Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Human Rights Campaign is a Joke

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 4:41:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Just take a look at their record. Listen for more than the past 30 minutes of political expedience. Hillary Clinton a leading fighter for LGBT rights? What a crock of bullsh!t.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 5:53:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:41:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Just take a look at their record. Listen for more than the past 30 minutes of political expedience. Hillary Clinton a leading fighter for LGBT rights? What a crock of bullsh!t.

What republican candidate is for repealing gay marriage?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 6:00:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The fact that they even note her little switch when pro-gay marriage became the majority position astounds me.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 12:05:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 4:41:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Just take a look at their record. Listen for more than the past 30 minutes of political expedience. Hillary Clinton a leading fighter for LGBT rights? What a crock of bullsh!t.

If you believe in human rights than go and become a Libertarian. These people just believe in entitlements and less responsibility, rather than actual "rights" - being that of negative rights.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 12:06:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 12:05:50 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:41:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Just take a look at their record. Listen for more than the past 30 minutes of political expedience. Hillary Clinton a leading fighter for LGBT rights? What a crock of bullsh!t.

If you believe in human rights than go and become a Libertarian. These people just believe in entitlements and less responsibility, rather than actual "rights" - being that of negative rights.

Ahem, no.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 12:07:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 12:06:19 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 12:05:50 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:41:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Just take a look at their record. Listen for more than the past 30 minutes of political expedience. Hillary Clinton a leading fighter for LGBT rights? What a crock of bullsh!t.

If you believe in human rights than go and become a Libertarian. These people just believe in entitlements and less responsibility, rather than actual "rights" - being that of negative rights.

Ahem, no.

Simply disagreeing doesn't male it any less true.

These human rights protesters just find it that they can label anything to be a human right. I hope they understand that gay marriage is a subset of government, not the lack of it.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 12:09:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 12:07:31 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/20/2016 12:06:19 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 12:05:50 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:41:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Just take a look at their record. Listen for more than the past 30 minutes of political expedience. Hillary Clinton a leading fighter for LGBT rights? What a crock of bullsh!t.

If you believe in human rights than go and become a Libertarian. These people just believe in entitlements and less responsibility, rather than actual "rights" - being that of negative rights.

Ahem, no.

Simply disagreeing doesn't male it any less true.

These human rights protesters just find it that they can label anything to be a human right. I hope they understand that gay marriage is a subset of government, not the lack of it.

Bball, if you want to convince me to move towards a libertarian-ish ideal, you should know that your persuasion falls flat.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 12:11:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 12:09:34 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 12:07:31 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/20/2016 12:06:19 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 12:05:50 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 4:41:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Just take a look at their record. Listen for more than the past 30 minutes of political expedience. Hillary Clinton a leading fighter for LGBT rights? What a crock of bullsh!t.

If you believe in human rights than go and become a Libertarian. These people just believe in entitlements and less responsibility, rather than actual "rights" - being that of negative rights.

Ahem, no.

Simply disagreeing doesn't male it any less true.

These human rights protesters just find it that they can label anything to be a human right. I hope they understand that gay marriage is a subset of government, not the lack of it.

Bball, if you want to convince me to move towards a libertarian-ish ideal, you should know that your persuasion falls flat.

I wasn't convincing you. Becoming a Libertarian is based on your own personal beliefs. If you find that you are self-determined and ambitious, and find that an authoritative body should not hinder your actions, so long as they do not interfere with the liberties of others, than go ahead and become a Libertarian.

All up to you.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 2:41:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
https://www.youtube.com...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 6:00:03 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
The fact that they even note her little switch when pro-gay marriage became the majority position astounds me.

The Clinton's position on gay rights is more sophisticated than a lot of people give them credit for. Their friendships and associations, generally, indicate at least their tolerance of homosexuality (both Bill and Hillary). Even dating back to the early 1990s...

There are a lot of people who deride both of them for the Defense of Marriage Act, and Don't Ask Don't Tell, and argue that these are policies which indicate the Clinton's opposition to gay marriage.

