Conservatives lost the battles in the past they fought against women’s rights, minority rights, and they will lose when it comes to gay rights.
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
Conservatives lost the battles in the past they fought against women’s rights, minority rights, and they will lose when it comes to gay rights.
Mmmkay … which president signed the “Defense of Marriage Act?” Which vice presidential candidate tried to make an issue out of Mary Cheney?
Republicans are the only ones playing politics on the gay rights issue? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Clinton was dumb to sign the DOMA, and Edwards was paying Cheney the rarely deserved compliment. I didn’t say only Reps play politics with the issue. Look right above your words. I never said that, you simply made that up in your head.
So Ignorant Of History
ODub says, “Conservatives lost the battles in the past they fought against women’s rights, minority rights, and they will lose when it comes to gay rights.” Let’s see. Which party opposed giving women the right to vote? The Democrats. Which…
In the long run, it’s almost impossible to keep hatred of gays stoked up among people who actually have friends and acquaintances who are openly gay
But it is apparently not impossible to pretend Republicans are opposed to it. I guess that would include Republicans “who actually have friends and acquaintances who are openly gay”, hmm?
But it is apparently not impossible to pretend Republicans are opposed to it
Assuming “it” means “hatred of gays” (as that would be the only contextually logical interpetation), you’re saying that all republicans hate gays? Wow, I have just been punked [/rolleye]
And I’d like to take this time to make an offer to the conservatives here. Here’s the deal. You let us legalize gay marrriage in the entire country, and if it ends up destoying all of western society as we know it, we’ll take just as much responsability for it as you guys have for the Iraq war. No takers so far. How peculiar.
Assuming “it” means “hatred of gays” would be the wrong assumption. “It” means “being gay”. So you haven’t been punked, and you can unroll your eyes.
I’ll take your deal on two conditions: The alliance stays in Iraq until the job is done, with no further badmouthing from the left, and the gays stop asking for more and more rights sometime between now and the end of the world.
And I took your offer in 11 minutes. And, yes, you are peculiar.
Not all republicans are opposed to being gay, but most republicans are opposed to equal rights for gays.
Pretty soon “Lysander” or some other wingnut will pipe up with the same sort of rationalization that was used by those opposed to equal rights for blacks, women, etc.
most republicans are opposed to equal rights for gays.
You have absolutely no idea if that is true.
There are a lot of things to consider before one even defines “equal rights for gays”.
Defining a “civil union” as a marriage, and allowing that for couples of the same sex, is only the beginning.
A side note: Constantly repeating the false information that Republicans “fought against civil rights” (and, no, I am not talking about Lincoln. I am talking about 1960 to 1965) is not boosting your credibility.
No-one “tried to make an issue of Mary Cheney”. She was brought up and instantaneously everyone on the right started shrieking about it. Because they have no shame.
You have absolutely no idea if that is true.
Sure I do. Visit this site and scroll down to the sections that offer breakdown by party. In every single case republicans are above 50% for the anti-equal-rights position.
Constantly repeating the false information that Republicans “fought against civil rights” … is not boosting your credibility.
Oliver did not say that. He said “conservatives… fought against civil rights.”
Conservative racist assh*les of both parties fought against civil rights in the 50’s and 60’s. Your confusion stems from the fact that nowadays the vast majority of conservative racist assh*les are republicans.
A side note: Constantly repeating the false information that Republicans “fought against civil rights” (and, no, I am not talking about Lincoln. I am talking about 1960 to 1965) is not boosting your credibility.
You can’t make the blanket statement that all Republicans fought against civil rights in the 50’s and 60’s. However, in 2007, it’s as irrelevant as “the party of Lincoln”.
Re the Republicans and civil rights, it’s true: Southern racists stuck with the Democrats until the party opened up more fully to liberal ideas. Then revanchist Confederates moved permanently to the Republican Party, moving their barcalounger comfortably there.
Similarly, good Republicans like Maryland’s Aris T. Allen would not remain Republicans today. The Republican Party that got the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed probably regrets it now; more than a few Republicans voted to terminate and sunset that law in a recent Congressional vote including Maryland REPUBLICAN Roscoe Coltrane Bartlett.
Robert Byrd is pretty much the only exception to this; he stayed a Democrat and may perhaps not be a racist any more, or may be. But Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, George Allen, take your pick. Pick your nose, for all I care.
I specifically said conservatives because I will not play the game modern conservatives do when they try to claim that the current Democratic party is racist because of pre-1960s policies. It was conservatives who supported racism and sexism, and it is conservatives that support discrimination against gays.
“I specifically said conservatives” because that definition is more nebulous. It leads to the following tautology: Conservatives oppose civil tights for gays. Who are conservatives? Those who oppose civil rights for gays. Where can conservatives be found? In the Republican Party, of course.
I will not play the game modern conservatives do.
No, but you will play the game modern liberals play.
You know as well as I do, that there are plenty of libertarian conservatives that are opposed to discrimination against gays, of any type.
But, of course, if they don’t favor equal rights for gays, then — Presto! Chango! — they turn into conservatives.
How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient!
You got it backwards. He didn’t say all conservatives oppose equality for homosexuals, he said everyone who opposes equality for homosexuals is a conservative. The former isn’t accurate. The second, by and large, is.
Plus the fact that no one really gives a shit what libertarians think anyway.
Whatever the Republican party is today, it is not an expression of a libertarian conservative philosophy. The proof of that is the presidential campaign of Ron Paul, whom I believe would probably poll better among Democrats than Republicans.
Exactly my point, Zed.
Ron Paul is a well documented racist asshole. True libertarians (both of them) are silly suburban sophomores. Pseudo-Libertarians (think Glenn Reynolds or fratboys) claim to be libertarian yet somehow support teh Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and gay bashing. They’re the worst.
You know as well as I do, that there are plenty of libertarian conservatives that are opposed to discrimination against gays, of any type.
Plenty? There are probably more black Republicans.
“…and the gays stop asking for more and more rights sometime between now and the end of the world.”
Yeah, how dare those uppity gays ask for the same rights straights have! What nerve.
Frank, you’re an idiot.
“there are plenty of libertarian conservatives that are opposed to discrimination against gays, of any type”
How many, and who are they voting for?
I’ll take your deal on two conditions: The alliance stays in Iraq until the job is done, with no further badmouthing from the left, and the gays stop asking for more and more rights sometime between now and the end of the world.
Accept a compromise from a neo-conservative? Do you really think I’m that stupid?
Will the people out there who no longer believe that there are any libertarian conservatives (almost a redundancy) please tell me where you think they went?
frameone: will you ever learn that your name calling just enhances everyone’s impression of your stupidity?
Do you ever have an idea?
You’re the fucking idiot…
Especially if you are naïve enough to believe that all over America there are suffering gays living in squalid housing because they can’t rent an apartment, or starving because they can’t be employed.
This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights. Most people couldn’t care less what gay people do in the privacy of their own home; and most people couldn’t care less if homosexuals want to legitimize their relationships.
Personally, I take it as a good sign that they choose to make a public statement of their commitment.
A personal note to you, frameone: How do you feel knowing that you make a living as a writer, with a vocabulary that is inferior to my son’s vocabulary when he was in the fifth grade?
Yes, Zython, I think you’re pretty stupid.
a) You offered a deal, not me.
b) I’m not even a neo - conservative.
Usually, about here, frameone, writes: Classic.
a) You offered a deal, not me.
True, but you offered additions to that deal, which is what I was refering to.
b) I’m not even a neo - conservative.
Fine, ultra-conservative, is that better?
This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights.
Have any examples? Or are you pulling stuff out of your ass again?
Zython, I’m not here at your convenience…
Why don’t you contribute something to this blog occasionally?
Or are you just pulling questions out of your ass again?
Zython, I’m not here at your convenience…
Why don’t you contribute something to this blog occasionally?
Or are you just pulling questions out of your ass again?
So you’re admitting that you’re making up excuses to oppose giving equal rights to homosexuals. Gotcha.
“Which vice presidential candidate tried to make an issue out of Mary Cheney?”
That would be Dick Cheney, the person who first mentioned she was a lesbian during the election. The Republicans then freakout out when someone on the left repeated that fact.
“This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights.”
Adjust your medication, you paranoid freak. Gay marriage is legal in several places now, surely you can come up with more than vague warnings. How has gay marriage damaged Canada, for instance?
CSS:
I don’t know what it has “done to Canada”. I’m sure if there were any problems, we wouldn’t hear what they are from you, you sniveling liar.
And here’s a news flash for you: Canada is not the United States. Never was. Never will be.
Forget veiled warnings. What are some of the issues involved in homosexual relationships that have yet to be discussed in the forums of the general public?
If you can’t name three, then you don’t know jack shit about this issue. You all just want to be the first to say, “I like gays… I want civil rights for gays…” You’re like children who want candy before dinner. You need adults to step in, and think for you.
This isn’t about two gay guys heading down the aisle together, and having a party afterwards. This isn’t going to disrupt marriages and families as much as it is going the legal and economic aspects of married life. But let’s not think about that now.
Let’s just let the lovebirds walk down the aisle.
“This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights.”
What kind of rights are you talking about Frank?
Either you think homosexuality is no big deal or think there’s something wrong and icky with it — at least enough so that gays should not be allowed some rights that heterosexuals are allowed solely because they are gay.
If you think homosexuality is icky, whatever, that’s your problem. The second you think social policy should be based on your icky feeling, you become an idiot.
But please, frank, tell us all the rights that gays are trying to sneak in through the back door, ahem, via the marriage issue.
Then tell us all why straights who dig transexuals should not be denied the same rights.
I have a better idea, frameone. Why don’t you tell me what rights homosexuals want and why it doesn’t matter if they have them. (And please, don’t tell me, “The same rights as straight people”. Then I’ll just say,”Yes”)
I’ve never said homosexuality is evil, sinful, nor suggested that it should be considered illegal. Is that what you mean by “icky”?
I don’t remember exactly what that word means. I haven’t heard it since my children were little and came to me with chocolate or ice cream on their hands.
Your last sentence is absolutely meaningless, on several levels. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate.
This isn’t about two gay guys heading down the aisle together, and having a party afterwards. This isn’t going to disrupt marriages and families as much as it is going the legal and economic aspects of married life. But let’s not think about that now.
Then WHAT IS IT ABOUT? You’ve been so goodamned busy acting like a smug asshole pretending to know the consequences of treating homosexuals like human being that you haven’t even told us WHAT those consequences ARE. Enlighten us, oh “great” one.
And here’s a news flash for you: Canada is not the United States. Never was. Never will be.
No, but homosexuals are homosexuals. And the problems, or lack thereof that they cause there would also be caused here.
Frank,
Anytime you want to actually state your beliefs and defend them is fine with me. Spewing vague idiocies such as:
or this:
without actually explaining what the fuck it is you have a problem with just gives everyone a headache. Seriously.
Are we supposed to buy that there are at least three aspects of gay relationships so horrifying that gays will do anything to keep them from being discussed in “forums of the general public”?
Would you care to enlighten us?
But again, where someone who has has sexual predelictions that are not typically dicussed in “fourms of the general public” gets off criticing gay relationships is beyond me. Or does this constitute “a forum of the general public”:
http://profiles.urnotalone.com/72986
You know, frameone, there are people who call themselves liberals who would say that that you just revealed information that was no one’s business.
And there are people who would insist that only a Republican or a conservative would do something so foul.
So, for those of you that haven’t zipped over there yet, I’ll tell you exactly what it is: It is a site for transgendered individuals and people who like them, in various ways. It is not a “pick up” site, and I have not personally met met one person as a result of my visits there. I have learned a lot about the Varieties of Human Sexuality, and the problems that adhere to it.
Apparently, there are people here who have not (Was that URL taped to your computer, frameone?)
Here’s a few issues for you, since you seem to be desperately in need of education on many levels.
Survivors on insurance policies, where the policy is described as “next of kin”.
“First” and “second” wife for purposes of Social Security.
Custody issues, when a lesbian couple splits up (what is the father’s position)
“Life partner’s” position ‘in line of succession’ when someone dies intestate with a substantial amount of assets.
without actually explaining what the fuck it is you have a problem with just gives everyone a headache.
Advice for those wishing to avoid headaches (spoken by a former headache sufferer):
Give “Lysander” one (1) chance to express himself cogently. If instead he responds with pretentious portentious pugnacious pythian pronouncements like the ones above, turn off the lights and tune him out.
Of course, some of you may like having headaches. If so, proceed.
Survivors on insurance policies, where the policy is described as “next of kin”.
“First” and “second” wife for purposes of Social Security.
Custody issues, when a lesbian couple splits up (what is the father’s position)
“Life partner’s” position ‘in line of succession’ when someone dies intestate with a substantial amount of assets.
In all of those circumstances, the spouse’s gender doesn’t matter. In those circumstances, the spouse should be treated the same under the circumstances of a hetrosexual marriage. If anything, the LACK of gay marriage makes those situations more complex than they have to be.
In short, the solution is Life Partner = Spouse, then go from there as you would in case of opposite genders.
You are wrong, Zython.
I don’t feel like pursuing your nonsense any further, so I will give you one example:
Survivors on insurance policies, where the policy is described as “next of kin”.
In all of those circumstances, the spouse’s gender doesn’t matter.
No, it doesn’t. But marital status does. A man’s wife is “next of kin”; his roomate is not.
Now, go look at the URL, and dig up a few cool one liners for tomorrow, You need your nummy - nums.
No, it doesn’t. But marital status does. A man’s wife is “next of kin”; his roomate is not.
So…what you seem to be saying is that we shouldn’t legalize gay marriage because some people might use it get insurance money? What preventing people of opposite gender from doing the same thing now?
Now, go look at the URL, and dig up a few cool one liners for tomorrow, You need your nummy - nums.
Do your children know you write this crap in your free time?
Zython, I am not. You don’t know what I am talking about, do you?
These are ISSUES to be discussed, not roadblocks, are clear?
Which crap are you referring to, Zython?
Please hurry with the answer. I’m getting tired, but I reaaly want to read it.
If so, proceed.
OR Without attempting to employ any politeness or courteousness, wait until the proper moment to reveal something about him that is, in your view, so embarrassing that he will answer your demands, or go whimpering home.
That’s the liberal way!
Lysander is right that some things will have to change if legal recognition is given to same-sex marriages or civil unions.
Currently, for instance, according to next-of-kin laws in certain jurisdictions, a person who has been in a monogamous same-sex relationship for 30 years can watch from the afterlife while his bequest to his life partner is challenged by a brother who never spoke to him except to call him a filthy butt-pirate.
Apparently Lysander is worried that such challenges might not be possible in the strange new world of teh gay.
Seeing the prospect of minor statutory adjustments as a troubling issue when it comes to recognizing the rights that people are born with - that’s the conservative way!
“I don’t know what it has “done to Canada”. I’m sure if there were any problems, we wouldn’t hear what they are from you, you sniveling liar.”
And a hearty fuck you, to you.
If you want to call me a liar, you’d better back it up. So tell me something horrible that’s happened in Canada as a result.
“And here’s a news flash for you: Canada is not the United States. Never was. Never will be.”
And if you are an average American, I can only thank god for that.
“You know, frameone, there are people who call themselves liberals who would say that that you just revealed information that was no one’s business.”
Two points:
1.) I guess you really are Frank. I was hoping that wasn’t the case. I thought you left, forever. Forever. I’m not sure you know what that word even means anymore.
2.) We don’t care what you’re into Frank. But guess what, the people who are trying to ban gay marriage do care. They are the ones who think you are a sinner and are going to go to hell forever. Maybe that’s why you are so pissed off.
(On a side note, from the small thumbnail, the second picture makes you look like James Doohan. That’s not an insult in the slightest, just an off-topic comment.)
Wow, Frank’s really being a jerk, even by his own standards. He used to at least attempt to make some kind of point, but now he’s just wildly stabbing people with his word knife.
“Wow, Frank’s really being a jerk, even by his own standards.”
I’d say he’s lost it, but that would imply he had it at some point.
So ignore him. That will get him to leave and maybe he will seek the help he needs. I don’t have any hate or disdain for him anymore, just pity.
Apparently Lysander is worried that such challenges might not be possible in the strange new world of the gay.
Actually, no. Life is more complicated than simply handing people their rights.
We haven’t sorted out the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments yet, and it’s been nearly 150 years. Rather than 15 decades of wasted litigiousness — yeah, let’s do it the conservative way!
Aside from that, Does anyone have a comment?
We don’t care what you’re into Frank
Which is why you brought it up — because you don’t care. And you did make sure to check out the site, didn’t you?
And who is this damn “we”? Editorial, imperial, or are you once again assuming the role of ambassador from OliverLand?
I don’t have any hate or disdain for him anymore, just pity.
Aren’t you special? Because I hate you… You know why? Because you’re an ignorant, unprincipled hypocrite.
Nimrod: You’re just Nimrod. A pathetic excuse for a human being who disgraces my grandparents’ blood by assigning himself the mission of silencing me. Why, Nimrod?
Is it because you’re a chav wanker?
Whatever he may have had, he has lost. Bye, Frank. Hope your IP gets blocked.
We haven’t sorted out the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments yet…
Or the 1st through the 10th for that matter. What’s your point?
Give people their rights. Work out the details later. That’s the liberal way.
Continue to deny people their rights until you’ve figured out how to avoid every possible inconvenience. That’s the conservative way.
Thank God I’m a liberal.
“I don’t feel like pursuing your nonsense any further, so I will give you one example:”
And there we have it. Frank think’s gays shouldn’t be treated like everyone else, just cuz. But naturally his sexuality and sexual interests are no one’s business (which is why he posts using his own on name and photo on the internet) and his legal rights to have custody of his children shouldn’t be effected in anyway by them.
Rank hypocrisy, Frank. Rank hypocrisy.
There is a method in the Constitution already. It is the Amendment method.
Let each state ratify an Amendment to the Constitution. This way, the people have an input,and their respective States’ deliberative bodies discuss the issue as well.
That’s what President Bush wanted long ago. But the activists among the gays had no patience for such a process. That’s where the analogy of the “Trojan horse” comes in: Get ALL your rights snuck in by allowing gay marriage.
My question for you is: What “rights” are being denied?
Frank, You just pointed out a few right above, did you not?
There are custody issues, insurance issues, adoption issues, tax issues, etc. etc. that all change with marital status.
I understand that a hypocrite idiot such as yourself would rather characterize the impact of marriage laws on these other rights as a “trojan horse” tactic. That’s what makes you such a dishonest hack.
It’s also clear that you have a problem with gay people having these rights for some reason, reasons you seem unwilling or unable to articulate. All you’ve said so far is that gay people should be treated like straight people because they’re gay.
That’s no reason not to give people equal treatment under the law.
frameone: It was unlikely that you could be a bigger asshole than you already have been, but you have done it.
I get tired at 4 in the morning and you accuse me of bigotry — what a fucking idiot you are!
BTW, Paul Malcolm, I started out posting as FrankD. It was the detective work of bottom feeders like you that got my name all over this blog.
You’re a useless piece of shit (I added “useless” so as not to defame shit). You call me a hypocrite. You reveal information that no one knew about me — twice — and call it public. Then you pretend you’re concerned about people’s rights.
And if you’re a believer in the idea that a person’s sexual preferences shouldn’t change what their rights are, then why even mention my “sexual predilections”?
But I’m the hypocrite. You’re a bigot, a liar, and a hypocrite, and there’s no way you can deny it.
“It was the detective work of bottom feeders like you that got my name all over this blog.”
Detective work? Dude, you published your fucking home address in a thread
Bottom line is frank you want to restrict the rights of some for whom they choose to love but expect nothing only respect and privacy and all your rights no matter who you do.
Hypocrite.
Now if you want to actually explain why gays shouldn’t have full custody rights but tranny chaser should, go for it.
“You call me a hypocrite. You reveal information that no one knew about me — twice — and call it public.”
Oh and frank, we all knew about it, trust me …
It’s also clear that you have a problem with gay people having these rights for some reason, reasons you seem unwilling or unable to articulate.
Considering I’ve said I have no such problem on many an occasion, and as you have so gleefully pointed out, my own predilections make it unlikely that I would have such objections, perhaps the burden is upon you to illuminate the “problems I seem unwilling or unable to point out”.
Until then, I am calling you a liar, a hypocrite, and a bigot, who is simply harassing me to cover his own sins.
Oh and frank, we all knew about it, trust me …
That’s what I meant by “twice”, idiot. I had already heard about the first time — and that it was you that had revealed it.
The psychopathic “s” repeated it over and over, but it was you who revealed it first.
um, what? Now i’m supposed to read your mind?
You’re losing it, man. Totally losing it.
I do recognize that in you flurry of insanity in this thread you’ve thrown out some kind of constitutional objection to it. Care to elaborate or is the nonsense above all were going to get/
“…and that it was you that had revealed it.”
Um, wrong on that score frank. I first saw that link in a thread here.
but please, don’t let me stand in the way of your persecution complex …
“Give people their rights. Work out the details later. That’s the liberal way.”
The very same way that has worked increasingly well for the US for the last quarter millennium; some of us even call it the “Bill of Rights”.
Frank publishes his home address on this blog in a fit of testosterone-fueled rage and regularly reveals intimate details of his personal life to assist with the context of his comments and no one’s supposed to notice.
Then he denies ever publishing this personal information and anyone who proves him wrong is a psychopathic bottom feeder.
Hello? It is public, you imbecile. It’s on the freaking Internet…dumbass. Under your real name even.
Let each state ratify an Amendment to the Constitution. This way, the people have an input,and their respective States’ deliberative bodies discuss the issue as well.
Because South Carolina doesn’t have the right altitude for gay marriage?
I get tired at 4 in the morning and you accuse me of bigotry — what a fucking idiot you are!
Wait…you’re a bigot because it’s 4 A.M….what?
Considering I’ve said I have no such problem on many an occasion, and as you have so gleefully pointed out, my own predilections make it unlikely that I would have such objections,
Then why do you oppose gays getting married?
Zython: I don’t.
Would any else like to say it, so I can say I don’t?
Wait…you’re a bigot because it’s 4 A.M….what?
Ask frameone — it was his accusation, not mine.
Frank if you don’t have a problem with legalizing gay marriage, just WTF do you have a problem with? What on earth would prompt you to write something such as this:
“This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights.”
You are suggesting some kind of subterfuge on behalf of the gay rights movement that simply doesn’t exist. At the same time, how do adoption, insurance, tax and custody issues have nothing to do with civil rights when gays are currently treated differently than straights under the law, simply because they are gay?
Ultimately, you have no idea what you’re talking about but since Catholic school in the 50s has fucked you up so bad you feel compelled to say something, anything to get attention. Am I close?
frameone: No, you are not close. You don’t really expect me to have a substantive dialog with someone as disgusting as you, do you?
How could you possibly pretend that you are concerned about the rights of others, after how you’ve acted?
Stop telling me what I’m “implying”, because you don’t have whatever it takes to ask a question.
Can’t you carry on a conversation without an adversarial and contentious tone?
I am really tired of answering your questions, only to have it followed by denials that I was telling the truth.
When you are willing to engage me in a serious discussion on this issue,instead of engaging in a fruitless attempt to prove your own superiority, let me know. I’ll be waiting.
Personally,I don’t care what gays do. But, pretending that they are the “new black” is going to get them nowhere, in my opinion.
If they attempt to follow the same path as blacks, i.e., via the Supreme Court, it will not work. Every one has different opinions about affirmative action, set asides, and quotas. To pretend otherwise is worse than utopian — it is juvenile.
To pretend that there are no gay rights advocates who want far more freedoms than the average gay guy or gal is incredibly naive.
On a personal note, it takes a giant pair of cojones to say anything about a “tranny chaser’s” custody rights while advocating custody rights for gays. But that’s just my opinion. I didn’t make this thread about me. That was frameone.
The fact that my name is on the Internet doesn’t mean you get to research it and publicize it here; considering I’ve never seen it done in the case of anyone else.
Lysander Spooner II | Jun 17, 2007 9:13:36 PM
“The fact that my name is on the Internet doesn’t mean you get to research it and publicize it here”
No, Frank, you published your name and your home address all by yourself. No one else had that information or the details of your personal life that you reveal on a regular basis.
I can’t believe I am so late to this party… all I can say is, this whole thread is absolutely delicious.
I remember seeing your profile on URNotalone sometime a while back, Frank, but thought it was a joke someone was playing on you. Tell us, how does it feel to support a party that would just as soon spit on you for your sexual proclivities?
Oh, and Frank… interesting MySpace page. Seriously… you have ADD or something? You’re all over the place. Get help.
“To pretend that there are no gay rights advocates who want far more freedoms than the average gay guy or gal is incredibly naive.”
Frank, the question is are there gay rights activists advocating for more rights than the average American citizen? The answer is no. They want the same rights that straights have. For some reason, as yet undeclared, you seem to have a problem with this.
If you just have a problem with the way gay activists are going aboout acquiring their just rights, through the courts as opposed to some kind of constitutional amendment, well, tough shit. The system is set up for them to pursue their rights as they see fit. The judicial system is their as a counter to the legislative system to counteract the tyrrany of the masses in precisely these kinds of civil rights situations.
The Founders of this country did not advocate a “majority rules” philosophy. They created a system of checks and balances to ensure that minorities did not have their rights trampled under by the popular will. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders.
“On a personal note, it takes a giant pair of cojones to say anything about a “tranny chaser’s” custody rights while advocating custody rights for gays.”
Coupla things about this:
1. Why?
2. Why do you put tranny chaser in quotes when it’s clearly how you have IDd yourself on your profile and th urnotalone site has an actual, official definition of the term?
Why do you put tranny chaser in quotes when it’s clearly how you have IDd yourself
That is not true.
Once again I am answering your erroneous conclusions. They supply the labels, hence the quotes.
Why does it take balls to raise the issue of my having “custody” [don't forget to ask me why I put custody in quotes ] of my children, when you undoubtedly favor gay adoption?
Are you suggesting that because I participate in a Transgendered chat room, that I shouldn’t have “custody” of my own children.
There actually is more to the story than that, but of course, you can make jokes about it and mock me for it, for years to come; all the while congratulating yourselves for your openmindedness and compassion — that takes balls.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders.
Surely you can direct me to the essays in the Federalist Papers on how to deal with the issues of gays. My guess is you’ll find it right next to “Abortion on demand, Permission for”
Tell us, how does it feel to support a party that would just as soon spit on you for your sexual proclivities?
You mean, as opposed to you liberals, who have been so kind and accepting of me?
Puhleeeeeeeeze!
You mean, as opposed to you liberals, who have been so kind and accepting of me?
If your reception here has not been kind, it is not because of your sexual proclivities, but because you are a sententious, pretentious, ignorant, hypocritical asshole.
The references to your published proclivities only serve to demonstrate the penultimate term. I still wish people would stop bringing it up - it only gives you the chance to play wounded cow - as if you needed one.
it is not because of your sexual proclivities
Perhaps you need to re-read the thread. I was not referring to anything else. I’m sure you were.
I still wish people would stop bringing it up
So do I. But you’re clever. You can provide them with a rationalization that will no doubt exonerate them of any responsibility.
That seems to be of such great importance to you, that you have “turned the lights back on”.
So, where we stand right now is: I shouldn’t have custody of my children, because I belong to a transgendered chat room (a bit of information that I never revealed, until now, because it has become the subject of nearly half of this thread).
Gay folks should have custody of their children and / or be allowed to adopt, because they should have the same rights as straight people.
I, who am straight, should not be entitled to those rights, because anything to do with transgendered individuals, is WAY ickier than anything to do with gays.
Also, all this talk about about my personal life (again, revealed by others, not me) has come about because I revealed OTHER information about myself, and,in some way, opened the door to this invasion of my privacy.
Of course, if this had happened to you favorite President, it would be totally irrelevant and nobody’s business.
Finally, I at no time expressed any opposition to gay rights, or any ill will towards gays, yet I have been asked about six times (more?) why I oppose it.
Then, the coup de grace: We don’t have any problem with the stuff we’ve been grilling you about since yesterday, it’s YOU we hate.
Ah, the liberal mindset…
Mooooooooooo-owwwwwwwwwwww!
Wilbur: I guess that’s your cogent comment, eh?
Let’s make this simple, shall we?
Aside from my immediate departure, what do you want?
Will this ever end?
You’re all convinced I have brought this upon myself.
OK. Fine. Then you are required to do nothing. I am.
Now, what is it?
Short of my immediate departure, what will make your lives easier?
Frank,
1. Show me in this thread where I’ve mocked you for belonging to that site?
2. You selected the label yet you put in quotes as if it’s a derogatory term. Why?
3. Please show me where I said you should not have custody of your kids because you dig transexuals? I never said that and don’t believe it. That’s simply something you made up in your head because you haven;t got answer to my question.
4. The Founders did not have to mention gays specifically just like they didn’t have to mention cell phones, air travel or genetic testing or any of the other countless things that the government regulates which came about or were invented after their time. It’s ridiculous to suggest that because the Founders didn’t mention gay rights that the constitutional system they devised has nothing to say on gay rights or the ability of gsys to pursue their rights as American citizens. I mean it;s so ridiculous I wonder why I’m even taking it seriously enough to respond to it. Do you really think that this is how the government works? If the founders didn’t mention it specifically then it doesn’t exist? Are you that stupid?
5. I can only answer yes. Who in their right mind would write some of the things you’ve posted here, such as this:
And then turn around and say that you don’t oppose gay rights. So Frank, if you don’t oppose gay rights, why the fuck do you have a problem with them pursuing their rights in court? It’s their right to do that as citizens isn’t it?
“You’re all convinced I have brought this upon myself.”
I’ve found in my travels that if 50 people think that someone is an @ssh@le, most of the time its because that person is, well, an @ssh@le.
“Short of my immediate departure, what will make your lives easier?”
You just answered your own question. If we even agree with the premise of your question, which is that anyone gives enough of a damn about you to have made their life harder.
You selected the label yet you put in quotes as if it’s a derogatory term. Why?
Why do you keep doing this?
I didn’t choose the label — I said that already. How does one use quotes “as if the word is a derogatory term”. I used quotes, because it was someone else’s term. Is that an incorrect usage?
Did you say this:
Now if you want to actually explain why gays shouldn’t have full custody rights but tranny chaser should, go for it.
frameone, who said, “If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders”?
Was that me?
I never said I “have a problem with them pursuing their rights in court?”
I said that of they pursued that route, they would have problems with popular opinion.
Accomplishing things politically requires a majority consensus. You will not acquire it the way blacks did 50 something years ago.
No, I don’t care if they try; no, I don’t care if they marry; no, I don’t care if they adopt children.
And, enlightened liberal, you cared enough to add your detritus to the pile, didn’t you?
So the answer is, you derisively refer to me as someone who calls himself a victim, when either he is not, or he has brought it upon himself; yet there is no evidence that I brought it on myself, and no evidence that I “fired the first shot”.
Not that I really care, but you belie the name “Liberal” whether it is defined in the 1776 fashion, the 1966 fashion, or the 1986 fashion.
ok. you’re an idiot. but we knew that already. moving on …
Frank, you’re an idiot.
Posted by: frameone | Jun 16, 2007 6:17:01 PM
Exactly where it began. Where it always begins.
The idiocy began when you published your home address.
Yes, squirrel, that’s it. I sure was asking for it then, eh?
“I said that of they pursued that route, they would have problems with popular opinion. Accomplishing things politically requires a majority consensus. You will not acquire it the way blacks did 50 something years ago.”
I just wanna touch upon something here, before bowing out of this bullshit finally.
Do you really believe that there was a majority consensus in the South for integration and the end of Jim Crow laws during the Civil Rights era? Seriously? You believe this?
At the same time, the courts are there as a remedy for when the majority of popular opinion is blocking the civil rights of a minority group. That’s how the system was designed! To suggest that there is something wrong with it and so should be discouraged — oh heavens to betsy you’ll upset the bigots — is simply ridiculous.
So to sum up you apparently support the idea that gays should have all the rights that straights have but you don’t like the way they are going about trying to achieve this simple equality — even though they are acting well within the system set up by the Constitution. That’s pretty much it right? It’s hard to see how asking a minority group to just settle down and wait for people to accept them is any different from simply prolonging inequality for no good reason other than to make concessions to hate. How awesome of you, frank.
Again, you’ve had numerous chances to state your case and all you’ve done is prove yet again, you are a total idiot.
The idiocy began when you published your home address.
Lysander Spooner II | Jun 18, 2007 4:35:17 PM
“Yes, squirrel, that’s it. I sure was asking for it then, eh?”
You’re right, Frank. Most people would agree that publishing your home address on the internet is smart. Wonder why more people don’t do it?
Squirrel: Whatever is mistaken about publishing one’s address on the Internet, in no way excuses the rudeness and crudities to which I have been subjected.
In view of the fact that what has been discussed has nothing whatever to do with my home address, you are trying to make a connection like the rapist who says, “She was asking for it, wearing that tight skirt”.
Whether or not it matters to you, or any of your compadres, you are personally responsible for your own actions.
BTW, Squirrel, you should try checking around the Internet for names, and see just how many people publish their names on the http://WWW.
Try William Smith, for example: