This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

I understand people not wanting to think ill of friends because they voted for Prop 8 based on christian values. My brother argues that being gay is a sin. I am Catholic and I have heard gays referred to as deviant during homilies (very very few homilies and it was by a deacon not a priest). That is why I believe that religion and politics don't mix well. I think gays have a place in the church and God loves all his children.

I think Wales' friend is probably an intelligent person trying to reconcile personal religious views with public policy. I also say that is why we have constitutions, to guarantee the rights of the individual and to protect individuals from government actions. The courts also should continue to uphold the equal protection clauses of both the state and national constitutions. I heard Gov. Arnold talking about that on CNN. He wants the courts to overturn the election.

One point, and I say this with the acknowledgement that for many christians its not fair, but the KKK was founded in the protestant christian movement and KKK members still argue they are on a mission from God. I consider myself a Christian and I am a practicing Catholic. But, you know, we have to be careful when we fall in line behind religious arguments. I do not think everyone who voted for Prop 8 is a bigot, but I also do not think denying civil liberties is an appropriate topic for the ballot.

If indeed gay marriage is a moral issue rooted in christianity, then let states say it's fine, and allow churches to make the decision on whether to perform the ceremonies and to recognize gay families as part of their communities of faith.

Tyson:

The Bible was "written" by the prophets/apostles, however it was inspired by God.

Kenneth:

Do you believe in the separation of church and state? As an American citizen, do you believe that the separation of church and state should be upheld, or do you believe that the laws of religion should also apply to the laws of America?

Tyson:

Actually the LDS church was within its constitutional rights to do what it did with Prop 8.

Kenneth:

That is not an answer to my question.

Kenneth:

I'm asking if you personally believe in the separation of church and state.

Tyson:

Oh, okay.

Tyson:

Yes.

Kenneth:

Okay. So in other words, you don't believe that the laws of religion should also dictate/apply to the laws of America, right?

Tyson:

I'm sorry Kenneth, however we are asked not to discuss political matters. However, because Proposition 8 determined the outcome of a moral belief of mankind.

Kenneth:

Did you just talk to your supervisor or something?

Tyson:

No.

Kenneth:

Does the Bible condone divorce? For those that are really interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage, wouldn't they also be interested in seeing what they could do about making divorce illegal?

Tyson:

The church does discourage divorce.

Kenneth:

Why do I not see the churches spending millions of dollars on Propositions to ban divorce then? I think it's less about preserving marriage and more about supporting discrimination.

Tyson:

I'm sorry Kenneth. The purpose of this chat site is to answer questions concerning the contents of mormon.org. Your questions would be best answered by a local LDS church authority.

Kenneth:

They speak about homosexuality in the contents of mormon.org. That's what we're discussing, isn't it?

Tyson:

Yes.

Kenneth:

I want to share something with you. It's not political, it's personal.

Tyson:

Ok.

Kenneth:

I want you to know that being gay is not a choice. It is not something that we wake up one day and decide to me. It is something that we simply are. How could something that is not even in our control be wrong? When I was younger, I prayed to God with the sincerest intent. I can't tell you how depressed I was... suicidal even. Just begging God to make me straight. How am I an abomination just for being me?

Kenneth:

Hello?

Kenneth:

Are you there?

He won't answer your questions because he doesn't know how.

Now he just keeps pasting a link to the same article over and over and over. I'm pretty sure he's doing it on purpose. He's sent it to me about 50 times now.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/pu...nder-attraction

LoL, so Tyson disconnected us and I logged right back in, where a guy named Bryson (WTF is with the "son" names?) started chatting with me. I told him that I would like to speak with him about homosexuality, and he was like, "one moment please."

Guess who Bryson transferred me to? Tyson! LoL! I love it.

Apparently Tyson has to leave in 10 minutes so he says we'll have to make the rest of the conversation brief. How surprising.

You are speaking live with Tyson, who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Information provided in this session is to provide assistance only and is not an official statement of the Church.

Tyson:

Hello

Kenneth:

Hey Tyson. It's me again.

Tyson:

Okay.

Kenneth:

Bryson just transferred me to you when I said that I wanted to continue my discussion about homosexuality.

Kenneth:

I guess he wasn't in the mood to talk about it?

Tyson:

Yes, however I have to leave in about 10 minutes (just so you know)

Kenneth:

Anyway, do you remember where we left off?

Tyson:

I think so.

Kenneth:

Re: being gay not being a choice.

Tyson:

No, sorry

Kenneth:

I said that being gay is not a choice. It is not something that we wake up one day and decide to be.

Kenneth:

It is something that we simply are. How could something that is not even in our control be wrong? When I was younger, I prayed to God with the sincerest intent. I can't tell you how depressed I was... suicidal even. Just begging God to make me straight. How am I an abomination just for being me?

