Anderson Cooper and CNN Banging the Big Gay Drum

[AuH20]

This is nuts. You would think that homosexuality creates more jobs the way they're obsessed with this. It's a side issue.

[wannaberocker]

The left wants social issues to be at the front in this election because that is the only way they can win. THey cant point to the economy and say "look what we did, now give Obama another 4 years". So they go to absolutly meaningless issues and try to trump them up as issues Americans are currently concerned about.
Yeah an unemployeed American who cant find a job. His big concern is Gays according to the Left.

[AuH20]

The left wants social issues to be at the front in this election because that is the only way they can win. THey cant point to the economy and say "look what we did, now give Obama another 4 years". So they go to absolutly meaningless issues and try to trump them up as issues Americans are currently concerned about.
Yeah an unemployeed American who cant find a job. His big concern is Gays according to the Left.

When I'm eating out of the burnt-out park garbage can, you can have your way with me. (j/k) Remember that this coming election.

Did I mention that these people are freaking nuts?

[reillym]

The left wants social issues to be at the front in this election because that is the only way they can win. THey cant point to the economy and say "look what we did, now give Obama another 4 years". So they go to absolutly meaningless issues and try to trump them up as issues Americans are currently concerned about.
Yeah an unemployeed American who cant find a job. His big concern is Gays according to the Left.

Just so you know, we are in this because of Bush, mostly.

And both parties are obsessed with social issues. The thing is, the left is mostly right.

[kylejack]

Gay people should have some rights as the rest of us. Perhaps your heterosexual privilege is blinding you to the importance of all people having the same rights. Perhaps this is why you don't see it as a priority.

[wannaberocker]

Just so you know, we are in this because of Bush, mostly.

And both parties are obsessed with social issues. The thing is, the left is mostly right.

Your statement is to general. It would be helpful if you got more specific.

[wannaberocker]

Gay people should have some rights as the rest of us. Perhaps your heterosexual privilege is blinding you to the importance of all people having the same rights. Perhaps this is why you don't see it as a priority.

what rights would that be?

[AuH20]

Gay people should have some rights as the rest of us. Perhaps your heterosexual privilege is blinding you to the importance of all people having the same rights. Perhaps this is why you don't see it as a priority.

This is the way I look at it. Like Ron said, he fears that what's left of our republic could be down to a few years or even months. The house is on fire and we're on the cusp of irreparable tyranny and we have some irresponsible pundits on TV who are placing gay issues in the category of job growth, deficits and the role of the Federal Reserve. IMHO it's lunacy. If we don't fix things domestically, some more backward areas are going to be hanging gays. Perspective is key.

[kylejack]

what rights would that be?
The right to marry, the right to visit their partner in the hospital, the right not to have their primary caretaker and partner to be deported as they die of cancer, and etc.

[cindy25]

its not just gay; next segment is about parents beating children because its in the bible; these are all directed at Bachmann and Santorum, so bring it on.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

[AuH20]

its not just gay; next segment is about parents beating children because its in the bible; these are all directed at Bachmann and Santorum, so bring it on.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

CNN ain't your friend. Trust me.

[amy31416]

Gay people should have some rights as the rest of us. Perhaps your heterosexual privilege is blinding you to the importance of all people having the same rights. Perhaps this is why you don't see it as a priority.

Meh. "We" hardly have any rights left as it is, gay or straight. Natural rights are what really matter to me...and more homosexuals need to see the light and come over to the libertarian side where you don't have to go around begging government whores (my apologies to whores) for equality and the right to live your life the way you see fit.

[AuH20]

Meh. "We" hardly have any rights left as it is, gay or straight. Natural rights are what really matter to me...and more homosexuals need to see the light and come over to the libertarian side where you don't have to go around begging government whores (my apologies to whores) for equality and the right to live your life the way you see fit.

You bring up an excellent point. When the government enforces this environment of artificial tolerance, they're actually doing gays a huge disfavor. Like a rubberband snapping back, the blowback for elaborate social engineering schemes is never pretty.

[wannaberocker]

The right to marry, the right to visit their partner in the hospital, the right not to have their primary caretaker and partner to be deported as they die of cancer, and etc.

Again these are matters that hold as much importance as someone who gets on tv tomorrow and says "polygamist deserve the same rights that momogamist couples have.....". Would they be right in making that complaint? sure but again on a national issue base, its not top priority for most unemployed Americans.

[amy31416]

You bring up an excellent point. When the government enforces this environment of artificial tolerance, they're actually doing gays a huge disfavor. Like a rubberband snapping back, the blowback for elaborate social engineering schemes is never pretty.

