Best
179 Comments
Post
  • #2
    !
    I think that this election was more a referendum on the tea party than anything else. As far as I can tell people probably support civil rights for gay folks but aren't strident about it. The Tea Party on the other hand alienated people so much with their government shutdown that folks came out to punish them. It worked out well for gay people because the people being punished were anti-gay. The biggest winner of the night was Terry McAuliffe. By rights he should have lost in Virginia. Anti-Tea Party sentiment gave him the victory.
  • #4
    !
    States rights means- right to discriminate against black, hispanics, women and gays.

    Personal Freedoms means - the right to restrict your personal freedoms in order to comply with our understanding of the Bible.

    Sodomy - what would have been done to America had the tea party types won.
  • #6
    !
    @PolitixMary - Been there, done that, sometimes my jokes are hilarious to me but kind of die on the vine after I post. Keep trying though! ;)
  • #8
    !
    @PNWest #1) states rights have nothing to do with restriction of anything. And quite frankly, your suggestion if racism, misogyny and homophobia is completely uncalled for and incorrect, especially your suggestion that all of those things are done only by people who hold religious beliefs

    #2) your ignorance about the Tea Party is astounding and I am embarrassed for you.
  • R Load more replies

  • #14
    !
    No where and I will say it again for emphasis no where are you given the right to be happy. You have the right to pursue happiness but that still is not the right to be happy.
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    "Gay rights" is a non- issue they already have the same rights as straights. With the dozens of serious issues facing the nation VA has really cost us.
  • #56
    !
    So gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, just like straight marriage then? Do you have a link to that?

    More important issues. I bet people heard that a lot during the civil rights m
  • #76
    !
    @Now_What They do have the same exact rights, the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. The law isn't about love, nor should any law be about emotion, what they want is a new right created, which probably should be. This is nothing compared to the gay rights movement, can you think of the last time a gay person was shipped to jail for not moving from a bus see? Or the police turning dogs on them? Waterhoses? Imprisonment for trying to protest? I think not, this is a non-issue that should be dealt with when the issues that involve us all are handled, like the economy, crime, the swarms of illegal immigrants and so forth.
  • #85
    !
    @Arumizy That isn't equal. They should be able to marry any adult person that they wish, just like straight people are. Maybe this isn't as bad as the civil rights movement, but it deserves our attention. Scared people won't win this one - it's a battle that you are losing slowly but surely as good prevails. Seperate but equal was "fair" too, they had the right to a drinking fountain, even if it was for "colored" people only. You can spin it any way you want, but like it or not, same-sex marriage is coming to all 50 states in the next few years. Stay tuned.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #10
    !
    "Sodomy" can have as broad a definition as the narrowness of the mind that condemns it. It might include boinking animals, which I hope we agree is pretty bizarre; but also oral sex with a human partner, which is fairly popular. To the really repressed bible-thumpers, sodomy even includes intercourse without the intent to procreate. Taking a candidate position against sex doesn't seem to be a good way to get votes.
  • #65
    !
    @gizmo0001 Succinct, but I'd rather you be more specific. Perhaps your objection is to my hope of agreement that bestiality is strange and distasteful. Just hoping to get your up-vote and didn't mean to speak for you. My bad.
  • #121
    !
    @AMALGAMATE It might or might not. by one defintion any type of non-missionary sex is sodomy; by others it's just anal or just anal and oral. Which kind of illustrates the stupidity of criminalizing it, since the theocrats who want to don't even know what it is.
  • #138
    !
    Thought I pointed out that socomy CAN have a broad definition, which certainly isn't my definition and doesn't seem to be yours either.
    I'll defer to Wiki: "Sodomy /ˈsɒdəmi/ is generally anal sex, oral sex or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity."
    For the outer fringe of the religiously repressed, the missionary position itself doesn't even pass muster unless its for procreation. One big reason why many ingnoranti have more kids than teeth.
  • #33
    !
    That picture made me think about Pride parades. Why is it, that LGBT's think that they are making a political statement by doing some of the rather crude things I've seen.? It's hard for me to take it seriously when some guy is hitting himself in the face with a large , floppy sex toy?
    Rename the parade if that's what you want to do. It's not prideful to show off decadence.
    You don't see "Straight Pride" rolling down the street adorned with strippers grinding a pole.
    Pride doesn't mean embarrass yourself and everyone you.
    Google Martin Luther King Jr. to see what real Pride statements were.
  • #36
    !
    A flowing mass of humanity prancing & swishing down the street is a statement seeking affirmation from others of a deviant lifestyle that is the most dominant thing about their existence. In the end (no pun intended) their reward awaits. <wink>
  • #131
    !
    @TheKangaroo Mardi Gras, Spring Break and Slutoween aren't trying to make a political statement. They don't hide what they are, debauchery.
    Pride parades are supposed to gain allies in the fight for equality and they end up doing the opposite. People on the fence aren't necessarily recruited by forcing sexuality down their throats.
    I'm not against gays or lesbians, but I do dislike tackiness and these parades are a lot of that.
  • #31
    !
    Most of these races - the Virginia gubernatorial one especially - were tragically missed opportunities. That no one liked either Republican or Democratic candidate for Governor was a *perfect* opportunity to *not* elect Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum - there was a third name on that ballot who was a successful businessman and entrepreneur, pro-same-sex marriage, and ran as a Libertarian.

    The two-party system is a false dilemma, folks. One that will continue America's downfall as long as it's believed.
  • #103
    !
    actually it doesnt matter at all in the US-marriage is secular here (hint-marriage predates ALL religion by thousands of years)
  • #129
    !
    In that case, it's harmless to let gay couples get a marriage license. After all government recognition doesn't actually matter to you, right?
  • #49
    !
    Now that is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Although the tea party claims that it does not run on social issues almost every tea party candidate uses it to try and advance themselves. Republicans have used anti gay sentiments and fear in every race they have run since 2000" it is basically part of their strategy. If anyone has cased gay rights to become the issue that it has it is because republicans declared war on gays.
  • #53
    !
    @Speedieg you just said Republican candidates, but not Tea Party agenda. It's apples and oranges. Much like speeches Obama makes and the reality later.
  • #68
    !
    @jeffreyknee this thread is not about Obama it is about gay rights but I don't expect for a minute for folks of your political leanings to miss an opportunity to change the issue to the same old complaint .
  • R Load more replies

  • #32
    !
    "Smaller Government! This is a socialist nation!"
    Right up until it comes to legislating their neighbors bedroom behavior. Then Big Government is ok. Talk about your hypocrisy.
  • #152
    !
    Why do gay people want permission from the government to marry? Hahaha..by marrying you're inviting the government into your bedroom..I remember a lot of this talk before when Carter was President..only it was about what a man and woman can do in the bedroom..there's real problems in this country and consensual sex laws should be on the lowest priority..instead they bring it to the forefront in order to create division...a marriage license is a three party contract between you..your spouse and the state..and if you want to count God..all for few monetary privileges and a title..hahahahaha..idiots abound cause I'm betting a lot of people will think I'm anti gay..rather than pro liberty..quit giving up rights in exchange for privileges..the more who do..the less power we have as a people..
  • #139
    !
    They are looking at this the absolute wrong way...the democrats should be quaking in their boots. They barely squeaked....BARELY...out a victory here! The demos spent tons of money on an advertising barrage and not to mention funding the independent candidate to take more votes away from the repub! With all that money spent, time spent, and spin controlled....they could not get a big victory over what all accounts say is a nut job....WOW! I am optimistic that 2014 is going to hand some liberals their walking papers! I do not see them having the money to fund independent campaigns in every state in question in '14! They are screwed! And it's about freakin time!

    Obamacare and Obama' lies and ineptitude about obamacare are going to be...finally...his fall from grace!
  • #133
    !
    Why are homosexuals always complaining about rights? Last time I checked, marriage was between a man and a woman according to the bible. Why get "married" if you don't believe in God's word? Why do they want to get married, to share the benefits of divorce? Is this just some attention loving BS?
  • #156
    !
    Civil rights. God does not grant them, the government does. Marriage is not exclusively owned by the religious. The state and federal government grants and sanctions marriage and the rights and privileges associated to it.

    You can get married in your church, but without a marriage license the government will not recognize it legally.
  • #112
    !
    Ummm, marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege one may enjoy. like driving a car IF they meet the prerequisites per their state.
  • #130
    !
    Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Chief Justice Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man".
  • #132
    !
    @Cal
    I hate to burst your bubble, but it's still illegal per our state Constitution and the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution makes that perfectly legal.
  • #134
    !
    @Cal

    FYI, you left out the part where he calls marriage a "fundamental freedom" which is not "a right"...but I'm sure that was just an accidental oversight on your part, right? Yeah right...
  • #136
    !
    @Richard68
    A state constitution can never supersede the United States Constitution. Under the US Constitution, marriage is a basic right according to the Supreme Court. That precedent means gay marriage bans will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional.

    And you're seriously trying to say that a "fundamental freedom" is not a right?
  • #141
    !
    @Cal
    That's EXACTLY what I'm saying, "freedoms" are not "rights". You have the freedom to drive a car, you do not have a right to do so. You have the freedom to get married, you do not have a right to do so. You have a right to free speech without interference by the government, you don't need to take a test or posses a license. You have a right to a trial by jury, you don't have to take a test or posses a license. Do you honestly believe my state constitution, which bans gay marriage and the recognition of gay marriage within our borders, has been in direct violation of the US constitution for a decade?
  • R Load more replies

  • #72
    !
    One election, one state, one issue. It is just conceivable that there were other issues that determined the outcomes here. But, the Republicans did deserve to lose. It is time for them to realize that social conservatism and religious beliefs should not be part of their platforms.
  • #71
    !
    The article credits the debate over Sodomy the issue, that was only on fringe part of the reason for the outcome of this election. And Sodomy is not only an act gay persons engage in, married persons also enjoy this activity, so not necessarily an election over gay rights, but all persons rights.
  • R Load more comments...
Post