If you'd like to have an honest debate about the political implications concerning Gay Republicans and the stance of the President, that's fine. I'll be happy to discuss it openly.
However, I won't do so in a thread that opens up with you calling your political opponent a "bigot" and "gay-hater". I oppose gay marriage as does over 60% of the population. According to you, those of use in that group are all biggoted. That's unreasonable in the extreme. We cannot even begin to have a conversation or debate about an issue like this if you insist on labeling anyone who disagrees with you with this kind of terminology. Where does it stop? Is anyone that opposes slave reparations a racist? Affirmitive action? Do I hate the poor because I oppose many welfare programs? Such thinking is convenenient and self-reinforcing, but also deluded. And no, that's not an insult.
I'll demonstrate: I seem to remember your opposition to the Iraq war. According to your logic, I could then say you hate every Iraqi civilian who benefited from Saddam's removal. In fact, you're racist against all Arabs too. You hate every woman that will no longer will be raped in his torture chambers. You even hate the little boys that beat Saddam's statue with their shoes as it was being dragged through the streets. I don't say any of these things in reality, though, because I know that you and I simply DISAGREE on the Iraq issue...and that's just fine.
Your reply to this post will be, in essence, "yes, SDW...you absolutely do hate me and everyone like me". But, that's no more true than the above example I gave.
Now this is insteresting in itself, but a more pertinent question must be asked. Why would you want to be part of a party whose leadership and majority of constituents hate you?
Why would you want to be part of a political party whose leadership and majority of constituents hate you? Because a political party is more than just one stance on one subject. Republicanism tends to attract affluent businesspeople many of whom are gay.
Why would you want to be part of a country whose leadership and majority of citizens hate you? Because you don't run from your homeland if it goes astray, you help it along. Thankfully the U.S. is generally reasonable and not 1930's Germany like (so far).
Why would you want to be part of a religion whose leadership and majority of adherents hate you? Religion is more than one judgement of one lifestyle. They find spiritual comfort despite the rest of the problems I guess. :shrug:
Personally, I avoid those that hate me. But then I'm not gay, Republican or religious
Personally I don't really care whether gays can marry or not, but I don't really see what the big deal is if civil unions grant the same "benefits" as a "marriage". Is there some legal difference that insurance companies or the IRS observe that makes a civil union less desirable? I guess I haven't really researched this much as I really see it as a non-issue in who I vote for.
Personally I don't really care whether gays can marry or not, but I don't really see what the big deal is if civil unions grant the same "benefits" as a "marriage". Is there some legal difference that insurance companies or the IRS observe that makes a civil union less desirable? I guess I haven't really researched this much as I really see it as a non-issue in who I vote for.
Right, its really a petty need to have people cave in and "accept" it as "real" marriage. Ain't gonna happen. Take the bennies and get on with your lives.
You can't legislate people into agreeing with you.
This isn't a civil rights issue either.
Gays should be careful now because they are forcing the issue of "what is homsoexuality: genetic or chosen lifestyle".
This is dangerous to them for 2 reasons.
1. If it's genetic, then there will forever be attempts to weed out the "gay gene" and eliminate it. And there will be genetic tests to see if your unborn child will be gay and no doubt many abortions if the answer is yes.
2. If it is merely a cultural affectation or chosen lifestyle then there will be endless efforts to train, teach, persuade gays to be straight.
This isn't civil rights issue for this reason:
Civil rights pertain to those aspects that individuals are born with and have no choice in: race, sex, disability, heritage/religion/creed. Only other exceptions are age and disabilities acquired after birth.
Are we to add a chosen lifestyle to this list?
If they argue it is not a chosen lifestyle then they are saying it is genetic. Fine. If it's genetic, then prepare for 1 above.
By forcing this issue too soon, they might get the finacial/civil union benefits but they will be unleashing fierce forces against them such as genetic tampering and abortions of "gay" fetuses.
Take the bennies and wait for the world to evolve a bit more. Otherwise it will be 1920's style eugenics all over again. And -this- time, science knows what it's doing!
