4 ms·

State laws passed by elected Republicans are not media. These bans existed in law not too long ago in this country not just in media. We just saw the Texas law

by fundad 4y ago

State laws passed by elected Republicans are not media. These bans existed in law not too long ago in this country not just in media. We just saw the Texas law and the intended SCOTUS decision fulfill the 2016 GOP campaign promise. There is no reason to believe the desired outcome goes no further than the Dobbs decision. And it would be easy for elected Rs and R candidates to fight division by saying they won't come for contraception, who you can marry, what your kids learn, how you pray and whose property rights are worth as little as their right to marry and have sex. Yes I want to create division between people who evaluate the movement on its desired outcomes and see the harm and people who think the US is exceptional and wouldn't use the law in immoral ways. And I didn't say they're "coming for gay marriage", I referenced mixed marriage as "who you can marry." But it won't stop at gay marriage either, the right to be openly gay or trans is what they're coming for and people should know that.

throwaway894345 4y ago
> There is no reason to believe the desired outcome goes no further than the Dobbs decision. Republicans definitely have an agenda, but there's not broad support among them for eliminating gay marriage (55% of Republicans support gay marriage per Gallup 2022) or mixed marriage (only 12% of Republicans believe interracial marriage is a social ill per Pew 2017). The view that Republicans are coming for interracial marriage, gay marriage, etc is just more of the same baseless hysteria that has characterized left-wing media for the last decade (and I'm not a conservative or otherwise right-wing, so please spare me the "the right wing media is also bad/worse!" stuff because I already agree).
- ModernMech 4y ago
  I just don’t understand how you can say it is baseless left wing hysteria when powerful and influential Republicans are literally saying they want to do exactly that. That is the basis. If republicans weren’t saying they want to come after gay marriage, no one would be worried. But they are. Baseless would be saying that Democrats want to come after gay marriage. Obviously there is no basis for that statement. But when powerful Republicans literally say exactly that they want to end gay marriage, it forms the basis for concerns that they will follow through. Just last month the Texas Republican Party had a convention and declared “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice”, which sets the debate about homosexuality back decades. What about the Texas Republican Party platform is left wing media hysteria? What about the position that homosexuality is “abnormal” signals to you that Republicans aren’t coming after gay rights? We’re not talking about a single justice or senator here; we are talking about a state party platform, in a state controlled entirely by that party.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Well, groups are made up of large numbers of people, so we can’t understand the direction of those groups by looking at the opinions of those groups by looking at a relative handful of people (or rather, we can via polling, but that’s not what you’re describing). Anyway, “abnormal lifestyle choice” isn’t a “decades” setback. Homosexuality has only been mainstream for a little more than a decade, and even then about half of Republicans have opposed it. Honestly, people who are so concerned should focus on making the Democrats electable again, because we’ve tried enormous amounts of left-wing spin from every epistemological institution and all manner of divisiveness and that hasn’t worked particularly well so far.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      We can understand the directions of groups by looking at their elected leaders. Take the US House for instance: just today those representing the GOP in the US House voted overwhelmingly against a bill protecting same-sex marriage at the federal level. Today! I mean, a party platform is exactly a document declaring the direction of a group of people. They get together and vote on it. Why can't we take that to be a pretty clear expression of their values and beliefs? How much clearer can this get? The Supreme court gutted the constitutional foundation of Obergefell. One of the Justices is begging for a challenge to the decision. A US Senator concurs. The former VP agrees. State parties agree and make it an official plank of their party's platform. And now House Republicans have shown where they stand. What more proof do you need? I guess another way to ask this question would be, what would you need to see before you would agree that the Republican party is coming after gay marriage next? How much more explicit do they need to be about it? And yes, the language used by the Texas GOP does take the debate back decades. Homosexuality is not a “choice”, and definitely not merely a “lifestyle”. I thought that debate had been settled, but I guess gay conversion therapy is back on the menu. And as a matter of fact, homosexuals are normal, and have been an integral part of human societies as long as they have existed, including American society since before it was founded. That Americans had not accepted them as such doesn’t change that homosexuality is normal.

by fundad 4y ago

throwaway894345 4y ago

> There is no reason to believe the desired outcome goes no further than the Dobbs decision. Republicans definitely have an agenda, but there's not broad support among them for eliminating gay marriage (55% of Republicans support gay marriage per Gallup 2022) or mixed marriage (only 12% of Republicans believe interracial marriage is a social ill per Pew 2017). The view that Republicans are coming for interracial marriage, gay marriage, etc is just more of the same baseless hysteria that has characterized left-wing media for the last decade (and I'm not a conservative or otherwise right-wing, so please spare me the "the right wing media is also bad/worse!" stuff because I already agree).

ModernMech 4y ago
I just don’t understand how you can say it is baseless left wing hysteria when powerful and influential Republicans are literally saying they want to do exactly that. That is the basis. If republicans weren’t saying they want to come after gay marriage, no one would be worried. But they are. Baseless would be saying that Democrats want to come after gay marriage. Obviously there is no basis for that statement. But when powerful Republicans literally say exactly that they want to end gay marriage, it forms the basis for concerns that they will follow through. Just last month the Texas Republican Party had a convention and declared “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice”, which sets the debate about homosexuality back decades. What about the Texas Republican Party platform is left wing media hysteria? What about the position that homosexuality is “abnormal” signals to you that Republicans aren’t coming after gay rights? We’re not talking about a single justice or senator here; we are talking about a state party platform, in a state controlled entirely by that party.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Well, groups are made up of large numbers of people, so we can’t understand the direction of those groups by looking at the opinions of those groups by looking at a relative handful of people (or rather, we can via polling, but that’s not what you’re describing). Anyway, “abnormal lifestyle choice” isn’t a “decades” setback. Homosexuality has only been mainstream for a little more than a decade, and even then about half of Republicans have opposed it. Honestly, people who are so concerned should focus on making the Democrats electable again, because we’ve tried enormous amounts of left-wing spin from every epistemological institution and all manner of divisiveness and that hasn’t worked particularly well so far.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    We can understand the directions of groups by looking at their elected leaders. Take the US House for instance: just today those representing the GOP in the US House voted overwhelmingly against a bill protecting same-sex marriage at the federal level. Today! I mean, a party platform is exactly a document declaring the direction of a group of people. They get together and vote on it. Why can't we take that to be a pretty clear expression of their values and beliefs? How much clearer can this get? The Supreme court gutted the constitutional foundation of Obergefell. One of the Justices is begging for a challenge to the decision. A US Senator concurs. The former VP agrees. State parties agree and make it an official plank of their party's platform. And now House Republicans have shown where they stand. What more proof do you need? I guess another way to ask this question would be, what would you need to see before you would agree that the Republican party is coming after gay marriage next? How much more explicit do they need to be about it? And yes, the language used by the Texas GOP does take the debate back decades. Homosexuality is not a “choice”, and definitely not merely a “lifestyle”. I thought that debate had been settled, but I guess gay conversion therapy is back on the menu. And as a matter of fact, homosexuals are normal, and have been an integral part of human societies as long as they have existed, including American society since before it was founded. That Americans had not accepted them as such doesn’t change that homosexuality is normal.