Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

The place for anything at all...
User avatar
Set
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:34 pm
Custom Title: Devil in disguise
Gender: Male

Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Set » Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:47 am

I'm f*** serious.

http://jaysays.com/2010/06/texas-gop-of ... rosexuals/

Oh, Texas. Can we just firebomb the entire state and get it over with?

User avatar
Morkulv
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 3185
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:31 am
Custom Title: Panzer Division Morkulv
Gender: Male
Mood: RAR!
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Morkulv » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:05 am

"We don't take kindly to yer kind 'round these parts"
Scott Gardener wrote: I'd be afraid to shift if I were to lose control. If I just looked fuggly, I'd simply be annoyed every full moon.

User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Terastas » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:23 am

Set wrote:Oh, Texas. Can we just firebomb the entire state and get it over with?
Of course not! Fig, Scott and Anthony live there.

They're joking if they think they can take this to the senate. Anyone that even votes to let the bill be debated during an economic recovery, two wars and an environmental disaster might as well just resign now.

What really pissed me off was these guys having the balls to list all of that after listing #3 of their principles as "Limiting the expanse of Government Power." Really? So you're going to limit government power by giving the government the power to arrest and jail homosexuals? How does that work?!!

I'm sorry, but it's time for a political vent: Republicans have only one consistency: Hypocrisy!

Think about it:

1) They support the "limiting of the expanse of government power," but here they want to give the government power to mandate over the private lives of the individual. They also strongly supported the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, unwarranted wire tappings and other programs right out of Big Brothers' playbook.

2) They support those instances of "big government" because of "national security" and "the war on terror," but they don't support nationalized health care or other such welfare programs that could keep the American people healthy (and willing) enough to be drafted in the event of a worst case scenario (like the inevitable war with China they keep yammering about).

3) They don't support nationalized health care because they "don't want the government deciding who lives and who dies," unless that decision is going to be made by the government for a death row inmate or a pregnant woman.

4) They don't support abortion rights because of "the sanctity of life," but on top of advocating for capital punishment and against gun control, they evidently don't give a damn what happens after the kid is born as is evident by their aforementioned opposition to any and all forms of welfare (as George Carlin said: "If you're pre-born, you're saved, but if you're preschooled, you're screwed").

Want me to keep going? I've got hundreds -- those are just the ones that loop together like that.
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Uniform Two Six » Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:40 pm

Terastas wrote: They're joking if they think they can take this to the senate. Anyone that even votes to let the bill be debated during an economic recovery, two wars and an environmental disaster might as well just resign now.
Uh, dude. You do realize you're talking about Texas don't you? Remember Joe Barton, who keeps apologizing to British Petroleum for the "persecution" by the federal government? You know, how it's so awful that the Obama Administration would even think of making BP actually pay for the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that they caused? That guy's not dumb. He knows what side his bread is buttered on. Politicians down there get re-elected on this kind of garbage. Texas voters are probably some of the most rabidly anti-homosexual in the nation. So, just as Joe Barton's constituency (which is heavily populated by petrochemical sector people) is going to support him for his stupidity, so will the bigot vote reward any politician in Texas that supports this crap.

Oh, and sorry, Fig, Scott, and AB, but Texas politicians tend to really get under my skin. No offense intended.

User avatar
Alpha
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:26 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Indifferent
Location: California

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Alpha » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:15 am

Terastas wrote:I'm sorry, but it's time for a political vent: Republicans have only one consistency: Hypocrisy!
If that isn't an understatement, I don't know what is.

http://www.badmouth.net/top-five-republ ... -scandals/

And the list is MUCH MUCH MUCH deeper than just this. Maybe these hypocritical homophobes should keep themselves in check, before they try legislating morality for anyone else. :roll:

User avatar
Wingman
Game Master
Game Master
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:08 am
Custom Title: Dastardly ne'er-do-well in search of a lickspittle
Gender: Male
Location: Ye olde frozen northlands.

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Wingman » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:27 am

This actually sounds like it could be a decent gay porn script. People get arrested for being gay, and then they go to jail where they have lots of gay sex. Yup, Hollywood here I come.