My main problem with all these laws that various states are trying to pass now is that almost all of them not only ban gay marriage, they also ban civil unions between gays that have the same benefits of marriage without actually using the term "marriage." I don't agree with people who say gays can't get married, but I am still okay with their viewpoint as long as they still agree that gays aren't "subhuman" or something like that. There shouldn't be anything wrong with allowing non-marriage civil unions.
Right, its really a petty need to have people cave in and "accept" it as "real" marriage. Ain't gonna happen. Take the bennies and get on with your lives.
Oh look, another patronizing bigot.
Quote:
You can't legislate people into agreeing with you.
And you can't pretend like we don't exist.
Quote:
This isn't a civil rights issue either.
It absolutely is.
Quote:
Civil rights pertain to those aspects that individuals are born with and have no choice in: race, sex, disability, heritage/religion/creed.
Homosexuality may or may not be genetic, but it is innate and unchosen.
Quote:
Are we to add a chosen lifestyle to this list?
No one chooses to be gay. And being gay is not a "lifestyle." To say that implies that all gays live similar lives, and that is just not so.
Quote:
By forcing this issue too soon, they might get the finacial/civil union benefits but they will be unleashing fierce forces against them such as genetic tampering and abortions of "gay" fetuses.
Hardly. It'll be years, or decades, before we can a) determine what sort of genetic predisposition towards homosexuality exists and b) can identify that predisposition in developing fetuses.
By then, many of the bigots will have done the world a favor and died off. Yay for everyone!
Personally I don't really care whether gays can marry or not, but I don't really see what the big deal is if civil unions grant the same "benefits" as a "marriage". Is there some legal difference that insurance companies or the IRS observe that makes a civil union less desirable? I guess I haven't really researched this much as I really see it as a non-issue in who I vote for.
Some problems with this supposition (and I say this as a supporter of civil unions as a good compromise for the present moment on this issue):
1) Only one state issues and recognizes civil unions, though it looks like that could grow to three states by the end of the year. Maybe as many as four or five.
2) Civil Unions do not include all the protections that a marriage does.
3) Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government for tax purposes, or any other purposes, either. I really don't care about that at present. I don't want gay marriage for any financial reasons.
There shouldn't be anything wrong with allowing non-marriage civil unions.
Agreed. But this is why I say it isn't a civil rights issue:
Gays are arguing Gay Rights, not Civil Rights. Blacks in the 1960s fought for things that also benefitted all other minorities. They fought fot Civil Rights, -not- Black Rights.
You should to be able to enter into a civil union, with sexual preference having nothing to do with it.
This is -solely- a case of them wanting validation of their specific lifestyle, -not- fighting for the rest of humanity's rights to have civil unions.
If -only- gay marriages are allowed, a guy would need to fake homosexuality to have civil union with a male friend. That's stupid.
Civil unions should be allowed with zero consideration of sexual preference.
They need to stop saying it is a Civil Rights issue when it's merely a Gay Rights issue.
Kirkland, I understand that you're angry, but posting the way you do only encourages people to go against you. Something like 60% of the nation is against gay marriage (or according to you, "patronizing bigots"). While I think this is a sad comment on our country's population, you're not going to change anyone's mind by yelling at them and calling them names, even if it's totally justified.
Yeah, many of the bigots will die before we find out whether homosexuality is genetic or not, but they'll leave little bigots in their place.
We need to fight the good fight and let the country know that gays should not and will not put up with oppression. However, you seem to be taking the "Black Panther" approach while many gays are taking the "Martin Luther King" approach. In the end, who did more good?
Why would you want to be part of a political party whose leadership and majority of constituents hate you? Because a political party is more than just one stance on one subject. Republicanism tends to attract affluent businesspeople many of whom are gay.
Perhaps in the past, but Bush will be lucky to get 10% of the gay vote. He got over 20% in 2000. I know members of the Log Cabin Republicans, and they're planning to vote for Kerry.
And the political impact of Bush's new "We Hate Gays" platform goes beyond gays. I have several Republican friends who are now either not going to vote, or are going to vote for Kerry. I think my mother may end up voting for Kerry.
