Ever notice the new trend of conversation when it comes to LGBT topics?

- The Conservative says something like "Being gay is a sin and an abomination. Gay marriage should be illegal."
- Then a wave of responses along the lines of "you're an asshole"
- Then another conservative smugly responds "Well, I guess it's the pro-gay people that are the real bigots here. You're being mean to us. We shouldn't be ridiculed for our views!"

Or the response to company executives who are being pushed out because they made anti-gay statements or supported laws or groups opposed to homosexual interests. "The gay mafia is back to its bigoted ways."

There is a multitude of things wrong with the "Pro-gay people are the real bigots" statement. The issue I want to press on is that the reason the shaming and ridicule exist are solely because of the conservatives views.

Back 20-30-40 years ago when support for homosexuality and its attendant issues was a small minority the only defense people had against views that sought to opress homosexuals were the grassroot sorts of actions, such as boycotts, circling the wagons, and inevitably some lashing out in anger. These wer the only real methods available because they required little to no political capital, didn't need a large group to put into effect, and could be mobilized quite quickly in response to a problem.

The very prevalence of anti-gay views forced the LGBTA community's hand into using, and perfecting these techniques. Well, flash forward to the mid to late 2000s and something changed. No longer were views supporting homosexuals a small minority. By 2005 they were an ever growing plurality, to become a majority quite recently. The LGBT political support base being so small for so long and then quickly ballooning to a large size, never grew out of its grassroots tactics (or, rather they chose not to let them go as they were becoming so successful). So the old mini-boycotts and the circling of several wagons quickly became massive public boycott pressure and when the wagons are circled, million of Americans join in.

I just find it ironic that when conservatives call out the pro-gay crowd for being bigoted, they fail to realize that the conservatives themselves created this. They made their bed and refuse to sleep in it.

The main thing they're doing is the Karl Rove "Attack their strengths" philosophy; the Left wing uses appeals to tolerance which more people agree with, so the right in turn takes them and turns them on their head portraying the Left as intolerant and the right the really tolerant ones. It's clever, but it only endears themselves to their base supporters and doesn't attract too many converts and turns them away.

It's not like right wing pundits care if they're being hypocrites they'll do whatever they want to sound right.

At 5/8/14 04:46 PM, Warforger wrote: It's not like right wing pundits care if they're being hypocrites they'll do whatever they want to sound right.

The hypocrisy is one of the myriad of other problem I mentioned. I still think the funniest part is the Mujahadeen->Taliban style backfire. Not in that gays are the Taliban, rather that in strongheadedly going about their agenda for so many years they've created a monster (from their perspective) that is now far stronger than before.

At 5/8/14 09:06 PM, Light wrote: I look forward to that time.

I look forward to the time when we all start calling 'gay marriage' just 'marriage'...because, y'know, that's all it is.

At 5/9/14 12:50 AM, TNT wrote:

At 5/8/14 09:49 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/8/14 09:06 PM, Light wrote: I look forward to that time.

I look forward to the time when we all start calling 'gay marriage' just 'marriage'...because, y'know, that's all it is.

We will have to alter the term marriage in the dictionary first, but I wouldn't mind that.

Yes, it will be altered such that it no longer excludes same sex couples.

At 5/8/14 09:49 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/8/14 09:06 PM, Light wrote: I look forward to that time.

I look forward to the time when we all start calling 'gay marriage' just 'marriage'...because, y'know, that's all it is.

;;;;
As one of many Canadians who are somewhat puzzled by all the its legal, now illegal, whoops laws overturned its legal again news stories we are bombarded with from The Land of the Free.
Because as a majority of us see it up here, as you say Feoric ....its marriage "that's all it is"

We don't understand ( I know I certainly don't) what's the big deal.
We have had gay marriages up here for years. Traditional Family units have not broke down.
UNFORTUNATELY As predicted I must add....
The devil has risen to be the top Politician job(aka Prime Minister) of our country ....but he's been fighting his way to that job for years. So don't worry about that he's taking control everywhere.

Instead I would like to point out. NO ONE is forcing church's up here to marry same sex couples.
Some religious groups will do it, some will not.
AND , In My Opinion, that is exactly how it should be , if one group of religious observers are against their faith having to marry individuals , who's actions they don't condone, it should be respected & they should have a right to do what they want with in their little club.

