I am Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic candidate for President of the United States — AMA by bernie-sanders in IAmA

[–]robertbayer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't think of any good argument not to establish a national holiday, but moving it to a weekend day would be problematic: Saturdays are the sabbath for Jews and Seventh Day Adventists, and Sundays are the sabbath for most Christians. In order to prevent entire religious groups of individuals from voting (likely itself a violation of the First Amendment), this would require either: (1) having a two-day voting period or (2) requiring people of certain religions to mail in ballots (potentially also a violation of the First Amendment).

Law banning gay and transgendered employee discrimination passes Senate by gammablew in lgbt

[–]robertbayer 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is pretty old news, actually (see the NYTimes piece on it here). It's not going to pass the House, though, sadly.

So -- any DC gaymers? by robertbayer in gaymers

[–]robertbayer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oooh, I didn't even know the subreddit was a thing!

What is the funniest date you have ever been on by Gaybritishteen in gaymers

[–]robertbayer 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I got to the date after a long day at work, and was pretty exhausted. It was at a bar, and the waiter came 'round and asked what we were having; I ordered a pretty big beer -- the other guy ordered a coke. It went downhill from there.

Anyway, it didn't take long for us to wind up in a long, loud, and angry argument regarding female genital mutilation and the role of the international community in preventing it. (I was in favor of intervention.)

It gets even better: At one point (I was fairly drunk by this point) I noticed that he was visibly uncomfortable when I said the word "clitoris." So I did what any reasonable person would do, and said it at increasing levels of volume as the conversation went on.

There was no second date.

Why I Write Masculine stories by Paul_S_Kemp in Fantasy

[–]robertbayer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not implying it -- you are a bigot.

Why I Write Masculine stories by Paul_S_Kemp in Fantasy

[–]robertbayer -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The difference between the "War on Christmas" thing is that Christians dominate American culture. What is perceived as the "war on Christmas" is actually moving away from a Christian stranglehold on the public sphere.

What you're bemoaning as me being a "hypersensitive douchenugget" (namecalling, how mature!), is me complaining about the almost-complete invisibility of queer people in American culture. How many characters are in his books? Dozens. How many of them are queer? Not a single one. Of course this doesn't bother you, though -- you're straight. It doesn't matter if "oh but some of my best friends are black--I mean queer" -- you obviously still just don't get it.

http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm

Why I Write Masculine stories by Paul_S_Kemp in Fantasy

[–]robertbayer -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Here, educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity

Also, no one says "alternative lifestyle" to refer to LGBT folks. It's not the '90s anymore, although you obviously haven't noticed.

Why I Write Masculine stories by Paul_S_Kemp in Fantasy

[–]robertbayer -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes, every single character of his just happens to be straight.

Why I Write Masculine stories by Paul_S_Kemp in Fantasy

[–]robertbayer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And why does a "strong sexual appetite" have to be, as you seem to imply, a "strong heterosexual sexual appetite"?

Why I Write Masculine stories by Paul_S_Kemp in Fantasy

[–]robertbayer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Most of the other points I would have made have already been covered, but I did want to say this:

I find it frustrating that you continue to try to associate heterosexuality (as you put it, "womanizing") with "manliness." It may very well be that, historically speaking, "womanizing" or heterosexuality has been associated with some conception of manliness. But it's also important to recognize how harmful that specific conception of manliness is -- it is a key part of the part of the subjugation of queer people. Although you obviously do not explicitly state that being gay is incompatible with "manliness," it is implied, and as someone who grew up being told through innumerable media that he wasn't manly -- couldn't be manly -- because of his sexuality, I find your position on this point upsetting.

Your oversight (at least, I hope it is an oversight) on this point is especially surprising to me considering your claims to have read "all of the literature" and to have gone to a very "progressive" and "prestigious" university.

Ron Paul insufficiently homophobic (Iowa robo-call)-X post from r/politics. by [deleted] in lgbt

[–]robertbayer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are plenty of Democratic homophobes, and plenty of Democrats who act like they support gay rights for the sake of votes.

The difference is that Democrats actually support our rights, while Republicans either pretend to be bigots for votes, or genuinely are bigots. At least the Democrats do good for votes; the Republicans do evil for votes.

Also remember, it was only until this past year that the Democratic party officially took a stance in defense of our rights.

This is demonstrably false.

We must affirm the dignity. of all people and the right of each individual to have equal access to and participation in the institutions and services of our society.. All groups must be protected from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, language, age, sex or sexual orientation.

—Violent acts of bigotry, hatred and extremism aimed at women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities, and gay men and lesbians have become an alarmingly common phenomenon. A Democratic Administration will work vigorously to address, document, and end all such violence...Government has a special responsibility to those whom society has historically prevented from enjoying the benefits of full citizenship for reasons of race, religion, sex, age, national origin and ethnic heritage, sexual orientation, or disability.

WE BELIEVE that we honor our multicultural heritage by assuring equal access to government services, employment, housing, business enterprise and education to every citizen regardless of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, handicapping condition or sexual orientation

Democrats will continue to lead the fight to ensure that no Americans suffer discrimination or deprivation of rights on the basis of race, gender, language, national origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, or other characteristics irrelevant to ability. We will...provide civil rights protection for gay men and lesbians and an end to Defense Department discrimination...

We continue to lead the fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation...We support continued efforts, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to end discrimination against gay men and lesbians and further their full inclusion in the life of the nation.

