Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[tmdiva]

Originally posted by Santorum
Rant over, until I rant again.

I get the feeling you're rather preaching to the converted, even over here (not that I would know, since I don't usually read this board).

My favorite part of the voters' pamphlet here was the satiric "Statements in Support" for Measure 36 submitted by groups like the "Defense of Heterosexual Breeding Coalition." Some people didn't pick up on the satire, though.

tm

[Not Me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hmmm, but that's a Kerry policy proposal.

Your point is?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You think Ham Sandwich would have beaten Ashcroft too?

TM

Why not? Corpse did.

[Santorum]

Originally posted by tmdiva
I get the feeling you're rather preaching to the converted, even over here (not that I would know, since I don't usually read this board).

No doubt. It feels good, though, and sometimes someone here responds, unlike those fucks over at the National Review.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Santorum
Equating heterosexual marriage and buttfucking suggests that buttfucking is okay and gays are like straight people.

Yeah but even heteros do that nasty deed - (but not me -- though I tried to try it once -- how DO they DO that????) and could still be against gay marriage. So there would seem to be another reason. If some engaged couple in Iowa think that Joe and Ed's marriage in NY is going to make their own marriage and honeymoon somehow less "special" because Joe and Ed call their setup a "marriage" then that's just plain......weird! And if you are saying the majority are even against "civil unions" - then it makes me wonder this: if the ballot said "do you favor a constitutional ban on gay sex**" It's scary to think that, behind the curtains in total privacy, a majority of heteros would vote "yes". None of this crap belongs on the ballot.

**without giving the voter the option of specifying banning just gay, but not lesbian, sex.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Yeah but even heteros do that nasty deed - (but not me -- though I tried to try it once -- how DO they DO that????)

Slowly. And with ample lubrication.

Thus ends my contribution to the politics board.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
None of this crap belongs on the ballot.

None of this crap belongs on the ballot because the government has no business giving people special/more rights because they want to claim they are married. It violates the equal protection of the single people.

And what is so special about the number 2? Why limit it to 2 people?

That is why all of this makes no sense. Because the government shouldn't be involved at all. If you want to claim you are married and get married in a church or whatever, do it. But the government shouldn't give you special rights becuase you do that.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Santorum
No doubt. It feels good, though, and sometimes someone here responds, unlike those fucks over at the National Review.

I saw this over at Andrew Sullivan, and except for the age, it could have been a verbatum conversation that I had with my brother.

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: "I am a 25 year-old gay man, and I can't even describe how saddened I am today by the re-election of President Bush and the numerous state amendments banning gay marriage that were passed on election day. I'm not really angry... just very sad and afraid. I don't know what country I live in anymore. I thought this was the land of freedom. I thought I was free to pursue my own happiness. But right now I feel like my country hates me. What is going on?"

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I saw this over at Andrew Sullivan, and except for the age, it could have been a verbatum conversation that I had with my brother.

My goodness, the histrionics. This is the land of freedom, idiot. Your brother can fuck anyone up the ass he wants to (or get fucked up the ass by anyone he wants to). See Lawrence v. Tx.

This is about $$$$$$. Social security benefits. No one should be getting more benefits from the government based on who they want to fuck.

eta - how do they decide who is the pitcher and who is the catcher? Is this something that they switch off on or do they usually pick one and stick with it???

[Santorum]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
(how DO they DO that????)

Foreplay and lube. A prostate adds motivation.

So there would seem to be another reason.

Not necessarily. The dissent in Lawrence, the Texas AG and most of the amici in favor of upholding the sodomy ban refused to take a position on whether straight sodomy was okay. Other courts reaching the issue said that watever consenting straight people did was just fine and limited the prohibition to gay sex. Don't overlook the fact that there is a vast reservoir of plain old bigotry out there, and prohibiting or criminalizing anything gay related is fine. I'm not talking genuine nutjobs like Fred "God hates fags" Phelps. Two newly elected Senators advocated prohibiting homosexuals from teaching school. There is a significant element of mainsteam conservative America that views homosexuality as mental perversion or, at best, illness and would outlaw all recognitions and protections for gays, and reinstate the criminal laws to boot.

if the ballot said "do you favor a constitutional ban on gay sex**" It's scary to think that, behind the curtains in total privacy, a majority of heteros would vote "yes".

Behind the curtain? Re-read the Lawrence dissent and recall the reaction afterwards. Four Supreme Court justices and a large portion of the Republican Party was more than happy to say that to anybody who wanted to listen. Don't fool yourself into thinking you're in the majority if you think consenting adults should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their bedrooms.

**without giving the voter the option of specifying banning just gay, but not lesbian, sex.

A new voter demographic, the Howard Stern Single Loner, would not let that happen.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
Slowly. And with ample lubrication.

Thus ends my contribution to the politics board.

If you are only going to post once here, this is exactly the topic on which to post.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
People can be intelligent and rational and hold all sorts of beliefs that others find odious - it just means they are odious. While I agree that there is no excuse for it, the basis of being non-biggoted is the recognition that all of your fellow citizens are your equals. Even if they seem odious to you, or even stupid.

Biggot.

eta gentle sarcasm alarm, since my aim is very off today

I remain unconvinced of the non-stupidity of a bigot. Especially one who is otherwise intelligent and rational.

[pony_trekker]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Counterpoint:

• They seem to be attracted to a candidate with a simple message, a clear focus, and a human touch.

Here he is:

[Not Me]

I just heard that Bush got 9M more votes in this election than in 2000 and that 9M more voters voted in 2004 than in 2000. Looks like the old rule that increased voter turn out means a Dem win is no longer the rule. Heard it on the radio so no cite, but if true, Wow!

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by dtb
jesus freaks aren't to "die" yet; they're just at "or I'll make you live the way I see fit anyway". There's no hope of "winning them over" -- that's a lost cause -- there IS no common ground.

If you want to win elections, reach out to social conservatives. They voted democrat until the demo's turned on them. The demo's used to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal. That's a winning combination.