President Donald J. Trump: Orange is the New Black, House Slytherin Rises Also Heil Trump!

[Zealot]

Because for a lot of people out there, your sexuality isn't even in the top-ten most important things to the nation? I'm sure Milo would love it if the Republican Party were more gay-friendly, but if he's on board with the Republican's on tax policy, on the military, on smaller/more local government, on the judiciary/textualism, foreign policy, education, immigration, abortion, etc... then why *wouldn't* he vote Republican? Same for any gay person who is on those lines.

And when it comes to the question of marriage... I really wish I could put it into words. I have been trying for literally decades now to really explain what marriage is. It's not *just* about procreation/family creation, and it's not *just* about a life-long commitment to a loved sexual partner. There's something... different. Yes, for me it is very much a religious matter. I don't tend to talk about the subject much, because while I am deeply convicted, I recognize that I don't have the right answer to that primary question of "What is marriage?" and so remain silent. I am willing to be persuaded but the arguments I have heard ring false (though so, too, do many I hear from the right). I would imagine that, for many of the Log Cabin Republicans, the same feeling might be there: gay marriage isn't something some of them care about, not only because it's of lesser importance to them than all of the remainder of the Republican agenda, but because even some of *them* believe that gay marriage is wrong. My uncle falls in that category (though he's mostly left of Bernie and not at all a Republican)-- he's not at all religious, and he has the same difficulty explaining why he's not in favor of gay marriage, in spite the fact that he's gay.

I'm not saying that it's ethically wrong or dishonest for a gay person to have gay marriage as their single-greatest priority, but it is wrong to assume that every gay person must share your priorities on those lines, or to even share your perspective on its validity.

That debate is settled as far as the law is concerned but why not?

Were marriage a purely religious function I would concur with the idea that it should be observed only as far as whatever the scripture du jour says it should. Constitutionally, the First Amendment doesn't give the government the right to interfere with religion.

However, marriage is also recognized as a legal institution under the law and confers rights and benefits that now become discriminatory when you tell two consenting adults that they are ineligible to receive them. No religious organization is required to either perform or recognize this marriage as being valid, but legally the government must, or be in violation of the equal protection clause.

And I'm honestly split on the idea of compelling services to serve gay people. Part of me says that private entities should never be forced to work with anyone they don't want to. Another part says it was within my parents lifetime that black people could be refused service for moral objections.

Which is where the conservative/liberal split happens, I suppose. Conservative thought falls down on the former, liberal thinking the latter. It's deeply ironic that in the article about that gay journalist converting to conservativism he cites that the media only portrays the most extreme fringes of the right when a) that's the faction currently in power, and b) the conservative posters of the last few pages here have, without even a hint of irony, asserted that all liberals are exactly as the media outlets of that fringe portray them to be. Republicans may engender more party loyalty, or perhaps it's more that if you spend 20 years and a billion dollars on a smear campaign against an already hard-to-relate-to woman it's bound to work, but many around the country have deep reservations about who they voted for. Democrats, similarly, experienced a more vitriolic split in the Bernie movement because a significant number believed Hillary was far too moderate or even conservative (Clinton would have been right at home in the Reagan or Nixon White House).

That was a bit of a tangent, so I'll boil this down; it's surprising to find that a group still marginalized and in need of having their rights protected would have any members willingly support the party doing the marginalizing. The argument I hear a lot is that certain liberals didn't do enough for gay rights or didn't support them at all until it became convenient to do so. But the response of turning to the party actively seeking to roll back or prevent those rights is akin to throwing gasoline on your burning house because you're angry the fire department didn't get there in time.

So yes, if conservative ideology is where you fall down then by all means, support and pursue it. I just don't think it should be surprising when others don't immediately understand why you would.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[kuronosan]

I learned why some people are intensely anti abortion, why I will always be pro life, and why "us them" is so dangerous all in an hour.

I understand why gays would vote Republican in principle (stuff others care about, I don't) but to me it's still silly.

It would be like blacks voting for the KKK because at least their tax ideas are sound.

It's Stockholm.

[Clash Perez]

Maroot, I don't think you're a bad guy, but this "I don't know what marriage is, but I know it's not for faggots" thing is tiresome. Surely you can come up with something more compelling, sir.

[Zealot]

I learned why some people are intensely anti abortion, why I will always be pro life, and why "us them" is so dangerous all in an hour.

I understand why gays would vote Republican in principle (stuff others care about, I don't) but to me it's still silly.

It would be like blacks voting for the KKK because at least their tax ideas are sound.

It's Stockholm.

My burning house analogy was better because it involved flaming.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[kuronosan]

It really was.

[Salodin]

I mean, religious conservafolk don't give better answers cause there isn't one. If they were caught up on scripture then they get called out for all the hypocrisy in the book, yet they have no leg to stand in law because of reasons above. They just shut down, go "my spirit say no to the gays" and leave it at that because there's this taboo in this country of questioning people if the reasons based on religion.

[Zoner]

what, like have an ID? lmfao

not sure if facetiously trolling or honestly ignorant... I've had a fucklong day and it's beyond me right now to try and prove anything to someone who is deeply entrenched in his (wrong) viewpoint but I swear to god all you have to do is google "voter ID laws" for plenty of information on how they directly target and disenfranchise low-income and minority voters and thus have been repeatedly struck down by the judicial system time and time again.


I mean if you're going to be an asshole, do your research and be a smart asshole.

I guess keeping alcohol or cigarettes from us minorities must be some kinda racist conspiracy as well, after all you white people think we're too retarded to figure out how to get an ID.

[Salodin]

Don't feed the troll.

[kuronosan]

Every single person in India is from India and looks like Indian.

India isn't actively making it harder to make subsets of its people vote to push an agenda.

The fact that you think such equivalence exists shows how narrow minded you are.

[Headspace]

I'm cool with everyone having a voter ID if we are going to have Voter ID. So I'm glad that the Voter ID legislation includes actions to ensure that everyone registered to vote has a voter ID.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mertron]

i don't want to feed the troll but there is zero correlation between the argument and the images he posted

[Zoner]

Every single person in India is from India and looks like Indian.

India isn't actively making it harder to make subsets of its people vote to push an agenda.

The fact that you think such equivalence exists shows how narrow minded you are.

Sorry I'm just a minority, I'm too stupid to see agendas or stuff like that, much less figure out how to get an ID

[kuronosan]

Ah. The anecdotal route. K.

[Uzor]

I really don't know why people are anti-id to vote. It's perfectly logical to require an ID to vote, and it's hardly racist.

What's next, traveling should be free because blacks can't afford to travel, and that's racist?

[Seha]

I really don't know why people are anti-id to vote. It's perfectly logical to require an ID to vote, and it's hardly racist.

What's next, traveling should be free because blacks can't afford to travel, and that's racist?

Was about to post this. As someone who lives on the other side of the world I'm actually baffled there is no document needed to vote. From my understanding it's somewhat hard to obtain in the US or something?

[Krandor]

It's really not tho.

[Ezek]

Can't say I've ever understood people being anti-ID for voting either.

But hey, what do I know, I'm just another privileged Asian ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Headspace]

The argument against voter ID is that it is much harder for people without means to get an ID to vote because it requires transportation to get to the ID office and availability to due it during office hours. It would just be the same shit as voting booths where there are less places to vote/get an ID in poorer or more democratic areas with stranger hours as we've seen in previous elections.

Also, ID legislation is a fix to a problem that doesn't exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Byrthnoth]

The US has an entire class of (mostly urban poor) people without a legal ID. If you don't own a car, you're probably not going to pay for a driver's license (assuming you can pass the test) and keep paying to keep it valid. If you aren't going to travel internationally, there's no reason to pay for a passport and pay to keep it valid. This is not a barrier to rural poor (who have to drive) or richer people (who probably both drive and travel internationally).

[Zealot]

https://rewire.news/ablc/2014/10/16/...-id-just-vote/

It's funny because it points out what Zoner posted as ignorant swill pretty much right out of the gate in the "I'm sure you've seen some moron say this" voice.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk