When "harm" is in the eye of the beholder, anything can be rationalized as harmful for political gain.
How is this different from other politicians getting votes for supporting gay marriage? It seems to me the "political gain" argument boils down to something almost meta-political; or of satisfaction/boldness in your tribe "winning", or politicians falsely professing things they know voters want -- these apply to both sides.
When I asked, I was looking for something like how voter ID laws are supposedly really written to suppress voters from the other party. Is there some way in which banning gay marriage would inherently strengthen Republicans over Democrats? (Going with this because it was presumably the grandparent's example.)
In the case where it's considered desirable to ensure that homosexual partners receive the same benefits of familial status (e.g. the commonly cited hospital visitation rights), without also including such partnerships in the financial benefits of heterosexual marriage, a federal civil union statute would easily suffice. Such things have been proposed many times, but invariably have been shot down from the left, rather than the right, as representative of "second-class citizen" status, just like "whites" and "coloreds" water fountains - a risible claim, especially in light of e.g. GLAD's explainer [1], in which, discounting the two already disposed of here, every reason cited in favor of "gay marriage", and against civil union, is at its base about money.
Such, at least, is the primary reason why I oppose the idea of "gay marriage", to say nothing of the Supreme Court's having recently discovered in the Constitution that there exists an inalienable right to same. This puts me in an apparently contradictory position, being that I am myself homosexual, but that contradiction exists only in the presence of an assumption that identity politics are the only valid sort.
Of course, to hear "gay rights" organizations tell it, that is precisely true, and we are not allowed to take a stance such as mine, or indeed any other that fails to correspond exactly with the current party line. To do so is derided [2] or pathologized [3] - or, of course, both. The possibility that we might have evaluated the cases for and against on their relative merit, and made our decisions accordingly, doesn't really enter into the discussion - and neither does the possibility that those who claim to speak and act on behalf of all homosexuals need not have their claims taken at face value by anyone, not even we whom they insist they defend.
[1] https://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriag...
[2] http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/05/13/bret-easton-ellis...
[3] http://mashable.com/2014/06/25/internalized-homophobia-lgbt/...
Really, you're making a "childless couples shouldn't be allowed to get married" argument and using homosexuality as a proxy for the desire for children. It's disadvantageous to use proxies when the original metric is just as easily ascertained: Just let people get married when they bear/adopt/whatever a child, and not before.
I feel that a second argument in there is "marriage is only good for the legal protection of children", but I think that ignores the social aspects, even though I find them backward.
Some people are way too eager to be victims.
Apparently the point of posting the video is that the person recording it thinks they have been harmed (I didn't watch the whole thing)? And that you disagree?
That's exactly my point, you each have your own ideas of what harm is. What follows from that is that of course it will be messy to discuss. But it still stands that the core message of tolerance is that we should examine things for harm and accept those things that minimize it, not that we should accept all things mindlessly.
The recorder of that video has gone on to create a fundraiser with two goals: 1) to defame the man in the video, and 2) to seek general recompense from the public for her harm.
I'm sure you watched enough of the video to get the gist of what happened, and any common-sense person would immediately dismiss her claims of harm. But by giving her a benefit of the doubt, by choosing to "examine" that situation far beyond its merits, she is given the platform and the opportunity to play the victim and in so doing simultaneously cause direct harm to another person and personally benefit from it.
Yes, people will come to conclusions about their personal experiences that few others agree with. So what. Politely tell them that you aren't interested in discussing whatever their beef is and move on. I didn't say that tolerance was an absolute above, in fact I started from a place where I pushed back against that misunderstanding.
Trump truly played a great song with the media. You have to respect his ability to avoid any policy discussion, preferring to shout fantasies. Clinton wasn't much better, but I don't believe it was an intentional ploy to avoid difficult discussions.