Why do you assume rednecks have to be rural?
Hah! I knew it all along!
What made me particularly sad was this quote from the article:
Yep. 'Cause there ain’t no “values” in gay marriage. It’s “family values,” or it’s worthless. Must be that “liberal media bias” at work again…
Coupla points-
A- I’m not talking about the Miserable vote. I’m talking about an overall national opinion. The last time SSM became the only thing on the fucking news, the approval percentages were damned close to even, excluding the abstained opinions.
B- Who’s talking about the internet? or the internet being “real life”? Where do you get this shit?
C- Answer the question. What rock do you live under where every person is against SSM? I didn’t ask if you could tell if they supported SSM by looking at them(on their sleeve?). Why would people be stigmatized for supporting SSM?
Machetero, I’m not sure where you live, but if it is in a place where the entire population either doesn’t support the rights of gay people to marry and share benefits, or gets branded as a “fag lover” and is stigmatized for supporting SSM, it’s surely an ugly place. Please let me know where it is so I can cross it off my list of places to see with my fag-loving wife and myself.
Sam
Apparent fag-lover
That groundwork has already been laid over the course of the past few thousand years, as long as two consenting adults have been marrying each other. And there are already plenty of gay marriages that have lasted for tens of years if not longer, and they “work” just fine. The only problem is that a combination of bigotry and the attitude of “hey! hey! This is a big deal, here, fellas! Slow down and let us stew on it a bit!” refuses to recognize these relationships for what they are. And works to keep these people from calling their relationship a “marriage.”
What cultural connotations are these, Mr. Moto? I’d be interested in hearing any cultural connotation that inherently fails to apply to same-sex marriages as well.
I’d say that anyone who separates the civil rights movement from the “gay rights movment” is the one who’s fooling himself. The civil rights movement has been going on for over a century in one form or another. How long are people supposed to wait and give it time? Why do we have to take it all on a case-by-case basis, instead of just understanding that people deserve to live their lives and be happy?
Well, we’ve got the blacks pretty much appeased, and we’re letting the women vote now, and we’ve closed down those internment camps for Japanese people, and we’re fine with the muslims having their weird “churches” as long as they don’t bomb us… oh, Jesus, what now? Now the homos want to be treated like human beings? Here we go again!
Mockingbird, I have to ask. What’s your point? Just trying to prove you’re cooler than Machetero? Or are you just being a jackass by claiming that he’s an anti-social nerd who doesn’t have “enough” ethnic friends? Can you at least recognize how your comments could come across as being a jerk?
It’s a term for people who enjoy activities or life styles developed from or with similarities to rural farmers / sharecroppers / laborers whose necks got red from being stooped over and working. I live in the city. But I am a redneck.
That was in response to Mockingbird BTW.
My point was what I said and nothing more. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
:wally
I can’t say I’m terribly surprised, since this is the state that elected John Ashcroft to the Senate (in their defense, they did realize the mistake a few years later and replaced him with a dead man.)
So, you prove my point that there are rednecks in the city too.
Wow. We were so wrong. :rolleyes:
Oh for fuck’s sake. First off, I didn’t mean redneck as a racial slur, I meant it in terms of the attitude of the person, but I suppose that means little to you. I also stated it applies to everyone in the cities and the suburbs, but you seem to have glossed over that statement, so let’s just get off your kick about this being a slur against people of a rural background as that’s been addressed already. I never said ‘rural’ in my OP, you put that in. I also agreed that it was a generalization and admitted that generalizations are wrong, but you don’t seem to be paying attention to that either.
So, here’s the situation as of right now… redneck, where I am from, is a term commonly used to described the state of mind of people regardless if they are from rural or urban areas. As much as in St. Louis the term ‘hoosier’ is meant to mean much the same thing, with no offense meant to people from Indiana. It is not meant as a racial slur. Shit, even Jeff Foxworthy has built a career on the term redneck applying to everyone. That’s the sense in which I am using it. I didn’t mean anything racial by it, and I’m sorry for offending your sensibilities. Would you feel better if I retract the term ‘redneck’ and substitute ‘hoosier’ (and thus opening myself up for feeling the wrath of the state of Indiana)?