And then there are kids: people under 30 have already come around on this issue. Bush is risking the long term viability of his party if he tries to make hating gays a central Republican value.
Quote:
Why would you want to be part of a country whose leadership and majority of citizens hate you? Because you don't run from your homeland if it goes astray, you help it along.
Only to a point. Were the We Hate Gays Amendment to pass, I would leave this country immediately and permanently. I've already got preliminary paperwork filed with the Dominion of Canada, just in case.
Agreed. But this is why I say it isn't a civil rights issue:
Gays are arguing Gay Rights, not Civil Rights. Blacks in the 1960s fought for things that also benefitted all other minorities. They fought fot Civil Rights, -not- Black Rights.
You should to be able to enter into a civil union, with sexual preference having nothing to do with it.
This is -solely- a case of them wanting validation of their specific lifestyle, -not- fighting for the rest of humanity's rights to have civil unions.
If -only- gay marriages are allowed, a guy would need to fake homosexuality to have civil union with a male friend. That's stupid.
Civil unions should be allowed with zero consideration of sexual preference.
They need to stop saying it is a Civil Rights issue when it's merely a Gay Rights issue.
I agree that heterosexual civil unions should be allowed. Many people say that gays should be allowed to have civil unions instead of marriages, but they should be allowed for straight people as well. I am sure many people would benefit from being able to "marry" someone without marrying them.
Kirkland, it's despicable that you skimmed my words and read them as bigotry.
I'm clearly arguing that the majority is wrong and prone to stupid vengeful tactics like "fixing" homosexuality and futilely trying to making gays "straight".
Back the hell up and reread it without the context of me being against you.
Republicanism tends to attract affluent businesspeople many of whom are gay. - johnq
Perhaps in the past, but Bush will be lucky to get 10% of the gay vote. He got over 20% in 2000. I know members of the Log Cabin Republicans, and they're planning to vote for Kerry. - Kirkland
I didn't -say- gays would -vote- republican. I said Republicanism tends to attract affluent businesspeople...many of whom are gay. So the concept of Gay Republican isn't the oxymoron it is often depicted as. Period.
You remind me of a whining child whose parents won't buy him a toy.
And you have yet to contribute anything remotely approaching a thought or an argument to any thread I've seen you post in. You throw own glib bon mots and otherwise just take up space.
Agreed. But this is why I say it isn't a civil rights issue:
Gays are arguing Gay Rights, not Civil Rights. Blacks in the 1960s fought for things that also benefitted all other minorities. They fought fot Civil Rights, -not- Black Rights.
Gay rights are civil rights. The term "gay rights" is used because, frankly, all of you people already get these rights. Its only people like me who are denied them, and for no good reason.
A lot of gay organizations tend to use the term "civil rights," in any case.
Quote:
You should to be able to enter into a civil union, with sexual preference having nothing to do with it.
Homosexuality is not a preference.
Quote:
This is -solely- a case of them wanting validation of their specific lifestyle,
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle.
Quote:
Civil unions should be allowed with zero consideration of sexual preference.
My mother, a life-long Republican staunch Catholic, ex-pat French Royalist-symp, Reagan-Nixon-Bush Sr voting, good-wife, will be voting Democrat this year . . .
The sight of Bush on TV makes her spit in anger . . .
Something like 60% of the nation is against gay marriage (or according to you, "patronizing bigots").
It's less than 60% in the most recent poll, and a majority are in favor of the "via media" solution of civil unions, which is good enough for the time being.
Those who are against both civil unions and marriage ARE bigots, no matter how you cut it. And if they then turn around and pat me on the head and tell me I should just accept things the way they are, they ARE patronizing. And they can go to hell.
Quote:
Yeah, many of the bigots will die before we find out whether homosexuality is genetic or not, but they'll leave little bigots in their place.
Look at the numbers. There's a political cleavage. The pro/con gay civil rights numbers flip flop when you go from the above-30 demographic to the under-30 demographic, and that trend has been increasing, not abating, over time. That's why the Gay Haters are moving now, they know that if they wait much longer they won't have the traction to push their filth laws through.
Comments
If you'd like to have an honest debate about the political implications concerning Gay Republicans and the stance of the President, that's fine. I'll be happy to discuss it openly.
However, I won't do so in a thread that opens up with you calling your political opponent a "bigot" and "gay-hater". I oppose gay marriage as does over 60% of the population. According to you, those of use in that group are all biggoted. That's unreasonable in the extreme. We cannot even begin to have a conversation or debate about an issue like this if you insist on labeling anyone who disagrees with you with this kind of terminology. Where does it stop? Is anyone that opposes slave reparations a racist? Affirmitive action? Do I hate the poor because I oppose many welfare programs? Such thinking is convenenient and self-reinforcing, but also deluded. And no, that's not an insult.
I'll demonstrate: I seem to remember your opposition to the Iraq war. According to your logic, I could then say you hate every Iraqi civilian who benefited from Saddam's removal. In fact, you're racist against all Arabs too. You hate every woman that will no longer will be raped in his torture chambers. You even hate the little boys that beat Saddam's statue with their shoes as it was being dragged through the streets. I don't say any of these things in reality, though, because I know that you and I simply DISAGREE on the Iraq issue...and that's just fine.
Your reply to this post will be, in essence, "yes, SDW...you absolutely do hate me and everyone like me". But, that's no more true than the above example I gave.
Originally posted by Existence
Now this is insteresting in itself, but a more pertinent question must be asked. Why would you want to be part of a party whose leadership and majority of constituents hate you?
Why would you want to be part of a political party whose leadership and majority of constituents hate you? Because a political party is more than just one stance on one subject. Republicanism tends to attract affluent businesspeople many of whom are gay.
Why would you want to be part of a country whose leadership and majority of citizens hate you? Because you don't run from your homeland if it goes astray, you help it along. Thankfully the U.S. is generally reasonable and not 1930's Germany like (so far).
Why would you want to be part of a religion whose leadership and majority of adherents hate you? Religion is more than one judgement of one lifestyle. They find spiritual comfort despite the rest of the problems I guess. :shrug:
Personally, I avoid those that hate me. But then I'm not gay, Republican or religious
Originally posted by dviant
Personally I don't really care whether gays can marry or not, but I don't really see what the big deal is if civil unions grant the same "benefits" as a "marriage". Is there some legal difference that insurance companies or the IRS observe that makes a civil union less desirable? I guess I haven't really researched this much as I really see it as a non-issue in who I vote for.
Right, its really a petty need to have people cave in and "accept" it as "real" marriage. Ain't gonna happen. Take the bennies and get on with your lives.
You can't legislate people into agreeing with you.
This isn't a civil rights issue either.
Gays should be careful now because they are forcing the issue of "what is homsoexuality: genetic or chosen lifestyle".
This is dangerous to them for 2 reasons.
1. If it's genetic, then there will forever be attempts to weed out the "gay gene" and eliminate it. And there will be genetic tests to see if your unborn child will be gay and no doubt many abortions if the answer is yes.
2. If it is merely a cultural affectation or chosen lifestyle then there will be endless efforts to train, teach, persuade gays to be straight.
This isn't civil rights issue for this reason:
Civil rights pertain to those aspects that individuals are born with and have no choice in: race, sex, disability, heritage/religion/creed. Only other exceptions are age and disabilities acquired after birth.
Are we to add a chosen lifestyle to this list?
If they argue it is not a chosen lifestyle then they are saying it is genetic. Fine. If it's genetic, then prepare for 1 above.
By forcing this issue too soon, they might get the finacial/civil union benefits but they will be unleashing fierce forces against them such as genetic tampering and abortions of "gay" fetuses.
Take the bennies and wait for the world to evolve a bit more. Otherwise it will be 1920's style eugenics all over again. And -this- time, science knows what it's doing!
A serious warning to gays.
Originally posted by johnq
Right, its really a petty need to have people cave in and "accept" it as "real" marriage. Ain't gonna happen. Take the bennies and get on with your lives.
Oh look, another patronizing bigot.
You can't legislate people into agreeing with you.
And you can't pretend like we don't exist.
This isn't a civil rights issue either.
It absolutely is.
Civil rights pertain to those aspects that individuals are born with and have no choice in: race, sex, disability, heritage/religion/creed.
Homosexuality may or may not be genetic, but it is innate and unchosen.
Are we to add a chosen lifestyle to this list?
No one chooses to be gay. And being gay is not a "lifestyle." To say that implies that all gays live similar lives, and that is just not so.
By forcing this issue too soon, they might get the finacial/civil union benefits but they will be unleashing fierce forces against them such as genetic tampering and abortions of "gay" fetuses.
Hardly. It'll be years, or decades, before we can a) determine what sort of genetic predisposition towards homosexuality exists and b) can identify that predisposition in developing fetuses.
By then, many of the bigots will have done the world a favor and died off. Yay for everyone!
Kirk
Originally posted by dviant
Personally I don't really care whether gays can marry or not, but I don't really see what the big deal is if civil unions grant the same "benefits" as a "marriage". Is there some legal difference that insurance companies or the IRS observe that makes a civil union less desirable? I guess I haven't really researched this much as I really see it as a non-issue in who I vote for.
Some problems with this supposition (and I say this as a supporter of civil unions as a good compromise for the present moment on this issue):
1) Only one state issues and recognizes civil unions, though it looks like that could grow to three states by the end of the year. Maybe as many as four or five.
2) Civil Unions do not include all the protections that a marriage does.
3) Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government for tax purposes, or any other purposes, either. I really don't care about that at present. I don't want gay marriage for any financial reasons.
Kirk
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
There shouldn't be anything wrong with allowing non-marriage civil unions.
Agreed. But this is why I say it isn't a civil rights issue:
Gays are arguing Gay Rights, not Civil Rights. Blacks in the 1960s fought for things that also benefitted all other minorities. They fought fot Civil Rights, -not- Black Rights.
You should to be able to enter into a civil union, with sexual preference having nothing to do with it.
This is -solely- a case of them wanting validation of their specific lifestyle, -not- fighting for the rest of humanity's rights to have civil unions.
If -only- gay marriages are allowed, a guy would need to fake homosexuality to have civil union with a male friend. That's stupid.
Civil unions should be allowed with zero consideration of sexual preference.
They need to stop saying it is a Civil Rights issue when it's merely a Gay Rights issue.
Yeah, many of the bigots will die before we find out whether homosexuality is genetic or not, but they'll leave little bigots in their place.
We need to fight the good fight and let the country know that gays should not and will not put up with oppression. However, you seem to be taking the "Black Panther" approach while many gays are taking the "Martin Luther King" approach. In the end, who did more good?
Originally posted by johnq
Why would you want to be part of a political party whose leadership and majority of constituents hate you? Because a political party is more than just one stance on one subject. Republicanism tends to attract affluent businesspeople many of whom are gay.
Perhaps in the past, but Bush will be lucky to get 10% of the gay vote. He got over 20% in 2000. I know members of the Log Cabin Republicans, and they're planning to vote for Kerry.
And the political impact of Bush's new "We Hate Gays" platform goes beyond gays. I have several Republican friends who are now either not going to vote, or are going to vote for Kerry. I think my mother may end up voting for Kerry.
And then there are kids: people under 30 have already come around on this issue. Bush is risking the long term viability of his party if he tries to make hating gays a central Republican value.
Why would you want to be part of a country whose leadership and majority of citizens hate you? Because you don't run from your homeland if it goes astray, you help it along.
Only to a point. Were the We Hate Gays Amendment to pass, I would leave this country immediately and permanently. I've already got preliminary paperwork filed with the Dominion of Canada, just in case.
Kirk
Originally posted by johnq
Agreed. But this is why I say it isn't a civil rights issue:
Gays are arguing Gay Rights, not Civil Rights. Blacks in the 1960s fought for things that also benefitted all other minorities. They fought fot Civil Rights, -not- Black Rights.