After all there was no chance of my present wife & i marrying in her church, because Catholic's frown on divorce & I am divorced from my first wife. So it wasn't even a choice for us, even though we are male & female.

Which IMO is not a problem for myself , or my wife & it certainly didn't seem to bother any of either of our families, to see us married on a beach, with a clergy member from a recognized group that has, rabbi's, priests, ministers, wiccan priestesses, & other religious representation. All of whom have left their previous religious groups because they could not in good conscience support aspects of their religion any longer. But still feel the need to involve themselves in spiritual aspects of peoples lives.

Maybe what is needed is for these people who are so condemning of others who ,are actually no different than they are. Seeing as all of them want to be in a union with someone they care for. That they want a sense of togetherness & the protections offered legally by that type of commitment.
The only real difference I see , is that people are upset that what 2 consenting adults do in their own bedroom.
Which as long as they are consenting adults should never be an issue, as we have no business intruding in their private affairs of that nature.
Maybe what needs to be done is to give these religious people a declared "right" to not ever have to marry a same sex couple in their church.
The Politicians should also make it clear if it ever occurs a religion can also not marry mixed couples ...if for some reason a Gay/Lesbian /Transexual church should open & finds the idea of a hetro couple on their sacred grounds profoundly disturbing.

There are too many other actually important aspects of our lives & the health of our planet & all of us that live here , than the petty stupidity over who marry's whom . Lets just simplify it to persons of a certain age, can legally marry another person of a certain age & lets move on.

Have a nice day.

This is an excellent example of the pot calling the tea kettle black, which seems to be a common thing among politicians in general, but the conservative GOP seem to be masters at doing just that, and are digging a deeper hole for themselves. In the grand scheme of things, these conservatives are on the wrong side of history, and they're bailing out water on a sinking boat when it comes to gay rights.

At 5/14/14 10:54 AM, orangebomb wrote: This is an excellent example of the pot calling the pristine white china black,

There FTFY

This videopretty much sums it all up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m500JE3FnbA

The most hypocritical part I find is that when a person bashes Michael Sam for expressing his feelings they are merely "expressing an opinion" yet when a person bashes these people for their bashing they are "stifling free speech and bashing someone for expressing their opinions."

Which way is it?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

At 5/15/14 10:26 PM, RacistBassist wrote: "People don't have a right to express the way they feel if it offends someone else."

Don't know where you got this from.

Everyone has the right to say whatever they wish. What they do not have the right is to say whatever they wish with complete impunity from the social consequences of their statements.

I say offensive shit all the time. What I do not do is parade around like a fucking peacock screaming "FREE SPEECH!" at those who call me out on it.

At 5/15/14 07:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The most hypocritical part I find is that when a person bashes Michael Sam for expressing his feelings they are merely "expressing an opinion" yet when a person bashes these people for their bashing they are "stifling free speech and bashing someone for expressing their opinions."

The "freedom of speech card" is one of the most flimsy excuses for idiocy out there, especially when they don't know how it actually works in the first place. That woman has a right to say what she said about Michael Sam, but the other person has a right to counter-act that statement without reproach. In other words, it applies both ways.

Also, the reason why I said that the "FOS" card is lazy is because they believe it only applies to one person or group of people and not towards anyone else, last time I checked, Freedom of Speech applies to everyone who is not incarcerated, not just to a certain segment of the population. There are others who believe in the opposite belief that FOS is being taken away for some reason, but that's a different discussion altogether.

At 5/16/14 12:09 AM, RacistBassist wrote: The old lady that was upset they kissed on TV.

Oh yeah, now I remember. Silly me.

Lovely that we're now comparing Mental Illnesses to Skin color now. Oh my god the discrimination against ones Mental Health.

At 5/16/14 03:03 PM, TheKlown wrote: Lovely that we're now comparing Mental Illnesses to Skin color now. Oh my god the discrimination against ones Mental Health.

I have been wonder about your mental illness.

Considering all the nonsense you have been posting, I think you need help.

At 5/17/14 07:25 AM, Light wrote:

Now, Klown, tell me why no respected psychiatric organization considers homosexuality a mental illness. And don't say some stupid conservative shit like "science is controlled by libruls man!!!11."

He probably will considering he's one of those people that takes every joke from South Park literally.

At 5/18/14 01:42 PM, stevenman36 wrote: give it max another 10 years and you'll have all your gay ass rights

While not getting the point of the topic.

At 5/8/14 12:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Ever notice the new trend of conversation when it comes to LGBT topics?

I would not credit them with what you describe. In every society the typical response to passing a certain threshold of deviancy is execution, in the case of the Muslim and African world, and incarceration in the case of [formerly] Soviet Union and East Asian countries.

In the west, you would lose your career, your reputation, and your respect if you step out of certain boundaries. The hesitancy to use full lethal force against people you think are evil [Be it because they are gay or because they are racists] is probably an act of culture and to a lesser extent, personal discipline.

But bear in mind that X calling Y an abomination and Z calling X an asshole in turn is reasonably symmetric in terms of the action and reaction. It's one person's verbal expression against another's.

Similarly If I admitted to being a homosexual and received disapproval from those I make this admission of. [From personal experience, if you're careful about the people you open up to you'll almost never have this problem but I digress] It might not be warm and fuzzy and nice that I received disapproval but again we're not dealing with

On the extreme end if I was walking around London in the year 2050 and admitted to being a homosexual, I would probably be hung or beheaded. In which case we are dealing with a very asymmetric response, a western person would look at that situation and condemn it as bigotry since one party is exerting far more of their own preferences than another. You wouldn't call me a bigot against the people trying to execute me since my so-called right to have or express a sexual preference does not include the right to also execute people who find my preference distasteful. Whereas, well... you get the idea.

The hazy middle is how *some* people retaliate against what they see as manifestations of evil calls of resignation, boycotts, etc. Someone says something you don't like, and therefore you decide that their career and reputation should be destroyed. This is less extreme than execution but is it reasonable?

But I hate the word bigotry. It hides the fact that tolerance is always and everywhere a finite commodity. Donald Sterling, Brendan Eich, and David/Jason Benham learned that the hard way. What makes the west perhaps more tolerant is the acceptable avenues are dealing with deviants. Killing a deviant is barbaric. Destroying them is not.

At 5/8/14 09:49 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/8/14 09:06 PM, Light wrote: I look forward to that time.

I look forward to the time when we all start calling 'gay marriage' just 'marriage'...because, y'know, that's all it is.

I look forward to the time when marriage conveys no extra legal benefits and is viewed as strictly a personal thing. Because people should have equal rights under the law, regardless if they are married or not.

As to the OP post, well, I find it's a pretty common tactic from "conservatives". It's the PeeWee Herman approach where they're called out on something and retort with "I know you are but what am I?"

At 5/24/14 06:29 PM, NeonSpider wrote: I look forward to the time when marriage conveys no extra legal benefits and is viewed as strictly a personal thing. Because people should have equal rights under the law, regardless if they are married or not.

This is not an apt comparison at all. That's like saying that two parties who entered into a contract have special rights over a third party who did not enter into the contract. It's true. they do. But not for any discriminatory purpose. They have those special rights because they chose to enter into the program that grants those rights.

Governmental marriage is solely a contractual issue. The issue people have with it was the fact that it shares the name with the socieatal/religious joining of two people. So long as all adult people have the opportunity to enter into such a contract they are all able to get those special rights and privileges.

Please don't muddy the water with this complete red herring argument.

At 5/24/14 04:26 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I would not credit them with what you describe. In every society the typical response to passing a certain threshold of deviancy is execution, in the case of the Muslim and African world, and incarceration in the case of [formerly] Soviet Union and East Asian countries.

I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with the point I made, or even an ancillary point related to the idea of pro-gay bigotry. Please clarify how other societies' barbarism has anything to do with the subject.

The hazy middle is how *some* people retaliate against what they see as manifestations of evil calls of resignation, boycotts, etc. Someone says something you don't like, and therefore you decide that their career and reputation should be destroyed. This is less extreme than execution but is it reasonable?

This is now getting closer. It is reasonable for small grass roots organizations. Why? Because they're too small to make a difference, but at least such calls can garner attention and make some form of a splash. What we have NOT seen is a grss roots cause shoot to a mainstream cause with such momentum and speed as the LGBT cause. Mind you, just 7 yaers ago only 40% of Americans were willing to support gay marriage. While gay marriage was voted up in two states recently, just 10 years ago 15-20 states resoundingly voted against it. The snowball fromed into a snowboulder before anyone could really react to it. The group that was barely making the news with the calls for boycotts and resignations now actually has the power to follow through. Maybe the LGBT community is not sure how to handle this power yet. Maybe the LGBT community is a bit drunk with power.

Destroying them is not.

I would say it is. Also, I would say much of the pro-gay boycotts are not organized and not forceful. People are now much more aware of what goes on with their money than they used to be. People now know that when you buy a chick-fil-a sandwich, some on the profit goes to fund anti-gay groups. When you buy Barilla, some of your money goes to fund an owner who unabashedly hates gay people. The awareness that permeates is the real culprit. Look at Firefox. The LGBT community didn't put a single ounce of pressure on him to leave. However, the personal decisions of many, like me, to not give money in the form of business to entities that support such groups scared Firefox so much that Firefox made the entirely business decision to head off the problem and remove their CEO.

Mind you, this isn't a new tactic. Back in the south businesses that were receptive to civil rights got overtly boycotted (and worse) and failed. At least now, it's the customer voting with their money, and not the group voting with their words.

At 5/25/14 12:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/24/14 06:29 PM, NeonSpider wrote: I look forward to the time when marriage conveys no extra legal benefits and is viewed as strictly a personal thing. Because people should have equal rights under the law, regardless if they are married or not.

This is not an apt comparison at all. That's like saying that two parties who entered into a contract have special rights over a third party who did not enter into the contract. It's true. they do. But not for any discriminatory purpose. They have those special rights because they chose to enter into the program that grants those rights.

Governmental marriage is solely a contractual issue. The issue people have with it was the fact that it shares the name with the socieatal/religious joining of two people. So long as all adult people have the opportunity to enter into such a contract they are all able to get those special rights and privileges.

Please don't muddy the water with this complete red herring argument.

Not a red herring when married people *do* have additional benefits that nonmarried people don't have. For example, tax benefits and hospital visitation rights benefits among others. Give all rights to all people, not just those who choose to enter into a voluntary contract.

At 5/25/14 12:49 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Not a red herring when married people *do* have additional benefits that nonmarried people don't have. For example, tax benefits and hospital visitation rights benefits among others. Give all rights to all people, not just those who choose to enter into a voluntary contract.

First off, when the option is available to all, the decision not to exercise the option can be (and should be) considered a waiver of those rights.

This is not a discrimination issue. If someone chooses not to avail themselves of benefits, they are the only person to blame. All old people are available for medicare, so should those who choose not to still get the benefits? Almost all 16 year olds are eligible to drive and get a license, so should those who choose not to still be able to drive?

You also forget the concept of common law marriage, where many states have marital privileges that attach to couples that act as married, even when they choose not to be married.

Stop trying to distract the issue here by saying state sanctioned marriage, a purely contractual program, should not have contractual benefits.

Trust me, giving many of the benefits and responsibilities to ALL couples regardless of marriage will be a serious mess.

At 5/25/14 01:06 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: So why have the rights and options if they aren't there to fulfill a purpose?

They do fulfill apurpose. They allow two people who so wish to join together into one family to legally do so.

They have to pass tests. They have to qualify. They need to be vetted.

Medicare doesn't vet people.

So it is the co-habitiation that defines a marriage in the eyes of the state?

It varies depending on the specific state's rules. Usually cohabitation is a strong factor in favor of common law marriage. Others include having a ceremonial commitment, referring to each other as husband/wife, length of relationsip, closeness of relation, and many more.

One common thread is that the relationship must strongly resemble a married couple.

Why?

Do you really want one of your serious mistake girlfriends who you dated for just a few months in the past to have gained full access to your property, information, and so on? Would you approve of her gettin ghalf your stuff when you come to your senses and dumped her three months in to the relationship? Would you like to be considered the legal father to EVERY child she has during your relationship regardless of whether you are the father or if the child was even concieved during your relationship period?

There is a reason it's an opt in. A lot of responsibilities arise and people should only be subject to those responsibilities if they choose to be.

did my comment get deleted?
not cool man, not cool

At 5/28/14 03:36 PM, stevenman36 wrote:

At 5/28/14 03:28 PM, kakalxlax wrote: did my comment get deleted?
not cool man, not cool

Any opposing opinions are silenced

welcome to the land of the free

indeed, someone who need to censor, don't have enough tools to make or defend their point