Obama against gay marriage?
Chief Thracian
Let's see now: the Dems feel America is ready for not only a black
President, but one whose full name--Barack Hussein Obama--suggests an
Islamic background, at least in part. Yet apparently, these same Dems
still believe America is not ready for gay marriage? Give me a
freakin' break!
--
Final Testament (Gay Quran)
http://www.gay-bible.org
Dysperdis
> Osama against gay marriage?
>
> Let's see now: the Dems feel America is ready for not only a black
> President, but one whose full name--Barack Hussein Obama--suggests an
> Islamic background, at least in part. Yet apparently, these same Dems
> still believe America is not ready for gay marriage? Give me a
> freakin' break!
At least, in the Democrats' case, they're merely quibbling over
terminology at this point- as distasteful as "separate but equal" is, it
still beats McCain and Palin's history of constantly opposing
legislation which would provide equal rights to LGBT citizens.
So, really, neither party truly supports equality for LGBT citizens, but
in this case, the Dems are definitely the lesser of two evils.
--
"[E]ven the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and
traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is
not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those
practices or traditions." ~California Supreme Court decision regarding
same-sex marriage
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
-Sean
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
> Osama against gay marriage?
>
> Let's see now: the Dems feel America is ready for not only a black
> President, but one whose full name--Barack Hussein Obama--suggests an
> Islamic background, at least in part. Yet apparently, these same Dems
> still believe America is not ready for gay marriage? Give me a
> freakin' break!
It's not that they many of them aren't supportive of same-sex
marriage, but that they won't be able to get elected if they come out
and say that they are for it. In other words, they are actually
correct in their assumption that a large segment of the American
population is "not ready for gay marriage".
Chief Thracian
<guillaumed...@live.com> wrote:
>It's not that they many of them aren't supportive of same-sex
>marriage, but that they won't be able to get elected if they come out
>and say that they are for it.
Yes, I already understand that rationale...I've heard it a ZILLION
times.
> In other words, they are actually
>correct in their assumption that a large segment of the American
>population is "not ready for gay marriage".
That is WRONG. You wilfully BELIEVE that tripe yourself, and therefore
believe it. Why is that? When did a president first speak out for
interracial marriage?
IT'S GOT TO BE DONE, PERIOD. And it WON'T destroy Obama's chance for
the White House. It's not really a QUESTION of whether or not Amerika
is ready for gay marriage. We weren't ready for desegregation, but it
happened. We weren't ready for child labor laws, but it happened. We
weren't ready for women's right to vote, but it happened.
Amerika isn't ready for gay marriage? Then it's not ready to continue,
period. May this wicked nation fall to many pieces and never arise
again.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT), Guillaume Ier de Normandie
>
> >It's not that they many of them aren't supportive of same-sex
> >marriage, but that they won't be able to get elected if they come out
> >and say that they are for it.
>
> Yes, I already understand that rationale...I've heard it a ZILLION
> times.
>
> > In other words, they are actually
> >correct in their assumption that a large segment of the American
> >population is "not ready for gay marriage".
>
> That is WRONG. You wilfully BELIEVE that tripe yourself, and therefore
> believe it.
Naw. The EVIDENCE is that same-sex marriage does no harm. See
Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey, as well as Canada, Spain,
South Africa, et al.
America is not ready to BELIEVE that it is ready for same-sex
marriage.
> Why is that? When did a president first speak out for
> interracial marriage?
>
> IT'S GOT TO BE DONE, PERIOD. And it WON'T destroy Obama's chance for
> the White House.
Well, I and many others believe that we needn't take the chance to
find out. We think it's more important to get Obama INTO the White
House, than to dictate what he must say on the campaign trail.
In any event, he surely is a better choice than McCain-Failin' Palin.
> It's not really a QUESTION of whether or not Amerika
> is ready for gay marriage. We weren't ready for desegregation, but it
> happened. We weren't ready for child labor laws, but it happened. We
> weren't ready for women's right to vote, but it happened.
In reality, we deal with whatever comes our way.
> Amerika isn't ready for gay marriage? Then it's not ready to continue,
> period. May this wicked nation fall to many pieces and never arise
> again.
All empires fall.
