Study: Gay marriage isn't a threat in Iowa

Well what do you expect? But the Conservatives aren't going to listen...

 

Hardly a surprise. Remeber, this is the party that has spent decades useing lies about gay people to whip ignorant lemings into a orgy of hatred and fear. They are the Pidd piper of propaganda.

 

...what a shocker. :rolle:

Of course this won't change anything. Those idiots always find new bullshit reasons to oppress us.

 

Well...a couple of thoughts:

People are normally opposed or fearful of things they don't understand or think "un-natural". This doesn't make them stupid or ignorant...it simply makes them un-informed.

Of course gay marriage is not going to lead to the downfall of the Republic...but many in the elder generations (no offense to our older friends who fit in that category) simply can't understand homosexuality. They were brought up in the world where you went to work, fell in love with your highschool/college sweetheart, got married and popped out a couple of kids.

Using a group or issue to scare the masses is nothing new for politics or politicians. Part of the reason why G.W. Bush won re-election in 2004 (other than John Kerry himself) was the ability of the Republicans to use the masses of un-polled and un-dected evangelicals...saying the gays are going to destroy your family

A successful tool in many Democratic House and Senate races was the ability of the DCCC and DSC to push the message that the Republicans are going to take away your Social Security and kick you old people out on the street.

Of course, neither are true...but a public that really doesn't pay attention is willing to buy anything....as long as the candidate looks good on T.V. and looks good on those fancy mailers.

Thirdly...is any thing in Iowa really a threat? Except for cornfields? (Sorry, just had a flashback to "Children of the Corn")

 

Please tell that to rand paul, sharon angle, joe miller... etc. All who advocate getting rid of social security and medicare and/or selling it off to wall street bankers and investers...

The difference that should be noted is that gay marriage has no proven threat to society, and infact has been shown to strengthen society, lower divorce rates, and generally improve the econamies of the states and countries that have enacted it.

getting rid of social security, with many canidates, politicians, and pundits on the right support, actually has a proveable harm to the american people. That is not to say it doesnt need tweaked and improved, but removing it is nothing more than saying "hey, old person... you have worked your butt off your whole life, and payed your dues so that you would have that money in your old age to help you survive... we are going to either gamble it, or take it away from you... so VOTE FOR US!"

Really, not reasonable to compare to two when it is often the republicans themselves who back up the democratic talking point, and infact ignite it.

Gay marriage is about ensuring all americans have equal rights. Dogs, Goats, and inaimate objects do not apply, because marriage in america at its deepest level is a contract between two consenting adult humans. It is not about molesting children, as some have tried to equate it too, it is about fairness and equality.

 

There you go again.

I was simply saying that the use of scare tactics is nothing new in the realm of politics, on either side....it has been here since the election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

 

And I pointed out the disparging difference between the two.

republicans threaten people with social destruction because of tolerence of gays, gay adoption, and gay marriage.

republicans politicians threaten and advocate to get rid of/sell off social security, and the democrats point out the republicans saying that.

there is a difference here. one is a party lying to instill fear, and the other is a party quoting another party's politcians and their stated stances.

There is a difference when you can back up the fear with actual proof... which is the divide between these two examples. one has no basis in reality, and one is based on reality of what canidates are saying and advocating for.

 

Now see...this is distracting me from the Auburn/Mississippi State Game.

I forgot, I forgot, forgive me. Democrats are perfect in your world, they do nothing wrong and all Republicans are evil, hate America and the planet and want everyone to die, except the rich folks...and anyone who thinks differently is condemned to watch that horrible "Benjamin Button" movie with Brad Pitt for eternity. I get that.
Well, the Government has done such a wonderful job with social security thus far....I can certainly understand why you would want them to keep it(....ahem....) Everyone bashes Wall Street brokers when the Federal Government has been operating the biggest Ponzi scheme in the nation's history for decades.

But, aside, I don't think either of us want to be accused of hijacking a thread...which is what this is leading to.

Whoops. Flag on the play. Sucks for Auburn.
And...I'm out of Gin. Damn.

 

I am merely pointing out that the two things are not the same.

one is based around a series of lies crafted by politicians and political think tanks to strike fear into the minds of voters about how gay marriage is going to destroy society, and bring to a total collapse. It is nothing more than useing lies to instill fear, by saying things that are easily disprovable.

the other is a cannidate saying they would work to repeal/sell off social security, and then the other party merely quoting a politician.

one is a politician lieing through their teeth to get people to vote for them out fear of 'da gays'. The other is a politician saying they want to remove a program that people have spent years becoming eligable, and depend upon, and the other side merely pointing out the quote of the poltician saying it.

one lies, one merely points you in the direction of the position of another.

not the same.

