What's more important, equal rights for gays or the economy.

[Ovisterra]

Why does one need to take priority over the other? Equal rights can be achieved while sustaining the economy. This thread is rather pointless.

The argument is a red herring designed by people opposed to equal rights for all people.

I'm inclined to agree.

[Desperate Measures]

Why does one need to take priority over the other? Equal rights can be achieved while sustaining the economy. This thread is rather pointless.

In one of his many desperate attempts to look cool, David Cameron after his local election arsewhooping shelved plans to legalise gay marriage claiming the drubbing was a message that he needed to focus on the economy and more core tory policy... so maybe some people are stupid enough to actually believe that fighting for civil rights puts other things on the backburner.

It happens all the time. Just look at your personal life. Like when I took three days to figure out my taxes. My cats weren't fed or the litter box changed and if I hadn't thought to tie up my kid in the bathroom with a gag, I'm sure I would have heard a whole bunch of complaining about food or playing or some shit. But my personal economy flourished and that is what mattered at the time.

[North Calaveras]

both can be taken care of lol

gay rights are so small it would be easy to fix it along with the economy

you can't compare Gay rights as equal to the economy, sorry, even as a gay man that's just ridiculous

[Gordonisia]

You do realize that greed is a form of love, right?

Oh please... love for a very material and soul-free thing, a form of love pffft... oh well.... maybe if you're Scrooge McDuck, of course!

Surprisingly (or not, if you're a pessimist), a lot of people value possessions and other "material" things over other people. Not saying it's right, but there definitely is a bond there

[Muckistania]

I can tell this is probably just going to go around in circles, but I'll give it one more shot.

Let's just use issue "A" and issue "B", so you're not emotionally attached to it.

Person 1 thinks that issue "A" should be passed. [b]Person 2 hates the idea of issue "A" being passed[b], and says that we need to discuss issue "B". Person one really thinks that issue "A" is at least as important is issue "B". If person 2 would stop focusing on issue "A", and let it pass, then they could focus on issue "B".

By opposing issue "A", person two is focusing on it. If they would cede the issue to person 1, they wouldn't be focusing on it. It's pretty simple, actually.

Edit: By opposing it, they are paying more attention to it than just letting it pass.

If Person 2 hates the idea of issue "A" being passed then surely they would expect a big compromise on issue "B" for his ceding issue "A"? Then surely both Person 1 and Person 2 are both focusing on both issues but are making grand scheme decisions on what passes and what does not?

Taking this little example of yours to the real world you are saying that the Republicans should cede the issue of gay rights to the decision of the Democrats and the Democrats should cede the issue of the economy to the decision of the Republicans. Are you sure that this is a wise move? If I was a long term adviser to the Democrats I would tell them to stuff your advice.

[North California]

Well... equal rights for gays shouldn't even be an issue because the answer is fucking obvious, so I say that the economy is more important.

[Abatael]

To let it pass, they would have to vote for it, or at the very least, vote to abstain. If they vote for it, they are focusing on it; if they vote to abstain, then they are removing themselves from it, which you could say is not focusing on it, but you never specifically said "vote to abstain," so it's not wrong of me to fill in the absences of information.

Edit: To your edit, if you read my post, you would see that I said, "If they oppose they focus on it."

One more time. I'll make this really simple:

Simply voting "yes" on something is not focusing on it.

That would be supporting it, which would be focusing on it.

I can say the same thing with a negative: Simply voting "no" on something is not focusing on it.

[Vesium]

The economy affects everyone, gay equality only affects those who are openly gay.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Both.

[Ovisterra]

The economy affects everyone, gay equality only affects those who are openly gay.

Luckily, we can have both and all will be well.

Apart from the other serious problems with the world like war and hunger and cancer and things like that, but it's a start.

[Ovisterra]

Both.

Neither! Both!

[Great Yorkshire]

The economy affects everyone, gay equality only affects those who are openly gay.

But I'm bi... and I quite openly admit to knowing fuck all about economics. So economic policy doesn't affect me because I don't know who's right and who's wrong.