No One
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT), Guillaume Ier de Normandie
> <guillaumed...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>It's not that they many of them aren't supportive of same-sex
>>marriage, but that they won't be able to get elected if they come out
>>and say that they are for it.
>
> Yes, I already understand that rationale...I've heard it a ZILLION
> times.
>> In other words, they are actually
>>correct in their assumption that a large segment of the American
>>population is "not ready for gay marriage".
>
> That is WRONG. You wilfully BELIEVE that tripe yourself, and therefore
> believe it. Why is that? When did a president first speak out for
> interracial marriage?
Keep in mind that winning a presidential election requires winning
electoral votes, not merely popular votes, and that most states use
"winner takes all". Currently the result of that is that the
candidates have to win in a small number of states that are
up for graps as the other states are solidly voting one way or the
other. For those few states that are up for graps, only a fraction
of those voters might change their minds.
Even if the populace as a whole is ready for same sex marriages, it
may still be a topic that is "too hot to handle" because of whom the
candidates have to appeal to in order to win the election.
You may not like it, but don't blame me - I didn't set it up to work
this way.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Even if the populace as a whole is ready for same sex marriages, it
>may still be a topic that is "too hot to handle" because of whom the
>candidates have to appeal to in order to win the election.
>
>You may not like it, but don't blame me - I didn't set it up to work
>this way.
I say your reasoning is wrong. Did your mother tell you that
masturbating will grow warts on your hand?
Chief Thracian
<guillaumed...@live.com> wrote:
>America is not ready to BELIEVE that it is ready for same-sex
>marriage.
Wrong. It is YOU who BELIEVE Amerika is not ready. I may as well argue
this point with a Bible thumper.
Chief Thracian
<guillaumed...@live.com> wrote:
>All empires fall.
The sooner the better.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:59:31 -0700 (PDT), Guillaume Ier de Normandie
>
> >America is not ready to BELIEVE that it is ready for same-sex
> >marriage.
>
> Wrong. It is YOU who BELIEVE Amerika is not ready.
You obviously have trouble reading. Is English not your first
language?
Anyway, I'm gay and pro-same-sex marriage. Vast populations in the
U.S. are not.
> I may as well argue
> this point with a Bible thumper.
Have fun with that.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:59:31 -0700 (PDT), Guillaume Ier de Normandie
>
Doesn't matter. They're just replaced by new ones. Which later fall.
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:46:05 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Even if the populace as a whole is ready for same sex marriages, it
> >may still be a topic that is "too hot to handle" because of whom the
> >candidates have to appeal to in order to win the election.
>
> >You may not like it, but don't blame me - I didn't set it up to work
> >this way.
>
> I say your reasoning is wrong.
Coming from a person who is unable to reason at all, that provides
Usenet with a great laugh.
HA!
No One
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:46:05 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Even if the populace as a whole is ready for same sex marriages, it
>>may still be a topic that is "too hot to handle" because of whom the
>>candidates have to appeal to in order to win the election.
>>
>>You may not like it, but don't blame me - I didn't set it up to work
>>this way.
>
> I say your reasoning is wrong. Did your mother tell you that
> masturbating will grow warts on your hand?
Do you normally snip posts to hide what was really being said?
Here's the text that preceeded the paragraph you quoted:
Nomen Nescio
> Osama against gay marriage?
>
> Let's see now: the Dems feel America is ready for not only a black
> President, but one whose full name--Barack Hussein Obama--suggests an
> Islamic background, at least in part. Yet apparently, these same Dems
> still believe America is not ready for gay marriage? Give me a
> freakin' break!
> Final Testament (Gay Quran)http://www.gay-bible.org
If you Faggots ever worried about something besides laying pipe on the
Hershey highway or expecting the rights of normal citizens, you could
be better off.
"In an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no
distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint
between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple,"--Joe Joe Rubinette
Biden.
Asked if he would support gay marriage, Biden said: "No.
Irony?
This is a new feature of APH called The Emerson Wainwright k00ksuit
watch. Every day we shall observe the clock ticking and count the days
since Faggot Emerson Wainwright lied about pursuing a lawsuit, which
is referred to herein as what it actually is, a k00ksuit. You are
invited to post any outragous, interesting comments and/or lies made
by Emerson Wainwright or any of his sockpuppets which include:
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
ScottyFLL
Enos Penvy
There are others. Points will be gives for each new sock that is
discovered.