Tyson:

You aren't. And there are homosexual members of the LDS church. However, they remain abstinate from acting on those homosexual thoughts and feelings.

Kenneth:

So it's not a sin to have homosexual thoughts then?

Kenneth:

It's only a sin to act on them?

Tyson:

Did you read that article I sent you?

Kenneth:

Some of it. I told you that I wasn't interested in reading articles, I was interested in talking to you, person to person.

Kenneth:

Can you please answer my question?

Tyson:

Dwelling on those thoughts is a sin also.

Kenneth:

What about straight people having sexual thoughts. Are those also a sin?

Tyson:

Okay. I have 5 minutes left.

Tyson:

Would you like me to transfer you to someone who can talk longer?

Kenneth:

I would like that in five minutes. You still have five minutes, right?

Tyson:

Yes, if people who are straight dwell on immoral thoughts, that is a sin also.

Kenneth:

So how is living a life of nothing but celibacy (as a gay man) going to help me when I'm going to have homosexual thoughts and he sinning regardless? I can't help my thoughts.

Tyson:

I have to go very soon.

Kenneth:

Which do you think is worse -- gay marriage or the sin of divorce?

Tyson:

I cannot say. Possibly Gay Marriage.

Kenneth:

So you think it's less of a sin to break a holy union that you enter into before the eyes of God than it is for a gay couple to express their love?

Tyson:

I'm sorry, I have to go now. Have a good day. God bless.

Kenneth:

It hasn't been five minutes yet. Do you really care about this, or do you just care about the timeclock?

I think the divorce ad is great.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

What was the video about?

What was the video about?

It was basically a video which states that if people are truly interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage, they will ban divorce. After all, that IS the biggest threat to marriage, right? Of course, most people aren't interested in hearing this side of the argument... and that's because they aren't really interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage at all. The only thing they're interested in is promoting discrimination and denying human rights.

Ok this may sound really stupid and way out there but....

As a child when reading the easy to understand childrens bible it stated that all people were of one skin color, religon, and so on.

They the people of that time decided that they wanted to build a tower (called Babel I think it was) that went to heaven so that they would be able to climb it and see/talk to god.

But god didn't want that, and he made the people speak different languages, skin color, religon etc.

Well if he did do that didn't he also at the time homosexual/Bi person? If that is the case then it can't be a sin.

But I have found that one thing is that the Church and the Bible contradict each other on occassions.

The gay rights movement compared to the civil rights movement is an interesting issue.

Most of the arguments against gay marriage are rooted in religious convictions. Although discrimination is wrong regardless of the reasons why someone would attempt to justify it based on "morals", I can understand someone voting that way. Not that I agree with it. But one's relationship with God is very personal and for some, is the guiding light (pardon the pun) for the way they live thier lives. So for them, it's understandable that they would vote against gay marriage.

I struggled greatly with my religious beliefs when I was coming of age and realized I was gay. I thought that if I prayed hard enough and long enough, God would "change" me. Alas, the only thing it did was drive me into a deep depression. Since straight people usually don't go through that kind of struggle, the other side of the coin is harder for them to comprehend.

That being said, it's hard to reconcile the passage of Prop 8 in CA or Prop 2 in FL because of the religious right. They didn't see the turnout in numbers as they did in 2004 or 2000, so how did the amendments pass? One would have to assume that more independents and yes, Democrats, voted for the measures. Outside of religious convictions, it would be difficult for me to justify their voting "Yes" for the constitutional amendment. On what basis would these left-wing and moderate voters base their opinion? Tradition, perhaps? Regardless, the majority of people in both states opted to enshrine discrimination into their respective constitutions and it's shameful.

However, was discrimination against blacks rooted in religious beliefs, as discrimination against gays seems to be? IMO, I don't think it was. It was rooted in racism, hatred and power. It was definitely more widespread than discrimination against gays. Gay people have not been forced to drink out of separate water fountains, or sit in the back of the bus as our black brothers and sisters were. There are no gay people that were slave laborers for the straight people, as blacks were forced to do for whites. Gay people have always had the right to vote (if they were white men). There's a lot of dissimilarities that's hard to reconcile between the two movements.

Of course, I believe that gay people have had a struggle. We have seen systematic harrassment by law enforcement, experienced job discrimination and have been disowned by our own families in some cases. And our brothers have fallen, like Matthew Shepard. But I don't think, nor should we expect, every black person to "stick up for us" simply because we have both experienced, to much different degrees, intolerance and hatred. It's going to take time for some to realize that homosexuality is not a choice and that their relatives, friends and neighbors that are gay deserve equal rights.

By blaming the passage of these propositions on black people is absurd. To threaten them is absurd. You can't force someone to see something your way by threatening them or yelling at them. Some of my gay friends have stopped speaking to thier friends that voted for Prop 2 on the basis that their friends discriminated against them. Fair enough. Personally, I don't think we'll make any progress on this issue if we respond with intolerance and threats. As time goes by, I hope that people will come to realize that gay and lesbians are just like them, love just like they do and simply want to right to express in the legal system that we are a family. And to be treated like any other family.

