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

[Flaylo]

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!!!

 

[Tetracide]

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!!!

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.

 

[FuelRod]

Because Democrats have done so much for Gay people?

 

[hjmick]

Do they all do it? Or are you merely painting them all with the same broad brush?

 

[xsited1]

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

Shut up you homosexual fudgepacker!!!!!!!

 

[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.

 

[Flaylo]

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

Shut up you homosexual fudgepacker!!!!!!!

Are you offended that I find ass sex between men to be disgusting, but not offended at how dumb it is to bash gay sex for political points?

 

[FuelRod]

Democrats wish to politicize an issue that is not political.

 

[Flaylo]

Democrats wish to politicize an issue that is not political.

Repugs and rightwingers politicize shit that isn't political like two men taking and giving it up the ass.

 

[FuelRod]

I don't care what two men (or women) do behind closed doors. Those that want to recognize this as a civil rights issue are misguided.

 

[xsited1]

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

Shut up you homosexual fudgepacker!!!!!!!

Are you offended that I find ass sex between men to be disgusting, but not offended at how dumb it is to bash gay sex for political points?

I'm just kidding around. Unlike you, I'm not offended by homosexuals or their lifestyle or their 'ass sex between men', and I don't approve of gay bashing in general. There are, however, people who happen to be homosexuals who deserve to be bashed, same as straight people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!!!

Yeah, that's what it is. Anytime anyone disagrees with you on anything, it's gotta be "just for political points". It could NEVER, EVER be because someone geniunely holds a political opinion that's in opposition to you. Naw, that can't be it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I don't care what two men (or women) do behind closed doors. Those that want to recognize this as a civil rights issue are misguided.

It's a civil rights issue because gays cannot civilly marry each other due to the DOMA. I don't know if not being able to marry makes it more a human rights or a civil rights issue.

Marriage equality is indeed a civil rights issue, because of the legislation passed to discriminate against the LGBT community at the federal level, namely, the defense of marriage act. The arguments that 1) marriage has been between a man and a woman, that 2) marriage conveyed social benefits upon society, that 3) marriage is a religious institution and 4) it is not the place of the government to redefine an institution which has been in existence since time immemorial, upon examining these arguments, it became clear to me that while the proponents of these arguments are sincere in their beliefs, and to some extent their arguments also have some validity, their imposition of the issue at the federal level through DOMA has made the issue more than a topic of opinion, and that the correct legislative response is either to repeal all governmental recognition of marriage and the rights and privileges they confer upon married individuals, including inheritance, social security, and taxation benefit, or that marriage equality would have to be passed, first at the state level, and then at the federal level.

Amnesty International considers marriage equality a human rights issue.

 

[FuelRod]

I don't care what two men (or women) do behind closed doors. Those that want to recognize this as a civil rights issue are misguided.

It's a civil rights issue because gays cannot civilly marry each other.

I understand your point but I don't agree with you. I believe Democrats have nothing to stand on politically in this country without trying to divide people.

 

[Flaylo]

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!!!

Yeah, that's what it is. Anytime anyone disagrees with you on anything, it's gotta be "just for political points". It could NEVER, EVER be because someone geniunely holds a political opinion that's in opposition to you. Naw, that can't be it.

Quit talking stupid shit, politicizing gay sex is a Republican tactic to get votes, bashing gay always pays is their motto.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's a civil rights issue because gays cannot civilly marry each other due to the DOMA.

That's not quite correct SD. DOMA does not prevent two people of the same gender from entering into Civil Marriage as Civil Marriage is performed under State Law. DOMA denies federal recognition of those marriages and provides that one State does not have to recognize a legal Same-sex Civil Marriage from another State - True, but the legal Civil Marriage is performed by the State and it not prohibited by DOMA.


Now personally I think DOMA will eventually be repealled or struck down on Due Process and/or Equal Protection arguments and that it is an invidious law perpetuating gender/sexual orientation discrimination. But that's a different comment.



>>>>

 

[Tetracide]

Privatize marriage. It's no one's business other than the couple.

 

[FuelRod]

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?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!!!

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.

 

[Tetracide]

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!!!

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.