The official Wainwright k00ksuite clock
____________________________
/ Monday 04 October, 2008 \
/) ,-----------. o (\
( | 6 : 00 pm | /_\ ))
\) '-----------' " (/
\____________________________/
The Emerson Wainwright k00ksuit watch:
187 days and counting.
"And as I've told you before, nothing will happen, not a damn thing"--
James Riske
The Daily k00kwrightism:
"Naw. One doesn't have to be rich to file suit. One doesn't even
need
a lawyer -- I can file the action myself against John Doe, present my
evidence to a judge, and have subpoenas issued. Some lawyers will
take cases on a contingency basis, especially in Broward County, whose
juries don't like online libel one bit"--Well, Emerson is consistent
if nothing else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson k00kwright hall of shame archives.
"I've not been humiliated. You are incapable of humiliating me. I'm
honest, I have integrity, I admit when I make a mistake"--k00k Emerson
Wainwright posting with his current sock Guillaume Ier de Normandie
"Public newsgroups are public, I'm part of the public, and if I want
to
post a picture of a nipple on alt.bible or alt.religion, I'm gonna do
it"-- k00k Emerson Wainwright shows his *integrity*
"I do not use sockpuppets and i am not a troll"--Emerson Wainwright
"Public newsgroups are public, I'm part of the public, and if I want
to
post a picture of a nipple on alt.bible or alt.religion, I'm gonna do
it"-- k00k Emerson Wainwright shows his *integrity*
"Stick that up your ass and smoke it"--Emersons Freudian slip is
evidence of how much mouth to anal/shite contact is woven into Faggot
life.
"Suit will be filed in Broward county"--Emersons lie is obvious to
everyone that see's it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LC recognizes that AUK's Secretary of Homintern is nothing but a
common troll and a usenet loser.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/a826e61fa
9194a15?hl=en&
Or see it here:
http://tinyurl.com/aukTROLL
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my ass for his support'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2
211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-kiss-my-ass-for-his-
support.html
Blithering idiot?
Obama thinks the treatment for asthma is a breathalyzer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJLdE9DELs
Obama thinks there are 57 states:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJCgeQsjFeU
Obama is caught red handed in a lie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY5CQnOn75c&NR=1
"You will never
find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" -- Obi-Wan Kenobi.
k00kologist #24 AUK.
Owner and trainer of Emerson Wainwright and his current sock Guilaume
Ier de Normandie
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
> On Oct 5, 12:41 pm, ezeki...@qwickconnect.net (Chief Thracian) wrote:
>
> > Osama against gay marriage?
>
> > Let's see now: the Dems feel America is ready for not only a black
> > President, but one whose full name--Barack Hussein Obama--suggests an
> > Islamic background, at least in part. Yet apparently, these same Dems
> > still believe America is not ready for gay marriage? Give me a
> > freakin' break!
> > --
> > Final Testament (Gay Quran)http://www.gay-bible.org
>
> If you Faggots
Nomen "Blowmen" Nescio (aka bobandcarole) officially nominated for
Coward of the Month by AUK!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/browse_frm/thread/18ed75955661cdeb#
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Do you normally snip posts to hide what was really being said?
It is proper netiquette to quote sparsely. It is up to the viewers to
follow the thread.
>Here's the text that preceeded the paragraph you quoted:
<snip>
>>For those few states that are up for graps, only a fraction
>>of those voters might change their minds.
The gay marriage argument can easily be supported by Dems as a
"seperation of church and state" issue...which every educated
Christian gladly respects, if indeed they follow Christ's teachings of
brotherly love. "Respect thy neighbor as thyself." Respected Christian
theologians do exist, that will eagerly defend gay marriage, under
those terms.
Instead, the Dems allow fear of church to sell out their morality,
using gays as the sacrificial lamb. Same old, same old. You NEVER win
an argument OR election, by appeasing the enemy.
Can you say "Neville Chamberlain"?
Chief Thracian
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>"In an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no
>distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint
>between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple,"--Joe Joe Rubinette
>Biden.
>
>Asked if he would support gay marriage, Biden said: "No.
>
>Irony?
Especially when this irony is noted by a repellant homophobe. What the
Dems are suggesting is that "seperate but equal" will work, when it
comes to gay marriage. This is a compromise based on fear. Won't work.
