[Gay Rights] Wyoming: What Republicans SHOULD be.

DarkPrimus

Speaker wrote: »

I'm really surprised at how fast that changed.

I figure people seeing other states have it happen and nothing really notable happening to them (you know, like fire and brimstone) and they realize it isn't a big deal.

Magus`

What changed?

Lorahalo

Apparently now a slim majority are in favour of gay marriage.

KalTorak

Lorahalo wrote: »

Apparently now a slim majority are in favour of gay marriage.

fat people are still against it tho heyoooooo

Saint Madness

KalTorak wrote: »

Lorahalo wrote: »

Apparently now a slim majority are in favour of gay marriage.

fat people are still against it tho heyoooooo

Blackjack

Saint Madness wrote: »

KalTorak wrote: »

Lorahalo wrote: »

Apparently now a slim majority are in favour of gay marriage.

fat people are still against it tho heyoooooo

That is so girl wearing a skirt as a top.

Druk

Melkster wrote: »

Instead, it'd be better to not presume anything about a random person's sexual orientation. Leave a question mark in that box, just like you might about anything else about a random person.

#3) There is a specific, everyday practical consideration too: I've hit on dudes before, and they have been straight some of the time.

This seems inconsistent. Why are you hitting on someone whose orientation exists as a question mark?

I guess it's not really a good icebreaker to ask someone if they are of the correct orientation with which to have a physical or romantic relationship before you starting hitting on/flirting with them. But that's why we make assumptions, and act on them.

Julius

Druk wrote: »

Melkster wrote: »

Instead, it'd be better to not presume anything about a random person's sexual orientation. Leave a question mark in that box, just like you might about anything else about a random person.

#3) There is a specific, everyday practical consideration too: I've hit on dudes before, and they have been straight some of the time.

This seems inconsistent. Why are you hitting on someone whose orientation exists as a question mark?

I guess it's not really a good icebreaker to ask someone if they are of the correct orientation with which to have a physical or romantic relationship before you starting hitting on/flirting with them. But that's why we make assumptions, and act on them.

Why not hit on someone whose orientation is not certain?


Seriously, it's not that big of a deal right? There are millions of reasons why the other person maybe won't respond like you want, them being of a different orientation seems rather trivial. I mean, I don't know if the girl is single, into geeky white dudes or totally rad hair either so I just take my chances.

Then again, i've never been hit on by dudes. It's always the cute straight girls who mistake me for gay.

Sterica

In ideal, polite society, there's no real issue. It may be a bit awkward, but no biggie.

But we live in a rather brutish society where assuming a dude is gay can end violently. I can fully understand why gays guys in particular want to be particularly sure about the other party's orientation.

I dunno if that is an issue with lesbians. It seems like lesbianism in general carries less of a stigma, but I could still see backlash.

Julius

Rorus Raz wrote: »

In ideal, polite society, there's no real issue. It may be a bit awkward, but no biggie.

But we live in a rather brutish society where assuming a dude is gay can end violently. I can fully understand why gays guys in particular want to be particularly sure about the other party's orientation.

I dunno if that is an issue with lesbians. It seems like lesbianism in general carries less of a stigma, but I could still see backlash.

Well yeah sure don't do it in a place where it might end up badly. Obviously you should only do it when you think that the guy being straight isn't going to be a big deal. But it's not like those situations are that uncommon.

Maybe I'm just used to flirting being subtle enough that you'll get someone's orientation before they really know they're being flirted with. And I can imagine it's different for gay dudes because I do assume that any guy talking to me is just being friendly and any girl totally wants to see what my balls look like. But that makes me think the most frustrating thing must be that you're not totally sure if you're being flirted with or if the guy is just friendly.

Sterica

I am fucking terrible at picking up on subtext and little subtle things, so your mileage may vary.

Assuming a stranger, I dunno how you could pick up on how a guy will react. Some people seem normal but can be real assholes about that sort of thing. But, maybe I'm just bad at reading folk.

Casual Eddy

Rorus Raz wrote: »

In ideal, polite society, there's no real issue. It may be a bit awkward, but no biggie.

But we live in a rather brutish society where assuming a dude is gay can end violently. I can fully understand why gays guys in particular want to be particularly sure about the other party's orientation.

I dunno if that is an issue with lesbians. It seems like lesbianism in general carries less of a stigma, but I could still see backlash.

I would argue that in many cases there is more of a stigma against lesbians, it's just disguised by 'two chicks are hottttt'

Evigilant

Man you all are weird. When I talk to people, if a dude hits on me, I just tell him that while I'm flattered, I'm not into dudes and I try to keep the prior conversation going. Sometimes it works, sometimes the dude apologizes and goes to talk to someone else. No biggie, at least I got some conversation out of it. If a chick hits on me, I think back to how the conversation is going and if I think she's of similar mind to me. If a chick thinks I'm gay, so what. I'm not offended and I just tell her that I'm not into guys, I like women, and then I try to salvage a conversation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If I think a chick is cool enough to hang out with again, I might ask if she's down to hang out again. And I really only pursue that if I think the girl and I had a good, interesting talk and I felt she and I had similar interests in something that I could talk about again.

That's it. I really don't care what orientation anyone is, I just treat them as people when I talk to them. While you all are sitting there debating if a person is gay or straight, I'm debating if they can hold a decent conversation for over an hour. You all make it seem like it's a hugeeeeeeeeeeee deal if you talk to a person you think is straight and it turns out their gay, or vice versa. So what, as long as no one is offended, it shouldn't be a problem. Hell maybe you both can get a good laugh out of it and become friends. If someone gets offended, just apologize and carry on your business else where. It's not that big of a deal.

I think the issue stems from your desire to know what a person's orientation is, when it's really none of your business and who gives a shit. If you have a good conversation and enjoy the time spent, does it really matter if the person you where talking to is bi, gay or straight? If you think it might be a touchy subject with the person, don't bring it up. Who cares what sex they're into, is it really important that you know?

Lorahalo

That's all well and good, but then you've got people who would take someone guessing they might be gay as a death threat and beat the living shit out of you for it. Personally? I'd do that same as you. I'm not one for socialising (at all) but if some women tried to hit on me I'd kindly tell them that I'm not interested.

L|ama

Burtletoy wrote: »

Since when is 9% a "Slim majority" for a political issue?

Lorahalo

Because the people who are against it think it sounds less impressive than majority.

DarkPrimus

L|ama wrote: »

Burtletoy wrote: »

Since when is 9% a "Slim majority" for a political issue?

Since it was a political issue that the Republican Party platform does not support.

Speaker

L|ama wrote: »

Burtletoy wrote: »

Since when is 9% a "Slim majority" for a political issue?

Because a change of less than 5% splits it evenly?

Regina Fong

Look at the question though.

It asks: "Do you think it should be illegal or legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"

I bet if the question were changed to eliminate the words legal/illegal and to include some emotionally charged catchphrases like "traditional marriage" and "man and woman" that the results would differ.

Captain Carrot

I support traditional marriage: the transfer of property from father to husband, usually for financial or political purposes.

Too long for a bumper sticker, unfortunately.

KalTorak

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Traditional marriage: the transfer of property from father to husband for financial or political purposes.

Shortened a bit - you could probably fit that or something similar in. I've seen bumper stickers much more crowded than that.

Regina Fong

My point was that the margin is narrow enough that the specific wording of the poll matters greatly.

Also noteworthy is that when this issue is put on the ballot in a state, the anti-gay folks use their most clever wording for the bill itself.

Sure, they'd make the bill say "Fucking gays, screw them they can never have anything lol" if they knew they could get away with it!

But if it's going to be a hot contest, they will ensure that the bill reads in such a way as to swing moderates into supporting it.

So this poll, while it's nice and everything, I'm afraid it doesn't mean that much. It uses language that frames the issue like "being gay should be illegal! They stone them to death in Iran, lets do that!" (exaggeration intended)

Druk

Well, if the wording of the poll hasn't changed in the past 6 years of asking, then it still has quite a bit of meaning as far as the trend it shows.

Akei Arkay

KalTorak wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Traditional marriage: the transfer of property from father to husband for financial or political purposes.

Shortened a bit - you could probably fit that or something similar in. I've seen bumper stickers much more crowded than that.

Could probably drop "for financial or political purposes", too.

Captain Carrot

Akei Arkay wrote: »

KalTorak wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Traditional marriage: the transfer of property from father to husband for financial or political purposes.

Shortened a bit - you could probably fit that or something similar in. I've seen bumper stickers much more crowded than that.

Could probably drop "for financial or political purposes", too.

I want to point out the non-romantic nature of 'traditional' marriage, though.

Saint Madness

Regina Fong wrote: »

My point was that the margin is narrow enough that the specific wording of the poll matters greatly.

Also noteworthy is that when this issue is put on the ballot in a state, the anti-gay folks use their most clever wording for the bill itself.

Sure, they'd make the bill say "Fucking gays, screw them they can never have anything lol" if they knew they could get away with it!

But if it's going to be a hot contest, they will ensure that the bill reads in such a way as to swing moderates into supporting it.

So this poll, while it's nice and everything, I'm afraid it doesn't mean that much. It uses language that frames the issue like "being gay should be illegal! They stone them to death in Iran, lets do that!" (exaggeration intended)

Also, as has been pointed out several times, the results very much depend on the question, in this case it's about "gay and lesbian couples". Ask your sample group if they support "same-sex marriage" then you'll likely get a more positive response, if they support "homosexual marriage" and I'd wager you'll get a poor one.

Grendel72

First off, I should note that polling is often unreliable and can be tweaked to show what interested parties want. But one of the reasons polling is becoming increasingly unreliable may point to this poll being even better news than it sounds like. Because polling companies are limited to calling land lines, their general population sample skews older.

I really wish I could find that poll divided by demographic. Polls with demographic data show that younger people are far less likely to favor discrimination, if this result is among a "general population" that routinely skews older it's better news.

Of course, it's still ridiculous that we're asking people what they think of complete stranger's marriages to begin with.

CasedOut

Saint Madness wrote: »

Regina Fong wrote: »

My point was that the margin is narrow enough that the specific wording of the poll matters greatly.

Also noteworthy is that when this issue is put on the ballot in a state, the anti-gay folks use their most clever wording for the bill itself.

Sure, they'd make the bill say "Fucking gays, screw them they can never have anything lol" if they knew they could get away with it!

But if it's going to be a hot contest, they will ensure that the bill reads in such a way as to swing moderates into supporting it.

So this poll, while it's nice and everything, I'm afraid it doesn't mean that much. It uses language that frames the issue like "being gay should be illegal! They stone them to death in Iran, lets do that!" (exaggeration intended)

Also, as has been pointed out several times, the results very much depend on the question, in this case it's about "gay and lesbian couples". Ask your sample group if they support "same-sex marriage" then you'll likely get a more positive response, if they support "homosexual marriage" and I'd wager you'll get a poor one.

How on earth would the same person answer differently to supporting same sex marriage versus supporting homosexual marriage?

"Do you support same sex marriage?"
"Why of course!"

"Do you support homosexual marriage?"
"What god no! thats a sin!"

My mind is boggled that this could even happen.

OptimusZed

It's the leaners and neutrals that are effected by wording. The people firmly on one side or the other aren't going to be swayed by semantic tricks, but the ones without any horse in the race are typically rather susceptible to pushes like that.

"Same-sex" is usually considered the positive option, "homosexual" the negative one and "gay and lesbian" is a more neutral way of saying it.

Using "homosexual" pushes leaners against, "same-sex" really doesn't play on any of the negative phrases toward the issue at all.

Orochi_Rockman

Exodus Ex-Gay App Update.

Change.Orgs petition to get the app removed has reached about 100,000 signatures but what is even better is that a scientist whose research has been used in this app has written Apple and asked them to remove the App because of how Exodus misrepresents and skews his findings.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2011/03/15385/

Dear Messrs. Jobs and Cook,

This message serves as a request to remove the Exodus International application from Apple’s iphone offerings because the website content is objectionable. It erroneously cites my research (Remafedi 1992) in support of claims that homosexuality can be changed.

Various professional organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental or physical condition. Programs which aim to change sexual orientation have been opposed because they are unwarranted, ineffective, unethical, and harmful.

Exodus’s website features an article (Buchanan 2010) which makes erroneous statements and conclusions and attributes them to Remafedi (1992). Statements were made to the effect to that many teens are confused about their sexual orientation and that sexual orientation is amenable to change. Further, associating my work with that of the ex-gay ministry and other unfounded treatments is professionally injurious and grievous.

As a savvy consumer, I understand that corporations market phones both by offering a wide array of applications and by appealing to niche audiences like Exodus’s. In turn, Exodus applies the Apple “4+” smartphone application rating to its own website as an imprimatur (see http://exodusinternational.org/).

From my perspective, the risk of offending and harming consumers by providing a platform for erroneous information about an important health and social topic far outweighs the potential financial gain. Arguably, corporations have no affirmative responsibility to vendors under the First Amendment of the Constitution, but they are accountable for the quality and consequences of their products.

For the aforementioned reasons, I ask Apple to revoke the 4+ rating and delete the Exodus application from the iphone’s menu of applications.

Respectfully,

Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H.

Nocren

So apparently there was "America's first gay kiss" (male-male, in a serious context) on Glee and Victoria Jackson is up in arms about it.

I can't link to her post (using an iPhone) but Headline News had some choice comments.


Dumb bitch...

Magus`

Man, why does anyone give a shit what Victoria Jackson has to say about anything

Nocren

Because she's an ex-SNL member during the second glory years and she hasn't died yet.

Saint Madness

Nocren wrote: »

So apparently there was "America's first gay kiss" (male-male, in a serious context) on Glee and Victoria Jackson is up in arms about it.

I can't link to her post (using an iPhone) but Headline News had some choice comments.


Dumb bitch...

The kiss in question:

Her comments:

"This new al-Qaida magazine for women has beauty tips and suicide-bomber tips! Gimme a break! That is as ridiculous as two men kissing on the mouth! And I don't care what is politically correct. Everyone knows that two men on a wedding cake is a comedy skit, not an "alternate lifestyle"! There I said it! Ridiculous! Did you see "Glee" this week? Sickening! And, besides shoving the gay thing down our throats, they made a mockery of Christians – again! I wonder what their agenda is? Hey, producers of "Glee" – what's your agenda? One-way tolerance?"

She reminds me of Ms. Piggy from the Muppets.

And what the fuck is "one-way tolerance"?

Styrofoam Sammich

Watching Glee is having Glee shoved down your throat I see.

I think the agenda of Glee is to one day implant auto tuning devices in everyone's voice boxes at birth.

DarkPrimus

Saint Madness wrote: »

And what the fuck is "one-way tolerance"?

Conservative-speak for "it's only discrimination if they are opposing my beliefs".

templewulf

That kiss is perhaps the least offensive content on that show.

autono-wally, erotibot300

I hope their grandchildren one day look down upon them as bigotted fuckwads

Orochi_Rockman

What she means by One-Way Tolerance is that the show is 'tolerating' gay people, but being totally inconsiderate for the feelings of her kind of Christians that would be offended by anyone tolerating gay people.

So she was a SNL cast member huh? I read about this last week or so and I just had to think to myself "who the hell is this random person, and why should anyone care what she thinks?"

Someone ought to tell her that she doesn't have to watch shows that she doesn't like. Hell, I don't even like to watch Glee and not because I think its a danger to America, it's just not my kind of show.

Lanz

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

Watching Glee is having Glee shoved down your throat I see.

I think the agenda of Glee is to one day implant auto tuning devices in everyone's voice boxes at birth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_whHKRTi3VY

Also Victoria Jackson continues what seems to be a pattern of stream of consciousness panicrants that I can't make any sense out of.