Did you read my post? Any of it?
Well, PAUL, as a Rebuplican, I would say “yes.” Mind you, neither is racing to embrace gay rights, because both sides know the vast majority of Americans are deeply ambivalent about it and would probably go “anti” if pushed, if only out of resentment of being pushed. It’s a hot-button issue.
BUT Kerry at least is saying that the states should decide, not the federal government. (This may be – is, IMO – pragmatic weaselling on his part, but then I’ve never held a bit of pragmatic weaselling against a politician, so long as it’s not dishonest.) Personally, I strongly believe that it is not the function of government to legislate morality for acts that cause no harm. And, as a Republican, I believe that regulatory or administrative decisions regarding the day-to-day lives of the populace, if necessary at all, should be made by the states, not the feds. Frankly, I have never understood how this is a federal issue. Further, I resent the attempt to use to constitution to inhibit or narrow the rights of citizenry, as opposed to protecting the rights we already have. The only other time the Constitution was so used – for a regulatory, rights-inhibiting purpose – was Prohibition, and we all know how successful that was. Not to mention that the Constitution is a document intended to enshire the governing priciples of our nation; it was never intended to define such narrow terms as “marriage” or “spouse.”
Kerry isn’t trying to do that. And I do think that’s an important distinction on this issue.
And I’ll ignore the bits about the martini break and the Angry Young Gay Man because I agree with that entirely.
Scandinavia’s a country now? 
I’ll say it again: John Kerry lists LGBT as one of his issues on his issue page. The page contains a full list of his stances on the issues, and unlike the Bush site, which contains mostly boilerplate “I think jobs are good,” Kerry actually says what policies he stands for:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt/
Among things Kerry is for:
-he has, unlike the Bush team, a non-descrimination policy for his officies and staff, and he’s pushed for similar policies on the entire federal level, which Bush people seem to oppose or at least “read differently” so as to include removing references to sexuality discrimination from their website listings of anti-discrimination policy
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/news_031804.html
-he’s for ending the ban on gays in the military (he was against Clinton on this)
-opposed/es the DOMA
-is for full civil unions for homosexuals
-wants to end Bush’s ban on HIV positive immigrants entering the country and/or naturalizing
-is for federal hate crimes laws that include crimes that
-personally doesn’t think gay unions should be called marriages, but wants the states to decide this issue on their own without federal interference (a position that I don’t see as waffling at all, but in fact as by far the best way forwards towards real and socially accepted gay marriage)
Some may or may not like things on that list (the hate crimes laws are, in particular unpopular, and I’m of two minds about them myself). But you can’t deny that Kerry is radically better on gay rights than George Bush. And, as I am saying as a Kerry volunteer in a swing state, he’s taking those positions even knowing that they could cost him the election. They are hurting us here, on the ground, big time.
Bush’s site, on the other hand, does not even acknowledge the EXISTENCE of any such group as homosexuals. These weirdos seem to want to be able to have two men marry, but who the heck knows what THAT is all about, right? His field staffers “joke” with locals about Kerry’s campaign for a fag America. Although he’s made lots of noise about supporting adoption and fostering, gay adoptions curiously do not exist in these photo-ops, nor are they mentioned. And of course, they are opposed by his allies all over the nation without a peep from him. Bush has sometimes hinted that he might support aspects of civil unions maybe, but nothing has ever come of it even though he controls all the power he needs to make it happen, and he’s also hinted that he’s opposed to them. He certainly hasn’t objected to those trying to add language of the FMA that would ban them. He, of course, argued for the Texas sodomy law. About the only thing the Log Cabin Republicans really applaud him for doing is increasing money to fight AIDS in Africa.
Yes, that is correct, but what conclusion can be drawn from it? Clinton was radically better on gay rights than George Bush Sr. And meh. Here we are.
No homophobia involved at all.
The basic blueprint of humanity is heterosexuality. For a million years or so, we have evolved using a basic foundation of a family structure oriented toward raising children in a stable environment. It’s only been within the last couple of decades or so that humans have decided that it is time to pervert that concept and change the blueprint of the family structure.
Homosexuality is a perversion. No religious whacko connotations, here. It’s a statement of fact. It goes against the norm of humanity and as such, is quite correctly shunned and abhorred by the norm.
Main Entry: 1per·vert
Pronunciation: p&r-'v&rt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French pervertir, from Latin pervertere to overturn, corrupt, pervert, from per- thoroughly + vertere to turn – more at PER-, WORTH
1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : CORRUPT b : to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : MISDIRECT
2 a : to divert to a wrong end or purpose : MISUSE b : to twist the meaning or sense of : MISINTERPRET
synonym see DEBASE
- per·vert·er noun
And don’t bother trying to label me a homophobe or a motherfucker simply because I can see the way the world is and you can’t. Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere except laughed at.
The “basic blueprint” of humanity is right-handedness. I daresay you would not support discrimination against the left-handed? By your definition, anything that is in any variance with this self-proclaimed “basic blueprint” is a perversion. You realise, do you not, that you are coming dangerously close to eugenics?
And you make no distinction between a willful perversion and an inborn trait. Heterosexuality is inborn, rape is a perversion.
