Gay rights. Nader. Browne.

So I was reading the paper today and saw an article from an angry Libertarian.

And it got me to thinking. How can you be gay and support Bush or Gore. They do not support gay rights. It would be like being Jewish and supporting someone who you mostly agree with, yet didn’t feel jews should be able to immigrate to this country. Human rights are the most important issue. Now, I could possibly understand someone hating Nader so much they couldn’t support him, but…We have canidates on both ends of the spectrum. Nader and Browne. So can anyone justify supporting someone who wants to deny equal rights to homosexuals?

Homosexuality, or any other sexual preference for that matter, is a private issue. I could be gay and not care one way or the other about a state recognized marriage. Gore and Bush are not against gay rights. Both candidates simply have not taken either position on the issue.

If I was gay I could not vote for someone who was against gay rights. But I could vote for someone that did not take a stance on gay rights, provided that I agree with the rest of their stance.

Like many other individuals there are homosexuals who feel as though they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Some homosexuals vote Republican because there are a lot of issues they agree with. Others might vote for the Democratic ticket because at least that party isn’t going to land on them with both feet.

Most of us are not single issue voters. So we vote for the candidate who most reflects our wants and needs.

Marc

**

BULLSHIT.
From Gore “I’m not in favor of changing the institution of marriage as it is presently understood—between a man and a woman.”

Now imagine if that was “I’m not in favor of changing the institution of marriage as it is presently understood—between a white-man and a white-woman.”
that is pretty damning. That is what he is saying . he is against equal rights for gays.

He does not support laws allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. He proposed leaving it up to the “local level”

I don’t even need to speak on Bush.

Reminds me of an Onion article “Buchanan woos gay vote: I promise I will not incinerate you”

Could you find an excuse to vote for someone who was a racial segregationist yet had some really nifty education plans? Then how can you justify voting for someone who doesn’t support full and equal gay rights immediately.

No one actually votes for Bush or Gore because they think they are worth anything. They just do it out of party loyalty or because of negative campaigns making one or the other look worse.

So the real question is how can you vote for Bush or Gore:)

Also I dissagree with your saying they are anti-gay you just changed the terms to make them sound more offensive. Also Libertarians are against gay rights, they are for giving everyone equality.

**

Would you care to provide some evidence that they are not indeed anti-gay?

True, but they are for equal rights for gays. Something that Bush and Gore oppose. If you were black and were presented with 4 canidates. 2 who opposed equal rights for blacks, and 2 who supported them, how could you vote for the ones who opposed them. Unless you really hated yourself. Which I suppose is true of some gays.

“He who is not for us is against us.” — Jesus

Um, gay people are part of everyone.

OldScratch

We likely come at this from two very different perspectives — you from Nader’s and me from Browne’s (or close to it, anyway). It so happens that we merge on the issue of gay marriage, but not on the larger issue of rights ethics. I think that should be made clear to everyone here, and the distinction should be drawn for their benefit.

Nader would give priority rights to certain classes of people over certain other classes of people. For example, he might force those who are in the employer class to hire those who are in the gay class. That is uneven distribution of rights because he would not do it the other way around; that is, he would not force people in the gay class to work for people in the employer class.

Browne believes that rights come from nature (he is an Atheist). He believes that people from the gay class have the right to work or not as they please. He also believes that people from the employer class have the right to hire or not whomever they please.

Gore has done some vigorous courting of the gay vote- when I went to the Milennium March there were pink triangle stickers emblazoned with “Gore” all over the place. Also, Bush has taken some measures to woo a gay vote- he did, after all, meet with the Log Cabins. I’m still waiting to see if Cheney’s lesbian daughter is going to become an issue in the campaign.

Eh, I’m voting for Nader.

I think that a lot of gays and lesbians, like many voters, simply view Gore and Bush as the only serious candidates- Nader and Browne are, at best, long shots. There’s often a perception of “wasting your vote” if one doesn’t vote Democrat or Republican. I see the majority of the gay community as supporting Gore. Regardless of his statements about gays, he’s seen as the lesser of two evils.

Remember that the most gay friendly president to date has been Clinton, and he signed those farces DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The gay community, IMHO, isn’t looking for a political champion- they’re looking for a viable candidate who better serves their desire for equality. Gore is seen as gay tolerant, if not completely accepting. Which, in turn, is seen as better than nothing.

On a minor tangent, I’ve read that a fear in the Gore camp is that Nader will get votes from people who might otherwise vote for Gore, giving Bush the advantage in the election.

Where did you get this notion? Please provide a cite.

