Beto O'Rourke: "Hell yes, we're going to take your" assault weapon

[olstyn]

What do you mean by anti LGBTQ?


Being against same sex marriage, and for the traditional definition of man and woman, does not make one anti LGBTQ.

Actually it kind of does, though all parts of that do not necessarily correspond to all of the letters. Being against same sex marriage definitely makes you anti-LGB, at least. The TQ part is harder for me to pin down. I don't see myself as being anti-TQ, as I have no problem whatsoever with TQ folks living their lives however they see fit, but I admit that I do get twitchy at the social expectation that I'm supposed to praise them for it, so I imagine some of them *would* see me as anti-TQ.

[WobblyPossum]

What do you mean by anti LGBTQ?


Being against same sex marriage, and for the traditional definition of man and woman, does not make one anti LGBTQ.

Not exactly on topic but it seems the thread has drifted already: wanting to deny LGBTQ people the right to marry whatever consenting adult they see fit is, by definition, anti-LGBTQ. Being against people wanting to assume whatever gender roles they want to is also anti-LGBTQ. There are all sorts of human rights that aren’t blatantly spelled out in the constitution. That doesn’t mean those rights don’t exist. I am curious what would meet your definition of anti-LGBTQ though.

[Cypher]

Respectfully, there are real differences in policy that affect people; the fact that someone is unaffected or feels there is no difference doesn’t address those real differences. It’s a bit like a deaf person saying there’s no difference in stereo systems. Perhaps there isn’t, for her.

I have a bunch of deaf friends that have some killer systems in their cars

[RoyGBiv]

What do you mean by anti LGBTQ?

Being against same sex marriage, and for the traditional definition of man and woman, does not make one anti LGBTQ.

Another tangent.

I always thought it was a tactical error to pursue same-sex unions by calling for same-sex "marriage".
The term "marriage", IMO, conflates both a civil/legal union and a religious union.
I think it would have come to pass years earlier if the stated goal was for "same-sex unions" to have civil recognition.
"Marriage", in the religious sense, is not a legislative matter and meets with much greater resistance. YMMV.

Per the 14th, I've been in favor of civil unions for same sex partners for a long time.
I do sometimes wonder how far this can/should be taken though. Is polygamy similarly protected by the 14th? (a different tangent)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[BehindBlueI's]

I believe Beto O'Rourke is a window into the conscience of the democratic party. What most want but are afraid to say lest it destroy their political careers Beto blurts out unwittingly.

I don't think so. I think it's simply a continuation of running harder left/harder right in the primaries to get out the hard core voters who swing primaries, then returning to a more middle ground to try and win the general election. I'm in agreement with:

Hell, with the entire Dem-Soc field of hopefuls racing to "out-Left" each other...

Per the 14th, I've been in favor of civil unions for same sex partners for a long time.
I do sometimes wonder how far this can/should be taken though. Is polygamy similarly protected by the 14th? (a different tangent)

Gay marriage causes no harm (although I realize some argue it does via a moral/religious argument) whereas polygamy does. Polygamy has only been widely practices as one male, multiple females. The Reader's Digest version is polygamy only works for a society when there's a large imbalance of available men vs women. If you're a tribal society with high male death rates due to war, resource gathering in harsh environments, etc. then polygamy strengthens a society's bonds and economics. Particularly if your society doesn't have a social safety net for widows and orphans, instead relying more on familial bonds to care for those vulnerable populations.

If, however, you live in what constitutes the bulk of the modern world where the numbers of males and females are roughly equal and both literal and economic survival is possible as an individual outside a family unit, it becomes very problematic. Inevitably women (and the opportunity for men to pass along their genes) become commodities instead of potential partners. Not only does that affect women's legal rights, it encourages child-brides as familes "get the jump on the market" by entering into marital transactions earlier and earlier.

[luckyman]

Another tangent.

