The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
This Debate is Gay
ryuprecht
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Seriously.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/07/071007debate.htm
Democratic candidates for president will be doing a 1 hour debate devotes solely to LGBT issues.
I have so many thoughts on this.
Why are they not getting flack for pandering to special interests?
Aren't issues that face homosexuals the same as those facing straight people 99.99% of the time?
How fractured does this make the liberal base? Will their be a Black only debate? An AARP debate? How about a debate solely for the NARAL folks?
I don't get it. Liberals: enlighten me.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/07/071007debate.htm
Democratic candidates for president will be doing a 1 hour debate devotes solely to LGBT issues.
I have so many thoughts on this.
Why are they not getting flack for pandering to special interests?
Aren't issues that face homosexuals the same as those facing straight people 99.99% of the time?
How fractured does this make the liberal base? Will their be a Black only debate? An AARP debate? How about a debate solely for the NARAL folks?
I don't get it. Liberals: enlighten me.
ryuprecht on
0
Posts
Dude, what?
Marriage issues, tax breaks, discrimination...none of those really seem to hit straight people.
What issues are YOU referring to?
Slight tangent:
:?: I must have missed this completely. Are Gays now allowed to serve openly in the US armed forces?
Legally perhaps. I don't know.
Either way, if I were gay, and in the army, and even if it was legal, I wouldn't say anything.
It will likely be a very long time after they are "legally" allowed to serve until their truly welcomed or at least looked upon with indifference.
No, but all the current crop of candidates are in favor of its repeal (except for Gravel, but he's insane so who cares) so it's sort of a given.
Oh, and
Civil Rights aren't a special interest.
There are issues of discrimination against homosexuals, true, but moreso than against other groups? And carried on, in part, by government to the degree that it warrants a specific debate?
I'm at a loss for the political reasoning. I would expect all major candidates to speak at rallies, or conventions, or on invitation to interest groups, where they can enumerate stances on specific items. That makes sense to me. A debate dedicated to a specific group that represents less than 10% of the population on the 2-3 major issues facing that group (adoption, marriage) seems just out of sorts.
What's another group that is similar to homosexuals? I certainly can't think of one. It's sorta an important civil rights issue.
I'm all for this, keeps candidates focused on one issue during a debate, less room to wander and not discuss it. Obama, I'm looking at you.
Most of those other groups are discriminated against by individual persons, not by governmental policy. You can't pass a bill that changes the minds of people in sheets. You can, however, pass a bill that changes an illegal governmental policy of barring same sex marriage.
A debate devoted to minority issues? You mean, like this one about two weeks ago?
A presidential candidate needs to address as many segments of the population as s/he can. It only makes sense to speak at (including but not limited to): conferences for small business owners, minority-specific or issue-specific debates, senior citizen panels, welfare/medicaid discussions, etc., in addition to your standard all-inclusive candidate debates.
What non-homosexuals can you think of that face legal restrictions on who they may marry and what jobs they may hold?
Umm... yeah, kinda-sorta. Discrimination against gays is a lot more prevalent than discrimination against women or ethnic minorities, especially when you consider that most gay folks aren't obviously so. If sexuality were as blatant as race, it would be even worse.
And sexual discrimination is greatly affected by government. You know, that whole gays-can't-marry thing, and the gays-can't-openly-serve thing, and the gay-couples-have-no-hospital-visitation-rights thing, and the other dozen or so things that directly stem from laws or lack thereof.
I mean, I think a special debate dedicated to LGBT issues is sort of silly and is more a marketing ploy than anything, but those questions were just silly.
Polygamists and bigamists for starters.
EDIT: Not trying slippery slope, I'm just pointing out that the question has an obvious answer.
That debate too. And I'm not just picking on the LGBT issue. I don't expect that Republicans should hold a Catholic debate, Jewish debate or any other debate that, by its nature, has a singular focus.
Now, I do see a point to what moniker wrote, that this constituant group still faces what they believe to be a civil rights issue that is government controlled in its nature. You can fall on either side of the fence for the topic itself, but there's no denying that it's a debate at the government level.
Maybe I just see that debates, which are limited, should reach a broad audience and address a wide range of issues. There are only so many of them, and they all be highly public, broad based opportunities for someone who will be (whether you vote for them or not) everyone's president.