Thanks man. I'm tired of people pretending/thinking that the government is some sort of benevolent sugar-daddy who we need to grovel before in order to get our allowance and permissions to live as we choose to.

[wannaberocker]

Meh. "We" hardly have any rights left as it is, gay or straight. Natural rights are what really matter to me...and more homosexuals need to see the light and come over to the libertarian side where you don't have to go around begging government whores (my apologies to whores) for equality and the right to live your life the way you see fit.

yeah but thats the issue. The vast majority of gays now are not in favor of freedom. THe vast majority see govt as a way to institute there plans and will.

[AuH20]

yeah but thats the issue. The vast majority of gays now are not in favor of freedom. THe vast majority see govt as a way to institute there plans and will.

But in their defense the religious right didn't exactly give them a choice. I think they were permanently typecasted into that hyper-progressive world and in turn adopted nearly all those anti-liberty attributes you cited.

[amy31416]

yeah but thats the issue. The vast majority of gays now are not in favor of freedom. THe vast majority see govt as a way to institute there plans and will.

Unlike you, I actually have known gay people who are out of the closet--and very few are like that. In any group of people you'll find some sociopathic types who have this over-arching agenda that they actively push (take neocons, or almost any religious group, for example) and they have their followers who are unwitting rubes. I knew liberals like that, conservatives, etc.

The vast majority of AMERICANS are not in favor of freedom, it sure as shit ain't just gays.

[wannaberocker]

Unlike you, I actually have known gay people who are out of the closet--and very few are like that. In any group of people you'll find some sociopathic types who have this over-arching agenda that they actively push (take neocons, or almost any religious group, for example) and they have their followers who are unwitting rubes. I knew liberals like that, conservatives, etc.

The vast majority of AMERICANS are not in favor of freedom, it sure as shit ain't just gays.

Unlike me? You assume to know me and my friends. Thats a bit wierd becuase i dont know you. But anyways what i mentioned was actually a thought shared with me by a gay libertarian recently. He was just venting on how he felt large pockets of gays would rather vote for someone who takes away freedoms aslong as they promise the gay community what they want. Now sure the guy was just venting, but what he said still holds water because gays on a large scale still vote for the leftist. How many gay ron paul supporters groups are there? and how many Obama supporting gay groups are there?

[AuH20]

Unlike me? You assume to know me and my friends. Thats a bit wierd becuase i dont know you. But anyways what i mentioned was actually a thought shared with me by a gay libertarian recently. He was just venting on how he felt large pockets of gays would rather vote for someone who takes away freedoms aslong as they promise the gay community what they want. Now sure the guy was just venting, but what he said still holds water because gays on a large scale still vote for the leftist. How many gay ron paul supporters groups are there? and how many Obama supporting gay groups are there?

That is a scary thought.

[kylejack]

You bring up an excellent point. When the government enforces this environment of artificial tolerance, they're actually doing gays a huge disfavor. Like a rubberband snapping back, the blowback for elaborate social engineering schemes is never pretty.
We don't need the government to enforce tolerance, we need it to treat gays equally under the law.

[wannaberocker]

But in their defense the religious right didn't exactly give them a choice. I think they were permanently typecasted into that hyper-progressive world and in turn adopted nearly all those anti-liberty attributes you cited.

yeah, i call it the "ill get mine" culture where people dont care aslong as they get what they want.

[AuH20]

We don't need the government to enforce tolerance, we need it to treat gays equally under the law.

Well, that's the tact they should have taken, instead of having the federal government beat the public (hate crime laws, etc.) into submission on the issue. When you create these special classes with particular exclusions, you're inadvertently setting the stage for a potential disaster.

[kylejack]

yeah but thats the issue. The vast majority of gays now are not in favor of freedom. THe vast majority see govt as a way to institute there plans and will.
Neither are the vast majority of hetero. This is not a gay problem. The proportion of gay groups for Ron Paul vs. Obama is probably roughly the same as the ones that aren't based on sexual orientation.

[kylejack]

Well, that's the tact they should have taken, instead of having the federal government beat the public (hate crime laws, etc.) into submission on the issue. When you create these special classes with particular exclusions, you're inadvertently setting the stage for a potential disaster.
Hate crime law protects all people equally, not just gays or other minorities. There have been plenty of prosecutions of minority on majority crime based on hate crime law.

[AuH20]

Hate crime law protects all people equally, not just gays or other minorities. There have been plenty of prosecutions of minority on majority crime based on hate crime law.

Not really. Hate crime laws seem to supercede long established laws normally reserved for regular citizens who don't fit into the preferred demographic. Hate crime laws and other social engineering schemes encourage and provoke division as opposed to healing wounds.

