Several countries begin to approve Gay Marriage after Obama's statement

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 8:54 PM GMT
    http://www.xtra.ca/blog/national/post/2012/05/14/Obama-legalizing-gay-marriage-everywhere-but-America.aspx

    Monday, May 14, 2012
    Obama legalizing gay marriage everywhere but America
    BY ROB SALERNO - In the wake of US President Obama's historic announcement that he's now supportive of equal marriage for gay and lesbian couples, world leaders are crawling out of the woodwork to announce their own support for gay marriage.

    First, Cuban president Raul Castro's daughter announced that the Cuban regime may soon legalize gay marriage.

    Then New Zealand's prime minister John Key announced his own support for gay marriage. The announcement meanss that the three main parties in th New Zealand parliament support gay marriage, and Key has suggested the government could soon consider a private member's bill from the opposition on the subject.

    Now Croatia's president Zoran Milanovic has announced that the government will soon be introducing legislation to allow for gay marriage. If passed, it would be the first country in Eastern Europe and the first Slavic country to legalize gay marriage.

    We're even seeing other presidents take up the cause in foreign countries directly. Argentine president Cristina Kirchner -- who introduced that country's same-sex marriage law in 2009 -- recently wrote to Australian PM Julia Gillard to ask her to reconsider her opposition to same-sex marriage. Gillard's so far refusing to bow to pressure. Unfortunately, Argentina doesn't have a great track record of fighting British colonies.

    It's enough to have Newsweek figuratively crown Obama as America's "first gay president," which is a remarkable achievement, given that his annoucement hasn't actually had any direct consequences in America.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 8:57 PM GMT
    Thanks for posting this! Its wonderful news..

    Read my post here http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2369715
    This thread just verifies what that experiment proved!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 9:07 PM GMT
    This news must really be killing the RJ conservaposse. They've fought against gay rights & marriage for so long. They are absolutely livid about this! As they continue to support all the US Right Wing candidates who are against gay rights. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    May 14, 2012 9:46 PM GMT
    This a good example of US influence in the world; a most valuable, but currently lacking, quality in most modern politicians-leadership.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:06 PM GMT
    That's a profoundly ridiculous assetion, Art Deco. To think that those of us on here that are conservative are somehow against gay marriage border delirium. Sure, conservatives are typically less inclined to support gay marriage, but to say that we are all somehow anti-gay could not be further from the truth. Two of the most prominent conservatives of the last century were actually quite ardent supporters of equal rights.

    Ronald Reagan used his position and influence as a governor of California to defeat the Briggs Initiative, which would have barred homosexuals from being allowed to teach in public schools. From the start, it was a very uphill battle with around 60% of Californians favoring the ban. Although he planned to run for president in the 1980 election, he risked a lot of political capital by coming out in opposition to the bill, as a significant portion of his base was in favor of it. Just a week before the vote, he wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Herald- Examiner laying out his reasons for campaigning against the measure. Sure, Harvey Milk and many others within the gay community put in more than their share of the work to fight against the initiative, but it was Ronald Reagan who won over moderates and conservatives to vote against it. He had the appeal of being a popular governor and a pragmatic conservative, which played well with mainstream voters. The initiative ended up being defeated by a vote of 58%-42%.

    Barry Goldwater was one of the standard bearers of the Republican Party for a number of years, and was known as "Mr. Conservative". He was also adamantly opposed to DADT, and he wasn't quiet about it either.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:10 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidThis news must really be killing the RJ conservaposse. They've fought against gay rights & marriage for so long. They are absolutely livid about this! As they continue to support all the US Right Wing candidates who are against gay rights. icon_biggrin.gif

    facepalm-lioncopy.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:12 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidThis a good example of US influence in the world; a most valuable, but currently lacking, quality in most modern politicians-leadership.


    Hmmm, I disagree

    I actually think all those countries had already been thinking about those things. It's only now that Obama said he believed in gay marriage that the news agencies is bothering to look at these other countries and that in news conferences reporters are asking "what do you think of Obama's support of gay marriage". I see it as more of a US-centric agencies spinning the news like that in order to make the US feel of worldly-importance on the issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:22 PM GMT
    Bale02 said
    Lincsbear saidThis a good example of US influence in the world; a most valuable, but currently lacking, quality in most modern politicians-leadership.


    Hmmm, I disagree

    I actually think all those countries had already been thinking about those things. It's only now that Obama said he believed in gay marriage that the news agencies is bothering to look at these other countries and that in news conferences reporters are asking "what do you think of Obama's support of gay marriage". I see it as more of a US-centric agencies spinning the news like that in order to make the US feel of worldly-importance on the issue.


    No, I can tell you that it does stir up discussion in those countries. My Mum (Australian) lives in a rural country town, and she called me to see if I had heard (And I'm in Sweden).

    I doubt it will affect PM Gillard's stance, and we are totally fucked if Abbott gets elected. But it does provide good talking points.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:31 PM GMT
    volsfan315 saidThat's a profoundly ridiculous assetion, Art Deco. To think that those of us on here that are conservative are somehow against gay marriage border delirium. Sure, conservatives are typically less inclined to support gay marriage, but to say that we are all somehow anti-gay could not be further from the truth. Two of the most prominent conservatives of the last century were actually quite ardent supporters of equal rights.

    Absolutely correct. This one member thinks most or all here who are fiscally conservative have been sent here from a "subversive" organization to wreak havoc on gay sites. He always repeats the same thing and most people know he is out there, to say the least.

    The other liberals and in some cases, socialists, do enjoy the same theme without the conspiratorial element. They are quite content with a liberal or socialist government in the US and try to use gay issues as a lever to beat others down and guilt them to share their failed economic viewpoints.
  • parametric

    Posts: 63

    May 14, 2012 10:31 PM GMT
    volsfan315 saidThat's a profoundly ridiculous assetion, Art Deco. To think that those of us on here that are conservative are somehow against gay marriage border delirium. Sure, conservatives are typically less inclined to support gay marriage, but to say that we are all somehow anti-gay could not be further from the truth. Two of the most prominent conservatives of the last century were actually quite ardent supporters of equal rights.

    Ronald Reagan used his position and influence as a governor of California to defeat the Briggs Initiative, which would have barred homosexuals from being allowed to teach in public schools. .



    Ronald Reagan sat in silence while tens of thousands of gay Americans died from AIDS. He said nothing. He did nothing, He by no stretch of the most warped imagination can he be considered by any but most self-hating, ideologically brainwashed gay man to be "pro-gay".

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:32 PM GMT
    Caslon19000 said
    Art_Deco saidThis news must really be killing the RJ conservaposse. They've fought against gay rights & marriage for so long. They are absolutely livid about this! As they continue to support all the US Right Wing candidates who are against gay rights. icon_biggrin.gif

    facepalm-lioncopy.jpg


    This.

    Has the Kooky Kolonel been on the sauce before 7am again?

    Carmine needs to keep a better handle on him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:35 PM GMT
    "This is revisionist nonsense.
    It was the inaction of the Reagan administration that allowed the AIDS epidemic to rage through the population unchecked without committing a single resource to trying to find a cure for it. The man wouldn't even say the word "AIDS" until 1986, five years into it.

    As for Goldwater, he did at the very end become gay-tolerant. But oinly at the end. To call either of these two a champion of gay rights is the worst sort of ignorance or propaganda"



    Revisionist? That would imply that I was somehow changing something when in fact, I merely brought out some facts to bear. To say that the Reagan Administration's misstep in failing to direct the fight against AIDS was due to disdain for gays IS an example of revisionist history.
  • parametric

    Posts: 63

    May 14, 2012 10:35 PM GMT
    That aside, even if Regan was pro-gay, so what? He stilled sold weapons to Iran so that he could fund crypto-fascist guerillas who tortured, raped, and murdered a democratically elected government out of power in Nicaragua. He could have painted the oval office in rainbows, and married gay sailors in the rose garden, and he's still be a war criminal and a murderer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:40 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger said
    Caslon19000 said
    Art_Deco saidThis news must really be killing the RJ conservaposse. They've fought against gay rights & marriage for so long. They are absolutely livid about this! As they continue to support all the US Right Wing candidates who are against gay rights. icon_biggrin.gif

    facepalm-lioncopy.jpg


    This.

    Has the Kooky Kolonel been on the sauce before 7am again?

    Carmine needs to keep a better handle on him.

