Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Today, on "Republicans Reach Out to Gays," Texas GOP blocks Log Cabin Republicans from hosting booth at state convention   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 220
    More: Asinine, Log Cabin Republicans, texas gop, Texas, Republicans, political convention, reseller hosting, Texas Democratic Party, party platform  
•       •       •

1682 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 May 2014 at 7:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



220 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-05-29 06:03:51 PM  
So does that mean they will have to go be gay somewhere else?
 
2014-05-29 06:06:02 PM  
No no no, subby, you're mistaken.  Republicans are trying to reach out to women and minorities, not gays.  They think gays should go fark themselves, which is only marginally worse than what they say to women and minorities.
 
2014-05-29 06:06:24 PM  
It's like the GOP *wants* to become irrelevant.
 
2014-05-29 06:23:06 PM  
"The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?
 
2014-05-29 06:25:06 PM  

SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?


Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.
 
2014-05-29 06:29:12 PM  
And yet they're still Republicans. "But I love him! I believe in him. He'll change!"

 

Ambivalence: No no no, subby, you're mistaken.  Republicans are trying to reach out to women and minorities, not gays.  They think gays should go fark themselves, which is only marginally worse than what they say to women and minorities.


Their gay outreach only makes it as far as the nearest public restroom.
 
2014-05-29 06:32:48 PM  
If the democrat communist party is so inclusive, why doesn't it have booths for pedophiles, human traffickers,  Republicans and American Hero Cliven Bundy, huh? Huh? Huh?
 
2014-05-29 06:34:00 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.


Good one, and very true.
 
2014-05-29 06:35:42 PM  
Um, subby? Maybe you could try studying American history before you make stupid comments? Look at black people in America. For centuries, white people enslaved black people, then segregated them, then denied them voting rights, and what happened as a result? Black people rose up and achieved greatness and equality. It's a similar story with women...for a long time, they were basically the property of men. They suffered abuse, they couldn't vote. But their adversities gave them strength, and now they have jobs and earn almost as much as men.

Would black people and women have been able to achieve these goals, win despite all the various adversities in their path, if things had simply been handed to them from the beginning? If they'd been like spoiled rich children born with silver spoons in their mouths?

That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.
 
2014-05-29 06:36:13 PM  
Texas GOP blocks Log Cabin Republicans

c1.soap.com

Is it because there's no high-fructose corn syrup?
 
2014-05-29 06:37:21 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Texas GOP blocks Log Cabin Republicans

[c1.soap.com image 633x1500]

Is it because there's no high-fructose corn syrup?


Some of them prefer syrup.
I prefer jelly.
 
2014-05-29 06:38:37 PM  

RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.


But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?  Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?
 
2014-05-29 06:41:29 PM  
Steve Munisteri, chairman of the Texas Republican Party, confirmed to TPM that the group's application was denied because of its stance on gay marriage. He explained that the Texas GOP has a formal policy against allowing groups that advocate positions contrary its platform to have booths at conventions.

I simply cannot fathom why any gay person would ever even consider voting Republican.  Honestly.
 
2014-05-29 06:50:13 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I simply cannot fathom why any gay person would ever even consider voting Republican.  Honestly.


Because they don't want lazy poors to get welfare? Because they hate taxes? Because they buy into the whole free market Randian crap many republicans do? Because they're gun nuts and want to protect their rights to carry assault rifles?

Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality.  There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.
 
2014-05-29 06:54:17 PM  

Ambivalence: They think gays should go fark themselves,


I'm pretty sure Republicans are against that, too.
 
2014-05-29 06:58:22 PM  
FTFA:

The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.


Holy farking shiat.   Official.  Party.  Policy.  From the 21st Century and everything.

Well--to put this in Texas-style language--if the Log Crammin' Republicans are a-gonna willingly and knowingly lie down with dogs like that, it's hard to sypathize with them when they git 'em some fleas.
 
2014-05-29 07:02:08 PM  

Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: I simply cannot fathom why any gay person would ever even consider voting Republican.  Honestly.

Because they don't want lazy poors to get welfare? Because they hate taxes? Because they buy into the whole free market Randian crap many republicans do? Because they're gun nuts and want to protect their rights to carry assault rifles?

Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality.  There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.


Wow.  Just... wow.

Being gay is more than just a part of my personality.  That's like saying being Black is just a part of a person's personality.  As long as the Republican Party tells gay people we should be ashamed for being who we are and we should not have the same rights as the rest of the populace, why in hell would any gay person seek to further that?  And don't say it's only a small part of Republicanism - one look at the news will tell you it's the goddamn centrepiece of their social agenda.
 
2014-05-29 07:10:56 PM  

SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?


You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.
 
2014-05-29 07:11:41 PM  

Ambivalence: Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality. There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.


I hear this argument and it's never been convincing. There are opinions that I hold that are against the accepted platform of my party, and that's fine, because 90% of the platform I agree with, and I can accept disagreement on some things because nothing is perfect. But that's a difference of opinion an intellectual and mutable part of a person's personality. It is a different thing entirely when the party has as a plank of their platform the notion that you and not an opinion you have, are a problem.

Opinions change, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'll come around to their point of view, maybe it's not that important to me, anyway, but it's an opinion.
Who and what I am does not change, there's no way to accept that you don't think I, as a person, am worthwhile.

/Not gay, but I can't see how telling someone they are a thing that should be shunned is acceptable as a party policy.
 
2014-05-29 07:14:17 PM  

RedPhoenix122: You mean bigots?


I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.
 
2014-05-29 07:19:39 PM  

RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.


That just proves Democrats are the real racists.
 
2014-05-29 07:20:15 PM  

Ambivalence: Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality. There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.


Well, yes, but when they actively hate you for that facet of your personality, which is a rather significant facet, you'd think you'd find it impossible to vote for them.

I know they hate me, as a woman.  You couldn't pay me to vote for a Republican.
 
2014-05-29 07:20:39 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: I simply cannot fathom why any gay person would ever even consider voting Republican.  Honestly.

Because they don't want lazy poors to get welfare? Because they hate taxes? Because they buy into the whole free market Randian crap many republicans do? Because they're gun nuts and want to protect their rights to carry assault rifles?

Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality.  There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.

Wow.  Just... wow.

Being gay is more than just a part of my personality.  That's like saying being Black is just a part of a person's personality.  As long as the Republican Party tells gay people we should be ashamed for being who we are and we should not have the same rights as the rest of the populace, why in hell would any gay person seek to further that?  And don't say it's only a small part of Republicanism - one look at the news will tell you it's the goddamn centrepiece of their social agenda.


On the other side of the coin, a few of my gay friends and acquaintances are ultra-conservative (especially economically), wealthy, country-club types who basically you could almost confuse with Mitt Romney (if Mittens finally ever came out of the closet).  They line up with the Dems on no issues, and line up exactly with the GOP on virtually every issue except gay issues.

Guess how many Republicans they vote for?  Approximately the same number I vote for--zero.  They hold their noses and vote for Dems or third party candidates even though they disagree with 90% of their platforms.  And, let's face it, they would have to be idiots to vote for a party that essentially views them as evil scum that are should be denied the basic rights enjoyed by any other citizen.  So I guess we can kinda thank the "big tent" GOP for turning away votes (and lots of campaign cash) that they would otherwise reap, and instead driving them into the opposition's camp.
 
2014-05-29 07:23:08 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.

But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?  Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?


They tend not to be Democrats.
 
2014-05-29 07:25:42 PM  

nmrsnr: RedPhoenix122: You mean bigots?

I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.


If they honestly truly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, then they should be fighting equally as hard against divorce.
 
2014-05-29 07:26:35 PM  
The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.


The GOP needs to implement a PURITY TEST and expel anyone who fails the test.
Woman works out of the house, has kids and didnt get permission from husband?
or is a single mom? buh bye
Gay? But havent gone public and prayed to god to be cured? buh bye
brown? adios
rape victim? get out you slut
abortion? STONE HER
drugs? death (unless it was harmless youthful indiscretion and you are a Bush)
 
2014-05-29 07:26:45 PM  

RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.


But isn't that ironic?  Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.  Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.
 
2014-05-29 07:27:52 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.

But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?  Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?


Hell - in Washington State, the Dems run them for office until they turn their coats.
 
2014-05-29 07:27:52 PM  

Ambivalence: Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality. There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.


I know several gay Republicans.  No, I haven't been hanging out at airport bathrooms. :P

/they're mostly under 25 for some reason
 
2014-05-29 07:28:28 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.

But isn't that ironic?  Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.  Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.


See, here's where you're wrong.  Most believe in whatever they want, but that their religions shouldn't dictate politics.
 
2014-05-29 07:29:12 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots? Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.

But isn't that ironic?


global3.memecdn.com

/seemed really appropriate for this thread
 
2014-05-29 07:29:20 PM  

nmrsnr: RedPhoenix122: You mean bigots?

I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.


Perhaps, but only as long as these people also would have the same reaction to eating shrimp (or bacon), ordering a cheeseburger, or engaging in sex with one's spouse while the wife is on her period.  Because otherwise that would be hypocritical.
 
2014-05-29 07:29:36 PM  

nmrsnr: I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.


I'm cool with that except they pick and choose. The Bible is not full of anti-gay rhetoric, it barely even mentions homosexuality and the line they always use is open to interpretation.  There are tons and tons of rules in the Bible -- express rules -- and they ignore those.  Jesus wasn't hateful.  Jesus was inclusive. Jesus cared about the poor.

Almost everything they do is hypocritical.
 
2014-05-29 07:31:45 PM  

xanadian: Ambivalence: Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality. There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.

I know several gay Republicans.  No, I haven't been hanging out at airport bathrooms. :P

/they're mostly under 25 for some reason


gay
under 25
republican

let me guess,
rich and white and going to inherit a ton of money ?
 
2014-05-29 07:33:50 PM  

Cyberluddite: Perhaps, but only as long as these people also would have the same reaction to eating shrimp (or bacon), ordering a cheeseburger, or engaging in sex with one's spouse while the wife is on her period. Because otherwise that would be hypocritical.


yup.
 