[jmdrake]

The right to marry, the right to visit their partner in the hospital, the right not to have their primary caretaker and partner to be deported as they die of cancer, and etc.

The "gays can visit their partners in the hospital" is a lie straight from hell. Anyone can set up a durable power of attorney for healthcare regardless of whether they are gay or straight, married or single, or even if they are not sleeping together at all. It's a non-issue.

[wannaberocker]

Neither are the vast majority of hetero. This is not a gay problem. The proportion of gay groups for Ron Paul vs. Obama is probably roughly the same as the ones that aren't based on sexual orientation.

Look at all the big gay political org. They are all disproportionately leftist.

[kylejack]

Not really. Hate crime laws seem to supercede established laws for regular citizens who don't fit into the preferred demographic.
What is your source? Would you like me to find some black-on-white hate crime prosecutions? Because I can, if that's what you need.

I've changed my thinking on this recently. A hate crime has two purposes, to attack the actual person and to terrorize those in the same class. It is based on the motive for the crime, not simply the demographic of the victim. The hate crime enhancement seeks to punish the individual additionally for attempting to terrorize a whole class of people. A murder of a gay because he is gay is a threat to murder other gays.

[kylejack]

Look at all the big gay political org. They are all disproportionately leftist.
Yes, most political organizations support the established parties and candidates, not just the gay organizations.

[Agorism]

I strongly support the gay rights movement, and the effort to undermine marriage.

[AuH20]

What is your source? Would you like me to find some black-on-white hate crime prosecutions? Because I can, if that's what you need.

I've changed my thinking on this recently. A hate crime has two purposes, to attack the actual person and to terrorize those in the same class. It is based on the motive for the crime, not simply the demographic of the victim. The hate crime enhancement seeks to punish the individual additionally for attempting to terrorize a whole class of people. A murder of a gay because he is gay is a threat to murder other gays.

Don't you think it's troubling that we're essentially trying to gauge internal motive on top of the obvious legal violations that were committed? What if someone did not have an anti-gay agenda when they became involved in an altercation with a homosexual? So hypothetically, can a conniving homosexual intentionally initiate a conflict knowing full well that his combatants will suffer twice under the rule of law? I don't think the majority of Americans have completely thought out the effectiveness of these laws.

[wannaberocker]

Yes, most political organizations support the established parties and candidates, not just the gay organizations.

so you agree then that now a days gays are disproportionately leftist.

[kylejack]

Don't you think it's troubling that we're essentially trying to gauge internal motive on top of the obvious legal violations that were committed? What if someone did not have an anti-gay agenda when they became involved in an altercation with a homosexual? So hypothetically, can a conniving homosexual intentionally initiate a conflict knowing full well that his combatants will suffer twice under the rule of law? I don't think the majority of Americans have completely thought out the effectiveness of these laws.
The hate motive has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The jury decides if the hate enhancement is met.

[AuH20]

The hate motive has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The jury decides if the hate enhancement is met.

Perhaps. I'm just wary of these special rules. In my experience, respect goes alot farther than fear.

[wannaberocker]

Don't you think it's troubling that we're essentially trying to gauge internal motive on top of the obvious legal violations that were committed? What if someone did not have an anti-gay agenda when they became involved in an altercation with a homosexual? So hypothetically, can a conniving homosexual intentionally initiate a conflict knowing full well that his combatants will suffer twice under the rule of law? I don't think the majority of Americans have completely thought out the effectiveness of these laws.

At the end of the day it comes down to proving it in the courts. Now most people if they are in any conflict, they might yell out some things in the heat of the moment. Well if your a stright man who gets into a fight with a gay man, you better not yell out some gay slur because that will make it a hate crime.
These hate crime laws have gotten so silly that last year a middle school kid was gonna get charged with a hate crime because he put a ham sandwich on a muslim kids lunch table.

[COpatriot]

But in their defense the religious right didn't exactly give them a choice. I think they were permanently typecasted into that hyper-progressive world and in turn adopted nearly all those anti-liberty attributes you cited.

Excellent point. The hardcore Santorum types on the right have lapped up the opportunity to use their bibles to push the gays all the way over to the far, far left and the left took them in with open arms and they've been there ever since mainly because they never felt like they had any other option. It's sad.

But both sides of the political landscape have their pet social issues, gays and abortion being the primary two. Hell we libertarians are still pissed that weed is still inexplicably illegal.

[wannaberocker]

The hate motive has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The jury decides if the hate enhancement is met.

I think you might be mistaken on that. I dont believe it has to be proven beyond a resonable doubt in a normal criminal case. It only has be be proven beyond a resonable doubt in a death panelty case.