    More like the Kooky LIGHT Kolonel. BIG DIFFERENCE. Actually had to change the recipe for the sauce. Old one reminded him too much of the bloody urine. Still the sloe gin, but it gets mixed with the bargain vodka from Publix supermarket, and also some Concord Grape Manischewitz Wine. Little paper parasol has exactly 3 maraschino cherries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:43 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    volsfan315 said
    Revisionist? That would imply that I was somehow changing something when in fact, I merely brought out some facts to bear. To say that the Reagan Administration's misstep in failing to direct the fight against AIDS was due to disdain for gays IS an example of revisionist history.

    You are 24 years old. You weren't even alive at the time this happened.
    And you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.


    I was and he has a much better knowledge of history than some much older. Your tactic along with that of your soulmates is also quite obvious. You try and verbally harass someone who doesn't post in the political threads too often to make things sufficiently unpleasant so they stay away and you can enjoy your little monopoly.

    volsfan315 - please do not be deterred by this tactic, and encourage your RJ friends to post here as well. Having more against their small hard core is not something they look forward to.
  • parametric

    Posts: 63

    May 14, 2012 10:44 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    volsfan315 said
    Revisionist? That would imply that I was somehow changing something when in fact, I merely brought out some facts to bear. To say that the Reagan Administration's misstep in failing to direct the fight against AIDS was due to disdain for gays IS an example of revisionist history.

    You are 24 years old. You weren't even alive at the time this happened.
    And you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.


    I agree with your broader point, but don't commit the "you weren't there" fallacy. You weren't around during slavery, but I'm sure you have an ethical opinion about it. More to the point is that his interpretation of historical facts is biased beyond reason to conform to an ideology. That is the meaning of revisionism, as said earlier. Same facts, ludicrous interpretation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:44 PM GMT
    parametric said
    volsfan315 saidThat's a profoundly ridiculous assetion, Art Deco. To think that those of us on here that are conservative are somehow against gay marriage border delirium. Sure, conservatives are typically less inclined to support gay marriage, but to say that we are all somehow anti-gay could not be further from the truth. Two of the most prominent conservatives of the last century were actually quite ardent supporters of equal rights.

    Ronald Reagan used his position and influence as a governor of California to defeat the Briggs Initiative, which would have barred homosexuals from being allowed to teach in public schools. .



    Ronald Reagan sat in silence while tens of thousands of gay Americans died from AIDS. He said nothing. He did nothing, He by no stretch of the most warped imagination can he be considered by any but most self-hating, ideologically brainwashed gay man to be "pro-gay".




    Gays arent the only ones that are affected by AIDS. I figured most of the people on this site would be aware of this by now. It's quite interesting to read some of the claims that Ronald Reagan neglected the AIDS crisis out of a dislike of homosexuals. Do you also believe in Santa Claus?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:48 PM GMT
    It's kind of amusing to see some people try and make an issue out of my age or result to an emotionally charged attack due to a lack of basis for an argument. It's like Margaret Thatcher said, "If they attack one personally, it is because they have not a single political argument left."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 10:49 PM GMT
    WaPo Recycles Myth of Reagan Inaction on AIDS

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/12/16/wapo-recycles-myth-reagan-inaction-aids
  • parametric

    Posts: 63

    May 14, 2012 10:50 PM GMT
    okay. Can someone please get this kid a history book?

    May I suggest? Out of the Past by Neil Miller? Its the most complete text on gay history that i've found.

  • parametric

    Posts: 63

    May 14, 2012 10:51 PM GMT
    volsfan315 said It's like Margaret Thatcher said, "If they attack one personally, it is because they have not a single political argument left."



    Did she say that while dining with Pinochet?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 11:00 PM GMT
    "Did she say that while dining with Pinochet?"

    You are absolutely right on this point. Western world leaders should only deal with nice people and should never meet with morally reprehensbile heads of state. Just like Roosevelt never met with Stalin to strategize the defeat of the Axis Powers in WW2, Nixon never met with Zhou Enlai and Mao Tse-Tung to turn communist China away from the USSR, Jimmy Carter never met with the Shah of Iran to keep them out of the Soviet sphere of influence, and Bill Clinton never met with Yasser Arafat to discuss a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issues.
  • parametric

    Posts: 63

    May 14, 2012 11:14 PM GMT
    ^ Lost cause ^

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 11:16 PM GMT
    parametric said^ Lost cause ^


    ^Lost argument^

    recommend you look at the link I posted about Reagan and AIDS
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2012 11:16 PM GMT
    No, I'm just waiting for a logical counter-argument.