Arrested for Taking a Picture

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000396.shtml

Unbelievable.

If I was gay, I would prefer those who made it harder to get guns yet want to change the way the world views me as a human, to those who prefer to let this view change at a snails pace while allowing me to get some defense a little easier. You think that people care about marriage or that it is insignificant? It's because it is easier to lessen the humanity of people if they happen to lack certain liberties. I think that the DA-DT agreement is a concession to bullies and uneducated traitors to this nation, and I also think that too few of the right-wing crowd wants to change peoples minds about the gay population. We have official electees spreading lies about the homosexuality-pedophilia link, and there are many who don't even raise an eyebrow. If I was gay, I would not wait and see whether society would accept me fully, while clinging to a weapon and hoping for some change. I shouldn't have to. I can get guns anywhere in America save for San Fran, and I don't like fog so maybe someone can convince me that having to wait for a gun a little longer is worse than having to wait for my recognition as an American a little longer. The right to marry in church is not a symbol, it is a step.

Make no mistake I prefer the libertarians, but they place too much weight on the guns and I don't think that trusting the market or some other nebulous force to sort out homophobia is a good solution. They are ready to allow employers to segregate who they employ and I don't want that either. It's a surrender to those who betray America by categorizing people by irrelevant parameters.

>>39
37 here

Again stop generalizing, as a gay man I'm deeply offended by people like you who think gays as some unified "race" or "culture". There are manly gays, feminine gays, transvestite gays and what seems to be real news for you is that average gay man isn't really different from your average heterosexual man. All gay men share one thing and that is love of men and/or boys, but other than that they're all unique. Gay gun nuts maybe small minority, but so are "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" types they're just most vocal one. I don't vote either democrats or republicans, unless I have no choice. I vote libertarians, as sadly they're only party that truly cares about civil rights. Not enough people vote them though...

>>41
Why choose from two evils? Yet another reason to vote libertarians. They're for both gay and gun rights.

>>41
"If I was gay, I would prefer those who made it harder to get guns yet want to change the way the world views me as a human, to those who prefer to let this view change at a snails pace while allowing me to get some defense a little easier."

It isn't just 'a little harder to get guns'.  If you'd like a snapshot of what 'might be' if the republicans weren't there, just take a look at England.  Its ridiculous.  Sorry, it isn't a choice between '3 day waiting period, and no gay marriage,' and '5 day waiting period, and gay marriage.' 

"You think that people care about marriage or that it is insignificant?"

I think they care, but I think it is far less significant than the 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution, and a natural inalienable human right that all humans are supposedly endowed with.  Anyhow, which is more important should be left up to the voter.

"It's because it is easier to lessen the humanity of people if they happen to lack certain liberties."

Sure.  So the solution is to put everyone on equal footing, minus a very essential human liberty (thus lessening the humanity of the nation as a whole), vs. lessening the humanity of a small sect of the population in a /single aspect/ while at the same time granting the entire population (including that segment) more liberty making them more human...?

I think the libertarians are best, but I'd take the repubs over the dems in a heartbeat, considering this.

"and I also think that too few of the right-wing crowd wants to change peoples minds about the gay population."

What does them wanting to change people's mind about anything have to do with anything? People can think whatever they want as far as I'm concerned, so long as they don't infringe on the liberty of others. 

"We have official electees spreading lies about the homosexuality-pedophilia link, and there are many who don't even raise an eyebrow."

I do.  But I raise my eyebrow higher when official electees spread lies about the 2nd amendment and the constitution.

"If I was gay, I would not wait and see whether society would accept me fully, while clinging to a weapon and hoping for some change."

So what is your solution? Legislate tolerance? That doesn't work.  Libertarian is a much better alternative than the democratic party.

"I shouldn't have to. I can get guns anywhere in America save for San Fran,"

Gun rights in the USA are far worse off than you think.  Many entire classes of firearms are essentially illegal now, or made so expensive due to totally pointless regulations, that nobody could afford one without selling off a lot of their assets, or else if they are a pretty rich person to begin with that has money to throw around.  The laws are geared against your average guy, not the rich folks.  I guess you wouldn't care about the weapons laws if you had a few million dollars or more to throw around though. 

