I still have one question about Kerry’s position. If anyone (Apos?) can tell me the answer, I’d appreciate it.
Given that Kerry argued that DOMA was unconstitutional, and that DOMA allows states not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states…
Does Kerry believe that states must recognize gay marriages performed in other states?
Does he believe that they must recognize them and provide the same rights, but can call them civil unions if they want?
Or does he believe they don’t have to recognize them at all (unlikely, since he did vote against DOMA)?
Maybe so…But relative to all the other politicians like his fellow senators and the President, he is among the 15% least bigotted. And, the difference between him and Bush on it is huge…actually gargantuan. Could you imagine Bush ever saying anything close to what Kerry said on the floor of the Senate in regards to DOMA. I sure as hell can’t. In fact, Bush is among those actively promoting bigotry and hate for political purposes on this issue.
My support for Bush by no means spans every issue. I believe he betrayed the traditional conservative position when he sought a federal amendment that forbid not only federal recognition (questionable) - but also forbid states from reaching their own determinations - entirely improper. If a state wishes to endorse same-sex marriage, that’s an issue for that state’s legislature, not the federal government. The President’s support of the amendment dismayed me greatly.
Yeah, brilliant one. I never get sick of hearing it. Problem is, we live in a democracy, not some sort of dictatorial realm where CanvassShoes alone gets to appoint his fantasy candidate without regard to the fact that there are Republicans in the country that democracy forces us to compromise with.
Help yourself all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that you either misled eveyrone else or yourself as well by claiming that Kerry flip-flopped or even that he’s an anti-gay bigot.
I don’t see him pushing to undo it, either. You might not remember anything other than the doctor slapping your ass after you shot out your momma’s stinkhole, but at the time, MANY people in the gay rights movement were urging exactly this compromise: because it looked like the state might otherwise strike down gay marriage altogether, with no rights left at all. In fact, that’s still a major danger. Plus, even if this wasn’t an asinine, ahistorical implication, Kerry’s plan enacted right now wouldn’t remove any substantive rights, it would merely create two legal separate words for the same thing. Like I said, I think it’s the wrong ultimate result, but since the choices really do look like no gay rights vs. all but in name, I don’t think it’s exactly the root of all evil either. It’s actually the most intelligent and likely way forward. It would go a long way to taking away the wedge issue that Republicans are using to deny gay people their rights in lots of other states. Of course, going without human contact for so long, you might not have noticed that, but the reality is that the struggle is currently a LOSING battle, not a winning one, in part because of a dogmatic insistence on the word “marriage” is turning off the swing voters we need to pass gay rights legislation. If we pushed first for civil unions, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. But you obviously don’t give a shit about gay rights, only bashing Kerry, so I’m probably wasting my time.
Geez, I’m glad you conducted such an extensive, representative poll of the 4 or 5 homosexuals in the thread.
It’s called the radical gay left, bucko. You’ll meet them if you ever make it to a liberal arts college or certain parts of New York.
Ah, cynicism! If Kerry loses, I won’t be blaming Kerry. Not one bit. I’ll be blaming Democrats and the left. They claimed that they would do anything to defeat Bush. They claimed that all this was important. But when the chips came down, they were lazy, backbiting, cynical, and quick to despair. If most Republicans I’ve ever met weren’t, deep down on a personal level, scumbags I couldn’t stand to be with, I’d join the party just for the perks and the professionalism. Oh, and the fact that they are trying to stuff gay people back into the closet.
Show me where I “misled” anyone by showing that Kerry flip-flopped his reasons when the difference is between gay marriage and abortion. Show me where his rationale for blocking gay marriage isn’t anti-gay and straight out being a bigot and I’ll concede to your stupidity. But I’m not worried about doing that.
31 Years ago or the time of DOMA? :rolleyes:
Kerry doesn’t have a “plan” right now. He’s got a left-over bigoted statement that hasn’t been updated since February. Too afraid to offend any “moderates” that he won’t speak up for what’s right.
No, the most intelligent thing would be to grant gays the right to marry. Creating two separate legal terms is an exercise in asinine pandering to the bigots because they can’t handle gay marriage.
Wow, it seems to me that since 1971, Baker v. Nelson,which is the first year that a law suit was made to get gay marriage, that we’ve got Civil Unions, reciprocal benefits and gay marriage in certain states. Of course, even your ignorance is pretty limited.
Way to totally make up your own reality in a thread.
“Somewhat” is the operative word. Your argument prior in this thread that there were “many gay couples (who) don’t want the heteronormist title marriage” has only been buttressed by an article by someone who supports the term “marriage”. Maybe it’s the fact you’re being nebulous about your word “many”, but the proveable part of your argument, that there are gays that believe that are on the fringe. It’d be tantamount that every vegetarian is a hardcore vegan who bombs animal testing facilities. In other words, your point is complete bullshit and you know it.
No, we live in a republic. You’ve around these boards long enough to know that.
All hail the leader. No one criticize the leader. The leader in infallible. Anyone questioning the leader is not a patriot. Any dissention will be dealt with strictly.
Hmmm… you seem to be leaving out a big part of your story. Are you conceeding that I ALREADY showed where you misled about Kerry’s gay marriage flip-flop?
You’re going to have to first make a case that his stances on abortion and gay marriage are a flip-flop in the first place. The fact that YOU think they are in contradiction in principles does not magically make them flip-flops. There are any number of reasons why abortion and stem cell research are not the same issues as gay marriage, and people can have very different feelings about what rights and duties, which may or may not come from their faith, are important to enforce via law, and which are not, as well as how. So you have no prima facie case to work with. And you’ve presented nothing that establishes a specific flip-flop either.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the definition of a word like marriage applies to non-penis/vagina people. Quaint, probably the wrong way to go, but I’ll not call anyone a bigot over it IF they recognize the basic civil rights issue and fight for gay people. Kerry does, and he has. The bottom line is that Kerry wants full civil rights for all gay people ASAP. And, in fact, he’s done far more to fight for this cause than you ever have, or ever will. If he’s a “bigot” then he’s still a far more important asset to gay rights struggle than a shrill little pisser like you ever will be.
You must be TRYING to act this stupid. Kerry’s position at that time was the compromise that MANY people on our side were urging: were they all bigots? Or just Kerry? You keep trying to weasel out of questions like this. Now that the point is moot, there is no need for Kerry to offer the same compromise, and it’s ridiculous to claim that it represents a standing position that he wants enacted everywhere: it was the compromise position offered at the time. It was a good compromise. Within a few months, we may come to wish that we had taken it, because Mass Republicans aren’t about to just give up and let us have civil rights. Kerry’s current focus is on getting gays federal civil union rights: a focus no other Presidential candidate that I know of has EVER been willing to fight for openly. And yet, we get “ah, he’s just a bigot” and “they’re all the same!” Is it any wonder that it’s taken this long to win gay rights and stop Republican domination when boneheaded people like YOU are our supposed “allies.”
Some might call “pandering to the bigots” and others might call it “actually finding ways to getting something done rather than peeing all over yourself posting on a messageboard about it.”
Which are now under threat like never before. Lousiana just basically destroyed civil union rights. Other states are fast moving to do the same. All because the cover of “marriage” allows them to gain the popular support to do it. I’m sorry, but the word “marriage” is just not that important. It may well hand Bush the Presidency and the power to pass a FMA. I’m sure you won’t apologize or reconsider then, but if that happens, allow me to point out: fuck you.
You are trying to weasel out of my point: are these gay activists anti-gay bigots? Are people who think that marriage is a heteronormist pressure on gays to conform, death to gay radicalism, bigots? Are people who urge us to take the civil union route and worry about the legal word “marriage” later, bigots?
Sign. Yes, a republic, which elects its representatives democratically.
Dude, you know that was not what I was saying. You can criticize Kerry all you want. Just don’t come crying to me when it takes two more decades to get gay rights in the US while the rest of the world gets them within a few years.
Wow, you must have had someone following me 24-7 to know all of the work I do and don’t. What a STUPID FUCKIN’ argument. Your attitude that we can’t criticize someone that’s marginally for gay rights is sickening. I’m glad I don’t live in your status-quo-is-okey-dokey world.
Why is every sentence you type just a shitpile of ignorance? Of course, I’m only address Kerry because that’s what the thread is about. If you even look at the title of the thread you can suss that. I know literacy is a challenge for you, so I’ll let it pass this time.
Your point is asinine. Why would I try to weasel out of it? (Besides the apparent fact that you like to accuse others of weaseling when they address your points). I’ll address this stupidity now. These **radical ** gay activists are not “anti-gay bigots”, that would be stupid. They are however, being anti-straight bigots. Anyone that defends their point with words like “heteronormist” is just being a divisive bigot.
"Are people who urge us to take the civil union route and worry about the legal word “marriage” later, bigots?"Nope, but if you notice that Kerry has NEVER proposed that we could go for “marriage” later, has he? Kerry has actually supported a Mass amendment to prevent the use later. He’s thusly a bigot.
Your OP establishes no such thing. All it says is that he believes something in one situation but doesn’t think it is best dealt with by government intervention, and believes another in a different situation that thinks the government’s longstnading position is fine on. Calling that a flip-flop is sheer nonsense. You haven’t even begun to establish this.
Unless you are John Kerry in disguise, my point remains true. John Kerry has done more to advance the cause of gay rights than you ever have, or ever will. Calling him marginally for gay rights is laughable. We have never had someone who supports gay rights as strongly and as openly as he does. Indeed, he may very well lose the election because of this support. What do you have to offer to prove that you are anything but marginal? http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/AUPM.wmv
Unfortunately, I DO have to live in YOUR defacto status-quo-okey-dokey world. Because there aren’t enough John Kerrys, and are too many navel gazers like you.
