marriage still stands (which is where it is based anyways). Gay marriage is a legal practice that should be no different than a heterosexual couple getting married by a judge.

Al Bundy;1173251 wrote:Washington's slaves were not released until after his death. That is more of an attitude of others should not own slaves than it is of him changing his beliefs in regards to him owning slaves.

his core beliefs were evolving, some quotes from Washington from the 1780s and 90s
In 1786, he wrote to a friend that "I never mean ... to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees."
To another friend he wrote that "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the
abolition" of slavery
"I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principal." [

Anyone who thinks he didn't do this for political reasons is sorely deluded.

+1 ...This was more about politics and fundraising than it was about 'evolving core values' or whatever you want to call it.

His early positions favored civil unions, but he "devolved" enough his position so he sit the fence, not get anyone pissed off, and get elected. However, NOW he can reassert his earlier positions because...no one who is against same sex marraige is going to vote for him anyway...and at the same time he could pick up lots of support from gays who normally wouldn't support him because of his other positions, but because of this hot button issue would switch their alliegance. ...And the coffers will overflow too.

QuakerOats;1173272 wrote:It is not an issue of tolerance, for the most part, as most of us do not care if two people of the same sex want to share/spend their life together. The issue for many is calling it 'gay marriage', because there is no such thing. The term marriage, by definition, precludes such a thing as gay marriage. Most do not want the term re-defined by progressives. Therefore it is probably best to call the relationship something other than marriage, and simply move on, instead of continually attempting to re-define it, and infringing on those who are married according to its historic meaning and context.

yes we used to have that definition of marriage that it must be between people of the same race, but peoples core beliefs evolved and they will continue to evolve. it seem that many of the opponents of gay marriage like to quote Leviticus.

The point raised by Quaker is a good one. If the cause is truley about getting same sex couples rights and benefits afforded to hetrosexual couples, then that cause would be best served simply by using a different term...civil unions, life partnerships etc. To insist on redefining 'marraige' in the face of those people who hold the institution sacred, smacks of a different agenda, ...one that is not nearly as benign.

HitsRus;1173356 wrote:The point raised by Quaker is a good one. If the cause is truley about getting same sex couples rights and benefits afforded to hetrosexual couples, then that cause would be best served simply by using a different term...civil unions, life partnerships etc. To insist on redefining 'marraige' in the face of those people who hold the institution sacred, smacks of a different agenda, ...one that is not nearly as benign.

But why is the terminology such a sticking point? Words are just words after all, therefore names and titles are meaningless. Calling it a marriage doesn't take away from the traditional religious definition of marriage. I don't think anyone is protesting that gay people should be allowed to get married in a church, synagogue, etc.....Since a marriage by a judge is different from a traditional religious marriage ceremony anyways, it really shouldn't make a difference.

isadore;1173198 wrote:the good thing for me is the
Abe Lincoln and George Washington showed the ability of change their core beliefs toward greater tolerance as they became increasingly informed, so they would of course support black suffrage, intermarriage and gay marriage. They were able to grow and not frozen in position like you.

...but before they grew you wouldn't have known if they would evolve or not and if they did what would they adapt that position into.

Are you saying you would vote for a candidate the at the time of the vote didn't believe a black man should vote in the hopes that his view would adapt?

But why is the terminology such a sticking point?

Not exactly sure, but apparently it is to some...and that is all is important. I would surmise that some regard it as a sacred institution created/sanctioned by God....and it is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and intimacy. Most religious people here in America do accept the necessary secular nature of government and do accept the protection afforded to religious freedom by the Constitutiuon. Hence they react when they feel the government, or the government is being used to change what is traditionally valued. The question becomes why aggravate these people? Why force them to accept a change in traditional terminology? Why mandate things that are attacks on religious beliefs.

There is a big difference between "permitting" and "allowing"...and having something forced upon you.

HitsRus;1173561 wrote:Not exactly sure, but apparently it is to some...and that is all is important. I would surmise that some regard it as a sacred institution created/sanctioned by God....and it is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and intimacy. Most religious people here in America do accept the necessary secular nature of government and do accept the protection afforded to religious freedom by the Constitutiuon. Hence they react when they feel the government, or the government is being used to change what is traditionally valued. The question becomes why aggravate these people? Why force them to accept a change in traditional terminolgy? Why mandate things that are attacks on religious beliefs.

There is a big difference between "permitting" and allowing...and having something forced upon you.

gays are working to have civil marriage legalized, which is a secular service of state governments. As to terminology, we could look at the example of the Loving case about mixed marriage. The majority of Americans in 1967 opposed the marriage of a mixed raise couple. Should they have been appeased by offering the mixed race couple a civil union instead of marriage. NO!