This study has shown what many people have already known; gay marriage does not threaten or destabilize society. It breaks through the lies that are used to destroy us. At the same time this study comes out, backed up by fact from other places that have legalized same-sex marriages, conservatives in iowa have already been trying to use the 'gay threat' through their habit of lieing about the gays to work up the intolerent of their base, which has a well documented history of homophobia, to take away the rights of lgbt iowan's.

The fact is that there is a big difference between a politican lieing to people by working to make them fear something that is in essense not a legitimate danger, and another politician quoting a opponant's views on a matter. when the politician quotes another, they are not fabricating a lie, they are letting people know what their opponant has said they intend to do.

LGBT are not the Anti-christ. We don't want to molest your children, or recruit them, because LGBT people are not recruited... We don't support fundementalist islamic terrorists... we do not want to destroy people's families... we do not want to prevent heterosexuals from getting married... and all the other lies that are said about us.

Is it wrong to take issue with someone who is spreading hatred through lies, and inaccurate blanket statements? Is it wrong to challange outright falliacy of such tactics?

As long as we stay silent, virulent bigottry wins. That is the essence of what these lies represent. they are a virus that infects weak minded people who would rather scapegoat a whole group of people rather than realize that the lies they hold to are inaccurate, and immoral by their very nature, and that we are not the enemy they seek to portray us as.

They dont have historical fact to back up their attacks on the lgbt community. Fact and reality are not invited to the party when you scapegoat a minority so you can abuse and degrade them for personal gain.

 

Damn you....and here I was about to go to bed.
Auburn won, btw (bastards). Hell of a game though

Allow me to, once again, to clarify. I was in no way shape or form comparing the equal rights of the LGBT community to that of Social Security. The two, are certainly different. What makes them similar, for the purposes of THIS discussion ONLY is the fact that BOTH issues have been used to scare the wits out of people.

Gays aren't going to destroy a community. I know that. You know that. A lot of people don't. But Good God! You let those two Homo's kiss, then an unborn child will die and the American Family will be in ruin.

George Bush didn't want to take social security and completely privatize it. He wanted to give some one a CHOICE...the OPTION to invest a SMALL percentage in low risk bonds, etc. After all...it was the their money to begin with. But to hear some of the ads from the DCCC, DNC and DSC you would think Bush wanted to get Social Security and kick Gradpa Lewis out on his can. Which was completely false. I even heard the late Sen. Kennedy give a speech to that effect. It wasn't true, of course, it was just political posturing to rally his base. All politicians do it...have been for years. Doesn't mean it's right...it's just how it is.

 

Bamaboy and Emberstone. I always enjoy your political debates, I really do. I always learn a lot from it.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. It was a great article and even though it probably won't get the attention it deserves, it may get through to a few people, which is always good. So, kudos to the writer and I hope we see more articles like this as time goes on.

 

I still dont see how one can compare a outright lie meant to spread hatred and fear with one politician simply quoting another on their statement. There is no connection between the two. Fear mongering is not applicable to the second one because fear mongering is based in lies. When you quote someone else's stance, that isnt fear mongering, that is letting the opponants position speak for itself. it would require the opponnat is the one who is fear mongering, which seems to be counterproductive to the opponant who said what they said in the first place.

LGBT people have a right to expect that politicians and pundits are not going to use them in a 'nazi style "look, JEW!!!" attack'. History shows many cases when a minority has been scapegoated with lies to get people whipped up. They did it to african amerians during the whole of the civil rights fight, saying alot of things very similer, and at times, the same as what they say about LGBT people: they will molest your children... they want to destroy society... etc. They are doing it to hispanics in arizona, including the legal ones. With the governer making claims that beheaded bodies are being found by law enforcement in the desert, which the law enforcement immediatly started scratching their head at. Native americans, which overwhelmingly were peaceful people, where represented by settlers as murderious savages.

It is a virulent and dangerous thing.

I agree with Leon481 that sadly, this study will likely not get the attention it deserves. It runs counter to the attempts of some to destroy LGBT rights, and those people will do what they always do of screaming just the bit louder to ensure that it is their ignorant, hatefilled rhetoric that is heard over actual reality of the situation in Iowa since gay marriage was deemed legal in that state.