Glad I'm Canadian.
http://stevebot-7.deviantart.com/
Quod sumus hoc eritis

Aspirant writer-artist.

User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Terastas » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:01 am

Uniform Two Six wrote:
Terastas wrote: They're joking if they think they can take this to the senate. Anyone that even votes to let the bill be debated during an economic recovery, two wars and an environmental disaster might as well just resign now.
Uh, dude. You do realize you're talking about Texas don't you? Remember Joe Barton, who keeps apologizing to British Petroleum for the "persecution" by the federal government? You know, how it's so awful that the Obama Administration would even think of making BP actually pay for the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that they caused? That guy's not dumb. He knows what side his bread is buttered on. Politicians down there get re-elected on this kind of garbage. Texas voters are probably some of the most rabidly anti-homosexual in the nation. So, just as Joe Barton's constituency (which is heavily populated by petrochemical sector people) is going to support him for his stupidity, so will the bigot vote reward any politician in Texas that supports this crap.

Oh, and sorry, Fig, Scott, and AB, but Texas politicians tend to really get under my skin. No offense intended.
Locally, they might have a prayer of pulling it off, but if they try to go national and push this crap on other states, they're in for the wake-up call of a lifetime.

And while it would not surprise me in the least bit if they succeeded in getting Texas to pass that crap locally, I expect the rest of the nation would respond much the same way they did to Arizona's immigration bill. Worse, actually. There's no logical way that you could possibly advocate for the criminalization of homosexuality at the same time as demanding the government limit its control, and only the pigheaded party loyalists (the kind of people who would even vote for Kim Jong-Il if he ran on the G.O.P. ticket) would ever support such.

Really, if they pass it locally, I expect three things will happen:
1) The White House will condemn, if not challenge and repeal it.
2) The rest of the U.S. / world will be called on to boycott Texas products.
3) Tens of thousands of gay / left-leaning Texans will decide that this is the last straw and leave the state, causing property values to plummet due to the sudden drop in demand.
Image

JoshuaMadoc
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1257
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:36 pm
Custom Title: HERO OF NIGHTMARES
Gender: Male
Additional Details: I just don't care.
Mood: Indifferent
Location: Ausfailia
Contact:

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by JoshuaMadoc » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:10 am

Once again, Texas isn't named a cowboy state for nothing... *sigh*

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:17 pm

Terastas wrote: Really, if they pass it locally, I expect three things will happen:
1) The White House will condemn, if not challenge and repeal it.
Not going to affect Texan views since "Obama is a muslim" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).
Terastas wrote: 2) The rest of the U.S. / world will be called on to boycott Texas products.
Which of course plays right into both the right wing persecution complex and the whole "Texas vs. The World" thing.
Terastas wrote: 3) Tens of thousands of gay / left-leaning Texans will decide that this is the last straw and leave the state, causing property values to plummet due to the sudden drop in demand.
Uh-huh... I'm sorry, but "left-leaning Texan" is sort of like "Gay Republican". They exist, to be sure, but only as the exception that proves the rule. They are not a significant demographic. Don't take this the wrong way, Terastas, but you're from Massachusetts. I'm from California. Texas is as far away from either of those two places (politically speaking) as you can possibly get. To quote their own slogan: Texas is a whole other country. You cannot ever be dissapointed by betting on Texas doing the most monumentally stupid political moves humanly possible.

User avatar
alphanubilus
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:43 am

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by alphanubilus » Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:50 pm

I didn't really see anything about "punishing people for BEING gay", as much as trying to thrawlt pro-gay propogunda. Granted I have a severe migraine I could have missed something. The BIG issue I have with this is the fact that it shouldn't be our government deciding what your moral standing is, that is the parent's job. Schools and such are places to further education, however it seems that both Far Left Liberals, and Far Right Conservatives, deam it appropriate to use schools as soap boxes for their agendas. On one side you have folks who wish to promote homosexuality as "normal" aspects of human life and circulate curriculum that corresponds to that, on the other you have folks who want to ban the teaching of evolution (shakes head) and wish to encourage Bible studies! Why can't either part let the parent's decide what is best for their kids.

