What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Cyco

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?

Race and sexual orientation are two different things. Apples and oranges.

Only if you think homosexuality is a choice, which I've found to be a pretty weak argument even though nobody knows for certain.

 

[Iron Woode]

I think this sums it up:

"No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."

 

[rgwalt]

I think the "state" should do away with marriage licenses all together. Why does the government have to give me permission to share my life or property with another person, whether it be a man or a woman.

 

[between]

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: rgwalt
I think the "state" should do away with marriage licenses all together. Why does the government have to give me permission to share my life or property with another person, whether it be a man or a woman.

because there are legal ramifications to marriage.

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Ask manlymatt83.

I haroophed, but it's fixed.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
All states should just offer civil unions between consenting adults with full legal and financial benefits. let the churches handle how they want to define marriage in their own archaic way.

I could go with that, as long as the legal status of "marriage" is then transfered to civil unions/domestic partnerships. As it is now, domestic partners are taxed differently than married couples, so anyone who says "gays already have equal rights" is just not correct. Those inequities apply to straight domestic partners, too. But as long as the playing field is level for everyone, I think most folks would be ok with it.

But the above will never happen, because it will call all the bigots on their "definition of marriage" bluff. They all argue like this is a semantics issue to distract from what is really going on. I think if you remove semantics from the equation, you'll expose the hateful underbelly of Prop 8 supporters. Suddenly it will be "but we have a right for our marriage to be recognized!"

As for respecting the political process, you could use that argument to say that slavery should never have been abolished because the voting majority in the South supported it. There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority, and Prop 8 is a good example. And frankly, if someone just voted to strip 10% of the population of a basic human right, I think they forfeit all claims to be treated in a righteous manner. Those who voted yes have it coming to them. Justice will be served, one way or the other.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

As for respecting the political process, you could use that argument to say that slavery should never have been abolished because the voting majority in the South supported it. There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority, and Prop 8 is a good example. And frankly, if someone just voted to strip 10% of the population of a basic human right, I think they forfeit all claims to be treated in a righteous manner. Those who voted yes have it coming to them. Justice will be served, one way or the other.

The list of "basic human rights" seems to expand at a phenomenal rate. I blame Estonia for starting the trend by including "internet access" on said list.

Let me preface this by saying that I, too, am one of those people who believes that states should only form "civil unions" to any couples, thus bypassing the whole issue...

But your argument is weak, for I find it very, very hard to buy that "the right to enjoy certain tax privileges" is a basic human right.

Sure, you can pull the ol' heartstrings and talk about visitation rights, but again, this is not a basic human right.

If the list of basic human rights starts extending to minutiae of the law of the United States of America, they are no longer "basic" and the term becomes useless.

 

[DangerAardvark]

I'm tired of arguing about this issue, but this is pretty funny:

Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, whose $1,000 donation was listed on ElectionTrack, chose to resign from his post this week to protect the theater from public criticism.

Damnit, gays are losing their control of musical theatre. First they lose song and dance productions, then it's interior design, and before you know it straight people will be cutting your hair.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

As for respecting the political process, you could use that argument to say that slavery should never have been abolished because the voting majority in the South supported it. There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority, and Prop 8 is a good example. And frankly, if someone just voted to strip 10% of the population of a basic human right, I think they forfeit all claims to be treated in a righteous manner. Those who voted yes have it coming to them. Justice will be served, one way or the other.

The list of "basic human rights" seems to expand at a phenomenal rate. I blame Estonia for starting the trend by including "internet access" on said list.

Let me preface this by saying that I, too, am one of those people who believes that states should only form "civil unions" to any couples, thus bypassing the whole issue...

But your argument is weak, for I find it very, very hard to buy that "the right to enjoy certain tax privileges" is a basic human right.

Sure, you can pull the ol' heartstrings and talk about visitation rights, but again, this is not a basic human right.

If the list of basic human rights starts extending to minutiae of the law of the United States of America, they are no longer "basic" and the term becomes useless.

What is being done is not an extension of basic rights but an application of them to more specific circumstances. You're trying to nullify the term "basic right" unless using it explicitly to refer to the basic rights you believe in and that makes the term useless. For example, we might agree that a basic right is equality under law. Therefore if there is a law allowing couples to marry, a basic human right (equality) allows for gays to be able to marry as well.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
I'm tired of arguing about this issue, but this is pretty funny:

Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, whose $1,000 donation was listed on ElectionTrack, chose to resign from his post this week to protect the theater from public criticism.

Damnit, gays are losing their control of musical theatre. First they lose song and dance productions, then it's interior design, and before you know it straight people will be cutting your hair.

:laugh:

 

[IGBT]

..didn't nixon have an enemy list?? the list of horribles?

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: rgwalt
I think the "state" should do away with marriage licenses all together. Why does the government have to give me permission to share my life or property with another person, whether it be a man or a woman.

because there are legal ramifications to marriage.

What I am saying is that there should not be any legal rammifications to marriage. Separate the concept from the control of the state. Why should the state care who I am married to, or that I am married? The state should have no stake or interest in the matter one way or another.

 

[ghost recon88]

Hmm, something like that happened near me.

Gay anarchist 'action' hits church

A gay anarchist group infiltrated the Mt. Hope Church in Eaton County Sunday morning, disrupting a service by pulling a fire alarm, dropping leaflets and yelling at parishioners, a pastor said. The group, Bash Back, was simultaneously picketing outside the church, beating on buckets and using a megaphone to shout ?Jesus was a homo? and other slogans as confused churchgoers continued to enter the building. Members of Bash Back issued a press release Tuesday saying that it targeted Mt. Hope, a church that claims a flock of around 5,000, because it is "complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond." According to the Myspace.com page of the Lansing chapter, the network initially sprung up with the intent of increasing homosexual visibility within the anarchist community. The ?action? began early Sunday morning at the Northstar Center on Lathrop Street in Lansing where a group of around 20 protesters gathered. Pink bandanas, signs, a rainbow-colored ?Bash Back!? flag and a pink, wooden cross were distributed among about half the group ? the ?outside team.? The rest ? ?inside team? ? were dressed in conservative clothes and carried Bibles and stacks of fliers, intending to blend in to the church?s 11:30 a.m. ?contemporary-laid back service.? City Pulse was alerted to the Bash Back event through a press release and had no prior knowledge of where the ?action? would take place or what it would entail. ?We?re having an action today,? one of the organizers told this reporter at the Northstar Center. ?You?re in for a treat.? Bash Back began picketing outside the church doors soon after the 11:30 service began. The group also handed out fliers, which were much calmer in tone and targeted more at the curious than the angry. ?We specialize in confronting homophobia, transphobia and every and all other forms of oppression,? the fliers read. ?We strive for the liberation of all people.? After a few minutes of protesting in front of the church doors, the ?outside team? was asked to move its protest to the street, about 100 yards from the building. The team, standing beneath a row of tall flags that flank the entrance to the fortress-like church, focused its energy on the passing cars. About 40 minutes into the service, the ?inside team? ran from the building to their cars and drove away. The Rev. John Elieff, ?Helps Minister? at Mt. Hope Church, said Bash Back members disrupted the service by bursting into the sanctuary, throwing fliers, hanging a banner from the balcony and pulling fire alarms. ?It was an unwelcome and violent demonstration,? he said. When Eaton County Sheriff?s deputies arrived, they questioned the remaining protestors in the church parking lot. Elieff and other church staff questioned the Bash Back members why Mt. Hope Church had been singled out. ?I don?t know,? was an almost universal response. Elieff acknowledged the group?s right to protest, but he said the church?s civil rights were infringed upon when the service was disrupted. No one was arrested at the church, and, Elieff said, as far as he knew, no arrests have been made. ?I would have preferred that they had all been taken in,? he said. Elieff called Bash Back?s description of the church as a ?well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right-wing establishment? a ?gross misinterpretation.? He said the leadership of Mt. Hope Church attempts to identify the church as neither anti-homosexual nor anti-choice, but that homosexuality is one of many sins the Bible condemns. ?Mt. Hope Church struggles to follow Christ?s example of loving the sinner and not the sin,? he said.

 

[rasczak]

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Ask manlymatt83.

I haroophed, but it's fixed.

this site reminds me of that character in Office space who made the "Jump to Conclusions" game lol.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: rgwalt
I think the "state" should do away with marriage licenses all together. Why does the government have to give me permission to share my life or property with another person, whether it be a man or a woman.

because there are legal ramifications to marriage.

What I am saying is that there should not be any legal rammifications to marriage. Separate the concept from the control of the state. Why should the state care who I am married to, or that I am married? The state should have no stake or interest in the matter one way or another.

There has to be.

There are legal issues involving naming the children, schooling them and not to mention custody in case of divorce.

Divorce brings in even more legal issues such as estate, taxes, custody of children, etc.

Death brings on issues of estate, taxes, inheritance and if divorced there are even more legal issues.

Working families have issues with taxes, investments, property, social security, etc.

no one can escape legal issues.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: rgwalt
I think the "state" should do away with marriage licenses all together. Why does the government have to give me permission to share my life or property with another person, whether it be a man or a woman.

because there are legal ramifications to marriage.

What I am saying is that there should not be any legal rammifications to marriage. Separate the concept from the control of the state. Why should the state care who I am married to, or that I am married? The state should have no stake or interest in the matter one way or another.

There has to be.

There are legal issues involving naming the children, schooling them and not to mention custody in case of divorce.

Divorce brings in even more legal issues such as estate, taxes, custody of children, etc.

Death brings on issues of estate, taxes, inheritance and if divorced there are even more legal issues.

Working families have issues with taxes, investments, property, social security, etc.

no one can escape legal issues.

First of all, listing divorce as a problem with getting rid of legal marriage is just dumb. No legal marriage? No legal divorce. The system already deals with children of separated parents and unmarried couples. The problems you get by eliminating the government's stake in marriage are the same problems caused by marriage itself. Single people and unmarried couples all have the same issues you listed above, except there's a whole different set of laws after the witch doctor or sea captain of your choice performs the rain dance or ceremony of your choice, you say "I do" and sign the certificate.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: dud

What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"?

You can kiss your ass goodbye (or they'll kiss it for you)?

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?

No. He has the right to his opinions, and when it comes to the voting booth, he is still only one vote.

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Shawn

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?

They could have given that $1000 to some cause that would have helped someone who is genuinely in need, rather than a cause intended to oppress a group of people.

Who cares? It's their money.

True, but it speaks volumes of their priorities in life.

Look at any one of our list of expenditures, and no one is the perfect humanitarian. When you bought your last car, did you buy a good car, or a cheap car and give the difference to charity? Did you buy some internet porn instead of giving that money to the victims of Hurricane Ike?

Spending money in general helps everyone. Spend money on a social or political cause, where does the money go? Say it goes to the tv networks who run an ad, the money goes to paying the wages of the employees there, which they use to spend it on things of their own choosing, spreading the wealth around. Can't say it's wasted money, it's just money circulating through the economy.

In the end it is their money, they can spend it however they choose. We have no right to pass judgment on it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
We have no right to pass judgment on it.

We absolutely do.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Single people and unmarried couples all have the same issues you listed above, except there's a whole different set of laws after the witch doctor or sea captain of your choice performs the rain dance or ceremony of your choice, you say "I do" and sign the certificate.

And you are supposed to be a "tolerant" one? :roll:

Get out and actually live life. Sheesh.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: cubby1223
We have no right to pass judgment on it.

We absolutely do.

Then we all are equally intolerant of others.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?

No. He has the right to his opinions, and when it comes to the voting booth, he is still only one vote.

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Shawn

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?

They could have given that $1000 to some cause that would have helped someone who is genuinely in need, rather than a cause intended to oppress a group of people.

Who cares? It's their money.

True, but it speaks volumes of their priorities in life.

Look at any one of our list of expenditures, and no one is the perfect humanitarian. When you bought your last car, did you buy a good car, or a cheap car and give the difference to charity? Did you buy some internet porn instead of giving that money to the victims of Hurricane Ike?

Spending money in general helps everyone. Spend money on a social or political cause, where does the money go? Say it goes to the tv networks who run an ad, the money goes to paying the wages of the employees there, which they use to spend it on things of their own choosing, spreading the wealth around. Can't say it's wasted money, it's just money circulating through the economy.

In the end it is their money, they can spend it however they choose. We have no right to pass judgment on it.

Yes we do. Why does freedom of speech seem to cut off at the opinion of the donor and not extend to include criticism and boycott on the other side? We do have the right to pass judgment on peoples' actions, and we do it... a lot.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: cubby1223
We have no right to pass judgment on it.

We absolutely do.

Then we all are equally intolerant of others.

No.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Single people and unmarried couples all have the same issues you listed above, except there's a whole different set of laws after the witch doctor or sea captain of your choice performs the rain dance or ceremony of your choice, you say "I do" and sign the certificate.

And you are supposed to be a "tolerant" one? :roll:

Get out and actually live life. Sheesh.

I don't tolerate intolerance. You just say "tolerance" as if it was supposed to mean something by itself, while addressing no subject. Some things are intolerable. And other things demand too much, undeserved tolerance. I compare religious rituals to primitive superstition because the only tangible difference between them is the amount of current believers. It's not as if at some point in history we disproved Zeus and Quetzacoatl.

Ideas should never be "tolerated" in the same way we might tolerate sexual preference or ethnicity. Ideas stand or fall on their own merit.