Is the title to this thread an intentionally bad wordplay? Homosexual, nadir, browne?

That’s like asking for a cite that Karl Marx was class conscious. Nader’s class fetish is common knowledge. Here’s one cite from Mother Jones:

I agree with Franz Kafka that these revolutionaries are just muckrakers. Their toil will harvest nothing but more of the same. Kafka said, “Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.”

**

Thank you Lib. As much as I disagree with parts of the libertarian platform, you have to at least admire Browne’s optimism. Let’s see vote for someone who would give “EVERYBODY” equal rights, vs someone who beieves that it’s ok to prosecute people for mutually consentual sexual relationships. hmmmm. Tough choice there.

**

True but at the same time we both agree that you have to vote for what you believe in. Correct? As I see the issue of human rights as the most fundamental one in any campaign, I would rather see Browne win than Bush or Gore. At least we know what Browne will do, he’s open and honest. Same goes with you. You are an open and honest person. If you became president I know almost exactly what you would do. you wouldnt’ try and sneak shit in.

Again the argument I’m making is that if you believe that homosexuals are normal people, you can not in good conseince vote for Gore or Bush. You must come at it from a liberal perspective and vote Nader, or a conservative perspective and vote Browne. Do you agree with that?

**

I’m not sure I agree with the example. The other way around would be forcing homosexual employers to hire heterosexual employees. Something Nader would do.

OldScratch

Well, yes and no. That’s a loaded question.

Yes, I agree that a person who supports the rights of gay people (or anyone else, for that matter) cannot in good conscience vote for someone whose party’s history demonstrates again and again and again and again that they will do whatever is politically expedient. Period.

They will give meaningless rah-rah speeches, designed as appeals to emotion, pity, patriotism, or other fallatious motives. “I believe in an America whose children don’t have to worry about how their parents will afford education and health care.” [… applause …] “I believe in the America of our Forefathers, the land of the free!” [… applause …] “A believe in an America that is of the people, by the people, and for the people!” [… wild cheers …] They will promise “new programs” — Wars on Hunger, Wars on Drugs, Wars on Poverty. You just want to slap people. {{{ Hey! Wake the fuck up! Do you ever see the salesman again AFTER THE SALE? }}}

But oh well.

Disgusting, the gullibility. “It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

I do not, however, agree that Browne is a Conservative. He is a (marginal) Libertarian. Here’s how to discern the four political poles:

Authoritarian: Keeps one hand on your wallet and one hand on your zipper.

Liberal: Keeps one hand on your wallet, but leaves your zipper alone (for the most part).

Conservative: Keeps one hand on you zipper, but leaves your wallet alone (for the most part).

Libertarian: Keeps his hands to himself.

oldscratch,

Sounds to me like your main point boils down to an assertion that symbolic issues should take precendence over practical ones. Certain ones, anyway.

Alot of people may vote based on more practical reasons, based on the issues that they believe will actually directly affect their lives.

oldscratch,

Sounds to me like your main point boils down to an assertion that symbolic issues should take precendence over practical ones. Certain ones, anyway.

Alot of people may vote for more practical reasons, based on the issues that they believe will actually directly affect their lives.

Also, I should add, symbols can sometimes be interpreted differently.

Could you please delete the first of my two posts (as well as this one).

Thanks

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**

Come now, let’s be reasonable. People have to work. There’s no need to legislate things that are already a practical necessity. Government action certainly isn’t the only influence on the social/economic machine. The employer class has a lot of rights that are built in to the system. They may not always be enumerated and codified, but they exist nonetheless.

DumbGuy

As you wish.

I demand $85,000 a year with a $15,000 signing bonus to start. I will require a private office, high-speed cable internet connection, and as little interference as possible from you and other managers. I also won’t be available to work on alternate Mondays, weekends, or whenever I feel a general malaise. When shall I begin to exercise my right? Please provide directions to your place of employment.

Oh. And I don’t do windows, either.

Too bad, we need good Windows Integrators. All the conditions you listed can be met.:wink:

What Oldscratch has stated can be applied to any issue:
If you believe in X, how can you vote for Y or Z.

Well oldscratch, I have no doubt that everyone who votes has at least one major policy disagreement with the candidate they vote for. I still don’t know who to vote for in this election, since Bush and Gore don’t present a good choice, but it is likely that one of them will win. Browne comes closest to my political beliefs but he stands so little chance.

So these elections boil down to choosing the parasite that will suck the least!

Sili

Wha? If that’s a response to what I wrote, then one or both of us is very confused about what the other is trying to say.