Also, it seems like it would be a bad move on the candidates part. I can imagine that soundbites from this debate could be used to sway moderate, undecided voters away from someone, especially if they aren't "comfortable" with the answers.
Well, yeah, but what stumping activities, beyond major (like CNN) debates, isn't a marketing ploy? Even then it's pretty wrapped up with framing and spin. At least this way there'll be some dialogue rather than just monologues.
ryuprecht: I think your problem is that you're seeing this as more of a debate devoted to discussing a segment of the voting public (and thus "pandering" to this "special interest") than what it is: a debate focused on an important and timely issue of public policy.
I know, and what next? A debate devoted to the environment, immigration, Iraq? ;-)
O_o
No one is being prevented from watching this debate on the basis of sexual orientation; it's up to each person to tune in, and the potential is that a very broad audience indeed will watch it. Granted, since it's the democrats it'll be pretty much preaching to the choir, but is that really a fault of the issues?
Well, sure, but is it any worse than the republicans' debates? And isn't it better for the American public to actually understand the candidates' positions on the issues, rather than have their policy ideas kept secret until inauguration day?
Actually, I heard that the debate is going to be sandwiched between an episode of Ellen and Will & Grace. Since, as we all know, watching even one minute of either of those two shows make people gay it's very much a closed debate.
I'm not holding much hope, but I see a very slight chance that this debate will actually be beneficial for LGBT issues in the public mind as long as the candidates can very clearly and reasonably present exactly why gay rights don't hurt anyone.
Agreed. My thoughts were more that this is a topic for everyone, and your position should be clear. You can support, or not support certain issues. Does anybody think a single Democrat will come out and say "I'm against this or that or the other thing"?
Added to that is that it will appear on LOGO, which is not a ubiquitous channel. It will likely not be widely watched, but will be ripe for dissection by others.
I don't want a Democrat to win, but this just doesn't seem like a smart move on their part. Those with strong liberal leanings aren't going to change their preferences here, but it will be offputting for the swing vote.
A fair number of them won't.
Everyone knows that funny gays are not threatening at all!
If one candidate can wrangle out a unique position on this issue that appeals to the LGBT voters (and people swayed on LGBT issues), that could well give them a good boost in the primaries. I don't think any democratic candidate will be particularly hurt in the primaries by a pro-stance they take on LGBT issues. The general election yes, but not in the primaries.
Are you saying that they will accept an invitation to a gay-oriented debate, held on and hosted by LOGO, a gay channel, and they will say they don't support gay-rights?
That would take balls of steel.
If a voter is so intimidated by the idea that an openly gay, bisexual, or trans person has the same human rights as they do, then I'm not sure they count as a "swing voter," since I doubt they'd ever consider voting for a Democrat in the first place.
So you are advocating an election where the public has only a vague idea of where candidates stand on important issues?
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far but I'm not expecting there to be many praises for gay marriage or anything like that. Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships will probably get talked up a hell of a lot and harp on the injustice of not granting hospital visiting rights or custody rights under the status quo. Just enough to please LGBT issues voters but not enough to scare off others or have a sound bite that'll hurt them in the general.
Do...do you not realize that gay rights really are a civil rights issue? And that gay people aren't some other group out to get all of the straights of the world? And that living in a society that feels it perfectly justified to discriminate against it's citizens on a government level based on something that has no tangible effect on anything other than sexual encounters might be considered a bad thing?
This debate will be good for, if nothing else, raising awareness about issues that face the LGBT population today. Which are similar civil rights issues to those that continue to face every single minority in this country.
I think that there's enough to make a difference. Democrats pull their support from a wide range of constituents, including southern religious blacks, blue-collar union good ol' boys, and family-oriented single issue voters that can hold anti-gay sentiments.
Then yes, there will be candidates who won't come out in support of gay-rights. They won't use those words of course, instead, they'll just hmm and haw their way through it. I know for a fact John Edwards is opposed to equal marriage (though his wife is a strong supporter).
That's not what I said. I stated:
- these issues can be part of a broader debate that is not specifically targeted
- candidates can and should speak on invitation to targeted groups to enumerate their stances
I'll not get into this debate. It was covered extensively in another thread just a few weeks ago. Discussing the validity of gay marriage, et al, was not part of this thread.