Q's for Gay folks..

[hellbilly]

It's a facebook debate I got myself into with some hardcore liberals. It started with someone posting some words by Ron Paul basically saying he would leave the gay marriage issue up to the states, then a bunch of people chimed in with comments about how bad that position is and they'd NEVER vote for such a religious bigot. They all agree that they will always vote Democrat, all the time.

So I brought up a couple of points- Obama is anti-gay marriage & Bill Clinton made DOMA a law.

But they're still making excuses.. "Clinton faced a Republican congress, so he had to make a compromise!" ..shit like that.

So I'm wondering what liberty minded gay folks think about ol' Clinton & Obama and the charade that Democrats are totally pro-gay marriage.

Also, Clinton signed the Don't Ask Don't Tell deal.. this is also being championed as an example of Democrats making things fair for gays. I guess that's true, but ultimately I think that comes down to the military gaining access to a few more potential bodies to use as IED detectors overseas. Where's the win in that?

[SeanD]

It's a facebook debate I got myself into with some hardcore liberals. It started with someone posting some words by Ron Paul basically saying he would leave the gay marriage issue up to the states, then a bunch of people chimed in with comments about how bad that position is and they'd NEVER vote for such a religious bigot. They all agree that they will always vote Democrat, all the time.

So I brought up a couple of points- Obama is anti-gay marriage & Bill Clinton made DOMA a law.

But they're still making excuses.. "Clinton faced a Republican congress, so he had to make a compromise!" ..shit like that.

So I'm wondering what liberty minded gay folks think about ol' Clinton & Obama and the charade that Democrats are totally pro-gay marriage.

Also, Clinton signed the Don't Ask Don't Tell deal.. this is also being championed as an example of Democrats making things fair for gays. I guess that's true, but ultimately I think that comes down to the military gaining access to a few more potential bodies to use as IED detectors overseas. Where's the win in that?

IIRC at the time DADT was an improvement if you wanted to sell your soul.  Before that the services could ask and would deny for gayness.  You still ran the risk of getting the shit beat out of you if you stared at another guys junk in the shower but you wouldn't be denied entry into the jackboot clan.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I get the idea it's like Mark says on the program.  The Republican party is the party of WASPy exclusion, and everyone who feels he's a minority has a tendency to believe that he is amongst those hated by Republicans--thus, such a person is "automatically" Democrat for life.  I think that's crap, but it's based on solid and repeatable behavior history of the bulk of Republicans.  Sucks for someone like Paul, but to look at it from another angle, the gay vote isn't going to be a big problem for him anyway, because he's going to be in the debates he's in, etc., etc., without them.  

I hope you're not expecting Ron Paul to win, or anything, and even if he did win, I hope you're not expecting him to be able to change anything.  IMO, his value is in his access to the microphone to espouse the ideas of liberty--and he's doing that.

[alaric89]

Just link them to Prometheus Unchained. They had a hetero call in last time that was a fucking genius. (It passes my schedule, I have to listen to FTL between 1 and 4 in the morning live, so don't bust my balls about it)
Gays will have to wake up to liberty some day. The liberals would be the first to make their lives really suck. Republicans at least wouldn't bother them for what they do behind closed doors. A democrat wants to regulate how one has sex. (I think the movie Demolition Man depicted a liberal wet dream pretty accurately) 
But If people wake up and Ron Paul somehow looks like he might be nominated I will be Obamas biggest cheerleader. I don't want a libertarian anywhere near the leadership when the economy tanks and it will. Same reason I don't endorse Cain. If a black Republican won, the statist historians will indicate black people being presidents was the problem.

[LTKoblinsky]

Just link them to Prometheus Unchained. They had a hetero call in last time that was a fucking genius. (It passes my schedule, I have to listen to FTL between 1 and 4 in the morning live, so don't bust my balls about it)
Gays will have to wake up to liberty some day. The liberals would be the first to make their lives really suck. Republicans at least wouldn't bother them for what they do behind closed doors. A democrat wants to regulate how one has sex. (I think the movie Demolition Man depicted a liberal wet dream pretty accurately) 
But If people wake up and Ron Paul somehow looks like he might be nominated I will be Obamas biggest cheerleader. I don't want a libertarian anywhere near the leadership when the economy tanks and it will. Same reason I don't endorse Cain. If a black Republican won, the statist historians will indicate black people being presidents was the problem.

These are all huge logical leaps. I'm just saying.

[freeAgent]

So these people hate the idea of state-level gay marriage laws?  Do they oppose states when they enact them or something?  It doesn't make much sense to me why they hate Ron Paul's position so much unless the answer to both of those is yes.  What's wrong with a state-based approach?

Another point to make is that it's much easier to get smaller groups of people to agree on something.  If you wait for the whole country to pass gay marriage laws, you're going to have to convince a lot more people than if it's done at a state level.  I would think that even if your state doesn't allow gay marriage, you would enjoy being able to easily drive or fly somewhere else and get married there.

[Turd Ferguson]

So these people hate the idea of state-level gay marriage laws?  Do they oppose states when they enact them or something?  It doesn't make much sense to me why they hate Ron Paul's position so much unless the answer to both of those is yes.  What's wrong with a state-based approach?

Another point to make is that it's much easier to get smaller groups of people to agree on something.  If you wait for the whole country to pass gay marriage laws, you're going to have to convince a lot more people than if it's done at a state level.  I would think that even if your state doesn't allow gay marriage, you would enjoy being able to easily drive or fly somewhere else and get married there.

The people who support gay marriage laws are the ones saying "What am I gonna get from the government, as reward for being married? (tax breaks, and other "benefits"), so when RP says he doesn't believe either state OR federal govts should be involved in marriage, but instead should be strictly a religious ceremony (which is exactly what he said in the last Republicrat debate) they see him as someone that wants to get rid of their gravy-train. Just like the war-mongers see him as someone cutting off their war spending. Most people that vote are asking for something to be given to them in the positive. "what am I gonna get if I vote for you?" RP doesn't satisfy any of those people with his answer to that question, hence his lack of popularity with the masses that want some "free stuff"

"What will you give me RP?"

Well, I'll try and give you more liberty, if thats what ya mean"

"Pffft, NO, I mean what are you going to GIVE me, as in.......... stuff...... benefits?"

Oh, well I dont really think thats the governments role, do you?

"ummmmm, ok psycho!! Take care weird guy"




RP gets 4% of the vote in the 2012 primary........ double what it was last time. Wheeeeeee!

RAWN PAWL 4 DA WIN

[hellbilly]

So these people hate the idea of state-level gay marriage laws?  Do they oppose states when they enact them or something?  It doesn't make much sense to me why they hate Ron Paul's position so much unless the answer to both of those is yes.  What's wrong with a state-based approach?

Another point to make is that it's much easier to get smaller groups of people to agree on something.  If you wait for the whole country to pass gay marriage laws, you're going to have to convince a lot more people than if it's done at a state level.  I would think that even if your state doesn't allow gay marriage, you would enjoy being able to easily drive or fly somewhere else and get married there.

Quickmike nailed everything with his last post up yonder.

Their problem is fear that a state will ban gay marriage, so the goal is to have it approved on a federal level.

Considering all the shit that's going down globally, gay marriage seems like it'd be low on anyone's list.

[Turd Ferguson]

Quickmike nailed everything .........

Quickmike ALWAYS nails it, 56% of the time.