I sometimes read editorials on a Polish leftist website, and someone there called gays the "fifth column of the right" recently. The argument was that gays are, as a group, prone to pro-market, pro-low-tax, anti-welfare stances and the moment they get what they want (full recognition of gay marriage) they will abandon the left like the last year's trendy clubbing joint.
There is something to it, as gays are usually single or DINKs, which means they have more disposable income than the average people, and are selfish and immature, which makes them prone to anti-social stances, like libertarianism. Plus while gays champion many leftist causes, such as pro-choice, I have a feeling that a lot of them is more the case of "I champion your cause so you champion mine" than any actual zeal (especially, as abortion is an issue that affects preciously low number of gays and lesbians).
So my question is - why does the right (with some exceptions) not embrace the gays and thus wins them as voters from the left? Would the right lose votes of the religious because of it (will they have anywhere else to go?) or is this because many rightwinger politicians are less cynical than we think and actually really hate gays?
They have somewhere to go & it's not voting. There's no other group that can offer a solution to losing the religious vote.
Once the gay issue stops being a wedge issue of course. I mean why would a religious voter be anti-gay if no gay issues are part of the political game anymore?
I am sure some right wing pols really hate gays but ultimately it is about winning and, in the US anyway, raising funds.
Religious voters will stay home. They had a significantly lower turnout compared with the general population before Reagan started courting them.
IIRC, embracing gays has cost some GOP politicians their career :D
At any rate, I'm somewhat skeptical that gays will abandon the Democrats in large numbers anytime soon. The Dems tend to do a pretty good job of holding on to core constituencies, sometimes with little or no effort.
I hope the GOP continues to put a lot of the social issues to the side and I hope that encourages gay voters to vote GOP. But "gay neutral" is about where I'd draw the line. I would not support adding "pro gay" positions into the party platform. I'm all for the big tent, but I don't want a lavender one.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 10:43:09 AM
Religious voters will stay home. They had a significantly lower turnout compared with the general population before Reagan started courting them.
They can still be courted there will just be another wedge issue they will use to mobilize them.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 10:54:51 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 10:43:09 AM
Religious voters will stay home. They had a significantly lower turnout compared with the general population before Reagan started courting them.
They can still be courted there will just be another wedge issue they will use to mobilize them.
Sure, but I think Marty's question was dealing with right now. They're not ready to concede on this one yet.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 10:58:58 AM
Sure, but I think Marty's question was dealing with right now. They're not ready to concede on this one yet.
Ah I thought he was talking about a future period after Gays had won their political struggles...that they would abandon the Left and hop on the Tea Party train.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 11:01:05 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 10:58:58 AM
Sure, but I think Marty's question was dealing with right now. They're not ready to concede on this one yet.
Ah I thought he was talking about a future period after Gays had won their political struggles...that they would abandon the Left and hop on the Tea Party train.
No, no, I mean if the GOP changed their position overnight, would it help or hurt them politically, in terms of votes.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 10:46:34 AM
IIRC, embracing gays has cost some GOP politicians their career :D
At any rate, I'm somewhat skeptical that gays will abandon the Democrats in large numbers anytime soon. The Dems tend to do a pretty good job of holding on to core constituencies, sometimes with little or no effort.
I hope the GOP continues to put a lot of the social issues to the side and I hope that encourages gay voters to vote GOP. But "gay neutral" is about where I'd draw the line. I would not support adding "pro gay" positions into the party platform. I'm all for the big tent, but I don't want a lavender one.
Once it stops being an issue, being "pro-gay" would be as ridiculous as being "pro-women voting rights" or "pro-black civil rights" i.e. a non-issue.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 11:02:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 11:01:05 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 10:58:58 AM
Sure, but I think Marty's question was dealing with right now. They're not ready to concede on this one yet.
Ah I thought he was talking about a future period after Gays had won their political struggles...that they would abandon the Left and hop on the Tea Party train.
No, no, I mean if the GOP changed their position overnight, would it help or hurt them politically, in terms of votes.
Sink them for a good generation.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 11:02:39 AM
No, no, I mean if the GOP changed their position overnight, would it help or hurt them politically, in terms of votes.
On a national level? Oh yeah. On a statewide level they already do where it is politically acceptable to do so.
It's a non-issue in the UK. Happened really quickly too. In 1990 it was an issue (tho' not a big one), by the last election all parties were in favour of civil partnerships. I have no idea whether gays vote for one party more than another now.
Quote from: Gups on September 14, 2011, 11:15:48 AM
It's a non-issue in the UK. Happened really quickly too. In 1990 it was an issue (tho' not a big one), by the last election all parties were in favour of civil partnerships. I have no idea whether gays vote for one party more than another now.
At least in gay media, there is still a general trend that tories are "fake" when it comes to gay rights. If I were to guess, I'd say most gays vote lib dem.
I doubt it. Lib Dems only get 10-20% of the general public, why would they get any more than than amongst gays when they have identical policies.
You think that gay people are as obsessed as you are with being gay. Most aren't. They are interested in taxes, pensions, jobs etc and vote accordingly.
This is from a couple of years back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8131792.stm
"But new research by Jake, a networking organisation for gay professionals, suggests a worrying trend for Labour, with 38% of Jake members who took part saying they would vote Conservative at the next election, 1% higher than the general population, according to an average of recent opinion polls.
Labour came third on 20% behind the Liberal Democrats - even though 86.6% of those surveyed said Labour was the party that had achieved most for gay people and just 4% said the Tories were "gay friendly", compared with 44% for Labour and the Lib Dems"
Not a very good opinion poll but better than nothing.
I would say that for many years British politicians of all stripes grossly-overestimated how interested the general public was in homosexuality and homosexuals. It certainly seems to have come as a surprise to them that the various reforms became embedded so quickly in the national psyche.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 10:37:40 AMThe argument was that gays are, as a group, prone to pro-market, pro-low-tax, anti-welfare stances
Does that argument actually have any merit? I have no idea whether it is so, but thinking of gay politicians here, they seem to come in all stripes from conservative to leftist. That obviously doesn't tell anything about gays in general, but it makes me sceptical that their sexuality is actually corelated to political stances other than gay rights.
EDIT: Oh, I missed Gups post. I concur with what he posted.
Quote from: Zanza on September 14, 2011, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 10:37:40 AMThe argument was that gays are, as a group, prone to pro-market, pro-low-tax, anti-welfare stances
Does that argument actually have any merit? I have no idea whether it is so, but thinking of gay politicians here, they seem to come in all stripes from conservative to leftist. That obviously doesn't tell anything about gays in general, but it makes me sceptical that their sexuality is actually corelated to political stances other than gay rights.
It's anecdotal, but that's my experience when talking to gay people. But then again, I may be mostly talking to urban middle class gays.
But as I explained it has less to do with sexuality per se, but rather with lifestyle and the fact that most gays have no kids and prefer to live in big cities - this alone can inform their political choices, no?
Quote from: Gups on September 14, 2011, 11:34:25 AM
I doubt it. Lib Dems only get 10-20% of the general public, why would they get any more than than amongst gays when they have identical policies.
You think that gay people are as obsessed as you are with being gay. Most aren't. They are interested in taxes, pensions, jobs etc and vote accordingly.
This is from a couple of years back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8131792.stm
"But new research by Jake, a networking organisation for gay professionals, suggests a worrying trend for Labour, with 38% of Jake members who took part saying they would vote Conservative at the next election, 1% higher than the general population, according to an average of recent opinion polls.
Labour came third on 20% behind the Liberal Democrats - even though 86.6% of those surveyed said Labour was the party that had achieved most for gay people and just 4% said the Tories were "gay friendly", compared with 44% for Labour and the Lib Dems"
Not a very good opinion poll but better than nothing.
Can you refrain from personal attacks?
I expressly said that my view is based on the UK GLBT media I read - sure it may be not representative, but this is not about my personal "obsessions".
That wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation. You are obsessed. Surely you don't deny it? There's nothing wrong with it per se, although it's a bit boring for the rest of us, but it does colour how you see the world. You think gay people vote on gay issues but most of them don't. In middle-class London at least being gay is wholly unremarkable and uninteresting.
And don't tell people to refrain from personal attacks when you throw around words like paki and retard around like confetti.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 11:03:22 AM
Once it stops being an issue, being "pro-gay" would be as ridiculous as being "pro-women voting rights" or "pro-black civil rights" i.e. a non-issue.
*Should* be a non-issue, but since we still have women's & black "civil rights" movements, I'm not sure if it will or not.
I would hope that with gays' relative affluence they would drop their aggrieved status at that point, but these types of movements tend to want to go on forever, demanding new things previous generations wouldn't have dreamed of asking for.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 11:51:01 AMIt's anecdotal, but that's my experience when talking to gay people. But then again, I may be mostly talking to urban middle class gays.
But as I explained it has less to do with sexuality per se, but rather with lifestyle and the fact that most gays have no kids and prefer to live in big cities - this alone can inform their political choices, no?
I am sure it will have an influence. However, at least over here, big cities tend left in politics, while smaller, rural places tend right. Not sure whether or not having kids would influence your political choices. It doesn't seem to be very related to being pro-market or not for example.
I just tried to find something on political preferences of homosexuals in Germany, but couldn't find anything. Either it isn't researched well or I just used the wrong search terms.
Quote from: Gups on September 14, 2011, 12:03:45 PM
That wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation. You are obsessed. Surely you don't deny it? There's nothing wrong with it per se, although it's a bit boring for the rest of us, but it does colour how you see the world. You think gay people vote on gay issues but most of them don't. In middle-class London at least being gay is wholly unremarkable and uninteresting.
:yes:
Quote from: Gups on September 14, 2011, 11:15:48 AM
It's a non-issue in the UK. Happened really quickly too. In 1990 it was an issue (tho' not a big one), by the last election all parties were in favour of civil partnerships. I have no idea whether gays vote for one party more than another now.
I seem to remember reading that gays generally voted for Boris in the Mayoral election. I think Cameron lost a lot of support with his disastrous Gay Times interview though. I think before that though the three main parties were level pegging at around 25-30% in gay polls. I think the Tories were actually winning with young homos, which I imagine is inevitable given that they've less exposure to the Tories as the nasty party introducing section 28 and the like.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 12:04:08 PM
I would hope that with gays' relative affluence they would drop their aggrieved status at that point, but these types of movements tend to want to go on forever, demanding new things previous generations wouldn't have dreamed of asking for.
The movement for equal rights for gays has never been about affluence, except in so far as they want inheritance rights and the rest.
And remember, in Britain, educated homosexuals have always had one final hideout: the Tory Party.
It's a myth that all Tories are homosexual.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 01:06:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 12:04:08 PM
I would hope that with gays' relative affluence they would drop their aggrieved status at that point, but these types of movements tend to want to go on forever, demanding new things previous generations wouldn't have dreamed of asking for.
The movement for equal rights for gays has never been about affluence, except in so far as they want inheritance rights and the rest.
I know. I made mention of that since income inequality (whether real or imagined) is a driving force for women's groups and black civil rights groups.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 01:15:39 PMI know. I made mention of that since income inequality (whether real or imagined) is a driving force for women's groups and black civil rights groups.
But that's because gays have never been economically disadvantaged for generations in everything but love we've been equally advantaged and disadvantaged as anyone else. Women and blacks have, so of course there's an important economic element there.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 14, 2011, 11:44:47 AM
I would say that for many years British politicians of all stripes grossly-overestimated how interested the general public was in homosexuality and homosexuals. It certainly seems to have come as a surprise to them that the various reforms became embedded so quickly in the national psyche.