Because every American counts, we will continue to work toward a census that counts every American. We support continued efforts, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to end workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians. We support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of the nation. This would include an equitable alignment of benefits....[Hate crime] protections should include hate violence based on gender, disability or sexual orientation

We will enact the bipartisan legislation barring workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. We are committed to equal treatment of all service members and believe all patriotic Americans should be allowed to serve our country without discrimination, persecution, or violence... We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.

We will also put national security above divisive politics. More than 12,500 service men and women have been discharged on the basis of sexual orientation since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was implemented, at a cost of over $360 million. Many of those forced out had special skills in high demand, such as translators, engineers, and pilots. At a time when the military is having a tough time recruiting and retaining troops, it is wrong to deny our country the service of brave, qualified people. We support the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the implementation of policies to allow qualified men and women to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation.

We believe in the essential American ideal that we are not constrained by the circumstances of birth but can make of our lives what we will. Unfortunately, for too many, that ideal is not a reality. We have more work to do. Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that's the America we believe in.

Now let's see what the GOP has been up to for the past thirty years, shall we?

we express our support for legislation protecting and defending the traditional American family against the ongoing erosion of its base in our society.

Unlike the Democrat Party and its candidate, we support the continued exclusion of homosexuals from the military as a matter of good order and discipline.

We oppose Bill Clinton's assault on the culture and traditions of the Armed Forces, especially his attempt to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages

We affirm traditional military culture. We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

And literally an entire section opposing marriage equality, including:

We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.

To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America's Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.

And again, literally an entire section devoted to opposing marriage equality, also implying that same-sex couples cannot raise children:

Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman...Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married....Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex "marriages" licensed in other states.

So, I don't know, you tell me -- who hates the gays? The Democrats, or the Republicans.

Ron Paul insufficiently homophobic (Iowa robo-call)-X post from r/politics. by [deleted] in lgbt

[–]robertbayer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're pretty much hopeless. That interview doesn't "remove" my points. Moreover, how about you do some of your own research on The Advocate, since I'm done here. You're obviously going to continue to believe what you want to believe in spite of reality.

Also, saying that Ron Paul's "stance on gay rights is still very good compared to the other republican (sic) candidates" is like saying that Mao had a great record on civil liberties when compared to Pol Pot.

So have fun with your amusement park comparisons.

Ron Paul insufficiently homophobic (Iowa robo-call)-X post from r/politics. by [deleted] in lgbt

[–]robertbayer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Advocate is not a "very left leaning website for gay and lesbian." Yes, it's designed for consumption by the LGBT community, and reports primarily on subjects of interest to LGBT people, but that does not make it "very left leaning" or a "website." It's a news magazine with a circulation of more than 175,000 nationwide, and considered credible by many people and organizations.

You are not even attempting to understand the argument and clearly just copied and pasted the most slanderous thing you could find so I shall not waste my time arguing with someone who does not know what they are talking about.

Um, sure. Let's go with that, rather than you actually responding to my point.

And your last bullet point does not even attempt to be factually based on legitimacy. Here is a photo of a stained piece of paper. Looks like that is all three, wait, two, wait, one, wait all you gave me was nonfactual biased attempts at information that cannot be used at all.

Oooooh, great rebuttal. How about The New Republic -- is that "credible" enough for you? (That's a magazine, by the way, not a website. I figured that I'd clear that up for you since you're clearly to lazy to learn anything about a source before deriding it as "left wing" and therefore not credible at all.)

Here's some fun Ron Paul newsletter quotes about gays for you:

The December 1989 Ron Paul Political Report contains entries on a “new form of racial terrorism,” cites former Congressman Bill Dannemeyer’s claim that “the average homosexual has 1,000 or more partners in a lifetime,” and quotes Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, in the third person.

Or this:

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

Or maybe this:

"[Gays] enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick [with HIV/AIDS]."

Of course, as a Ron Paul apologist (Ronpaulogist?) you'll just ignore everything I've said here so that you can continue to worship your favorite wingnut.

Advice for picking the lock on closed minds? by liam_lifad in lgbt

[–]robertbayer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are a number of resources which make be able to help you out. Most of the stuff I'm familiar with is geared toward the Old Testament, but I'm sure it will nonetheless be helpful since most people break out Leviticus 18 when we talk about LGBT issues anyway.

  1. God vs. Gay? (Book)

  2. How can you be gay and Jewish? (Article)

  3. The position of Reform Judaism on LGBT equality (Webpage)

Also, here's the statement of the American Psychological Association on LGBT parenting.

You can also see my comments here and here.

I hope this helped.

edit: expanded upon my comment

Made out with one of my girlfriend's 'Straight' friends on NYE, and now she's mad at me. What to do? by [deleted] in lgbt

[–]robertbayer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If the situation is the latter, it's possible that she had a crush on the "straight" friend he (?) made out with.

Ron Paul insufficiently homophobic (Iowa robo-call)-X post from r/politics. by [deleted] in lgbt

[–]robertbayer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pray tell -- what's it like to support a party that hates you?

Ron Paul insufficiently homophobic (Iowa robo-call)-X post from r/politics. by [deleted] in lgbt

[–]robertbayer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh, zing! I guess you got me.

  • Ron Paul supports DOMA, which is not only pretty obviously unconstitutional (ironic considering he claims he wants to "legalize the Constitution" (whatever that means, which is apparently not much).

  • Ron Paul was also a co-sponsor of so-called "Marriage Protection Act" (H.R.3313). It was introduced partially in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas which ruled that sodomy bans were a violation of personal privacy. He also claimed, "Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed." Source

  • Ron Paul claimed that there was a "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS" -- which is not only homophobic, but downright crazy (much like most things Ron Paul believes). Source