What do YOU have against gay people? (stats, Brown, Byrd)

[Pooua]

Originally Posted by winterbird

I agree it's important to separate reality from the stereotypes. That's why I can honestly say I don't have anything against gay people. They are individuals as we all are. It is bigoted and ignorant to have a bias against an entire group of humans.

Not when an entire group of humans engages in reprehensible activity it isn't.

I condemn all thieves for theft. Apparently, so do you. At least, you don't seem to have a problem suggesting that other people should condemn thieves.

[winterbird]

I'm not going tit for tat with you. Pick on someone else's posts please.

Thanks.

[WyoNewk]

I really don't have anything against gays or lesbians.

I believe they should have all the legal rights of heterosexuals, and I believe that if they are partners in a civil union, that they should have all the legal rights of a married couple -- that it should be no different than a marriage between heterosexuals.

I'm not sure if I'm really in favor of gay/lesbian "marriages", simply because to me it changes the definition of a marriage. I wouldn't fight against legislation for it, but neither would I encourage it at this point. Call it something else and I'd be 100% in favor.

What do I not like about gays? PDAs carried too far. And yes, it bothers me more than PDAs between hetero couples. It's just kind of creepy. Maybe I'll get over it with time.

Blindly vote democrat because they have bought into some stupid false promises that this party will be their liberators...still waiting on that one.

There's nothing blind about it. One party fights equality every step of the way, fights to write hate into the constitution, and fights to undo the progress that has been made.

The other got DADT repealed, expanded benefits for gay federal employees to end some of the preferential treatment given to straight couples, signed marriage bills into law, etc. The precious few Republicans who have stepped up and helped push equality forward should be committed, but they are by far in the minority.

[outbacknv]

Originally Posted by JasonF

There's nothing blind about it. One party fights equality every step of the way, fights to write hate into the constitution, and fights to undo the progress that has been made.

The other got DADT repealed, expanded benefits for gay federal employees to end some of the preferential treatment given to straight couples, signed marriage bills into law, etc. The precious few Republicans who have stepped up and helped push equality forward should be committed, but they are by far in the minority.

No, one party makes a lot of noise about supporting equality despite the fact that their history and the voting records of their elected officials are not supportive of said noise. Those that are easily influenced by smoke, mirrors, and glimpses of shiny things in the distance blindly lend that party their support.

It doesn't take much of a critical eye to see that both mainstream parties are far more concerned with coaxing more votes and money from the sheep that support them than they are with providing any meaningful improvements to the state of the nation or their supporters. If you honestly believe Democrats are any more concerned with the rights of gays than are Republicans you have consumed far too much Kool Aid.

[Pooua]

Originally Posted by JasonF

There's nothing blind about it. One party fights equality every step of the way, fights to write hate into the constitution, and fights to undo the progress that has been made.

The other got DADT repealed, expanded benefits for gay federal employees to end some of the preferential treatment given to straight couples, signed marriage bills into law, etc. The precious few Republicans who have stepped up and helped push equality forward should be committed, but they are by far in the minority.

So, one party "fights equality every step of the way" by...

- not revoking DADT (aka, Clinton's Compromise), a homosexual issue
- not expanding federal employee benefits for homosexuals
- not ending preferential treatment of heterosexuals vs homosexuals
- not signing homosexual marriage acts

IOW, because one party takes a consistent stance against one issue, you feel justified in saying that party "fights equality every step of the way." Are you aware that more than homosexuals have problems in this world? Do you not believe that people who oppose homosexuality should be represented in government?

[tickyul]

Originally Posted by kleinberglowenstein

A few years ago, I met a guy who looked very stereotypically gay and talked with a very clear gay "accent". Yet he told me he had just been married to a blonde college girl (they were several years apart I think). He also met her through a Christian dating service. Being almost a stranger, I was too afraid to ask the big question. Does he sound like an ex-gay to you? Or could he be "openly closeted"? I happened to Google his name and found a web page about their wedding. I really want to post a link to his pictures but I would surely get sued for slander, libel, privacy violations, etc.

Say these words to yourself "Ty Pennington is not gay."!!!

Are you aware that more than homosexuals have problems in this world?

Of course. One would have to be pretty stupid not to be aware of that. But given that the thread is about homosexuality, I don't see much point in bringing up the GOP's "southern strategy" of appealing to angry old white racists, or Bush Sr's belief that perhaps atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens.

Do you not believe that people who oppose homosexuality should be represented in government?

They can be represented if they can get the votes, just like neo-nazis and klan members and racists can be represented if they can get enough votes. Just don't expect laws written specifically to discriminate against one group of people to stand up in court.

[outbacknv]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Of course. One would have to be pretty stupid not to be aware of that.
They can be represented if they can get the votes, just like neo-nazis and klan members and racists can be represented if they can get enough votes. Just don't expect laws written specifically to discriminate against one group of people to stand up in court.

The Klan was originated by your beloved Democrats. Don't let reality stand in the way of your blind support.

[Zyngawf]

I still don't understand. Why do I have to care who you're boinking?