Same is true in Canada. A decade ago gay marriage was still a hot topic. Now, pretty well no-one could care less, and those arguing against it look positively antiquated - like that old granny kept locked in the nursing home because she wouldn't shut up about women going outside without gloves on. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 01:18:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 01:15:39 PMI know. I made mention of that since income inequality (whether real or imagined) is a driving force for women's groups and black civil rights groups.
But that's because gays have never been economically disadvantaged for generations in everything but love we've been equally advantaged and disadvantaged as anyone else. Women and blacks have, so of course there's an important economic element there.
I think you're missing my point. I'm saying I hope the lack of supposed economic disparity would allow teh gayz to drop the movement thing in this scenario.
But I fear they won't. In Western societies these days victim status gets you certain advantages, and I don't think we'll see gay rights groups give that up even if they get what they are demanding at the moment.
Funny, I always pictured the gays as being from moderate to radical left-wing. I guess the forum distorted my perception.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 01:46:06 PMBut I fear they won't. In Western societies these days victim status gets you certain advantages, and I don't think we'll see gay rights groups give that up even if they get what they are demanding at the moment.
I know. Just look at American conservatives.
Quote from: Zanza on September 14, 2011, 12:04:55 PM
Not sure whether or not having kids would influence your political choices. It doesn't seem to be very related to being pro-market or not for example.
- more disposable income
- does not care about stuff like education costs
- does not care about tax breaks, social assistance etc. for parents (prefers lower taxes instead)
- more inclined to save money/put money into a personal pension fund
- less likely to support various "protect the children" initiatives
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 01:53:01 PM
- more disposable income
- does not care about stuff like education costs
- does not care about tax breaks, social assistance etc. for parents (prefers lower taxes instead)
- more inclined to save money/put money into a personal pension fund
- less likely to support various "protect the children" initiatives
The characteristic you describe here is "childless", not necessarily "gay". I am not convinced that childless people generally have different political views than other people. It's possible, but I don't think my (current?) childlessness figures in my political decisions. I think a tax break for parents is a good policy regardless of whether I benefit from it or not.
However, your initial question was whether embracing gays would cost conservatives votes. Tax breaks to parents and "protect the children" initiatives are most certainly conservative policies, so giving those up to embrace gays would cost them dearly. The stuff you describe here is more like Euro-liberal or US-libertarian policies. The former certainly draws their strength from urban middle and upper classes, but I am not sure if childlessness figures much. As far as I know their constituency here is often self-employed well-earning people, regardless of whether they have children or not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 01:46:06 PMBut I fear they won't. In Western societies these days victim status gets you certain advantages, and I don't think we'll see gay rights groups give that up even if they get what they are demanding at the moment.
I know. Just look at American conservatives.
:huh:
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 02:05:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 01:46:06 PMBut I fear they won't. In Western societies these days victim status gets you certain advantages, and I don't think we'll see gay rights groups give that up even if they get what they are demanding at the moment.
I know. Just look at American conservatives.
:huh:
Just think of all the whining about how the mainstream media is biased against them.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 01:53:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 14, 2011, 12:04:55 PM
Not sure whether or not having kids would influence your political choices. It doesn't seem to be very related to being pro-market or not for example.
- more disposable income
- does not care about stuff like education costs
- does not care about tax breaks, social assistance etc. for parents (prefers lower taxes instead)
- more inclined to save money/put money into a personal pension fund
- less likely to support various "protect the children" initiatives
The thing is people develop their political conscience and preferences well before they have children or sometimes even realise that they are gay. In fact, unless a given party in a country is overtly hostile to homosexuality, then gay votes will be determined by the same factors as everyone else: namely upbringing, education, and the whole host of other intagibles. It's much how a lot of rather comfortably well off people genuinely believe the centre-left path is a better one, and a lot of poor people are drawn to the pro-business right wing.
Quote from: Warspite on September 14, 2011, 02:18:26 PMThe thing is people develop their political conscience and preferences well before they have children or sometimes even realise that they are gay. In fact, unless a given party in a country is overtly hostile to homosexuality, then gay votes will be determined by the same factors as everyone else: namely upbringing, education, and the whole host of other intagibles. It's much how a lot of rather comfortably well off people genuinely believe the centre-left path is a better one, and a lot of poor people are drawn to the pro-business right wing.
Yeah. I think Marty often projects his kind-of selfish (in the best possible sense) sort of classical liberalism onto gays as a whole.
It's worth saying that Cameron's pitch to the gays, before it sort-of fell apart, wasn't based on them not having kids but on being pro-family and including the gays in his definition of 'family'. He said so explicitly more than once about how he wants the tax system to support people committing to each other whether gay or straight. It was asking gays to vote conservatively.
Btw, I wonder, is the phenomenon here with gays being often kind of conservative on some social issues (such as abortion, or law and order) repeated in other countries, or is this Polish catholic self-loathing?
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
Btw, I wonder, is the phenomenon here with gays being often kind of conservative on some social issues (such as abortion, or law and order) repeated in other countries, or is this Polish catholic self-loathing?
I'm pretty conservative on those issues :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 02:39:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 02:37:33 PM
Btw, I wonder, is the phenomenon here with gays being often kind of conservative on some social issues (such as abortion, or law and order) repeated in other countries, or is this Polish catholic self-loathing?
I'm pretty conservative on those issues :P
Yeah but then you are a catholic. Catholic gays make for some of the better debate opponents of mine, admittedly. :P
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 02:05:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 01:46:06 PMBut I fear they won't. In Western societies these days victim status gets you certain advantages, and I don't think we'll see gay rights groups give that up even if they get what they are demanding at the moment.
I know. Just look at American conservatives.
:huh:
Oh don't play coy. You would think the entire educated establishment is out to destroy them. There is always a war on this and an attack on that. The Conservatives are always bemoaning what victims they are to the evil forces of whatever whatever.
Granted that is not all and hopefully not even a majority of Conservatives but you know what he is talking about. Nobody whines about victimhood like Americans of all stripes.
