2016 Election
Quote: AZDuffman#Blacklivesmatter attack gay pride marchers!
Of course we all know this was the fault of the NRA and GOP!
Holy misleading headline, Batman!
They "attacked" (re: disrupted) the parade to bring attention to their cause. Not sure where the controversy is here...
Not all "churches" are "religious." Certainly not extremely so. Until you find out which are which, enjoy another unintended consequence.Quote: terapinedIncredibly bad move by Mississippi.
Its totally Unconstitutional. It means you can only to get married in a church.
It means only religious people are able to reap state and federal benefits from being married.
If you are an male female athiest couple, you cannot get married. Unconstitutional
Quote: AZDuffmanWell, to be fair SCOTUS did ignore the Constitution, invented a few things to fit public opinion, which is how the liberals seem to think you are supposed to rule. I mean, when a law mentions the states and it clearly means the states then you are supposed to read what is there and what was the intent.
I assume you think Obama is crazy because he and other liberals want to change the 1st Amendment because the Citizens United ruling didn't go his way??
How did the SCOTUS ignore the constitution. It wasn't because of public opinion that gay marriage passed it was because of the 14th amendment and prior precedent basically demanding an overturn. The Obamacare ruling was based on original intent which is easy to get when the people who wrote the bill are still alive to tell you what was intended. I mean really how can you argue that they actually intended states when the bill makes numerous mention of state when it is clearly talking about the federal government and when the people who drafted the bill say they clearly meant it to include any exchange. Maybe you could argue they ignored the Arizona constitution with the anti gerrymandering case but that one is far more tricky.
They are supposed to do that with the constitution, and then rule whether or not a law is constitutional.
This isn't the first time that this has happened.
Bernie Sanders said just that in a TV interview over the weekend. And he was a member of the committee that handled the legislation. Yet just as with so many others, it is all a big lie, as Jonathan Gruber insisted on so gleefully bragging repeatedly. Yet the TV interviewer refused to ask that fundamental question, Sanders ignored his blatant lie and the press and their acolytes continue to try to rewrite history, just as the now shamelessly politicized Supreme Court did. The American public does not buy that, with more than half opposing the Affordable Care Act as it stands.Quote: TwirdmanThe Obamacare ruling was based on original intent which is easy to get when the people who wrote the bill are still alive to tell you what was intended. I mean really how can you argue that they actually intended states when the bill makes numerous mention of state when it is clearly talking about the federal government and when the people who drafted the bill say they clearly meant it to include any exchange.
Quote: TwirdmanHow did the SCOTUS ignore the constitution. It wasn't because of public opinion that gay marriage passed it was because of the 14th amendment and prior precedent basically demanding an overturn. The Obamacare ruling was based on original intent which is easy to get when the people who wrote the bill are still alive to tell you what was intended. I mean really how can you argue that they actually intended states when the bill makes numerous mention of state when it is clearly talking about the federal government and when the people who drafted the bill say they clearly meant it to include any exchange. Maybe you could argue they ignored the Arizona constitution with the anti gerrymandering case but that one is far more tricky.
Gay marriage was passed because of public opinion. There was no discrimination or unequal treatment. A same-sex relationship is not the same as a heterosexual one. Gays could get married, just to someone of the opposite sex. Because of public opinion, an institution was changed from something it was not intended to be.
The "original intent" of Obamacare was clearly that the STATES would set up the exchanges. It was written that way. We are not talking about looking at what words meant 200 years ago when they were written, the law is what, 5 years old? Maybe if the people who drafted it read it before they voted for it the whole thing could have been avoided. But they meant "states" and SCOTUS went against what the law clearly stated. So they ignored the Constitution and ignored what Congress passed and just did what Obama wanted. Welcome to cult of personality leadership.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe American public does not buy that, with more than half opposing the Affordable Care Act as it stands.
Let's not forget, many of the people who oppose the ACA oppose it because it doesn't go far enough. They want a single payer system.
People always seem to ignore that fact when throwing out stats about Obamacare...
Quote: ams288Let's not forget, many of the people who oppose the ACA oppose it because it doesn't go far enough. They want a single payer system.
People always seem to ignore that fact when throwing out stats about Obamacare...
The people who want a single payer system to lose their freedom of choice in healthcare are the same ones having a "I heart Obamacare" bumper sticker on their car. To them it is just an incremental step. Why anyone would want single payer is beyond me.
Quote: AZDuffmanA same-sex relationship is not the same as a heterosexual one.
Well duh. A same-sex relationship has two men or two women, and a heterosexual one has one man and one woman.
But they are both equally under the law now. :)
Christie is in the race. And yet, it seems like I thought he was in it already.
Perhaps they should count as 3/5ths of a person?
Quote: Dalex64Since corporations are people now, should they count towards the population of the state when determining how many electoral votes they get and how much represention they get in the house?
Perhaps they should count as 3/5ths of a person?
