When the going gets rough, start bashing the Gays

[Ausm]

]It is class warfare,[/B] and I realize your tactic is to deny that it's taking place by the left. I mean that's what you have done your whole life as a left leaning person, blame others for your problems, blame someone else when caught doing something, blame your upbringing for the issues you have.

I get it, calling others "intolerant" when in fact it is you being intolerant, calling others "Racist" when in fact is it you being racist.

You are either delusional or you're disingenuous.

I beg to differ, if you want to see class warfare study up on "Voodoo Economics".

 

[zsdersw]

Lincoln was Republican.
Robert Byrd (KKK leader) was a Democrat.

William F. Buckley Jr. said it was a mistake for his paper (National Review) to not support the civil rights legislation of the mid 1960s.

 

[thraashman]

Lincoln was Republican.
Robert Byrd (KKK leader) was a Democrat.

You apparently don't get the difference between conservative and Republican or liberal and Democrat. There's a difference between political parties and political stands. Lincoln was a Republican, Lincoln was not a conservative. There was a large ideological shift mostly in the 50's and 60's where the Republican party became the conservative party. Previously it had tended to be much more liberal. So the person you quoted was actually correct, because historically conservatives have been against civil rights, against women's rights, pro slavery.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Supporting government out of marriage is NOT an excuse to oppose gay equality.

Supporting government out of marriage is supporting gay equality.

I don't oppose gay equality, they have the same rights I do. The right live, the right to pursue happiness, the right to not be murdered. The right to have others agree with/disagree with them, the right to take responsibility. However, the government offering benefits to married couples that they do not offer to anyone else, isn't a right. But it is discriminatory behavior.

I don't like the color orange, but it doesn't mean I do not like people that like the color orange.

I don't like the thought of men fucking men, but I do ladies doing the same. Of course they are all hot in my imagination.

I don't like the thought of damn near anybody I see in Walmart having sex with anyone else I see in Walmart. But I don't hate them for that. I just don't think about it, because it would make me ill.

In USA, because government got involved with marriage, they gave out incentives to people who got married, so you have people getting married just because it will save them money on taxes, or because it makes it easier to receive government hand outs, etc.

However having a relationship between two consenting adults is one of the inalienable rights that our Constitution is supposed to protect. The government showing favoritism, and granting privileges to married couples does equal discrimination. Discrimination against all non married people.

So instead of trying to create new rules and laws to treat the rest of society the same as they currently treat heterosexual marriage is a lot more complicated and unnecessary than it would be to just stop showing favoritism in the first place.

 

[zsdersw]

Supporting government out of marriage is supporting gay equality.

I don't oppose gay equality, they have the same rights I do. The right live, the right to pursue happiness, the right to not be murdered. The right to have others agree with/disagree with them, the right to take responsibility. However, the government offering benefits to married couples that they do not offer to anyone else, isn't a right. But it is discriminatory behavior.

I don't like the color orange, but it doesn't mean I do not like people that like the color orange.

I don't like the thought of men fucking men, but I do ladies doing the same. Of course they are all hot in my imagination.

I don't like the thought of damn near anybody I see in Walmart having sex with anyone else I see in Walmart. But I don't hate them for that. I just don't think about it, because it would make me ill.

In USA, because government got involved with marriage, they gave out incentives to people who got married, so you have people getting married just because it will save them money on taxes, or because it makes it easier to receive government hand outs, etc.

However having a relationship between two consenting adults is one of the inalienable rights that our Constitution is supposed to protect. The government showing favoritism, and granting privileges to married couples does equal discrimination. Discrimination against all non married people.

So instead of trying to create new rules and laws to treat the rest of society the same as they currently treat heterosexual marriage is a lot more complicated and unnecessary than it would be to just stop showing favoritism in the first place.

That's all fine and dandy, but:

The rub, though, is that there is not majority support for taking the government out of the "marriage" business among heterosexuals for heterosexuals. Most heterosexuals who are in favor of this believe it is something only for homosexuals and want the government to continue to call their relationships "marriage".