When our government starts deaming what is acceptible and not acceptible, that is when we start losing rights.

Let's look at California for example. Gay Marraige was left to the vote of the people (and it should). The people of California voted against it, and now you have the GLBT wanting the federal government to overturn it. What happened to by the people... for the people? The will of the people? What is the point of voting if those who don't like the results get the government to alter it, for their own personal agendas anyway? That is called Communism. WE need to make these decisions... not the government. The more we rely on the government to think for us, the more rights we lose.

Again, I think Gay Marraige, Abortion, and other touchy issues should be left to vote of the people. It's our say, not some jacka$$ lobbiest in Washington who doesn't give a rats @$$ about anything.

As for Texas... folks... it's Texas... enough said...

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:09 pm

alphanubilus wrote: Let's look at California for example. Gay Marraige was left to the vote of the people (and it should). The people of California voted against it, and now you have the GLBT wanting the federal government to overturn it. What happened to by the people... for the people?
Prop 8 was not advocating homosexuality, it was about whether homosexual couples could have the same freedoms guaranteed to straight couples, specifically about the legal rights surrounding marriage. In actuality Prop 8 was a ban on gay marriage, which had been found to be constitutional by the State Supreme Court. It was in effect overturning a court ruling by defining marriage to specifically exclude gays.

The assumption that the ballot initiative process was the proper forum for deciding this issue is nebulous because most people (even in California) are not lawyers. It was simply a way to short circuit the courts because the bigot crowd didn't like the result. And one of the reasons that Prop 8 passed was because they framed the debate as a failure of Prop 8 being tantamount to state-sanctioned advocacy of homosexuality (as well as some really vile ads funded by the Mormons which said that without passage of Prop 8, homosexuality would be mandated in sex-ed curriculums).

Chris
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:00 am

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Chris » Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:06 pm

alphanubilus wrote:Let's look at California for example. Gay Marraige was left to the vote of the people (and it should).
No, it should not. Why should a simple majority be able to dictate exactly what rights a minority group is allowed to have? That is not the way our government works, nor should it be. Majority Rule doesn't work, and it's the government's job to help make sure the rights of a minority group are not trampled all over by a larger majority.
What happened to by the people... for the people? The will of the people?
It's (supposedly) still there. But that includes all people, not just those with the largest amount of followers.
What is the point of voting if those who don't like the results get the government to alter it, for their own personal agendas anyway?
That's the entire thing. It never should have been put to a vote in the first place. It was the anti-gay groups that put together the ballot initiative to get the public to vote on a constitutional ammendment to outlaw gay marriage, because they felt it was the easiest way to get their agenda passed. And if the LGBT groups are to be believed, it was not a legal move, so it very much should be up to the federal government to get the state government back in line.

If you want to talk about the government taking away our rights, it's kinda funny if you look at it. The anti-gay groups are the ones pushing for constitutional ammendments all over to force the government to ban gay marriage, while the pro-gay groups are the ones saying that the government doesn't have the power to deny marriage to gay people. Who, exactly, are the ones trying to get the government to take away our rights, here?
Again, I think Gay Marraige, Abortion, and other touchy issues should be left to vote of the people. It's our say, not some jacka$$ lobbiest in Washington who doesn't give a rats @$$ about anything.
The problem is there's simply too many people and too much diversity to just go Majority Rule. The government has to be involved to make sure all groups of people are treated equally. Without it, you'd just end up in a place where only straight, white, god-fearing, christian men are allowed to do anything.

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:21 pm

Chris wrote: ...you'd just end up in a place where only straight, white, god-fearing, christian men are allowed to do anything.
Off topic a bit, but that sort of sums up neoconservative utopia... which if you change "white" to "Pashtun", and "christian" to "muslim", is basically the Taliban... whom the neoconservatives are adamant that we destroy.

User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Terastas » Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:54 pm

Uniform Two Six wrote:Don't take this the wrong way, Terastas, but you're from Massachusetts.
I generally imagine that Democrats in Texas are kind of similar to the way Republicans are in Massachusetts. For the most part, they tend to keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves, but we wouldn't have been stuck with that [expletive] Scott Brown (who I'm happy to announce is getting absolutely blasted for his defense of the oil companies) if there weren't any in this state at all.