[kylejack]

so you agree then that now a days gays are disproportionately leftist.
As opposed to what, right? Sure. The left advocates for them ineffectively, but most of the right hates them openly with a fiery passion. Few are libertarian because few of any class of people are libertarian.

[affa]

Well, that's the tact they should have taken, instead of having the federal government beat the public (hate crime laws, etc.) into submission on the issue. When you create these special classes with particular exclusions, you're inadvertently setting the stage for a potential disaster.

This isn't how gay people react, this is how everybody (in a broad sense, not a specific one) reacts. Remember the big call for more laws after Casey Anthony? Or any of the laws named after little white girls?
That's exactly how hate crime laws came into effect -- idiots beating gay (and other minority) people to death for being themselves, and general public outcry (from all sides, often).
If some gangs started beating Christians to death for wearing crosses on a regular basis, odds are we'd have more laws before the sun went down.

I am not defending the laws -- I hate any law which in essence duplicates another law, or is specific to certain people. But I don't blame it on any set of people any more than any other. I mean, hell, if you want to blame someone, blame the idiots that beat up various minorities... without them, hate crime wouldn't even exist as a term, let alone a crime.

Various groups have suffered some horrific times in modern day America. Homosexuality is not a crime. Painting any or all of them with a broad brush is as silly as painting all Christians, all Republicans, all Democrats, all anything with the same brush. In fact, it might just be sillier, since despite the rhetoric to the opposite, homosexuality is not a choice.

[affa]

The "gays can visit their partners in the hospital" is a lie straight from hell. Anyone can set up a durable power of attorney for healthcare regardless of whether they are gay or straight, married or single, or even if they are not sleeping together at all. It's a non-issue.

This simply isn't always the case. Consider a family that disapproves of their son's 'lifestyle' (aka possibly a long term committed relationship), maybe even disowned their son -- then the son gets in a car accident and has been in a coma for an hour. Who gets to visit?

The fact is, regardless of how rare or obscure the case might have to be, it can happen.
This is not something I ever have to worry about with my wife. This is not something I have to jump through hoops for with my wife.

Equality is equality. Period. You either have it under the law, or you don't.

[idirtify]

Don't you think it's troubling that we're essentially trying to gauge internal motive on top of the obvious legal violations that were committed? What if someone did not have an anti-gay agenda when they became involved in an altercation with a homosexual? So hypothetically, can a conniving homosexual intentionally initiate a conflict knowing full well that his combatants will suffer twice under the rule of law? I don't think the majority of Americans have completely thought out the effectiveness of these laws.

I agree.

Let’s eliminate hate crime laws and legalize drugs and make room in the prisons and jails for vastly enhanced sentences for ALL violent crimes. I think hate-crime laws were an indirect effect of lenient sentences for violent crimes because of prison overcrowding (and America’s obsession with – and forgiveness of – violence).

[kylejack]

I think you might be mistaken on that. I dont believe it has to be proven beyond a resonable doubt in a normal criminal case. It only has be be proven beyond a resonable doubt in a death panelty case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprendi_v._New_Jersey

[jmdrake]

This simply isn't always the case. Consider a family that disapproves of their son's 'lifestyle' (aka possibly a long term committed relationship), maybe even disowned their son -- then the son gets in a car accident and has been in a coma for an hour. Who gets to visit?

Yes it is the case. Go ask any family lawyer gay or straight, liberal or conservative, republican or democrat and if he or she is honest he or she will tell you that with a durable power of attorney for healthcare the partner gets to visit. Ask yourself this question. Say if these two aren't a couple but are just friends but the family doesn't like their friendship? Or say if it's an unmarried heterosexual couple? It's the same in any case. If there is a durable power of attorney for healthcare the person who has that contractual right gets to decide healthcare decisions including who gets to visit.



The fact is, regardless of how rare or obscure the case might have to be, it can happen.
This is not something I ever have to worry about with my wife. This is not something I have to jump through hoops for with my wife.


So freaking what? In order for your wife to be your wife you had to go through a marriage contract. Having a durable power of attorney for healthcare is the same thing. If a couple is so committed that they can get married they're committed to have a DPA. And heterosexual couples need them too along with living wills. Ever heard of Terri Schiavo? Maybe you want your living will to say that if your spouse starts shacking up with someone while your in a coma your DPA transfers to someone else. Did you ever think of that? Maybe you and your spouse don't actually agree on when the plug should be pulled. Leaving that up to guesswork is just stupid.



Equality is equality. Period. You either have it under the law, or you don't.

Common sense is common sense. Period. Either you have it in your brain or you don't. In the modern world common sense dictates having a durable power of attorney for healthcare and a living will. Besides, the liberty movement is about reducing government. Not "equalizing" it.