Uh… what now? How is he being the jerk here? I would’ve thought the jackass was the one (for clarity’s sake: Machetero) who keeps trying to derail the conversation with completely irrelevant bullshit. He/she is the one who’s been saying shit like “the numbers are on our side” and that he’s never seen anyone who supports gay rights. Mockingbird was quite correctly pointing out that there are plenty of people who support gay rights. Not that he’s “cooler.”
And Machetero, dumbass: shut the fuck up. Either you’re trying to derail the thread with a bogus non-argument, or you’re genuinely suggesting a tirade about bigotry and prejudice against “rednecks.” Which means you’re either being fatuous or you’re genuinely an idiot. Unless you’ve got a genuine statement to make about gay rights, go somewhere else and start your “Rednecks are people too” thread.
This is what really pisses me off. Aren’t we supposed to have a separation of church and state ? Doesn’t this count as a flagrant violation of that ? Can we call to have their tax-exempt status revoked ?
Fuck you. I’m not anti-Gay Marriage. I’m also not fond of folks of using redneck as a slur. Since I consider myself one. If you don’t want to derail a thread, then don’t use hate speech when bitching about hate.
I thought separation of church and state referred to keeping the government out of our religion, not the other way around, since religious people have the right to be represented also.
But that’s a whole other can of worms.
Dammit, my post was eaten.
Sol Grundy, you’re going to be very hard pressed to find where Machetero says he’s never met a gay rights supporter, or that the numbers are on his side, or that he’s even claimed a side (excluding the post he made 2 minutes ago).
Spare us your bitching, you whiny fucking tool.
Oh… should I now be worried about a backlash from hammers who find ‘tool’ to be a slur which equates themselves with genetalia?
They didn’t derail the thread, you did.
For the last fucking time, jackass, I didn’t mean it as hate speech. I’ve explained my position on using the term redneck. If you have any further issues with it, I’m asking you to open a new damn thread (which is the proper etiquette around here) instead of continuing to hijack this thread.
You haven’t addressed my statements since first coming in and calling me a bigot, other than to drop a pot shot about calling Hispanics ‘spics’. So do you have anything to say about what I’ve had to say, or are you just going to keep belly-aching about how the bad man hurt your feelings with the naughty word?
Here’s the options:
- You start a new thread if you want to continue to bitch and moan about my use of the term ‘redneck’ (which I’ve apologized for already, explained my use of it, etc and you’ve not responded to)
- You can shut the fuck up and address the real issue in the OP
- I can open the new thread for you
Absolutely! That’s why I referred to them as, “cousin-fucking hillbillies” last night. Prolly woke up some peaceful people in Waldo, but I was pissed.
Seriously, where in hell are you? I’m not doubting you, but I find it astounding that you can make this claim.
I’m not surprised that it lost. I am kinda surprised that it lost so badly. But what really steams my beans is that there are now any number of people out there who will point to MO’s example when they enshrine bigotry in their state constitutions. Plus, Metzl lost. So I’ll be outta sorts all damned day.
OK - maybe I invoked the wrong term, but I’m still crying foul at pastors/preachers/reverends who use their pulpits to tell their congregations how to vote.
On reflection, though, I think that seperation of church and state is the right issue for this. Churches have a captive audience and have undue influence over their congregations (“Voting against a gay mariage ban is EVIL and an abomination to the Lord!”). To allow churches to do this, is to allow for the possibility of a church-run govenment, wherein all believers in the government would be bound by the dictates of that church.
So I guess I’ll stick by the accusation that this is a violation of church and state.
And I don’t mean to hijack, but I think this is somewhat relevant to the topic - how would this vote have gone had the churches not (improperly and possibly illeagally) butted in ?