When the going gets rough, start bashing the Gays

[cubby1223]

But marriage brings with it certain privileges as seen under the law. You are restricting a minority from those privileges you enjoy because you dont agree with their lifestyle.

You are wrong.

List off these privileges one by one and people will tell you how they believe that situation should be handled. Please do be specific in how the government is oppressing these people.

All you're doing is repeating the same generic talking points that everyone repeats.

Where is your outrage over the harsh oppression of single people? I mean, worst case scenario a gay couple has the same rights and privileges under the law as single people. Why do none of the liberals ever complain about equal treatment for singles?

 

[JSt0rm]

there are a ton of issues from filing taxes to medical.

Also single homosexuals have the same rights as single heterosexuals. So that doesnt work.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Bottom line. Gays are here to stay and gay marriage will become legal in all 50 states of this country soon enough.

Republicans are again on the wrong side of social progress. Keep fighting that losing battle into slow but sure irrelevance.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think where you guys get confused is in you see marriage as a holy matrimony under the holy bologna and the united states refers to it as a legal definition.

your religion cannot keep rights from a minority. Marriage is a legal issue under the state, it has nothing to do with religion.

 

[pcgeek11]

But marriage brings with it certain privileges as seen under the law. You are restricting a minority from those privileges you enjoy because you dont agree with their lifestyle.

You are wrong.

I think where you guys get confused is in you see marriage as a holy matrimony under the holy bologna and the united states refers to it as a legal definition.

your religion cannot keep rights from a minority. Marriage is a legal issue under the state, it has nothing to do with religion.

You think I am wrong and I think you are wrong. I can deal with that.

IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect in some and a lifestyle choice for others.

I am not confused at all. Marriage is union between a man and a woman, be it holy or not. I am not bringing religion into this. I believe it is abnormal and wrong, and they should not be allowed to get " married ".

If the states want to grant them "civil union rights" that is fine with me.

 

[JSt0rm]

Marriage is the legal term for civil union.

 

[pcgeek11]

Marriage is the legal term for civil union.

No it isn't.

mar·riage/ˈmarij/
Noun:

1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

mar·riage
   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

 

[Ausm]

Homophobes are an important part of the GOP base please leave them alone!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No it isn't.

mar·riage/ˈmarij/
Noun:

1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

mar·riage
   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Let's post the rest of that second definition, you know, item 1. b.

mar·riage   [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which*a man and woman establish their decision*to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

 

[Double Trouble]

Sorry, no "bashing" found. Disagreeing with a lifestyle or someone's choices, or finding them objectionable does not equal "bashing". Perry is correct that tolerating something is not the same as endorsing it. I am tolerant of a lot of things I disagree with. That doesn't make me hateful or whatever term the politically correct morons use nowadays. Tolerance is important in a democratic society, but that doesn't mean everything that is tolerated has to be endorsed.

This thread will surely just devolve into another useless gay/anti-gay etc thread.

 

[1prophet]

Wow, they are really reaching for it now. What's the point though, aren't republican core voters already gay bashers? Is this really the way to go in order to grab the guys in the middle who still haven't decided on going right or left? Or is intolerance against gay people really that widespread in the states?

Stop with the cultural superiority since you guys just legalized gay marriage in 2009, after some states in the USA already legalized it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7978495.stm

and you still throw gays under the bus when it comes to multiculturalism.
http://www.thelocal.se/25712/20100324/

http://globalmbreport.org/?p=2725

 

[ichy]

Marriage is the legal term for civil union.

IMO the gay lobby is shooting itself in the foot by raising this big stink over marriage vs. civil unions. I live in a pretty liberal state, and last year's attempt to get a gay marriage bill narrowly failed. If they'd just called them civil unions it would have easily passed, and thousands of gay couples would now have the same legal protections as heterosexual married couples. I have no problem with gay marriage, but IMO a little pragmatism would help out a lot.

 

[cybrsage]

Intolerance against gays is depressingly widespread, it's the last acceptable prejudice. And it's not a strategy to get the folks in the middle, it's a strategy to make sure the core voters show up to the polls instead of staying home and doing laundry on election day.

No, anti-semitism is the last acceptable prejudice. People in California were actively trying to ban one of the cornerstones of Judaism (circumcision).

 

[Craig234]

Bottom line. Gays are here to stay and gay marriage will become legal in all 50 states of this country soon enough.

Republicans are again on the wrong side of social progress. Keep fighting that losing battle into slow but sure irrelevance.

Let's be clear. The Republican party does not have gay discrimination as a principle.

It has the plutocratic agenda - wealth for the top few - as its principle. These social policies are only the pandering it does to get votes.

It would give up gay discrimination easily as soon as it becomes a liability, just as it doesn't call for segregation.

What is has is a of principle in its pursuit of almost any voting bloc that can help it get power. I'm sure it'd support neo nazis if they had a lot of votes (hi, Pat Buchanan).

It's easy to forget the real agenda of Republicans as they talk about 'social' issues.

It's a really simple formula. Find big groups and pander to them. There are a lot of heterosexual married people - so say you are the 'marriage defenders' against the invented 'threat' of the 'gay agenda'. There are a lot of Christians so say you are the defender of Christians against the invented 'threats' - the 'War on Christmas', the 'Muslim agenda to put Sharia Law in the US'. The goal is votes for power to enact the wealth agenda that screws these same voters being suckered.

That's why every Democratic candidate for President I can find since Woodrow Wilson at least has been called a 'socialist' - a straw man attack.

Just this week, Gingrich said Obama is a 'radical leftist' who 'hates the free market'. Straw man. Pursuing power to enact the wealth agenda trying to mislead people.

I think it's good to understand the issue of why gays are attacked by Republican candidates. They'd attack blacks or Jews or kittens if it got votes IMO.

It's a bit like the tax issue. Their real agenda is to shift wealth to the top. But saying they're 'anti tax' sounds better to voters so they say that. They try to portray every tax increase on the rich as a tax increase on everyone, to protect the rich while getting public support. While Obama has reduced taxes on most Americans among the largest amounts in history, he's attacked as a 'tax lover' - but when it comes time to actually extend the payroll tax cut, the Republicans are exposed as they are against it.

Save234

 

[Macamus Prime]

Make room for them in your bedroom, America.

Conservatives: Stay out of my personal life gubnament!!! I'm entitled to my privacy!!! Shoo nao!!! Uhm,.... unless you are one of them thar gay fellars. Then the gubnament should decide what you do in there, can be punished by incar.. in,... incarso,... prison tiame!!!

 

[cybrsage]

IMO the gay lobby is shooting itself in the foot by raising this big stink over marriage vs. civil unions. I live in a pretty liberal state, and last year's attempt to get a gay marriage bill narrowly failed. If they'd just called them civil unions it would have easily passed, and thousands of gay couples would now have the same legal protections as heterosexual married couples. I have no problem with gay marriage, but IMO a little pragmatism would help out a lot.

Exactly. But I have an even better idea. The gay lobby should hold a national contest to create a new name for the new type of civil union. It can get the word out AND create buzz.

A pine and an oak are both trees, but you would be wrong to say a pine and an oak are the same thing. A homosexual civil union and a heterosexual civil union are both civil unions, but you would be wrong to say they are the same thing.

A heterosexual civil union is called marriage. The gay lobby simply needs to create a new name for their new type of civil union and most people will be happy. You can never make everyone happy, so no need to try.

 

[K1052]

IMO the gay lobby is shooting itself in the foot by raising this big stink over marriage vs. civil unions. I live in a pretty liberal state, and last year's attempt to get a gay marriage bill narrowly failed. If they'd just called them civil unions it would have easily passed, and thousands of gay couples would now have the same legal protections as heterosexual married couples. I have no problem with gay marriage, but IMO a little pragmatism would help out a lot.

A lot of gays have a problem with the whole separate but equal thing.

Also we are pretty busy going to war with "American values" or forcing sex ed teachers to provide graphic descriptions of gay sex to children.

 

[ichy]

No, anti-semitism is the last acceptable prejudice. People in California were actively trying to ban one of the cornerstones of Judaism (circumcision).

Should child sacrifice be legalized if it's the "cornerstone" of someone's religion?

 

[ichy]

A lot of gays have a problem with the whole separate but equal thing.

Except if government civil unions provided the same legal rights as marriage would it really be "separate but equal?"

I bet if you asked regular, working families who happen to be gay rather than professional "activists" most of them would be thrilled to have the legal protections of a civil union now rather than holding out for years for the same thing under a different name. As I said I have no problem with gay marriage, but I'm a realist about what kind of country we live in.

 

[K1052]

Except if government civil unions provided the same legal rights as marriage would it really be "separate but equal?"

I bet if you asked regular, working families who happen to be gay rather than professional "activists" most of them would be thrilled to have the legal protections of a civil union now rather than holding out for years for the same thing under a different name. As I said I have no problem with gay marriage, but I'm a realist about what kind of country we live in.

That is part of the issue with most of the states where gays can get a civil union, they don't actually confer the same rights as a marriage. They have already been established as an inferior contract. That's a big reason that the gays have lukewarm support for civil unions and stronger support for marriage.


Conversely I'd support the government ONLY issuing civil unions to couples, straight or gay. Getting out of the "marriage" business altogether and leaving it to the various churches seems like the most equitable solution.

 

[cybrsage]

Should child sacrifice be legalized if it's the "cornerstone" of someone's religion?

Is there a recognized religion which includes it?

 

[Agfadoc]

How about intolerance of Conservatives and Christians? If you want respect, you have to give it.

The left is tolerant only with the left, oh and radical Muslim extremists.. But other than those two groups the left is the most intolerant group in the world.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

How about intolerance of Conservatives and Christians? If you want respect, you have to give it.

The left is tolerant only with the left, oh and radical Muslim extremists.. But other than those two groups the left is the most intolerant group in the world.

Hyperbole much?

 

[Agfadoc]

Hyperbole much?

Is that your response? Really?

Isn't the OP Hyperbole? Tit for tat isn't that the game we are playing?

Show where I am wrong with the statement I made.

 

[K1052]

How about intolerance of Conservatives and Christians? If you want respect, you have to give it.

The left is tolerant only with the left, oh and radical Muslim extremists.. But other than those two groups the left is the most intolerant group in the world.

Because conservatives and Christians are historically oppressed groups in this country....