I'm glad you said that Valmy, I was thinking it needed to be said but, as a whiney Brit, prevaricated...motes and beams and all that :D
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 11:02:39 AM
No, no, I mean if the GOP changed their position overnight, would it help or hurt them politically, in terms of votes.
Hurt them, of course. Republicans have been pretty successful at appealing to people's intolerances to get them to vote against their interests.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 02:40:44 PM
Yeah but then you are a catholic. Catholic gays make for some of the better debate opponents of mine, admittedly. :P
Hey it's our Jesuitical mindset :P
And I'm not really Catholic. I'd be Anglican if it wasn't that the Anglicans who are okay with gays are also okay with women priests and guitars :bleeding:
I think class and background has far more to do with it to be honest. During the London riots me and my non-gay university educated friends were talking about social malaise and exclusion, family and lack of opportunity - all of that sort of thing. I went a coffee shop in Soho and heard a bunch of East End queens support calling the Army and, if need be, the RAF in to deal with it. I think our different class backgrounds (and my middle class cringe) had far more to do with our opinions on law and order than our shared sexuality.
QuoteOh don't play coy. You would think the entire educated establishment is out to destroy them.
It and the inter-linked weird cultural attitude are the things I find most frustrating about American conservatism. I mean hearing conservatives standing on stage taking pot shots at the idea of an independent central bank and its head (with a couple of honourable exceptions) is just strange.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 02:42:51 PM
Nobody whines about victimhood like Americans of all stripes.
Your American exceptionalism is galling! :mad:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 02:54:28 PM
Your American exceptionalism is galling! :mad:
America is a whining city on a hill!
Good question Mart.
Probably moot with me because I will and do vote GOP almost as much as I'd vote Dem.
Though far from a single issue voter, I couldn't vote for someone distinctly hostile towards gays. I also have a problem with candidates who base much of their agenda from religious ideals.
Childless, I do care very much about education, I want better education and want it available to as many as possible (particullary in the sciences and math.) I do support social assistance programs, but rehauled. There is way too much waste in several programs at the moment.
I'm failry conservative in foreign policy and want a strong defense budget (versus military budget.)
Reublicans are not going to switch because even if it could help them in general (a debatable question itself), it will hurt them within the primary system.
Being pro-gay may not hurt Joe Republican when he is running against Joe Dem, but being not anti-gay is going to hurt him enough with the fundy intolerant crowd that he is going to lose the primary before he ever gets that far.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
They have somewhere to go & it's not voting. There's no other group that can offer a solution to losing the religious vote.
This (and Eddie T said something similar).
And it's not just voting - religious voters are the ones likely to knock on doors, make telephone calls, DONATE - all stuff that makes up the backbone of any political campaign.
This is why even in Canada you really don't see Harper reaching out to gay voters. All of the policy issues have been decided and are old news - yet I don't think you'll see Harper at a gay pride parade. "Religious" voters are a small but important part of his coalition, and he does not want them to drop out even though they're not going to go and vote for the NDP instead.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 03:52:00 PM
Reublicans are not going to switch because even if it could help them in general (a debatable question itself), it will hurt them within the primary system.
Being pro-gay may not hurt Joe Republican when he is running against Joe Dem, but being not anti-gay is going to hurt him enough with the fundy intolerant crowd that he is going to lose the primary before he ever gets that far.
The system works.
QuoteIn the October issue of GQ magazine, Eastwood said that Republicans were making a big mistake by opposing same sex marriage.
"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?" Eastwood opined. "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of."
"They go on and on with all this bullshit about 'sanctity' -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 01:46:06 PM
But I fear they won't. In Western societies these days victim status gets you certain advantages, and I don't think we'll see gay rights groups give that up even if they get what they are demanding at the moment.
Advantages aside, victimization is part of the bedrock of the American gay group identity. It would be a sea change if they were to drop that. And anyone who feels oppressed by The Man has to vote Democrat.
Did not finish reading thread before posting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 05:39:52 PM
Advantages aside, victimization is part of the bedrock of the American gay group identity.
I thought it was their little subculture and stuff. I don't see garbon or Habsy or most of the gay guys I know IRL latching on to being victims.
I mean that is not to say they do not have whiny victims but every group does that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 05:39:52 PMAdvantages aside, victimization is part of the bedrock of the American gay group identity. It would be a sea change if they were to drop that. And anyone who feels oppressed by The Man has to vote Democrat.
I think Republicans would be better up looking into why almost every minority group supports the Democrats than just blaming 'victim culture'. Things like a Presidential candidate (albeit a third tier one) referring to the Latino vote as 'the illegal vote' - a pure gaffe - and so on could be part of it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 05:52:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 05:39:52 PMAdvantages aside, victimization is part of the bedrock of the American gay group identity. It would be a sea change if they were to drop that. And anyone who feels oppressed by The Man has to vote Democrat.
I think Republicans would be better up looking into why almost every minority group supports the Democrats than just blaming 'victim culture'. Things like a Presidential candidate (albeit a third tier one) referring to the Latino vote as 'the illegal vote' - a pure gaffe - and so on could be part of it.
Yi should be reminded that the modern GOP loves playing the victim as well. It's just more absurd when they do so. Things like the the evil liberal media and the War on Christmas. In the words of former GOP congresswoman Helen Chenoweth ""It's the white, Anglo-Saxon male that's endangered today."
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 05:52:29 PM
I think Republicans would be better up looking into why almost every minority group supports the Democrats than just blaming 'victim culture'.
No, that's pretty much it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 01:06:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 12:04:08 PM
I would hope that with gays' relative affluence they would drop their aggrieved status at that point, but these types of movements tend to want to go on forever, demanding new things previous generations wouldn't have dreamed of asking for.
The movement for equal rights for gays has never been about affluence, except in so far as they want inheritance rights and the rest.
Although there a lot of gay rights causes that are urgent, this isn't one of them. Draft a will! It's not just for straight people!
QuoteI went a coffee shop in Soho and heard a bunch of East End queens support calling the Army and, if need be, the RAF in to deal with it.
I want to be their friends now. :blurgh:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:02:10 PM
Yi should be reminded that the modern GOP loves playing the victim as well. It's just more absurd when they do so. Things like the the evil liberal media and the War on Christmas. In the words of former GOP congresswoman Helen Chenoweth ""It's the white, Anglo-Saxon male that's endangered today."
Yeah, that's been covered already. And you guys are defining the "victimhood" thing down a bit. Unless I missed the part where conservatives are trying to get in on the affirmative action gravy train or advocating for special rights for themselves.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:02:10 PM
Yi should be reminded that the modern GOP loves playing the victim as well. It's just more absurd when they do so. Things like the the evil liberal media and the War on Christmas. In the words of former GOP congresswoman Helen Chenoweth ""It's the white, Anglo-Saxon male that's endangered today."
Yeah, that's been covered already. And you guys are defining the "victimhood" thing down a bit. Unless I missed the part where conservatives are trying to get in on the affirmative action gravy train or advocating for special rights for themselves.
Just throwing it out there, education vouchers?
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:02:10 PM
Yi should be reminded that the modern GOP loves playing the victim as well. It's just more absurd when they do so. Things like the the evil liberal media and the War on Christmas. In the words of former GOP congresswoman Helen Chenoweth ""It's the white, Anglo-Saxon male that's endangered today."
Yeah, that's been covered already. And you guys are defining the "victimhood" thing down a bit. Unless I missed the part where conservatives are trying to get in on the affirmative action gravy train or advocating for special rights for themselves.
You mean like the tax exempt status of churches? Watching Fox News you immediately get the feeling that Conservatives are constant assault. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop---special-victims-unit
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Just throwing it out there, education vouchers?
All voucher programs that I've read about are for less than the cost of a public school education.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:20:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Just throwing it out there, education vouchers?
All voucher programs that I've read about are for less than the cost of a public school education.
But it's public funds flowing into private education, right? Which means, predominantly, Christian private and home schooling, support for which is often couched in a "my child will be a victim of state propaganda if I let them go to public school" sort of way.
It was the first thing I could think of, so maybe it's not a great example.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2011, 06:23:06 PM
But it's public funds flowing into private education, right? Which means, predominantly, Christian private and home schooling, support for which is often couched in a "my child will be a victim of state propaganda if I let them go to public school" sort of way.
It was the first thing I could think of, so maybe it's not a great example.
It's not a great example. It would be a better example if everyone in favor of vouchers owned a private Christian for profit school.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:20:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Just throwing it out there, education vouchers?
All voucher programs that I've read about are for less than the cost of a public school education.
:lol: Yeah, that's it. And the sudden increase in private schools in the South after Brown v Board of education was due to costs as well.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 06:09:33 PM
And you guys are defining the "victimhood" thing down a bit. Unless I missed the part where conservatives are trying to get in on the affirmative action gravy train or advocating for special rights for themselves.
Yeah well we don't have affirmative action in Texas so I forget about that.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:29:19 PM
:lol: Yeah, that's it. And the sudden increase in private schools in the South after Brown v Board of education was due to costs as well.
Are you staking your immense Languish reputation on the claim that at least some voucher programs pay out more than the cost of public education? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:31:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:29:19 PM
:lol: Yeah, that's it. And the sudden increase in private schools in the South after Brown v Board of education was due to costs as well.
Are you staking your immense Languish reputation on the claim that at least some voucher programs pay out more than the cost of public education? :huh:
No, I'm staking my immense Languish reputation for at least some of the appeal of voucher programs is to undermine the teaching of things Conservatives don't like. Things such as Evolution. Can't teach creationism in public school, so we shift more government funding to private schools where you can teach kids anything.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:35:41 PM
No, I'm staking my immense Languish reputation for at least some of the appeal of voucher programs is to undermine the teaching of things Conservatives don't like. Things such as Evolution. Can't teach creationism in public school, so we shift more government funding to private schools where you can teach kids anything.
Right, but Ide was asking about the gravy train.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:39:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:35:41 PM
No, I'm staking my immense Languish reputation for at least some of the appeal of voucher programs is to undermine the teaching of things Conservatives don't like. Things such as Evolution. Can't teach creationism in public school, so we shift more government funding to private schools where you can teach kids anything.
Right, but Ide was asking about the gravy train.
I was referring mainly to the "or special rights for themselves" part.
Now, technically, it's not a special right; if I wanted to set up a School for Atheists, I could do so, but the market reality is that most voucher cash would go to Christian education, and much of the rest to Jewish or Muslim education, so in a practical sense the voucher movement would be advocating for a special right on the part of extremely religious parents to educate their child in the manner they wish at least partly on the public dime.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 05:48:09 PM
I thought it was their little subculture and stuff. I don't see garbon or Habsy or most of the gay guys I know IRL latching on to being victims.
I mean that is not to say they do not have whiny victims but every group does that.
Right and per the victim narrative, I should be the biggest mouth here about victimization seeing as how I'm twice a minority...and yet that doesn't actually pan out.
Also, as for "gravy train," if you count reductions in liabilities as adding a positive to a negative, conservatives do complain A LOT about the gravy train for rich people and corporations as just not being maglev enough.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:20:04 PM
All voucher programs that I've read about are for less than the cost of a public school education.
Our new sort-of voucher scheme's for the same amount as public school education I think, and more for special needs and poor kids.
What does having victim status have to do with claiming special benefits? Why can't you have one without the other?
Edit: But, to be fair, schools can't make a profit so that's moot.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 06:49:16 PM
What does having victim status have to do with claiming special benefits? Why can't you have one without the other?
It's theoretically possible. And as I think you already noted gays have had one without the other.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:19:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:02:10 PM
Yi should be reminded that the modern GOP loves playing the victim as well. It's just more absurd when they do so. Things like the the evil liberal media and the War on Christmas. In the words of former GOP congresswoman Helen Chenoweth ""It's the white, Anglo-Saxon male that's endangered today."
Yeah, that's been covered already. And you guys are defining the "victimhood" thing down a bit. Unless I missed the part where conservatives are trying to get in on the affirmative action gravy train or advocating for special rights for themselves.
You mean like the tax exempt status of churches?
That's a pretty weak attempt. Their disastrous interpretation of the Second Amendment is a better example.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2011, 06:23:06 PM
But it's public funds flowing into private education, right? Which means, predominantly, Christian private and home schooling, support for which is often couched in a "my child will be a victim of state propaganda if I let them go to public school" sort of way.
It was the first thing I could think of, so maybe it's not a great example.
Arguing in favor of privatization isn't really the same, because presumably everyone could take their kids out of public school.
I think it's more a 'my child will be the victim of blacks and have Tim for a teacher if I let them go to public school' thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:39:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:35:41 PM
No, I'm staking my immense Languish reputation for at least some of the appeal of voucher programs is to undermine the teaching of things Conservatives don't like. Things such as Evolution. Can't teach creationism in public school, so we shift more government funding to private schools where you can teach kids anything.
Right, but Ide was asking about the gravy train.
This may shock you, but I'm not Ide.
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2011, 06:44:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 05:48:09 PM
I thought it was their little subculture and stuff. I don't see garbon or Habsy or most of the gay guys I know IRL latching on to being victims.
I mean that is not to say they do not have whiny victims but every group does that.
Right and per the victim narrative, I should be the biggest mouth here about victimization seeing as how I'm twice a minority...and yet that doesn't actually pan out.
What can I say, you're special.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 07:34:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2011, 06:44:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 05:48:09 PM
I thought it was their little subculture and stuff. I don't see garbon or Habsy or most of the gay guys I know IRL latching on to being victims.
I mean that is not to say they do not have whiny victims but every group does that.
Right and per the victim narrative, I should be the biggest mouth here about victimization seeing as how I'm twice a minority...and yet that doesn't actually pan out.
What can I say, you're special.
Because I don't feel victimized?
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2011, 07:35:22 PM
Because I don't feel victimized?
No, your special for other reasons. I don't know exactly why. :)
Okay, well let me know if you guys come up with any actual examples :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 07:47:19 PM
Okay, well let me know if you guys come up with any actual examples :lol:
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 02:42:51 PMOh don't play coy. You would think the entire educated establishment is out to destroy them. There is always a war on this and an attack on that. The Conservatives are always bemoaning what victims they are to the evil forces of whatever whatever.
Granted that is not all and hopefully not even a majority of Conservatives but you know what he is talking about. Nobody whines about victimhood like Americans of all stripes.
:mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 07:47:19 PM
Okay, well let me know if you guys come up with any actual examples :lol:
I didn't realize you meant 'wants special deals and stuff' as victimization. I was thinking of it as an identity thing and a source of political mobilization.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 07:51:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 02:42:51 PMOh don't play coy. You would think the entire educated establishment is out to destroy them. There is always a war on this and an attack on that. The Conservatives are always bemoaning what victims they are to the evil forces of whatever whatever.
Granted that is not all and hopefully not even a majority of Conservatives but you know what he is talking about. Nobody whines about victimhood like Americans of all stripes.
:mellow:
Oh. Well what did you mean then?
See I thought the whole Affirmative Action thing was over 15 years ago with the Hopwood vs. Texas thing.
I'm not sure what a "truce" looks like, or why gays would want it when it's pretty clear they're winning the culture war.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 09:33:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 07:47:19 PM
Okay, well let me know if you guys come up with any actual examples :lol:
I didn't realize you meant 'wants special deals and stuff' as victimization. I was thinking of it as an identity thing and a source of political mobilization.
I wonder what special deals gays want?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2011, 06:23:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:20:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Just throwing it out there, education vouchers?
All voucher programs that I've read about are for less than the cost of a public school education.
But it's public funds flowing into private education, right? Which means, predominantly, Christian private and home schooling, support for which is often couched in a "my child will be a victim of state propaganda if I let them go to public school" sort of way.
Everybody that I've talked to who has sent their children to private school or homeschooled them has talked about it in terms of the incompetence of the public school system, not in ideological or religious terms.
I don't think conservative voters are particularly whiny, except about having to pay taxes. Conservative pundits, on the other hand...
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 09:34:45 PMOh. Well what did you mean then?
Oh no, I was just meaning this was the big example.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 11:01:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 09:33:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 07:47:19 PM
Okay, well let me know if you guys come up with any actual examples :lol:
I didn't realize you meant 'wants special deals and stuff' as victimization. I was thinking of it as an identity thing and a source of political mobilization.
I wonder what special deals gays want?
Hate crime legislation. Recognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
And same-sex marriage ;)
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AM
Hate crime legislation. Recognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
And same-sex marriage ;)
Ahh, so not being persecuted is a "special deal". Do not many Conservatives demand special recognition of Christianity in government and the like?
Not to mention that conservatives demand special education for their kids.
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AM
And same-sex marriage ;)
same sex marriage is not a special deal. It's an extension of a right currently available to all other people.
A divorced man and a divorced woman can remarry outside of the Church. I don't see why two guys or two girls can't do it outside of Church.
Modern societies waste too much time on trivialities like this. And then they complain that economic crisis happens out of nowhere, no one saw that coming. Gee, no wonder. That's like sleeping at the wheel and complaining the moose came out of nowhere, duh.
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 10:46:11 AM
Modern societies waste too much time on trivialities like this.
It's not something trivial. It's a pretty fundamental reflection of what type of society we have.
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AM
Hate crime legislation. Recognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
And same-sex marriage ;)
None of those are special deals available only to gays a la Affirmative Action or Quotas.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 10:54:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 10:46:11 AM
Modern societies waste too much time on trivialities like this.
It's not something trivial. It's a pretty fundamental reflection of what type of society we have.
I found Viper's statement at odds to his passionate arguments about changing the name of the Canadian military last week.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 10:54:21 AM
It's not something trivial. It's a pretty fundamental reflection of what type of society we have.
whenever you grant a right to a general population and restrict it to a minority, it's something that should be corrected, unless it brings serious harm to the society, or to another group of people.
It always amaze me that some groups pretending to be right-wing in economics, wishing for less restrictions on businesses and individuals in their economic activities are the ones pushing for more restrictions on social issue.
See, we tolerate homosexuality, we have ruled, with scientific evidence, that it no more harmful than heterosexality. There is harm to the society in that gays don't reproduce, hence reduce the birth rate, but it's not enough to matter.
It goes from there, that gays should have the same rights as heteros, end of story. No need to debate with a Bible in hand, no need to invent stuff, no need to endless bitching from gay lobbies, heteros have the right to marry outside of the traditional church rules, so gays should have that right to. End of debate, correc the mistake, go to next problem.
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
...heteros have the right to marry outside of the traditional church rules, so gays should have that right to. End of debate, correc the mistake, go to next problem.
What have you done to my homophobic enemy? <_<
G.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2011, 11:16:03 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 10:54:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 10:46:11 AM
Modern societies waste too much time on trivialities like this.
It's not something trivial. It's a pretty fundamental reflection of what type of society we have.
I found Viper's statement at odds to his passionate arguments about changing the name of the Canadian military last week.
Tell me Raz, who was being hurt, legally, by not having a colonial name for the army? Are you telling me that gay marriage is a non issue because gays did not suffer any kind of legal discrimination that married heteros don't face during their lives?
Quote from: Grallon on September 15, 2011, 12:07:54 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
...heteros have the right to marry outside of the traditional church rules, so gays should have that right to. End of debate, correc the mistake, go to next problem.
What have you done to my homophobic enemy? <_<
G.
I don't know. Did he ever really existed?
I still don't like seeing two guys kissing on tv, if that helps you ;) I skip through these parts in True Bloood with my remote control, just as I skip the incessant 'nude Eric' parts too.
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AMRecognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
Have you any examples of this because I don't really know what you mean.
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 12:14:06 PM
I still don't like seeing two guys kissing on tv, if that helps you ;) I skip through these parts in True Bloood with my remote control, just as I skip the incessant 'nude Eric' parts too.
:rolleyes: There he is.
Two guys kissing is so sweet. That's really the only thing I'm missing since I've become celibate. :licklips:
G.
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 12:14:06 PM
Quote from: Grallon on September 15, 2011, 12:07:54 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
...heteros have the right to marry outside of the traditional church rules, so gays should have that right to. End of debate, correc the mistake, go to next problem.
What have you done to my homophobic enemy? <_<
G.
I don't know. Did he ever really existed?
I still don't like seeing two guys kissing on tv, if that helps you ;) I skip through these parts in True Bloood with my remote control, just as I skip the incessant 'nude Eric' parts too.
I think that's alright. I don't like the sight of women in erotic situations, and a naked vagina makes me sick. A visceral reaction to anything is not a sign of homophobia (anymore than having sexual preference for certain races makes you racist), as long as you do not transfer this into the area of cognitive views.
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 01:28:00 PM
(anymore than having sexual preference for certain races makes you racist),
How much more racist can you get?
I, bigot? :(
Quote from: The Brain on September 15, 2011, 01:31:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 01:28:00 PM
(anymore than having sexual preference for certain races makes you racist),
How much more racist can you get?
Slargos.
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 01:28:00 PM
I don't like the sight of women in erotic situations, and a naked vagina makes me sick.
You misogynistic bastard!
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 12:11:22 PM
Tell me Raz, who was being hurt, legally, by not having a colonial name for the army? Are you telling me that gay marriage is a non issue because gays did not suffer any kind of legal discrimination that married heteros don't face during their lives?
Nobody was hurt. Just as nobody was hurt using the royal name.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2011, 02:32:55 PM
Nobody was hurt.
than why change it? Some people were obviously hurt by this colonial symbol, with good historical reasons.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2011, 10:42:46 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AM
Hate crime legislation. Recognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
And same-sex marriage ;)
Ahh, so not being persecuted is a "special deal". Do not many Conservatives demand special recognition of Christianity in government and the like?
I'm all in favor of laws making it a crime to physically attack another person without provocation. I don't see any need for a law that would make it a more serious crime to attack me withou provocation due to me being a Christian.
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2011, 03:08:19 PM
I'm all in favor of laws making it a crime to physically attack another person without provocation. I don't see any need for a law that would make it a more serious crime to attack me withou provocation due to me being a Christian.
I do not know for sure but isn't the source of that an attempt to take down the 'gay panic' defense thing? I do not see how that compares to anything Christians face in this country.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 03:25:26 PM
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2011, 03:08:19 PM
I'm all in favor of laws making it a crime to physically attack another person without provocation. I don't see any need for a law that would make it a more serious crime to attack me withou provocation due to me being a Christian.
I do not know for sure but isn't the source of that an attempt to take down the 'gay panic' defense thing? I do not see how that compares to anything Christians face in this country.
Don't need to do anything for that. It's a stupid non-defense already.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 15, 2011, 03:40:49 PM
Don't need to do anything for that. It's a stupid non-defense already.
I agree I was just saying they were trying to correct something with that law. I am certainly not in favor of hate crime legislation.
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2011, 03:08:19 PM
I'm all in favor of laws making it a crime to physically attack another person without provocation. I don't see any need for a law that would make it a more serious crime to attack me withou provocation due to me being a Christian.
We have had this argument before. Motivation plays an important role in penalization of crimes and can even affect a type of crime. The state can find certain motivations more heinous than others (or more harmful than others) and act accordingly.
