Why are Republicans and rightwingers always bashing gays for political points?

[Cecilie1200]

Because Democrats have done so much for Gay people?

Democrats don't bash homos for political points, Repugs do. I'm just as disgusted at the thought of two men giving and taking it up the ass as any straight man, but I don't need to bash that shit for political points by appealing to homophobic bigots.

Actually, Democrats bash OTHER people as homosexuals for political points. Gay-baiting is one of their favorite and most time-honored political ploys. Republicans may disagree with the political agenda of homosexual rights groups, but we don't generally consider homosexuality to be an INSULT.

And by the way, just for the record, YOU are the homophobe here, by definition. Opposing a political agenda doesn't qualify as homophobia; your repeated remarks about "disgusted" and "nasty" and "taking it up the ass" are the textbook definition of homophobia.

Congrats for outting yourself as the very thing you wanted to attack your opponents for. Never wonder why you've earned a reputation on this board as an idiot.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Because Democrats have done so much for Gay people?

Democrats don't bash homos for political points, Repugs do. I'm just as disgusted at the thought of two men giving and taking it up the ass as any straight man, but I don't need to bash that shit for political points by appealing to homophobic bigots.

Actually, Democrats bash OTHER people as homosexuals for political points. Gay-baiting is one of their favorite and most time-honored political ploys. Republicans may disagree with the political agenda of homosexual rights groups, but we don't generally consider homosexuality to be an INSULT.

And by the way, just for the record, YOU are the homophobe here, by definition. Opposing a political agenda doesn't qualify as homophobia; your repeated remarks about "disgusted" and "nasty" and "taking it up the ass" are the textbook definition of homophobia.

Congrats for outting yourself as the very thing you wanted to attack your opponents for. Never wonder why you've earned a reputation on this board as an idiot.

Please prove that Democrats gay bait. Thank you. What Democrats do is point out the hypocrisy when right wing anti-gay homophobes get busted having gay sex.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I also find gay sex to be nasty as shit but I would never make it political in order to advance myself or to gain a seat in office, isn't there more things a politician should be concerning his/her self with? Leave the homos alone!!!

The real question is why do your parents allow you access to ther computer?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't understand how other people's personal relationships are of any one else's concern. Those who make it political, as you said, seem to not believe in individual rights.

In case you haven't noticed, it's those people themselves who are making their personal relationships into public concerns. Conservatives didn't go out and say, "Hey, let's have a big, national, public political debate concerning homosexual relationships." It was homosexual advocacy groups who decided they needed to have a public debate because it wasn't enough for them to conduct their relationships privately; they needed government approbation. And however much people like to blur the lines and pretend that official government sanction is "telling people who can and can't marry", it's not . . . unless you really define your relationship by whether or not other people agree with your view of it.

A government is created and a law passed that recognizes and subsidizes a very specific relationship between two citizens. When other specific relationships ask for the same recognition, it is their fault somehow?

I don't wish to legalize gay marriage. I wish to remove the state from the recognition of relationships entirely. Homosexuals do not define their relationships by the thoughts or feelings of others, just as heterosexual couples do not. They only wish to been seen equal before the law.

The law shouldn't exist to begin with.

If they wish to make a public issue out of their relationship and gain legal approbation for it, then yes, it is THEIR fault that their relationship has become public instead of private. No one outside their relationship went in and said, "We need to discuss what you two are doing on a national stage."

Do you have any idea WHY the laws recognizing - not allowing, thank you very much - specific relationships exist? If you don't, we have nothing to discuss until you do.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's exactly right.
The Gay lobby needs to get it's act together and decide how they are going to fight the marriage issue.
They get their asses handed to them everytime they get the issue on a ballot. We don't get to vote on issues of Civil Rights protected by the Constituition.
So what is it?

