Are Republicans Anti- LGBT?

[Tzara]

tzara, dear, "recommending a change of vision" is incredibly patronizing and assuming. You might not have noticed that-- I thought I'd let you know.

That's very kind. Thank you.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Let me modify then-- Capable, Intelligent centrists.

I personally have a great deal of respect for George H. Bush. And, of course, the Governator is my kinda guy!

 

[Huckleman2000]

Did it make you feel good to say that? I imagine that's how gay bashers feel when they bash gays. See? Both groups are exactly the same - petty, abusive, small-minded, just angry at the world. Maybe lashing out from fear that other side might be correct...

Oh, and our fifteenth anniversary is next March if you want to send us flowers. No, on second thought, fuck off.

Y'know, if you're going to chime in with snarky, deliberately obtuse posts like your first one about having equal rights with gay men, then you shouldn't be surprised when people post snark in return.

 

[rgraham666]

He can't help himself. It's the only fun he has.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

He can't help himself. It's the only fun he has.

Another one? Oh, dear.

 

[3113]

(That's kind of like a "good" Catholic girl taking birth control, even though the church doesn't allow it.)

Apples and oranges comparison, actually. As the Catholic church is not a democracy and their religious views are said to be from god. That's a bit different from a political party's positions which are decided on by its members (consider the republican party changes from Lincoln, where it was the party of abolitionist, as it were, to the present when it's been taken over by, well, evangelicals and a lot racists--ironic! Ditto on the side of the Democrats which used to be dominated by Southern racists and, with FDR, became the party that supports unions and such )

Also, one hopes that said members don't think they're divinely inspired (though, given George Bush and such, I have my doubts). That they understand their policies to be the polices of men meant for current situations that are happening now, and libel to change if the situation changes. Like whether or not to go to war, as compared to a religion which might say, "No war under any circumstances."

So it is a bit different. A good Catholic girl taking birth control is going against not just the church but god. A republican who disagrees with the party's policy on gay marriage can (1) maybe change the party's policy if there are enough who agree with them and not those who made the anti-gay-marriage policy, (2) presumably is viewing the situation as not having anything to do with religion but with people--which might be reason for the disagreement.

Very different from the girl who can't separate her use of birth control from her religion.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Y'know, if you're going to chime in with snarky, deliberately obtuse posts like your first one about having equal rights with gay men, then you shouldn't be surprised when people post snark in return.

I don't think it was deliberately obtuse... he strikes me as a genuine dunderhead.

 

[Guest]

Apples and oranges comparison, actually. As the Catholic church is not a democracy and their religious views are said to be from god. That's a bit different from a political party's positions which are decided on by its members (consider the republican party changes from Lincoln, where it was the party of abolitionist, as it were, to the present when it's been taken over by, well, evangelicals and a lot racists--ironic! Ditto on the side of the Democrats which used to be dominated by Southern racists and, with FDR, became the party that supports unions and such )

Also, one hopes that said members don't think they're divinely inspired (though, given George Bush and such, I have my doubts). That they understand their policies to be the polices of men meant for current situations that are happening now, and libel to change if the situation changes. Like whether or not to go to war, as compared to a religion which might say, "No war under any circumstances."

So it is a bit different. A good Catholic girl taking birth control is going against not just the church but god. A republican who disagrees with the party's policy on gay marriage can (1) maybe change the party's policy if there are enough who agree with them and not those who made the anti-gay-marriage policy, (2) presumably is viewing the situation as not having anything to do with religion but with people--which might be reason for the disagreement.

Very different from the girl who can't separate her use of birth control from her religion.

Ah - I see the difference. You make perfect sense.

In my years of voting, religion has been such a huge part of the Republican platform that I truly have difficulty separating them.

 

[3113]

In my years of voting, religion has been such a huge part of the Republican platform that I truly have difficulty separating them.

True enough, and it is hard to remember sometimes that they're not a religion. But it is still the other way around--the churches are the ones telling people to vote republican or go to hell, not the party

 

[Guest]

True enough, and it is hard to remember sometimes that they're not a religion. But it is still the other way around--the churches are the ones telling people to vote republican or go to hell, not the party

Ouch.

And isn't THAT a scary thing?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

But not a surprising one, given the history of church/state back-scratching. It all starts with Constintine, of course, who wanted to make sure that he ruled the Empire on Earth and God ruled the Heavens. Of course, God had handed the Empire to Constintine so, with the help of his bishops, the Emp made sure that the church was kept fat and healthy and all in favor of supporting him. It ain't changed much for some folk. They tell their parishioners how to vote in hopes of rewards from the government they supported.

Am I cynical about all this? As an historian? Naaaaaahhh . . .

 

[john-the-author]

Yeah, the neo-Nazi wing has taken over the party, thanx to Dubya and Rush. Stupid bastards. My hunting buddy insists that you can't have fiscal conservatism without "social conservatism" but in spite of his high intelligence and first rate education, sometimes him plain dumb. Limited government should mean that there are a lot of things that are none of the guvmint's damned business and who you snog, fuck or marry is on that list!

And so is what's in my gunsafe.

I believe that William F. Buckley and George Schultz were both fiscal conservatives without being particularly socially conservative. Christopher Buckley probably counts in this group, too, even if there was an ostracism of him for thinking that Obama was the better candidate and not McCain.

 

[john-the-author]

You have to remember, to many Republicans George W. Bush is a centrist. So are McCain and Palin.

Many Republicans are really stupid, too. If someone who's an active member of a Dominionist church (Palin) and some kind of fuckwit who claims to be evangelical (Dubya) are 'centrist', I truly cannot imagine what kind of person would be extreme. Oh, wait, yes, I can: fundamentalist dickheads who commit acts of terrorism in the name of their Gods, regardless of the brand on the label. Send them ALL back to their Gods as quickly as possible and get them the hell out of a decent world that doesn't need that kind of stupidity.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I believe that William F. Buckley and George Schultz were both fiscal conservatives without being particularly socially conservative. Christopher Buckley probably counts in this group, too, even if there was an ostracism of him for thinking that Obama was the better candidate and not McCain.

Another set of gentlemen for whom I have the greatest respect. Where, on today's political spectrum, is their match? The current administration has certainly not held up well. Nor, for that matter, has Congress.

 

[trysail]

I think consideration has to be given to the law of unintended consequences. Many state ( particularly California ) pension and retirement funds are already horribly underfunded ( in part because they are absurdly overgenerous ).

For example, here's the likelihood of 65-year-olds living to certain ages, according to figures from the Society of Actuaries:

Male. A 65-year-old man has a 41% chance of living to age 85 and a 20% chance of living to age 90.
Female. A 65-year-old woman has a 53% chance of living to age 85 and a 32% chance of living to age 90.
Couple. If the man and woman are married, the chance that at least one of them will live to any given age is increased. There's a 72% chance that one of them will live to age 85 and a 45% chance that one will live to age 90. There's even an 18% chance that one of them will live to age 95.

I wonder if actuarial tables even exist for same-sex joint survivorship.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think consideration has to be given to the law of unintended consequences. Many state ( particularly California ) pension and retirement funds are already horribly underfunded ( in part because they are absurdly overgenerous ).

For example, here's the likelihood of 65-year-olds living to certain ages, according to figures from the Society of Actuaries:

Male. A 65-year-old man has a 41% chance of living to age 85 and a 20% chance of living to age 90.
Female. A 65-year-old woman has a 53% chance of living to age 85 and a 32% chance of living to age 90.
Couple. If the man and woman are married, the chance that at least one of them will live to any given age is increased. There's a 72% chance that one of them will live to age 85 and a 45% chance that one will live to age 90. There's even an 18% chance that one of them will live to age 95.

I wonder if actuarial tables even exist for same-sex joint survivorship.

Perhaps not published, yet, but you can count on some actuary out there somewhere working on it feverishly. That's what they do.

 

[freshface]

I think consideration has to be given to the law of unintended consequences. Many state ( particularly California ) pension and retirement funds are already horribly underfunded ( in part because they are absurdly overgenerous ).

