Kerry Quit

[madame_zora]

Dallas, you may be entirely right about the outcome too- I have considered that a possibility as well. As you say, we'll never know. It is my personal opinion that the future is likely to resemble the past, and based on that alone I feel sure that I will not be happy with the next four years- not that that's an issue to anyone but me! My "doom and gloom" is definitely mellow compared to what I actually feel, but I'm just one voice losing volume in a sea of little voices......

Guess it's just about time to go back to the threads where penises rule!! Where reality fails me, fantasy never does.

 

[MisterMark]

Originally posted by 3XL+Nov 5 2004, 02:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(3XL &#064; Nov 5 2004, 02:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-MisterMark@Nov 5 2004, 09:48 PM
You said you&#39;re only making an observation, and not taking a side.  Why don&#39;t you tell us how you do feel about this issue?  I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever come across anyone who doesn&#39;t have an opinion about it.

[post=262561]Quoted post[/post]​

Sure, but first you have to admit that I haven&#39;t disclosed how I feel about the issue. That&#39;s the point I&#39;m trying to make here. You&#39;ve asked me to tell you how I feel about the issue, why ? Don&#39;t you know? Haven&#39;t I spoken my mind yet?

OH - That&#39;s right &#33; I actually have not told you yet&#33;
Just please admit that much.

[post=262569]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

It&#39;s completely normal to get an impression of someone by the words they use. The fact that you use expressions like "gay agenda" and "natural marriage" would give many the impression that you are at least somewhat anti-gay. I&#39;m just asking you to either confirm or reject my impression.

 

[KinkGuy]

So, where is this "gay agenda?" I want a copy. I want to see the platform we have laid out? bush has a mandate from God. I have been a faggot for 30 years and have yet to see more than 3 queers in a room agree on ANYTHING. BTW, does anyone remember that there was, at one time (up until September 2004) a very active gay group called "The Log Cabin Republicans?" Queer republicans, go figure. Let&#39;s see how they like the "grand old party" now. They tried (admirably) to effect gentle change in the party. Great results there. Why? The fundamentalists had more votes and more &#036;&#036;&#036;. Will we at least get to pick out the color of our jump suit when we get sent to the concentration camps?

 

[13788]

3XL:

Originally posted by MisterMark@Nov 5 2004, 11:24 PM
It&#39;s completely normal to get an impression of someone by the words they use.  The fact that you use expressions like "gay agenda" and "natural marriage" would give many the impression that you are at least somewhat anti-gay.  I&#39;m just asking you to either confirm or reject my impression.

[post=262577]Quoted post[/post]​

I&#39;ve asked you to give me something first.
Well, it&#39;s clear that you&#39;re not listening.

I&#39;m just going to drop this.
One thing that I&#39;ve just observed about LPSG is that there seems to be two communities. Those that chat and those that post.

I guess I favor the more interactive response in the chat room. It seems people listen to each other better there.

 

[jonb]

The problem with the term "natural" is that I&#39;ve found that by "natural", most of the leaders of the phallic thunder god cult think of just things which they like. Of course, hemlock&#39;s natural too.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by 3XL@Nov 5 2004, 05:02 PM
Apparently this columnist saw the backlash as a liability.

What I am suggesting here is that you can not project your beliefs on the outcome. There is a very strong statistical correlation that shows that the issue brought extra conservatives to the forefront to voice thier concern.

But you didn&#39;t cite statistics, you cited an anecdote. The issue also mobilized social progressives to stick with Kerry instead of jumping ship for a minor party candidate like David Cobb. Was it a wash? Can&#39;t be known.

If you are right, however, then it is the nail in the GOP coffin. Just as it is with racism, homophobia ameliorates with every generation. If this one issue was as big a liability as you say it is, then the GOP will find in just a few short years that the audience they reached with that issue has largely passed away and has been replaced with a younger, more tolerant bloc of voters.

 

[13788]

3XL:

Originally posted by jonb@Nov 6 2004, 12:20 AM
The problem with the term "natural" is that I&#39;ve found that by "natural", most of the leaders of the phallic thunder god cult think of just things which they like. Of course, hemlock&#39;s natural too.

[post=262599]Quoted post[/post]​

Of course, the problem is that since there are two groups of people who want to define the same term, you now have to put in qualifiers for the term.

What does marriage mean? It depends on who you talk to today. Thus we now have the phrases "gay marriage" and "natural marriage".

How else can I seperate one concept from the other just for discussion purposes?
While you all seem to have suspicions of my attitude on gay marriage I&#39;m digging my heals in at this point. I doubt anyone here knows my view because we haven&#39;t discussed it.

And we won&#39;t until most of you can conceed my point:
-I have not spoken my view&#33;-

Heck, I&#39;m beginning to feel like Paul Scofields portrial of Thomas Moore in "A Man for All Seasons"

qui tacet consentit&#33;

 

[13788]

3XL:

Originally posted by mindseye+Nov 6 2004, 12:51 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mindseye &#064; Nov 6 2004, 12:51 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-3XL@Nov 5 2004, 05:02 PM
Apparently this columnist saw the backlash as a liability.

What I am suggesting here is that you can not project your beliefs on the outcome. There is a very strong statistical correlation that shows that the issue brought extra conservatives to the forefront to voice thier concern.

But you didn&#39;t cite statistics, you cited an anecdote. The issue also mobilized social progressives to stick with Kerry instead of jumping ship for a minor party candidate like David Cobb. Was it a wash? Can&#39;t be known.

...

[post=262608]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

No, true I did not give the stats, and I don&#39;t have them.
And I only offered an ancedote.

It was gratifing to me that this very debate we are having was the primary topic on tonight&#39;s McLaughlin Group.

The fact that it was raised to that level gives me comfort that there is at least a question mark that this turned out to be a liability for the Democrats.

Oh my, did I say I was going to shut up?
Sorry... I did ... sorry