Kerry Quit
- Thread starter D_Barbi_Queue
- Start date
Homosexuals arent sore losers,
we are frightened.
'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
-Pastor Martin Niemoller
h34r:
we are frightened.
'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
-Pastor Martin Niemoller
h34r:
Why marriage equality is not a wedge issue
Equal rights under the law are already guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. There are 1,049 rights and benefits which the federal government offers to married people but not to unmarried people. Denying these rights to citizens on the basis of one's religious beliefs constitutes a de facto establishment of religion, and is unconstitutional. To suggest that maintaining the separation of church and state is a "wedge" issue and shouldn't be pursued is nearly an endorsement of theocracy.
Why blaming the GLBT community is homophobic
Uppity blacks who want the right to miscegenate ought to know their place and shut up. Why can't they be happy we're not lynching them anymore like we did these niggers?
Why the GLBT community is not to blame
The GLBT community sought redress and protection through the judicial branch. Taking a cue from Loving vs. Virginia, we used the courts and not the elections to seek equality. It is obvious that none of the 11 amendments that were on Tuesday's ballots were written by gay people, nor were they supported by gay people. George W. Bush in his last State of the Union address turned marriage equality from a judicial issue into a legislative issue. The evangelical zealots followed suit and publicized this issue in states where it was completely unnecessary to do so, in order to motivate their base and pre-empt the judiciary.
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,024
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 160
- Points
- 383
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Sexuality
- Non-Binary
- Gender
- Male
There was no "gay agenda", bud. You mentioned your "gay friends on this site", but the fact that you use the expression, "gay agenda", tells me that you probably don't have any gay friends at all.
3XL: Hehe I knew it!
Well what I was trying to do here was not to argue for a particular position, but to provide a simple observation. Regardless of my opion on the issue, --- and I don't see that I offered one! --- the polling data should be clear:
The majority of the public (that voted) in 2004 was not supportive of gay marriage, and conservatives received a boost for speaking a position counter to the gay culture.
Now seeing how I offered no insult to homosexuals, nor announced a position contrary to gay rights, I think I am owed an apology.
Well what I was trying to do here was not to argue for a particular position, but to provide a simple observation. Regardless of my opion on the issue, --- and I don't see that I offered one! --- the polling data should be clear:
The majority of the public (that voted) in 2004 was not supportive of gay marriage, and conservatives received a boost for speaking a position counter to the gay culture.
Now seeing how I offered no insult to homosexuals, nor announced a position contrary to gay rights, I think I am owed an apology.
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,024
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 160
- Points
- 383
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Sexuality
- Non-Binary
- Gender
- Male
You did offer an opinion. You said, "You have to admit that the gay agenda was a liability in this election."
If, by chance, your statement is true, this only makes the U.S. look worse. With all of the major problems facing this country and the rest of the world, to think that legislating discrimination against gays is more important to Americans than the economy and terrorism is unbelievable.
This article expresses my feelings very well:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/columnists/brianreade/
3XL: No actually, I haven't.
Other than to say that it is my opinion that gay agenda was a liabilty, I still have not explicitly said if I favor the agenda or not.
Now you might infer something about my attitude from using the word agenda, but what word expresses it better? Should I have said "cause" ? I supose "gay rights" would have worked too, but then that implys that I am on some other side.
So what neutral word can anyone use that does not imply a side?
There simply isn't one.
You know very little about my attitude, and I will tell you I'm generally indifferent, but as a game player, I take note of what wins and what doesn't.
Again, I am just making the observation that the Democrat's position proved to be a liability in this election. I've made no statement that the Democrats are taking the wrong position, only that it lost. That much is clear.
Other than to say that it is my opinion that gay agenda was a liabilty, I still have not explicitly said if I favor the agenda or not.
Now you might infer something about my attitude from using the word agenda, but what word expresses it better? Should I have said "cause" ? I supose "gay rights" would have worked too, but then that implys that I am on some other side.
So what neutral word can anyone use that does not imply a side?
There simply isn't one.
You know very little about my attitude, and I will tell you I'm generally indifferent, but as a game player, I take note of what wins and what doesn't.
Again, I am just making the observation that the Democrat's position proved to be a liability in this election. I've made no statement that the Democrats are taking the wrong position, only that it lost. That much is clear.
That's an opinion, though. Perhaps it proved to be a liabilty for the Republicans -- maybe they would have gotten 60% of the vote and carried five more states if it weren't for the gay-bashing. Maybe the Democrats would have won the election if they had taken an even tougher stance and insisted that they'd repeal DOMA if elected.
To call the issue a "liability" suggests you know what would have happened were it not for the issue -- and that my straight friend, is a projection of your opinion. You claim you haven't stated it, but it oozes transparently from what you have said.
first time in 16 years a majority of americans agreed on a presidential candidate and all this turmoil continues...it IS sore loosing....hope the new Newsweek opens some eyes...
3XL: Mindseye:
Take a look at this:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...10096403.htm?1c
"...But gay marriages in San Francisco and Massachusetts -- and the intense backlash they created among conservative voters -- played a huge role in mobilizing evangelical Christians to the polls, particularly in the battleground state of Ohio.
Voters in 11 states across the country, from Arkansas to Kentucky to North Dakota, adopted constitutional bans on same-sex marriage Tuesday, in many cases by a 3-1 ratio. Even in Michigan and Oregon -- states won by Sen. John Kerry -- the bans passed handily.
``Five judges in Massachusetts and the mayor of San Francisco may have done more to help George W. Bush's campaign then anything else,'' said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals, which has 30 million members. ``Evangelicals turned out as much to vote for these amendments as they did to vote for President Bush. It got them to the polls.'' ... "
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.
Maybe the voter that turned out don't represent the true majority opinon, so I guess the Democrats failed to mobilize more people than the conservatives, but the exit polling data that gives us some hint as to WHY people voted the way they did - gay rights were an undenyable liability for 2004.
Maybe things will be different in 2008, but it's wise not to ignore the past.
Take a look at this:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...10096403.htm?1c
"...But gay marriages in San Francisco and Massachusetts -- and the intense backlash they created among conservative voters -- played a huge role in mobilizing evangelical Christians to the polls, particularly in the battleground state of Ohio.
Voters in 11 states across the country, from Arkansas to Kentucky to North Dakota, adopted constitutional bans on same-sex marriage Tuesday, in many cases by a 3-1 ratio. Even in Michigan and Oregon -- states won by Sen. John Kerry -- the bans passed handily.
``Five judges in Massachusetts and the mayor of San Francisco may have done more to help George W. Bush's campaign then anything else,'' said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals, which has 30 million members. ``Evangelicals turned out as much to vote for these amendments as they did to vote for President Bush. It got them to the polls.'' ... "
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.
Maybe the voter that turned out don't represent the true majority opinon, so I guess the Democrats failed to mobilize more people than the conservatives, but the exit polling data that gives us some hint as to WHY people voted the way they did - gay rights were an undenyable liability for 2004.
Maybe things will be different in 2008, but it's wise not to ignore the past.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Thanx Mark, that article pretty well sums it up for me as well. My chief arguement through this whole thing is that once we vote away our civil rights because we don't like fag's rights and abortion, the NEXT time it might be something you DO care about, but it will be too late. It has always been sad to me that I have to vote to protect the rights of the KKK in order to protect my own freedom of speech, but there you have it. I have to care about the rights of people I don't agree with in order to protect my own, and that is what I see passing away now. I feel certain that four years from now with find us all far less free than we are today, and that's just not the America I wanted.
I had this conversation with my daughter, who proudly voted for the first time this week. She pointed out to me something I had overlooked- that in a democracy, the majority rules and the minority gets left out in the cold. That's the way it is. Now, we can speculate that the election was rigged (which wouldn't surprise me a bit) and complain that the votes weren't all counted in Ohio (mine wasn't), but at the end of the day, I have to succumb to the realisation that about half the country WANTED this! Women, poor people, young people, working families- voluntarily voted for bush- I must accept that as fact. Hard as it is to imagine, idiocy won out over intellect. There's just no way around it. It has left me feeling far less friendly to my neighbors.....
I had this conversation with my daughter, who proudly voted for the first time this week. She pointed out to me something I had overlooked- that in a democracy, the majority rules and the minority gets left out in the cold. That's the way it is. Now, we can speculate that the election was rigged (which wouldn't surprise me a bit) and complain that the votes weren't all counted in Ohio (mine wasn't), but at the end of the day, I have to succumb to the realisation that about half the country WANTED this! Women, poor people, young people, working families- voluntarily voted for bush- I must accept that as fact. Hard as it is to imagine, idiocy won out over intellect. There's just no way around it. It has left me feeling far less friendly to my neighbors.....
why if they happen to disagree with you on whatever issues they deemed most important, is the majority pure idiocy and you pure intellect...that reasoning is why we continue to be divided...all voices should be heard and considered not judged and deemed idiocy. another 4 years of bitching about a loss rather than constructive input into the system,...damn damn damn
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear if you thought I was talking about myself. I was talking about bush vs. Kerry. If you want to make an arguement for bush's intellect, have at it!!! lol.
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,024
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 160
- Points
- 383
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Sexuality
- Non-Binary
- Gender
- Male
You think that because 51% of the electorate voted for Bush, the other 49% should just shut up? No way.
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,024
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 160
- Points
- 383
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Sexuality
- Non-Binary
- Gender
- Male
How about "equality for all"?
You said you're only making an observation, and not taking a side. Why don't you tell us how you do feel about this issue? I don't think I've ever come across anyone who doesn't have an opinion about it.
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,024
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 160
- Points
- 383
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Sexuality
- Non-Binary
- Gender
- Male
Unfortunately, with the winner-takes-all system that we've got, the minority doesn't have a voice in The White House. Bush serves the 51% who voted for him. The other 49% of the country is ignored.
well i guess you can't say that anymore, because i honestly do not feel strongly about the issue either way. that may sound callous and isn't intended that way, just doesn't directly effect me or anyone close to me (as far as i know). i totally agree that everyone should be heard...how can anyone ignore 49% of our great country? thats the problem with a two party system, it is so about winning and loosing that the common good gets lost...oh how i wish we had multiple choices...
madame_zora
Sexy Member
I feel ya there, dallas. I would love to see more options than A or B too, I think a lot of us would love to see the two party system broadened.
I also am not homosexual, but that doesn't mean I don't care about their rights. I am not black, but I don't think "it's not my problem". I'm not under the poverty line, but I don't have to be to feel compassion for those who are. As for the things that DO affect me, like healthcare- I want to be heard. The economy- I want a voice. I feel frustrated that clearly half the country cares about more then the war, and strongly objects to the way things are playing out under bush's watch, but by an extremely narrowly won margin, we are to be completely ignored or called "sore losers" if we want to be heard. Once again, my main objection to all this is a loss of civil rights that will be very hard to re-win. You think that's something to be calm about, I just can't understand why! I'm also not calm about Abu Gharib, and I resent any implication that I should be. I think complacency amoung Americans is the chief reason we find ourselves where we are right now. I wholly believe that if 100% of Americans had made it to the polls, we would have had different results, so I'm truly frustrated with my fellows who didn't get out and let their voice be heard- we will all be silenced because of it.
I also am not homosexual, but that doesn't mean I don't care about their rights. I am not black, but I don't think "it's not my problem". I'm not under the poverty line, but I don't have to be to feel compassion for those who are. As for the things that DO affect me, like healthcare- I want to be heard. The economy- I want a voice. I feel frustrated that clearly half the country cares about more then the war, and strongly objects to the way things are playing out under bush's watch, but by an extremely narrowly won margin, we are to be completely ignored or called "sore losers" if we want to be heard. Once again, my main objection to all this is a loss of civil rights that will be very hard to re-win. You think that's something to be calm about, I just can't understand why! I'm also not calm about Abu Gharib, and I resent any implication that I should be. I think complacency amoung Americans is the chief reason we find ourselves where we are right now. I wholly believe that if 100% of Americans had made it to the polls, we would have had different results, so I'm truly frustrated with my fellows who didn't get out and let their voice be heard- we will all be silenced because of it.
3XL:
Sure, but first you have to admit that I haven't disclosed how I feel about the issue. That's the point I'm trying to make here. You've asked me to tell you how I feel about the issue, why ? Don't you know? Haven't I spoken my mind yet?
OH - That's right ! I actually have not told you yet!
Just please admit that much.
Sure, but first you have to admit that I haven't disclosed how I feel about the issue. That's the point I'm trying to make here. You've asked me to tell you how I feel about the issue, why ? Don't you know? Haven't I spoken my mind yet?
OH - That's right ! I actually have not told you yet!
Just please admit that much.
m. zora - - i was afraid i would come off as "doesn't affect me so i don't care". not true, i just honestly have not thought the issue all the way through and therefore do not have strong opinion. i hope your feeling of doom and gloom about loosing rights is overkill...time will tell...and we'll just have to disagree on this, i too believe if 100% of those eligible would have turned out it would have been differet, i think the same winner just a much much bigger margin...we'll never know who's right...
