An article about a Republican trying to ban books about homosexuals is not anecdotal evidence. It's a hard and fast example.

It proves that one Republican legislator is trying to exclude books about homosexuals from public libraries; it does not prove anything about Republicans as a whole.

I already answered your question in the post above. (you even quoted my response in this post)

Jesus, what is it with you and taking things out of context? Did you NOT read the rest of my comment? I explain what beef is with Affirmative Action.

But you've spent the vast majority of your responses telling me that, in principle, you support and respect that decision BECAUSE the public has a right to decide what to do with public funds.

My point is not that you're wrong about that. My point is that you would not spend such an inordinate amout of time talking about that right of the public IF you truly disagreed with the decision being made, the way you do on the issue of affirmative action. In all of our discussions, you never once defended affirmative action by saying it was the right of the public to do what it wanted with public funds, even though that was as true in that discussion as it is in this one.

So I'm wondering why you invoke that principle of public rights so much in this case, in which a lawmaker is discriminating against gays, but NOT in the case of affirmative action, which is an attempt to counter discrimination against minorities.

If somebody brought up AA as "evidence" that Democrats want to ban white males from applying to college, I would've laughed in their face.

Every debate we had about AA was about its merits, and not about its right to existance.

These actions do not exist in a vaccum. Clearly it is not the goal of Democrats to ban white males from applying to college.

But it IS part of the Republian party platform to write discrimination against gays into the law and the Constitution. You've acknowledged as much. And this action by this Republican is absolutely part of that movement ideology.

Otherwise, this would be some isolated nut and the party affiliation would be irrelevant.



Neither was this. You brought that issue up. You could have done so in the debate on AA, but you didn't.

I think you're misinterpreting the Republican agenda. There is nothing in it that would write discrimination against gays int Constitution.

The goal of the FMA is different; it is to define marriage specifically to mean as a union between a man and a woman. And while I consider it wrong (then again, I consider it wrong that married couples receive special treatment to begin with), that amendment in and of itself would not mean discrimination against gays.

The difference is, that we both agree that the proposed law is stupid and shouldn't be passed. However, you also brought up the point that it is akin burning and banning books. I strongly disagree with that.

You'd better tell that to the Republicans then. Because they're still under the impression they're anti-gay.

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) - A Lowcountry legislator says he wants to cut South Carolina Educational Television's budget after it aired a documentary on gays in the South.

"I thought it was just social, leftist propaganda that they had no business airing," said state Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston. "They were actively promoting homosexuality as an OK thing to do."

SCETV President Maurice Bresnahan says his agency isn't promoting an agenda by showing "We are your Neighbors" as part of its twice-monthly Southern Lens series of stories about life in the South.

"An analogy would be a librarian buying books for the bookshelf. 'We are your Neighbors' was just one 26-minute show out of 8,700 hours of programming. We are just presenting a point of view. This is just one book on a shelf of thousands of books," Bresnahan said.

The Southern Lens series has featured documentaries on Moon Pies and Holocaust survivors in South Carolina.

All of the documentaries are independently financed and cost the state nothing.

Altman sees the "Neighbors" documentary as an effort to promote a "militant homosexual agenda."

During his re-election bid this year, Altman sent out fund-raising letters pointing out his Democratic opponent, Charlie Smith, was openly gay. Altman also is pushing legislation to strengthen the state's ban on same-sex marriages.



It would not only outlaw gay marriage, it would outlaw civil unions as well. And it would prevent states from passing their own laws on civil unions.

That's discrimination against gays as much as defining marriage between a man and man only would be discrimination against straight people, or marriage between whites only would be discrimination against racial minorities.

Further, Republicans support elimination of "sexual orientation" from civil rights protections.

WHat does have to do with the "republican agenda"? It's referring to the national party, not to individual cases.


If you noticed, that version of the amendment is no longer considered.

Not so, as long as the actual behavior is not targeted whatsoever.

I would also like for you to note, that definition of marriage as a union between 2 people, is discriminatory against single people (after all, we don't get the same tax breaks as married couples do), and relationships with more than 2 people.

Considered that it's not under civil rights protection RIGHT NOW, under federeal law, I wonder how they would go about accomplishing it.

Here is the current language of the FMA:

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The "legal incidents thereof" being conferred on unmarried couples includes civil unions.



So you believe that marriage between two people IS discrimination, but that marriage between a man and a woman is NOT?

In other words, it's only discrimination if it affects YOU personally. Nice.



It's listed in the federal hate crimes law under "sexual orientation." It's also under the protections listed in some state laws.

But let's set aside this nitpicking for second, Krem. Are you seriously trying to suggest that Republicans are in NO WAY anti-gay? Is that really the argument you're trying to make?

Listen, Beeblebrox, It’s obvious you are trying to make a point that Republicans are wrong, sick, hating, queer-hating people. You know it is false to try and characterize a group of people by the actions of one. You want a cold, hard example proving you wrong? I’m gay. And when I turn 18, I will be castign my ballots Republican. While I think the man who is trying to ban gay boks is an absolute idiot, I bet the majority of moral and sensible people, (aka Republicans) will agree with me. So, then why do it? Why take one guy and try to make it sound like all GOP members and conservatives hate gay people and are opposed to civil rights? And don’t say, “I can because ruplicans say it about democrats”

I think it is a bit of generalizing, but if you think about it. Most republicans=Conservative Most conservatives=anti-gay....ect

And if I said all black people were criminals, then that would be ok, right? Because he, maybe not so much you, seem to think generalizing is ok. I understand not everyone is perfect, I generalize plenty. But refusing you are wrong = ignorance.

All black people are not criminals. i am not saying all republicans are anti-gay. Seondly, do not call me ignorant

Well, I could call you ignoring because you are a liberal, but then again, thats generalizing. If you read the post properly, I did not call you ignorant. If anything, I was agreeing with you. I never said you were generallizing about anti gay conservatives, nor did I say all blacks are criminals. I asked if you thought that would be fair. Now that you understand my post....

You were asking if it would be ok to call all black people criminals...that is not true. Thats why I responded the way i did to your post.
Forgive me for not understanding it though. I must have misread it.

Ofcourse its wrong to call blacks criminals! And its fine if you didn't understand it. Miscommunication over the internet is frequent. I hope I didn't come off too rude

No, at first I thought you did, but now that I know what you meant, no.
Although I disagree :wink:

And if I said all black people were criminals, then that would be ok, right? Because he, maybe not so much you, seem to think generalizing is ok. I understand not everyone is perfect, I generalize plenty. But refusing you are wrong = ignorance.[/quote]


All black people are not criminals. i am not saying all republicans are anti-gay. Seondly, do not call me ignorant[/quote]

Well, I could call you ignoring because you are a liberal, but then again, thats generalizing. If you read the post properly, I did not call you ignorant. If anything, I was agreeing with you. I never said you were generallizing about anti gay conservatives, nor did I say all blacks are criminals. I asked if you thought that would be fair. Now that you understand my post....[/quote]


You were asking if it would be ok to call all black people criminals...that is not true. Thats why I responded the way i did to your post.
Forgive me for not understanding it though. I must have misread it.[/quote]

Ofcourse its wrong to call blacks criminals! And its fine if you didn't understand it. Miscommunication over the internet is frequent. I hope I didn't come off too rude [/quote]


No, at first I thought you did, but now that I know what you meant, no.
Although I disagree :wink: [/quote]

Well ofcourse we don't agree. That would be no fun

I'm not characterizing Republicans by the actions of one. I'm characterizing them by the platform and actions of the party. And the Republican PARTY thinks that you, as a gay person, should have fewer rights than I, as a straight person, has.

The PRESIDENT, the leader of your party, supports an AMENDMENT to our US Constitution that writes discrimination against YOU into the federal law of the land.

Mabye you don't have a problem with that, and that's your right. But that doesn't mean that Republicans aren't anti-gay in terms of policy. They certainly are.

And you know what? As a gay person, I fully support the President. I feel annoyed sometimes, by some anti-homosexual remarks by some, but I do think that a marriage is between a man and a woman. That IS what it is. The Republicans are open to Civil Unions, as am I. And don't forget, John Kerry and the Democrats are equally opposed.

Republicans are NOT open to civil unions. READ the amendment they want to pass. I posted it above. It OUTLAWS civil unions and PREVENTS the states from conferring civil union rights.

So not only do they want to forbid you from doing what any heterosexual gets to do, they will ignore their supposed states-rights and small-govt principles to do it.

But for some reason, you keep defending their anti-gay policies.



Like most things Republican, this is a completely unfounded and unsubstantiated claim. Democrats overwhelmingly voted down the FMA. Only three Dems voted for it. Only six Repubs voted against it. That's hardly what I would call "equal." Also, the Marriage Protection Act, which prevents courts from overturning the DOMA, was opposed by 176 Dems, and approved by 206 Republicans. Again, hardly equal. The DOMA itself was opposed by 65 Dems and only one Republican (who happened to be gay). Not equal.

And nationwide, Democrats are twice as likely to support gay marriage than Republicans. Sure, too many Democrats still oppose it, but to say that Democrats and Republicans are "equal" on this issue is absolutely absurd.

Whether you like it or not, it's the Republicans who think you're a second class citizen, not the Democrats. And certainly not the liberals.

Yup.

What that means is that the courts will not be able to interprete the states' constitution to mean that the legal benefits for the married couples be automatically transferred to the same-sex couples (to counter the MA ruling). THis does not prevent the states from granting the same-sex benefits to the couples, but they would have to do it explicitly.

I will say it again, I am not a supporter fo this amendment, since I do not believe we should eb cluttering the constitution with every little thing, however the amendment does not target homosexual behavior.

It's about as anti-gay as Roe v. Wade is anti-birth.


Nice spin. That's not what I said. What I said was that the whole marriage institution, as recognized by the government, is discrimination.

You were referring to the national party before, not the state parties.


If we go by "anti-gay" meaning "anti-gay marriage", or even homophobic, then yes, a lot of moral conservatives are just that. But the term Republican does not automatically mean "gay-fearing moral conservative".

A claim like that requires proof.