2014-05-29 07:39:43 PM  

namatad: xanadian: Ambivalence: Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality. There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.

I know several gay Republicans.  No, I haven't been hanging out at airport bathrooms. :P

/they're mostly under 25 for some reason

gay
under 25
republican

let me guess,
rich and white and going to inherit a ton of money ?


Not the guys I know.  There's one who's about my age who's sort of well-off (not from a rich family--he earned his cash), but that's it.  These 25-and-under gay republicans also had a big hard-on for RON PAUL when he was running.

Uh.  Not...not that kind of hard-on.

Again...it's anecdotal.  I'm talking about maybe 5 people, tops.  Even my boyfriend leans to the right.  And it's not because he has a gimpy leg, either.

Ba dum bum bssh.

/also, I live in the f#*%ing County.  Northern Deliverance country.  I think people up here are *born* Republican
 
2014-05-29 07:41:01 PM  
... I guess I should've said "some" instead of "several," even though "several" is *technically* correct.

Or something.

I should go get another beer.
 
2014-05-29 07:42:39 PM  

SkinnyHead: unless you just happen to be the wrong religion


Funny, I know quite a lot of pro-gay Christians. Actually, I'm not sure I know a single anti-gay Christian. Someone should tell them that they're apparently the wrong religion.
 
2014-05-29 07:46:45 PM  

serpent_sky: I'm cool with that except they pick and choose. The Bible is not full of anti-gay rhetoric, it barely even mentions homosexuality and the line they always use is open to interpretation.  There are tons and tons of rules in the Bible -- express rules -- and they ignore those.  Jesus wasn't hateful.  Jesus was inclusive. Jesus cared about the poor.


Not to mention--and I'm no biblical scholar here, in fact, I'll admit that I'm about the furthest thing from it--that I thought that deal was that Jesus supposedly relieved his followers of following the Lord's laws/curses spelled out in Leviticus (which of course is what they claim as their source for the supposed godly ban on homosexuality) by taking on the burden of those laws himself.  So for some reason Christians seem to feel that Jebus gave them the thumbs-up to eat pork and shellfish, and shave their beards if they want, but yet that somehow the one passage of Leviticus about how a man must not "lie with a man as he lieth with a woman" is exempted from Jesus's relief of those laws and is still in force.

Any Christians here want to enlighten us about how that supposedly works?
 
2014-05-29 07:51:46 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? Maybe you could try studying American history before you make stupid comments? Look at black people in America. For centuries, white people enslaved black people, then segregated them, then denied them voting rights, and what happened as a result? Black people rose up and achieved greatness and equality. It's a similar story with women...for a long time, they were basically the property of men. They suffered abuse, they couldn't vote. But their adversities gave them strength, and now they have jobs and earn almost as much as men.

Would black people and women have been able to achieve these goals, win despite all the various adversities in their path, if things had simply been handed to them from the beginning? If they'd been like spoiled rich children born with silver spoons in their mouths?

That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.


Wow, that's just breathtaking. Because if you repeated that to an actual Republican, he would agree wholeheartedly.
 
2014-05-29 07:51:58 PM  

SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?


wow. Yeah sure. I think most Democrats are pro-marriage.

The only "anti-marriage" people I know are the "I am against the institution of marriage but I seem to only bring it up in the context of stopping gay marriage" "libertarians".
 
2014-05-29 07:53:19 PM  
briansalmi.files.wordpress.com

Sorry but I have zero sympathy for the Uncle Tom's log cabin republicans.
 
2014-05-29 07:54:15 PM  

SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?


Uh...marriage already IS between a man and a woman, and will continue to be once we legalize it for all adults regardless of gender.
 
2014-05-29 07:54:59 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Wow.  Just... wow.

Being gay is more than just a part of my personality.  That's like saying being Black is just a part of a person's personality.  As long as the Republican Party tells gay people we should be ashamed for being who we are and we should not have the same rights as the rest of the populace, why in hell would any gay person seek to further that?  And don't say it's only a small part of Republicanism - one look at the news will tell you it's the goddamn centrepiece of their social agenda.


There are black republicans too.  There are women republicans.  There are all sorts of groups that are explicitly or implicity discriminated against by republicans, who are republicans.

I don't have any other explaination for it, and I have no intention to offend by my statements. I don't know how anyone who is openly gay can be a republican, except that they value other parts of their personality or other values more than being gay.
 
2014-05-29 07:55:17 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.

But isn't that ironic?  Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.  Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.


Wow you are really funny today. What religion is the "wrong" religion in the Democratic party?


thesocietypages.org
 
2014-05-29 07:56:46 PM  

SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views? Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?


Umm they can still have there marriage. You know "gay-marriage" doesn't force man and woman married couples to get divorced. Did you not know this?

"Gay Marriage" legislation is not MANDATORY gay marriage. You get that?
 
2014-05-29 07:57:10 PM  
Dear Log Cabin Republicans:

You are not really Republicans.  The Republican party, in none of it's forms - establishment, Tea Party, or Libertarian - will ever stop trying to curtail the rights of homosexuals.  Just look at how they treat African-Americans.  Decades after the end of segregation and Jim Crow and they're still trying to take away their right to vote.

You can cheer on cutting taxes for job creators.  You can cheer on deregulation for industry and allowing them to pollute as they will.  You can cheer on demonizing the poor and other minorities.  You can cheer on Birtherism, Agenda 21ers, gun nuts, and tough-on-crime types.

But no matter what you do, the rest of the Republican party will never, ever, ever fark you.
At least not in public.  They'll probably still let you suck them off through a gloryhole at the next convention.  You'll have to buy a ticket though to come in like the rest of the hoi palloi - they won't give you a backstage pass either.
 
2014-05-29 07:57:25 PM  

Corvus: You know "gay-marriage" doesn't force man and woman married couples to get divorced.


Well it just lost my support!
 
2014-05-29 07:58:22 PM  

DrBenway: And yet they're still Republicans. "But I love him! I believe in him. He'll change!"

 Ambivalence: No no no, subby, you're mistaken.  Republicans are trying to reach out to women and minorities, not gays.  They think gays should go fark themselves, which is only marginally worse than what they say to women and minorities.

Their gay outreach only makes it as far as the nearest public restroom.


Well, a stall is a kind of booth....
 
2014-05-29 07:58:48 PM  

namatad: xanadian: Ambivalence: Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality. There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.

I know several gay Republicans.  No, I haven't been hanging out at airport bathrooms. :P

/they're mostly under 25 for some reason

gay
under 25
republican

let me guess,
rich and white and going to inherit a ton of money ?


I knew a couple. They were basically  totally clueless about the actual positions of the Republican party.

I believe one I know changed after she married her GF and realized that their "smaller government" was actually BS when it affected her.
 
2014-05-29 07:59:00 PM  

Cyberluddite: Not to mention--and I'm no biblical scholar here, in fact, I'll admit that I'm about the furthest thing from it--that I thought that deal was that Jesus supposedly relieved his followers of following the Lord's laws/curses spelled out in Leviticus (which of course is what they claim as their source for the supposed godly ban on homosexuality) by taking on the burden of those laws himself. So for some reason Christians seem to feel that Jebus gave them the thumbs-up to eat pork and shellfish, and shave their beards if they want, but yet that somehow the one passage of Leviticus about how a man must not "lie with a man as he lieth with a woman" is exempted from Jesus's relief of those laws and is still in force.

Any Christians here want to enlighten us about how that supposedly works?


It's a convenient excuse for bigotry, since they hate they gays, but like shellfish and pork and mixed fabric clothing, getting tattoos, shaving and everything else in Leviticus. They can be assholes to gay people and then run and hide behind the Bibles they only own to thump on and scream "oppression!" of their religious beliefs.
 
2014-05-29 07:59:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Corvus: You know "gay-marriage" doesn't force man and woman married couples to get divorced.

Well it just lost my support!


I was hoping it was BOTH. I could get a man woman marriage AND a GAY marriage.
 
2014-05-29 08:00:39 PM  

RedPhoenix122: nmrsnr: RedPhoenix122: You mean bigots?

I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.

If they honestly truly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, then they should be fighting equally as hard against divorce.


If they honestly truly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, then they should be able to cite a single verse in which He says gays aren't allowed to get married.
 
2014-05-29 08:01:30 PM  

Ambivalence: No no no, subby, you're mistaken.  Republicans are trying to reach out to women and minorities, not gays.  They think gays should go fark themselves, which is only marginally worse than what they say to women and minorities.


Wait how can gays go fark other gays when republicans wanna bring back sodomy laws?
 
2014-05-29 08:03:44 PM  

Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: Wow.  Just... wow.

Being gay is more than just a part of my personality.  That's like saying being Black is just a part of a person's personality.  As long as the Republican Party tells gay people we should be ashamed for being who we are and we should not have the same rights as the rest of the populace, why in hell would any gay person seek to further that?  And don't say it's only a small part of Republicanism - one look at the news will tell you it's the goddamn centrepiece of their social agenda.

There are black republicans too.  There are women republicans.  There are all sorts of groups that are explicitly or implicity discriminated against by republicans, who are republicans.

I don't have any other explaination for it, and I have no intention to offend by my statements. I don't know how anyone who is openly gay can be a republican, except that they value other parts of their personality or other values more than being gay.


Masochism.

//all i gots
 
2014-05-29 08:04:46 PM  
Relax they're still invited to happy hour.
 
2014-05-29 08:05:32 PM  

Ambivalence: I don't have any other explaination for it, and I have no intention to offend by my statements. I don't know how anyone who is openly gay can be a republican, except that they value other parts of their personality or other values more than being gay.


Stockholm Syndrome.
 
2014-05-29 08:06:15 PM  

namatad: The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.


The GOP needs to implement a PURITY TEST and expel anyone who fails the test.
Woman works out of the house, has kids and didnt get permission from husband?
or is a single mom? buh bye
Gay? But havent gone public and prayed to god to be cured? buh bye
brown? adios
rape victim? get out you slut
abortion? STONE HER
drugs? death (unless it was harmless youthful indiscretion and you are a Bush)


You forgot Rush.
 
