|
MrChupon posted:Is the Maryland governor expected to sign this tonight? Crab juice and cocaine?
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
gohuskies posted:Yes, if you ignore all the things that Democrats are doing for LGBT rights, then it looks like Democrats aren't doing anything for LGBT rights.  guys you'll get your rights when we get around to iiiiiit
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:
I've done a lot of local activism, my biggest helps here in Texas were actually the Socialist and Green parties. I'm not saying the democrats are as bad as the right, but yea pretending democrats inherently are best just by being democrats is childish. We right now have a democrat president who won the election saying 'marriage is between a man and a woman', when not throwing fundraisers for our sweet sweet gay money of course, and then later when even the famously lazy and downright vile Log Cabin Republicans were lapping him on equality he decided his view was 'evolving'. Yea, I'd rather have Obama than the dudes saying 'what, no, gently caress gays, Lawrence v Texas for life!' but I'm not going to pretend he's an ally to me either, he's just not an active enemy. We shouldn't have to settle for passive enemies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Good work, Fain was a big fish to land on that vote. "Obama's not good but don't worry the 202X guy will be better. Woah buddy don't you dare say I'm saying your rights will come when we get around to it!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:The Democratic Party is on a trajectory to equality. Third parties are on a trajectory to nowhere. Marriage equality has been enacted by the Democratic Party in several states. Marriage equality has not been enacted by any third party in any states. Pushing the Democratic Party to support marriage equality over time is a realistic strategy towards national marriage equality. Creating or promoting a third party that will support marriage equality is not a realistic strategy towards national marriage equality. I would rather have marriage equality actually happen. You would rather adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and look down your nose at those who are creating actual results. Gohuskies, I want to be super clear here. Are you tell me that because in a few states local level democrats have gotten things done, I as a gay man am in some sort of Wookie life debt with the Democrat party as a whole, and must only vote for them? Obama, who I've always been talking about, has done nothing for gay rights. The Log Cabin Republicans, the guys who proudly vote for the party who has 'gays are second class citizens' in their platform, were able to scoop DADT's repeal from him and make him look like an idiot. Good for the state level people who have, but yea, I'm not gonna vote for the Democrats who do nothing just because they share a D. Also I have no reason to believe the Democratic Party as a whole is on a 'trajectory to equality', you're talking about theoretical maybe candidates, so far all we have is Obama, who we had to twist his arm to get 'eeeh I'll think about it' while happily taking our money.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
My 'strategy' is to vote based on the individual rather than party loyalty. I have voted for democrats who are progressive (shock of shocks, in Texas that didn't end on my favor), and in the national race I voted for the SPUSA candidate because, along with agreeing with their economic and foreign relations views for gay rights their party platform says, among other things, that same-sex marriage is a goal they work for, while the Democrat platform says civil unions and vague 'federal rights equality'. Also they've managed to put forth dudes who haven't said 'I believe marriage is between a man and a woman' while asking for my money, so that's always a plus.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:I still don't understand why LGBT groups don't push for civil unions as a temporary milestone. I mean, of course I understand it - separate but equal isn't acceptable - but I can never be convinced that doing so wouldn't speed up the realization of full equality. "It isn't my place to judge, but lemmie judge for a bit..." We don't accept CUs because it's separate but equal, and really in the year 2012 that should be enough of a reason. If I must go on, though, the major issue is if we do settle for CUs and wait the five years you suggest, then we give the right ammo to go 'well for five years it's worked just fine like this why would you want to change it?!' Every year that we 'hold the line' on CUs instead of marriage is one more year to go 'eeeeh, you're pretty much equal now and it's worked well for this long, let's not mess with success guys!' for apathetic voters. The only way to get marriage, like every wifebeater and vegas wedding already gets in this sacred union, is to never accept anything less, because as soon as we accept less it becomes 'why can't you leave well enough alone'.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Marriage, as an institution, should die. That's awesome but A) not the topic, and B) the work in deleting marriage as a concept is so, so, much bigger and wide affecting than just going 'ok, gonna change this from a man and woman to two adults'. edit: Also a wee bit insulting to be all 'well I'm straight and married and we'd be happy to get rid of it' in a topic about gays wanting to be married at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
Oraculum Animi posted:Because you're proposing a more complicated alternative to simply allowing gays to marry while passively giving out the fact you are married, the very thing that homosexuals are fighting the rights for. In total fairness it's more along the lines of saying 'well I want you to have a cookie too, but let's just bake a whole fresh batch together sometime, look see it's no biggie' and then chucking it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not so much a rightward shift as the lack of a leftward one. The statement still applies, there's so many factors to the gradual rightward shift that happened even before 2000 to blame a third party for it is just downright petty and nothing but 'well if we just don't mess with the norm things would be ok!!!!' logic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
So this just happened to kinda make me do a double take. My father, a lifelong Goldwater Republican, just called to say 'ya know son, I think I'm ok with this gay marriage thing'. In some bizarre way the Obama thing was whatever click he needed to either realize being apathetic/opposed was a losing battle, or somehow actually see that his side was the wrong side of it. He's not gonna vote for Obama, he made that super clear, but he is going to start supporting marriage rights instead of deleting the emails I send him and all. Obama's thing was about four years late, painfully wishy-washy, and an obvious move to keep gay donors above all else, but somehow it got at least one person to change his mind, so I guess I should step back and look at it through more than jaded eyes.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Oh no we killed a ~citizen~ with a drone. That's totally worse than killing literally millions of people with regular guns and drones that weren't citizens, in all of our unneccesary wars. Christ. Using the military on your own people is actually a super big deal.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
Riptor posted:It's adorable that bill is being sponsored by Reed and Reid. They should start a detective agency together Reed and Reid, professional non-bigots! Someone before asked about Reid's support of gay marriage, from what I recall the line he said about 'well as a Mormon I'm not super cool with it but as a lawmaker my faith can't dictate what I do' has been his position for, at the very least, a good while now. I have a lot of respect for him being honest that yes his faith does make him uncomfortable with it but understanding that he has to put that aside to legislate the nation as a whole, not just the Mormons. So, what is actually going to be in this Respect for Marriage or whatever bill, have they confirmed it's a DOMA repeal?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Echo_ posted:I saw this in the GBS thread and thought it was worth having a discussion about. It's an utterly absurd thing that comes up. Yes, people who ONLY fight for marriage are missing a lot of major points but people putting 'counter culture cred' above ensuring every gay citizen has equal rights is cartoonishly wrong. As for the second quote, it's just another pseudo-intellectual who thinks the western concept of marriage is 'marriage as it always was'.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Aufzug Taube! posted:Yes, I'm pretty familiar with those arguments, and they can probably best be described as radical queer or queer liberationist. There's some truth in it, mainly the claim that marriage (if not necessarily religious) is traditional and conservative. I think it is, and I think the shift to gay marriage as the primary political cause for gay activists following the AIDS crisis of the 1980s reflects a rightward shift within the gay rights movement. (Borne out of the crisis too.) This really makes zero sense though. Like I have no idea who you're talking to but in Texas of all places AIDS activism is still a huge thing, you can't quantify 'activism' and say 'well this is getting more focus so it means...'. Marriage is a major talking point because there are a poo poo ton of states trying to take it away from us. I haven't been involved in any organization for gay rights that didn't have a huge HIV/AIDS awareness/activism wing.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Again I have no idea who you're actually talking to but I've never heard gay marriage advocates say that it was the ONLY option, just that, you know, we're citizens and deserve the same rights as any other citizen.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 14:05
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:
Hey bro, those ads mainly had those tones because A) Gay marriage was already banned, B) NC is a super homophobic environment, and C) the fact that literally everyone could be hurt by the bill is a totally valid thing to use against it. But yea, you got it right, gay rights group secretly hate gays and wanted to avoid humanizing them because ads in NC represent the entire movement.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
Rand then snorted, spat on the floor, and told the reporter to stop hitting himself.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I don't think Bush or Obama did crack. My impression is powdered cocaine is the thing at Harvard. Yea it's funny in his insane 'HOW DARE YOU THINK I'M A BIGOT' rant he assumed the black dude did crack. They both did blow like, a couple times.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:It's not surprising that a dumbass Senator from a rough province would believe or say something this stupid, though since everyone believes the current President there is gay and Manny recently left his party over what's believed to be a dispute over failure to help Manny dodge taxes or something, there may be another angle to this sudden need to declare it loudly and publicly. Yea Manny's a huge shitbag so I doubt anyone's shocked 'oh the tax cheating piece of poo poo is also a homophobe'.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
^^^^edit: I totally misread the question. Yea in actual application they're no more anti-gay than any other group in the same overlaps of culture.Inspector Hound posted:What is the explanation behind the perception that blacks as a general demographic are opposed to gay marriage? In the big picture black and hispanic people tend to lean social conservative in general, but usually in the scale of 'well I personally wouldn't do this' rather than 'Gotta vote this poo poo out'. The gay stuff gets hit because a large amount of the black population is religious, and in many black communities the church plays a more involved role in the life of the people than in white areas, especially in the south. evilweasel posted:It's may just be me but I don't usually assume tax evasion is linked to being a homophobe. Well in general I meant he was a scumbag with the general 'shitbag' statement, he doesn't do much ILLEGAL poo poo aside from tax evasion but he does/says a lot of general scummy stuff. Yea that was poorly placed though. Basically Manny has a big mic and it sucks he's saying this poo poo, but the drawback of him being him is most people know 'heeey you're kinda a dirtbag already bro maybe I don't give a poo poo what you think about morals'.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I should be offended but it's just so absurd I'm laughing. Yea it's one of those things like if he said gay people should be shot to the moon and guarded by a Death Star to keep us there. Like yea that's really a terrible thing to say but it's also so absurd and confused I kinda just wanna go 'aaaw, you have no idea what decade it is, huh buddy?'
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Anything that removes a way for the right to play warring minorities to keep us all down is good.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:So what if marriage isn't wholly religious? If marriage wasn't state-supported, there would be no reason why any group of people, be it a church, community organization, or group of people, couldn't recognize a couple as "married". Marriage is state supported because it's a contract, removing state support makes it entirely a religious thing. This dumb 'just get rid of marriage, man' thing, besides being impossible, is a terrible option because not only does it play into 'see they WANT to destroy marriage' paranoia, but it also validates it by saying 'well fine marriage IS a religious thing'. Also, you know, separate but equal and all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Right, that's what I was trying to get at. If I were to get married to a woman right now I could do it without ever setting foot in my temple, it is a purely state run thing already. If we go 'well get out of marriage and make it all civil unions' that turns marriage into 'the religious option' and validates the idiots who call it that. We shouldn't be entertaining that stuff because it will do literally nothing for the cause. If anything, it'll make things worse by playing into the stereotype of 'see they ARE destroying marriage!' and creating a bullshit separate but equal status of 'well THESE things aren't for you...' that doesn't exist to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Marriage is important. Not in the 'A KID NEEDS A MARRIED FAMILY' way, but in the 'marriage gives you a lot of benefits and routes to things that nothing else affords'. That's why we say it's important.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
Pyrolocutus posted:You're right, I saw "wedding" and automatically jumped to "marriage". I'll still keep calling it a marriage, though, because that's what it is. I know you think you're helping but it's not, it's actually super removed from a marriage and it's important to say what utter horse poo poo it is. It was a very sweet wedding but it's a civil union and it's horse poo poo, you can say both!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
I like the picture that implies Iceland and the US are gonna totally bone down. This is the REAL special relationship. That is cool, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
It's cold in Iceland, bro, don't be judgmental.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Also if marriage is for family making only ask him if he feels infertile couples shouldn't be married either.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Guys who spent years backing camps where gay kids kill themselves and legit supported the Uganda 'kill the gays' thing still hate gays? No way! It'll be fun to show this to all my dumbass pseudo-liberal friends who rushed to be all 'OH FINALLY I CAN EAT THEIR CHICKEN AGAIN'.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
That's some toe tappin degradation right there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:This of course, supposes they don't grant an injunction pending SCOTUS hearing the case. Yea, an injunction can come to basically say 'hey stop this poo poo while we suss out legality' and if I had to guess I'd say it will, but honestly it's a crapshoot on that, right now it only effects his jurisdiction until the supreme court rules.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Yeah, in this area heterosexual couples do have a pretty substantial advantage. (At least, as long as state governments continue to make it harder for gay couples to adopt.) No because that implies sex only works if you're married.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Yea except for all those western conservatives who want constitutional amendments to ban me from ever getting married, want to criminalize being gay and ban me from being around kids ever, try to literally ban mosques from being built ever, and try to force women to give up agency over their reproductive rights. Totally a hands off ideology if you think about it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
Oh well one state let us kinda marry sorta, I see your point now. It's absurd to pretend one region of conservatism is somehow more enlightened in such a major way, they all have the same heads, they have the same donors, they have the same platform. To call the party that is anti-abortion, anti-marriage, and anti-civil rights in general 'hands off' is just absurd. Weed is not a civil right. I love weed, but you can't use that as some magic measuring point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
No, libertarians are not inherently pro-equality despite what they say. They are against federal acts, but you can find tons of libertarians who are more than happy for the state to discriminate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Never give up! Make these jerks a thing of the past. I legit love this because there's zero good spin to this. There's no 'well it's my culture' or whatever, it's just straight up 'these guys hate faggots?! YEA! I HATE EM TOO! LET'S EAT lovely CHICKEN!' edit: Also if they buy big bags of greasy chicken, they'll die sooner, which, you know, always good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Yea not gonna lie, even with all the news around gay issues it's hard to be too optimistic, the court has a long history of ignoring us and there are actually a lot of LGBT issues that need them. I'm assuming all we'll see is a marriage ruling and the other things are going to be left to rot because 'hey we just did a gay thing you're welcome'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Given that all of the lower court cases are going in favor of equality, doing nothing leaves those in place. Right, but there's things that would really benefit from being ruled unconstitutional beyond marriage. Employment discrimination, benefits for civil unions, I think there's even a hate crime thing waiting, all of those benefit from the court ruling discrimination in those regards unconstitutional, putting the onus on the federal government to even out rules.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 18:11
|
|