[wannaberocker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprendi_v._New_Jersey

yeah nevermind i think i was confusing criminal and civil cases.

[idirtify]

Yes it is the case. Go ask any family lawyer gay or straight, liberal or conservative, republican or democrat and if he or she is honest he or she will tell you that with a durable power of attorney for healthcare the partner gets to visit. Ask yourself this question. Say if these two aren't a couple but are just friends but the family doesn't like their friendship? Or say if it's an unmarried heterosexual couple? It's the same in any case. If there is a durable power of attorney for healthcare the person who has that contractual right gets to decide healthcare decisions including who gets to visit.



So freaking what? In order for your wife to be your wife you had to go through a marriage contract. Having a durable power of attorney for healthcare is the same thing. If a couple is so committed that they can get married they're committed to have a DPA. And heterosexual couples need them too along with living wills. Ever heard of Terri Schiavo? Maybe you want your living will to say that if your spouse starts shacking up with someone while your in a coma your DPA transfers to someone else. Did you ever think of that? Maybe you and your spouse don't actually agree on when the plug should be pulled. Leaving that up to guesswork is just stupid.



Common sense is common sense. Period. Either you have it in your brain or you don't. In the modern world common sense dictates having a durable power of attorney for healthcare and a living will. Besides, the liberty movement is about reducing government. Not "equalizing" it.

great points!

[kylejack]

Yes it is the case. Go ask any family lawyer gay or straight, liberal or conservative, republican or democrat and if he or she is honest he or she will tell you that with a durable power of attorney for healthcare the partner gets to visit.
Not in practice, because healthcare workers who are amateurs at the law are deciding otherwise: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/how-hospitals-treat-same-sex-couples/

It's just simpler to have marriage equality for all. Getting rid of government recognition of marriages is a great long-term goal, but in the meanwhile gays should be treated as straights are.

[amy31416]

Unlike me? You assume to know me and my friends. Thats a bit wierd becuase i dont know you. But anyways what i mentioned was actually a thought shared with me by a gay libertarian recently. He was just venting on how he felt large pockets of gays would rather vote for someone who takes away freedoms aslong as they promise the gay community what they want. Now sure the guy was just venting, but what he said still holds water because gays on a large scale still vote for the leftist. How many gay ron paul supporters groups are there? and how many Obama supporting gay groups are there?

Yeah. Unlike you--if the only gay people you know are those who have some anti-freedom agenda, I doubt you actually know many gay people. They are individuals just like us. There are large "pockets" of gays, straights, women, men, liberals, conservatives, etc. who would vote to take away other people's freedom for their own agenda.

It doesn't hold water if you view people as individuals, and if you did, you'd know that they aren't all that happy with Obama.

[Seraphim]

You have all of that. You have been tricked into believing that the State appoints these rights. How wrong you are.



The right to marry, the right to visit their partner in the hospital, the right not to have their primary caretaker and partner to be deported as they die of cancer, and etc.

[jmdrake]

Not in practice, because healthcare workers who are amateurs at the law are deciding otherwise: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/how-hospitals-treat-same-sex-couples/


Then you sue the hospital. Just because some yahoo somewhere doesn't understand the law is no excuse to expand the power of the state.


It's just simpler to have marriage equality for all. Getting rid of government recognition of marriages is a great long-term goal, but in the meanwhile gays should be treated as straights are.

Marriage equality is not the goal of the gay rights movement as a whole. If it were they'd be sticking up for the rights of polygamists. Gays can legally get married in every state in the union. Their marriages are not recognized. By contrast polygamist can be put in prison for even having a private wedding ceremony. The gay marriage movement is more about divorce lawyer fees, and benefits like social security survivor benefits and "family" health insurance. But liberty movement supports phasing out social security and changing tax incentives for health benefits so they go to the individual instead of the employer. When that happens the free market will take care of the health insurance needs of same-sex couples. (Or triads or quads or whatever). After all there is no such issue when it comes to car insurance.

The who "visiting sick loved ones" is a red herring to distract people from the fact that this is all about economics.

[Jake Ralston]

Anytime this topic is brought up, I simply plagiarize Ron Paul, verbally.

ME: "What we need to be doing is viewing people as Individuals, and not assigning rights to different groups of people. Everybody has the same rights, which have been given to us by our Creator"

OTHER PERSON: "Yea but Gays don't have the same rights as Straights, the Gays have to fight for the right to get married."

ME: "While it is true that people hold different views on the definition of marriage, one thing is for certain, we need to get the government out of it. Marriage certificates are really unnecessary if you think about it, we should be allowing the church to marry people."

OTHER PERSON: "Yea right! Churches do not support Gay marriage! They think all Gays should go to hell!"

ME: "Not exactly, I have seen many churches that welcome Gays with open arms. Each and every church has the ability to define marriage as it wishes. If you are a Gay couple you would have no problem finding a church that is willing to accept you, and marry you."

OTHER PERSON: "I guess that would put a whole end to the debate, then?"

ME: "Pretty much, if you are a Gay couple and you get married under a church that accepts it, it has nothing to do with me. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. As you can see the solution is quite simple and only one candidate is talking about this; Ron Paul."

Of course the conversation above was dumbed down a bit, but I have had quite a bit of success using the same verbage to enlighten people about Ron Paul.

[Imaginos]

its not just gay; next segment is about parents beating children because its in the bible; these are all directed at Bachmann and Santorum, so bring it on.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend
+1
I wish they go all out on Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum with this.
I knew a guy whom knew a girl raped by her father stating it's in the Bible that in some rare occasion, father can have sex with his daughter.
Real Christians (like Dr. Paul) are decent people and do not force their belief on anybody.
It's only fake Christians (Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, and etc.) who are pandering to get more money and vote.
If God does exist and hold the court to decide the fate of each individual, I am 100% sure all these fakers would burn in Hell for eternity.

[jmdrake]

+rep!


Anytime this topic is brought up, I simply plagiarize Ron Paul, verbally.

ME: "What we need to be doing is viewing people as Individuals, and not assigning rights to different groups of people. Everybody has the same rights, which have been given to us by our Creator"

OTHER PERSON: "Yea but Gays don't have the same rights as Straights, the Gays have to fight for the right to get married."

ME: "While it is true that people hold different views on the definition of marriage, one thing is for certain, we need to get the government out of it. Marriage certificates are really unnecessary if you think about it, we should be allowing the church to marry people."

OTHER PERSON: "Yea right! Churches do not support Gay marriage! They think all Gays should go to hell!"

ME: "Not exactly, I have seen many churches that welcome Gays with open arms. Each and every church has the ability to define marriage as it wishes. If you are a Gay couple you would have no problem finding a church that is willing to accept you, and marry you."

OTHER PERSON: "I guess that would put a whole end to the debate, then?"

ME: "Pretty much, if you are a Gay couple and you get married under a church that accepts it, it has nothing to do with me. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. As you can see the solution is quite simple and only one candidate is talking about this; Ron Paul."

Of course the conversation above was dumbed down a bit, but I have had quite a bit of success using the same verbage to enlighten people about Ron Paul.

[jmdrake]

its not just gay; next segment is about parents beating children because its in the bible; these are all directed at Bachmann and Santorum, so bring it on.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

:rolleyes: Yeah. Parents spanking their children like they have for thousands of years is the reason for the recent surge in juvenile delinquency right? Meanwhile when the state really abuses your children the MSM says "It's for their safety".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Ig34hQQXo

[RM918]

The government should not be involved in marriage in any form, it should be totally left up to religious institutions. However, while that is how it SHOULD be, no-one's really going to care about that problem while we've got an empire ready to collapse on our heads. That must have priority.

[PaulConventionWV]

But in their defense the religious right didn't exactly give them a choice. I think they were permanently typecasted into that hyper-progressive world and in turn adopted nearly all those anti-liberty attributes you cited.

No, I think they were born that way (liberals).

[PaulConventionWV]

Gays do have the same rights, and are treated equally under the law. As of yet, we are both onlly allowed to marry the opposite sex, whether gay or straight.

The problem here, however, is that some people are promoting "group rights" and not individual rights. That's what the gay "rights" movement is. It treats gays as if they are some sort of special group that deserves more "equality" than anyone else. Another problem is that many on here continue to push the same rhetoric that people who oppose homosexuality for moral reasons are "homophobes." When will people here realize this is just propaganda? It is time to stop treating people who oppose homosexuality as if they are the outcasts and they don't believe in true liberty. We can only have an honest debate about the morality of homosexuality once people drop the propaganda and scare tactics regarding those who oppose homosexuality. Or is that what you want?

When are people here and everwhere going to stop acting like opposing homosexuality is some great crime that can never be forgiven? In a free society, it should be perfectly reasonable for people to speak out against it. Alas, the propaganda continues because some people just want the opposition to shut up. We're not advocating freedom by advocating "gay rights." We're advocating a social agenda.

In any regard, I just want the smear tactics and slandering of honest people who oppose homosexuality for moral reasons to end. In reality, this debate should be outside of state issues. This is what Ron Paul has been saying. In a free society, this wouldn't even be as big of an issue because the state wouldn't control marriage. This isn't "statists vs. non-statists." This is a moral argument where both sides should be treated as equally respectable adn their views shouldn't be slandered as if they were committing treason by speaking out about something they think is wrong.

[TonySutton]

Gays do have the same rights, and are treated equally under the law. As of yet, we are both onlly allowed to marry the opposite sex, whether gay or straight.



And you believe blacks should ride in the back of the bus, because they still get to the same bus stop as the whites. And you believe blacks should only use the "colored" water fountains because the water comes from the same water pipe. Yep, all the same rights o.O

The problem here is that government should not be involved in this at all. They should not be picking winners and losers. Too many people in this thread just DO NOT UNDERSTAND LIBERTY. It is for EVERYONE or NO ONE.

[jmdrake]

And you believe blacks should ride in the back of the bus, because they still get to the same bus stop as the whites. And you believe blacks should only use the "colored" water fountains because the water comes from the same water pipe. Yep, all the same rights o.O

The problem here is that government should not be involved in this at all. They should not be picking winners and losers. Too many people in this thread just DO NOT UNDERSTAND LIBERTY. It is for EVERYONE or NO ONE.

Gays already have more rights to marry than bisexuals. Think about it. If a bisexual person wants to marry his/her girlfriend and boyfriend they will all three go to jail for practicing polygamy. Gays can have private wedding ceremonies without any fear of prosecution by state or federal government. The only question left is the "goodies". Well this movement is all about reducing those "goodies" across the board. People should fund their own individual retirement and be able to opt out of social security. The tax benefits businesses get for healthcare should be transferred to individuals so that individuals can buy healthcare on the open market. And healthcare decisions, inheritance and even "alimony" can all be handled through contract. There's a reason why the gay republican group GOProud does not have gay marriage as part of their legislative agenda. I happen to agree with them on that point.

[Revolution9]

Hate crime law protects all people equally, not just gays or other minorities. There have been plenty of prosecutions of minority on majority crime based on hate crime law.

Not in Atlanta. When the cops run an assault charge the computer lists many "versus" type confrontations. White on black, white on gay, white on hispanic..But not the reverse.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

What is your source? Would you like me to find some black-on-white hate crime prosecutions? Because I can, if that's what you need.

Please do. If you can find comparison stats report those alongside.

Rev9

[DamianTV]

This is nuts. You would think that homosexuality creates more jobs the way they're obsessed with this. It's a side issue.

You could always call CNN and explain to them that Bert and Ernie are fucking puppets, and dont actually have penises to "sword fight" with!

[AuH20]

You could always call CNN and explain to them that Bert and Ernie are fucking puppets, and dont actually have penises to "sword fight" with!

They don't even have lower torsos or legs!!!

[Revolution9]

As opposed to what, right? Sure. The left advocates for them ineffectively, but most of the right hates them openly with a fiery passion. Few are libertarian because few of any class of people are libertarian.

The right would probably prefer they return to confirmed bachelor/spinster status rather than blatant raw sexual obsession in everybody's face and stuffing it down the generations throats. It comes down to nobody wanting to hear/think about what these clowns do in the bedroom. I certainly don't and tell gays around me going off in that direction to STFU..I don't wanna hear what they do with their dicks elsewhere. Then I get accused of homophobia and laugh. "I am afraid of you pantywaists and your drivel??"

Rev9

[kylejack]

Please do. If you can find comparison stats report those alongside.

Rev9


By bias motivation

An analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that:

* 48.8 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offender’s bias against a race.
* 18.9 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.
* 17.8 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation.
* 13.3 percent were victimized because of a bias against an ethnicity/national origin.
* 1.2 percent were targeted because of a bias against a disability. (Based on Table 1.)

Racial bias

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2009, there were 4,057 victims of racially motivated hate crimes.

* 71.5 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-black bias.
* 16.5 percent were victims because of an anti-white bias.
* 3.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
* 2.1 percent were victims because of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.
* 6.2 percent were victims because of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group). (Based on Table 1.)

Religious bias

Of the 1,575 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:

* 71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
* 8.4 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
* 3.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
* 2.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
* 0.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
* 8.3 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
* 4.3 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group). (Based on Table 1.)

Sexual-orientation bias

Of the 1,482 victims targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias:

* 55.1 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias.
* 26.4 percent were victims because of an anti-homosexual bias.
* 15.3 percent were victims because of an anti-female homosexual bias.
* 1.8 percent were victims because of an anti-bisexual bias.
* 1.4 percent were victims because of an anti-heterosexual bias. (Based on Table 1.)

Ethnicity/national origin bias

Hate crimes motivated by the offender’s bias toward a particular ethnicity/national origin were directed at 1,109 victims. Of these victims:

* 62.4 percent were targeted because of an anti-Hispanic bias.
* 37.6 percent were victimized because of a bias against other ethnicities/national origins. (Based on Table 1.)

Disability bias

Of the 99 victims of a hate crime due to the offender’s bias against a disability:

* 74 were targets because of an anti-mental disability bias.
* 25 were victims because of an anti-physical disability bias.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/victims.html

It isn't about the race of the victim, it is about the motivation of the person committing the crime.

[Revolution9]

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/victims.html

It isn't about the race of the victim, it is about the motivation of the person committing the crime.

The skew of the stats tells the story we claim.

Rev9

[kylejack]

Not in Atlanta. When the cops run an assault charge the computer lists many "versus" type confrontations. White on black, white on gay, white on hispanic..But not the reverse.
You didn't say "rarely the reverse", you said "not the reverse." So no, your story is wrong and you are wrong.

It would be difficult for a smaller number of people to inflict the same number of hate crimes on a larger population, so naturally the "on white" hate crimes are a smaller number. 17% is still a significant amount.

[PaleoForPaul]

This is nuts. You would think that homosexuality creates more jobs the way they're obsessed with this. It's a side issue.

Cooper has a personal interest in being obsessed, there is "speculation" that he is gay. He says he's not in order to "protect his neutrality as a journalist" but it really seems to shine through when he is beating "the big gay drum" as you put it.

He also worked in the CIA for a little while and is a member of the Vanderbilt family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_family

Interesting guy.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Ac69

[kylejack]

Cooper has a personal interest in being obsessed, there is "speculation" that he is gay. He says he's not in order to "protect his neutrality as a journalist" but it really seems to shine through when he is beating "the big gay drum" as you put it.
Anderson Cooper is gay and has not denied it. He just declines to talk about it. I think he's been a pretty swell reporter.

[PaleoForPaul]

Anderson Cooper is gay and has not denied it. He just declines to talk about it. I think he's been a pretty swell reporter.

Oh really? I think he's a pretty shitty reporter personally since his bias seeps in all the time, but I'm not going to say anything else other than "speculation" regarding his private life unless you can point out somewhere that he's officially "come out."

[kylejack]

Oh really? I think he's a pretty shitty reporter personally since his bias seeps in all the time, but I'm not going to say anything else other than "speculation" regarding his private life unless you can point out somewhere that he's officially "come out."
I think we can be reasonably sure he's gay. There's been a little reporting on it. Regardless, I was mostly seeking to correct your statement that Anderson Cooper said he was not gay. He didn't say that.

[Revolution9]

You didn't say "rarely the reverse", you said "not the reverse." So no, your story is wrong and you are wrong.

Not in Atlanta it ain't. This is not an across the board deal in all sates..whether you would like it to be or not.

Rev9

[kylejack]

Not in Atlanta it ain't. This is not an across the board deal in all sates..whether you would like it to be or not.

Rev9
18% of hate crime offenders are black, according to the FBI. How high do you think it should be? They're only 12% of the population.

[PaleoForPaul]

I think we can be reasonably sure he's gay. There's been a little reporting on it. Regardless, I was mostly seeking to correct your statement that Anderson Cooper said he was not gay. He didn't say that.

Ah ok, got it.

[Zap!]

The right to marry, the right to visit their partner in the hospital, the right not to have their primary caretaker and partner to be deported as they die of cancer, and etc.

They already have the same right to marry as we do. All they have to do is find a member of the opposite sex that's willing.

[kylejack]

They already have the same right to marry as we do. All they have to do is find a member of the opposite sex that's willing.
Can you see me making a dismissive wanking motion with my hand? Well, imagine it.

[dannno]

Thanks man. I'm tired of people pretending/thinking that the government is some sort of benevolent sugar-daddy who we need to grovel before in order to get our allowance and permissions to live as we choose to.

What if you were the sugar mama, I mean, um...hmmm....

[acptulsa]

its not just gay; next segment is about parents beating children because its in the bible; these are all directed at Bachmann and Santorum, so bring it on.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

This. All they're doing is showing the whole country why Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat Obama. Whether they think that's what they're doing or not.

They seem to think this sort of crap can save Obama's ass. It can't. He has broken too many real and implied promises. So, as long as they keep showing Republicans which of their candidates can and which can't get the independent vote (and driving the independent vote into the G.O.P. primaries) then there's not much for us to complain about.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend--whether it's smart enough to understand what it's doing or not.

'States' rights' and 'leave it up to the churches' for the win. Works for real conservatives. Can be made to work for liberals. Just keep driving it home.