 

[Craig234]

Supporting government out of marriage is supporting gay equality.

You may have misunderstood my post.

I'm saying, until if and when you get government out of marriage - don't discriminate.

 

[SilthDraeth]

You may have misunderstood my post.

I'm saying, until if and when you get government out of marriage - don't discriminate.

Ok

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

My dictionary definition is; religious ceremony, state of being legally joined as husband and wife. Got no man or woman in there.

edit: Webster's Concise Dictionary not the Conservative's definition of reality.

 

[cybrsage]

You apparently don't get the difference between conservative and Republican or liberal and Democrat. There's a difference between political parties and political stands. Lincoln was a Republican, Lincoln was not a conservative. There was a large ideological shift mostly in the 50's and 60's where the Republican party became the conservative party. Previously it had tended to be much more liberal. So the person you quoted was actually correct, because historically conservatives have been against civil rights, against women's rights, pro slavery.

So the northern dems, who actively called for northern troops to switch sides to the sourth during the civil war, were conservatives, and the northern republican party were liberals?

Do you have links about this, I would like to read up on it. Have not heard this before.

 

[zsdersw]

Given that this thread has, as its basis, remarks from Perry and Santorum that are a reaction to Hillary's speech, I have to say...

Perry and Santorum are complete idiots. Hillary wasn't calling on these nations to support gay marriage or adoption. She was criticizing the violence and incarceration of homosexuals simply because they're homosexual.

Whatever your views on the GLBT issues we debate in this country, surely we can all agree that it is not wrong to voice our criticisms of the human rights violations committed by nations that imprison, torture, abuse, and kill homosexuals.

 

[cybrsage]

What does the BT stand for in the GLBT?

 

[PingviN]

What does the BT stand for in the GLBT?

Bi and transgender

 

[pcgeek11]

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

Feel free to use your definition and I'll stick to mine.

 

[pcgeek11]

Here is a few of the groups that the left can't tolerate in their "tolerance"

Christians
Conservatives
Jewish state and Jewish people
White people (maybe that's more guilt than anything else)
Successful people
People who disagree with anything they say

Here is who they tolerate:

Other left people
Muslim Brotherhood
Palestinians
Gays, minorities and women (unless you are any of the above)
Hippies, low lifes, and dredges of our society.

Excellent point. But of course they will call it a "Strawman Argument ". That is their most popular comeback.

 

[pcgeek11]

Sig worthy

Explain how it isn't a defect.

 

[pcgeek11]

Actually straight jacket and padded room worthy.

Then explain how it isn't a genetic defect.

 

[pcgeek11]

My dictionary definition is; religious ceremony, state of being legally joined as husband and wife. Got no man or woman in there.

edit: Webster's Concise Dictionary not the Conservative's definition of reality.

You are wrong, see definition.


hus·band
   [huhz-buhnd]
noun
1.a married man, especially when considered in relation to his wife.
2.British . a manager.
3.Archaic . a prudent or frugal manager.

wife
   [wahyf]
noun, plural wives  [wahyvz] Show IPA, verb, wifed, wif·ing.
noun
1. a woman joined in marriage to a man; a woman considered in relation to her husband; spouse.
2.a woman ( archaic or dial., except in idioms): old wives' tale.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes I would.

Whats ironic is that you have something like a 1/3 of the country that is pretty firmly Dem, another 1/3 that is pretty firmly R and the rest are independents. The vast majority of the really religious people (as in religious enough to discriminate against gays just for the hell of it) are already voting Republican, not many votes to pick up from independents with statements like that. OTOH, there are potentially a good deal of votes to lose.

So, what do they gain? Nothing. Hell, they can't even do much about it while in office besides very trivial bullshit. It should be an absolute non-issue like abortion.

What do they lose? Potentially something. Sure you might make people that are going to vote R already feel all happy inside but at the cost of losing votes that are undecided, all over an issue that the President can do very little about.