Delaware would love it. Not sure the north would be on board with a 3/5 person compromise thing like they were in the 1700s as it would not benefit them.
But not sure why we would do this anyways.
Quote: rxwineHowever perhaps he is an expert making money at bankruptcy and suing people who have wronged him.
He publicly threatens lawsuits all the time but never follows through.
I think he did actually try to sue Bill Maher a couple years ago when Maher said he'd donate millions to charity if Trump could prove his parents weren't orangutans, and it blew up in Trump's face.
Quote: AZDuffmanWell, to be fair SCOTUS did ignore the Constitution, invented a few things to fit public opinion, which is how the liberals seem to think you are supposed to rule. I mean, when a law mentions the states and it clearly means the states then you are supposed to read what is there and what was the intent.
I assume you think Obama is crazy because he and other liberals want to change the 1st Amendment because the Citizens United ruling didn't go his way??
Forgot to respond to this earlier. You are great with the false equivalences. No: Obama is not crazy. He doesn't like the Citizens United ruling. He wants an Amendment to fix Citizens United. Which is the Constitutionally prescribed way of handling a bad Supreme Court decision.
Cruz doesn't like the gay marriage and Obamacare rulings. He wants an Amendment to fix the way the Supreme Court functions.
Big. Big. Big difference. The non-idiotic (and Constitutional) way would be an Amendment banning gay marriage and/or Obamacare. But that'll never happen and Cruz knows it.
Quote: ams288Forgot to respond to this earlier. You are great with the false equivalences. No: Obama is not crazy. He doesn't like the Citizens United ruling. He wants an Amendment to fix Citizens United. Which is the Constitutionally prescribed way of handling a bad Supreme Court decision.
Cruz doesn't like the gay marriage and Obamacare rulings. He wants an Amendment to fix the way the Supreme Court functions.
Big. Big. Big difference. The non-idiotic (and Constitutional) way would be an Amendment banning gay marriage and/or Obamacare. But that'll never happen and Cruz knows it.
Say what?
Constitutional Amendments, which are purposefully very hard to get done, are applicable to two of the things you mention:
--If we don't like the way the Constitution is written and want to change it, it can be amended. This was done for Presidential terms.
22nd Amendment:
"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress."
This being the case, there is precedent for changing the length of time someone can serve in any office. An amendment is appropriate in this case.
--Though it would not pass at this point (as many other amendments did not pass at other times...but some did later and at least one was passed and then repealed), this would also be the appropriate way to ban gay marriage. The Supreme Court has overruled State Constitutions in their decision; I don't think simply passing a law against gay marriage would stand the test in the Court so an amendment would be appropriate. I don't think such a thing is necessary, of course.
--Obamacare can and should be fixed legislatively. The court ruled on some wording; they did not make it a civil right or anything of that sort. There is no need for a Constitutional Amendment banning Obamacare. It is simply poorly written and conceived legislation that can be fixed by Congress and a willing President. So long as someone is in office who doesn't care about fixing the bad parts of the law (and of course, no one would expect him to want to repeal it), the law stands. It can be changed over time without the need to visit the Supreme Court again unless some more crap in any changes are as poorly written as the original law.
Quote: ams288Forgot to respond to this earlier. You are great with the false equivalences. No: Obama is not crazy. He doesn't like the Citizens United ruling. He wants an Amendment to fix Citizens United. Which is the Constitutionally prescribed way of handling a bad Supreme Court decision.
Cruz doesn't like the gay marriage and Obamacare rulings. He wants an Amendment to fix the way the Supreme Court functions.
Big. Big. Big difference. The non-idiotic (and Constitutional) way would be an Amendment banning gay marriage and/or Obamacare. But that'll never happen and Cruz knows it.
Beg Pardon? How is Obama wanting an amendment to fix Citizens Unitedtake away free speech different than Cruz wanting to amend to chant the way the SCOTUS functions? An amendment is an amendment. They are passed when something in government is not working.
And, no amendment needed to get rid of Obabacare. If we get a sensible POTUS and Congress they can simply repeal it same as any law.
Obamacare may have risen to the level of a one-issue cause, where people will decide how to vote almost exclusively by how they feel about Obamacare.
Quote: ams288Obama is not crazy. He doesn't like the Citizens United ruling. He wants an Amendment to fix Citizens United. Which is the Constitutionally prescribed way of handling a bad Supreme Court decision.
What about a 'do over'. Is that possible? Maybe with an identical type case?
The rumor is that John Roberts now believes that decision is a mistake and bad for the county and election process. I don't know if he has gone as far to say, he would vote the other way, but he apparently has expressed concern about that decision recently.
Quote: AZDuffmanGay marriage was passed because of public opinion. There was no discrimination or unequal treatment. A same-sex relationship is not the same as a heterosexual one. Gays could get married, just to someone of the opposite sex. Because of public opinion, an institution was changed from something it was not intended to be.