In short, whether or not you are a homophobe or a motherfucker, you are certainly making a twisted mess of our inborn rationality. A pervert of a different sort.
It would be very cool. That’s the way I am. I bitch and rant like hell in private, but in public I try to be dispassionate and calculating. Trust me, it works, at least when it comes to corporate politics. Since I’ve started working in the private sector (after eight years in academia), I’ve been promoted four times. My first year was rocky. I was idealistic, and argued points from my heart. I tried to change peoples’ minds sometimes just because I thought I could help them, because I, looking in from outside the loop, could see all the waste inside. I got nowhere with the self-righteous approach. I knew I was right about 95% of the time. I still do. Didn’t matter. Conservative group-think rules. It’s an iceberg; a glacier; an immovable force. You don’t get through it, you get around it, and then wait for the whole thing to fracture and melt away, which, inevitably, it will.
In the mean time, you kiss ass, you wear a big shit-eating grin, you tell people what they want to hear, don’t rock the boat, and then go do whatever the hell you want while they’re not looking. You don’t reveal what you really think; you don’t disclose your agenda. You learn the rules by heart, and then figure out all the points where they can be bent without breaking. Eventually the breaks come, but they appeared so slowly, so subtly, no one who matters is really aware. If they do recognize the break, they mights suddlenly realise it’s a good thing; they’ll even try to take credit for it. Fine, let them. I’ve had lots of my good ideas stolen. Doesn’t matter. I make my bosses look good, they’re happy. When they’re happy, I get ahead, and get what I want in the end. It’s called subversion. Try it, you might like it.
Yeah, here we are, on the verge of gay couples having access to civil unions and/or marriage! The fact that we are not in paradise doesn’t mean that we’d still be just as good if George Sr. had won.
And frankly, it’s just not fair to say that Clinton and Kerry are one in the same, that since Clinton passed the DOMA and DAskDTell (both of which would have been worse and less contested under Bush Sr.), we should be indifferent to Kerry having any positive affect on things as well. Kerry has taken plenty of fairly gutsy stands on gay rights, including stands AGAINST CLINTON. Electing him is a nod in the right direction, even if you or I might not think it far enough. It sends a message even if it doesn’t win the war all in one blow.
RE: The “Angry Young Gay Man syndrome”
I was going to post something in response to this, or point y’all to the 8-page thread about the topic that was in the pit recently. But I think clothahump’s post does more to explain it than anything I’d be able to write.
The one thing I’ve learned over the past couple of months is that it’s just impossible to predict what people are going to try to throw at you. If you feel passionately about the topic, you have to steel yourself before you go into any thread, just waiting for the other shoe to drop and see yourself being called a pervert, a pederast, or a dog-fucker.
Maybe so, but even many gays believe he has been anything but gutsy. I believe I already gave this cite. And the same publication has recently given possibly the most half-hearted endorsement I’ve ever seen:
Hey, how dare you denigrate dog-fuckers, you narrow-minded bigot! Bestiality - the love that dare not bark its name! 
They may believe this. I think the reality is that they are not being at all realistic. As I said, Kerry may well lose because of his moderate stances on supporting pretty much all the substantive positions on gay rights. That’s pretty gutsy. Especially given that the issue apparently doesn’t even EXIST in his opponent’s camp
Do you agree with this quote that Kerry’s stance is illogical and indefensible?
As far as I can tell, it is not. Kerry favors the civil union solution (one which, it should also be noted, many gay activists prefer instead of the marriage solution, given that they think marriage is an evil hetero-norm), and he thinks that states should decide the issue. He['s asserting his opinion in his own state, while arguing that this should not be done federally.
Gay activists are of course going to feel lukewarm about any deviation from pure, unabashed support for what they see as the correct stances on gay rights, and they are going to write articles like this whose purpose is to try and sway candidates and people even farther to that side.
Also, remeber, revenge is a dish best served cold. You homosexuals get topside of some of these people, you might be in a position to really put the hurt on them. I’m serious; there’s nothing wrong with biding one’s time and waiting for the right moment. Usually the best opportunity to stick the knife in a give it a good twist is when your enemy least expects it. You come at them guns blazing, and you’re outnumbered (which, let’s face it, you are), you’re gonna get your asses handed to you. You pick your battles wisely, be cool, patient, it will benefit in the long run.
Then, when you’ve got power, influence, you make the fuckers pay. Again, I’m quite serious; that’s the way the world works, that’s the way you get ahead. Forget this “fair’s fair” stuff. The neocons see the world as a zero-sums game, and if you get some pie, they’re losing it. That’s all they care about. The ones on top don’t give too shits about the Bible or Jesus or any of that “moral” garbage. They just manipulate the folks who do. Those who do actually feel a sense of moral outrage over gay marriage are the sheep, and they’ve got just one shepherd. You’re not going to win these folks over; and they’re too numerous to fight head-on. However, they’re none too bright; it doesn’t take much to fool them. I mean, look at the current administration, and how its lies are rewarded. How do scams like this bear such profit? Easy: The sheep lack critical thinking skills, and, by-and-large, they resist change. So you don’t make them so aware of the change. You don’t rub their faces in it. Not yet. They’ll fight you; and you’ll lose, if you fight now.