2014-05-29 08:06:30 PM  

Cyberluddite: FTFA:

The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

Holy farking shiat. Official. Party. Policy. From the 21st Century and everything.


Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party. Anybody who wants to make the argument that their state's GOP isn't just as derpy, knock yourself out.
 
2014-05-29 08:07:03 PM  

Corvus: Umm they can still have there marriage. You know "gay-marriage" doesn't force man and woman married couples to get divorced. Did you not know this?

"Gay Marriage" legislation is not MANDATORY gay marriage. You get that?


Very good point.  Democrats believe marriage can be between a man and a woman as well as between two women or between two men.  As long as there are two consenting adults, we don't care who you marry. Where we draw the line is the idea that who someone marries should be LEGISLATED.

Also, if I may, life is so much more pleasant having pecker head on ignore.  Just a thought.
 
2014-05-29 08:08:23 PM  

Corvus: cameroncrazy1984: Corvus: You know "gay-marriage" doesn't force man and woman married couples to get divorced.

Well it just lost my support!

I was hoping it was BOTH. I could get a man woman marriage AND a GAY marriage.


Things that make ya say hmmm....
 
2014-05-29 08:08:57 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: namatad: The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.


The GOP needs to implement a PURITY TEST and expel anyone who fails the test.
Woman works out of the house, has kids and didnt get permission from husband?
or is a single mom? buh bye
Gay? But havent gone public and prayed to god to be cured? buh bye
brown? adios
rape victim? get out you slut
abortion? STONE HER
drugs? death (unless it was harmless youthful indiscretion and you are a Bush)

You forgot Rush.


Just replace "a Bush" with "ultra-rich" and it works in every case.
 
2014-05-29 08:09:27 PM  

Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: Wow.  Just... wow.

Being gay is more than just a part of my personality.  That's like saying being Black is just a part of a person's personality.  As long as the Republican Party tells gay people we should be ashamed for being who we are and we should not have the same rights as the rest of the populace, why in hell would any gay person seek to further that?  And don't say it's only a small part of Republicanism - one look at the news will tell you it's the goddamn centrepiece of their social agenda.

There are black republicans too.  There are women republicans.  There are all sorts of groups that are explicitly or implicity discriminated against by republicans, who are republicans.


So, here's a paraphrase of the current platform:

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality racial integration tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexualbehaviour Racial integration is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality Racial integration must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual integrated "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexualbehaviour black people, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality racial integration out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

Now.  See how silly that sounds?
 
2014-05-29 08:09:36 PM  

SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?


If any of them are married already, then yes. In fact, all of the booths will be "pro-marriage", whatever that actually means.
 
2014-05-29 08:10:30 PM  
I'd be really interested to hear them defend the accuracy of this part of their dogma

the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God

unchanging?
 
2014-05-29 08:11:39 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-29 08:12:11 PM  

DrBenway: Cyberluddite: FTFA:

The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

Holy farking shiat. Official. Party. Policy. From the 21st Century and everything.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party. Anybody who wants to make the argument that their state's GOP isn't just as derpy, knock yourself out.


Yes it is that bad and they still get just under 50% of the vote and may take the Senate.

: /
 
2014-05-29 08:12:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.

But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?  Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?


What about them? No one is telling them they cannot get married. In fact, it is the exact opposite.
 
2014-05-29 08:12:35 PM  

DrBenway: The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

Holy farking shiat. Official. Party. Policy. From the 21st Century and everything.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party. Anybody who wants to make the argument that their state's GOP isn't just as derpy, knock yourself out.


And these people are pants-shiattingly terrified of Sharia law? When mentioning their personal definition of God in their official platform? Outreach, in full effect.
 
2014-05-29 08:13:06 PM  
To be fair, they don't have a "Republicans who sodomize the opposite sex booth" either. Not that they don't like to do it, it's just that they don't feel there should be a booth for it.
 
2014-05-29 08:13:28 PM  

anfrind: tinfoil-hat maggie: namatad: The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.


The GOP needs to implement a PURITY TEST and expel anyone who fails the test.
Woman works out of the house, has kids and didnt get permission from husband?
or is a single mom? buh bye
Gay? But havent gone public and prayed to god to be cured? buh bye
brown? adios
rape victim? get out you slut
abortion? STONE HER
drugs? death (unless it was harmless youthful indiscretion and you are a Bush)

You forgot Rush.

Just replace "a Bush" with "ultra-rich" and it works in every case.


So true in our wonderful Corpocracy.
 
2014-05-29 08:13:51 PM  

kronicfeld: SkinnyHead: unless you just happen to be the wrong religion

Funny, I know quite a lot of pro-gay Christians. Actually, I'm not sure I know a single anti-gay Christian. Someone should tell them that they're apparently the wrong religion.


Some Christians, some Jews, and some Moslems oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.  I'm told that the Democrat Party -- "the party of inclusion, the party of all people" -- would exclude people with those religious views because they are "bigots."   A party that disparages and excludes people on account of their religious views doesn't sound like the party of inclusion, the party of all people.
 
2014-05-29 08:13:53 PM  
The booth design they submitted

i57.tinypic.com
 
2014-05-29 08:14:25 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.

But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?  Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?


As a Texas Democrat, I say, "sure, why the hell not?"  As your contrast implies, your party is the party of bigotry and exclusion, while my party is the party of inclusion.  So, yeah, I'm OK with it.
 
2014-05-29 08:15:07 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.

But isn't that ironic?  Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.  Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.


Unless you are black, or gay, or woman, or poor, or the wrong brand of religion. The GOP then tells them to go away and be different somewhere else.
 
2014-05-29 08:16:03 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: To be fair, they don't have a "Republicans who sodomize the opposite sex booth" either. Not that they don't like to do it, it's just that they don't feel there should be a booth for it.


Are you trying to suggest that republicans that have sex with the opposite gender do more than missionary and close their eyes and thing of St Reagan?
 
2014-05-29 08:16:37 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: To be fair, they don't have a "Republicans who sodomize the opposite sex booth" either. Not that they don't like to do it, it's just that they don't feel there should be a booth for it.


That's a legal issue? Huh.
 
2014-05-29 08:17:55 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: [img.fark.net image 645x312]


I am now wondering what a gay cake would be like. Is it fabulous?
 
2014-05-29 08:18:13 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: But isn't that ironic? Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion. Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.

Unless you are black, or gay, or woman, or poor, or the wrong brand of religion. The GOP then tells them to go away and be different somewhere else.


And never mind that most of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and the President and Vice Presidennt themselves, claim to be of some Christian or Jewish denomination. They just don't try to let their personal religious beliefs rule the rest of us.
 
2014-05-29 08:19:03 PM  
I don't "get" the Log Cabin Republicans. It's like the Black Klansmen, or the Jewish Nazis. It makes no sense.
 
2014-05-29 08:19:21 PM  

SkinnyHead: kronicfeld: SkinnyHead: unless you just happen to be the wrong religion

Funny, I know quite a lot of pro-gay Christians. Actually, I'm not sure I know a single anti-gay Christian. Someone should tell them that they're apparently the wrong religion.

Some Christians, some Jews, and some Moslems oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.  I'm told that the Democrat Party -- "the party of inclusion, the party of all people" -- would exclude people with those religious views because they are "bigots."   A party that disparages and excludes people on account of their religious views doesn't sound like the party of inclusion, the party of all people.


They oppose gays because they are bigots. The bible does not actually tell them to hate gays.
 
2014-05-29 08:19:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: kronicfeld: SkinnyHead: unless you just happen to be the wrong religion

Funny, I know quite a lot of pro-gay Christians. Actually, I'm not sure I know a single anti-gay Christian. Someone should tell them that they're apparently the wrong religion.

Some Christians, some Jews, and some Moslems oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.  I'm told that the Democrat Party -- "the party of inclusion, the party of all people" -- would exclude people with those religious views because they are "bigots."   A party that disparages and excludes people on account of their religious views doesn't sound like the party of inclusion, the party of all people.


OK, you've been on a rant, so I'll try to explain this to you and anyone who might have been swayed by your drivel.

The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious.  Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care.  What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.
 
2014-05-29 08:19:48 PM  
If you're a Log Cabin Republican, getting a booth at the Texas state GOP convention is the least of your problems.
 
2014-05-29 08:19:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: To be fair, they don't have a "Republicans who sodomize the opposite sex booth" either. Not that they don't like to do it, it's just that they don't feel there should be a booth for it.

That's a legal issue? Huh.


With the chimpster, it's all about the buttf**kin'.
 
2014-05-29 08:22:17 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: They oppose gays because they are bigots. The bible does not actually tell them to hate gays.


The Bible doesn't tell anybody anything - it's a f**king book - it can't talk.
People go to the Bible to get approval for whatever they want to do out of it.
It will "say" whatever you want it to.
 
2014-05-29 08:22:55 PM  

SkinnyHead: I'm told that the Democrat Party -- "the party of inclusion, the party of all people" -- would exclude people with those religious views because they are "bigots."


I'm sure that's only one of the many interesting things the voices in your head tell you.  But there is no such party by that name in America, despite what you might hear from Mr. Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh.
 
2014-05-29 08:26:05 PM  

jso2897: I don't "get" the Log Cabin Republicans. It's like the Black Klansmen, or the Jewish Nazis. It makes no sense.


Likewise, I don't "get" women who refuse to leave abusive boyfriends or husbands, but they do exist, and in disturbingly large numbers.
 
2014-05-29 08:28:53 PM  

SkinnyHead: Some Christians, some Jews, and some Moslems oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.


And those people are %100 free to not get gay married.

It's only when they want to use their religious reasons to tell  other people how to live their lives that it becomes a problem.

What part of this confuses you?
 
2014-05-29 08:32:05 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

/Hot.
 
2014-05-29 08:34:09 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Soup4Bonnie: [img.fark.net image 645x312]

I am now wondering what a gay cake would be like. Is it fabulous?


GIS "gay cake." It turns up some pretty fabulous stuff.
 