.
That doesn't fly. It didn't fly in Loving V Virginia and arguments that the law applied equally with people being legally able to marry members of the same race as them. Now technically sexual orientation isn't afforded the same level of discrimination protection as people of color it was clear this was a type of discrimination just like anti miscegenation laws were a form of discrimination. What substantive difference does one ban have over the other?
Quote: kewlj
What about a 'do over'. Is that possible? Maybe with an identical type case?
There is no need for a "do over." Citizens is now settled law and the law of the land. SCOTUS has ruled and that is it. Liberals who want to discriminate against people just because they group together need to get over their hate and move on.
Quote: TwirdmanWhat substantive difference does one ban have over the other?
What "ban" are you talking about? There was never a "ban" on so-called "gay marriage." Marriage was understood to be one man and one woman. This is a reason I cannot give respect to the gay movement, they are not honest about what has happened and what they asked for. What happened is marriage was redefined.
There used to be a ban on polygamy. An actual law against it. There are laws limiting the age one can get married at. There were once laws about interracial marriages. But there was no "ban" on gays getting married to each other. It was simply not part of what marriage was defined as when it was set up.
Of course, this is going to get lost in the language as so much else gets revised by the PC movement. Truth rarely matters.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is a reason I cannot give respect to the gay movement, they are not honest about what has happened and what they asked for. What happened is marriage was redefined.
Lol
Trust me, the "gay movement" doesn't need or crave the respect of people like you.
Quote: ams288Lol
Trust me, the "gay movement" doesn't need or crave the respect of people like you.
No but like all good liberals, they sure love his tax dollars. If the left only counted on the tax revenue from minorities and much of their base, they would be in trouble now, wouldn't they?
Quote: ams288Lol
Trust me, the "gay movement" doesn't need or crave the respect of people like you.
They don't need it, they don't crave it, but they sure as shooting DEMAND it.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey don't need it, they don't crave it, but they sure as shooting DEMAND it.
I think there is a big difference between earning one random right winger's respect and having equal rights under the law.
We demand equal rights.
No one is demanding your respect. No one cares how you feel about the "movement."
Quote: ams288
No one is demanding your respect. No one cares how you feel about the "movement."
This is where you are mistaken. If the movement just wanted "equal rights under the law" they would demonstrate at Chick-Fil-A. They would not demand the firing of a CEO who did not support their position. The gay movement demands total respect and complete support.
Not giving total support today's gay movement is almost like not supporting the Italian-American Civil Rights League in Brooklyn in 1970. You are free not to do so, but if you do not then watch out as your business will be attacked.
You are right in that they do not care how one feels, as long as one gives total, unconditional support.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is where you are mistaken. If the movement just wanted "equal rights under the law" they would demonstrate at Chick-Fil-A. They would not demand the firing of a CEO who did not support their position. The gay movement demands total respect and complete support.
I have to bring out the old *facepalm* here.
Maybe some day you'll be able to escape from the FOX News-right wing bubble. But until then I fear we are doomed to go back and forth with nonsense arguments like this.
Chick-Fil-A? Seriously?!
Quote: ams288I have to bring out the old *facepalm* here.
Maybe some day you'll be able to escape from the FOX News-right wing bubble. But until then I fear we are doomed to go back and forth with nonsense arguments like this.
Chick-Fil-A? Seriously?!
Ah, the old time to bring out FoxNews when you have nothing left. Game over, AZ wins this debate and you win "equality" whatever that means. Now live your life like everyone else does and stop drawing attention to yourself. But equality is never enough is it?
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is where you are mistaken. If the movement just wanted "equal rights under the law" they would demonstrate at Chick-Fil-A. They would not demand the firing of a CEO who did not support their position. The gay movement demands total respect and complete support.
Not giving total support today's gay movement is almost like not supporting the Italian-American Civil Rights League in Brooklyn in 1970. You are free not to do so, but if you do not then watch out as your business will be attacked.
You are right in that they do not care how one feels, as long as one gives total, unconditional support.
The Westboro baptist church does not represent the evangilical movement
on the flip side
Extreme gay right supporters demanding somebody be fired does not represent the general gay movement.
I support gay marraige.
I could care less about chickafil management.
I simply dont eat there despite any survey because bottom line, the food is not that good
There are extremists that are on both sides. They dont represent the general movements on both sides.
The gay marraige supporters on this site dont demand somebody get fired. Cmon AZ, look to us to form your opinions on gay marraige supporters, dont look at the extreme a-holes. Listening to the extremes is feeding the trolls :-)
Quote: terapinedThe Westboro baptist church does not represent the evangilical movement
on the flip side
Extreme gay right supporters demanding somebody be fired does not represent the general gay movement.
I support gay marraige.
I could care less about chickafil management.
I simply dont eat there despite any survey because bottom line, the food is not that good
There are extremists that are on both sides. They dont represent the general movements on both sides.
The gay marraige supporters on this site dont demand somebody get fired. Cmon AZ, look to us to form your opinions on gay marraige supporters, dont look at the extreme a-holes. Listening to the extremes is feeding the trolls :-)
Fringe thinking becomes law all the time. 25 years ago the concept of gay marriage in the US was a far-fringe thought. 25-30 years ago if you were to suggest somebody that smoking would not be allowed in bars in most states you would have been laughed at. 20 years ago if you were to suggest that potato chips and soda would be taxed separately from other foods (Illinois) you would have been laughed at. Now, I am not bringing up whether or not you or I or anyone thinks these changes to the law are positive or negative, but many changes to it start off as fringe thinking, so IMO you do have to listen to the fringe, because the fringe today, will be mainstream thought a generation from now.
Quote: Gabes22Fringe thinking becomes law all the time. 25 years ago the concept of gay marriage in the US was a far-fringe thought. 25-30 years ago if you were to suggest somebody that smoking would not be allowed in bars in most states you would have been laughed at. 20 years ago if you were to suggest that potato chips and soda would be taxed separately from other foods (Illinois) you would have been laughed at. Now, I am not bringing up whether or not you or I or anyone thinks these changes to the law are positive or negative, but many changes to it start off as fringe thinking, so IMO you do have to listen to the fringe, because the fringe today, will be mainstream thought a generation from now.
??????
So according to you the fringe Westboro Baptist chuch should be listened to?
The whole evangilical movement is going to start protesting at our soldier funerals.
LOL
Quote: terapined
There are extremists that are on both sides. They dont represent the general movements on both sides.
The gay marraige supporters on this site dont demand somebody get fired. Cmon AZ, look to us to form your opinions on gay marraige supporters, dont look at the extreme a-holes. Listening to the extremes is feeding the trolls :-)
The difference is Westboro is a small group of kooks that nobody takes seriously and gets denounced by conservatives and libertarians. No "mainstream" gays said "hey, don't do that" when there demonstrations planned at Chick-Fil-A and when Mozilla fired their CEO. From what I saw, the average "gay on the street" was happy with it, even if they were not directly supporting it.
While the debate here has been mostly civil since a few radical gay supporters left (and I have blocked others) there is a point that needs to be made. The point is that you have to call out idiotic behavior on your side. (NOTE: I am saying "you" generally, not "you" personally.) If you want me to treat gays "equally" then you have to call out bad behavior. That means when there are "kiss ins" or when gays are acting like jackasses at a "gay pride parade" you have to call them out on it. Because when I see these people I, and millions of other people, think they are nothing but a bunch of attention-whoring freaks.
Is this fair? Maybe and maybe not. But it is reality. Reality is you are who you associate yourself with. Ever been in some kind of a social group that you leave because some of the members are so nuts that you do not want to be associated with them? The gay movement is entering a new phase. I said before, I have a prediction what the next demand will be, though I am not going to state it here right now. It will happen in 5-10 years at most. How the "gay guy next door" acts towards it will show a lot.
Quote: terapined??????
So according to you the fringe Westboro Baptist chuch should be listened to?
The whole evangilical movement is going to start protesting at our soldier funerals.
LOL
I am not saying you have to agree with them, but yes, you should listen to them because history shows that movements and new policies come largely from fringe groups starting them.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhile the debate here has been mostly civil since a few radical gay supporters left (and I have blocked others) there is a point that needs to be made. The point is that you have to call out idiotic behavior on your side. (NOTE: I am saying "you" generally, not "you" personally.) If you want me to treat gays "equally" then you have to call out bad behavior. That means when there are "kiss ins" or when gays are acting like jackasses at a "gay pride parade" you have to call them out on it. Because when I see these people I, and millions of other people, think they are nothing but a bunch of attention-whoring freaks. .
I dont have a problem with the parades. Lived in Philadelphia. The gay pride parades have nothing on the Mummers parades in Philly new years. Talk about outrageous and bizarre, but both parades, just people having fun and not hurting anybody.
Quote: AZDuffman
Is this fair? Maybe and maybe not. But it is reality. Reality is you are who you associate yourself with. Ever been in some kind of a social group that you leave because some of the members are so nuts that you do not want to be associated with them? .
Absolutely. Made some friends down here in Tampa, fellow deadheads. They were white. southerners, Racism is alive against blacks. I no longer hang with them.
Heres an example of extremeism on the right that does not represent the gereral right.
http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-store-owner-posts-sign-telling-gays-stay-161249294.html
The owner does not want gays in his hardware store. Just looking at somebody, how do you tell they are gay?
Do people have to answer questions regarding what goes on in their bedroom before they are allowed to enter his store.
Its an absurd extreme policy. It does not represent Christians against gay marraige.
"Two couples filed Monday at the Harris County District Clerk's office, a spokesman said, and a La Marque same-sex couple filed the same day at the Galveston County District Clerk's office, according to the Galveston County Daily News."
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Same-sex-marriage-ruling-yields-equal-access-to-6360593.php
I wonder what the rate for same sex couples will be...higher, lower, or the same as opposite sex couples...
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html
Quote: kewljYou guys will like this one. This ought to keep the conversation flowing. :)
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-193205283.html
Why not?
Quote: AZDuffmanThe difference is Westboro is a small group of kooks that nobody takes seriously and gets denounced by conservatives and libertarians. No "mainstream" gays said "hey, don't do that" when there demonstrations planned at Chick-Fil-A and when Mozilla fired their CEO. From what I saw, the average "gay on the street" was happy with it, even if they were not directly supporting it.
While the debate here has been mostly civil since a few radical gay supporters left (and I have blocked others) there is a point that needs to be made. The point is that you have to call out idiotic behavior on your side. (NOTE: I am saying "you" generally, not "you" personally.) If you want me to treat gays "equally" then you have to call out bad behavior. That means when there are "kiss ins" or when gays are acting like jackasses at a "gay pride parade" you have to call them out on it. Because when I see these people I, and millions of other people, think they are nothing but a bunch of attention-whoring freaks.
Is this fair? Maybe and maybe not. But it is reality. Reality is you are who you associate yourself with. Ever been in some kind of a social group that you leave because some of the members are so nuts that you do not want to be associated with them? The gay movement is entering a new phase. I said before, I have a prediction what the next demand will be, though I am not going to state it here right now. It will happen in 5-10 years at most. How the "gay guy next door" acts towards it will show a lot.
The problem with the "Pride" movement is it is so much more than gay treatment now. It is run by self proclaimed progressives (who I would actually call psuedo-progressives) that are trying to demonize conservatism. There are a plethora of gay and bisexuals conservatives, they will never be invited as a speaker at any PRIDE event...
While I obviously strongly support rights for bisexuals and gays, there is a strong leftist slant. Too many people take too strongly to their orientation. If the most important part of your identity is your sexual orientation them your life is pretty shallow to begin with.
As much as I support gay rights, defense, and the economy and welfare of the nation will trump gay issues any day of the week.
At the end of the day I will live my life how I want, and my personal life will not change my politcal leanings one way or the other, I will remain a proud neoconservative, which I would claim is far more progressive than any leftist.
I have never met anyone in my life who views gays negatively, yes I have heard plenty of gay jokes, and off hand comments, but who cares, I hear plenty of innapriote jokes about all sorts of subjects and issues...
I am all for pride, but have pride in yourself or your country, or you occupation. There is no need to flaunt your sexual orientation or desires (and yes that goes for straights as well). Some things should be kept to bars, clubs, and bedrooms, not in public streets.
But I disagree, that one bisexual or gay man should have to apologize for the behavior of another. If anything leftists should have to apologize. Should I be held responsible if some leftist at a Pride parade gets crazy? Bisexuals and gays have many views and politcal dispositions, most normal, socially functioning gays and bisexuals probably roll their eyes at these events which tend to attract an Occupy-Wallstreet type crowd, many of whom are straight, but just latch onto the movement to feel like they are a part of something or because they need to justify not working.
Quote: Gandler
But I disagree, that one bisexual or gay man should have to apologize for the behavior of another. If anything leftists should have to apologize. Should I be held responsible if some leftist at a Pride parade gets crazy? Bisexuals and gays have many views and politcal dispositions, most normal, socially functioning gays and bisexuals probably roll their eyes at these events which tend to attract an Occupy-Wallstreet type crowd, many of whom are straight, but just latch onto the movement to feel like they are a part of something or because they need to justify not working.
It is a leftist movement, and more than just leftist. It is kind of a post-leftist movement. It is some kind of thing where you are supposed to live an "anything goes" lifestyle and look down upon other folks. These are the kind that would and maybe still do go to the "russian roulette" HIV parties, along with all kinds of self-destructive behavior.
But you are missing what I am talking about. "Apologize" may not be the best word. "Disassociate" is a little better. And call out idiotic behavior.
Quote: GandlerThe problem with the "Pride" movement is it is so much more than gay treatment now. It is run by self proclaimed progressives (who I would actually call psuedo-progressives) that are trying to demonize conservatism. There are a plethora of gay and bisexuals conservatives, they will never be invited as a speaker at any PRIDE event... .
I agree. On the flip side, (not gay by the way) I work with quite a few gays. They don't believe in demonizing conservatives. Your average gay just wants to be happy and having the right to marry is part of that. That's all. They are live and let live people. They are perfectly fine with religious conservatives believing whatever they want to believe.
Quote: Gandler
While I obviously strongly support rights for bisexuals and gays, there is a strong leftist slant. Too many people take too strongly to their orientation. If the most important part of your identity is your sexual orientation them your life is pretty shallow to begin with. .
