blows the Trump
EWWWW…not THAT Trump…
I think it’s actually a gay guy who’s into Asians. Also, may I re-iterate how much you rock?
beagledave: There’s a very simple reason you’re not likely to see a gay poster pit John Kerry, or Al Gore, or the Clintons over their stance on gay rights: survival. If you have an interest in gay rights, nine times out of ten when you step into the voting booth, you’ve got two choices: the candidate who hates gays a little, and the candidate who hates gays a lot. I don’t like John Kerry’s stance on gay marriage. If there were a viable, pro-SSM presidential candidate, I’d be happy to Pit Kerry myself. But there isn’t. The only other alternative is the guy who wants to write homophobia into the U.S. Constitution. Given the options, you can bet your ass I’m going to hold my nose, swallow my bile, and vote for the candidate who’s only “a little” biggoted, and during the runup to the election, I’m going to keep my mouth shut about it because the last fucking thing I want to do is help out the candidate who’s overwhelmingly bigoted.
No, you’re missing my point. If Bricker says “it should be up to the states to decide” and Hilary says “it should be up to the states to decide”, the difference is not that Bricker means it and Hilary doesn’t. The difference is that what Bricker really says is “it should be up to the states to decide, but as for me, I do not personally consider a union between two people of the same sex to be a marriage”. The states-deciding part is only a sideshow. At least, that’s my analysis.
Absolutely. Surely you can’t go into every pit thread in which one SDMBer flames another one, find a public figure who holds the views, or engages in the practices, for which the flamee was flamed, and point out the non-flaming of that public figure as if it’s somehow evidence of hyprocisy…
Bricker posts on the SDMB, saying things that people disagree with, and gets flamed. Because he’s here. Because one can click “reply to” and respond to him, and he’ll answer back. That’s far more satisfying than just railing about various famous people.
Crap, I really have to stop posting to such hot button topics.
See, some people don’t read and post to these boards every day, much less every hour it would take to keep up with a conversation like this. Throw in my time lag and ya got a bingo.
Anyway, Miller thanks, I guess, for retracting your declaration of my Idiot-hood.
My assertion still stands. Perhaps the United States is not ready for gay marrige.
Does this make close to eighty percent of us bigots? I suppose in a way it does. These are different times. I read an article about how straight boys would pretend to be gay so their fellow students would think they were “cool”.
Sorry but this read like a news report from mars to me.
I will tell you one thing I know from experience, If enough people call a man a racist to his face, he will eventually become one.
I think the time is always right for civil rights. However, I would say the time at which it is convenient to extend civil rights may be closer at hand than you think. I certainly would not have predicted when I came out six years ago that I would have the right to get married by now.
It’s natural to be discomfited when faced with something that’s foreign to your experience. But just like we try to deal with it when we’re faced with a culture we’re not familiar with from another part of the world, I’m confident you can accept that most of us are dealing in good faith, including the rage that many of us feel at the treatment we’ve received both individually and as a community. Conversely, your post has done a lot to assure me of your good faith.
I missed a clause:
The way I look at it, I was raised Catholic, I went to Parochial school and attended all the sacrements, including marrige.
Then I divorced. Somewhere between then and then I saw the light.
No one is in hell on a meat rap (Carlin)
There are still people who adhere to that religion. Any number of other religions consider homosexual unions unholy.
I, like Bricker think the government should get out of the marrige business and just start issuing domestic partership licences.
Of you have read any of my other posts, I believe they can be beween any two people, related or not.
Leave the hellfire and damnatation to the church.
Unfortunately my model makes no provisions for children.
-
I missed the part on the voter ID card that said I can’t criticize someone who I vote for.
-
That last phrase sentence of yours is TRULY scary. It’s equally repugnant to think of Pubbies (who KNOW it’s wrong) who won’t criticize what the Swifities are doing because they last thing they would want to do is to help the other guy.
-
Your opinion is not really the one applicable to my scenario since… “And I’ll go ahead and say again that I don’t think Bricker is a bigot.”
-
We’re not talking about some minor policy quibble…we’re talking about politicians who held an opinion that has been equated with racism/nazism/bigotry/discrimination in this thread. I guess I thought if that were really the case it would be worth a mention or two.
Oh please. I was drawing parallels to what is popularly known as the civil rights movement. Most people knew what I was talking about when I did so.
Now, you can call this fight a civil rights movement if you want to. Be advised, though, many black people aren’t comfortable with gay folks using the name of their struggle to describe this one.
Using the right language can often win the battle, as we’ve seen. This civil rights analogy is one case of that. Another is the use of the term “civil union”. Using it instead of the term “marriage” avoids all of the cultural baggage of that term, and might make the whole issue more palatable to the public at large.
You know, the ones who are invalidating gay marriage right now by huge majorities, in every single state where it’s up for a vote.
I’m going to ask for a ruling, now, because I believe targeting Bricker for his views may be impermissable hate speech.
The word “bigot” is a loaded word, and may be impermissable under the spirit of this board.
It may be impermisable under the law as well, if this recent ruling by the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights is any authority.
http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-525079.html
Note the following:
And many gay people aren’t comfortable with folks acting as if their struggle isn’t a civil rights issue because they can choose not to be gay, choose not to have sex, or at best, choose to supress, hide, and be ashamed of their sexual orientation to make it more palatable to the public at large.
But of course, you’re right. It is nothing more than a case of using the right language. The idea that what a lot of homosexuals want is exactly all the “cultural baggage” of the term “marriage,” is irrelevant. It’s all about process, and legal rights, and political expediency, not some vagaries of language.
So that ends that discussion. You go home to your wife, your family, and consecrate the sacrament of your love through marriage. I’ll go home to that guy I’m fucking – you know, my roommate – and celebrate all the tax cuts and visitation rights we get from our civil domestic partnership of convenience.
Maybe later we’ll look through interior decorating magazines and paint each other’s toenails while we try to come up with shrill unreasonable come-backs to lob at the next poor breeder sap who’s unfortunate enough to cross our path.
Nice comeback, SolGrundy. I hope you don’t use such rhetoric off the boards, though. You’ll not win many people to your side this way.
Let me ask you something. If you see a bunch of angry anti-abortionists protesting at a clinic, are you likely to stay and listen to their arguments? Or are you more likely to dismiss them as zealots, and walk away?
What’s that mean? You give up?
People like Mr. Moto were never actually trying in the first place. When someone demands that you kiss their ass for your rights, even when you kiss that ass, it’s not enough. There’s always something more. It’s a neverending cycle of “Stroke me some more if you want your rights”.
Reasonable people don’t require as much work to convince as some of the posters on this board are demanding. They’re just getting off on making us beg. Fuck it.
I don’t really care how you treat me. If I wanted my ego stroked I sure wouldn’t be hanging out here, one of the few conservatives on this message board.
You might want to put that ego in check, though, and start making nice with the voters. You know, the electoral forum, where this issue always loses.
As for it requiring work, I refer you to the davastating losses suffered by this issue in state after state. Sure, you’ll have to change lots and lots of minds. You really should be starting now.
Sorry, but the irony of this is too great to resist.
Well, calling him a Nazi is close.
You were saying about not reviling and dogpiling on Bricker?
The reason Democratic politicians who have the same position as Bricker don’t get Pitted and he does is just what I said in the other thread. They are anti-Bush; Bricker isn’t. And therefore the Usual Suspects think up excuses for the first and attack the second.
Cheap shot at you, MaxTheVool, I know.
Regards,
Shodan
No, you’re here to be another one of those whining fucking poor oppressed conservative straight white christian males. Fuck the fuck off.
It’s unclear to me what “just a sideshow” means. There are a number of issues here:
-
Should the power to regulate - or forbid - same-sex marriage or other arrangements that bestow the rights and privileges thereof be reserved to the states, or should it be a federal issue?
-
Should the substantive law on this matter be a creation of the legislature or the judiciary?
-
Ultimately, what should the law be?
Much of the confusion here arise from the conflating of these issues during debate.
None of these issues are “sideshows” for another, if that word means a smokescreen, excuse, distraction, or pretext. Federalism is a necessary part of our government. There is a strong public reaction in this country now over the perception of “activist judges.” And, naturally, there is some measure of interest in securing reasonable, justified civil recognition of same-sex pairings in the same manner as husbands and wives are so recognized.
- Rick
I still don’t get your position in all this. You’re consistently telling gay posters to quieten down; to just settle for some civil arrangement that your friend’s aunt would find really helpful - telling them that complaining so much really isn’t helping. Don’t you see that this attitude can be every bit as exasperating as the die-hard no-gay-marriage types? If anything, it’s even more so, because you seem unwilling to give any solid reason why gay people shouldn’t have equality, yet persist in trying to bargain them down. And for all your invocations of MLK, you ignore the fact that he did not want to settle for merely better, but demanded equality. To use him as an example in favour of quietly settling for second-best is bizarre in the extreme.
If your entreaties were accompanied with affirmation that you support the idea of full equality, you might not get the same adverse reaction. As it is, however, it is impossible to read your posts as anything but saying “pipe down and have this crappy substitute instead.” If this is not your intention, then perhaps you could confirm that you do believe that gay equality is a fundamentally desirable thing, ignoring for a moment what you think about the political expediencies involved. It might be appreciated, you know.
Ah, the truth is out.
Jayjay, if you’ll wear a leather collar and leash, and present me a paddle to use on you with a ready chorus of “Thank you, sir, may I have another!” THEN I’ll consider support of your position.
I appreciate your cutting to the chase. I was too shy to just ask outright.
- Rick