I have lost faith in America, and Americans

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No you don't. There are more gays than communists. If you guys wouldn't vote for politicians who are publically against gay marriage you would have a lot more power. Otherwise people who oppose gay marriage have no reason to treat you as you wish.

Or, we could vote in favor of the candidates who are closer and closer to our positions and vote against the ones who we directly oppose.

Y'know, like how we all voted against McCain/Palin, largely on account of Palin--at least, when we factored in their stands on gay rights.

This is confusing to me. Just forget what I said anyway, because now that I think of it it would be beneficial for you to convince me because I would stand with you in other ways besides voting.

I'm not convinced you would. You've publically stated that you would not vote for a candidate in favor of gay marriage:

In fact, I wouldn't vote for someone who was for gay marriage anyway, because I'm against capitalism.

It certainly doesn't sound like you're with us regarding gay rights--especially with the way you--as a breeder--have trashed those of us who are actually gay for choosing different political methods than you would prefer.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
He's also completely irrelevant in the U.S. Gays at least have some political clout.

EDIT: I'm also not following the logic that being pro-gay marriage is necessitates being capitalist. Isn't gay marriage equality part of the Socialist party platform?

It is (but I'm not aware that Kid is a member of the SPUSA). Our party has had a long standing policy of full equality for gays, and, in fact, we were the first party in American history to run an openly gay man, David McReynolds, for President.

However, Kid's opinion, however poorly expressed, isn't uncommon, either in our party, or in the rest of the socialist movement. Many people feel that marriage is a bad thing altogether, a form of slavery which has survived to the present day (which is true). We oppose bourgeois concepts of marriage and think that in order for gays to truly be equal participants in society, the root cause of inequality, class society, needs to be overthrown and abolished. Thus, anything which distracts from that goal is not merely irrelevant, it is harmful because it puts the day of true equality farther off.

While I understand and can sympathize with that position, it fails to understand both how people and movement building works. We make revolution by fighting for reforms. By fighting for gay people to have the right to fully participate in bourgeois society, and having bourgeois society reject those rights and fight back, gay people learn that the only way they can obtain equal rights is by abolishing bourgeois society. And sometimes, we even win in this society. It's win-win strategy.

Frankly, Mr. Fun and Mrs Snuggles are absolutely free to have their concept of how to fight for gay rights. I think they are wrong. Black people didn't accept partial equality, They fought like hell for it. Women didn't except partial equality. They fought like hell. If gays want equality, they have to fight like hell. Anything less will only get you less. If you accept the second class citizenship that half measures like civil unions grant, then that is all you will ever get.

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. It was true in the 19tyh Century. It was true in 1954. It's true today.

[Kidlicious]

Mrs. Snuggles,

You should let people respond first before jumping in. I don't read your posts anymore anyways. You obviously have issues which I don't want to deal with.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
Or, we could vote in favor of the candidates who are closer and closer to our positions and vote against the ones who we directly oppose.

The problem with that strategy is it has led to the Democrats moving further and further to the right. The problem with lesser evilism isn't that it doesn't get what you want right now, it's that it only delays you in getting what you don't want. If you have two guys who want to drive your car off a cliff, one at 60 mpg and the other at 30mph, voting for the lesser evil isn't a victory.

Take a page from the GOP book. You don't win by compromising. You win by making the other side compromise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by MrFun
I think he privately supports equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians but out of pragmatism, he publicly advocates civil unions as a realistic step in right direction.

That's the problem with you Obama supporters. You all believe that privately he supports wheater you support, no matter his statements (or lack thereof) and his legislative history.

This is just Clinton 2.0

Agreed. When you are speculating on what a person privately believes you are just buying into something that probably isn't there. You want to believe he's on your side, so you have to make up something.

[Kidlicious]

I'm not against marriage or gay marriage. Someone was just trying to pick a fight.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Mrs. Snuggles,

You should let people respond first before jumping in. I don't read your posts anymore anyways. You obviously have issues which I don't want to deal with.

Then why did you answer my snarky comment earlier--especially one that wasn't expressly addressed to you?

Besides, I'm tired of you projecting your psychological ****ups on me.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not against marriage or gay marriage. Someone was just trying to pick a fight.

So now you're a flip-flopper.

[Ming]

A little less personal stuff folks... Discuss the topic and NOT the posters

[MrFun]

Ooooh . . . .

he used the winking smilie. That means he means business, folks!

[Q Classic]

I actually miss the smell of cigarette smoke on you, Ming.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The only reason Clinton went after gays in the military early was because of heavy pressure from interest groups. It backfired because it was seen as him putting that policy above all others, which allowed the Republicans to portray him as beholding to "extreme" leftwing interests. This was a large part of why the Republicans won Congress in 1994.

Had Clinton waited until after other significant policy proposals had been implementedand and he'd built up some cred with the public first, I think it would have turned out differently. But he did it without having any political capital yet, and for a 43% President, it was dumb.

Isn't it generally assumed that during the first 100 days is when a candidate has the most political capital they will have and are able to make very strident changes?

[chequita guevara]

Don't confuse him with facts and logic. They want to use the same failed strategy, let them. With both the GOP and the Dems as complete failures, socialism will grow.

[chequita guevara]

Even in Broward County, the 3rd largest gay metropolis in the country, the anti-gay initiative won a majority, more than 52%.

[Kidlicious]

Good quote in your sig comrade