2014-05-29 08:34:43 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.

But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?  Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?


I don't know, why don't you get a proposal together and see what happens?
 
2014-05-29 08:37:31 PM  

anfrind: Likewise, I don't "get" women who refuse to leave abusive boyfriends or husbands, but they do exist, and in disturbingly large numbers.


One, the abusive boyfriend/husband can be incredibly, convincingly contrite.
Two, the abuse usually ends for a period after an incident and the woman is treated like a princess.
Three, the heart is sometimes strong than, if not smarter than, the mind.

That's why I stayed married almost 3 years.
 
2014-05-29 08:39:52 PM  
Being a gay republican is like being a Jew who wants to join the Aryan Nations.
 
2014-05-29 08:40:17 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: I am now wondering what a gay cake would be like. Is it fabulous?


Taste the rainbow.
 
2014-05-29 08:46:20 PM  
That bullshiat decision will be changed and an apology extended within 30 days.
 
2014-05-29 08:50:15 PM  

Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.


I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.
 
2014-05-29 08:50:30 PM  
They don't want to be greeted by name.  Not out in public like that.
 
2014-05-29 08:53:08 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.

But isn't that ironic?  Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.  Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.


And yet you keep coming back.
Can't you take a hint?
 
2014-05-29 08:55:46 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: [img.fark.net image 645x312]


LOL
 
2014-05-29 08:57:49 PM  
Are you saying the Democrats are gonna have a hetero booth at their convention?. I'm guessing they won't.  Breeders are eeeevil.
 
2014-05-29 08:59:45 PM  

serpent_sky: anfrind: Likewise, I don't "get" women who refuse to leave abusive boyfriends or husbands, but they do exist, and in disturbingly large numbers.

One, the abusive boyfriend/husband can be incredibly, convincingly contrite.
Two, the abuse usually ends for a period after an incident and the woman is treated like a princess.
Three, the heart is sometimes strong than, if not smarter than, the mind.

That's why I stayed married almost 3 years.


I'm not entirely convinced on the first two.  When I was a kid, my dad worked as a security guard at a local hospital, and he told me about how the following story played out far too many times:

1. Woman shows up in ER after being beaten by the man in her life (boyfriend or husband).
2. For her safety, the woman is isolated from the man so that she can be treated for her injuries.
3. During treatment, while all of the wounds are still fresh in her mind and body, a security officer offers to summon the police and any other resources a domestic abuse survivor might need.
4. The woman declines EVERY DAMN TIME.

Seriously, he worked there for about ten years, and no battered girlfriend or wife ever accepted anything other than being patched up and sent home to the abuser.


I can believe that the heart overrides the brain in such cases, unfortunately.
 
2014-05-29 09:04:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: I understand. That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim. They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage. They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state. Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically. That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.


Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages.  Separation of church and state.  Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?
 
2014-05-29 09:08:51 PM  
Munisteri pointed out that pro-gambling and pro-marijuana legalization groups have also been denied booths in the past under that policy.

The Party of FREEDOM!
 
2014-05-29 09:09:30 PM  
You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.
 
2014-05-29 09:11:47 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.


Yes, but I'm bored and have been enjoying farking with him today... probably because I haven't been in threads with him in a while. (I don't put anyone on ignore, even the trolls are entertaining sometimes. I can't drive and a girl in a cast doesn't go out walking by herself. I spend a lot of time alone.)
 
2014-05-29 09:12:01 PM  

ScaryBottles: Sorry but I have zero sympathy for the Uncle Tom's log cabin republicans.


Traitors to the Democratic Party, eh?
That's just part of the Democrats' game plan:

1.). Portray the opposition as composed entirely, without exception, of racists and bigots.
2.) Label anyone who belongs to a group that the Democratic Party "owns" who votes for the opposition as an Uncle Tom.
2.) Attach yourself to every social spending program designed to appeal to the special interest groups that you need to keep in the party fold.

3.) Do irreparable damage to our economy, society, and infrastructure, while blaming the rich for everything and borrowing money out the wazoo.

4.) Profit...Until the system blows up, at which point you do everything you can to make voters forget you created the system.


Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.
 
2014-05-29 09:13:15 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.



This doesn't make much sense given that religious people already do have a voice in "deciding such things as the definition of marriage". What you're arguing would only make sense if there was only one singular definition of marriage applicable to all people. This is of course not the case.

What you're missing is that it's not about having "a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage", but enforcing that particular view on others in not allowing gay marriage.

In addition, if you're going to invoke democratic ideals in terms of self-determination, those exact same ideals undermine your position. Such ideals do not somehow stop at the state level.
 
2014-05-29 09:14:23 PM  

Cyberluddite: serpent_sky: I'm cool with that except they pick and choose. The Bible is not full of anti-gay rhetoric, it barely even mentions homosexuality and the line they always use is open to interpretation.  There are tons and tons of rules in the Bible -- express rules -- and they ignore those.  Jesus wasn't hateful.  Jesus was inclusive. Jesus cared about the poor.

Not to mention--and I'm no biblical scholar here, in fact, I'll admit that I'm about the furthest thing from it--that I thought that deal was that Jesus supposedly relieved his followers of following the Lord's laws/curses spelled out in Leviticus (which of course is what they claim as their source for the supposed godly ban on homosexuality) by taking on the burden of those laws himself.  So for some reason Christians seem to feel that Jebus gave them the thumbs-up to eat pork and shellfish, and shave their beards if they want, but yet that somehow the one passage of Leviticus about how a man must not "lie with a man as he lieth with a woman" is exempted from Jesus's relief of those laws and is still in force.

Any Christians here want to enlighten us about how that supposedly works?


Okay, I'll give it a try.  Yes, Jesus's sacrificial death made the law obsolete; the book of Hebrews contrasts this in many chapters.  But there are a couple of passages in the New Testament that also mention homosexuality and that are used by right wingers:

Romans 1:24-27
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.  27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9
9Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
 
2014-05-29 09:15:33 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: You forgot Rush.


upload.wikimedia.org

Still got to wonger what kind of idiot would have to be gay and a Republican, especially in Texas.  This is a state where the Republican party openly advocates for throwing all homosexuals in jail.

Are they just sados / nancy bottoms /  subs who want to be pounded hard in the ass by someone who hates them?
 
2014-05-29 09:17:10 PM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.

But isn't that ironic?  Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.  Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.


Ah, the old 'you're intolerant of my intolerance, therefore YOU'RE the real bigot' argument.
 
2014-05-29 09:21:42 PM  

Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.


Okay, obviously you feel very passionately about how Democratic policies are dumb and Republicans are smart. That's interesting.

So let's return to the actual topic of the thread; Why exactly do you think gay Republicans are being excluded from the state convention?
 
2014-05-29 09:25:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.


I don't think anyone is trying to prevent you from having a voice or an opinion. The very big problem you have is that you cannot prove shiat about your religion other than it was wriiten by" insert name here" which you have no signature or notory. It seems the that right wing xtians have a very sub-intellectual tie to things like Sharia law that would very much love to dictate what, whom, how carnal sex should be controlled/administered. Is this what you want? Seriously? You are very worried about somethng. What is it? Ah, yes, you are very worried. Alt and all...
 
2014-05-29 09:26:09 PM  

youl100: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x622]

/Hot.


I'm trying to decide on whether that sentence remains functionally as intended when considering the writer should have written "affect" in both cases.

Since "effect", when used as a verb, means "to bring about", I guess the first part could be true, since many people choose to get a dog after they've officially moved in together and made a commitment to one another. It's kind of something you don't do when you're only casually banging on the weekends. "Gay marriage effects dogs in the home" could be technically true. Then again, many gay people have made commitments to one another (and gotten dogs) in the past before gay marriage, so does gay marriage itself bring about more dog adoption?

The second part is even more confusing: "[Gay marriage] would effect you." Well, I'm hesitant to say that gay marriage doesn't bring about kids, because many gay dads adopt, and many lesbian couples adopt or have AI in order to share a child with the person they love. Maybe if it said "people like you" instead of "you", it might be less confusing, as the reader of the statement has logically already been brought about.

Stupid f*cking dog should learn to spell. It muddles his message.
 
2014-05-29 09:28:42 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: tinfoil-hat maggie: You forgot Rush.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 301x300]

Still got to wonger what kind of idiot would have to be gay and a Republican, especially in Texas.  This is a state where the Republican party openly advocates for throwing all homosexuals in jail.

Are they just sados / nancy bottoms /  subs who want to be pounded hard in the ass by someone who hates them?


Sorta but only the real religious ones seem to want that and beside they're on the down low and want to force everyone else be on the down load. I mean what happens when the "upstanding family values" candidates boyfriend want's him to leave his wife and 3 kids and get married? I mean can you imagine.

/And there ya go.
 
2014-05-29 09:31:23 PM  

Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.


The underlying sentiment is fine. However, remember that TFA is about an instance of 'toeing your party's line' being enforced in the first place.

In addition, such an action is in line with the Texas GOP's official platform, as stated in TFA. Whether you personally agree with it or not, placing yourself under that banner in an official manner does further that platform.  The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison may be accurate, regardless of whether you think "nobody important gives a shiat".
 
2014-05-29 09:32:12 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Are you saying the Democrats are gonna have a hetero booth at their convention?. I'm guessing they won't.  Breeders are eeeevil.


If you find out that such a booth was requested and denied, you might have a point. Until then, you just sound stupid.
 
2014-05-29 09:35:16 PM  

propasaurus: SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.

But isn't that ironic?  Democrats are proud to be the "party of inclusion, the party of all people," unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.  Then they call you dirty names and tell you to get lost.

Ah, the old 'you're intolerant of my intolerance, therefore YOU'RE the real bigot' argument.


With a sprinkling of pretending to not know the difference between personal/religious beliefs and wanting those beliefs to be codified into law thereby institutionalizing bigotry.
 
2014-05-29 09:36:06 PM  

serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?


I understand your position.  The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.  For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman.  Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh.   As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no.  I'm not a church.  My vote does not violate the separation of church and state.  But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter.  That's not very democratic.
 
2014-05-29 09:36:07 PM  
"This isn't about disagreements we may have on civil marriage; this isn't about the party platform - this is about an anti-gay wing of the party that hates gay people so much they can't even stand to see us acknowledged as a necessary part of a winning Republican coalition,"

Anti-gay "wing"?  Dude...it's a core value of the party.  It's not a wing...it's the whole dang bird.
 
2014-05-29 09:37:27 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.

The underlying sentiment is fine. However, remember that TFA is about an instance of 'toeing your party's line' being enforced in the first place.

In addition, such an action is in line with the Texas GOP's official platform, as stated in TFA. Whether you personally agree with it or not, placing yourself under that banner in an official manner does further that platform.  The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison may be accurate, regardless of whether you think "nobody important gives a shiat".


It cuts both ways . If I'm gay but my ideas don't align with Democrats, yet there are many Republicans who don't want to hear about a gay coalition, does that mean that I have to be. a Democrat?

The problem here is that instead of basing your politics on virulent caricatures, you should be voting according to your ideas. I live in a state that is dominated ny Democrats and I reject most of their ideas, but that didn't stop me from voting to legalize gay marriage. At the same time I understand the drive to protect the male-female marriage concept, I just decided that it wasn't threatened by alternative marriages, which are actually never going to be recognized as marriages by a segment of the population, and that's ok.
 
2014-05-29 09:37:50 PM  
They are more accustomed to reaching around for them.
 
2014-05-29 09:38:51 PM  

SkinnyHead: The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.


That would roughly be the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch.

Our government isn't religious in nature. The legal institution of marriage has no basis in religion.
 
2014-05-29 09:40:33 PM  
They probably didn't want the competition on Craigslist.
 
2014-05-29 09:41:11 PM  

SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?


There is a reason your posts are met with pictures of a retarded person.
 
2014-05-29 09:42:34 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.


You can't democratically enact a law that violates the constitution. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right. Denying marriage to certain people does not offer them equal protection under the law. It is institutionalized bigotry. Of course you know this, but are being deliberately obtuse. 50-some years ago, religious people believed that interracial marriage was against their religion and today is no different. People like you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Your weak attempts to justify legal bigotry are completely nonsensical and pretending that it's the people who oppose your desire to institutionalize bigotry who are being 'exclusionary' is childishly pathetic.
 
2014-05-29 09:42:48 PM  
"We deserve to occupy a booth just like anyone else, and it's time that the Texas GOP's hypocritical policies and procedures are replaced by new ones that match the general opinion of Texan Republican voters," he said.


Sorry mister gay conservative, as far as I can tell their awful policies do match the general opinion of the texas republican voters. Maybe support the party that doesn't hate you?
 
2014-05-29 09:45:44 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.


Just click your heels and say "there are no trolls on Fark, just people with differing opinions." Otherwise, The Powers That Be will remove all trace of you calling out their shared alt.
 
2014-05-29 09:47:35 PM  

UNC_Samurai: shower_in_my_socks: You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.

Just click your heels and say "there are no trolls on Fark, just people with differing opinions." Otherwise, The Powers That Be will remove all trace of you calling out their shared alt.


Hehehehehehe ; )
 
2014-05-29 09:48:03 PM  

Animatronik: Damnhippyfreak: Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.

The underlying sentiment is fine. However, remember that TFA is about an instance of 'toeing your party's line' being enforced in the first place.

In addition, such an action is in line with the Texas GOP's official platform, as stated in TFA. Whether you personally agree with it or not, placing yourself under that banner in an official manner does further that platform.  The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison may be accurate, regardless of whether you think "nobody important gives a shiat".


It cuts both ways . If I'm gay but my ideas don't align with Democrats, yet there are many Republicans who don't want to hear about a gay coalition, does that mean that I have to be. a Democrat?


Goodness no. You don't have to be. However, you will have to accept furthering an official position that works against yourself (in this case) on a basic level. You can choose to affiliate yourself with people that actively work against you. You can choose to be something akin to an Uncle Tom, if we go that far.


Animatronik: The problem here is that instead of basing your politics on virulent caricatures, you should be voting according to your ideas. I live in a state that is dominated ny Democrats and I reject most of their ideas, but that didn't stop me from voting to legalize gay marriage. At the same time I understand the drive to protect the male-female marriage concept, I just decided that it wasn't threatened by alternative marriages, which are actually never going to be recognized as marriages by a segment of the population, and that's ok.


Again, I think the underlying sentiment is fine, and I don't think you'll get much argument from people about it.  What you may be missing is that the ideas in question may be more basic to people's existence than differing on slightly more abstract questions of economic policy or even social policies that affect other people.

The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison comes from the idea that the opposition to gay marriage is (as well as the official party platform quoted in TFA) is based on opposition to homosexuality and homosexuals, something much more basic and existential. Voting for such a party (and thereby furthering such a position) as a homosexual works against your own self-interest on a fairly basic, existential level. This is where the comparison comes from.
 
2014-05-29 09:51:22 PM  

Animatronik: Damnhippyfreak: Animatronik: Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.

The underlying sentiment is fine. However, remember that TFA is about an instance of 'toeing your party's line' being enforced in the first place.

In addition, such an action is in line with the Texas GOP's official platform, as stated in TFA. Whether you personally agree with it or not, placing yourself under that banner in an official manner does further that platform.  The unflattering Uncle Tom comparison may be accurate, regardless of whether you think "nobody important gives a shiat".

It cuts both ways . If I'm gay but my ideas don't align with Democrats, yet there are many Republicans who don't want to hear about a gay coalition, does that mean that I have to be. a Democrat?

The problem here is that instead of basing your politics on virulent caricatures, you should be voting according to your ideas. I live in a state that is dominated ny Democrats and I reject most of their ideas, but that didn't stop me from voting to legalize gay marriage. At the same time I understand the drive to protect the male-female marriage concept, I just decided that it wasn't threatened by alternative marriages, which are actually never going to be recognized as marriages by a segment of the population, and that's ok.


You don't have to be a democrat. There are third parties that will accept you. It doesn't mean I'd want to associate with a party that views me at best a second-class citizen or at worst an abomination.
 
2014-05-29 09:52:10 PM  

Animatronik: It cuts both ways . If I'm gay but my ideas don't align with Democrats, yet there are many Republicans who don't want to hear about a gay coalition, does that mean that I have to be. a Democrat?


Forgot to add that this does not mean you have to be a Democrat, but does pose very serious challenges for continuing to be a Republican. Don't be caught in a false dilemma.

As for the ability to change the platform, which Log Cabin Republicans were undoubtedly trying to do, TFA gives an idea of how well that's being received.
 
2014-05-29 09:56:56 PM  

serpent_sky: it barely even mentions homosexuality and the line they always use is open to interpretation.


My two most likely interpretations based on what was actually going on back then and the "as with woman" that only appears in that one ban and not the others like bestiality and incest.

1) don't be a bottom (even in Ancient Greece, it was taboo to be a bottom esp. anal and most sex was between the thighs)
2) it's still adultery, even with a man (lots of gay sex back then was done by married men)

And of course, the topper is that the purpose of all of those laws was tribal preservation, to make the pagans seem so weird and icky that one wouldn't leave the Jewish faith.  Which the major tradition of Christianity (starting with Paul) did away with to create an evangelical religion, one open to everyone on Earth and not just those of the right blood.
 
2014-05-29 10:01:53 PM  
Outreach bad? Log Cabin types should might get a better reception if they appear to the universally enjoyed reach around.  Pleasure you don't see coming.
 
2014-05-29 10:04:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I understand your position.  The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.  For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman.  Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh.   As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no.  I'm not a church.  My vote does not violate the separation of church and state.  But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter.  That's not very democratic.


For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument
 
2014-05-29 10:25:58 PM  

Serious Black: SkinnyHead: serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I understand your position.  The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.  For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman.  Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh.   As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no.  I'm not a church.  My vote does not violate the separation of church and state.  But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter.  That's not very democratic.

For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument


Great, now you'll get him troll-advocating slavery. Good job!
 
2014-05-29 10:27:55 PM  

theknuckler_33: You can't democratically enact a law that violates the constitution. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right. Denying marriage to certain people does not offer them equal protection under the law. It is institutionalized bigotry. Of course you know this, but are being deliberately obtuse. 50-some years ago, religious people believed that interracial marriage was against their religion and today is no different. People like you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Your weak attempts to justify legal bigotry are completely nonsensical and pretending that it's the people who oppose your desire to institutionalize bigotry who are being 'exclusionary' is childishly pathetic.


Whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage has yet to be decided by US Supreme Court.  I don't think that equal protection means that we got to change the definition of things. I've always said that I support civil unions and the like, if same sex couples want to have similar legal protections.  That should take care of equal protection claims.  I just don't know why same sex couples think they got to imitate a traditional marriage by pretending that they're husband and wife.
 
2014-05-29 10:41:11 PM  

SkinnyHead: I just don't know why same sex couples think they got to imitate a traditional marriage by pretending that they're husband and wife.


If you think a homosexual couple want to be husband and wife, then your problem with gay marriage is not bigotry or trolling, but a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the word "homosexual".
 
2014-05-29 10:43:27 PM  
Sad to see the victims of an abusive relationship unable to leave their abuser.
 
2014-05-29 10:44:16 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? Maybe you could try studying American history before you make stupid comments? Look at black people in America. For centuries, white people enslaved black people, then segregated them, then denied them voting rights, and what happened as a result? Black people rose up and achieved greatness and equality. It's a similar story with women...for a long time, they were basically the property of men. They suffered abuse, they couldn't vote. But their adversities gave them strength, and now they have jobs and earn almost as much as men.

Would black people and women have been able to achieve these goals, win despite all the various adversities in their path, if things had simply been handed to them from the beginning? If they'd been like spoiled rich children born with silver spoons in their mouths?

That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.


Christ that is some concentrated stupid right there.
 