You can criticize Kerry all you want for not being pure enough on an issue of semantics. What you can’t do is lie about his record or rightly accuse him of being a bigot.
I’m sorry. While I support the idea that we should call all two person couples, gay or straight, marriages, I don’t just don’t see how not being to agree to that semantic constitutes being a bigot. It’s a question of strategy and definition, not tolerance. Homosexual couples AREN’T exactly the same as heterosexual couples. The question is thus merely whether the differences are enough to constitute keeping the traditional meaning of the word or not. Again, I favor the latter choice, but I don’t see any inherent bigotry in thinking the former choice makes more sense. To prove that someone is a bigot is going to take a LOT more argument than simply pointing out that the use different words for different things.
Given that Kerry is for giving gay people every civil right that married people have: for treating gay couples equally and fairly under the law, and given that we may never again see such in a presidential candidate for decades precisely because it is such a dangerous and unpopular position, I see the attempt to turn an extremely minor and inconsequential issue into grounds for slander not only abhorrent but detestable.
No, you’ll only address Kerry because any examination of other people would show it to be bullplop. Tons of people, gay and straight, all pro-gay rights, suggested the exact same compromise that Kerry did. Either they are all bigots, or Kerry isn’t. Dealing with that issue would expose the nonsense you are slinging around here.
You weaseled out of it again. They are gay. They oppose the idea of gays getting married because they think, just as traditionalists do, that it’s nonsense: that being gay isn’t about fitting into heterosexual patterns and traditions: it’s something different. At worst, John Kerry believes that the traditional WORD “marriage” applies to the traditional man/woman partnering. So either these Kerry AND these gay people are anti-gay bigots, or neither are.
And I don’t see how these gay radicals are anti-straight either. They don’t want straight people to become gay, or hate them for being straight. They just don’t think gay and straight are exactly the same things, or think that gay people should model themselves after straight people.
Come on. You got nothing. Even my childish insults are so much better than yours.
All of this wordy, pseudolegalistic verbage and quibbling over nits is utter bullshit. There is only one botom line. On this issue, Kerry is the better choice.
I’ve completely established that. He says in one instance that religion
should not be the basis of his law-making and then flip-flops when it comes to gay marriage from abortion. To support my argument, I’d just copy my whole OP because it’s all in there. You have yet to disseminte any arguments to the contrary
besides your “because I said so” attitude.
Really? I think I showed Barney
Frank saying he was only giving 80% (whereas Barney is giving 100%). Your point is obviously wrong that you’ve gotten to the point of hyperbole and out right lying. Maybe you should quit while you’re so very far behind.
You showed your hand there. The only reason you’re defending Kerry is not because he’s right, you’re afraid that he’ll lose from any critique proffered. How very, very sad. And blind. Very blind.
A link to nowhere. Just like your arguments.
Yes, I’m a “navel gazer” . I actually believe my eyes were looking upward, like this: :rolleyes:
How am I lying about his record when I’m quoting him
directly? I think he’s being pure as snow when it comes to semantics about marriage and civil union. I’ve quoted
him to prove it. You have ANYTHING to show ANY ambiquity? Now would be the time to have you produce ANYTHING
that would support YOUR argument. But it’s hard to produce something out of nothing. Ask CBS.
A man isn’t the same as a woman but shouldn’t they be afforded the same rights?
Oh, I concede your point. I don’t see the difference between calling a certain group of people african-americans or negroes.
Since I don’t see the difference between what I call it, why should they? :rolleyes:
I must’ve missed the bill he’s created for national recognition of civil unions then. Can you please link to it here?
Otherwise, bullshit.
No, I’m only addressing Kerry because THAT’S WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT. It’s not about abortion, but there’s a tangential
relation in the OP. Do I want to have this veer off and talk about RU-486 policies in France? No. If you can’t focus on it,
get a script for your ADHD, and then come back to the SDMB. But it’s nice you can try and polarize everything into
its nice little boxes.
or neither are.
And I don’t see how these gay radicals are anti-straight either. They don’t want straight people to become gay,
or hate them for being straight. They just don’t think gay and straight are exactly the same things, or think
that gay people should model themselves after straight people.
[/QUOTE]
Weasel schmeasel. I answered your fucking question.
I actually have some sympathy for the republicans on this board now that have to deal with you. You’ll defend the democrats even when they’re wrong solely for the fact that you’re worried that any dissention will destroy your candidate. Maybe if you stopped worrying what others might think you can understand what’s wrong.
And you, my friend, will viciously attack a politician who is one of the best fuckin’ friends that gay and lesbians have because his purity on the issue doesn’t live up to your high standards.