For example, here's the likelihood of 65-year-olds living to certain ages, according to figures from the Society of Actuaries:

Male. A 65-year-old man has a 41% chance of living to age 85 and a 20% chance of living to age 90.
Female. A 65-year-old woman has a 53% chance of living to age 85 and a 32% chance of living to age 90.
Couple. If the man and woman are married, the chance that at least one of them will live to any given age is increased. There's a 72% chance that one of them will live to age 85 and a 45% chance that one will live to age 90. There's even an 18% chance that one of them will live to age 95.

I wonder if actuarial tables even exist for same-sex joint survivorship.

You're asking the wrong question. The real question is if there's a difference between gays who live together as a couple without a marriage certificate and gays who have a marriage certificate. Since I'm not aware of any magic that happens in the ceremony, I suspect the answer to that one will be no. I think the increased life expectancy comes because a couple is more likely to have balanced and regular meals, emotional support, and assistance during injuries and illnesses. There's something to be said for having someone to live for.

If your argument is that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry because it would make them live longer, I'd say you're completely off base. They'll live together, own homes together, have children together, etc. whether society lets them marry or not. Easier for everyone to just let them marry.

 

[trysail]

You're asking the wrong question. The real question is if there's a difference between gays who live together as a couple without a marriage certificate and gays who have a marriage certificate. Since I'm not aware of any magic that happens in the ceremony, I suspect the answer to that one will be no. I think the increased life expectancy comes because a couple is more likely to have balanced and regular meals, emotional support, and assistance during injuries and illnesses. There's something to be said for having someone to live for.

If your argument is that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry because it would make them live longer, I'd say you're completely off base. They'll live together, own homes together, have children together, etc. whether society lets them marry or not. Easier for everyone to just let them marry.

The question I raise is whether there is an unrecognized potential expense to government and society from legalization of same-sex marriage.

Please don't mistake the question for an argument. It is simply that: a question.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The question I raise is whether there is an unrecognized potential expense to government and society from legalization of same-sex marriage.

Please don't mistake the question for an argument. It is simply that: a question.

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

That's an interesting question.
And it's an issue that no one has brought up either pro or con.

You'd think that, if some of these anti-gay marriage groups had thought of it-- they would be trumpeting "cost to society" argument, wouldn't they?

But I think the return question, which is equally interesting is; At what point does a "cost to society" become more important than the rights of the people that are part of that society?

 

[Safe_Bet]

The question I raise is whether there is an unrecognized potential expense to government and society from legalization of same-sex marriage.

Please don't mistake the question for an argument. It is simply that: a question.

What difference does it make if there IS an increased expense?

You don't get to prevent me from having the RIGHTS I should have been accorded all along, just because it is going to be more expensive now.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOIN THE AUTHOR

You need to diversify your circle of acquaintances inorder to get the full scope of political flavors.

Most Republicans and Democrats are centrists; there isnt a dime's worth of difference between Teddy Kennedy and Dick Cheney when it comes to the essential issues. There is no fucking way Teddy Kennedy will ever let the peons take his money from him, ditto for Nancy Pelosi. They will never support socialism that requires their money. George Bush and Dick Cheney will never support capitalism that allows you to compete with them. The real extremes are totalitarians and anarchists.

Gays and lesbians are no different from anyone else, and there are plenty of them who get down on their knees to thank Jesus that same-sex marriage laws prevents their honeys from getting a claim to their assets.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Religion, and sexuality, are private matters.

Several thousand years of human history should have taught us by now how absolutely, vitally important it is to keep religion and government separated at all costs.

The republicans need eight years in the wilderness to cleanse the cancer at the centre of the party.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HYDRA

I have a hunch the Democrats have as many empty-suits in their party as the Republicans do, and in 6 months you'll kiss the ass of any homophobe bigot who can save your ass financially. America has bigger fish to fry than giving faggots hugs.

 

[SlickTony]

Religion, and sexuality, are private matters.

The republicans need eight years in the wilderness to cleanse the cancer at the centre of the party.

If eight is enough...

 

[3113]

If eight is enough...

40 years is traditional and I think that we should stick with tradition