Sorry for being long-winded there, y'all.

I hadn't actually given any thought to what outcome you might have expected. I won't comment on your relatives but I do know this caused quite a moral dilemma for a friend of mine. She's not interested in discriminating against anybody but she wants to uphold her convictions as a Christian. It's kind of hard for someone to weigh discrimination against her soul like that. I can't be judgmental about that at all.

I think the Christianity angle is pretty well covered by "Love thy neighbor." But I've noticed that's pretty inconvenient for a lot of people calling themselves Christians. It all seems to depend on what flavor of Christian they want to be. Case in point, the KKK is chock full of "Christians." Good luck to your friend.

Some of my gay friends have stopped speaking to thier friends that voted for Prop 2 on the basis that their friends discriminated against them. Fair enough. Personally, I don't think we'll make any progress on this issue if we respond with intolerance and threats. As time goes by, I hope that people will come to realize that gay and lesbians are just like them, love just like they do and simply want to right to express in the legal system that we are a family. And to be treated like any other family.

I get what your saying but at the same time I wouldn't want somebody in my life that I knew voted that I should drink at a separate water fountain. I don't see that as intolerance. I see it as self-respect. Fortunately the analysis at fivethirtyeight.com offers me some hope:

Prop 8 Myths

Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:

Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure's margin of victory.

To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.

Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

You can't stop progress. We've seen that with our own eyes.

Edited November 11, 200817 yr by marceline

I think the Christianity angle is pretty well covered by "Love thy neighbor." But I've noticed that's pretty inconvenient for a lot of people calling themselves Christians. It all seems to depend on what flavor of Christian they want to be. Case in point, the KKK is chock full of "Christians." Good luck to your friend.

I'm again going to disagree with you.....there's no doubt that everyone calling themselves Christian is not or is not even trying to be but "Love thy neighbor as thyself" has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with or understanding your neighbor. It's certainly not the only commandment in the Bible that Christians are bound by either. A devout Christian doesn't accept adultery, for instance, but can still love an adulterer without overlooking his or her adultery.

Just because people in the KKK might call themselves Christians goes back to my saying that not everyone calling themselves are. Clearly no one who stands up and professes hatred towards other people is practicing anything remotely close to Christianity no matter how nice they might be everyone else. There is a difference between hating someone and not accepting or understanding certain things about someone.

My friend doesn't need luck so if you meant that in a negative way then it was unnecessary.

Sorry for being long-winded there, y'all.

I don't think you were and I'm glad you took the time to say that.

It's kind of odd out of the whole McCain campaign, all the media cares about is Palin....no more Joe for now.

I get what your saying but at the same time I wouldn't want somebody in my life that I knew voted that I should drink at a separate water fountain. I don't see that as intolerance. I see it as self-respect. Fortunately the analysis at fivethirtyeight.com offers me some hope:

You can't stop progress. We've seen that with our own eyes.

Thanks for posting the analysis, marceline. Very interesting. It should put to rest some arguments that it's all the black people's fault.

I understand what you're saying about self-respect. I still have a hard time comparing seperate bathrooms/water fountains to gay marriage.

It's kind of odd out of the whole McCain campaign, all the media cares about is Palin....no more Joe for now.

I've noticed that as well. SP is doing some major damage control and trying to repair her image. But unless she dramatically turns down the rhetoric, moderates and independents won't find her appealing as a candidate.

My sister just said she heard on the radio that Lindsay Lohan said "Isn't it great we have our first colored president??" WTF? Does she think this is 1950 or something....

I've noticed that as well. SP is doing some major damage control and trying to repair her image. But unless she dramatically turns down the rhetoric, moderates and independents won't find her appealing as a candidate.

My sister just said she heard on the radio that Lindsay Lohan said "Isn't it great we have our first colored president??" WTF? Does she think this is 1950 or something....

She's kind of young but maybe she thinks it's a good retro reference as in the "C" in NAACP or as in some people using the term "people of color." I can't think too poorly of her since she's still trying to find herself it seems. Yesterday I read a short paragraph about her saying she's not a lesbian but may be bisexual and she's in love with a woman.

I don't know what Palin's image is but I do think that all the anonymous snipes at her are cowardly. I don't think it's about blaming her for the shortcomings of McCain's campaign since he's responsible for that including her being on the ticket. I think that it's probably some of Mitt Romney's supporters among others who are trying to cast her in a bad light so that she won't get much support for a shot at being the GOP party leader.

McCain is going to campaign for Saxby Chambliss and Palin may go to Georgia to lend him a helping hand as well. I think that might turn out to be an interesting run off.