Terrorism is a great example of that.
Yeah. As far as I can see hate crimes legislation just gives particular weight to motive in certain cases, and there's nothing unusual or offensive in that.
Christians are covered by British hate crime law anyway :P
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 02:54:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2011, 02:32:55 PM
Nobody was hurt.
than why change it? Some people were obviously hurt by this colonial symbol, with good historical reasons.
Only in the same way some people are hurt when gays get married. It's to preserve culture and such.
Speaking of which, from the Last Republican of Hollywood:
QuoteLOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - He won't be riding the main float during Pride, but Clint Eastwood doesn't care if same-sex couples get married.
In the October issue of GQ Magazine, the steely gazed slab of machismo says he doesn't think gay marriage should be such a controversial issue.
"These people who are making a big deal about gay marriage?" Eastwood tells the magazine. "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of ... Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."
The Oscar-winning director is promoting "J. Edgar," his biopic about J. Edgar Hoover, the controversial longtime FBI chief, who many suspected to be closeted.
Leonardo DiCaprio, who stars as the bureau chief, also thinks that the gay marriage debate has been overblown.
"That's the most infuriating thing -- watching people focus on these things," DiCaprio told GQ. "Meanwhile, there's the onset of global warming and these incredibly scary and menacing things with the future of our economy."
Though DiCaprio is a prominent supporter of liberal causes and candidates, Eastwood is known as one of Hollywood's few Republicans. However, he maintains that his attitude is in keeping with his political beliefs.
"I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War," Eastwood tells the magazine. "And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone."
"J. Edgar" hits theaters on November 9. It's written by Dustin Lance Black ("Milk"), an openly gay screenwriter who has been active in the marriage equality movement.
:alberta:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2011, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AMRecognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
Have you any examples of this because I don't really know what you mean.
You don't go around demanding people recognize gay pride? Odd!
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2011, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2011, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AMRecognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
Have you any examples of this because I don't really know what you mean.
You don't go around demanding people recognize gay pride? Odd!
I forced my office to make it mandatory for male employees to suck dicks all day during the pride month last year.
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2011, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2011, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AMRecognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
Have you any examples of this because I don't really know what you mean.
You don't go around demanding people recognize gay pride? Odd!
I forced my office to make it mandatory for male employees to suck dicks all day during the pride month last year.
If all male employees had to suck dick all day, whose dicks could be sucked all day? :hmm:
You could do a 69 I guess, but my guess is this is less efficacious with a 160 pound guy on top of you versus a 100 pound woman.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 06:01:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2011, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2011, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AMRecognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
Have you any examples of this because I don't really know what you mean.
You don't go around demanding people recognize gay pride? Odd!
I forced my office to make it mandatory for male employees to suck dicks all day during the pride month last year.
If all male employees had to suck dick all day, whose dicks could be sucked all day? :hmm:
You could do a 69 I guess, but my guess is this is less efficacious with a 160 pound guy on top of you versus a 100 pound woman.
How many dicks would a dicksucker suck if a dicksucker could suck dicks?
Why, he'd suck all the dicks that a dicksucker could, if a dicksucker could suck dicks.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 06:01:40 PM
You could do a 69 I guess, but my guess is this is less efficacious with a 160 pound guy on top of you versus a 100 pound woman.
Why would anyone have to be on top? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2011, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2011, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:36:47 AMRecognition of "gay pride" or whatever at universities, private companies, etc.
Have you any examples of this because I don't really know what you mean.
You don't go around demanding people recognize gay pride? Odd!
I forced my office to make it mandatory for male employees to suck dicks all day during the pride month last year.
Yeah but you're the type of gay person that other gay people hate.
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2011, 06:06:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 06:01:40 PM
You could do a 69 I guess, but my guess is this is less efficacious with a 160 pound guy on top of you versus a 100 pound woman.
Why would anyone have to be on top? :huh:
Because of my heteronormative perspective, apparently. -_-
Quote from: MalthusHow many dicks would a dicksucker suck if a dicksucker could suck dicks?
Why, he'd suck all the dicks that a dicksucker could, if a dicksucker could suck dicks.
:D
Malthus, you're a national treasure.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 06:09:40 PM
:D
Malthus, you're a national treasure.
Whose nation? :angry:
He's no Alex Trebek.
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2011, 06:14:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 06:09:40 PM
:D
Malthus, you're a national treasure.
Whose nation? :angry:
Now boys, don't fight - there's enough of me to go around. :D
Literally. I start the diet tomorrow.
Quote from: Malthus on September 15, 2011, 06:21:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2011, 06:14:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 06:09:40 PM
:D
Malthus, you're a national treasure.
Whose nation? :angry:
Now boys, don't fight - there's enough of me to go around. :D
Literally. I start the diet tomorrow.
Can't see myself traveling to Toronto to get a large slab of meat.
Does he have a string of mediocre television and movie roles to his credit? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 06:30:19 PM
Does he have a string of mediocre television and movie roles to his credit? :hmm:
Well, I was in
Meatballs. :D
Quote from: Malthus on September 15, 2011, 06:21:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2011, 06:14:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 06:09:40 PM
:D
Malthus, you're a national treasure.
Whose nation? :angry:
Now boys, don't fight - there's enough of me to go around. :D
Literally. I start the diet tomorrow.
Eat chocolate constantly. It worked for me.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 06:50:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 15, 2011, 06:21:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2011, 06:14:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 06:09:40 PM
:D
Malthus, you're a national treasure.
Whose nation? :angry:
Now boys, don't fight - there's enough of me to go around. :D
Literally. I start the diet tomorrow.
Eat chocolate constantly. It worked for me.
a diet of pop and chocolate? once your metabolism slows down you're screwed :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2011, 02:54:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2011, 02:32:55 PM
Nobody was hurt.
than why change it? Some people were obviously hurt by this colonial symbol, with good historical reasons.
No they weren't. Do you use your French language to speak lies?