"and I don't like fog so maybe someone can convince me that having to wait for a gun a little longer is worse than having to wait for my recognition as an American a little longer. The right to marry in church is not a symbol, it is a step."

Gun rights are quite a bit worse off than you think.  It isn't just a matter of waiting a bit longer.

"Make no mistake I prefer the libertarians, but they place too much weight on the guns"

No they don't.  Libertarians are generally pro-freedom, and they don't focus on any single freedom over another, to speak of.  What do you mean by this?

"and I don't think that trusting the market or some other nebulous force to sort out homophobia is a good solution."

So you think trusting the government is a better solution?

..

The market sorts out discrimination in its own way.  To the degree that one discriminates in a free market, is to the extent that he gets punished.  I'd be happy to explain this in a more in-depth manner if you'd like.

"They are ready to allow employers to segregate who they employ and I don't want that either."

Whose business is it? Employment and hiring should be an entirely voluntary activity.  What do you want, government guns and bayonets to help you legislate tolerance?

"It's a surrender to those who betray America by categorizing people by irrelevant parameters."

America's heart consists of freedom, liberty, and the right to life, not of regulation of the market.  The proper function of the government is to protect these things, not to regulate the market.  The free market punishes prejudice in its own way, anyhow.

All of it true, I guess. My issue is not what liberty you hold the most important, because I believe thinking Americans shouldn't have to do this. But I would like to know what type of legislation we are talking about. Assault weapons? Do we need those? Although crime rose with Clinton's ban so I guess this is difficult. Democrats are better with the economy...
I'm not trying to legislate tolerance either, but the right wing does everything it can to keep cultural change out of the picture as well. Homophobia is a result of gender roles and anti-secularism, and I want a party that sorts that out. I'm not at all happy to stick with the democrats, and I am actually actively trying to make them more libertarian, for their sake and for ours. I do think that the libertarians have lost a lot of oomph as of late, and I can not allow pragmatists and evangelicals to gain a foothold because of guns. I actually own one myself but I just don't value it that much. I could very well be wrong and I am aware I should not be comfortable with voting democrat in November, but I will nonetheless.
Right now I'm more worried about China, the war on terror and the economy, and the current zeitgeist of the republicans shows that they are not up for it. Bush got reelected because people thought he needed more time. Time's up.

Thanks for everyone on my side, even though this is some dumb forum full of trolls these 2 really made me feel quite depressed...

>>30
So all of a sudden you weren't trying to bullshit me? What am I supposed to think of this then?

"Gays don't need to worry about their lives right now."

"However, "the gay problem" is a cultural one- not political."

" Gays get attacked physically because people can attack them verbally and politically, in everyday life and in the media *and then get away with it*. "

"There is no physical war on homosexuals, just a cultural and social one."

I've heard it all before.

EVERYONE'S CULTURE IS BIGOTTED AGAINST YOU
EVERYONE IS PART OF AN ANTI-GAY SOCIETY
EVERYONE IS SUBCONSCIOUSLY PROGRAMMED TO HURT YOU
EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET YOU
EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER HURT YOU HAS DONE IT BECAUSE YOU ARE GAY
EVERYONE EXCEPT US THAT IS!

I really do not need to be patronised, what I need are millions of freedom-loving gun-owning americans who see me as a fellow human being and I have that.

>>31
>>36
So I'm not gay because I believe in the 2nd amendment? That's rich! It's also bigotted and patronising, but you have convinced yourself you can never be bigotted, so I guess there was no point in me pointing that out. Oh and I have the right to marry and adopt, in large part due to my right to bear arms and another large part due to those millions of libertarians I keep talking about.

"I'm simply saying that gays shouldn't ally themselves with people who hate them and consider them social and cultural abominations."
WAAH WAAH WAAH EVERYONE HATES YOU, WE ARE YOUR ONLY HOPE

Seriously this is ridiculous now, you are not even bullying me any more, give it a break.

>>41
" We have official electees spreading lies about the homosexuality-pedophilia link, and there are many who don't even raise an eyebrow."

There is a good reason to change cultural attitudes, but fear-mongerring isn't one of them and most people don't believe everything they read and soak up bullshit. Why must I relinquish one of my human rights out of fear? I don't fear bigots and I don't need you. Besides you don't want me to vote democrat since it would inspire me to start spreading my opinions amongst other democract voters as I express my discontent with the policies of the democrat party that I disagree with.

>>44
There are many intricacies concerning egalitarianism which can all be solved by increasing economic freedom and reducing immigration. Businesses which discriminate based on race instead of merit will automatically lose out as they will be giving superior employees to their competitors. This incentive is lessenned when the skills needed for the job decrease and do not exist in state socialist institutions. We need to increase economic freedom to the point where socialist institutions, such as education and welfare, are only used when absolutely necessary so that the public can concentrate it's democratic power on law enforcement and the military.

To solve the problem that those in the unskilled labour market can be discriminated against with negligible loss of income to the employers, we need to prevent unskilled labourers from working in the country. As a result the cost of unskilled labour will rise, we won't need welfare and the shortage of unskilled labour will increase the incentive for employers not to discriminate.

>>46 Yeah, sure you make sense. But I don't think that we should rely solely on liberating everything. A measure of a society is not how free the people are. The real measure is how much freedom they can tolerate. The problem with America is that people, on thle left and right equally, consider the liberties of others to be harmful to their interests. Live and let live. But homophobia has complex, cultural causes and the right needs to get better on this.

>>47
Stupid. You can force people to obey the law, but you can't force them to change their opinion, you can only PERSUADE people to change their opinion. For some reason you believe the opposite, that you must persuade people to obey the law and that they must be forced to change their opinion. That's not going to work, if it would work I would support it, but unfortunately it goes against reality, so I can't, sorry.

Some people don't listen to reason, yes, I am quite aware of that... However I doubt subliminal messages and psychological conditionning is going to change their opinion as they get enough of that from whatever propoganda has convinced them to be a homophobe. The ONLY way to defeat illogic is with logic, for instance by crushing people in debate and making them look like idiots as I have done with you.

>>48 You are inferring whatever prejudices you have against people who don't share your views perfectly. Anybody can crush a strawman with logic. You think I want some monitoring and active molding of people's minds just to prevent gaybashing? I want to see what increases cocietal problems and what decrease them, and go for what experience and past knowledge can do for us. 

>>49
Ok?
Are you going to tell us what you want to do?

"I want to see what increases cocietal problems and what decrease them, and go for what experience and past knowledge can do for us." This here is what I'm gonna do. I'm 17, for satan's sake. I promise everything I do and vote for will be based on facts. Just because it's "feminism" doesn't mean it's good for me. I won't let the status quo be enough though.

>>51
Yes.. And how will you do that?

>>52 Read fucking books.

>>53
Right...

Ok Xel, let's look at this situation logically. Homophobia is illogical and irrational, so homophobes must not be thinking things through. You believe popular culture and insidious propoganda convinces people to become homophobes and since you can alter popular culture through popular movements, you wish to direct efforts towards alterring it. How do you want to change popular culture? Admit what changes in popular culture were engineered by liberals.

I believe that people choose what popular culture to watch, think about and produce and that even if you change popular culture it will not convince homophobes to stop being homophobes and will not stop people becomming homophobes. My approach is less patronising to homosexuals. I don't want every single gay person on television to be portrayed as superior and wonderful, I don't want gays on chat shows to be lauded, loved  and flaterred constantly, I want them to be criticised, I want there to be gays who are assholes, bad gay guys, just not all the time, I want gays to be portrayed normally without any stupid bullshit.

>>54 Hey, I can't object and I think I agree with you 100% I prefer Val Kilmer's char in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang to the sitcom variety. Do you remember the fucking maniacs who threw a shitfit about that neutrally portrayed lesbian couple on the kids show, or how they wanted to tear down that show with the priest whose son came out as bi (I think)? These are the fuckers we should watch out for, and since there is no pledge to christianity in the founding documents there is no reason against secularism or better education about sexuality in schools. I don't want any lauding or making gays more exotic, in fact I protest it, but I believe that if people can isolate their kids from the truth about people, then they do so with an intent to lie to them. Sure, children will be more controlled by their parents than by school, but if we can sow seeds of doubt towards homophobic lying it is a step. Allowing gays to marry is another step.

