Sean Penn is not a hero to the gay community

basso is a political cartoon in and of himself. I really don't pay very serious attention to him.

Lumping all of the voters that vote a specific way under a label based upon an issue that may not be the issue that defines their vote is stupid. It is akin to saying that because somebody voted Democratic, they believe in partial birth abortion and legalized drugs. That in a lot of cases simply is not true.

SamFisher likes to make digs based in geography and thinly veiled assaults on people's intelligence. basso likes to bait somewhat similarly. The difference is that SamFisher actually has a brain, he just occasionally chooses not to use it.

 

So Refman, since you are feeling your oats today...how many gay friends do you have and what is your position on gay marriage, and more relevantly, what is your position with respect to those who feel that gay marriage is an assault on society?

 

It seems that you ask this question thinking that you know the answer, and that the answer will help you make your point.

I do have gay friends. In fact, there is a gay lawyer I worked with, and we became very good friends. He has been in a committed relationship with a great guy for 13 years. They moved to San Antonio, and twice a year, Refgal, the kids and I go to San Antonio. All 6 of us go to Fiesta Texas during the summer, and have dinner on the River Walk and hang out at their house. They are amongst the best people I have ever known.

I have often had problems with heterosexual unions being legally called marriage. Marriage is a religious rite. The union between people legally is a civil matter. I believe that both heterosexual and homosexual couple should have civil unions available to them.

For the homosexual couples that decide to commit themselves to each other, there needs to be protection in the event that one partner to that union bolts. There needs to be a legal mechanism to equitably divide property, etc. They should be able to file joint tax returns. They should be given next of kin status for medical decisions.

As for people who feel that this is an assault on society, they are just sad. It is easy to fall into this trap when you think of a group of people in the abstract rather than as people with real feelings and real emotions.

 

Refman:

I am against partial birth abortions and every Democrat I've ever voted for is too. I am for legalization of drugs, but every Democrat I've voted for has been against it. No Democrat I've voted for has advocated either of these things. Virtually every Republican opposes equal rights for gays (wrt marriage, military, etc.). And it is part of the Republican party platform and has been pushed to the forefront of various campaigns because the GOP saw an advantage in doing that. In fact, they have won many elections due specifically to pushing that wedge as hard as they could.

I don't fault you for voting Republican for other reasons and I don't suggest you're anti-gay. But you do support an anti-gay party. Since you have gay friends and are apparently not anti-equal rights for gays, it seems to me you should speak out against a plank in your party's platform you apparently disagree with. At least on a BBS since it would take so little effort to do so.

If your analogy had been anywhere near true - if the Democrats I supported on 95% of issues offended me on the other 5%, you can be sure I'd have something to say about it. But your analogy was poor. And not true.

 

if you know where it its, post it. why should I provide evidence to prove I'm wrong?

 

Kitteh Pictures!!!

 

I actually did a search, what i find is that anytime a non republican has a stance against a gay issue, you jump all over it, when confronted, you say you are against both party stances, but you only start threads about one side.

 

Then the state should be utterly ambivalent to "defining" marriage. Church's can marry whoever they please however they please. You know, like that toally awesome "separation of chruch and state" thing? Radical.

You're having your cake and eating it too.

 

Its not politically expedient, its a religion issue, and the difference is the democrats don't want to legislate their morality on other people, no matter what their (wide) stance.this joke is played out

 

Why don't you quit hiding behind the fact that most Dem politicians are also on record as being against gay marriage.

There is a difference in that batman, myself and others who favor legalization of gay marriage have spoken out saying that the Dem politicians should also be in favor of it.

However not one of the Democratic politicians that I'm aware of has ever said they favor a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The same is not true of The President and many other GOP politicians. To pretend they are equal in their anti-gay political stances is laughable. Yet you are trying here, and still refuse to acknowledge the difference.

 

With a little tweaking, say if we changed the sentence to "basso supports a constitutional amendment against gay marriage" - we'd have an accurate sentence.

I mean if Sean Penn hates gays by going to Cuba - basso surely must be anti-gay with respect to his political preferences, which tend to align very nicely with Karl Rove, GWB, etc - all of whom have made anti-gay a huge part of their politics.

It's not even debatable - if the game is guilt by association, basso you lose bro, you lose.

 

Really? You just claimed that there wasn't a difference between one politician who favors an anti-homosexual amendment to our nation's governing document, the constitution, and one politician who is opposed to the anti-homosexual amendment?

Wow, those that are claiming you are weak in your support for gay rights have been shown to be factually accurate. I thought it was just an attempt to expose your hypocritical logic, but apparently it is really true.

Not only are you weak in your support, this would seem to indicate you are either against homosexual equal rights, or so oblivious and ignorant of the cause, that you might as well be.

I can't believe you are claiming there isn't a difference.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, so if there is another way to read your claim that there isn't a difference please clarify.

 

I asked basso about this a few years ago, and he said that bush supported gay people because he fought terror which was fighting for freedom for all people and therefore by default he supported gay rights. He keeps asking me to find past posts about his willingness to criticize both parties, I hope I can find that gem of logic.

 

Now that you mention that, I seem to remember it. It was strange reading. Putting that and basso's latest revelation that opposing a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages, and supporting one doesn't make a difference in the struggle for gay rights, the picture has become quite clear.

Using the logic that basso used to say how Bush supported gay rights, could we not also use that logic against Bush?

Since we know that many of the attacks against American soldiers come from fighters who enlist because of torture and Bush has allowed torture and basso supports it... And with don't ask don't tell in place, that must mean that Bush wants to get gay people killed.

 

You could argue it, if you didn't want people to laugh at you and not take you seriously...so yeah it's right up your alley.