Gay Rights and Gun Rights Linked in Seattle Posters

Branding is branding regardless of whether it's Republican vs. Democrat or Coke vs. Pepsi.

I think both are swill and choose something entirely different, and I don't feel the need to assimilate it into my identity and use it as a bludgeon to force others into accepting my worldview.

Well, this is possibly the best thing I've seen today! I recently had a conversation with a gay friend who was against gun ownership, at first. I merely explained to him how I believe that gun ownership is an important civil right, just like equality or gay rights. Luckily, he's a logical person, and not the type to hate guns for the sake of hating guns.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Why are kids in an ad about marriage? I'm pretty sure the people in the ads are supposed to be gay. They just used awful stock photos to try and make a point and didn't realize that they contained children?

I wasn't even talking about the guns.

reply to post by Carreau


Thanks Carreau, for the extra research on this!

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Slugworth

 

Take any issue you can think of and see if the major points of view are covered by either democrats or republicans and you will see that they more than likely are.

Well yeah the issues are covered by Democrats or Republicans, but there are multiple issues. What if I like helping the poor, like gun ownership, like gay marriage, want to help Hispanics and other immigrants, but don't think recycling or electric cars actually reduce pollution?

Or what if I don't like gays, and don't like guns? That is totally opposite of what I think, by the way.

But the fact is, I do like gays, and I do like guns, so that already puts me in nowhere land. As most of my moderate opinions do.

I am saying that the different combinations of issues are not represented by only two parties. Basing one's opinion on a political party's preset binary choices on multiple issues instead of thinking about it only puts limits on what this country can achieve. More political parties would mean more choices.

More political parties would mean more discussion, more thinking, less political laziness.

I'm gay and don't own a gun, but I don't have a problem with guns and would consider owning one if I felt the need. I also don't vote for either of the two parties anymore. I've never felt comfortable with the false dichotomy of the two party system but continued to buy into it till a couple of years ago. I generally voted for Democrats because, as has been pointed out here, I chose the party that seemed to support my civil rights as a gay man, even though when it came to other issues I agreed more with Republicans. But I have to say the majority of people in my life (on both the "right" and the "left") pretty much buy in to whatever their particular president feeds them. I guess hypocrisy is just easier than thinking for yourself.

Also I think that the picture of the girl and the woman was not originally depicting a lesbian couple, perhaps a mother daughter some some gun enthusiast magazine?

It's about time someone had some sense... I think the poster about shooting homophobes is a little out there and (hopefully) meant to be funny if not prove a point about extremism on both sides of the argument, but the other one I agree with whole heartedly. How can anyone claim to be for freedom but pick a group they don't like and try to deny them that same freedom?

i as a supporter of gay marriage equality and a defender of the second amendment have been saying this for months get the gay vote on board with the NRA and then the anti gunners have a problem,make the anti gunners have to face one of their primary voter bases and tell them that their views down matter.combine that with the nra success and we could see marriage equality and the second amendment saved from any more of these emotionally backed laws attempting to infringe upon our second amendment.if republicans can get over soem of their perceived intolerance twords gays/lesbians they might be able to get the next election


also as gay people are often victims of assault it would make sense that they would and should be armed if legally able to.it would be a hell of a lot harder to jump some one for being gay and drag them behind a truck tell they are dead if the person they try to beat up for being gay puts 3 rounds in the chest of the first person to try,people often wrongly perceive gay males(more so the males then the female lesbians) as weaker or easier targets due to stereotypes and if a few of them shoot back there would be a lot less gay victims of assault out there

this is ingenious and one of the better things i have read today thanks for this op

reply to post by WaterBottle


perhaps its a gay father and his son,or a gay mother and her adopted/birthed daughter who may or may not also be lesbian.

i would not call them kids but teens but the poster could be better.

some how were queer were here and we are armed with Fabulous gear might have been more along the lines of there standard slogans

Haven't seen these yet.

I'll try and keep you posted on what the people of Seattle think about it.

reply to post by darkbake


People can choose whatever they want to be, but those posters, as another member indicated, do show what seems to be at least one minor. Those posters seem to propose that it is ok to be a pedophiliac, and have sex with minors... That I do have a BIG problem with... Pedophilia is not a right, and imo every person who sexually abuses a minor, and even entices a minor to have sex should be castrated, and never allowed to be close to a child.

reply to post by darkbake


I've been meaning to comment on this one for awhile, glad its still on the easily-accessible homepage. This is exactly the kind of thing I mention when people ask "which party" I support, or when Reps call me a "liberal" or Dems say, "oh are you one of those tea party republican types?"

Like many across the first couple pages of replies have indicated, I fit neither, mainly bbecause both parties feel that in one area or another, their opinion should trump the Constitution, US Values in general, and plain ol' common sense.

Don't tell me you're a conservative if you're against any form of "gay equality" (whether marriage or otherwise.) if you're FOR government limiting the rights of individuals to live as they choose, you are a liberal. And Dems, if you're FOR government taking away the right to bear arms, then, much like the Republican who thinks his or her personal opinion, religious or moral beliefs trump the Constitution. Of the United States of America, you too are little more than an anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing crybaby.

