phillyfan26 said:
But what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter that they're more liberal. They can be grouped together, because their positions are all completely and utterly unacceptable.
But to you they are unacceptable. Whether they are right or wrong, some people believe that gay marriage should be federally banned, others believe it should be up to the states, others believe that it should be federally legalized. So it is important that people are aware who is more conservative and more liberal on the position. What if it ends up being Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton? For someone whom gay marriage is the biggest issue would vote for Clinton because her position is more liberal than of Romney's. Even though they are all unacceptable to you, and if gay marriage is the biggest issue to you, if all their other positions were the same, you would then vote for Clinton over Romney. Why is that? Because Clinton's position is MORE liberal. It may be unacceptable to you, but then of course Romney's position is MORE unacceptable.
Again, let me use the gambling example. AND I'M IN NO WAY SAYING THAT GAMBLING AND GAY MARRIAGE ARE COMPARABLE. Personally, I think casinos should be allowed to operate in every state, and states shouldn't be able to ban casinos from opening business. So if there was a candidate who wanted a federal ban on gambling, and there was another one who wanted to leave the issue to the states, even though I don't love either of their positions, the guy who wants to leave it to the states is the position that is better for me and more acceptable, so I would choose him. It would be misinformative to say that both candidates are equally unacceptable.
Last edited: