|
Echo_ posted:I saw this in the GBS thread and thought it was worth having a discussion about. The main problem with this argument is the assumption that those rich white gays would be focused on some other gay rights issue if marriage wasn't on the table, that is completely wrong. Most of my gay friends are not very politically active and the ones that are involved wouldn't be involved in gay rights activism at all if it wasn't for the marriage issue. If anything the fact that the marriage issue is such a big thing right now is bringing in more money and attention to the other LGBT issues. People tend to give the most attention to the issues that affect them personally and if wasn't for gay marriage there wouldn't really be any pressing LGBT issues for the rich white gays other than maybe the school bullying/suicide stuff.
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 02:14 |
|
|
The article does have some good points but I think it is being quite dishonest in suggesting that there was any sort of tolerance for gays in any period of US history before the start of the gay rights movement in the 70s. It is true that gays before WWII had it much better than they did in the post-WWII to 1960s period but that's only because in that period gays were the subject of widespread state sponsored witch hunts and harassment. Before then the anti-gay laws were enforced more sporadically but there was never any real societal acceptance or even acknowledgement for gays in this time. In the time of Buchanan the word "homosexual" wasn't even in use and they weren't recognized as a class of people, there was just the act of sodomy which was considered a terrible thing even though you were less likely to be thrown in prison for doing it at that time than in some other periods of American history.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:But isn't that the entire point of the article? It literally was better in 1844 than post WWII because there weren't witch hunts for sodomites. Its not that those years were idyllic, just that It Gets Worse(tm) I just think it's being dishonest in trying to suggest that "the nation" knew and tolerated that fact that Buchanan was gay. The reality is that the concept of sexual orientation didn't even exist at the time and if you had suggested that Buchanan had sex with men you'd probably be labeled as some sort of monster. It was really more ignorance and circumstance rather than tolerance that allowed Buchanan to exist as a gay man without being locked up.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Hopefully we can put that stereotype to rest now: http://colorlines.com/archives/2012...28ColorLines%29 Those results are backed up by two polls done by PPP showing huge increases in black support for marriage equality. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/maryland-polling-memo.html http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/pa-blacks-shift-quickly-in-favor-of-gay-marriage.html PPP posted:The movement over the last two months can be explained almost entirely by a major shift in opinion about same-sex marriage among black voters. Previously 56% said they would vote against the new law with only 39% planning to uphold it. Those numbers have now almost completely flipped, with 55% of African Americans planning to vote for the law and only 36% now opposed. I guess this makes some sense since given how many blacks were already with the Democrats on most other issues, their opposition to same-sex marriage was likely pretty soft in a lot of cases. Still though, I'm shocked that Obama's announcement appears to have had such a great effect.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Scorecard: Gays - MN,WA,ME,MD,Obama,Tammy Baldwin Bigots -  Chik-fil-A day!!!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
Dickweasel Alpha posted:It's a small victory, but Minnesota voters blocked a bill that would criminalize same-sex marriage. We also kicked a bunch of GOP legislators out so that we now have comfortable Democrat majorities again, now we can start bitching at them to introduce a gay marriage law but I am guessing that will probably be a couple years out yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Ytadel posted:I'm so excited to watch the anti-gay marriage movement shrivel up and die over the next decade or so. This is going to sound insane coming from a gay person but I'm almost going to miss them a little bit, watching their futile struggle against inevitable generational shift is really loving entertaining.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
For fucks sake if it weren't for "activist judges" we would still have sodomy laws in 13 states, what's your libertarian answer to that? edit: And no, "move to another state" is not a sufficient answer. edit2: I actually agree with the libertarian "get the government out of marriage" argument myself but that position is at this point way less popular than simply letting gays get married, so it's pointless to push for it. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:I dunno. I think the pictures most anti-gay folks are familiar with are from gay pride rallies and the like. I mean shucks, I'm totally LGBT-friendly and even I'm not in love with all the craziness from pride parades. (I don't want to see people of any sexual orientation wearing leather chaps and waving around fake dongs, thanks. But I applaud all the nice boring union folks and church groups and people with families marching in the parade.) Sadly for some gays, especially in the south, pride is one of the few events they can go to where there isn't a significant chance of being openly ridiculed or even assaulted for publicly expressing their sexuality in ways that straight people do all the time without thinking. I live in one of the most liberal, tolerant cities in the US and I still have gay friends who have been ridiculed or beaten in public simply for being obviously gay looking. Do you really think that the magnitude of your discomfort at having to see a pride parade in any way compares to what the event means for these people? If you don't like it just don't go, I bet I would be uncomfortable attending a tea party rally but luckily enough like pride parades you usually don't end up at one by accident. Gay people changing their behavior at pride to appease some prudish straight people not only never will happen but it's completely unneeded and probably wouldn't accomplish anything. People are already rapidly becoming more accepting of gay rights despite the fact that every year there are more pride parades. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Kem Rixen posted:Coming from Massachusetts I honestly can't understand why RI hasn't enacted marriage equality yet. If New Hampshire and Maine can do it, which are much more rural and conservative, Rhode Island should be able to. What's holding up the legislature? They decided to pass a really weak civil union bill that basically no one ended up using because they didn't think the votes were there for marriage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Yeah could any French goons explain why there seem to be so many young homophobes willing to come out and protest this? There's way more opposition to marriage equality here in the US but they could never get even this many people together for a rally and even if they did it would be 90% white people over age 65. The anti-gay groups here usually have to photoshop a picture of an Obama rally if they want a good picture of people coming out to rally against gay marriage.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
He didn't say that gay sex is dangerous because it spreads HIV and therefor we shouldn't have gay marriage, that's a standard religious right talking point. He said that gay sex itself directly causes AIDS, which is an entirely new level of crazy and ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Scalia really really really hates gay people. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he wrote a concurrence if he was in the majority, just so he can explain how much he hates gay people. Remember that laws against homosexuality are equatable to laws against murder in the eyes of Scalia. This is true but sadly enough if you go back in history there have been past justices that were even more horrifically anti-gay than Scalia. My favorite little tidbit is below, wherein Rehnquist puts forth the argument that granting freedom of assembly to a gay rights group is akin to promoting the spread of contagious disease. quote:Expert psychological testimony below established the fact that the meeting together of individuals who consider themselves homosexual in an officially recognized university organization can have a distinctly different effect from the mere advocacy of repeal of the State's sodomy statute. As the University has recognized, this danger may be particularly acute in the university setting where many students are still coping with the sexual problems which accompany late adolescence and early adulthood. The University's view of respondents' activities and respondents' own view of them are diametrically opposed. From the point of view of the latter, the question is little different from whether university recognition of a college Democratic club in fairness also requires recognition of a college Republican club. From the point of view of the University, however, the question is more akin to whether those suffering from measles have a constitutional right, in violation of quarantine regulations, to associate together and with others who do not presently have measles, in order to urge repeal of a state law providing that measle sufferers be quarantined. The very act of assemblage under these circumstances undercuts a significant interest of the State which a plea for the repeal of the law would nowise do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Didn't the majority of that shift happen after Obama came out in favor of SSM right after the NC vote? Like I could swear that a 5% swing happened in the three months or so following him changing his official stance on it. You're correct, but it was actually something like 20%.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
Wojtek posted:I don't really understand why people (especially churchy people) are against this. It's not that the government is saying that the churches need to marry gay people, but that the government (which is wholly secular) recognizes it. There's your problem right there, a lot of conservatives and Christians actually disagree on this point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:Wouldn't this just be a symbolic act, since the Lawrence v. Texas decision already made that law unconstitutional? Yes, but that doesn't stop idiots cops that don't understand the laws. Senator Rodriguez actually had an incident in his district in 2009 where a moron cop tried to use the "homosexual conduct" law against two guys kissing in public. Not only was this 6 years after Lawrence but even for decades before Lawrence when the law was still enforced it was only prosecuted when the officer clearly saw someone in the act of gay oral or anal sex, which obviously was not the case. http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_12790543 quote:He called police at 12:30 a.m. June 29 because he said the guards and restaurant had discriminated against the group after two of his friends kissed in public. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Apr 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
I love how every time Republicans complain about Democrats "politicizing a tragedy" they pretend that the religious right doesn't exist because they are the very worst. Literally every tragedy is caused by abortion, taking prayer out of schools, or gays.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Could I have a quick civics lesson, please? If a judge says a ban is unconstitutional, why does there need to be a referendum to repeal it? Doesn't it become immediately unenforceable (pending further appeals, of course)? The courts are slow as gently caress so the choice would be either to go for the repeal (in which case the pending court case would just be invalidated if it works) or sit tight and wait for the appeals process to play out and hope that the ruling is upheld.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Is "not wanting another person's religion shoved down my throat" a deeply held belief? No that's anti-Christian bigotry.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Assuming that SCOTUS doesn't hand down some sort of sweeping ruling in the near future, I wonder if there will ever come to a point where NOM throws in the towel. It would be hilarious to see NOM still claiming that the public opposes gay marriage when it's legal everywhere except for Mississippi.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
He may be a lovely candidate but he's had some of the consistently best approval numbers of any governor in the country on PPP, I don't understand why you guys think he's so vulnerable.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
EgoEgress posted:I am incredibly happy for Minnesota, congratulations guys. You only have to be bitter for another month or so, unless there's a bad SCOTUS ruling then you'll have to wait until 2014.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:My city has been trying to fix a broken drawbridge for the last six years and you guys can rig that up in a couple nights? And you use union workers? This is some bizzaro stuff. Well to be fair that's a new bridge that replaced one that collapsed and killed 13 people in 2007, so our bridge maintenance isn't exactly stellar here either. Also those lights are a regular thing, usually they're solid blue but they switch it to the rainbow for pride every year. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 19:03 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
The exact same thing is done with gay rights. Conservatives try to make it sound like discrimination against gays doesn't exist (the local right-wing radio hack literally said that yesterday) and that arresting gays for existing hasn't been a thing since the 1950s. Please ignore that they spent 40 years trying to keep sodomy laws on the books and that prior to Lawrence v Texas criminalizing gays was a mainstream Republican position supported by the likes of GWB and Rick Perry along with the entire religious right.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 17:20 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
I'm still really confused as to why so many young, normal looking people keep going out to protest gay marriage in France which typically regarded as a progressive, secular country. Even in the US which has way more organized anti-gay politics than pretty much anywhere else in the first world, almost all of the anti-gay marriage protesters are religious old people and the crowds are usually tiny. Can any French goons explain this to me?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
So everyone who has been following this issue for a while already knows what complete and utter shitheads the folks over at NOM are, but today IMO they stooped to a new low. NOM Chairman John Eastman testified before the House Ways and Means Committee today about a leaked tax form that he claims was intentionally released by the IRS to allow persecution of their poor, oppressed donors. First he defended NOM's tax-exempt status by saying that "the notion that defending traditional marriage doesn't qualify as a defense of the public good is beyond preposterous." He then whined at length about how NOM shouldn't have to disclose donors due to "intimidation." John Eastman posted:You can imagine the shock and disgust over this. Our donors, once they are identified, are harassed and intimidated and try to be chilled away from supporting the causes we advance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIQ0WagXyew Finally, he mentions NAACP v. Alabama in his testimony as justification for not having to disclose donors. This is absurd enough on its face but later in the afternoon he went on the Hugh Hewitt show and flat out claimed that the intimidation that NOM receives is at the level of or worse than the NAACP faced in Alabama in 1958  . Luckily this whole charade pissed off Rep. Earl Blumenauer, who was present at the testimony, enough to provide this excellent response. Earl Blumenauer posted:Last year, internal National Organization for Marriage (NOM) strategy documents were leaked, stating that the organization seeks "to drive a wedge between gays and blacks" by promoting "African American spokespeople for marriage," thus provoking same-sex marriage supporters into "denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots," and "to interrupt the assimilation" of Latinos into "dominant Anglo culture" by making the stance against same-sex marriage "a key badge of Latino identity."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
It would be one thing if they only needed 50% but with the 60% requirement I can't see this as anything other than really dumb, why would they do this when the polling data would tell you this has no chance?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know what's more stupid/pointless, that or the attempt at repealing the Florida one (that needs 60% to repeal). 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
InsomnicIneptitude posted:Those are really quite remarkable. I'm curious if we see a similar exponential trend with societal change in regards to marijuana. To me, it seems like these things start happening slowly... one or two states adopt more liberal laws... and then very quickly, everyone else catches up. From the polling data I have seen the support for marijuana legalization is shifting even faster than gay marriage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
That's incredible, I'd pay to see the look on Dave Agema's face once he finds out he had a personal role in furthering the radical homosexual agenda.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
ENDA was voted out of the HELP committee yesterday with surprisingly bipartisan support. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/07/10/19395465-enda-advances-with-bipartisan-backing?lite quote:Following up on an item from late yesterday, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (better known as the HELP Committee) easily approved the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (better known as ENDA) this morning. The final vote count, by way of my colleague Tricia McKinney, was 15 to 7. I was pleasantly surprised to see Hatch vote for it, Republicans have been really awful on this issue for so long. It looks like the chances are pretty good of this getting enough votes to stop any fillibuster attempt but of course it's not likely to make it though the house. If nothing else it's another chance to paint the house GOP as bigoted for opposing something with 80% public support, as if there weren't enough chances to do that already.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Hasn't this been voted down in the House for the last 10+ years straight year after year? No, in recent history it has only reached the floor in 2007 when it passed the house after they took the trans protections out. They probably could have got it through in 2009-2010 but it never got a floor vote.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Just when I was about to give up hope, there's still a chance we can put a halt to these immoral fag marriages in CA. We might have lost in the district court, appeals court, SCOTUS, appeals court again, and then SCOTUS again, but this time we will prevail! http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gay-marriage-prop-8-20130712,0,4539201.story quote:SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to order county clerks to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that Gov. Jerry Brown lacked the authority to end enforcement of Proposition 8.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
I think this article, especially with the hilarious attempt to defend it at the top, is all you ever need to show how awful he is. http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html quote:This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:e: This reminds me of the best terrible argument against marriage equality, government lacks the authority to define marriage. Yeah, it's hilarious to see people who spent decades trying to stop gays from getting civil marriage to now suddenly say that whatever the government says on the issue is meaningless. Also when you point out that a clear majority of people are now pro-gay I've seen the response "one man and GOD is ALWAYS a majority" a few times  .
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Wishing that you were like everyone else so it was easier to blend in isn't loving homophobia. It's basic human behavior. Everyone has quirks and their own tastes. Everyone thinks at least once in a while "I wish I was just like everyone else" to easier fit in. That's a pretty broad generalization, there are plenty of people out there who have no desire to be "just like everyone else" even if their lives would be easier if they were. Sometimes I do get frustrated and pissed off about how there is still so much homophobia in society but I have never once turned the frustration onto myself and wished I were any different. I don't think that is particularly normal or healthy nor do I think such attitudes would be common if LGBTs were still a small minority (still "different") but not subjected to prejudice and discrimination. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
teacup posted:Literally no progressive group ever does this, how have the gays managed it? The more hostile society is to a minority group the closer they are forced to band together and fight for their rights. Most other progressive groups are not profoundly affected in everyday life by the issues they advocate so they tend to be much more fragmented and off message. quote:This was touched upon in pages past and if there is a better thread for it please tell me, but I had heard a lot of people posting these things about how bis didn't get accepted, an acceptance of denigrating the sex you are not attracted to- and of course, no acceptance of trans/ gender identity issues (I apologise if I am using bad word framing for these, I am not intending to offend) I've never really noticed this in my personal experiences with many gays or lesbians. I think part of this is that people expect gays to automatically be a lot more progressive thinking than the general population w/r/t bisexuals, trans, etc when in reality it just doesn't work that way. There is a common belief that if X is an oppressed group then they should also be sensitive to the concerns of Y and Z oppressed groups, it makes logical sense but it very often doesn't pan out in real life, and this is not at all limited to LGBT issues. The misogyny thing just utterly confuses me though, as in I have no idea where that even came from and it's a direct contradiction of all of my personal experiences. quote:Every time I saw these posts I thought that surely these weren't things every day people thought. The industry I work in now (I am a straight man in the travel sales industry in Australia, which is heavily dominated by either females or gay males) has me working with a lot of gay colleagues and I... Don't know if my colleagues are just dicks but like almost every single gay man I have worked with (dozens) have fit every hateful stereotype regarding this stuff to a t. All except this lovely wise man 50 year old ex nanny now travel agent gay man who is the coolest dude ever about literally everything. This seems like an obvious thing but I think it is often overlooked, there are probably numerous gay people you have interacted with and never knew it. A lot of times people claim to only know gays that fit the stereotypes because fitting the stereotypes is part of how they identified the person as gay in the first place. There are a lot of people who shy away from talking about something like sexuality unless they know a person well, especially when you are gay and unsure of what sort of reaction you're going to get. I'm betting there is some degree of self-selection going on in your experiences.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:M4Ms response is ridiculously hollow. Their fallback plan is to try to elect traditional marriage activists into the government and target pro-marriage equality politicians. Wasn't that always their plan? And what do they think they're going to do if they manage to get a few into the legislature, ask them to commit political hara-kiri by fighting a battle that's already over and lost? The standards of the anti-gay marriage lobby are now hilariously low, out of necessity basically. I've actually seen a few Iowa social conservatives call their voting out of three Iowa Supreme Court justices in 2010 as a "win" even though it accomplished gently caress all. Just like NOM considered voting out two pro-gay legislators in NY a "win" also despite the fact it did absolutely nothing for their cause. They'll probably manage to vote out one or two pro-gay legislators in MN and then cheer over their hollow victory. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Aug 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
He does make some good points, I totally agree with the gripes about marriage equality and especially the horrible poo poo that went down after prop 8 passed, but he is also a certifiably insane tumblr social justice warrior and oppression olympian. For example he is known for hysterical rants against "misandronist" straight white women that he wants to attack with piano wire or a lead pipe. Personally I like reading Alvin McEwen's blog as he has written some excellent stuff on race and the LGBT community.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 02:14 |
|
|
So is there any timeframe on when we could expect the ruling from the NM SC to come down or is it like the SCOTUS where it could be several months?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 19:34
|
|