On January 1st 2004 there were "0" states that allowed Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Following the Hawaiian Supreme Court scare of the mid-90's there appeared on the ballots of many states in 2000 and 2004 many initiative/referendum ballots to bar Same-sex Civil Marriage in many, many states. Prop 22 (Statutory Change) had a 23% margin of victory, in 2004 there were 11 states with measures and the the lowest percentage of passage was 56.6% and the highest was 86%.

Flash forward to 2008 and California's Prop 8 and 2009 with Maine's Question 1, both barely squeeked by to the point were a change of less than 3% in the vote would allowed Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Now the following recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage in some fashion: Connecticut, New York, California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C..



23%-76% margin of victories is having your ass-handed to you. Winning by only 2-3% is not and that percentage is likely to continue to decrease since long term polling shows that Americans are becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of same-sex couples being treated equally as different-sex couples, especially as us old fogies pass on and younger voters have a larger impact on voter demographics.



>>>>

 

[Tetracide]

In case you haven't noticed, it's those people themselves who are making their personal relationships into public concerns. Conservatives didn't go out and say, "Hey, let's have a big, national, public political debate concerning homosexual relationships." It was homosexual advocacy groups who decided they needed to have a public debate because it wasn't enough for them to conduct their relationships privately; they needed government approbation. And however much people like to blur the lines and pretend that official government sanction is "telling people who can and can't marry", it's not . . . unless you really define your relationship by whether or not other people agree with your view of it.

A government is created and a law passed that recognizes and subsidizes a very specific relationship between two citizens. When other specific relationships ask for the same recognition, it is their fault somehow?

I don't wish to legalize gay marriage. I wish to remove the state from the recognition of relationships entirely. Homosexuals do not define their relationships by the thoughts or feelings of others, just as heterosexual couples do not. They only wish to been seen equal before the law.

The law shouldn't exist to begin with.

If they wish to make a public issue out of their relationship and gain legal approbation for it, then yes, it is THEIR fault that their relationship has become public instead of private. No one outside their relationship went in and said, "We need to discuss what you two are doing on a national stage."

Do you have any idea WHY the laws recognizing - not allowing, thank you very much - specific relationships exist? If you don't, we have nothing to discuss until you do.

The government made relationships public when they became recognized by a public institution.

It doesn't matter why laws recognize relationships. It's not in the constitution, it's not within the jurisdiction of the state, and inherently elevates one class of citizen over another. Marriage should be privatized.

 

[Flaylo]

Because Democrats have done so much for Gay people?

Democrats don't bash homos for political points, Repugs do. I'm just as disgusted at the thought of two men giving and taking it up the ass as any straight man, but I don't need to bash that shit for political points by appealing to homophobic bigots.

Actually, Democrats bash OTHER people as homosexuals for political points. Gay-baiting is one of their favorite and most time-honored political ploys. Republicans may disagree with the political agenda of homosexual rights groups, but we don't generally consider homosexuality to be an INSULT.

And by the way, just for the record, YOU are the homophobe here, by definition. Opposing a political agenda doesn't qualify as homophobia; your repeated remarks about "disgusted" and "nasty" and "taking it up the ass" are the textbook definition of homophobia.

Congrats for outting yourself as the very thing you wanted to attack your opponents for. Never wonder why you've earned a reputation on this board as an idiot.

Wrong, the fact that I am disgusted by certain sexual acts doesn't make me a bigot, I'm speak aloud what I think, that said, I would never use what I find to be disgusting as a political tool especially when its useless.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It doesn't matter why laws recognize relationships. It's not in the constitution, it's not within the jurisdiction of the state, and inherently elevates one class of citizen over another. Marriage should be privatized.

Actually recognition of legally binding relationships is well within the purview of the States. If a relationship is to exist with no legal recognition, then fine go for it - the State need not recognize it. However at the point people wanted legal recognition of relationships and asked the State for that recognition, then ya it became the States business.

"Privatization" sounds good but isn't a realistic view once you start telling...

1. Low income spouses that they will not be able to draw social security benefits based on their spouses income.

2. That when a spouse gives gifts to their spouse that it will now have to counted as income because there would no longer be recognition of that Civil Marriage.

3. That while property of a deceased spouse can be willed to anyone they want, the living spouse will no longer be exempt from taxes and it will treated as income.

4. An individual who sells a home can claim a $250,000 exemption on any profit from the sale a married couple $500,000. However for two years after the death of a spouse the surviving spouse can still claim $500,000 on the sale. With no government recognition of marriage that exemption goes away.

5. For military members, no more burial of your spouse along side you in national cemetaries.

6. For military members, no more drawing allowances at the married rate.

7. You ship overseas, the government will not ship our spouse out with you and there will no longer be a married weight allowance, you want your wife with you in Germany, Korea, or Japan - cough up air fair form them and pay the extra weight to move household goods.

etc...​

>>>>

 

[Tetracide]

1. Low income spouses that they will not be able to draw social security benefits based on their spouses income.
Social security is an immoral transfer of wealth, and should be abolished.

2. That when a spouse gives gifts to their spouse that it will now have to counted as income because there would no longer be recognition of that Civil Marriage.
Income tax is unconstitutional.

3. That while property of a deceased spouse can be willed to anyone they want, the living spouse will no longer be exempt from taxes and it will treated as income.
See number 4.

4. An individual who sells a home can claim a $250,000 exemption on any profit from the sale a married couple $500,000. However for two years after the death of a spouse the surviving spouse can still claim $500,000 on the sale. With no government recognition of marriage that exemption goes away.
An exemption invented by the government. Fine by me. There should be a separation of economy and state.

5. For military members, no more burial of your spouse along side you in national cemetaries.
Why are there "national" cemeteries? Isn't there already plenty of cemetery businesses? This could be solved by the free market.

6. For military members, no more drawing allowances at the married rate.
Not anyone else's problem but the family's. If they need more income, they may earn it elsewhere.

7. You ship overseas, the government will not ship our spouse out with you and there will no longer be a married weight allowance, you want your wife with you in Germany, Korea, or Japan - cough up air fair form them and pay the extra weight to move household goods.
Once again, the free market could fix this easily.

​

I don't wish to go through every possible argument and refute it, because it will open up way more questions than answers. I'm going to stick with my original argument: the federal government may not recognize one class of citizen over another. It's in violation of the equal protections clause of the constitution and an affront to inalienable individual rights.

 

[Avatar4321]

Are we bashing homosexuals because we oppose homosexual behavior?

The only reason it's political at all is because the left is pushing the issue down the throats of the American people against their will. Stop trying to legislate from the bench or bipass the people's vote and it won't be an issue.

 

[Tetracide]

Are we bashing homosexuals because we oppose homosexual behavior?

The only reason it's political at all is because the left is pushing the issue down the throats of the American people against their will. Stop trying to legislate from the bench or bipass the people's vote and it won't be an issue.

"The people" don't have the right to take freedom from others. That's why we don't live in a democracy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Low income spouses that they will not be able to draw social security benefits based on their spouses income.
Social security is an immoral transfer of wealth, and should be abolished.

2. That when a spouse gives gifts to their spouse that it will now have to counted as income because there would no longer be recognition of that Civil Marriage.
Income tax is unconstitutional.

3. That while property of a deceased spouse can be willed to anyone they want, the living spouse will no longer be exempt from taxes and it will treated as income.
See number 4.

4. An individual who sells a home can claim a $250,000 exemption on any profit from the sale a married couple $500,000. However for two years after the death of a spouse the surviving spouse can still claim $500,000 on the sale. With no government recognition of marriage that exemption goes away.
An exemption invented by the government. Fine by me. There should be a separation of economy and state.

5. For military members, no more burial of your spouse along side you in national cemetaries.
Why are there "national" cemeteries? Isn't there already plenty of cemetery businesses? This could be solved by the free market.

6. For military members, no more drawing allowances at the married rate.
Not anyone else's problem but the family's. If they need more income, they may earn it elsewhere.

7. You ship overseas, the government will not ship our spouse out with you and there will no longer be a married weight allowance, you want your wife with you in Germany, Korea, or Japan - cough up air fair form them and pay the extra weight to move household goods.
Once again, the free market could fix this easily.

​

1. You may not like it, but it exists.
2. Believe as you wish as you stroke the check on April 15th.
3. See number 4.
4.
5. Tell that to those who gave their lives and health so that your idea of a "free market" can exist.
6. Ya, that's going to work well with an all volunteer force.
7. "Free Market" is going to pay to transfer family member overseas on government orders? What that places address?

I don't wish to go through every possible argument and refute it, because it will open up way more questions than answers. I'm going to stick with my original argument: the federal government may not recognize one class of citizen over another. It's in violation of the equal protections clause of the constitution and an affront to inalienable individual rights.

I understand where you are coming from from a philosophical point of view, but that view does not reflect reality.



>>>>

 

[ABikerSailor]

I also find gay sex to be nasty as shit but I would never make it political in order to advance myself or to gain a seat in office, isn't there more things a politician should be concerning his/her self with? Leave the homos alone!!!

Wanna know why? Because most of the GOP base claims to be good God fearing Christians, and gays and abortion scare the beejebus outta them.

Besides, these good GOP'ers have a Bible, and they quote Leviticus often. Only trouble is......Leviticus is a manual for Jewish High Priests, not Christians.

Leviticus (Greek: Λευιτικός, "relating to the Levites") or Wayiqra (Hebrew: ויקרא*, literally "and he [Jahwe] called", Modern Hebrew: Vayikra) is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah (or Pentateuch).

Leviticus contains laws and priestly rituals, but in a wider sense is about the working out of God's covenant with Israel set out in Genesis and Exodus—what is seen in the Torah as the consequences of entering into a special relationship with God (specifically, Yahweh). These consequences are set out in terms of community relationships and behaviour.

The first 16 chapters and the last chapter make up the Priestly Code, whereas chapter 17 through 26 form the Holiness Code. The Priestly Code contains instructions directed to the priestly class regarding rules for ritual cleanliness, sin-offerings, and the observance of holidays. Chapter 12 mandates male circumcision. The Holiness Code of chapter 17 through 26 contains ethical mandates directed at the elected Hebrew people at large, including the injunction in chapter 19 to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (the Great Commandment). The rules are generally addressed to the Israelites, except for several prohibitions applied equally to "the strangers that sojourn in Israel."

According to Jewish and Christian tradition, God dictated the Book of Leviticus to Moses as He did the other books of the Bible.[1] Modern scholarship sees it as a product of the Priestly source and the 5th century BCE

The Levites were the High Priests of Israel.

TitleIn Hebrew the book is called Vayikra (Hebrew: ויקר&#1488 literally "and He called",[2] from the first word of the Hebrew text. In the Septuagint, the name given was biblion to Levitikon (Greek: βιβλίον το Λευιτικό&#957, meaning "book of the Levites," in line with the Septuagint use of subject themes as book names. The Latin name became Liber Leviticus, from which the English name is derived. These names are somewhat misleading, as the first 17 chapters of the book are mostly concerned with the priesthood descended from Aaron, who only compose a fraction of the tribe of Levi. The Levite's at large are mentioned only once, in Lev. 25:32-33.

All references are from wikipedia.org

So my question is why are Christians utilizing a manual specifically written for Jewish priests?

 

[Tetracide]

I don't wish to go through every possible argument and refute it, because it will open up way more questions than answers. I'm going to stick with my original argument: the federal government may not recognize one class of citizen over another. It's in violation of the equal protections clause of the constitution and an affront to inalienable individual rights.

I understand where you are coming from from a philosophical point of view, but that view does not reflect reality.



>>>>

You don't even have to jump on my philosophical bandwagon. You can just read the constitution, which - as I said - prohibits unequal protection of the law.

(Although, you should always keep in mind philosophical underpinnings of political theory.)

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't wish to go through every possible argument and refute it, because it will open up way more questions than answers. I'm going to stick with my original argument: the federal government may not recognize one class of citizen over another. It's in violation of the equal protections clause of the constitution and an affront to inalienable individual rights.

I understand where you are coming from from a philosophical point of view, but that view does not reflect reality.



>>>>

You don't even have to jump on my philosophical bandwagon. You can just read the constitution, which - as I said - prohibits unequal protection of the law.

(Although, you should always keep in mind philosophical underpinnings of political theory.)

I've carried a Constitution around with me in my flight bag/back pack/briefcase since 1988, read it often there is nothing in their that says that States can't recognize legal Civil Marriages. Now I agree that DOMA has issues, I'd support it's repeal and replacement. Repeal means the federal government recognizes all legal Civil Marriages as it did for hundreds of years. Replacement in that Congress would properly exercise it's Article IV Section 1 power in defining the "effect thereof" of public acts providing that no State must recognize ANY Civil Marriage from outside that State that conflicts with it's internal laws. The problem with DOMA is that it's gender based discrimination (IMHO) of course.



>>>>

 

[Tetracide]

I understand where you are coming from from a philosophical point of view, but that view does not reflect reality.



>>>>

You don't even have to jump on my philosophical bandwagon. You can just read the constitution, which - as I said - prohibits unequal protection of the law.

(Although, you should always keep in mind philosophical underpinnings of political theory.)

I've carried a Constitution around with me in my flight bag/back pack/briefcase since 1988, read it often there is nothing in their that says that States can't recognize legal Civil Marriages. Now I agree that DOMA has issues, I'd support it's repeal and replacement. Repeal means the federal government recognizes all legal Civil Marriages as it did for hundreds of years. Replacement in that Congress would properly exercise it's Article IV Section 1 power in defining the "effect thereof" of public acts providing that no State must recognize ANY Civil Marriage from outside that State that conflicts with it's internal laws. The problem with DOMA is that it's gender based discrimination (IMHO) of course.



>>>>

The 14th Amendment (and its Federal interpretation) trumps state laws.

 

[rikules]

Because Democrats have done so much for Gay people?

they have done more to advance the causes and rights of gays than republicans and conservatives

i'm curious....


are you completely stupid?

or just MOSTLY stupid

 

[FuelRod]

What color is the sky on your planet?

 

[Avatar4321]

Are we bashing homosexuals because we oppose homosexual behavior?

The only reason it's political at all is because the left is pushing the issue down the throats of the American people against their will. Stop trying to legislate from the bench or bipass the people's vote and it won't be an issue.

"The people" don't have the right to take freedom from others. That's why we don't live in a democracy.

No one's freedom or rights have been taken away.

 

[Avatar4321]

You don't even have to jump on my philosophical bandwagon. You can just read the constitution, which - as I said - prohibits unequal protection of the law.

(Although, you should always keep in mind philosophical underpinnings of political theory.)

I've carried a Constitution around with me in my flight bag/back pack/briefcase since 1988, read it often there is nothing in their that says that States can't recognize legal Civil Marriages. Now I agree that DOMA has issues, I'd support it's repeal and replacement. Repeal means the federal government recognizes all legal Civil Marriages as it did for hundreds of years. Replacement in that Congress would properly exercise it's Article IV Section 1 power in defining the "effect thereof" of public acts providing that no State must recognize ANY Civil Marriage from outside that State that conflicts with it's internal laws. The problem with DOMA is that it's gender based discrimination (IMHO) of course.



>>>>

The 14th Amendment (and its Federal interpretation) trumps state laws.

The amendments. Yes. The Interpretations. Only for as long as they are considered valid. Which many of them aren't.