Documentary Trolls GOP succesfully

[Darus Grey]

Sorry but overt heterosexuality is never discriminated against so, the "wrong" gay culture of flamboyance and such is pure BS. There isn't a right or wrong way to be gay. You should be allowed to be overtly sexual regardless of your sexual preference.

The "family values" gay train may exist for religious or adoption cases, but otherwise the real world is inherently real. An enforced perception does not make such the case for what actually is.

Even in the gay community the flamboyant ones are laughed at, gays typically call them faggots in a very derogatory way(i.e. all faggots are gay but not all gays are faggots), I wouldn't say it's a "wrong" way...but it's definitely not a respected one.

[Kuya]

Did a presumably straight man just act like he knows more about homosexuality and Israel than me? And did he just completely side step debating a post point by point with the contention that it's wrong based on no explicitly stated reason other than "you're wrong"? And we're supposed to take someone like this seriously how?

Anyway, the people who will most be concerned by the idea of using homosexuality as a smear weapon should be homosexuals anyway, so it's up to them. Not like it really matters, this one case probably won't suddenly make everyone hate gays more or something, so they could always just have their fun, if at least acknowledging that they're doing themselves no favours.

[miokomioko]

It was a very Magneto thing for the GOP(BOM?) to do.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Even in the gay community the flamboyant ones are laughed at, gays typically call them faggots in a very derogatory way(i.e. all faggots are gay but not all gays are faggots), I wouldn't say it's a "wrong" way...but it's definitely not a respected one.

And in the hetero community we call them sluts or whores, but we'd still fuck them given the right circumstances. In both communities it's a duplicitous stance and shows complete lack of respect for someone's personal decisions regarding sexuality outside of gender preference.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Did a presumably straight man just act like he knows more about homosexuality and Israel than me? And did he just completely side step debating a post point by point with the contention that it's wrong based on no explicitly stated reason other than "you're wrong"? And we're supposed to take someone like this seriously how?

No that was your initial reaction to my post, you just decided to be more wordy about it. Calling bullshit isn't sidestepping, it's only sidestepping to you because it insulted your integrity. Next time try buying a cup that holds more water before you take a trip into the desert.

[Sol-Blackguy]

Wait, I thought the whole gay rights issue was balls vs. bible. It seems that the only people oppose argue that it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. If there's any misguided stereotype, it's the one that marriage is a religious ceremony under state law.

[Kuya]

If it removes long-standing anti-gay-issue politicians from office and frees up the seats for possible competition to gay-friendly politicians, it's politically productive.

Outing is mainly a weapon if people feel it reveals hypocrisy, and for many of these politicians, it will. It's not as much "oh my god he's gay - we can't have gays in office!" as much as it's "...dude you just spent a decade telling us how homosexual activity is a sin in the eyes of the lord, and you're fucking dudes? Really? What about your wife, that you're cheating on, with a dude? And your kids? Really? How could you do that to them? Jesus christ gtfo".

I know you can distinguish the difference Kuya.

If only the reason were to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of lying and cheating to your spouse, but that's really not the case. Your positive is a possibility even though it somehow assumes that there won't be more to replace him, and by more, i mean more gay republicans. But you don't seem to understand the distinction between the intention and the instrumental effect. It doesn't matter whether the intent is not to say how you can't have gays in office, but rather the act of revealing someone's sexual identity for a negative purpose. And that's the point, the revealing one of someone's identity is being operated within a negative context, and since revealing someone's sexual identity is always referring to homosexuality, the latter is once again being played pejoratively.

In effect, the part you brought up, about cheating and lying to the spouse, that's really a post justification, albeit, a decent one.

[Darus Grey]

Wait, I thought the whole gay rights issue was balls vs. bible. It seems that the only people oppose argue that it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. If there's any misguided stereotype, it's the one that marriage is a religious ceremony under state law.

It effectively is, which is why I consider marriage as practiced by the government in the US to be unconstitutional(i.e. we should simply recognize no unions and be done with it).

It's often a weird point of contention with my best friend(who is gay) since I "don't support gay marriage"...

[archibaldcrane]

In effect, the part you brought up, about cheating and lying to the spouse, that's really a post justification, albeit, a decent one.

Even if you think there is no hypocritical problem with being gay and being against gay marriage...

...being gay and having a wife is pretty messed up. (sure sure some of these dudes might be bi...but not all of 'em)

Get your sexuality straight (no pun intended) before marrying. That's what I say.

[miokomioko]

And in the hetero community we call them sluts or whores, but we'd still fuck them given the right circumstances. In both communities it's a duplicitous stance and shows complete lack of respect for someone's personal decisions regarding sexuality outside of gender preference.

Excessive flambouyancy (and lesbian masculinity) and such is not going to help the gay community prove to the masses that they are just like everyone else and deserve the same exact rights (this is completely seperate from you or me thinking this is retarded or not).

[archibaldcrane]

Excessive flambouyancy (and lesbian masculinity) and such is not going to help the gay community prove to the masses that they are just like everyone else and deserve the same exact rights.

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."

[Sol-Blackguy]

It effectively is, which is why I consider marriage as practiced by the government in the US to be unconstitutional(i.e. we should simply recognize no unions and be done with it).

It's often a weird point of contention with my best friend(who is gay) since I "don't support gay marriage"...

You can argue that government practiced marriage to be unconstitutional, but look at how many laws there are regarding marriage. Somewhere in history marriage overstepped its bounds between church and state, and that's most likely the entire cause of the current issues. Why not just separate church and state again? A civil union is nothing more than jumping a broom in a court house, history has proved that separate but equal doesn't work so the only course of action would be to take religious out of marriage, because it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Excessive flambouyancy (and lesbian masculinity) and such is not going to help the gay community prove to the masses that they are just like everyone else and deserve the same exact rights.

I agree with you completely and that's what upsets me the most. That's what I meant by

But this is my "fringe liberal" idealism, I do understand that the public is more ignorant and manipulated than I'd like to accept and it may be a necessary measure and "lesser evil" situation.

...earlier. It's a shit double standard in my opinion because it's asking the "black sheep" to go hide when they're just expressing their personal sexual nature even though it happens to be a homosexual lifestyle. It's an impossible task imo and sets the gay community up for failure every time. Which is why I think it necessary to expose those that fight against it yet still solicit homosexual sex in airport bathrooms amongst other things.

If one side is to be judged on several facets of their culture then why not the other?

[Kuya]

Even if you think there is no hypocritical problem with being gay and being against gay marriage...

...being gay and having a wife is pretty messed up. (sure sure some of these dudes might be bi...but not all of 'em)

Get your sexuality straight (no pun intended) before marrying. That's what I say.

I don't know if he's married but if he is that's certainly a problem, but what bothers me is that we know that's not the reason it's being done. It's being done because a gay person doesn't support gay political issues, and where homosexuality is being used as a tool for attack, which you would think homosexuals would be weary of doing.

Perhaps the problem we have here is the erroneous assumption that a person who identifies as gay (assuming he even identifies as gay, because i somehow get a feeling this may also be an issue) must by some mystical force support gay issues or he is an abomination, or similarly, if he is gay he has to be a liberal. If anything it is likely that he's always been a conservative, and he just also happens to like men or be gay. Effectively the problem here is that people are making assumptions on his intentions and beliefs when we hardly know any of that to be making assumptions with. It could well be that gay marriage, hate crime legislation for gays, and adoption for homosexual couples simply conflict with his conservative views even though he is gay, or, conversely he could just be in the Republican party because he thought it made him look straight.

[archibaldcrane]

Kuya, all I'm saying is that if being "outed" is as a weapon, it's a weapon largely created by the person getting outed.

If you have a politician that has been largely mute on gay-rights issues and voted largely for them, and is single - if he is "outed" it's -way- less of a big deal than if a politician demonizes them and votes against their causes, has a public persona of a straight man complete with a wife and kids, etc.

If the reality of who you are runs so contrary to your carefully-crafted public persona, you're just asking to get your shit blown wide open, and that's whether you are a family man who cheats (like Edwards) or a homophobe who fucks guys.

I'd be surprised if -any- of the men outed are unmarried - very few politicians at the top levels are (and many of those who are are out gays, i.e. Tammy Baldwin). Being married and in a stable family unit is important to voters, and if that's based on a big straight lie, that's also important to voters. Whether it should be or not is a whole other issue, but it is.

[Beckwin]

one thing in the article I found worth noting is that it's not just gay marriage- it's opposition to HIV treatment/research funding, opposition to gays in the military,etc... essentially opposition to gays and being an equal citizen as a homosexual.

and you have to consider that the malicious aspect of these men is that they are, and are able to, closeting themselves to achieve political power while shitting on those who choose not to or simply cannot. the whole idea that they're propagating, and personally living, is that you need to hide your gay if you want to be accepted/treated like an equal citizen, and that's bullshit.

they are not being maliciously targeted by the film for their homosexuality, nor is homosexuality being portrayed as "wrong"- it's these men that are being targeted for their hypocritical (even if it's not hurr-durr obvious hypocrisy like marching in a pride parade one day then voting against gays being able to vote the next day, thanks kuya and mioko) conduct and vile political history.

[Olo401]

Psh.. David Dreier hasn't been closeted for YEARS. He's just been in denial publically about being a log cabin Repub. Charlie Crist tho.. didn't pick up on that one.

BTW I don't agree with outing, but I do agree with calling people like Dreier out on their hypocrisy ESPECIALLY being a gay Republican because hating yourself is a party plank.

[Ramor]

Now posting with proper capitalization and punctuation.

Big words probably being used improperly go here.

Argument I don't really know enough about goes here.

Misinterpreted argument from other posters' goes here.

More big words.

Opinion and/or argument that may or may not actually pertain to anything relevant to the thread here with subtle troll issues sprinkled about.

yay political/religious threads, they're always fun and somewhat logical and even on track until about page 2, or if we're lucky 5

[Dimmauk]

Why do people still try to fight Gay rights? Just like Woman's and Black's right before this, it will only be a matter of time till it becomes accepted socially and legally. I'm personally embarrassed that this is even still an issue. I'm sure our children will look back at this time period, as ask "What the fuck was wrong with you?" Just like we do when we look back at the Woman's and Black's Civil rights time periods.

[Kuya]

It seems that some people, specifically Beckwin, still don't understand what i say when i refer to the multiple effects that can stem from a single action rather than the intent behind the act. I'll give an example.

Say, hypothetically, we have a black man supporting segregation in both the military and schools, between whites and blacks. Would you call this black man a hypocrite or a self-hater?

Furthermore, what does it imply when you call him a hypocrite in this context, and what is implied when you call him a self-hater?

Would the black people who despise what this black man is doing against his own group call him a hypocrite or a traitor?

The gays should be honest here, no using the claim of hypocrisy as justification for outing, when in reality they want to do it because they consider him a traitor. It may not sound as righteous when you say you're doing it cause he's a traitor, but at least you're being honest.