Opinion of TJ in Cleve

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

An asshole for deleting my post.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

FF for deleting my posts.

He's not doing it frequently enough

HP.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Probably uselectionatlas's best remaining poster

If you feel the quality's so poor, you're more than welcome to leave

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I agree with Hagrid's point about any discrimination being a limitus test. I'm pretty sure that if this forum was active in the 50s and we've had a Black poster vocal on African American discrimination, some of our other posters would be like "oh, you're talking about only one issue, you're so obsessed with this, blah, blah."

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

I wasn't referring to you. As of Jim Crow analogies, I think when a gay person is being killed because of their sexual orientation isn't very diffrent from a Black man lynched by the KKK. Hate is hate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

I wasn't referring to you. As of Jim Crow analogies, I think when a gay person is being killed because of their sexual orientation isn't very diffrent from a Black man lynched by the KKK. Hate is hate.

And if TJ had said it's OK to kill gay people, then he'd obviously be an inexcusably despicable individual. However, he never said anything even close to that.

I'm not talking about TJ specifically right now. Just wanted to say that there were plenty of people during Jim Crow that never said it's OK to kill a "Negro", but surely believed the darkies should know their place. Doesn't seem much excusable either.

I just don't agree with your particular line of reasoning.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

You realize the exact same could be said of your brand of Republicanism, right?

Practical differences between pre- and post-Trump Republicans are largely mythical.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can we really be surprised gays finds such issue as SSM as important one? For a long time in the U.S. (and still in many other countries) they were legally a second-class citizens when it came to marriage. I imagine even for a LGBT person that doesn't want to marry herself or himself it's important not to be a second class citizen, even if this one issue is concerned. And for me it seem important too. I may not be LGBT myself, but it's not just about gays, it's about the value of equality.

OK, you may say "but it's incomparable to Jim Crow. Gays can't vote, they just can't (shouldn't be allowed to) marry". But why wouldn't a right to enter a happy legal relationship of your choice be of no importance?

Again, I'm not LGBT so I can't feel the same way LGBT feels about this issue, but I think I can understand.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yes, personal experience is an important thing here. I was always generally supportive of gay rights, although, being much younger, I also thought something like "eww, let them be, but it's gross" or "marriage? Come on, this is going too far". My outlook changed forever when some of my close friends came out as LGBT. I just couldn't think of them as "gross" nor believe they should be precluded from entering a happy union because of same-sex attraction. Hell, now I can't imagine myself ever facing them and saying such a thing.

The thing is, instead of thinking like "oh well, she/he's a queer, but despite this I'm generally OK with her/him" we should think of someone as a fellow human being first.

Jim Crow had been invoked many times here and there's something about such attitude similar to those who opposed slavery, but at the same time not only didn't want to see the society integrated, but despised "Negroes" personally. Even Radical Republican Ben Wade admitted being "disgusted" with the Blacks. You may point out every single difference between Jim Crow and SSM issue, but the mechanism is the same.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Knowing Antonio I don't think he's an actual homophobe. At most he haven't given the issue as much thought as it deserved.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This is going too far now. I did disagree with a particular line of argument Antonio used, but having known him for seven years, I simply won't agree he's a homophobe or someone who doesn't care about equality.

Usually for Atlas, this thread went beyond control. I know our gay posters are sensitive on the issue for obvious reasons, but I also have an impression many people who posted didn't bother to actually read the whole conversation, just jumped the bandwagon. Also, attempts at "analyzing" Antonio regarding supposed homophobia is a bit... weird.

I guess Torie was the closest to the truth. We seems to have more of a communication problem than anything.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think we can all agree there are other important issues beside LGBT rights and it doesn't make the LGBT rights any less important.

I deeply care about economic/social issues and it doesn't affect the way I care about the LGBT rights. Why would it?

What I don't approve is a single-issue mentality, no matter what said issue is. It's narrow-minded and counterproductive (and I'm not referring to any poster right now).