2014-05-29 10:45:26 PM  

SkinnyHead: I don't think that equal protection means that we got to change the definition of things


Yes, actually it does, considering that marriage is fully a legal concept and those can be changed by the legislature, the executive and the judicial branches of government.

Just because you think it's icky doesn't change how government works.
 
2014-05-29 10:46:51 PM  
 
2014-05-29 10:50:25 PM  
I thought that said, Today, on "Republican Reach Around to Gays,"
and I was guardedly optimistic.
 
2014-05-29 10:54:28 PM  
Link

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Wednesday that he wants more information before ruling on an attempt by the National Organization for Marriage to halt same-sex marriages in Oregon.
 
2014-05-29 10:55:25 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Link

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Wednesday that he wants more information before ruling on an attempt by the National Organization for Marriage to halt same-sex marriages in Oregon.


What more information could he possibly need?
 
2014-05-29 10:59:04 PM  

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: You can't democratically enact a law that violates the constitution. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right. Denying marriage to certain people does not offer them equal protection under the law. It is institutionalized bigotry. Of course you know this, but are being deliberately obtuse. 50-some years ago, religious people believed that interracial marriage was against their religion and today is no different. People like you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Your weak attempts to justify legal bigotry are completely nonsensical and pretending that it's the people who oppose your desire to institutionalize bigotry who are being 'exclusionary' is childishly pathetic.

Whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage has yet to be decided by US Supreme Court.  I don't think that equal protection means that we got to change the definition of things. I've always said that I support civil unions and the like, if same sex couples want to have similar legal protections.  That should take care of equal protection claims.  I just don't know why same sex couples think they got to imitate a traditional marriage by pretending that they're husband and wife.


"separate but equal" didn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny 50 years ago and it will not stand up to it today. And despite your attempts to frame it differently, make no mistake... what will be decided by the SCOTUS will be whether states have a constitutional right to ban same sex couple from getting married. If the bans are deemed unconstitutional, no 'new' right will have been granted to same sex couples, their right to equal protection under the law will simply stop being violated.
 
2014-05-29 11:01:48 PM  

Serious Black: For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument


We should discontinue traditions that do harm to others.  Slavery harmed others.  Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.  It is not unfair to maintain the tradition of marriage.  If people want to live in new, non-traditional relationships, they should create new traditions of their own.  Why do they have to mess with the tradition of marriage?
 
ecl
2014-05-29 11:03:25 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? Maybe you could try studying American history before you make stupid comments? Look at black people in America. For centuries, white people enslaved black people, then segregated them, then denied them voting rights, and what happened as a result? Black people rose up and achieved greatness and equality. It's a similar story with women...for a long time, they were basically the property of men. They suffered abuse, they couldn't vote. But their adversities gave them strength, and now they have jobs and earn almost as much as men.

Would black people and women have been able to achieve these goals, win despite all the various adversities in their path, if things had simply been handed to them from the beginning? If they'd been like spoiled rich children born with silver spoons in their mouths?

That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.


People have had strokes and died from reading PN... IMO he's a murderer.
 
2014-05-29 11:04:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: What more information could he possibly need?


I don't know. I've rapidly been losing faith in the Supreme Court. Hopefully Kennedy won't be an asshole.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Ten years after Massachusetts became the first state to recognize gay marriages, the equality movement is on the march. It's on a winning streak in fact - with two more judicial victories last week, in Oregon and Pennsylvania, it has now won 14 court decisions in a row expanding the definition of marriage and striking down statutes aimed at keeping matrimony a straights-only institution.
 
2014-05-29 11:06:37 PM  

SkinnyHead: Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.


Keep bringing the hits, SH.
 
2014-05-29 11:07:48 PM  

SkinnyHead: Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.


Well, you know, gays that don't get the same benefits under the government as straight people kind of beg to differ.
 
2014-05-29 11:08:45 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: SkinnyHead: Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.

Keep bringing the hits, SH.


i honestly think he does it because these threads would be so much more boring if we didn't have a village idiot with a crazy viewpoint to talk to.
 
2014-05-29 11:09:18 PM  

pueblonative: Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? Maybe you could try studying American history before you make stupid comments? Look at black people in America. For centuries, white people enslaved black people, then segregated them, then denied them voting rights, and what happened as a result? Black people rose up and achieved greatness and equality. It's a similar story with women...for a long time, they were basically the property of men. They suffered abuse, they couldn't vote. But their adversities gave them strength, and now they have jobs and earn almost as much as men.

Would black people and women have been able to achieve these goals, win despite all the various adversities in their path, if things had simply been handed to them from the beginning? If they'd been like spoiled rich children born with silver spoons in their mouths?

That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.

Christ that is some concentrated stupid right there.


That's funny, your profile doesn't say you're new here...
 
2014-05-29 11:16:01 PM  
I'd also like to ask  SkinnyHead why the traditional definition of marriage isn't one man with many wives traded for property anymore.
 
2014-05-29 11:17:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: i honestly think he does it because these threads would be so much more boring if we didn't have a village idiot with a crazy viewpoint to talk to.


Yes.  He does the lard's work.
 
2014-05-29 11:31:42 PM  
How do you know that the democrats don't like the gays? They have never been caught in an airport bathroom with one of them.

The GOP is the party of tolerance.
 
2014-05-29 11:34:31 PM  
Then again, the booth's design included three walls with 3" holes drilled in various places in the walls.
 
2014-05-29 11:36:30 PM  

xanadian: /also, I live in the f#*%ing County.  Northern Deliverance country.  I think people up here are *born* Republican


Being a Republican is a Learned Behavior.

Benevolent Misanthrope: SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.

But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?  Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?

Hell - in Washington State, the Dems run them for office until they turn their coats.


Actual quotation:
Today, it's the Republican Party that offers a big tent, welcoming different views, from moderates like Secretary of State Kim Wyman and Senator Steve Litzow, to conservatives in Eastern Washington

I bet at their gatherings they play both kinds of music, country and western.
 
2014-05-29 11:36:41 PM  

nmrsnr: RedPhoenix122: You mean bigots?

I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.


true, although some of the hypocrisy comes from the fact that they ignore all the other crazy stuff in leviticus. and they ignore them because even they know that some of those things don't make any sense in the modern world. can you imagine if part of the GOP official stance was repeatedly trying to make eating shrimp illegal? they alrady lose their minds at the mere suggestion that kids should have vegetables in their school lunches..
 
2014-05-29 11:42:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Well, you know, gays that don't get the same benefits under the government as straight people kind of beg to differ.


One could easily argue that defining marriage to include homosexual couples does no harm to others.
 
2014-05-29 11:43:42 PM  
Didn't American Dad  do this already?
 
2014-05-29 11:43:45 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Then again, the booth's design included three walls with 3" holes drilled in various places in the walls.


Kind of like a county fair kissing booth but....different.
 
2014-05-29 11:50:05 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Then again, the booth's design included three walls with 3" holes drilled in various places in the walls.


Knocking back a few, so run away before I put you in a headlock and start telling you I love you, but I've always enjoyed your humor and insight.  I think some of your Alaska oil stuff and some of the Palin stuff was very educational for me.  I don't keep notes so please tell me I have the right login.

Oh look.  A glass that needs refilling.  It's sad but solvable.
 
2014-05-29 11:56:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: Serious Black: For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument

We should discontinue traditions that do harm to others.  Slavery harmed others.  Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.  It is not unfair to maintain the tradition of marriage.  If people want to live in new, non-traditional relationships, they should create new traditions of their own.  Why do they have to mess with the tradition of marriage?


Fine.  Eliminate all benefits outside of marriage then (ie, tax breaks, consideration of adoption viability, power of attorney, et al)
 
2014-05-29 11:57:11 PM  

Rixel: SkinnyHead: Serious Black: For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument

We should discontinue traditions that do harm to others.  Slavery harmed others.  Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.  It is not unfair to maintain the tradition of marriage.  If people want to live in new, non-traditional relationships, they should create new traditions of their own.  Why do they have to mess with the tradition of marriage?

Fine.  Eliminate all benefits outside of marriage then (ie, tax breaks, consideration of adoption viability, power of attorney, et al)


ftfm
 
2014-05-30 12:02:47 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Soup4Bonnie: SkinnyHead: Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others.

Keep bringing the hits, SH.

i honestly think he does it because these threads would be so much more boring if we didn't have a village idiot with a crazy viewpoint to talk to.


He does stimulate conversation.  You could call him Fark's Anal Vibrator I suppose.
 
2014-05-30 12:05:43 AM  
 "...gay conservatives ..."

This is just so bizarre.
 
2014-05-30 12:07:27 AM  

Paris1127: I bet at their gatherings they play both kinds of music, country and western.


*looks up at the podium in the House*

.... Chicken wire!??
 
2014-05-30 12:11:57 AM  
One funny thing is that the 2012 platform was actually toned down.

The 2008 platform still advocated making sodomy illegal and banning visitation rights of gay parents (and lumped them in with convicted child molesters).
 
2014-05-30 12:19:18 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Texas GOP blocks Log Cabin Republicans

[c1.soap.com image 633x1500]

Is it because there's no high-fructose corn syrup?


Funny, I looked at the back of one of those, and the first ingredient listed? "Corn syrup."
 
2014-05-30 12:33:17 AM  

Karac: If you think a homosexual couple want to be husband and wife, then your problem with gay marriage is not bigotry or trolling, but a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the word "homosexual".


Thank you, Karac.  I'm not trying to be a bigot or a troll.  Maybe I don't understand homosexual.  My focus has been on the meaning of marriage, as I understand it.
 
2014-05-30 12:34:40 AM  
assets.amuniversal.com
So very sad...
 
2014-05-30 12:39:45 AM  

serpent_sky: shower_in_my_socks: You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.

Yes, but I'm bored and have been enjoying farking with him today... probably because I haven't been in threads with him in a while. (I don't put anyone on ignore, even the trolls are entertaining sometimes. I can't drive and a girl in a cast doesn't go out walking by herself. I spend a lot of time alone.)


A cast Member!  I bet the play IS FABULOUS
 
2014-05-30 12:44:09 AM  

Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: I simply cannot fathom why any gay person would ever even consider voting Republican.  Honestly.

