Gay marriage vote fails in Maine

I don't think anyone actually believes those pics of Obama nazi signs et al. are indicative of all the teabaggers.

At the same time, if they really did disagree with those signs, why didn't they say anything to them? Why didn't Rep. Batshit Bachmann decry the sign someone held up with a bunch of bodies from the holocaust all piled up (happened on 11/5 anti-healthcare reform march on washington)?

It hurts their cause. When groups like FreedomWorks sponsor and give people talking points for townhalls, it hurts any real grassroots movement.
 
When I was 4, my grandparents took me shopping and I told them I wanted them to buy me the Transformer Soundwave, which was $25-30. They refused. I yelled and shouted and kicked and screamed, and made a general embarrassment of myself. They left the store with me, didn't buy me anything, and told me I embarrassed them.

I must know what it's like to have my civil rights taken away.

UncleBob, it's not about the actions, it's the absolutely preposterous comparisons you come up with from thread to thread to thread.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] I'm talking about the actions of what people do with the photos.[/QUOTE]

But those actions are based on the depictions in the photos. And further, most of those actions are deeply rooted in the past.

I don't know a single person who would be anti-homosexual that doesn't have built in residue based on a lot of reasons, justifiable or not. Nor do I suspect that they have any other idea BUT rabidly flamboyant depictions. And FURTHER I don't expect them to change that idealized version, even if confronted with a ton of counterexamples showing more "normalized" gay people.

Meanwhile, when I see Republicans saying we're a socialist state with Gestapo and indoctrination, I can't help but laugh (and ultimately get depressed) because I know dumb idiots are going to buy into BIG WORDS AND SCREAMING. They aren't doing it for the same reason of simple recognition, like you purport by comparing them to gay pride parades. They are doing it to oppress and rally support by suggesting that THIS COUNTRY IS GOIN' DOWN, AND NOT IN THE GOOD CHRISTIAN WAY.

Edit: It's funny that you assume that these people in gay pride parades are dressing up in the manner they are in order to - in your own words - "take people on the extreme fringes and try and convince the general population that the extremes are the norm."

That's such poor reasoning. None of those people in those photos think they are representing the entire gay population. You know what they are thinking? "Man, this parade is great, I'm safe and secure A FEW HOURS OF THE ENTIRE YEAR, and I totally have the ass to pull off this latex feather costume."

At no point in their minds do they stop and think that they are the sole proprietors of gayness. None. They merely think of themselves as a version of it. And they are having fun because the rest of the year, they have to bottle up their entire identity in public from fear and - unfairly - shame and guilt.

Meanwhile, Congressmen fucksticks think they ARE speaking for their entire platform, and seemingly none of their colleagues say otherwise. So that's a lot of fat acceptance on their part. Fox News jumps on death panels and birther allegations WITHOUT QUESTION, and rabble rouse it for months.

The coincidental - or perhaps ironic thing - is that you can probably find tons of photos of screaming red faced dipshits where they were talking about gay rights, and how they are going to destroy this country.

When was the last time you heard a Republican opine that "my parents disowned me once they found out I thought Reaganomics was a good idea" ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='spmahn']We obviously all identify as being one way or another through the contextual clues in our speach whether we are aware of it or not, and no one should have an issue with that. I'm referring however to those who feel that their being gay somehow makes them different or special, from the rest of society. If you believe that you are different than everyone else, then the obvious result of that people are goig to treat you differently. We all self identify as something simply as a matter of fact, but it really shouldn't go beyond that.[/QUOTE]

Actually, you do bring up a good point. There's quite a bit of "disgust" amongst the gay community about fems and non-fems. It's one thing if you like dance music, and generally like to look good..but there's the over the top QUEERS. It's not wrong to point this out, IMO. There are a ton of guys (and gals) whom are just.. over the top looking with their sexuality. My BF and I are not these type of guys, and in fact, we make fun of them :lol: and use "$$$" as the word to say against them.

However, this does not mean that these over-the-top queens deserve to not have equal rights. Even IF all homosexuals were over the top with their appearance.. this still should not be limit them from legal rights/benefits. It really is a matter of.. appearance. It's just a matter of "Eww!" at them.
 
[quote name='Strell']When was the last time you heard a Republican opine that "my parents disowned me once they found out I thought Reaganomics was a good idea" ?[/QUOTE]

JTEIopQJWfdrmkm5zCUVgPbZo1_400.jpg


lilboo, you should get yer nancy ass to philly this weekend for some drinkin'.
 
One last thing I'd like to add to this debate, for those who think this is a concerted effort by right wingers and religious nuts specifically targeting homosexuals and their behavior, while allowing heterosexual behavior to run free, consider this. In the late 90's, and around the turn of this decade, popular media took a turn, popular shows such as Jerry Springer, professional wrestling, along with movies and music became increasingly raunchier. The media begain to promote and glamorize violence, racism, profanity, and sexism, along with overt and sometimes aberrant sexuality. Ten years later however, just about all of these forms of entertainment have toned down significantly, Jerry Springer is a shell of it's former self, Pro Wrestling has become much more family friendly, and music and movies have scaled back quite a bit too, so what happened?

The very same right wingers, religious fanatics, politicians, and pro family organizations that are lobbying against gay marriage pressured TV networks, cable sponsors, record labels, and recording studios and told them to tone it down. They didn't want to see sexuality on television, nor did they want to see profanity, violence, or anything of that nature. As a result, it was just about eliminated. With a few exceptions, mostly on cable, you don't see arbitrary sexuality on American television anymore. Films and music videos are routinely edited for content as well.

So while I may disagree with a lot of their viewpoints, there really isn't a whole lot of hypocrisy amongst this segment of the population. Gay, straight, it doesn't matter, they don't want any of it, and would rather it all stay in the bedroom and out of the public domain.
 
Wat? ABC had a show called DIRTY SEXY MONEY at some point.

That's about as lowest common denominator as you can get. I think they'd actually have to write TWATTY CUNTS 'N BOOBS to get any lower.
 
WWE pro wrestling went tame because the former CFO and on-air character, linda mcmahon, is gunning for Christopher Dodd's senate seat.

You make two claims here without proof.

1) TV is less raunchy than it was in the 1990's. Prove it.
2) TV is less raunchy because of the concerted efforts of the christian right. Prove it.

When I see the right trashing television, it's this ten-thousand-degrees of absurd idea that "______" is ultra liberal. Like this gem from the other day: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sright/2009/11/03/l-is-for-leftist-thats-good-enough-for-me/
 
I liked it more when the right attacked the kids movie "Happy Feet" because it - according to their accusations - spread a pro-gay message.

And since I never get tired of quoting this particular Lewis Black gem: "How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar?"

Oh yeah. Sesame Street is secretly librul leftist socialist Marxist pipe organ. What with their gay couple Bert 'n Ernie and high-as-a-kite Snufflupagus.
 
The WWE actually began to cut out the raunch long before the Linda's Senate race. It began in 2000 and 2001 when they started losing sponsors due to pressuring from these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Television_Council#WWE

Of course they later sued and won, but it worked, WWE toned down their content, and while they did occasionally revisit some overtly sexual themes, it was never quite nearly as pervasive as it had been in the past.

TV is a lot less raunchier now, mostly due to the fact that the over the air networks got strong armed by the FCC into being so following Janet Jackson flashing a boob during the Super Bowl, Bono swearing on the Grammys, and essentially forcing Howard Stern off of terrestrial radio.

Cable television is an entirely different beast, as they do not have to listen to the FCC (although that may change, they have been trying for a while). Much of cable is regulated by the individual advertisers, who won't advertise on shows that promote anything the public may perceive as immoral (with a few exceptions).

Much of this can be attributed to two people, Mr. L. Bret Bozell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III whose religious ties are obvious (he serves on the board of the Catholic league), and the FCC back when they were staffed by Bush's right wing buddies, along with stupid television indecency laws brought forth by politicians like Sam Brownback who's religious views are well known, as well as other right wingers like Fred Upton.

That's also without mentioning the real nuts who think the Teletubbies will make you gay, Sponge Bob Squarepants is a pervert, or that Harry Potter is the work of the devil.
 
[quote name='Strell']Edit: It's funny that you assume that these people in gay pride parades are dressing up in the manner they are in order to - in your own words - "take people on the extreme fringes and try and convince the general population that the extremes are the norm."[/QUOTE]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't - at all - think the people in Gay Pride parades are doing that. I think that homophobes and those on the "Christan Right" are taking these extreme photos and personalities and trying to convince mainstream America that these individuals are wholly representative of the entire homosexual culture.

All I'm saying is that it is wrong to take Milstead or Big Gay Al (which, yes, I know is a cartoon character) and try to claim that they represent all homosexuals.

It's wrong to take Pat Robinson and claim that he is representative of all Christians.

It's wrong to take Osama Bin Laden and claim that he's representative of all Muslims.

It's wrong to take a photograph of some random crazy on the street and try to imply that that individual is representative of an entire political movement.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't - at all - think the people in Gay Pride parades are doing that. I think that homophobes and those on the "Christan Right" are taking these extreme photos and personalities and trying to convince mainstream America that these individuals are wholly representative of the entire homosexual culture.

All I'm saying is that it is wrong to take Milstead or Big Gay Al (which, yes, I know is a cartoon character) and try to claim that they represent all homosexuals.[/quote]

But they don't pretend they speak for anyone.

It's wrong to take Pat Robinson and claim that he is representative of all Christians.
Click to expand...

Whereas this intolerant fuckbag does, AND pressures people to send him money in order to let him continue his schtick.

It's wrong to take Osama Bin Laden and claim that he's representative of all Muslims.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but how did we end up here? This isn't about one example defining the entire sample size - it's about a very concentrated level of hatred aimed at a group of people who REALLY don't deserve it. Throwing up (ho ho) these comparisons that all illustrate a single point - "don't judge a book by it's cover" - is sidestepping the issue at hand.

It's wrong to take a photograph of some random crazy on the street and try to imply that that individual is representative of an entire political movement.
Click to expand...

This...man, this is barely part of the spectrum. Maybe when we've got Big Gay Al's real life equivalent swirling around in the House with a dildo on his forehead asking for gay rights and demanding Bible burnings, we'll be able to hold this as a relevant response. Hell, I'd settle for Anderson Cooper doing this. When that happens, then we're on equal group.

Re: spmahn

I don't know if this helps or hurts his point, but Bush's fuckbags did play a part in ruining Reading Rainbow.

....

Probably...because rainbows...are so closely associated with gay culture! Oh my god!

Thanks, fuckbags!
 
The problem with that argument, as I stated earlier, is that you can take the texts of those religions as a basis to what that religion preaches.
 
WWE openly mocked Bozell and the PTC on WWE programming. Who do you think the "Right to Censor" group was?

Let's not ignore the sexual content of the programming through the better part of this decade. "Hot Lesbian Action," the Katie Vick rape/murder storyline, Jim Ross getting a colonoscopy on television, ad nauseum. WWE's kid-friendly programming shift came within the last 12 months.
 
[quote name='Strell']But they don't pretend they speak for anyone.
[...]
Whereas this intolerant fuckbag does, AND pressures people to send him money in order to let him continue his schtick.[/quote]

So, if one was to find the real-life equivalent of Big Gay Al and this guy did claim to speak for everyone, then it would be okay with you to claim that he's wholly representative of the homosexual culture in America?

Just because someone claims that they are something, it doesn't make it true.

[quote name='Strell']I'm sorry, but how did we end up here?[/quote]

I was responding to this post and the replies that followed:
[quote name='spmahn']What they really need to do is tell the guys in their subculture that act stereotypically flamboyant and have all those ridiculous pride rallys with the guys in leather dancing naked on floats down Castro St to knock that crap off, they're only hurting the cause. I think thats the bigger problem, middle non-religious America seems to associate gay people with that over the top stereotype, whether thats fair or not, and it hurts the public perception.[/QUOTE]

I think we can all agree that it's unfair to take these "flamboyant gays" and try to claim they're representative of the entire culture of people - in fact, I think most of the posts were in agreement to that.

I was merely pointing out that it's unfair to do this with virtually any group of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top