It's worth noting that, during the 2008 election, only one state had every single one of its districts vote for McCain: Oklahoma.

Image

So the metropolitan areas and the Rio Grande are, at the very least, Democrat-friendly. Those in turn are the areas where I suspect it will be much cheaper to buy a house if the Texas G.O.P. succeeds in pushing that crap through.
What happened to by the people... for the people? The will of the people?
A little thing called the Constitution got in the way. When a majority of people are given the capacity to completely deny rights to a minority, that's not democracy, it's tyranny by majority.
Image

User avatar
alphanubilus
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:43 am

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by alphanubilus » Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:21 pm

Terastas wrote:
Uniform Two Six wrote:Don't take this the wrong way, Terastas, but you're from Massachusetts.
I generally imagine that Democrats in Texas are kind of similar to the way Republicans are in Massachusetts. For the most part, they tend to keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves, but we wouldn't have been stuck with that [expletive] Scott Brown (who I'm happy to announce is getting absolutely blasted for his defense of the oil companies) if there weren't any in this state at all.

It's worth noting that, during the 2008 election, only one state had every single one of its districts vote for McCain: Oklahoma.

Image

So the metropolitan areas and the Rio Grande are, at the very least, Democrat-friendly. Those in turn are the areas where I suspect it will be much cheaper to buy a house if the Texas G.O.P. succeeds in pushing that crap through.
What happened to by the people... for the people? The will of the people?
A little thing called the Constitution got in the way. When a majority of people are given the capacity to completely deny rights to a minority, that's not democracy, it's tyranny by majority.

Hey! I'm a proud Oklahoman, and yes I did vote for McCain! However, it came down to a literal coin toss. Not the greatest way to decide a president, but then again, I lost... I should have voted for Obama though... especially had I known that he would upset all the Democrats and turn them all indepent or Republican... Guess who's coming back into POWER! Now all you godless heathens will DIE!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHHA... I'm joking... I am... I really am... :lol:

In truth, I vote for who I feel will do the best job, whether Republican or Democrat. I wish more people were like that, but some have the "party" so far stuck up their... you know what, that they'd literally vote for the Devil, if he was in their party. Ignorant at best.

And you are quite correct, our government is here to protect minorities from getting run over by the majority, however of late many minority groups have used loop holes, per say, to force their own agendas on the majority... This leads to communism. The reality is, we have keep things balanced, or we tip too far in either direction.

As for gay marraige... I'm against it. My reasons have nothing to do with my faith either. Our government grants certain rights and privileges (taxes for one) that are specific to heterosexual couples, largely for the purpose of procreation, as they are in turn creating new tax payers. Marraige by and large (and the world over) also has religious connotations. To me, to have the gov't grant rights per relationships that don't qualify, per say, is wrong. This isn't even getting into the whole view of homosexuality being moral vs immoral arguement. I don't see any difference between it and polygamy... HOWEVER, my inner liberal, states that while I am against gay marraige per say, I think same sex couples should have certain rights, especially when it comes to property, life support, and the list goes on. I can totally empathise with a gay couple who are in a situation for the decision of life support over a loved one, where a gay partner is denied the right to decide the fate of his/her lover. I think gay couples should have those rights. Not all families are unconditionally supportive, and I know I wouldn't want somebody I literally loathed deciding the fate of my life.

So the problem is Gay people want the SAME rights as Heterosexual couples, but they aren't the same. I think gay couples should have rights... just rights created specifically for their relationship.

Let's face some facts folks, people make a big hallbaloo about gay marraige and how it should be accepted and all, but what about polygamy? What about incest? What about beastiality... If you cringed at the mere mention of those, you should... Our society has by and far deemed these acts of sexual behavior as deviant... but you know what... 20 to 30 years ago, homosexuality was right there in the same boat.

