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 66
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-05-29 06:25:06 PM  
14 votes:

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 07:29:36 PM  
6 votes:

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 07:10:56 PM  
6 votes:

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 09:42:34 PM  
5 votes:

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 07:57:10 PM  
5 votes:
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 07:11:41 PM  
5 votes:

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 10:59:04 PM  
4 votes:

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 09:04:16 PM  
4 votes:

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 07:55:17 PM  
4 votes:

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 07:25:42 PM  
4 votes:

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 07:02:08 PM  
4 votes:

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 06:06:24 PM  
4 votes:
It's like the GOP *wants* to become irrelevant.
2014-05-29 08:32:05 PM  
3 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com

/Hot.
2014-05-29 07:29:20 PM  
3 votes:

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 07:26:35 PM  
3 votes:
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 07:20:15 PM  
3 votes:

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 06:50:13 PM  
3 votes:

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 06:41:29 PM  
3 votes:
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 06:06:02 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2014-05-30 02:02:47 AM  
2 votes:

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
2014-05-29 09:38:51 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:36:07 PM  
2 votes:
"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 09:32:12 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:09:30 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:19:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:12:35 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:07:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:59:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:53:19 PM  
2 votes:
briansalmi.files.wordpress.com

Sorry but I have zero sympathy for the Uncle Tom's log cabin republicans.
2014-05-29 07:51:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:46:45 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:42:39 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:35:42 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:34:00 PM  
2 votes:

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


Good one, and very true.
2014-05-31 01:52:40 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-05-30 10:06:21 AM  
1 votes:
i116.photobucket.com
2014-05-30 07:35:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:24:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:28:16 AM  
1 votes:
I'm not trying to be a bigot or a troll


static4.businessinsider.com
2014-05-30 12:34:40 AM  
1 votes:
assets.amuniversal.com
So very sad...
2014-05-29 11:16:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:07:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:41:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:04:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:42:48 PM  
1 votes:
"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 09:35:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:17:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:39:52 PM  
1 votes:
Being a gay republican is like being a Jew who wants to join the Aryan Nations.
2014-05-29 08:28:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:22:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:19:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:19:03 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:18:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:14:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:12:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:09:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:00:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:56:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:54:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:51:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:33:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:31:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:28:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:23:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:58:22 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:29:12 PM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 66 of 66 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