Because they don't want lazy poors to get welfare? Because they hate taxes? Because they buy into the whole free market Randian crap many republicans do? Because they're gun nuts and want to protect their rights to carry assault rifles?

Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality.  There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.


This might be the dumbest post I've ever seen on Fark. That's quite an achievement.
 
2014-05-30 12:45:22 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: Lenny_da_Hog: Then again, the booth's design included three walls with 3" holes drilled in various places in the walls.

Knocking back a few, so run away before I put you in a headlock and start telling you I love you, but I've always enjoyed your humor and insight.  I think some of your Alaska oil stuff and some of the Palin stuff was very educational for me.  I don't keep notes so please tell me I have the right login.

Oh look.  A glass that needs refilling.  It's sad but solvable.


You'll regret this post in the morning.

(Yes, I'm that guy.)
 
2014-05-30 01:00:13 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: You'll regret this post in the morning.


Only on days that end in a Y.  Cheers, Hog.
 
2014-05-30 01:02:46 AM  
More self-loathing from the Republican Gays.

You don't change a religion, you quit. Childhood brainwashing leads to Stockholm syndrome. So very sad.
 
2014-05-30 01:14:27 AM  
Are the Republicans afraid the gheys have cooties or something?
 
2014-05-30 01:45:32 AM  

BMFPitt: They are more accustomed to reaching around for them.


Please. Like the GOP would ever show any goddamn common courtesy.
img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-05-30 01:59:21 AM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: If you think a homosexual couple want to be husband and wife, then your problem with gay marriage is not bigotry or trolling, but a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the word "homosexual".

Thank you, Karac.  I'm not trying to be a bigot or a troll.  Maybe I don't understand homosexual.  My focus has been on the meaning of marriage, as I understand it.


Ah!  The pointy thing goes into the holey thing (of the one with the bumpy things and the front one not the back one)....or do you mean the small human thing drops out of the other human thing part.  Careful now...I have left a few pitfalls, there Harry.
 
2014-05-30 02:02:47 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: cameroncrazy1984: i honestly think he does it because these threads would be so much more boring if we didn't have a village idiot with a crazy viewpoint to talk to.

Yes.  He does the lard's work.


It's not wrong.

Without those stupid conservatrolls, a lot of the fark politics threads would be either
"Well, that guy's an idiot"
"Yup.  Beer?"
"Fark yeah"

or

"You know, this democratic plan could be a little better if we did x"
"I think y would help"
"Let's combine them and do z, best of both worlds?"
"OK!  Now we drink!"

But only four or five posts a thread means nobody would get any ad money.  If SkinnyHead didn't exist, Fark would have to create him.

/Who knows, maybe they did
//I'm sure he pays for himself
 
2014-05-30 02:22:25 AM  
Traditional marriage was destroyed by the Nineteenth Amendment. Gay marriage is not an attempt to provide traditional marriage (the transfer of property, namely a woman, from her father to her husband) to same-sex couples, it's an attempt to provide them the twentieth-century definition of marriage (a contract between two equal parties).
 
2014-05-30 02:36:36 AM  
I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.
 
2014-05-30 03:28:16 AM  
I'm not trying to be a bigot or a troll


static4.businessinsider.com
 
2014-05-30 03:34:29 AM  

soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.


doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?
 
2014-05-30 04:07:42 AM  
They need to change their name and reapply for a booth.

Ocean front property villa, 10+ bed, 6 bath, marble floors, coffered ceilings, 3 car garage, heated pool and elevator corporate retreat vacation home republicans.
 
2014-05-30 04:36:07 AM  

Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: Wow.  Just... wow.

Being gay is more than just a part of my personality.  That's like saying being Black is just a part of a person's personality.  As long as the Republican Party tells gay people we should be ashamed for being who we are and we should not have the same rights as the rest of the populace, why in hell would any gay person seek to further that?  And don't say it's only a small part of Republicanism - one look at the news will tell you it's the goddamn centrepiece of their social agenda.

There are black republicans too.  There are women republicans.  There are all sorts of groups that are explicitly or implicity discriminated against by republicans, who are republicans.

I don't have any other explaination for it, and I have no intention to offend by my statements. I don't know how anyone who is openly gay can be a republican, except that they value other parts of their personality or other values more than being gay.


It's because in every single other instance the rest of the party thinks it's kind of cute they are taking part and it's good publicity to be able to trot out a token minority so they are supported. Except for gay people for some reason.
 
2014-05-30 04:48:05 AM  

Corvus: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views? Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?

Umm they can still have there marriage. You know "gay-marriage" doesn't force man and woman married couples to get divorced. Did you not know this?

"Gay Marriage" legislation is not MANDATORY gay marriage. You get that?


How can a man truly be free unless he can force everyone else to follow his version of morality?
 
2014-05-30 06:11:13 AM  

SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.

But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?  Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?


Well, that would be like having a booth for people who believe the earth is flat at a science convention.
 
2014-05-30 06:24:00 AM  

SkinnyHead: serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I understand your position.  The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.  For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman.  Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh.   As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no.  I'm not a church.  My vote does not violate the separation of church and state.  But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter.  That's not very democratic.


Listen, dipshiat, marriage is up to the two people in love, not the voters.
 
2014-05-30 06:25:36 AM  

Animatronik: ScaryBottles: Sorry but I have zero sympathy for the Uncle Tom's log cabin republicans.

Traitors to the Democratic Party, eh?
That's just part of the Democrats' game plan:

1.). Portray the opposition as composed entirely, without exception, of racists and bigots.
2.) Label anyone who belongs to a group that the Democratic Party "owns" who votes for the opposition as an Uncle Tom.
2.) Attach yourself to every social spending program designed to appeal to the special interest groups that you need to keep in the party fold.

3.) Do irreparable damage to our economy, society, and infrastructure, while blaming the rich for everything and borrowing money out the wazoo.

4.) Profit...Until the system blows up, at which point you do everything you can to make voters forget you created the system.


Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.


Not really responding to a troll, but just reading the things he projects onto Democrats is very insightful into the how the conservative mind works.  It's a sad, angry, cynical existence.
 
2014-05-30 07:02:56 AM  

ginandbacon: It's like the GOP *wants* to become irrelevant.


Think they'd rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven?
 
2014-05-30 07:35:31 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Steve Munisteri, chairman of the Texas Republican Party, confirmed to TPM that the group's application was denied because of its stance on gay marriage. He explained that the Texas GOP has a formal policy against allowing groups that advocate positions contrary its platform to have booths at conventions.

I simply cannot fathom why any gay person would ever even consider voting Republican.  Honestly.


Gay people can be psychopaths too.
 
2014-05-30 08:00:28 AM  

Pocket Ninja: That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.


From my perspective, this is very very wrong.

The right says "If I use my success to benefit myself, I will benefit greatly at the possible expense of others". The left says "If we use our success to benefit everyone, then we will all benefit moderately".

Him ...I know which one I think is more enlightened....
 
2014-05-30 08:42:18 AM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: If you think a homosexual couple want to be husband and wife, then your problem with gay marriage is not bigotry or trolling, but a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the word "homosexual".

Thank you, Karac.  I'm not trying to be a bigot or a troll.  Maybe I don't understand homosexual.  My focus has been on the meaning of marriage, as I understand it.


The meaning of marriage as you understand it isn't even close to the "traditional" definition. I mean, you are even OK with a black guy marrying a white woman. That sure as hell isn't traditional.
 
2014-05-30 08:47:51 AM  

RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views?

You mean bigots?  Probably not, just as I doubt they have booths for white supremacists.


If you're tolerant you have to be tolerant of intolerance.

/this is what idiots believe
//or Republicans
///but I repeat myself
 
2014-05-30 08:55:35 AM  

Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: Wow.  Just... wow.

Being gay is more than just a part of my personality.  That's like saying being Black is just a part of a person's personality.  As long as the Republican Party tells gay people we should be ashamed for being who we are and we should not have the same rights as the rest of the populace, why in hell would any gay person seek to further that?  And don't say it's only a small part of Republicanism - one look at the news will tell you it's the goddamn centrepiece of their social agenda.

There are black republicans too.  There are women republicans.  There are all sorts of groups that are explicitly or implicity discriminated against by republicans, who are republicans.

I don't have any other explaination for it, and I have no intention to offend by my statements. I don't know how anyone who is openly gay can be a republican, except that they value other parts of their personality or other values more than being gay.


The explanation is easy: lots of people are stupid, and will vote against their own self interests.

/which, as an aside, demolishes Ayn Rand's ideas
 
2014-05-30 08:55:50 AM  

kronicfeld: If the democrat communist party is so inclusive, why doesn't it have booths for pedophiles, human traffickers,  Republicans and American Hero Cliven Bundy, huh? Huh? Huh?


Because those people are already solidly in the Republican camp.
 
2014-05-30 08:59:58 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: namatad: The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.


The GOP needs to implement a PURITY TEST and expel anyone who fails the test.
Woman works out of the house, has kids and didnt get permission from husband?
or is a single mom? buh bye
Gay? But havent gone public and prayed to god to be cured? buh bye
brown? adios
rape victim? get out you slut
abortion? STONE HER
drugs? death (unless it was harmless youthful indiscretion and you are a Bush)

You forgot Rush.


They choose free will.
 
2014-05-30 09:04:21 AM  

Galileo's Daughter: Cyberluddite: serpent_sky: I'm cool with that except they pick and choose. The Bible is not full of anti-gay rhetoric, it barely even mentions homosexuality and the line they always use is open to interpretation.  There are tons and tons of rules in the Bible -- express rules -- and they ignore those.  Jesus wasn't hateful.  Jesus was inclusive. Jesus cared about the poor.

Not to mention--and I'm no biblical scholar here, in fact, I'll admit that I'm about the furthest thing from it--that I thought that deal was that Jesus supposedly relieved his followers of following the Lord's laws/curses spelled out in Leviticus (which of course is what they claim as their source for the supposed godly ban on homosexuality) by taking on the burden of those laws himself.  So for some reason Christians seem to feel that Jebus gave them the thumbs-up to eat pork and shellfish, and shave their beards if they want, but yet that somehow the one passage of Leviticus about how a man must not "lie with a man as he lieth with a woman" is exempted from Jesus's relief of those laws and is still in force.