In the middle east Polygamy (of which turns women into nothing more than sex trophies) is widely accepted and acceptable way of life.
In many 3rd world countries, incest is practiced as a means to keep money within the family... literally. We think it is gross, and it is, but they accept it is a viable means of keeping wealth where it "belongs".

Certain tribes also practice beastiality. Again, most of us would vomit at such a though... at least I'd HOPE we all vomit at such a thought... but some cultures actually practice it as a sacred right. Becoming one with nature and all. I guarantee their adherents would try and convince you it was acceptable... Anybody ever watch Zoo?

While I don't equate Gay people with... those who practice beastiality or incest, I am saying that we have rules for a reason. We can't have total freedom or we have anarchy. We have to find balance.

Chris
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:00 am

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Chris » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:54 pm

alphanubilus wrote:And you are quite correct, our government is here to protect minorities from getting run over by the majority, however of late many minority groups have used loop holes, per say, to force their own agendas on the majority... This leads to communism. The reality is, we have keep things balanced, or we tip too far in either direction.
You say communism like it's some kind of dirty evil word. There are positive aspects to communism. Just like anything else, there are both good and bad sides to it. I'm also not sure you're using the word correctly (attempting to get equal rights is hardly the same thing as abolishment of social classes and personal property..).

While it is true that some minority agendas go too far (I'm not particularly a fan of affirmative action, myself), they usually do start out with a legitimate need.
Our government grants certain rights and privileges (taxes for one) that are specific to heterosexual couples, largely for the purpose of procreation, as they are in turn creating new tax payers.
Would you, then, advocate denying marriage to straight couples that are infertile, or don't want children (which has been on the rise in recent years)? What about gay couples that would adopt, use artificial insemination, or a surrogate?
Marraige by and large (and the world over) also has religious connotations.
Which is completely irrelevant once the government is involved. And not all religions are against gay marriage.

FWIW, I would personally like the government to get out of the "marriage" bussiness and leave it to religion. Then everybody, straight or gay, can go for civil unions in its stead. But you know that ain't gonna happen, and in the end it's just a word. It's the rights gay people want, and that's what anti-gay people don't want to give, regardless of what it's called.
So the problem is Gay people want the SAME rights as Heterosexual couples, but they aren't the same. I think gay couples should have rights... just rights created specifically for their relationship.
Sounds like something you'd have heard 50 years ago about interracial couples. They're not the same as a pure white couple, so they don't need the same rights.
Let's face some facts folks, people make a big hallbaloo about gay marraige and how it should be accepted and all, but what about polygamy? What about incest? What about beastiality... If you cringed at the mere mention of those, you should... Our society has by and far deemed these acts of sexual behavior as deviant... but you know what... 20 to 30 years ago, homosexuality was right there in the same boat.
And 50 to 60 years ago, interracial couples were in the same boat. Just because they were doesn't mean they always should be.

This isn't about polygamy, incest, or bestiality, and bringing them up is, at best, a diversionary tactic. Though it's an effective technique gay marriage opponents use to imply the same level of deviancy with homosexuality.
While I don't equate Gay people with... those who practice beastiality or incest, I am saying that we have rules for a reason.
And that reason is largely "because gay people are not like us and have icky buttsex". I have yet to see any valid reason why two people, who love each other and want to spend their lives together as much as anyone else, should be denied marriage simply because one of them is the "wrong" gender.

User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Terastas » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:27 am

alphanubilus wrote:Guess who's coming back into POWER! Now all you godless heathens will DIE!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHHA... I'm joking... I am... I really am... :lol:
That would have been funny if it wasn't so close to the real thing. That's the worst thing about 21st century Republicans: most of them are so over-the-top outrageously fanatical that you can't tell the parodies from the real deal anymore. :P
This leads to communism. The reality is, we have keep things balanced, or we tip too far in either direction.
Chris pretty much beat me to this one. Communism and socialism are not the dirty words the Republicans use them as. The reality is that the only "communist" governments that ever existed (Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) were not really communists, rather they were just dictatorships who identified themselves as communist. Really, Fidel Castro is to communism what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to democracy. Just because someone flies the flag doesn't mean they are so.
Let's face some facts folks, people make a big hallbaloo about gay marraige and how it should be accepted and all, but what about polygamy? What about incest? What about beastiality...
Yes, yes, and yes. If for no reason other than because it's none of our sexing business what people do in their own homes and I don't want the government spending tax dollars trying to restrict and police something that otherwise means nothing.

Polygamy? If everyone involved is fine with it: Yes.
Incest? Slightly more problematic due to the genetic disorders that can result from it, but still, if it's their decision: Yes.
Bestiality? Not really the same since both sides can't give their verbal consent, but think about this: Why is it illegal for someone to *ahem* an animal, but not to have it mutilated or killed? Telling somebody they can't do it with a cow after they just ate a hamburger. . . Wouldn't that be kind of like if all the Republicans who approved the three trillion dollar war in Iraq pointed at the one trillion dollar health care reform bill and called it wasteful government spending?

(Oh, wait, they did do that.)

Yeah, you're right, I did cringe. But you know what? Doesn't sexing matter what I think, because it doesn't affect me.

The only thing I'm going to say is that I think you're right about heterosexual couples being favored for the sake of breeding. Except I don't think politicians support them with the intent of raising future taxpayers: I think it's with the intent of raising future Republicans. The article about the Republican scandals summed it up really nicely with this:
"I think that being gay is the way God made some people and being conservative is a choice, and almost every Republican I’ve met thinks the opposite."
Republicans are brought up from birth to associate being conservative with being directly related to their class, race, and religion. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck love to pass themselves off as the true faces of the G.O.P., but the real face of the G.O.P. is the quiet moderate that knows the G.O.P. is rotten from top to bottom, but who feels sick to his stomach at just the mere thought of voting Democrat. Without those brainwashed, identity-deprived creatures of habit keeping them afloat, Sarah Palin really would be the true face of the G.O.P. and it would have become nothing more than a radical fringe party decades ago.

That's why I think the G.O.P. is really opposed to homosexual (and interracial) marriage: Because those are the parents who will teach their kids to think for themselves.
Image

User avatar
Set
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:34 pm
Custom Title: Devil in disguise
Gender: Male

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Set » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:34 am

alphanubilus wrote:...what about polygamy? What about incest? What about beastiality...
One: That has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Two: I can argue in favor of those things all damn day. Don't go there unless you want a VERY snarly, heated debate.
Three: You spelled "bestiality" wrong. :P

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:08 pm

alphanubilus wrote: Marraige by and large (and the world over) also has religious connotations. To me, to have the gov't grant rights per relationships that don't qualify, per say, is wrong.
Chris and Terastas both hit this one, but I'm going to elaborate a bit.
Yes, marriage has religious connotations, but there's a problem. Marriage is both a religious compact and a legal contract. It's one of the few places where church and state intersect (primarily for reasons of tradition). This is the perfect example of why there needs to be a separation of church and state. The religious people say that granting gay marriage violates their religion, which it may. The problem is that you are not allowed to disenfranchise someone under law just because your religion says you can. So either the gays get screwed over or the anti-gay crowd gets their religious sensibilities trod on. The logical resolution would be to have the government only responsible for civil unions (and all of the legal issues traditionally reserved for marriages), and the church responsible for marriages (which would have absolutely no formal status under law). That way, for a straight couple to have the legal priveleges of a traditional marriage, they would also have to obtain a civil union as well. Then the church could deny marriage to gay couples (if they so chose), and not trample on the legal rights of the homosexuals. The problem is (as has been mentioned already), that will never happen, because the religious right isn't interested in being equitable to all members of society or in finding a compromise. They just want to win -- at any cost.
Terastas wrote:...but the real face of the G.O.P. is the quiet moderate that knows the G.O.P. is rotten from top to bottom...
Amen, brother.

User avatar
Alpha
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:26 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Indifferent
Location: California

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Alpha » Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:42 am

This whole discussion has got me to thinking about something that Eminem recently said. He was once criticized for anti-gay lyrics, but now says he fully supports gay marriage. "I think if two people love each other, then what the hell? I think that everyone should have the chance to be equally miserable, if they want."