What the Clinton critics ignore, however, is what exactly the Democratic party was up against at the time that DOMA and DADT were passed: very real Republican threats to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.

Even back in the 1990s, it was reasonably clear that as a matter of constitutional law, gay rights were probably protected in some sense; it was for that reason that Congressional Republicans sought a constitutional amendment... and support for a constitutional amendment at that time was very high.

Like, the only people who were "out and proud" at that time were people like Boy George, George Michael and there were a lot of rumors about Elton John. Everyone thought that all gay men and lesbians were either eccentric deviant celebrities, or sexual predators.

The Clintons understood that losing the battle was necessary in order to win the war. So, what DOMA and DADT were, essentially, were "compromises" between the Democratic party (who were largely apathetic to gay rights issues) and Republicans, who were looking for a new wedge issue other than abortion.

The Clinton's, personally, kept the United States from passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Also, DADT prevented the military from inquiring as to the sexual orientations of members of the military --which was a change from before DADT, where rumors of homosexuality would often lead to a military investigation and tribunal, and, ultimately, dishonorable discharge.

So the point here is that you shouldn't rush to conclusions about what the Clinton's did or didn't believe back in the 1990s, and now. There are a lot of very liberal people who realize that there are some ideas which are ahead of their time, and gay rights was ahead of its time in the 1990s.

Defending gay rights beyond what they did would have probably ended both their political careers, as well, and it would have ensured that some idiot Republican got elected consistently through the 1990s, because that's how viscerally the country opposed gay rights at that time. It was like 98% opposition, and more than 90% of the American people supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. With Republicans like Newt Gingrich in office, that was a real threat --and one which Bill and Hillary recognized, and thwarted... while they created space for real and meaningful change a little more than a decade and a half later.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/19/2016 6:00:03 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
The fact that they even note her little switch when pro-gay marriage became the majority position astounds me.

The Clinton's position on gay rights is more sophisticated than a lot of people give them credit for. Their friendships and associations, generally, indicate at least their tolerance of homosexuality (both Bill and Hillary). Even dating back to the early 1990s...

There are a lot of people who deride both of them for the Defense of Marriage Act, and Don't Ask Don't Tell, and argue that these are policies which indicate the Clinton's opposition to gay marriage.

What the Clinton critics ignore, however, is what exactly the Democratic party was up against at the time that DOMA and DADT were passed: very real Republican threats to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.

Even back in the 1990s, it was reasonably clear that as a matter of constitutional law, gay rights were probably protected in some sense; it was for that reason that Congressional Republicans sought a constitutional amendment... and support for a constitutional amendment at that time was very high.

Like, the only people who were "out and proud" at that time were people like Boy George, George Michael and there were a lot of rumors about Elton John. Everyone thought that all gay men and lesbians were either eccentric deviant celebrities, or sexual predators.

The Clintons understood that losing the battle was necessary in order to win the war. So, what DOMA and DADT were, essentially, were "compromises" between the Democratic party (who were largely apathetic to gay rights issues) and Republicans, who were looking for a new wedge issue other than abortion.

The Clinton's, personally, kept the United States from passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Also, DADT prevented the military from inquiring as to the sexual orientations of members of the military --which was a change from before DADT, where rumors of homosexuality would often lead to a military investigation and tribunal, and, ultimately, dishonorable discharge.

So the point here is that you shouldn't rush to conclusions about what the Clinton's did or didn't believe back in the 1990s, and now. There are a lot of very liberal people who realize that there are some ideas which are ahead of their time, and gay rights was ahead of its time in the 1990s.

Defending gay rights beyond what they did would have probably ended both their political careers, as well, and it would have ensured that some idiot Republican got elected consistently through the 1990s, because that's how viscerally the country opposed gay rights at that time. It was like 98% opposition, and more than 90% of the American people supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. With Republicans like Newt Gingrich in office, that was a real threat --and one which Bill and Hillary recognized, and thwarted... while they created space for real and meaningful change a little more than a decade and a half later.

Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 2:40:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/19/2016 6:00:03 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
The fact that they even note her little switch when pro-gay marriage became the majority position astounds me.

The Clinton's position on gay rights is more sophisticated than a lot of people give them credit for. Their friendships and associations, generally, indicate at least their tolerance of homosexuality (both Bill and Hillary). Even dating back to the early 1990s...

There are a lot of people who deride both of them for the Defense of Marriage Act, and Don't Ask Don't Tell, and argue that these are policies which indicate the Clinton's opposition to gay marriage.

What the Clinton critics ignore, however, is what exactly the Democratic party was up against at the time that DOMA and DADT were passed: very real Republican threats to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.

Even back in the 1990s, it was reasonably clear that as a matter of constitutional law, gay rights were probably protected in some sense; it was for that reason that Congressional Republicans sought a constitutional amendment... and support for a constitutional amendment at that time was very high.

Like, the only people who were "out and proud" at that time were people like Boy George, George Michael and there were a lot of rumors about Elton John. Everyone thought that all gay men and lesbians were either eccentric deviant celebrities, or sexual predators.

The Clintons understood that losing the battle was necessary in order to win the war. So, what DOMA and DADT were, essentially, were "compromises" between the Democratic party (who were largely apathetic to gay rights issues) and Republicans, who were looking for a new wedge issue other than abortion.

The Clinton's, personally, kept the United States from passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Also, DADT prevented the military from inquiring as to the sexual orientations of members of the military --which was a change from before DADT, where rumors of homosexuality would often lead to a military investigation and tribunal, and, ultimately, dishonorable discharge.

So the point here is that you shouldn't rush to conclusions about what the Clinton's did or didn't believe back in the 1990s, and now. There are a lot of very liberal people who realize that there are some ideas which are ahead of their time, and gay rights was ahead of its time in the 1990s.

Defending gay rights beyond what they did would have probably ended both their political careers, as well, and it would have ensured that some idiot Republican got elected consistently through the 1990s, because that's how viscerally the country opposed gay rights at that time. It was like 98% opposition, and more than 90% of the American people supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. With Republicans like Newt Gingrich in office, that was a real threat --and one which Bill and Hillary recognized, and thwarted... while they created space for real and meaningful change a little more than a decade and a half later.

Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?

There was no real threat of a Constitutional Amendment in 2008, but in 2008 the country was still warming up to the idea of gay marriage. Public support still had to be nudged in the right direction, and it was, with tremendous success, mostly because of the media.

But the thing to realize here is that Clinton could not personally lead the charge for gay rights; she wasn't the right messenger. Modern Family was the right messenger. Other shows with prominent gay characters were the right messenger. Tim Gunn was the right messenger. etc.

People don't look to politicians as sources of moral or cultural authority; they look to the media, and their environments.

The iron was a lot hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, for example, but it was still not ready to strike.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:03:53 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 2:40:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?

There was no real threat of a Constitutional Amendment in 2008, but in 2008 the country was still warming up to the idea of gay marriage. Public support still had to be nudged in the right direction, and it was, with tremendous success, mostly because of the media.

But the thing to realize here is that Clinton could not personally lead the charge for gay rights; she wasn't the right messenger. Modern Family was the right messenger. Other shows with prominent gay characters were the right messenger. Tim Gunn was the right messenger. etc.

People don't look to politicians as sources of moral or cultural authority; they look to the media, and their environments.

The iron was a lot hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, for example, but it was still not ready to strike.

Even if it wasn't the majority position still, and politicians aren't looked at for social change - how can we honestly look to Clinton today as someone who is championing gay rights when she never led on the matter before, when someone else in the field did so knowing that the vast majority of Congress would oppose his words?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:23:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:03:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:40:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?

There was no real threat of a Constitutional Amendment in 2008, but in 2008 the country was still warming up to the idea of gay marriage. Public support still had to be nudged in the right direction, and it was, with tremendous success, mostly because of the media.

But the thing to realize here is that Clinton could not personally lead the charge for gay rights; she wasn't the right messenger. Modern Family was the right messenger. Other shows with prominent gay characters were the right messenger. Tim Gunn was the right messenger. etc.

People don't look to politicians as sources of moral or cultural authority; they look to the media, and their environments.

The iron was a lot hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, for example, but it was still not ready to strike.

Even if it wasn't the majority position still, and politicians aren't looked at for social change - how can we honestly look to Clinton today as someone who is championing gay rights when she never led on the matter before, when someone else in the field did so knowing that the vast majority of Congress would oppose his words?

She's taken a clear position on the issue now, and had even before the supreme court recognized the constitutional right to gay marriage.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:34:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:23:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:03:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:40:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?

There was no real threat of a Constitutional Amendment in 2008, but in 2008 the country was still warming up to the idea of gay marriage. Public support still had to be nudged in the right direction, and it was, with tremendous success, mostly because of the media.

But the thing to realize here is that Clinton could not personally lead the charge for gay rights; she wasn't the right messenger. Modern Family was the right messenger. Other shows with prominent gay characters were the right messenger. Tim Gunn was the right messenger. etc.

People don't look to politicians as sources of moral or cultural authority; they look to the media, and their environments.

The iron was a lot hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, for example, but it was still not ready to strike.

Even if it wasn't the majority position still, and politicians aren't looked at for social change - how can we honestly look to Clinton today as someone who is championing gay rights when she never led on the matter before, when someone else in the field did so knowing that the vast majority of Congress would oppose his words?

She's taken a clear position on the issue now, and had even before the supreme court recognized the constitutional right to gay marriage.

That's not saying much.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:35:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:34:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:23:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:03:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:40:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?

There was no real threat of a Constitutional Amendment in 2008, but in 2008 the country was still warming up to the idea of gay marriage. Public support still had to be nudged in the right direction, and it was, with tremendous success, mostly because of the media.

But the thing to realize here is that Clinton could not personally lead the charge for gay rights; she wasn't the right messenger. Modern Family was the right messenger. Other shows with prominent gay characters were the right messenger. Tim Gunn was the right messenger. etc.

People don't look to politicians as sources of moral or cultural authority; they look to the media, and their environments.

The iron was a lot hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, for example, but it was still not ready to strike.

Even if it wasn't the majority position still, and politicians aren't looked at for social change - how can we honestly look to Clinton today as someone who is championing gay rights when she never led on the matter before, when someone else in the field did so knowing that the vast majority of Congress would oppose his words?

She's taken a clear position on the issue now, and had even before the supreme court recognized the constitutional right to gay marriage.

That's not saying much.

Would you rather there have been a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:44:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:35:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:34:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:23:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:03:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:40:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?

There was no real threat of a Constitutional Amendment in 2008, but in 2008 the country was still warming up to the idea of gay marriage. Public support still had to be nudged in the right direction, and it was, with tremendous success, mostly because of the media.

But the thing to realize here is that Clinton could not personally lead the charge for gay rights; she wasn't the right messenger. Modern Family was the right messenger. Other shows with prominent gay characters were the right messenger. Tim Gunn was the right messenger. etc.

People don't look to politicians as sources of moral or cultural authority; they look to the media, and their environments.

The iron was a lot hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, for example, but it was still not ready to strike.

Even if it wasn't the majority position still, and politicians aren't looked at for social change - how can we honestly look to Clinton today as someone who is championing gay rights when she never led on the matter before, when someone else in the field did so knowing that the vast majority of Congress would oppose his words?

She's taken a clear position on the issue now, and had even before the supreme court recognized the constitutional right to gay marriage.

That's not saying much.

Would you rather there have been a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

Could Gingrich and co. have even successfully passed that?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:48:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:44:44 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:34:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:23:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:03:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:40:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?

There was no real threat of a Constitutional Amendment in 2008, but in 2008 the country was still warming up to the idea of gay marriage. Public support still had to be nudged in the right direction, and it was, with tremendous success, mostly because of the media.