The Dems already sold gays down the river with Clinton's signing of
DOMA...and DADT.
Chief Thracian
<guillaumed...@live.com> wrote:
>Coming from a person who is unable to reason at all, that provides
>Usenet with a great laugh.
Who can argue with such a thoughtful, intelligent rebuttal? Not I!
GAY MARRIAGE BY ANY OTHER NAME
or
LETTER TO THE PHARISEES
Š 2004 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
December 9, 2004
WE THE PEOPLE FOR A SANE WORLD officially declare 100% support for gay
marriage, as a civil right and a birthright. Those religious
institutions that condemn such partnerships are in flagrant violation
of the US Constitution's first amendment, which states: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Furthermore, said institutions often encourage attitudes of hatred and
promotion of violence against sexual minorities in many other ways,
and have a long history of such. And these "godly" organizations
remain, as they have for untold centuries, the major and sole cause of
virulent homophobia.
Amerika would not tolerate such ugly behavior by a religous group
towards any other minority, in our modern day. And it is one important
tenet of so-called activist judges, to protect a minority from the
tyranny of the majority. Especially when such a minority is more
universally hated than any other; as are homosexuals, transexuals and
bisexuals. In fact, as oppressed as many minorities remain, most of
them still cling to backward and hateful notions against even their
own non-hetero brethren.
The issue of gay marriage has become a glaring example of dangers that
arise when church matters are not kept separate from those of the
state. Indeed, it has become The Great Test Of Today's Amerika
regarding the issue of individual rights versus majority prejudice.
And if we keep moving in that sorry direction much longer, we are
likely to see a full-blown holocaust against these long-suffering
people.
But progressives of all stripes must also share considerable shame,
for sometimes participating in homophobic actions (at worst), or
looking the other way too often (at best). To rectify this, we stand
with other responsible liberals and moderates, who take up the cause
of gay equality starting with marriage, in brave and aggressive
manners. Even some churches are finally joining in, thus answering to
their savior's message of compassion. I hope this will mark a
sea-change in attitude regarding our sexual minorities.
We stand with good folks like Assemblyman Mark Leno, with good
organizations like Marriage Equality California, and with good media
venues like Air Amerika (and KGO) Radio...and demand an apology from
politicians such as Senator Diane Feinstein, for suggesting that gay
marriage is directly responsible for the Election Fiasco. We denounce
Senator John Kerry, for stating in a presidential debate that he is
Catholic and against gay marriage. We curse former president Bill
Clinton, for his signing of the Defense of Marrage Act and the
destructive policy coined Don't Ask Don't Tell. Lest we forget: we
also condemn queer-politico turncoats like Congressman Barney Frank,
who likewise blame gay marriage for Kerry's Fall From Grace. We also
acknowledge that none of these four examples are Republicans; in fact
they are all regarded as staunch Democrats. (Centrists have thus
proven themselves to be Republican wolves in Donkey hide.)
All truly progressive people will not tolerate any more homophobia
from our own liberal groups and representatives, and must therefore,
if need be, not just condemn but separate ourselves from those who
continue to harbor anti-gay attitudes. We must be as clear, as strong,
and as steadfast regarding gay marriage, as we have been these many
years against racism, misogyny, child abuse, capital punishment, and
preemptive declarations of war. For it has become all too obvious that
condemnation of gay marriage is a red herring to distract us from the
real agenda: removal of all LGBT rights to mark them as second-class
citizens in perpetuity. And then, the elimination of all rights for
every other citizen, except a remnant of the power elite.
We will no longer tolerate frivolous and mean-sprited arguments
questioning whether or not gays can marry, whether or not they deserve
equal status as human beings, and whether or not they shall go to
heaven. Such debates hold no validity in any civilized nation, as they
are founded on a premise that is blatantly erroneous from the start,
for it flies in the face of common sense and compassion. Nor shall we
ever again engage any discussion over partnerships termed and defined
as something resembling marriage, but not ever equal to. In other
words "separate and unequal." In short:
Marriage by any other name just doesn't cut it.
Most sincerely,
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
Queer Voice in the Oscar-Wilderness
--fin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
credit to the original author.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
http://www.gay-bible.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
No One
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:48:12 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Do you normally snip posts to hide what was really being said?