This may have been a little tongue in cheek on his part, but he's hit the nail on the head. If you have two consenting (same sex) adults who want to get married, then so what? What exactly is the problem? They're not hurting anybody. I don't understand why this is such a threat to some people? Do these right wing nutjobs think that they're preventing a second Sodom & Gomorrah or something? :x

JoshuaMadoc
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1257
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:36 pm
Custom Title: HERO OF NIGHTMARES
Gender: Male
Additional Details: I just don't care.
Mood: Indifferent
Location: Ausfailia
Contact:

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by JoshuaMadoc » Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:31 pm

Alpha wrote:This whole discussion has got me to thinking about something that Eminem recently said. He was once criticized for anti-gay lyrics, but now says he fully supports gay marriage. "I think if two people love each other, then what the hell? I think that everyone should have the chance to be equally miserable, if they want."


This may have been a little tongue in cheek on his part, but he's hit the nail on the head. If you have two consenting (same sex) adults who want to get married, then so what? What exactly is the problem? They're not hurting anybody. I don't understand why this is such a threat to some people? Do these right wing nutjobs think that they're preventing a second Sodom & Gomorrah or something? :x
My only conclusion? It was a contradiction in what they were taught that just balled up into a big pile of righteous s***.

User avatar
Sebiale
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:14 pm
Gender: Male
Mood: Meh...
Location: Minnesota

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Sebiale » Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:14 pm

Coming down on the entire republican group just because of what some of their member purport is as foolish as it is to claim that everyone who enjoys werewolf media really thinks they're a werewolf.
I don't like these particular republicans, I think their plan is stoooopid, and they are as well to a certain extent as well if they seriously thought it had a chance at passing.
But blanket statements like: 'Republicans have only one consistency: Hypocrisy!' just irk me. Blanket statements of almost any sort irk me.

There was a Democrat sponsored bill that would have tried to limit the police's ability to fire even crippling shots, even against armed and dangerous subjects. Doesn't mean I'm going to decry every democrat as actually being a criminal in disguise.

(For the curious, it was called the minimum-force bill, and would have required police officers to always shoot in a non-lethal manner, Biden dubbed it the John Wayne bill :P)
Alpha wrote:This may have been a little tongue in cheek on his part, but he's hit the nail on the head. If you have two consenting (same sex) adults who want to get married, then so what? What exactly is the problem? They're not hurting anybody. I don't understand why this is such a threat to some people? Do these right wing nutjobs think that they're preventing a second Sodom & Gomorrah or something? :x
The most powerful Republican argument I've heard against gay-marriage is that it's going to somehow destroy the family dynamic...it's not at all a good argument really. I've never seen proof of any kind to support the claim.
We do not stop being children when we learn of death, we stop being children when we make peace with it.

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Uniform Two Six » Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:36 am

Sebiale wrote:Coming down on the entire republican group just because of what some of their member purport is as foolish as it is to claim that everyone who enjoys werewolf media really thinks they're a werewolf.
As a republican, I have some serious feelings on the issue of painting the GOP with a broad brush. The problem is that, while there are quite a few moderate republicans (such as myself) out there, we have little actual influence on the party as a whole. Over the last thirty years or so, the party has become very radicalized, with the extremist elements (most notably, the religious right, and particularly in the last decade or so, the neoconservatives) holding most of the actual power in the party. That's why these airheads like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin have such a central role in Republican politics; They're locked into the extremist idiot crowd which is so vital in primaries. Meanwhile, moderates (like McCain used to be before aliens apparently abducted him and replaced him with a Xylon cyborg or something) are marginalized as politically irrelevant, since most of us are going to vote for the Republican nominee regardless of who that person is. And even with that realization, the moderates are still tagged as "Rhinos", for "Republican In Name Only" (which just goes to prove that the neoconservative morons can't spell). It's gotten as nasty within the party as it has in the attacks on the Dems. I'm at the point where I'm so alienated, that I'm just voting Democrat right now.