But the thing to realize here is that Clinton could not personally lead the charge for gay rights; she wasn't the right messenger. Modern Family was the right messenger. Other shows with prominent gay characters were the right messenger. Tim Gunn was the right messenger. etc.

People don't look to politicians as sources of moral or cultural authority; they look to the media, and their environments.

The iron was a lot hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, for example, but it was still not ready to strike.

Even if it wasn't the majority position still, and politicians aren't looked at for social change - how can we honestly look to Clinton today as someone who is championing gay rights when she never led on the matter before, when someone else in the field did so knowing that the vast majority of Congress would oppose his words?

She's taken a clear position on the issue now, and had even before the supreme court recognized the constitutional right to gay marriage.

That's not saying much.

Would you rather there have been a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

Could Gingrich and co. have even successfully passed that?

Yes. With almost no resistance.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:00:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:48:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:44:44 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:34:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:23:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:03:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:40:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?

There was no real threat of a Constitutional Amendment in 2008, but in 2008 the country was still warming up to the idea of gay marriage. Public support still had to be nudged in the right direction, and it was, with tremendous success, mostly because of the media.

But the thing to realize here is that Clinton could not personally lead the charge for gay rights; she wasn't the right messenger. Modern Family was the right messenger. Other shows with prominent gay characters were the right messenger. Tim Gunn was the right messenger. etc.

People don't look to politicians as sources of moral or cultural authority; they look to the media, and their environments.

The iron was a lot hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, for example, but it was still not ready to strike.

Even if it wasn't the majority position still, and politicians aren't looked at for social change - how can we honestly look to Clinton today as someone who is championing gay rights when she never led on the matter before, when someone else in the field did so knowing that the vast majority of Congress would oppose his words?

She's taken a clear position on the issue now, and had even before the supreme court recognized the constitutional right to gay marriage.

That's not saying much.

Would you rather there have been a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

Could Gingrich and co. have even successfully passed that?

Yes. With almost no resistance.

Even without a supermajority?

Even then, what about a decade later?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:22:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I find it both hilarious and disturbing at the same time - the number of sheeple who lament that the government does not have the right, the power nor the authority to define a legal construct like "marriage" as "one man one woman." While believing the government DOES have the right, the power and the authority to define PERSONHOOD in a way that denies prenatal children their rights to the protections of our laws.

The world's largest bunch of Fvcking Hypocrites.

What more can I say about that?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:53:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Headache inducing arguments on abortion would be spam in this thread.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 8:43:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:53:08 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Headache inducing arguments on abortion would be spam in this thread.

Who said anything about abortion?

My comment is about the government's right and power to define things and terms in a legally "constructed" right (like marriage) verses a case where the right is "inherent" or intrinsic by simply existing as a Human being.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 2:51:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 5:00:06 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:48:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:44:44 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:34:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:23:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:03:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:40:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:36:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:30:47 PM, YYW wrote:
Was that a real threat in 2008 as well?

There was no real threat of a Constitutional Amendment in 2008, but in 2008 the country was still warming up to the idea of gay marriage. Public support still had to be nudged in the right direction, and it was, with tremendous success, mostly because of the media.

But the thing to realize here is that Clinton could not personally lead the charge for gay rights; she wasn't the right messenger. Modern Family was the right messenger. Other shows with prominent gay characters were the right messenger. Tim Gunn was the right messenger. etc.

People don't look to politicians as sources of moral or cultural authority; they look to the media, and their environments.

The iron was a lot hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, for example, but it was still not ready to strike.

Even if it wasn't the majority position still, and politicians aren't looked at for social change - how can we honestly look to Clinton today as someone who is championing gay rights when she never led on the matter before, when someone else in the field did so knowing that the vast majority of Congress would oppose his words?

She's taken a clear position on the issue now, and had even before the supreme court recognized the constitutional right to gay marriage.

That's not saying much.

Would you rather there have been a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

Could Gingrich and co. have even successfully passed that?

Yes. With almost no resistance.

Even without a supermajority?

Republicans and Democrats both supported the idea. There was overwhelming, and bipartisan support for it.

Even then, what about a decade later?

In 2008, the status quo had changed, but Clinton couldn't lead on the issue. Obama didn't either.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 3:09:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 2:51:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 5:00:06 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:48:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:44:44 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:35:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:34:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:23:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:03:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Even if it wasn't the majority position still, and politicians aren't looked at for social change - how can we honestly look to Clinton today as someone who is championing gay rights when she never led on the matter before, when someone else in the field did so knowing that the vast majority of Congress would oppose his words?

She's taken a clear position on the issue now, and had even before the supreme court recognized the constitutional right to gay marriage.

That's not saying much.

Would you rather there have been a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

Could Gingrich and co. have even successfully passed that?

Yes. With almost no resistance.

Even without a supermajority?

Republicans and Democrats both supported the idea. There was overwhelming, and bipartisan support for it.

Even then, what about a decade later?

In 2008, the status quo had changed, but Clinton couldn't lead on the issue. Obama didn't either.

Even if I concede the '90s, I'm not going to buy that neither she nor Obama could lead in '08 - same with Biden.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 3:16:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 3:09:46 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

Even if I concede the '90s, I'm not going to buy that neither she nor Obama could lead in '08 - same with Biden.

By "lead" I mean "take a prominent public role on the issue." Social change just doesn't come from the top down in the United States, and that's why they couldn't "lead." They both could, and did, guide things along... but that's all they could and should have reasonably done.

And the fact is that gay rights were resolved favorably faster than any other civil rights issue was ever resolved in this country's history. So you've got to keep that in mind too. The public did a complete u-turn in less than a decade, and that's hugely significant.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 3:08:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
She probably payed for that endorsement. I honestly don't believe the could be unaware of Clinton's blatant opportunism.

I think this really shows that blatant contradiction in liberal ideology. Gay people have the right to state benefits for a procreation free relationship, but people can't refuse to bake a cake for them.

And don't get me started on abortion...
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 5:46:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 3:08:06 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
I think this really shows that blatant contradiction in liberal ideology. Gay people have the right to state benefits for a procreation free relationship, but people can't refuse to bake a cake for them.

Anyone can refuse to bake a cake for gay people. They just can't do it if they run a business supported by tax subsidies paid for by gay people. Operating a public storefront, with the support of the public as lobbied by organizations like a local chamber of commerce, requires that you are obligated to serve the entire public. If you can't follow that rather simple requirement, then you shouldn't operate a public storefront.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 8:55:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 5:46:45 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/22/2016 3:08:06 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
I think this really shows that blatant contradiction in liberal ideology. Gay people have the right to state benefits for a procreation free relationship, but people can't refuse to bake a cake for them.

Anyone can refuse to bake a cake for gay people. They just can't do it if they run a business supported by tax subsidies paid for by gay people. Operating a public storefront, with the support of the public as lobbied by organizations like a local chamber of commerce, requires that you are obligated to serve the entire public. If you can't follow that rather simple requirement, then you shouldn't operate a public storefront.

- This looks like a double edged argument, as It could strike both ways.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 11:46:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 8:55:48 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/22/2016 5:46:45 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/22/2016 3:08:06 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
I think this really shows that blatant contradiction in liberal ideology. Gay people have the right to state benefits for a procreation free relationship, but people can't refuse to bake a cake for them.

Anyone can refuse to bake a cake for gay people. They just can't do it if they run a business supported by tax subsidies paid for by gay people. Operating a public storefront, with the support of the public as lobbied by organizations like a local chamber of commerce, requires that you are obligated to serve the entire public. If you can't follow that rather simple requirement, then you shouldn't operate a public storefront.

- This looks like a double edged argument, as It could strike both ways.

Not really. If I own a business, I can't say that I won't serve Christians because they lobby against my interests. I mean, Christians literally lobby on one side that it be illegal to refuse people on the basis of religion, and on the other that it be legal to refuse them on the basis of sexual orientation. I'm just being consistent and saying that the argument goes both ways: you lost the right to withhold your services as a political tool for either side when you accepted community investment into your business.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -