Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I have just one simple question for you... On what day did you 'choose' to be heterosexual? What was the date on the day you woke up and asked yourself, " do I want to have sex with women or do I want to have sex with men?". When exactly did you make that 'choice'??? Or maybe you have just always been attracted to the opposite sex since the onset of puberty?

And I'll try one more time to show you the difference (but I doubt it will sink in) between homosexuality and pedophilia: CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES! Pedophiles PREY on their underage victims. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, consentually find each other. But since you insist that there is a 'connection', then you better throw in your lot as well! I mean how many heterosexual men have used 'ruffies' to have sex with a woman? And how many heterosexual men rape women every day?

The slogan 'Deny Ignorance' means much more than denying the ignorance in others, it first means denying the ignorance within yourself. Yes you have an opinion, and you find homosexual behavior 'wrong', but only because you do not feel these feelings yourself, and you lack an understanding of the issue. So deny self-ignorance, and educate yourself on ALL aspects of the issue, not just cling to your ideal like a dead lover... If you do, you will find that you will grow as a person and be better off for it! Or you can just embrace your inner ignorance are remain a fool, the choice is yours...

I, personally, have more respect for those that openly oppose my lifestyle than those that champion my right to die for my country while denying my right to marry. I'm more comfortable being outright despised than I am being sold a second class citizenship in return for my vote.
If the choice is between traditional religiously intolerant bigots and "read the fine print concerning equality" liars, I'll continue to "waste" my votes on hopeless third parties.

*SNIP*

Originally posted by 23refugee
I, personally, have more respect for those that openly oppose my lifestyle than those that champion my right to die for my country while denying my right to marry.

- Don't ask/Don't tell
- Gay Mariage

One battle at a time, refugee. The political capital is very near empty and you can't sit idly by on the sidelines and take cheap shots at those who are fighting for your rights and at the same time complain they haven't done more.

Log Cabin Republican?

reply to post by maybereal11


I think the first cheap shot was fired when Rick Warren and all he represents gave the invocation. A forthright man would have brought him along for some of those Hope, Change, and Equality speeches, instead of keeping that pig in a poke. Let's tolerate the intolerant during the election.
I prefer to enjoy the full rights of a citizen before I am allowed the privelege to die as one. I'm impatient that way.

Originally posted by DaMod
Well really this probably will have no effect...

Most straight males just don't like gays. They don't. Not saying its right, not saying its wrong just stating the fact that most straight men will recoil and become repulsed once finding out another man is a homosexual.

Of course Lesbians have nothing to worry about.

Speak for yourself. You may be disgusted and use homosexual slurs to insult people, but I dont. I'm a straight man and I have no hate or disgust for gay men.

You have shown your own true colors with your post.

While I don't really understand homosexuality (at least with guys...girls I get...they like what I like...) myself...., just how do you make a law that is unenforceable? I mean, it's already illegal to have sex in public, so any kind of homosexual act would be done in private, and kind of difficult to arrest someone on what you "assume" they are doing behind closed doors.... (and then, how do you define (legally) a homosexual act?)

Just idiotic soapboxing really....and defeating their own chances for elections....

Most straight males just don't like gays. They don't. Not saying its right, not saying its wrong just stating the fact that most straight men will recoil and become repulsed once finding out another man is a homosexual.

Repulsed by the act, sure....but not repulsed by the person. If a person has proven he or she can be a good friend to me, their sexual orientation is not my concern. It's not like I think the guy is suddenly out for my bod or anything...(and if he is, 1) I'd have to question his taste, and 2) belongs to the wife).

Originally posted by 23refugee

I prefer to enjoy the full rights of a citizen before I am allowed the privelege to die as one. I'm impatient that way.

It is not an either or.

There is no draft.

There a homosexuals who wish to serve thier country and do it openly and honestly. They would also like the right to marry. Perhaps in your world you hold out hope their will be one single bill that repeals don't ask/don't tell and upholds gay marriage.

It doesn't work that way. Never has.

One battle at a time.

...or you can keep sitting on the sidelines and complaining about how the fight is being fought and you can read more headlines like the one we just got just this afternoon...

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Could Be Around For A While

The Senate voted Tuesday afternoon on a procedural motion that would have led to repeal of the 1993 law that prevents openly gay men and women from serving in the military. But repeal supporters failed to get the 60 votes necessary to move the measure along. The party-line tally: 56 in favor; 43 opposed. Democrats favor repeal. There are 59 senators in the Democratic caucus.

www.npr.org...

Hell...I am not gay...but here I am arguing in favor of gay rights with a gay man who would rather take shots at Democrats or the Potus than fight along side me for gov recognition of his own "unalienable" rights and eqaulity.

What a efed-up world it is....

You are more comfortable with the outright-intolerance of values crowd "conservatives" than the politically compromised "half-measures" the Democratics put forward...because you know what to expect with the outright-intolerance...it is those you grew up with...you gave up hope of being understood by those kinds of people long ago...it's an intolerance you are familiar with, whereas with democratic iniatives and Pres. Obama...there is a whole lot of potential for frustration and dissapointment.
..and those feelings are justified.

I get that.

But in the end I would rather be fighting the fight and lose...or maybe even gaining a little ground...than sitting on the sidelines complaining about the situation.

Hope that wasn't harsh. Wasn't meant to be, just my honest opinion.

Gay marriage is a whole other ball of wax. One could argue marriage is a religious institution, but it isn't, especially these days. It is a social institution. It's designed to perpetuate the state, and produce future workers/consumers to carry on, etc.

Of course, if that is the criteria, then straight couples without children would seemingly be prohibited. What about gay couples who adopt? They are fulfilling the same role socially (i.e. producing future workers/consumers). T

That is far different though, than making homosexual acts illegal...completely different argument.

This is why the GOP is a dead end party.

They refuse to adapt and change to society, alwasy clinging to that 1950's conservative Nuclear Family mentality of running the world.

It's simply doesn't work and will not work. Period.

They need to come into the times here and realize that we are in an ever changing world, and their ideals are those of the past.

~Keeper

Originally posted by Gazrok
While I don't really understand homosexuality (at least with guys...girls I get...they like what I like...) myself...., just how do you make a law that is unenforceable? I mean, it's already illegal to have sex in public, so any kind of homosexual act would be done in private, and kind of difficult to arrest someone on what you "assume" they are doing behind closed doors.... (and then, how do you define (legally) a homosexual act?)

Just idiotic soapboxing really....and defeating their own chances for elections....

Strangely enough, years ago I read about some real case law in Playboy. The case that stood out to me was a Georgia police officer who responded to complaint about a barking dog. When he was on the front porch he observed through a window a married (straight) couple having oral sex. He busted in and arrested them based on a law on the Georgia books that forbids that act.

From a quick google search Sodomy remains illegal in about half the US States and is legally defined to include oral sex....straight, gay whatever.

Homosexuality is a choice???

If homosexuality is a choice, I don't see how it can be a conscious choice.

I consider myself to be a well versed heterosexual. And I am pretty damn sure even if I had every gun on the face of this planet aimed at my head, threatening to kill me, I still would NOT BE ABLE to get sexually aroused or get an erection for another man.

ANYONE who says it is a choice, and that it is 100% fact that it is a choice, are only justified in their claim because they are using themselves as their basis for reference when judging this issue. They are only justified in saying it is a choice if they themselves looked at another person of the same sex and thought "maybe" or were sexually aroused by them. Otherwise their claims that it is a choice is not based upon experience or intimate first hand knowledge of the argument from their viewpoint.

If someone is adamant that sexual preference is a choice, then they themselves had to make that choice, or their argument is moot, and merely based upon heresay and influenced by their own projective ideologies, views, priorities, opinions, and dare I say prejudices.

I am convinced it is not a choice, and if it is a choice, it certainly is not a conscious decision.
_______________________

Personal Disclosure:
The summer I was 15 I used to hang out with my friends at this pool hall and dance club for 17 and younger youth in Normal Illinois, home to Illinois State University (ISU). I had a very funny and hilarious friend called John, and we had known eachother and been friends since we were 10 years old. One night at the club he told me he was gay, and had a crush on me. I didn't know how to respond, nor at the time did I even really know what that meant. Then he tried to kiss me, and I punched him as hard as I could in the face, and knocked him out. After that we were less friends, but we did talk to eachother, and hang out occassionaly since we had the same group of friends. But, our friendship was never the same. Less than a year later he committed suicide. Now I wonder which was worse. My ignorance at the time, and how I responded to it in my teenage years, or him trying to be who it was he thought he was.

Do I regret my initial response? Of course I do. I often think what his life would have been like if he had grown up and what he would have done with himself and the contributions he may have made to society had he felt more welcome, instead of ending his own life at such a young age.

This is one of the major reasons I feel passionate about this issue. I would rather have a gay friend than a dead friend.

let me say that one more time:
I would rather have a gay friend than a dead friend.

I miss ya Johnny. It will be 22 years ago in December since you left, before you even got your drivers license...

reverence for life,
-et

p.s. reading some of the responses in this thread (and some before they were T&C deleted) I seriously think there is a level of ... misunderstanding on some peoples' part. Tolerance is not a one way street.

reply to post by maybereal11


The point is that the POTUS is not fighting alongside me to protect my "unalienable" rights.
He has plainly stated that he feels I don't deserve marriage equality, some "seperate but equal" remedy maybe, but not equality.
There is no need for me to support him as a defender of my rights. I have no doubts as to your support of gay rights, but insisting that he deserves mine is somewhat like chastising a black man for refusing to vote for a Jim Crow proponent simply because that candidate has a self-serving interest in ensuring the black vote.
His willingness to fight for my right to die for my country while maintaining an anti-gay marriage stance is insulting. Anyone willing to accept my sacrifice to my country yet still deny me the same rights as others for political reasons is no more my friend than those who would outlaw me.
I don't feel the President is an advocate for my rights and pretending that he is only furthers his cause, not mine. He is no more on my side than many GOP members, and less so than some. I'm not a traitor to my cause if I don't view him as a hero and I'm not sitting idly by if I don't toe some party's line.

reply to post by 23refugee


I think you might have a better shot with Obama than with Sarah Palin as President.
Obama has not accomplished everything on every level. Maybe people expected way too much.
But there is no way I would wish to return to Republican Neocon rule. That gets all of us nowhere.
Sometimes principle must give way to practicality.

reply to post by OldDragger


I'm with you on the Neocon thing.
Though it's not practical, I didn't lose anything voting on principle. There were more than two choices.
If it is simply a choice of lesser evils, one shouldn't get a free pass.

Forget about the sex.

Think of the ~ LOVE ~



I asked my gay (male) friend once what gay people did for Valentine's Day. He said:
"Same as the straight community. Flowers, candy, gifts, go out to dinner."

Awwww......

Now that's got to get to the coldest heart even a little bit

Here's some info on Chicago's gay area -
(It's from Wikipedia and contains nothing shocking.)

Boystown, Chicago

There's alot of gay people here, as well as any race and nationality that you can think of. So it's in one's best interest to learn to get along

And it's great, interesting fun as well - because you get to see and interact with a myriad of cultures. You're never bored here!

Thought I'd throw in a bit of local info as well, in case there is someone feeling alienated out there - Chi is a place you can consider moving to.

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by maybereal11

 

.
His willingness to fight for my right to die for my country while maintaining an anti-gay marriage stance is insulting. Anyone willing to accept my sacrifice to my country yet still deny me the same rights as others for political reasons is no more my friend than those who would outlaw me.

One battle at a time

1863 Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery in territory controlled by the Confederate States of America. The Presidential Order also authorizes the mustering of black men as federal regiments.

1864 Congress rules that black soldiers must receive equal pay.

1865 Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery is ratified.

1868 Fourteenth Amendment is ratified making blacks citizens.

1870 The 15th Amendment is passed permitting black men the right to vote.

1875 The last U.S. Congress of the 19th century with bi-racial Senate and House passes the Civil Rights Act
The law protects all Americans, regardless of race, in their access to public accommodations and facilities such as restaurants, theaters, trains and other public transportation, and grants the right to serve on juries. However, the law is not enforced, and the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional in 1883
.
1946 President Truman issues Executive Order 9808, establishing the President's Committee on Civil Rights to propose measures to strengthen and protect the civil rights act.

1954 Brown v. Board decision declares segregation in public schools illegal.

1964 Congress authorizes the Civil Rights Act, the most far-reaching legislation in U.S. history to ensure the right to vote, guarantee access to public accommodations, and the withdrawal of federal funds to any program administered in a discriminatory way.

1965 Voting Rights Act is passed, authorizing direct federal intervention to enable blacks to vote.

1968: Congress authorizes the 1968 Civil Rights Act, providing federal enforcement provisions for discrimination in housing. The 1968 expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, (and as amended) handicap and family status. This law enabled housing opportunities for blacks beyond the "ghetto."
www.ushistory.org...

Or sit on the sidelines in complicity saying "not good enough" while the GOP calls for a repeal of "progress"...expanding their definition of RINO to every republican that predates 2008...all the way back to Lincoln

reply to post by maybereal11


Nice illustration of your point, but, were I alive and voting all that time, wouldn't I have had to switch allegiance between the major political parties in pursuit of my goal?
I do understand the need for "baby steps". Still, I'm a cynic. Why is DADT attached to the also controversial DREAM Act? It seems too convenient that I'm being tossed a bone that I won't get just in time to vote against the party that appears to have denied it. One party situating themselves to look like less of a bad guy isn't enough to garner my vote. I'd rather waste it on a write-in.

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Nice illustration of your point, but, were I alive and voting all that time, wouldn't I have had to switch allegiance between the major political parties in pursuit of my goal?

Sure! And god bless. If the GOP returns to thier progressive roots I will be the first to leave the Dems behind.

My alliegance is to what is right...not a political party.

Originally posted by 23refugee
I do understand the need for "baby steps". Still, I'm a cynic. Why is DADT attached to the also controversial DREAM Act? It seems too convenient that I'm being tossed a bone that I won't get just in time to vote against the party that appears to have denied it. One party situating themselves to look like less of a bad guy isn't enough to garner my vote. I'd rather waste it on a write-in.

Oh sure...it's political pandering on both sides. But one party is pandering by trying to advance minority rights and the other is pandering by denying those advances. I am not beyond "using" politicians to advance equality in minority rights...that's the point of having them..right?