>
> It is proper netiquette to quote sparsely. It is up to the viewers to
> follow the thread.
Not when you quote so sparcely as to not show the original meaning,
particularly when the text you snipped was only 7 lines long.
It is not like you were asked to include 200 lines of text.
>>Here's the text that preceeded the paragraph you quoted:
>
> <snip>
(of course - it is embarassing to your "point".)
>>>For those few states that are up for graps, only a fraction
>>>of those voters might change their minds.
>
> The gay marriage argument can easily be supported by Dems as a
> "seperation of church and state" issue...which every educated
> Christian gladly respects, if indeed they follow Christ's teachings of
> brotherly love. "Respect thy neighbor as thyself." Respected Christian
> theologians do exist, that will eagerly defend gay marriage, under
> those terms.
You can argue all you want, but this is an election in which both
candidates are trying to win. In Obama's case in particular, gay
marriage is simply a distraction: we have the worse financial crisis
since the Great Depression and Obama is far more solid on the
economy than "Keating 5" alumnus McCain, who graduated something
like 5th from the bottom of his class. McCain desparately needs a
distraction. It would be stupid to give him one.
Also, the current flap is about Proposition 8, a state issue, not
a federal one. The president does not have any say in what the
State of California decides to put in its state constitution.
> Instead, the Dems allow fear of church to sell out their morality,
> using gays as the sacrificial lamb. Same old, same old. You NEVER win
> an argument OR election, by appeasing the enemy.
>
> Can you say "Neville Chamberlain"?
Can you say "smart campaign strategy"? :-)
Guillaume Ier de Normandie
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT), Guillaume Ier de Normandie
>
> >Coming from a person who is unable to reason at all, that provides
> >Usenet with a great laugh.
>
> Who can argue with such a thoughtful, intelligent rebuttal? Not I!
Indeed, since the "rebuttal" was to your brilliant "I say your
reasoning is wrong. Did your mother tell you that
masturbating will grow warts on your hand?"
LOL!
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Also, the current flap is about Proposition 8, a state issue, not
>a federal one. The president does not have any say in what the
>State of California decides to put in its state constitution.
Imagine if keeping or outlawing slavery was left to the states!
Chief Thracian
<guillaumed...@live.com> wrote:
>Indeed, since the "rebuttal" was to your brilliant "I say your
>reasoning is wrong. Did your mother tell you that
>masturbating will grow warts on your hand?"
At least my rebuttal has style. You, on the other hand, use hollow
rebuttals to avoid (and detract from) the issue at hand. Good luck!
No One
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:34:26 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Also, the current flap is about Proposition 8, a state issue, not
>>a federal one. The president does not have any say in what the
>>State of California decides to put in its state constitution.
>
> Imagine if keeping or outlawing slavery was left to the states!
Imagine what would have happened if we had tried to repeal slavery
state by state instead of by passing the 13th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
Being ineffectual may make you feel good, but will get you nowhere.
Proposition 8 is a state issue and only California voters have any say
in the outcome. Dragging presidential politics into the issue in such
a way that it would help Proposition-8 supporter John McCain (by
giving him a diversion from the economic crisis) is simply
counterproductive.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Dragging presidential politics into the issue in such
>a way that it would help Proposition-8 supporter John McCain (by
>giving him a diversion from the economic crisis) is simply
>counterproductive.
It wasn't me who brought up the issue of Prop. 8. It was another who
chose to, obviously in hopes of sabotaging the dialog. I simply stated
my astonishment/disgust over Dem. leaders STILL dragging their
pathetic feet on the gay issue. Totally unnecessary, totally brutal.
There is NO excuse any more...what you and others brought up to
approve of this foot-dragging is nothing more than an apologist's
argument.
Just because YOU believe that 100% support of gay marriage would
sabotage a Dem. from becoming the next president, doesn't make it
true. If the Dem.'s had some SPINE, they'd stand firmly and
unapologetically in favor of gay marriage.
You are AGAINST gay marriage by professing this apologist stance. Even
though you're probably gay yourself! You have wilfully chosen to side
with our homophobic enemies and actively seek to convince more and
more of your brothers that gay marriage is not a viable goal at this
time.
