CingularDuality

I'll not argue that point, nor the original point you made with this thread. But to disagree with me when I say that Republicans, as a party, hurt homosexual causes, while Democrats tend to support them, well... If you seriously and honestly need evidence of that, I'll just say good day to you, sir. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, and I'll just question your judgment for the rest of my life.

Intellectually lazy? Perhaps. I'm OK with that. I just don't care to convince anyone of this argument...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Switchcraft

Sorry, Cing, but "tend to support" is completely inaccurate. "Tend to claim that Republicans don't support" is fine, but Democrats do not have a record of taking action in support of homosexual causes, they have a record of taking action to attack Republican positions on homosexual causes which is disingenuous. The Dem Cong hasn't done anything to change the laws that make sodomy illegal in the military. They haven't taken any action to address gay marriage in this country except to generally oppose it. In the last election, Kerry was specific enough about that with the Missouri amendment he supported, and there were others, but why bother citing other positions? If the presidential candidate for the party is anti-gay-marriage, why would tht count as "support" for the cause? The only thing that Democrats really do for gay rights in this country is sound outraged on occasion, and maybe that's "support" but I don't buy it, since they only manage to bring up the outrage in situations where they have no intention or ability to actually take action.

El_Gringo_Grande

The democratic party is not just those in the House and Senate. You can find much of the support at the local and state level. But even in the Congress you find many more Democrat supporters than you do Republican.

I do think many in the Democratic party downplay their support for political purposes. And some do openly oppose it (and some probably privately oppose it but publicly bash republicans).

But cing is correct. Democrats, as a whole, do tend to support gay rights issues. These issues are varied and go beyond just the marriage thing. And when I say Democrats as a whole I mean everybody that is registered Democrat, not just the political leaders. Just because you don't push certain issues by introducing bills doesn't mean you don't support those issues.

I really don't see how you can claim any differently.

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Switchcraft

Alright, so they "downplay their support for political purposes." When you're a political body, what does that mean? "We support you, we just...um, well, we're keeping it a secret?"

Fine, I'll drop the argument. Nobody knows how they "support" gay rights issues, we're just sure they do. Excellent.

CingularDuality

Again, if I cared, I'm sure I could dig up the proposed legislation. I'd be willing to bet my checking account that of all the legislation proposed that could be considered supportive of gay rights issues, the vast majority of it came from the Democrats. Are you, too, really unwilling to grant this point? This is very surprising to me.

If your point was that neither party has really done much of anything, then I'd have to agree with you.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Switchcraft

Yes, my point is that neither party has done much of anything.

leejo

I think that's basically fair for most minority issues. Neither party does much of anything. That's sort of how the system is supposed to work. But the popular narrative is that the dems really really care and *want* to do stuff and the reps are mean old bigots who hate blacks and gays and women and midgets.

So when a John Edwards gets away with such an outrageous statement and when the popular narrative savages people like Clarence Thomas and Condaleeza Rice as being the "wrong" sort of black person it makes my blood boil. They are precisely the right sort of people.

Along these lines, what is a "homosexual issue" or a "gay rights issue"? Isn't one of these issues the same we all have? Aren't you curious to know why, instead of seeking legislation that supports a life partner's right to visit their loved one in ICU, for example, we are told it's accept a redefinition of marriage or sink to bigotry? It's not the "right" so much as the social status that's at stake, I think, and maybe we disagree on government's role in each.

CingularDuality

And that's something the religious right has stirred up, from what I've seen. I've got several gay friends that say they (and most of the folks they know) are sick and tired of the whole "marriage" issue. They just want to be able to do the same things that married couples can do. They don't care if it's called a "marriage" or a "civil union" or if they make up a new word to describe it. For gays it IS all about their rights, and not any social status attached to a silly word.

Again, you're defending the indefensible, IMO.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

leejo

OK so where is all this rights-seeking legislation that isn't grand and sweeping?

Again, you've bought the story they use to sell hot air to the masses like the rest of the sheeple. See I can play too.

If you can't be bothered to discuss this, then stop typing. If you wish to have a civil discussion, then stop saying things like "you're defending the indefensible." (which says what exactly about me?).

Steeler

Stop clutching your pearls, leejo. You've expressed the same sentiment in the Sandbox before.

Would you prefer rights legislation that is meek and ineffectual?

__________________

leejo

Speaka de english. I don't know what clutching pearls means or what sentiment you're talking about. And I don't know what legislation you're comparing to meek and ineffectual.

AMosely

I really don't find either of the posts that leejo posted particularly noteworthy. One is from a popular but underdog democratic presidential hopeful seeking headlines and the other from a suprisingly bitter republican-appointed Supreme Court justice who is pushing a new book. I don't blame him for being angry and politics and media that tried to burn him during his appointment hearings in the early 90's, but I think people are taking his recent comments much too far and missing the critical point - race is a centuries-old source of pain and injustice in American society and that is a shameful, inescapable fact. I'm not just talking about African-Americans, either. Hispanics and people of Middle-Eastern descent are in particularly vulnerable places in American society today. Stereotypes, discrimination and prejudice still abound among a large percentage of Americans. Both political parties have and continue to use race as a tool - they do more harm than good, in my opinion. I think the reason why Republicans tend to get a more negative connotation (aside from people like Strom Thurmond among their ranks) is because their primary interests lie with business and profitmaking and not with social welfare and the interests of the poor and underpriviledged - a population which, not very surprisingly, is largely made up of racial minorities.

With regard to sexual and religious issues, republican efforts in preserving certain Christian values regarding marriage (and in Texas, sexual behavior) are patently discriminatory against transgendered/sexual and homsexual individuals. One can certainly make the claim that the democratic party isn't championing legislation to prevent this kind of legislatie discrimination, but that doesn't change the fact that many members of the republican party have introduced legislation to block the rights (such as the right to marry) of any individual who does not adhere to their (Christian) definition of marriage. Even though republicans may say they have no problem with homosexuality, they are uncomfortable giving them the same rights as any other American. That, to me, is unfair and unjust.

Both leading political parties, republicans and democrats, use race and sexual orientation the same way they do any other factor - votes vs. lobby/money. Courting the votes, blocking the votes, and taking the money. The system is still racially charged, and it's still corrupt. Altruists and the unbiased need not apply. The two quotes at the start of this thread are similar in that they, too, have all too apparent underlying motives - getting elected and selling books (while also harboring deep, deep resentment).

After reading some of his excerpts and history, I think Thomas needs to work on some Zen meditation. The man is clearly carrying an old, heavy burdon. He needs to set it down.

TheFeniX

At the risk of going off-topic: exactly what is unnatural about homosexuality?

Is doesn't happen in nature? Wrong, other lifeforms on earth (not just animals) practice homosexuality, among other sexual preferences well outside the scope. Besides, the whole "natural" argument is pretty funny when it's being argued from a PC. Humans, by nature, are not very "natural" animals.

Further, the notion that allowing gays to marry is "rape of marriage" is laughable when in the USA you can marry a woman you just met 5 minutes ago with an Elvis impersonator as your priest.

__________________

leejo

Well I sorta think that the getting married drunk in vegas scenario is a rape of marriage. Just because the cops don't pull everyone going 5 mph over the limit doesn't mean anything goes.

With regard to whether or not homosexuality is natural, well...what's wrong with unnatural? I have a friend who's father was pissed off about a similar statement some church lady had made about my friend, who is gay, and asked her if she'd ever had oral sex with her husband.

Not likely to be invited over for dinner after that, but I'm sure he made his point. Viva unnatural!

I just don't know that I want marriage redefined or a new protected group created. I'm all for equal rights, though, as has been discussed in other threads ad nauseum.

TheFeniX

Two drunks getting married is not illegal, speeding is.

There's nothing wrong with "unnatural." I was just pointing out that the whole "natural" argument against homosexuality isn't that strong.

The same thing has been said in the past about blacks, women, and other minorities. It's unfortunate that it takes the majority to protect the minority.

Homosexuals are a minority. Why aren't they entitled to protection and equal rights?

__________________