You should to be able to enter into a civil union, with sexual preference having nothing to do with it.
This is -solely- a case of them wanting validation of their specific lifestyle, -not- fighting for the rest of humanity's rights to have civil unions.
If -only- gay marriages are allowed, a guy would need to fake homosexuality to have civil union with a male friend. That's stupid.
Civil unions should be allowed with zero consideration of sexual preference.
They need to stop saying it is a Civil Rights issue when it's merely a Gay Rights issue.
I agree that heterosexual civil unions should be allowed. Many people say that gays should be allowed to have civil unions instead of marriages, but they should be allowed for straight people as well. I am sure many people would benefit from being able to "marry" someone without marrying them.
I'm clearly arguing that the majority is wrong and prone to stupid vengeful tactics like "fixing" homosexuality and futilely trying to making gays "straight".
Back the hell up and reread it without the context of me being against you.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Bush is risking the long term viability of his party if he tries to make hating gays a central Republican value.
You remind me of a whining child whose parents won't buy him a toy.
Perhaps in the past, but Bush will be lucky to get 10% of the gay vote. He got over 20% in 2000. I know members of the Log Cabin Republicans, and they're planning to vote for Kerry. - Kirkland
I didn't -say- gays would -vote- republican. I said Republicanism tends to attract affluent businesspeople...many of whom are gay. So the concept of Gay Republican isn't the oxymoron it is often depicted as. Period.
God forbid a heterosexual should defend you, eh?
Originally posted by johnq
Agreed. But this is why I say it isn't a civil rights issue:
Gays are arguing Gay Rights, not Civil Rights.
Did you really say that?!?!
Do you understand the concept of 'Rights'?
'seperate but equal' is not constitutional.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
You remind me of a whining child whose parents won't buy him a toy.
And you have yet to contribute anything remotely approaching a thought or an argument to any thread I've seen you post in. You throw own glib bon mots and otherwise just take up space.
Does this board have an ignore feature?
Originally posted by johnq
Agreed. But this is why I say it isn't a civil rights issue:
Gays are arguing Gay Rights, not Civil Rights. Blacks in the 1960s fought for things that also benefitted all other minorities. They fought fot Civil Rights, -not- Black Rights.
Gay rights are civil rights. The term "gay rights" is used because, frankly, all of you people already get these rights. Its only people like me who are denied them, and for no good reason.
A lot of gay organizations tend to use the term "civil rights," in any case.
You should to be able to enter into a civil union, with sexual preference having nothing to do with it.
Homosexuality is not a preference.
This is -solely- a case of them wanting validation of their specific lifestyle,
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle.
Civil unions should be allowed with zero consideration of sexual preference.
Homosexuality is not a preference.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
I think my mother may end up voting for Kerry.
Kirk [/B]
My mother, a life-long Republican staunch Catholic, ex-pat French Royalist-symp, Reagan-Nixon-Bush Sr voting, good-wife, will be voting Democrat this year . . .
The sight of Bush on TV makes her spit in anger . . .
Originally posted by Kirkland
Does this board have an ignore feature?
Yes it has.
First general thread warning. More posts about the issue and less (none) about the contributers if it is going to survive.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Something like 60% of the nation is against gay marriage (or according to you, "patronizing bigots").
It's less than 60% in the most recent poll, and a majority are in favor of the "via media" solution of civil unions, which is good enough for the time being.
Those who are against both civil unions and marriage ARE bigots, no matter how you cut it. And if they then turn around and pat me on the head and tell me I should just accept things the way they are, they ARE patronizing. And they can go to hell.
Yeah, many of the bigots will die before we find out whether homosexuality is genetic or not, but they'll leave little bigots in their place.
Look at the numbers. There's a political cleavage. The pro/con gay civil rights numbers flip flop when you go from the above-30 demographic to the under-30 demographic, and that trend has been increasing, not abating, over time. That's why the Gay Haters are moving now, they know that if they wait much longer they won't have the traction to push their filth laws through.
Kirk