Dude, Mujib Rahman himself looks as black as an african-american. Bangladeshi-americans also have lower per capita incomes than african-americans. This pandering to western racism is ridiculous.

I am a member of Party A. I am willing to concede the purely symbolic question (for now) in exchange for all the aspects of this debate that are NOT symbolic. I strongly support marriage advocates because the symbolism is actually part of a cultural battle. but I strongly disagree with their singlemindedness on the topic, which often has lead to actions to the detriment of the community that they are saying they are working for the benefit of, Party A.

You can insert a class, race, gender, sexuality, and other analysis here to demonstrate why a dispute such as the one you described between the people who speak for Party A and the people who speak for Party B are largely part of the same class and are operating on common terrain.

i gave you at least one pointer,. but stick to your unfounded claims so you can excuse yourself from modernity.

Couldn’t find anything solid could you?

do your own research. you were the one making the unfounded claims in the first place.

for example, you might start with reading the maine question that was rejected. you might want to look at the ads. and the interviews of voters. and so on.

Perhaps you could produce them?

you mean – not letting reality intrude into whatever benign portrait you want to paint of those who oppose equality.

exit poll after exit poll and ads show what motivates these voters.

Of course, which group of people you’re more willing to accept caricatures of at face value is also going to depend, once again, on which band of activists you identify more with.

no. party b wants to be bigoted. it is not that party a is issue-based and party b is standing on a libertarian ideal. have you even been following the debates, ads and propaganda in state after state after state?

I’m sure they would, but at the end of the day it’s a relatively trivial semantic distinction. This issue is really more about the symbolic value to the tribes involved. Party A wants to feel accepted by society. Part B doesn’t want people telling them who they should and shouldn’t accept.

So it is with all these wedge issues. It’s rarely about the issue itself. It’s about what the issue means to your favored band of political activists.