[Adafdfadfasdf]

I can tell this is probably just going to go around in circles, but I'll give it one more shot.

Let's just use issue "A" and issue "B", so you're not emotionally attached to it.

Person 1 thinks that issue "A" should be passed. [b]Person 2 hates the idea of issue "A" being passed[b], and says that we need to discuss issue "B". Person one really thinks that issue "A" is at least as important is issue "B". If person 2 would stop focusing on issue "A", and let it pass, then they could focus on issue "B".

By opposing issue "A", person two is focusing on it. If they would cede the issue to person 1, they wouldn't be focusing on it. It's pretty simple, actually.

Edit: By opposing it, they are paying more attention to it than just letting it pass.

If Person 2 hates the idea of issue "A" being passed then surely they would expect a big compromise on issue "B" for his ceding issue "A"? Then surely both Person 1 and Person 2 are both focusing on both issues but are making grand scheme decisions on what passes and what does not?

Taking this little example of yours to the real world you are saying that the Republicans should cede the issue of gay rights to the decision of the Democrats and the Democrats should cede the issue of the economy to the decision of the Republicans. Are you sure that this is a wise move? If I was a long term adviser to the Democrats I would tell them to stuff your advice.

Actually, that's not what I said at all.

The Republicans are saying that we shouldn't let the gays get married because the economy is more important. I'm saying that if the economy is actually that important to them, they would cede the issue of gay marriage so we could get past it and debate about the economy.

But, the Republicans think that the issue of gay marriage is more important than the economy. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wasting time debating it.

Both issues are important, and need to be focused on. The Democrats, generally, openly admit to caring about both. The Republicans are using the red herring of "The economy is more important", yet are wasting time opposing equal rights--meaning that they don't actually think the economy is more important.

[Desperate Measures]

The economy affects everyone, gay equality only affects those who are openly gay.

I'd argue that gay equality affects everybody.

[North Calaveras]

The economy affects everyone, gay equality only affects those who are openly gay.

Luckily, we can have both and all will be well.

Apart from the other serious problems with the world like war and hunger and cancer and things like that, but it's a start.

well...you can't really get rid of war seeing as its human nature, just like being gay is

[Ovisterra]

The economy affects everyone, gay equality only affects those who are openly gay.

I'd argue that gay equality affects everybody.

Yeah. If you live in a country without gay equality, your country is in need of some change, and quickly.

I would know.

[Ovisterra]

Luckily, we can have both and all will be well.

Apart from the other serious problems with the world like war and hunger and cancer and things like that, but it's a start.

well...you can't really get rid of war seeing as its human nature, just like being gay is

True, true. But it's still a problem, as is inequality based on sexual orientation. Fortunately, we can fix the latter.

[New England and The Maritimes]

What.

[You-Gi-Owe]

I'm no expert, but I bet  the same statement was made by good German people during the 30's. Replace fags with Jews though, of course. Am I wrong?

Allow me to paraphrase the title:
"What's more important: stopping a new great depression of starvation and privation or political feel good measures that will have no effect other than to spur on a great depression and retard it's departure?"

President Obama lobbied and passed his signature legislation (ObamaCare) to the detriment of practically all economic issues.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

President Obama lobbied and passed his signature legislation (ObamaCare) to the detriment of practically all economic issues.

Ah, You-Gi-Owe, always nice to see you.

[Adafdfadfasdf]

Governor Romney lobbied and passed his signature legislation (RomneyCare) and still managed to run the economy of Massachusetts into the ground.

Fixed that for ya...

[The Ulster Coalition]

By far the economy. Equal rights for gays really only affects gays. The economy affects all Americans.

[Divair]

By far the economy. Equal rights for gays really only affects gays. The economy affects all Americans.

This could apply to so many things. Guess we should just ditch everything for the economy.

[The Merchant Republics]

Where exactly is the dichotomy?

If I support gay rights does that mean that the financial system will collapse in on itself in a big gay orgy? Or is it that by supporting the economy I will inadvertently destroy the interior design and quiches thereby force gays to suffer great hardships?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Wait... What side is the OP on?