No doubt there are flaming gays. Because they are flaming, they get all the attention but tey really are a tiny minority .The guys I work with that are gay, the subject never comes up. Now in many instances, they converse with the women more then the men but because of common tv, movie and celebrity interests which kind of sets some of them apart from the "guys" . But again, with your average gay, the subject of gay really doesn't come up. I can overhear all the conversations.
Quote: Gandler
As much as I support gay rights, defense, and the economy and welfare of the nation will trump gay issues any day of the week. .
Absolutely, I have conservative friends that know gays and cant believe this is an issue. They could care less about gay marriage with so many much more important issues and problems facing the country.
Quote: Gandler
I have never met anyone in my life who views gays negatively, yes I have heard plenty of gay jokes, and off hand comments, but who cares, I hear plenty of innapriote jokes about all sorts of subjects and issues....
I've heard the jokes and they're cruel.
Quote: Gandler
I am all for pride, but have pride in yourself or your country, or you occupation. There is no need to flaunt your sexual orientation or desires (and yes that goes for straights as well). Some things should be kept to bars, clubs, and bedrooms, not in public streets..
Again , yes there are flaming gays. They are few but because they are flaming, they get all the attention. Your average gay is just a regular guy, not flaunting anything, that just happens to be gay.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is a leftist movement, and more than just leftist. It is kind of a post-leftist movement. It is some kind of thing where you are supposed to live an "anything goes" lifestyle and look down upon other folks. These are the kind that would and maybe still do go to the "russian roulette" HIV parties, along with all kinds of self-destructive behavior.
But you are missing what I am talking about. "Apologize" may not be the best word. "Disassociate" is a little better. And call out idiotic behavior.
I don't think you should make an automatic association between a conservative and an occupy Wallstreet type crowd person.
Would you accuse a straight consrvative person to be the same as a straight occupy person? Of course not because that would be absurd. Hence, just because somebody is bisexual or gay does not mean they are automatically assoicoated (or even aware of), every crazy group that uses the Gay Pride banner as a politcal cover. Most gay people just want to live their life, go to work, and have some fun when they are off, and should not be expected to provide a dissociation of any group.
Plenty of straight people go to crazy sex parties (probably far more than gay people do). And plenty of straight people get STDS from irresponsible/unprotected straight sex.
Nobody has an obligation to dissascoiate themselves from others because of their sexual orientation.
If somebody Marches down the street in a Nazi uniform burning a flag, and he happens to be of the same sexual orientation as me, I have nothing in common, and no obligation to prove otherwise to anyone.
An implied association for sexual orientation is very narrow minded, gays and bisexuals are just as politcally and philosophically diverse as straight people.
Quote: terapined
Again , yes there are flaming gays. They are few but because they are flaming, they get all the attention. Your average gay is just a regular guy, not flaunting anything, that just happens to be gay.
Yep. Your average gay guy talks about sex no more then your average straight guy. Flaming gays are more akin to bros in the straight community then to the norm. Just like you have straight people who overly flaunt their sexuality so to will you have gay guys doing the same thing.
Quote: GandlerThe problem with the "Pride" movement is it is so much more than gay treatment now. It is run by self proclaimed progressives (who I would actually call psuedo-progressives) that are trying to demonize conservatism. There are a plethora of gay and bisexuals conservatives, they will never be invited as a speaker at any PRIDE event...
While I obviously strongly support rights for bisexuals and gays, there is a strong leftist slant. Too many people take too strongly to their orientation. If the most important part of your identity is your sexual orientation them your life is pretty shallow to begin with.
As much as I support gay rights, defense, and the economy and welfare of the nation will trump gay issues any day of the week.
At the end of the day I will live my life how I want, and my personal life will not change my politcal leanings one way or the other, I will remain a proud neoconservative, which I would claim is far more progressive than any leftist.
I have never met anyone in my life who views gays negatively, yes I have heard plenty of gay jokes, and off hand comments, but who cares, I hear plenty of innapriote jokes about all sorts of subjects and issues...
I am all for pride, but have pride in yourself or your country, or you occupation. There is no need to flaunt your sexual orientation or desires (and yes that goes for straights as well). Some things should be kept to bars, clubs, and bedrooms, not in public streets.
But I disagree, that one bisexual or gay man should have to apologize for the behavior of another. If anything leftists should have to apologize. Should I be held responsible if some leftist at a Pride parade gets crazy? Bisexuals and gays have many views and politcal dispositions, most normal, socially functioning gays and bisexuals probably roll their eyes at these events which tend to attract an Occupy-Wallstreet type crowd, many of whom are straight, but just latch onto the movement to feel like they are a part of something or because they need to justify not working.