>>45
"All of it true, I guess. My issue is not what liberty you hold the most important, because I believe thinking Americans shouldn't have to do this."

Based on this, I think you might want to check these guys out, if you haven't already.
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.self-gov.org/
http://www.cato.org/

"But I would like to know what type of legislation we are talking about. Assault weapons? Do we need those?"

Yes, for many reasons.  This isn't the only anti-gun legislation given us by the democrats.  Keep in mind that just about every bit of anti-gun legislation we have now, wouldn't be here were it not for the democrats.  There are several pages to the below article, so keep an eye out for the 'next' and 'previous' buttons at the bottom, so you can read on.
http://www.awbansunset.com/whyown.html

Of course, this article doesn't mention what is possibly the most important reason these weapons shouldn't be banned.
http://www.jpfo.org/ib-orders.htm

"I'm not at all happy to stick with the democrats, and I am actually actively trying to make them more libertarian, for their sake and for ours."

If you agree to give them your vote in spite of the glaring inconsistencies between their political stands and libertarianism, I can guarantee they will never change.  Threatening them with defeat at the polls if they don't change - and then acting on those threats when you vote (in voting for someone other than them) is the means of getting them to change. 

"I actually own one myself but I just don't value it that much."

http://www.jpfo.org/ib-orders.htm
You should see Innocents Betrayed.

"I could very well be wrong and I am aware I should not be comfortable with voting democrat in November, but I will nonetheless."

Again, this isn't the way to change the democrats into becoming more libertarian.  If the democrats know you will give them your vote regardless of the problems you see in them, they are far less likely to change.  To make them change, you must punish them at the polls. 

Clinton rightly blamed the massive losses in the House of Reps.  by the democrats in 1994 on the Gun Rights movement and the NRA.  Subsequently, we notice the democrats have tried to make themselves /look/ more pro-gun.  If the pressure is kept on against anti-gun candidates, I predict they will change on this issue.  Making a 'protest-vote' for the libertarians in the next several elections rather than the democrats, if you are a democrat who wants them to change on this issue, is surely a step in the right direction.

"Bush got reelected because people thought he needed more time. Time's up."

Bush can't run for presidential office again.  There's no reason to vote democratic in the next election because of Bush - I can assure you he won't be the president again.  He is only allowed two terms, unless I am horribly mistaken.

>>46
"There are many intricacies concerning egalitarianism which can all be solved by increasing economic freedom and reducing immigration."

If I am interpreting this properly in that you are for stronger immigration controls, I wholeheartedly agree and 2nd this idea.  I just hope it is done in such a way that doesn't infringe upon constitutional liberties, or privacy.  Putting troops on the border would work.  National ID cards are a big no thx if you ask me.

"Businesses which discriminate based on race instead of merit will automatically lose out as they will be giving superior employees to their competitors."

"We need to increase economic freedom to the point where socialist institutions, such as education and welfare, are only used when absolutely necessary so that the public can concentrate it's democratic power on law enforcement and the military."

I absolutely agree.  Also, legalizing drugs and reducing the number of victimless crimes would allow the police forces to track down truly dangerous criminals, such as rapists, murderers, and thugs, rather than busting pot smokers enjoying a blunt in their basements.  Wasteful bureaucracy and government such as the gun registry should be abolished.  It is expensive, and we can't afford that money right now - we are in massive debt.

"To solve the problem that those in the unskilled labour market can be discriminated against with negligible loss of income to the employers, we need to prevent unskilled labourers from working in the country."

I agree with you on immigration, more or less... I think.  Tighter controls - but lets not sacrifice the constitution to get them.  I say no National ID or government programs - just put the troops on the border where they should be. 

"As a result the cost of unskilled labour will rise, we won't need welfare and the shortage of unskilled labour will increase the incentive for employers not to discriminate."

This all sounds good.  Seconded..:)