I always thought it was a tactical error to pursue same-sex unions by calling for same-sex "marriage".
The term "marriage", IMO, conflates both a civil/legal union and a religious union.
I think it would have come to pass years earlier if the stated goal was for "same-sex unions" to have civil recognition.
"Marriage", in the religious sense, is not a legislative matter and meets with much greater resistance. YMMV.

Per the 14th, I've been in favor of civil unions for same sex partners for a long time.
I do sometimes wonder how far this can/should be taken though. Is polygamy similarly protected by the 14th? (a different tangent)

I have no problems with people taking the stance "Marriage in my Church must be between a man and a woman". But even in the religious context, assuming there were civil/legal unions, once you step over that boundary and are saying "marriage in any church must be between a man and a woman" then you are trampling on other's rights IMO.

My daughter has met the love of her life, and wants to publicly commit to that relationship, including celebrating the commitment with her friends/family/community. They also expect to get the same responsibilities and benefits as a married man and woman would receive, including work benefits such as medical benefits, etc.; the same treatment by the government on topics such as taxes, divorce laws, rules on citizenship of partners (although the last doesn't apply in this situation),l etc. I'm sure she would feel a person was anti-LGBT if a person was arguing that she should not receive any of the above items a married man and wife naturally receive.

[Clusterfrack]

This thread veered off a bit from gun confiscation, but this illustrates how multiple make-or-break political issues are hard to align. I have to pick my poison, and unfortunately gun rights are top priority right now.

A good solution to the marriage issue is for the government to not recognize any religion based marriage, and make civil union the only legally binding option. Separate church and state.

[Robinson]

This thread veered off a bit from gun confiscation, but this illustrates how multiple make-or-break political issues are hard to align. I have to pick my poison, and unfortunately gun rights are top priority right now.

A good solution to the marriage issue is for the government to not recognize any religion based marriage, and make civil union the only legally binding option. Separate church and state.

Agreed. If a dude doesn't get turned on by hot women and gets turned on by other dudes, I can't begin to understand it but that's his issue not mine. The government should just stop defining marriage altogether and let it be defined by individuals. As long as there are protections in place for minors, people should marry who they want. Those opposed to it on personal grounds aren't forced to partake.

[mtnbkr]

A good solution to the marriage issue is for the government to not recognize any religion based marriage, and make civil union the only legally binding option. Separate church and state.

I couldn't care less about two same-sex individuals getting married. It in no way affects my marriage or family.

However, the gay people I know (as in real life, not virtually) don't want that. They want the government to sign off on, validate, and celebrate their lifestyle. Much in the same way gay couples have gone out of their way to find the one bakery that won't bake them cake, while passing by many that would.

It has devolved from equal rights to imposing one's will upon another.

Chris

[RoyGBiv]

I have no problems with people taking the stance "Marriage in my Church must be between a man and a woman". But even in the religious context, assuming there were civil/legal unions, once you step over that boundary and are saying "marriage in any church must be between a man and a woman" then you are trampling on other's rights IMO.

My daughter has met the love of her life, and wants to publicly commit to that relationship, including celebrating the commitment with her friends/family/community. They also expect to get the same responsibilities and benefits as a married man and woman would receive, including work benefits such as medical benefits, etc.; the same treatment by the government on topics such as taxes, divorce laws, rules on citizenship of partners (although the last doesn't apply in this situation),l etc. I'm sure she would feel a person was anti-LGBT if a person was arguing that she should not receive any of the above items a married man and wife naturally receive.

I'm not sure whether you're mixing religious and civil issues intentionally, so I'll reiterate and say that as a civil matter, same sex unions fall under the 14th.

As far as "Marriage in my Church must be between a man and a woman", I think that's outside civil law. If you don't like church policy, I'm sure there's a more welcoming church nearby. I don't believe church is a public accommodation. Neither is a bakery. YMMV.

Personally, I prefer to know which people disagree with me on issues I find fundamental, so I can avoid giving them my money or other support.