I would suggest that, since everybody from Dick Cheney to the Log Cabin Republicans has at least some relationship to gay issues, the main reason gay rights is a "leftist" issue is that, first, the "right" took an extreme stance against the very idea of gayness. Or at the least, the "extreme right" took a very vocal, vicious stance against it for over 30 years now, coalescing in the early 80's during the backlash against AIDS and mistaken (polite word for ignorant) attributions of its cause. IMHO it should never have been a political issue in the first place, along with nearly any bedroom issue, but the Republican party insists on pushing their moral high horses into pulling political carriages. You get pushed, by blanket condemnation, murder for your lifestyle, job and healthcare discrimination, there comes a time when you have to push back. And they have, and now the Republican right wing is reaping what they have sown.
I say that not to gloat but in some sorrow, as a moderate Republican (a Betty Ford Republican, in fact) for nearly 40 years. Like Charlie Crist, Olympia Snowe, a hundred other prominent Republicans and hundreds of thousands like me, my party left me long ago. The Republican platform and its extremist members are an embarrassment. But I still can't sign on to the fiscal nonsense of the Democratic Left, either.
Third party, anyone?
Quote: terapinedI agree. On the flip side, (not gay by the way) I work with quite a few gays. They don't believe in demonizing conservatives. Your average gay just wants to be happy and having the right to marry is part of that. That's all. They are live and let live people. They are perfectly fine with religious conservatives believing whatever they want to believe.
No doubt there are flaming gays. Because they are flaming, they get all the attention but tey really are a tiny minority .The guys I work with that are gay, the subject never comes up. Now in many instances, they converse with the women more then the men but because of common tv, movie and celebrity interests which kind of sets some of them apart from the "guys" . But again, with your average gay, the subject of gay really doesn't come up. I can overhear all the conversations.
Absolutely, I have conservative friends that know gays and cant believe this is an issue. They could care less about gay marriage with so many much more important issues and problems facing the country.
I've heard the jokes and they're cruel.
Again , yes there are flaming gays. They are few but because they are flaming, they get all the attention. Your average gay is just a regular guy, not flaunting anything, that just happens to be gay.
Some jokes are cruel, having a sense of humor is important, some of the (what you would probably call cruelest) jokes I have heard have been from other gays. Most gays like most people have a good sense of honor and don't lose sleep over edgy jokes. I find jokes about the Holocuast and death far more offensive than gay jokes.
But of all the mistreatment of gays around the world, a few people being rude in America is a pretty low issue, there are still many countries in the Middle East where gays are routinely killed just for being (or even suspected) gay. If progressives in America actually cared about human rights they would focus on that. But it's far easier to harass old fashion elders in America than to confront targets who will put up a fight. I
have always said progressives love soft targets, they will endlessley "march" on a certain chicken fast food place, they will harass church goers in middle class neighborhoods, they will scream at Christian pastors for making some minorly offensive comment. They won't say a peep about gays getting their heads sawed off in the desert, or stoned (not in a fun way) in the mountains, or jailed in Africa, in these instances "we need to respect their culture and not intervene".
Quote: GandlerSome jokes are cruel, having a sense of humor is important, some of the (what you would probably call cruelest) jokes I have heard have been from other gays. Most gays like most people have a good sense of honor and don't lose sleep over edgy jokes. I find jokes about the Holocuast and death far more offensive than gay jokes.
But of all the mistreatment of gays around the world, a few people being rude in America is a pretty low issue, there are still many countries in the Middle East where gays are routinely killed just for being (or even suspected) gay. If progressives in America actually cared about human rights they would focus on that. But it's far easier to harass old fashion elders in America than to confront targets who will put up a fight. I
have always said progressives love soft targets, they will endlessley "march" on a certain chicken fast food place, they will harass church goers in middle class neighborhoods, they will scream at Christian pastors for making some minorly offensive comment. They won't say a peep about gays getting their heads sawed off in the desert, or stoned (not in a fun way) in the mountains, or jailed in Africa, in these instances "we need to respect their culture and not intervene".
Lots of people did speak out about what is happening in Africa especially because it was an American pastor who got them to do it. Consequently the law changed, though not nearly enough, from a death penalty to life imprisonment. Ugandan's are currently still fighting it and Lievely the American responsible is being sued because of his part in it. Also most people do condemn what is happening in the Middle East to gays but just because that is worse does not excuse the terrible things being done here. You can pretend all it is is some jokes but it's not. Currently in something like half the states a person can be denied housing because they are gay. In many states they can be denied other services for being gay. Conservatives are trying to have these laws enshrined and kept so no it is not just some harmless words. The reason we don't intervene in the Middle East is not because we respect their culture its because we have no way short of war to intervene. We are not part of that electoral process and protesting would most likely only further radicalize and give them even more reasons to claim the west was trying to destroy their way of life.
Quote: Gandler
Would you accuse a straight consrvative person to be the same as a straight occupy person? Of course not because that would be absurd.
The difference is that straight people do not tie up their identity in their sexuality, gay people far more often do. The whole "gay pride" thing bears this out. Plus demands to be legally treated as a protected class.
