Saturday, October 20, 2012

This Issue Is Enough Reason to Vote Obama

Women's rights and gun control are others, but the issue of LGBT rights itself is a clincher.


  1. 1. Mikeb, you disparage single-issue voters, so don't go arguing in favor of that now.

    2. Have you noticed that rights rise up from the people? The people demand their rights, and leaders eventually get around to recognizing those rights. It's not as though your savior one day decided to make a change.

    3. The T part of LGBT is a problem. We're born what we are. Our sexual orientations are set either at birth or so early on that we're not aware of them at the time. But being male or female is fundamental.

    4. Sulu and fake Spock want me to vote for Obama? What's Quark's position on things?

    1. MikeB hasn't suggested anyone BE a single issue voter, only that this is an issue where the differences are so strong, so clear that it could determine who one votes for all by itself.

      That Obama decided to make a change was a significant milestone; he has influenced a lot of people to make the same change in attitude about gender an orientation. You might wish to try to minimize it, but the people in the video make it pretty clear how VERY significant the presidential bully pulpit has been.

      It is 3 where you are the most wrong, and as so often is the case, you venture something as fact while knowing nothing whatsoever about the subject, or about what is and is not fact.

      You could not be more wrong about gender.
      I wrote about it here:

      Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is just one example of the many many causes someone is a candidate for gender reassignment. It is anything but simple or straightforward - and that doesn't even begin to address anyone who is born hermaphroditic in some form.

      Even the kinds of in utero masculinizing and feminizing influences of maternal hormonal variations in utero occur, changing how brain development progresses. That is not only true of human beings; I suggest you might read up on what a freemartin is, for example, in animals.

      Actors who have publicly been open about their sexual orientation have some important insights to offer about what their experiences have been. To deliberately insult them by pretending they are insignificant except for an old role they played reflects more negatively on you than on them.

      Your ignorance about gender and sexual orientation are just one more reason you can't possibly do a credible job on Chaucer, who may not have had the science we have now available to him to explain human behavior, but he was an excellent observer of it, especially when it came to gender roles and sexuality. You are clearly unable to appreciate that fully, due to your limited understanding of the subject and your biases and prejudices about it.

    2. Doggy Doo, your naivete never ceases to amaze me. Is there any pronouncement of the social sciences that you don't swallow without the slightest pause?

      1. I'm aware of hermaphrodites and other genetic abnormalities. Note that those are abnormalities. You've accepted the idea that someone born with an ordinary set of genes and anatomical structures can have good reason for wanting to be "reassigned," but that's more politics than science. Biologically speaking, there are two sexes in the human species: male and female.

      2. Because of your willingness to swallow whatever you're told, you've bought into this idea of gender being a meaningful term outside of grammar. I've asked you and others here to define masculinity precisely because I wish to demonstrate that the popular view of that and of femininity are often misguided. Being a man or being a woman is defined by anatomy and physiology and is therefore on a low level of importance for the total human condition.

      A healthy person is born XX or XY. How she or he behaves--whether society calls it masculine or feminine--should be the person's choice alone. Whom that person finds attractive is probably biologically determined--along with some measure of social conditioning--but again, is up to the individual to decide. Having to endure multiple surgeries and take lots of drugs in an effort to conform to some social standard of what it means to be a man or a woman is silly.

      3. You bring in Chaucer here because you can't stand the idea that I know things without having been taught them by you. I have lived and learned for a good many years, but other than a fascinating bit about carrots, I can't think of anything that I've gained from your screeds.

      But let's discuss Chaucer. His genius was to take characters as they are, not as society has chosen to label them. He was a keen observer of individuals. You want to group people according to politically defined categories. You so frequently get things wrong about me because you know that I support gun rights. You make all manner of assumptions about me on the basis of that one piece of information, but they are nearly all false.

      4. With regard to actors, I respect the work of George Takei. I didn't recognize many of the others because I don't bother with cable and don't watch a lot of popular television. Respect, though, does not mean that I have to agree with Takei on every point. I'm glad that he is able to live openly these days. His role as an Asian character has influenced many Star Trek fans and others as well, and good for that. On gay rights, I agree with Obama 2.0. In fact, my position on the subject has been in favor of individual liberties for a long time. Note a common theme here with my other remarks on this site.

      I'm not all that familiar with Quinto, since to my knowledge, I've only seen him in the J.J. Abrams "reboot" of Star Trek. I thought that film was shallow and silly, a total rejection of the body of work that Gene Roddenberry set in motion.

  2. Obama was agin it before he was fer it.

    orlin sellers

    1. Obama was always for some form of recognition of same-sex couples; his objection had more to do with how to address the religious definitions.

      He correctly understands the distinctions between the two, and that different religions will address it more or less correctly, depending on how backwards and inflexible they are to our expanding knowledge.

      Those that have rejected same sex marriage also tend to be wrong on a lot of other topics, failing to adapt to new knowledge and thinking makes them irrelevant. When 98% of sexually active Catholics use birth control, and blow off the pope, that is an example of backward thinking and attitudes resulting in them being marginalized. No one cares much whether or not the pope approves of birth control any more. He has become substantially irrelevant.

      Obama has evolved, adapted, grown and changed; as a result, he remains relevant.

      The more you're factually wrong, or just backwards Orlon fluff for brains, the more you're irrelevant and the more you marginalize yourself too.

      It's a beautiful arrangement.

    2. 1. What you call factually wrong or backwards has a lot of support in American politics, so whether you like it or not, you still have to acknowledge its presence.

      2. There's a better solution to the question of marriage. Leave marriage to religion. The government should give civil unions only--that's to couples period, not just gays or lesbians. Having the government weigh in on marriage is a blending of church and state.

    3. I will acknowledge the regressive and hateful positions of conservative by pointing out how their view is wrong, how it is bigoted, not legitimate or valid.

      I will 'acknowledge' its presence by pushing back against it, and by tap dancing on its failures

      If there was no 'better solution' required when gay marriage was not legal, there is no need for a better or different requirement for civil recognition of marriage now. That is a crappy, dishonest, and ugly idea on your part Campy. Because you're still squirming around trying to find a way to treat same sex couples in an inferior manner.

      Marriage is NOT unique to religion. It has been a civil relationship for millenia. I will not cede it to religion, and there are plenty of churches that do not have a problem with sanctifying gay and lesbian or transgender marriage.

      Your view Camp is becoming increasingly irrelevant, increasingly marginalized, increasingly unimportant.

      More people are learning what I just taught you about human sexuality and gender. Ignorance like yours is losing ground.

      I plan to keep on pushing.

      I'm not going to hold my breath while you better inform yourself. But other people are doing precisely that.

    4. Doggy Doo, pay attention. I support equal rights for heterosexual and homosexual couples. Got it? The point that I made is that there are two social components to a marriage, one religious and the other civil. Those two ought to be separate. Religious institutions have the right to define marriage within their doctrines and to sanctify such marriages as they see fit. The government has an interest in stable relationships and in the financial matters associated with them. That's why I suggest having the county clerk issue civil unions to everyone.

      Now will you lay aside your prejudices against me and see that in our goals, we agree here? I'm not trying to find a way to keep gay couples inferior. I'm concerned about keeping religion and state separate and about providing equality under the law for all.

    5. Yeah, I didn't figure Dog Gone would offer me an apology. She makes false statements about me all the time and never comes back to face the facts.

  3. My dearest DG, that was eloquent - an eloquent way to say he's pimpin' fer votes. My wish is that someday you can evolve enough to realize he is your religion and your pope.

    your bestest friend,
    orlin sellers

  4. I have no pope, Orlon. I think for myself.

    If he was pimping for votes, he'd have taken the safer course, and done nothing.

    Someday you might learn to think too, but probably not.

  5. My dearest DG, everything you have ever said or written is second and third hand opinions based on other second hand opinions. The fact is, you think with your party.

    your bestest friend,
    orlin sellers