 

[Darwin333]

They dont talk about gay marriage because it makes them money or success. Clearly it does not bring success. The money is an open question, but clearly it doesnt bring them a lot of money. Maybe a little. Table scraps?

The real reason these guys talk about gay marriage so much is because that is what they decided at the bilderberg/CFR meetings and at all the think tanks. These guys are only interested in protecting the real power structure. They do that by invoking both "sides" to talk about gay marriage. Guns, gays, god. They are the big 3 Gs and they all work the same way. And make no mistake it takes two to tango. You dumb liberals are just as retarded for not realizing what is going on. Bash these idiot "conservatives" all you want, but understand two things:

a) You are being manipulated
b) They are not conservatives.

I agree completely with the "guns, gays, god" part.

Its all misdirection.

 

[Lanyap]

Here is a few of the groups that the left can't tolerate in their "tolerance"

Christians
Conservatives
Jewish state and Jewish people
White people (maybe that's more guilt than anything else)
Successful people
People who disagree with anything they say

Here is who they tolerate:

Other left people
Muslim Brotherhood
Palestinians
Gays, minorities and women (unless you are any of the above)
Hippies, low lifes, and dredges of our society.

You left out criminals in your second list.

 

[Craig234]

I agree completely with the "guns, gays, god" part.

Its all misdirection.

Abortion! Commies! Terry Schiavo! Not allowing a cross on public property! Sharia Law! Hippies who don't take baths! Welfare Queens in Cadillacs! All to get power to grab money.

 

[dank69]

At least finish his sentence in your sig. You are cutting off the rest.

It does not minimize the statement, but it keeps you honest.

I look forward to the day when your posts stop getting more retarded.

As for the point you think you have, the rest of his sentence doesn't make things any better.

As for his point, I wonder if he has a spider sense that allows him to tell the difference between the ones that are defective and the ones that are just choosing a different lifestyle. :hmm:

 

[pcgeek11]

I look forward to the day when your posts stop getting more retarded.

As for the point you think you have, the rest of his sentence doesn't make things any better.

As for his point, I wonder if he has a spider sense that allows him to tell the difference between the ones that are defective and the ones that are just choosing a different lifestyle. :hmm:

No spider senses... Hard to tell. Can you explain how being gay is not a genetic defect. I know that it exist in all creatures, that doesn't make it normal. It is like having an extra finger or missing an arm or leg.

For those that choose it as a life style, well that is just gross.

 

[Darwin333]

Abortion! Commies! Terry Schiavo! Not allowing a cross on public property! Sharia Law! Hippies who don't take baths! Welfare Queens in Cadillacs! All to get power to grab money.

Bah, your side does it too and for the very same reasons.

That was my point, both sides use these "wedge" issues that neither can do fuck all about as a form of misdirection. A tool to mislead us and nothing more. Obama may have thrown a few bones (no pun intended) to gay folk but has he really brought them that far? Hell no he hasn't, gays are still openly discriminated against, not allowed to have the same rights as the rest of us, etc, etc... The next president will have the same impact. Abortion? Same damn thing. Guns? Same damn thing. God? Same damn thing.

I will concede a single point to you and that is nominating Supreme Court justices but for the sake of my argument in this discussion, the average voter, they don't even begin to consider that when they vote.

 

[Craig234]

Bah, your side does it too

Far less. 'My side' is FAR more about the actual issues, not misdirection.

and for the very same reasons.

That was my point, both sides use these "wedge" issues that neither can do fuck all about as a form of misdirection. A tool to mislead us and nothing more. Obama may have thrown a few bones (no pun intended) to gay folk but has he really brought them that far? Hell no he hasn't, gays are still openly discriminated against, not allowed to have the same rights as the rest of us, etc, etc... The next president will have the same impact. Abortion? Same damn thing. Guns? Same damn thing. God? Same damn thing.

I will concede a single point to you and that is nominating Supreme Court justices but for the sake of my argument in this discussion, the average voter, they don't even begin to consider that when they vote.