Any Christians here want to enlighten us about how that supposedly works?

Okay, I'll give it a try.  Yes, Jesus's sacrificial death made the law obsolete; the book of Hebrews contrasts this in many chapters.  But there are a couple of passages in the New Testament that also mention homosexuality and that are used by right wingers:

Romans 1:24-27
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.  27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9
9Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men


Nevermind that those passages weren't said by Jesus or anyone who knew him.
 
2014-05-30 09:07:12 AM  

Perlin Noise: Pocket Ninja: That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.

From my perspective, this is very very wrong.

The right says "If I use my success to benefit myself, I will benefit greatly at the possible expense of others". The left says "If we use our success to benefit everyone, then we will all benefit moderately".

Him ...I know which one I think is more enlightened....


You are not new here.......
 
2014-05-30 09:09:30 AM  

namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?


Ignore is for cowards. I want to know exactly who the arseholes and idiots are.

/oddly they almost always seem to be right-wingers for some reason
 
2014-05-30 09:17:19 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?

Ignore is for cowards. I want to know exactly who the arseholes and idiots are.

/oddly they almost always seem to be right-wingers for some reason


Which is exactly what Ignore is for. Life is too short for some brands of stoopid
 
2014-05-30 09:37:01 AM  
It turns out when you throw in with a group that has hard-wired hatred of you into the core of their ideology, they don't play nice with you.  Go commiserate with the African American chapter of the KKK, you idiots.

What does the Republican Party have to offer you?  Their actual conservative policies have been adopted by Democrats.  The corporate whoring is spread out over both parties.  The only thing that's left is the Evangelical hate-mongering that is leveled against you to begin with.
 
2014-05-30 09:38:56 AM  

hubiestubert: Which is exactly what Ignore is for. Life is too short for some brands of stoopid


THIS.  "Ignore is for cowards" is a slogan by trolls, for trolls.  It's like saying "earplugs are for cowards" and then operating a jackhammer with no ear protection.  All you earn for your "bravery" is noise.
 
2014-05-30 09:59:47 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?

Ignore is for cowards. I want to know exactly who the arseholes and idiots are.

/oddly they almost always seem to be right-wingers for some reason


Ignore is to be used on Farkers who never contribute anything of value to a thread.  If all such Farkers happen to be die-hard Republicans, so be it.
 
2014-05-30 10:06:21 AM  
i116.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-30 10:42:01 AM  

RedPhoenix122: nmrsnr: RedPhoenix122: You mean bigots?

I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.

If they honestly truly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, then they should be fighting equally as hard against divorce.


That and eating pork.
And shellfish.
And wearing clothes that are torn.
And wearing mixed fiber garments.
And tattoos.
And working on the sabbath.
There's tons more, but my folks taught me not to kick someone once they're down.
 
2014-05-30 11:45:44 AM  

namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?


nope. blocking out stupidity doesn't make it go away...  i make use of the color-coding though, so his (and others) comments are definitely all piss-yellow... :) the usual suspects are all color-coded and it DEFINITELY makes reading threads easier.
 
2014-05-30 12:28:41 PM  

SkinnyHead: unless you just happen to be the wrong religion.


Which religion do democrats exclude by writ of party platform?
 
2014-05-30 12:31:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: kronicfeld: SkinnyHead: unless you just happen to be the wrong religion

Funny, I know quite a lot of pro-gay Christians. Actually, I'm not sure I know a single anti-gay Christian. Someone should tell them that they're apparently the wrong religion.

Some Christians, some Jews, and some Moslems oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.  I'm told that the Democrat Party -- "the party of inclusion, the party of all people" -- would exclude people with those religious views because they are "bigots."   A party that disparages and excludes people on account of their religious views doesn't sound like the party of inclusion, the party of all people.


But how are they excluding them?  No on is saying that a man and a woman can't get married.
 
2014-05-30 12:43:33 PM  
God damn the trolls are out today.
 
2014-05-30 12:47:40 PM  

SkinnyHead: serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I understand your position.  The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize.  For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman.  Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh.   As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no.  I'm not a church.  My vote does not violate the separation of church and state.  But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter.  That's not very democratic.


Doesn't work that way.  Just ask Alabama voters.....

www.bubblews.com

States don't get to legislate away what their voters perceive to be their boogey men..
 
2014-05-30 01:10:54 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.


I hereby bequeath unto you your new handle:  PotatoHead. Go forth and Potato!
 
2014-05-30 02:33:48 PM  

anfrind: Tyrone Slothrop: namatad: soseussme: I think I'd better go see a doctor pretty soon. Some gays got married and now I am in a lot of pain, especially my back and shoulders.

It's so insensitive of them, to go around getting married when it's clear they are causing other people so much pain.

If I go punch a gay, I get arrested for assault, but they can get married and there's nothing I can do about it? How is that fair?

/Apologies, I know I am no skinnyhead.

And for that I am truly grateful.

doesnt EVERYONE have skinnyhead on ignore by now?

Ignore is for cowards. I want to know exactly who the arseholes and idiots are.

/oddly they almost always seem to be right-wingers for some reason

Ignore is to be used on Farkers who never contribute anything of value to a thread.  If all such Farkers happen to be die-hard Republicans, so be it.


Before I put someone on ignore, I favorite them, color them black, and put a comment on WHY they are on the soon to be ignored list. If the next couple of times they are COMPLETELY worthless, buh bye.
 
2014-05-30 02:52:10 PM  

PickleBarrel: SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.

I hereby bequeath unto you your new handle:  PotatoHead. Go forth and Potato!


In fairness, even though I changed my registration after the last Primary, I ain't joining the Democrats. Y'all choose your candidates, and if they are better than the rest of the slate, or at least the lesser of two evils, or there are folks on the other tickets that are just plain stupid and dangerous, the Democrat will get my vote. The better man or woman should be who we choose, no matter the appellation at the end of their name. But at this point the party system just has left a bad taste in general.
 
2014-05-30 03:47:04 PM  

nmrsnr: RedPhoenix122: You mean bigots?

I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.


We have a concept called 'separation of Church and State'. If you believe it, fine. If you want it as part of your political platform? You'd better have more than 'Bible says' to back it up.
 
2014-05-30 03:57:39 PM  

NateAsbestos: God damn the trolls are out today.


Meh, just the one.

He is tenacious, though.
 
2014-05-30 04:52:28 PM  

PickleBarrel: SkinnyHead: Karac: The Democratic party does not care about your choice of religious. Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist - they don't care. What they do get worked up about is when you try to take your religious views and write them into secular law.

We kind of have a thing about that whole 'separation of church and state' bit in the First Amendment.

I understand.  That's why the Democrat party is not a "the party of inclusion, the party of all people," as they claim.  They believe that religious people should not be entitled to have a voice in deciding such things as the definition of marriage.  They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state.  Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.  That's why they're called the Democrat party, not the "Democratic" Party.

I hereby bequeath unto you your new handle:  PotatoHead. Go forth and Potato!


I think you mean Mr. PotatoHead.
 
2014-05-31 01:52:40 AM  

SkinnyHead: I just don't know why same sex couples think they got to imitate a traditional marriage by pretending that they're husband and wife.


You see, this is your problem.  Things being traditional in no way makes them meaningful, for many hundreds of years the United States had a tradition of institutionalized segregation and racism, those exclusionary 'traditions' are no more valid than the exclusionary 'tradition' of saying marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.

Why is it between a man and a woman?

Because the bible said so?  If that's your reason, I've got to say, I'm not Christian, why are you legislating your religious sacraments into law and forcing people like me who don't share your faith to live by them?

Because it is tradition?  Why is removing that tradition harmful?  Changing a tradition or changing the meaning of a word is not harmful in and of itself unless you have a valid reason that it is harmful.  Anti-gay activists put forth debunked study, after flawed research paper, after discredited dissertation asserting that they have proof that homosexuality is harmful to society at large.  However the actual science behind the topic is settled almost beyond debate.  Find me a serious and respected professional in the field of sociology who honestly believes that gay people are hurting society at large by virtue of existing and I'll be very impressed.

The fact is, the people who think gay marriage is wrong are by-in-large bigots, they have no valid reasons for excluding gay people from the definition of marriage.  Their only real reason is anti-gay animus, they just outright don't like gay people and find their lifestyle repellent - and sure they can think this all they want, but it's not a valid reason for a law.  This has been argued on every level of court in our country and every time it goes to court, the anti-gay parties lose.  They have absolutely NO ground to stand on.  Saying two gay people who are in love can't get married and be afforded the literally THOUSANDS of legal protections and privileges that their heterosexual counterparts take advantage of is outright discriminatory, if you can't see why 'tradition' isn't good enough of a reason to deny people equal rights then I'm truly sorry.

One thing I saw you mention before was that the Supreme Court did not rule on constitutionality of gay marriage.  However, if you review the decision, you actually will see that they set the stage for its ultimate victory.  In the ruling, the majority opinion was that the marriage statute (DOMA) was in violation of the fifth amendment, because it, "[...] for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others."  This ruling made the marriage issue an equal protection issue, you cannot on one hand acknowledge that the Federal government has no legitimate reason to deny gay people the dignity of marriage, and then turn around and rule that states do.  If gay people have an equal protection argument at ALL, the house of cards holding up the anti-gay marriage movement falls.  Which is exactly why you've seen, just in the last month or so, no less than 3-4 different states lose their cases against gay marriage.  There just simply isn't a valid argument against it.
 
2014-05-31 02:02:26 AM  
They don't believe that the issue should be determined democratically, by the vote of the people of each state. Instead, they think that the issue should be determined undemocratically.

Spoken by a Red Party comrade who wants to deny people-not-in-his-party the vote by shutting down DMVs and polling locations.
 
Displayed 220 of 220 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report