So, anyway... Yeah, people shouldn't assume we're all like that, but there are valid reasons why whenever some neo-con idiot starts spewing off some sort of absurdity, one should take them at least a little seriously. Never forget that it was basically this same crew that got us involved in Iraq (for absolutely no reason). That kind of ignorance coupled to real political power is quite dangerous.

User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Terastas » Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:55 am

Sebiale wrote:Coming down on the entire republican group just because of what some of their member purport is as foolish as it is to claim that everyone who enjoys werewolf media really thinks they're a werewolf.
I don't like these particular republicans, I think their plan is stoooopid, and they are as well to a certain extent as well if they seriously thought it had a chance at passing.
But blanket statements like: 'Republicans have only one consistency: Hypocrisy!' just irk me. Blanket statements of almost any sort irk me.
That last statement was more about politicians, but still: Unless you're a moderate who can go down that list and check off a few that don't apply, it's true.

As I alluded to earlier, there are different layers of conservatism. Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and the Far Right Reich came into prominence more or less because Bush and Cheney screwed the nation undeniably so. The worst thing for a Republican (politician) to do, however, is admit imperfection, both in themselves, and in their party ideology, so the Far Right Reich decided that the logical explanation for the utter failure of the Bush regime was that they "weren't conservative enough." So today's utter insanity is, in the long run, just a state of great denial combined with a massive temper tantrum over the fact that they're not in power anymore.

The Tea Party is spending a lot of time and money exaggerating their numbers, however. They spam news polls and disrupt progressive events to try to make themselves look like a major movement akin to the grassroots Obama campaign, but all they are is a fringe group being catered to by greedy corporations and a desperate G.O.P. The Neocons and Christian Reich are vastly outnumbered by moderates; people who have been brainwashed to think of "Republican" as an unchangeable part of their identity, people who have low intelligence or little interest in politics and only follow the issues they can follow (Scott Brown got people to vote for him just by proving himself more knowledgeable about the Red Sox), and/or people who are afraid change will come to the wrong places or will come too fast for them to keep up with it.

There's sort of a difference between being Republican voters and Republican politicians. Republican voters are genuine believers in conservatism, whereas Republican politicians are only conservative when it's convenient for them.

The G.O.P. actually shot itself in the foot, I think, by letting the Neocons and Christian Reich take over. The far righters are people with their heads so far up their political derrieres that they would even vote for Oscar the Grouch if he ran Republican, whereas it is within the capacity of a moderate to vote Democrat (or just not vote at all).

So the G.O.P. has basically slighted the great majority of their voter base, and all just to A) avoid having to admit that they got greedy and screwed up, and B) create the illusion of widespread voter dissent by uplifting the most fanatical (and loudest) of the Neocons.

So with all due respect, the only thing I am going to say applies to all Republicans is that when it comes to brains, hearts and balls, no Republican has the full set. The politicians in the G.O.P. sold their party agenda under Bush to the highest bidder and are now selling it out to the Far Right Reich; they have no hearts. The Tea-Baggers have sworn their souls to the party and will whistle whatever tune Palin and Beck tell them to at the top of their lungs; they have no brains. And I don't see any, any moderates at all, willing to take a stand (with the Democrats, or by themselves) and tell the Neocons and the Tea-Baggers that they are not the voice of America as they claim to be; they have no balls.

"Independent," as it were, is the new "liberal moderate." Evidently when Bush said "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists," he meant 'us' as in the G.O.P.

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Texas Republicans trying to make being gay illegal

Post by Uniform Two Six » Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:25 pm

Terastas wrote: So the G.O.P. has basically slighted the great majority of their voter base, and all just to A) avoid having to admit that they got greedy and screwed up, and B) create the illusion of widespread voter dissent by uplifting the most fanatical (and loudest) of the Neocons.
I'm not so sure I agree with that assessment. I think it all comes down to the primaries. The politicians who want to get re-elected next time around know that they're going to have to be competetive in the primaries and being able to "fire up the base" is pivotal, so being a moderate is not helpful. The simple reality is that in Republican primaries, it's the biggest whack-job that invariably wins. That's why the neoconservatives and Christian Right people are considered the voter base, and we moderates are not.

Post Reply