But that won’t always be true. You are on the side of right. Chances are, you will win; it’s just a matter of time. I look at the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s-60s, and while it accomplished a lot in a short span of time, it was messy, and left a lot of very loose ends. The battle is still being fought to this day, in smaller skirmishes, but those skirmishes are important. The sad fact is, the rights minorities have now were given; and the whites who gave aren’t in power any longer. The neocons are, and they want to take back. Zero sums game. To muc pie over there, gotta regain a few slices before they’re gone for good. The neocons might succeed, quite possibly, and it is only because of their spectacularly stupid leader that they’re position is in doubt. How could Buch have fucked up his post-9/11-level of approval so badly? Easy: He’s a fucking idiot, and grabbed too much. He overreached, and now it may cost him. That’s when a smart enemy will stick the knife in that open flank, just under the arm that’s stuck way out to grab at something too big to hold.
You just wait for that open flank. You stick the knife in, quiet and clean. Don’t be so righteous and high-minded. Your enemy isn’t; he only plays at it. Forget ideals; for now they’re crippling. You can afford them later, but at the present, you’ve got to have a better strategy than screaming “bigot”. That will blow up in your face if you’re not careful. And if you lose badly now, you might have an amendment to deal with in the future. So don’t lose; not now. I don’t think the time is ripe. But it will be, I’m quite certain of that. In time.
Well, the president can’t propose any legislation nor vote on it…
Really, in ideal world I had have a presidential candidate who has all the same views I do, but none do, so I’m forced to comprise with the positions that affect me the most. I’m sorry if your most important issue isn’t the one my candidate agrees with, but it seems you don’t have my concerns at heart, either.
Life was so much simpler before they were heteosexuals and homosexuals…
Not directly, no. But he certainly can campaign to have an amendment proposed. And he is doing just that. As leader of his political party, he has influence over Congress.
How do you come to that conclusion? What concerns do you have that are infringed upon by my wanting someday to be able to marry the person I love?
I’ve already made my position clear: I think it’s unconscionable to vote for someone who is actively seeking to deny a group of people their rights. I believe that trumps everything else. Even if I did agree with his economic policy or foreign policy, I wouldn’t vote for a man who proposed an amendment saying that only Christians could marry, or that only whites could marry.
Uh. When was that?
SOL, you don’t have to feel constrained to ignore anything I say. The martini remark was intended to be funny and/or friendly, and if it didn’t come across that way, my apologies. As for the Angry Young Gay Men – I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Virtually without exception, the people I know, IRL and here, who take the most extreme position on gay rights – “If you’re not 100% with us, you’re a homophobe and a bigot” – are AYGM. I understand their anger, but I continue to believe their position is short-sighted and counterproductive. Which is not to say I advocate boot-licking, but if you are dealing with a great mass of undecided and ambivalent people (and you are), it just seems to me to make more sense to refrain from actively insulting and alienating them. Some AYGM in my experience do not have the ability to do this, and some AYGM in my experience do not want to. All of this is IME, so I don’t think you can really dispute it.
True, but it is worth remembering that Congress cannot just up and amend the Constitution, either. A proposed amendment has to pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority (of each house) and then be sent to the states for ratification. The proposed amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states in order to pass. The President cannot propose the legislation, nor can he veto the referral to the states (if the proposal passes) or the amendment (if it is ratified by the states). So in fact, the President has less power over the amendment process than he does over your average Congressional enactment.
Part of the reason that I refuse to get my panties in a twist over this (as opposed to over DOMA) is that it is extremely unlikely a constitutional amendment would pass. It would be very hard to even get it out of Congress and then harder still to get it passed by 3/4 of the states. While the vast majority of amendments referred to the states have passed, they have not been on controversial issues or moral issues. The most analogous is probably ERA which ultimately failed. Personally, I think it is a fabricated issue designed to distract American attention from more pressing issues like – once again – the war and the economy. And with all due respect, I think you guys help Bush out when you take this non-issue seriously. YMMV, and I’m sure it does.
God, you’re a ignorant fuck. What does that sentence even mean? What the fuck do you mean by “blueprint?” Homosexuality is and always has been a normal part of human sexuality.
It’s only been within the last couple of decades or so that humans have decided that it is time to pervert that concept and change the blueprint of the family structure.
[/quote]
Wrong, fucktard. The nuclear family is a fairly new invention, and it’s far from the only child-rearing paradigm of the “last million years.” You really don’t have a clue what the fuck you’re talking about.
My god, you’re a fucking idiot.
Homosexuality is part of the norm, you fucking brainless cunt. Not only for human beings but for virtually all other mammals as well as a few birds. Is it “pervereted” when dogs or monkeys or penguins do it?
You’re talking completely out of your ass, which is normal for you, but since this is a board designed to fight ignorance, you should know that the AMA and the APA have both long ago determined that homosexuality is a perfectly normal orientation, it is not a disorder, and it can’t be treated or altered.
I don’t have to label you as a homophobic motherfucker, you’ve already done it yourself.