Quote:Plenty of straight people go to crazy sex parties (probably far more than gay people do). And plenty of straight people get STDS from irresponsible/unprotected straight sex.
I highly doubt the first part, not when you normalize for the % of population. Where are all these straight bath houses?
I get it. You are never going to say anything at all negative about anyone in the gay community, no matter how outlandish and socially unacceptable their behavior. Just realize that when you act as a group you will be associated with that group.
Quote: beachbumbabsI would suggest that, since everybody from Dick Cheney to the Log Cabin Republicans has at least some relationship to gay issues, the main reason gay rights is a "leftist" issue is that, first, the "right" took an extreme stance against the very idea of gayness. Or at the least, the "extreme right" took a very vocal, vicious stance against it for over 30 years now, coalescing in the early 80's during the backlash against AIDS and mistaken (polite word for ignorant) attributions of its cause. IMHO it should never have been a political issue in the first place, along with nearly any bedroom issue, but the Republican party insists on pushing their moral high horses into pulling political carriages. You get pushed, by blanket condemnation, murder for your lifestyle, job and healthcare discrimination, there comes a time when you have to push back. And they have, and now the Republican right wing is reaping what they have sown.
I say that not to gloat but in some sorrow, as a moderate Republican (a Betty Ford Republican, in fact) for nearly 40 years. Like Charlie Crist, Olympia Snowe, a hundred other prominent Republicans and hundreds of thousands like me, my party left me long ago. The Republican platform and its extremist members are an embarrassment. But I still can't sign on to the fiscal nonsense of the Democratic Left, either.
Third party, anyone?
Most democrats even up to President Obama (who only recently changed his stance when it was politcally covienant) said the exact same thing.
I don't care about marrying, I am against marriage period (for myself, not as a concept), though I can sympathize with why some may want it so bad (if I was desperate to get married maybe I would feel differently). But I am glad gay marriage is legal now, mostly so America can focus on issues that actually matter, and not waste all of the news space debating gay marrige 24/7...
If a Republican said "I hate gays they are perverted witches", but he/she was a sound candiate on the economy and strength I would vote for them, because issues that affect my surviving and thriving matter to me more than a couple of rude one-liners.
To be fair, I have very thick skin, and I can take criticism, and dish it back very well, so hearing vulgar things about me does not bother me, but I guess I can understand why some people who are used to being coddled let such things effect their politcal views.
But some people on both spectrums need to learn, sometimes if a canidate sounds too nice, there is a reason for that, I personally tend to trust people more who don't try really hard to suck up to me to get a vote.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe difference is that straight people do not tie up their identity in their sexuality, gay people far more often do. The whole "gay pride" thing bears this out. Plus demands to be legally treated as a protected class.
I highly doubt the first part, not when you normalize for the % of population. Where are all these straight bath houses?
I get it. You are never going to say anything at all negative about anyone in the gay community, no matter how outlandish and socially unacceptable their behavior. Just realize that when you act as a group you will be associated with that group.
I have never seen a gay bathhouse in my life? I don't think such places actually exist outside movies. But yes, plenty of straight people have irresponsible sex and sex parties, go to any college campus, even in conservative areas...
I say plenty of bad things about liberals, some of whom may be gay, plenty of whom are straight. But their sexual orentation is usually hardly relevant to my criticism.
Even at gay events, I would blame the ruling politicts (who very well may be straight) for cultivating such behavior for politcal reasons.
Most gay people don't think about their sex life as much as you make it sound, most don't feel a need to dissocaite from crazies who take advantage of politcal movements. You probably work with many who you don't even realize because they are busy working hard and living their life, gay people don't just sit around the office and talk about bathhouses or whatever.
Quote: beachbumbabsfirst, the "right" took an extreme stance against the very idea of gayness. Or at the least, the "extreme right" took a very vocal, vicious stance against it for over 30 years now,
You missed a KEY component to that, Babs. Many of those screaming the loudest were just doing so to avert attention away from their own 'closet'. Many Politicians as well as far right religious figures. THAT really sucks!
I really don't have a problem with those on the right that have legitimate concerns and discomfort levels based on their actual religious beliefs. But when it comes to the guy screaming into the bullhorn that I am going to hell and then later that night you catch him on his knees in the ally with another guy, well....I just want to kick the crap out of him. (and that is very much against my nature).
The effort to combat AIDS in the early 80's had not only the moral component, but also the fears about it being untreatable (at that time), its costs and the theorized threat to public health. At that time, many who were devoted to combating AIDS actually said heterosexuals faced a greater threat from the disease.Quote: beachbumbabsOr at the least, the "extreme right" took a very vocal, vicious stance against it for over 30 years now, coalescing in the early 80's during the backlash against AIDS and mistaken (polite word for ignorant) attributions of its cause. IMHO it should never have been a political issue in the first place, along with nearly any bedroom issue, but the Republican party insists on pushing their moral high horses into pulling political carriages.