The nonsense of these anti-Constitution types needs to be called out. Sure, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but in the US, your opinion means absolutely nothing if it runs contrary to the Constitution. I think anytime sommeone says either "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry", of "guns should be banned", anyone in earshot should point at that person and loudly yell, "Anti-American!", etc. In either example above, they should then have to stand in front of the crowd and proclaim, "My name is _______, and I despise the Constitution of the USA, all who have died, and all who have labored to build and preserve this nation, and I will now head home to pack my bags for my move to [fill in chosen dictatorship, communist, or theocratic nation here]. If they don't, it is the responsibility of the real Americans around them to continue the ridicule, in an unbroken chain everywhere the person goes, for as long as it can be maintained.

Originally posted by darkbake

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Slugworth

 

Take any issue you can think of and see if the major points of view are covered by either democrats or republicans and you will see that they more than likely are.

Well yeah the issues are covered by Democrats or Republicans, but there are multiple issues. What if I like helping the poor, like gun ownership, like gay marriage, want to help Hispanics and other immigrants, but don't think recycling or electric cars actually reduce pollution?

Or what if I don't like gays, and don't like guns? That is totally opposite of what I think, by the way.

But the fact is, I do like gays, and I do like guns, so that already puts me in nowhere land. As most of my moderate opinions do.

I am saying that the different combinations of issues are not represented by only two parties. Basing one's opinion on a political party's preset binary choices on multiple issues instead of thinking about it only puts limits on what this country can achieve. More political parties would mean more choices.

More political parties would mean more discussion, more thinking, less political laziness.

edit on 26-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Its kind of a mess, and you are certainly right in your post here, however, many of those issues are smaller issues, and don't come down to whether the government should trample rights protected by the Constitution. The "gays and guns" issues shouldn't even be issues. Neither party, even with filibuster-proof control of Congress and the presidency, can do anything to quash either, at least nothing Constitutional, and nothing which shouldn't require the military to step in and remove them all from office for trying to subvert the Constitution.

Electric cars, tax rates at different income levels, welfare, interstate highways, etc...those things can be up for debate. Unfortunately, they're not, because DC is bogged down in nonsense which has no place in the USA, as both rights (pursuit of happiness and bearing arms) are already guaranteed, and no lumbering elephant or jackass has any right to even broach the subject of banning either - at least not without being clearly taken for an enemy of the nation.

reply to post by dogstar23


Yeah you are totally right. Was is happening (at least to me) is, there is a lot more fear. The world you describe (which existed before) was one where there wasn't fear and people had freedom.

These days, I'm not so sure that people even know what they want for themselves - or if they are simply saying a bunch of lines because they are afraid of not fitting in.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Slugworth

 

Unfortunately, there are not enough issues like this to qualify a third party. 95% of issues fall under either democrat or republican which is why our system will always be dominated by the two.

Its possible that something may happen that allows a third party to run on a single issue but the odds of that are pretty low.

I wouldn't count on that at all.
The Republican results last time showed that the younger generations are not connecting with the right-wing elements of the "traditional religious" opinions of the Republican party. They have to evolve, or somehow convince millions of teens right now that gay rights are wrong, that religion is good, that guns are excellent... they're not likely to do that.

The only way the Republican party can remain a viable contender in national elections is through evolution of the party, but the core religiously conservative will not go along with that.

This will mean a likely split in the party, so you'll end up with the natural course that many other nations have taken... a liberal party, a conservative party with a focus on fiscal conservatism, and then a fringe party with religious views.

The only way the Republican party can survive in the evolving American society is by becoming more centrist, and this will mean ejecting the religious aspect.

This is actually a great thing for the public, because it will mean the funding for both a conservative Republican party and a more right-wing Republican party will be split and less effective. You'll have the religious groups donating the the more extreme, with no chance of them actually having much impact at all, and you'll have a more moderate Republican party able to compete properly with the Democrats.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that Republican party and its core religious beliefs are failing, because the public is evolving. They will have to adapt or become obsolete.

As for the ads, they're interesting but seem to be deliberately provocative. I would say this is just a local group trying to make a point, but it seems a little misguided in my opinion. If serious, I don't think the majority would understand it at all.

I'd like to point out that in my last post, on the previous page, I had no intention of offering another stereo type for lesbian couples. I was relating my real life experience with real lesbians I personally knew over the years.


I'm sure there are many lesbians that look like models, but not here in my neck of the woods - just saying.

You mean people are catching on to the notion that their liberty is everyone's liberty?

It's about damn time.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I certainly hope so.

My liberty is inherently tied to yours.
Without your freedom I cant hope to retain mine.

The profound idea that conservatives should ideologically support gay marriage made me think of this song, which addresses a similar gap in hip hop culture regarding gay acceptance. The song points out that hip hop is a "culture founded from oppression" yet tends to be openly hostile to another group that is facing an on-going civil rights struggle. It also addresses the connection between civil rights for gays and civil rights for ALL, expressed in the lyric:

I might not be the same but that's not important
No freedom 'til we're equal, Damn right I support it

The video is very good, and I particularly love the scene with the main character on his death bed, his partner by his side. If viewed outside of the context of the rest of the video one would not even assume that they are a couple. They look no different from any other pair of long-time friends saying their goodbyes. If not for the context provided by the rest of the video it could be two heterosexual buddies who love each other asexually. I think it is a powerful image.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck

 

I got an awfully cute lesbian friend back in Reno that you wouldn't be able distinguish from a college cheerleader.

I'm Hispanic. First language is Spanish too. But because I have white skin people always say "you don't look Hispanic". To which I reply, "What exactly does a Hispanic look like?"

Excellent! They look beautiful and Argentinian.