You are a queer turncoat, broadcasting Bible thumper views in the
guise of being pro-gay. Go ahead and shoot your own self in the foot,
but stop trying to inspire other gays to self destruct.
Don't tell my you're a card carrying member of the LCR's! I would NOT
at all be surprised. Traitor!
No One
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:30:03 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Dragging presidential politics into the issue in such
>>a way that it would help Proposition-8 supporter John McCain (by
>>giving him a diversion from the economic crisis) is simply
>>counterproductive.
>
> It wasn't me who brought up the issue of Prop. 8. It was another who
> chose to, obviously in hopes of sabotaging the dialog. I simply stated
> my astonishment/disgust over Dem. leaders STILL dragging their
> pathetic feet on the gay issue.
You were told why - for Obama to bring it up would help McCain "turn
the page" on the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Why should Obama do that when he is trying to win an election where
one of the major issues effecting all of us is the economy?
> There is NO excuse any more...what you and others brought up to
> approve of this foot-dragging is nothing more than an apologist's
> argument.
Approve? You are merely being educated about the facts of political
life.
> Just because YOU believe that 100% support of gay marriage would
> sabotage a Dem. from becoming the next president, doesn't make it
> true. If the Dem.'s had some SPINE, they'd stand firmly and
> unapologetically in favor of gay marriage.
You might want to look up the term "swing state", and it doesn't
refer to state for swingers. :-)
> You are AGAINST gay marriage by professing this apologist stance. Even
> though you're probably gay yourself!
ROFTLMAO - is that why I gave some money to the "No on Eight" campaign?
And BTW, a lot of people opposing Prop 8 are straight. Did you
contribute anything?
> You have wilfully chosen to side with our homophobic enemies and
> actively seek to convince more and more of your brothers that gay
> marriage is not a viable goal at this time.
That sort of remark makes you look like an idiot - the sort of idiot
who goes around trying to shoot the messenger.
<more idiocy snipped.>
juanjo
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:30:03 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Dragging presidential politics into the issue in such
> >a way that it would help Proposition-8 supporter John McCain (by
> >giving him a diversion from the economic crisis) is simply
> >counterproductive.
>
> It wasn't me who brought up the issue of Prop. 8. It was another who
> chose to, obviously in hopes of sabotaging the dialog. I simply stated
> my astonishment/disgust over Dem. leaders STILL dragging their
> pathetic feet on the gay issue. Totally unnecessary, totally brutal.
> There is NO excuse any more...what you and others brought up to
> approve of this foot-dragging is nothing more than an apologist's
> argument.
Politics is the art of the possible. Nothing would energize the
radical right more than a Democrat who was running for president as a
strong supporter of same sex marriage. They would ignore the other
issues that are important like the economy, the war and other social
issues and vote on that single issue alone. We cannot afford this,
the country cannot afford this and only a single minded, tunnel vision
impaired person would expect it. The day will come when the issue of
same sex marriage does not raise eyebrows among the majority of
Americans but that day has not yet arrived. part of any struggle is
picking your battles and having some strategy. Banging your head
fruitlessly, albeit ideologically purely against a brick wall is not a
political strategy that wins.
>
> Just because YOU believe that 100% support of gay marriage would
> sabotage a Dem. from becoming the next president, doesn't make it
> true. If the Dem.'s had some SPINE, they'd stand firmly and
> unapologetically in favor of gay marriage.
Hey diddle, diddle, right up the middle til your opponent cuts you
apart is not an effective strategy.
>
> You are AGAINST gay marriage by professing this apologist stance. Even
> though you're probably gay yourself! You have wilfully chosen to side
> with our homophobic enemies and actively seek to convince more and
> more of your brothers that gay marriage is not a viable goal at this
> time.
Now that is simply rhetorical hog wash.
>
> You are a queer turncoat, broadcasting Bible thumper views in the
> guise of being pro-gay. Go ahead and shoot your own self in the foot,
> but stop trying to inspire other gays to self destruct.
More rhetorical hog wash.
>
> Don't tell my you're a card carrying member of the LCR's! I would NOT
> at all be surprised. Traitor!
>
Now you are really being insulting.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Approve? You are merely being educated about the facts of political
>life.
Gee, thanks for clearing everything up. Were this Nazi Germany, every
order by our dictator would be a "fact of political life".
Yes, corruption is indeed a fact of political life. However, so is
standing up for doing the right thing. In this case, it is speaking up
for gay marriage...when question on that issue. There is the correct
way of speaking out in favor, and a stupid way. The correct way would,
of course, not give any leverage to the enemy.
But silly me, whatever YOU think is politically correct--never mind
the various OTHER equally viable approaches--is a "fact of political
life".
I stand corrected...NOT. There is no point in my debating with minds
that are already closed, convinced they have the ONLY answer to
dealing with the gay marriage issue...who are no different in their
answers than Bible thumpers.
Chief Thracian
<jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Politics is the art of the possible.
And it is QUITE possible you are baldly wrong.
And you just negated your own viewpoint, for "art of the possible"
must also include the possibility of the Dems standing up for gay
marriage in such an intelligent and prideful manner, as to give NO
room for our enemies to denounce us w/o coming off as utter buffoons.
>Nothing would energize the
>radical right more than a Democrat who was running for president as a
>strong supporter of same sex marriage.
Bull flop. You're no different than a Bible thumper, at least in this
matter. How pathetic. "The art of the possible" indeed! Shooting down
what *I* claim is possible, the moment I speak.
>They would ignore the other
>issues that are important like the economy,
Too bad for them...the Dems would NOT ignore the other major issues,
and thus come off as the responsible and responsive party. You act as
if standing up for gay marriage--at least in the uppermost tier of the
Dem. leadership--is an albatross on their necks that would sink the
entire ship.
Can you say "homophobia"?
> We cannot afford this,
We cannot afford to keep putting gay issues on the back burner, as it
is the nature of unresolved homophobia to pollute every other good
cause...including not just civil rights, but the ecology and economy.
It's a thread of violent machismo that mucks up everything.
>the country cannot afford this and only a single minded, tunnel vision
>impaired person would expect it.
Whaaaat? Who said anything about LIMITING the Dem platform to gay
marriage? You have distorted my statements the same way a Bible
thumper would. Wow! You are saying that when a Dem. candidate is asked
about gay marriage (among various other issues), that his or her
stating SUPPORT because we need to keep church and state separate, is
equivalent to tunnel vision? And to stand up AGAINST it is broad
minded?
Can you say "Orwellian doublespeak"?
>The day will come when the issue of
>same sex marriage does not raise eyebrows among the majority of
>Americans but that day has not yet arrived.
But that day will come ONLY after gay marriage has been approved of
100% by a President. Many eyebrows were raised in spite of the Supreme
Court's decision to integrate. If you are afraid of raising eyebrows,
I'd assume you are nothing better than a Momma's boy, who wouldn't
DARE go to a gay event if it caused her any discomfort whatsover.
Your position is that of a Bible thumping infiltrator into liberal
venues, pretending to be oh-so-pro-gay, but speaking out against gay
marriage whenever it rears its sane head.
>part of any struggle is
>picking your battles and having some strategy. Banging your head
>fruitlessly, albeit ideologically purely against a brick wall is not a
>political strategy that wins.
Again, you distort my statements. No need to bang one's head against
the wall, to speak out eloquently and convincingly as to the social
import of gay marriage. Are you a few cards short of a deck, or what?
>Hey diddle, diddle, right up the middle til your opponent cuts you
>apart is not an effective strategy.
A FALSE assumption does not a convincing case make.
Hey diddle, diddle,
Your brain's on the griddle.
No wonder you're not very smart.
>Now you are really being insulting.
You mistake truth for insult.
No One
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:47:57 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Approve? You are merely being educated about the facts of political
>>life.
>
> Gee, thanks for clearing everything up. Were this Nazi Germany, every
> order by our dictator would be a "fact of political life".
If you were unfortunate enough to be living in Nazi Germany, you'd
stand a much better chance of doing something useful to oppose the
regime if you understood how it worked.
> Yes, corruption is indeed a fact of political life. However, so is
> standing up for doing the right thing. In this case, it is speaking up
> for gay marriage...when question on that issue. There is the correct
> way of speaking out in favor, and a stupid way. The correct way would,
> of course, not give any leverage to the enemy.
If don't want to give any "leverage to the enemy", you would want to
see McCain lose as he has come out in favor of Proposition 8 (whether
he really means it or not). Obama opposed it although he did state
that he was not personally comfortable with same-sex marriages. You
may not like either, but at least Obama did not support people going
after you.
> But silly me, whatever YOU think is politically correct--never mind
> the various OTHER equally viable approaches--is a "fact of political
> life".
Look moron, I merely told you the facts of life. It has nothing to do
with what someone thinks is "politically correct".
>
> I stand corrected...NOT. There is no point in my debating with minds
> that are already closed, convinced they have the ONLY answer to
> dealing with the gay marriage issue...who are no different in their
> answers than Bible thumpers.
ROTFLMAO! That's a pretty stupid reply when I merely explained to you
why Obama might want to avoid the issue, as it would provide a
distraction from the issues the public really is concerned about -
the ones related to the economic mess we are in.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>ROTFLMAO! That's a pretty stupid reply when I merely explained to you
>why Obama might want to avoid the issue, as it would provide a
>distraction from the issues the public really is concerned about -
>the ones related to the economic mess we are in.
Nonsense. You sound like a Log Cabin Republican. Caving into fear of
standing up for gays, as if it would utterly destroy the Dem's chances
of winning this election. I assure you:
Any party that continues to kowtow to perceived anti-gay majority
sentiment, is guaranteed to lose. Being true to oneself will always
win your battles over the long haul. What YOU and other anti-gay
(though gay) fools are doing, is iterating EXACTLY the enemy's
sentiment. You keep pushing the gay rights issue on the back burner
"for another day"...so that it never is considered a valid civil
matter.
It is long overdue that the Dems or any other progressive platform
stop TREATING gays like the shame of the party. For that is EXACTLY
what the right wing wants us to do. It is not so difficult to stand up
firmly for gay rights on any aspect, w/o empowering the enemy.
You are not only blatantly WRONG in your wilfull suppression of gay
issues, but playing into the hands of our enemies. How does this make
you any different than a Bible thumper, ideologically? May I remind
you:
The victory of ANY people has always been the story of a tiny minority
overcoming tremendous challenges against an overwhelming and brutal
majority...NOT by mincing words in hopes of appeasing the beast, but
by standing unequivocally for what is both TRUE and inherently
RIGHTFUL.
You are of course, suspect of being a saboteur, an infiltrator,
feigning gayness on behalf of the right wing. You are only words typed
through a keyboard...and it is only obvious our enemies would
infiltrate gay newsgroups in order to sabotage our cause.
As if the Log Cabin Republicans already aren't doing a great job of
it!
No One
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:12:03 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>ROTFLMAO! That's a pretty stupid reply when I merely explained to you
>>why Obama might want to avoid the issue, as it would provide a
>>distraction from the issues the public really is concerned about -
>>the ones related to the economic mess we are in.
>
> Nonsense. You sound like a Log Cabin Republican. Caving into fear of
> standing up for gays, as if it would utterly destroy the Dem's chances
> of winning this election. I assure you:
Hey moron, I was explaining the realities of a presidential campaign,
in which the participants' main goal is to win.
Chill out. It is less than a month to the election. See what the
winner does afterwards.
>
> Any party that continues to kowtow to perceived anti-gay majority
> sentiment, is guaranteed to lose. Being true to oneself will always
> win your battles over the long haul.
Any party that gives the opposition a chance to "turn the page" on
a serious issue (the economy) that the opposition can't deal with
adequately will lose in both the short term and the "long haul".
> What YOU and other anti-gay (though gay) fools are doing, is
> iterating EXACTLY the enemy's sentiment.
Posting lies and baseless personal insults will just make you look
like a complete idiot, which is what many people think of you given
your posts.
> You keep pushing the gay rights issue on the back burner "for
> another day"...so that it never is considered a valid civil matter.
I gave some money to the "No on Eight" campaign. Did you? The last
time I asked, you refused to answer that question, so the likely
answer is that you didn't. If you can't afford to give anything, you
can certainly show up in person and do something to help. But from what
I can tell, all you've done is to post insulting rants on usenet, making
you completely ineffectual.
> You are of course, suspect of being a saboteur, an infiltrator,
> feigning gayness on behalf of the right wing. You are only words typed
> through a keyboard...and it is only obvious our enemies would
> infiltrate gay newsgroups in order to sabotage our cause.
See a doctor and get him to adjust your meds.