 

Sigh...
Once again:
The two are similar, for the purposes of this argument alone. Because both use fear and lies to get ahead politically. I know this should not come as any surprise to you.
I never said it was the right thing to do...it just politics.
The statement by both camps were mis representations of of the actual fact.

Gays are not going to destroy the American Family.
Some in the far right say it is so on the campaign trail. That is incorrect.

George Bush and the Republican majority Never wanted to take away social security and give it all to private investors.
Some one the left said that was so on the campaign trail. That too was incorrect.

And I still stand by one of my original points: Absolutely nothing is a threat in the state of Iowa...except cornfields.

 

I love the title of this thread. Just saying.

 

when a politician says something, and another politician quotes them on it, that is not a lie, that is one politician stating what another politician has stated. It is really simple.

You cannot logically or legitimately compare someone pointing out a politician has said they want to get rid of or privitize social security with a politician creating a series of lies about gay people to scare them into voting for a specific idology.

when a politician, regardless of their affiliation states their stance, it is not lieing when another politician quotes them for stating that stance... that is called 'quoting'.

A lie would be if say someone said all gay people kidnap and molest children into being gay... which is a lie that has been said about LGBT people.

Saying that Sharon Angle wants to get rid of social security, and phase it into a private coorporation is not a lie... unless sharon angle is a lier:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4A6AIOwZGg[/YOUTUBE]

To say that this is the same as this is rediculous and offensive:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fse5w9E3c4o[/YOUTUBE]

The later is what the anti-gay movement stands for; fabricating pure lies to denegrate and demonize homosexuality, transgenderism, bisexuality, and gender expression they do not like.

Even with this study, as leon rightly pointed out, it is still going to be hard to get people to recognize the reality of what the study is pointing out to us. When you have a whole section of society that prefers to create lies like below, all based on spreading untruths to make LGBT out to be some terrorist group, or subversive cancereous culture, it is hard to push back when people will cling to their lies rather than live in the real world:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7O3mExIZHI[/YOUTUBE]

they are doing everything in their power to represent equality as taking away the rights of others. they do not care that they are destroying the rights that all americans are suposed to be entitled to.

They are useing lies to try to be the victim, when they are the perpetratiors of the real injustice. they are useing lies to raise money so they can further the cause of preventing LGBT people from being full citizens, with full equal rights.

They are useing lies to ensure that we do not have the same liberties and freedoms that everyone else has.

quoting sharon angle is not lieing... it is quoting what she herself has said, and believes in.

It is irrelevent to the discussion whether you think she is right or wrong, because she said it, and has said it many times... it is established fact that she has said it. to say a politician who points out she has said it is lieing, is factually impossible. the record on her saying it is solid, and proven. state something that is factually verifiable is not lieing.

but creating untruths about LGBT, and spreading them to instill intolerence and get votes and donations is lieing.

I don't know how to make it any more simpler... but I suspect I will have to try.

 

Ember, despite our differences I really have grown fond of you...and I know that drives you crazy...which is probably why I said it .

What in the Hell does Angle have to do with my original assessment of the situation. I was referring to the attacks on GW Bush and then the Republican Majority. They made an entire campaign on them based on an absolute lie...which was they (Republicans...I mean Republicans actually in Congress that could do something...not some nut job that has no chance of winning a US Senate seat) were going to completely take away SS...which was...as I state ONCE AGAIN...was a complete falsehood. It's no shock...everyone does it. It simply politics. Why can't I get that through your thick skull, lol.

Angle, just like Paul, is a true libertarian...she is not a representation of the entire Republican Party...just like Maxine Waters is not a representation of the entire Democratic Party (if she is...God, you guys are in more trouble than I think)

Besides, she isn't even elected and will probably get stomped by Reid.

When it comes to politics, sometimes you simply need to take my line of thinking: "Don't take yourself too seriously...because no one else does" It's a much better way to go through life I have found.

God...why am I even worried about this. I've got to prepare....The Tide takes on Joe Pa's Penn State tomorrow in Mecca...much more important things to worry about...like if I have enough booze..what time to get to the tailgate...and the most important, how the hell am I going to get home.

 

...and as an aside...I still say that anyone who thinks ANYTHING is a threat in Iowa, has obviously never been to the state of Iowa.

 

Iowa is a pretty non-threatening place. Steve King is quite scary though...



(I just wanted an excuse to use that picture:lol

P.S. I hope Bama puts up 50 against Chizik's defense in the Iron Bowl this year.