Whose rights would you be willing to give up to get Dems back in power?

[Onlooker]

Poll question: Whose rights would you be willing to give up to get Dems back in power?

[indigo]

1. Where is

"none of the above"

[TommyO]

5. Exactly my thoughts...

Nobody should, or needs to, give up their rights to get a Democratic majority back in power.

[foreigncorrespondent]

36. Unfortunately though...

...there are a nameless group of DUers who believe that the LGBTIQQ community should take a seat on the back of the bus in order to get Democrats elected.

[Jersey Ginny]

186. We already sit in the back seat

I'm concerned we are going in the oven.

[H2O Man]

21. I think that "other" can equal "none of the above."

I am willing to cut back on the rights of neoconservatives to send other people's children to kill and die in their wars.

[noiretextatique]

133. amen to that

:applause: we can start by repealing the scotus ruling that installed bush, inc.

[Joyce78]

172. Other

That's how I viewed "Other" also.

[Hobarticus]

35. We all hang together, or we all hang seperately... eom

[jdj]

149. where are heterosexuals and white males????

Hey, isn't it their turn to be oppressed?

[blondeatlast]

161. Why, they are the most oppressed form of life on the planet...

You really need to listen to Rush more!

:sarcasm:

[BlueIris]

209. BEST. POST. EVER.

I was just coming to post that, actually, but thankfully, a smart DUer beat me to it. That's one way to bring more women to the table, and condemn the gross discrimination still being foisted on everyone else outside this category. Got to love the DU think-tank.

[FloridaPat]

2. But the definition of a Democrat is someone who does fight for all

those people! You have the republican poll.

I will give up my right to rant and rave about Bush if the Democrats get back in power. It will be hard.

[Solly Mack]

3. It's not "democratic" to give up anyones rights for the sake of power

Not very democratic at all...

[whistle]

4. how about adding a none of the above

[jeff30997]

6. Other.

The right to be a rich moronic asshole in the White-house.

[Telly Savalas]

7. What's the point of this poll?

[bryant69]

8. Huh?

Why should we have to give up those rights?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[beam me up scottie]

9. Other = none

nt

[Solly Mack]

15. Notice the 5 votes to do away with rights?

I shall refrain from calling those cowards homophobic pieces of shit.

[sui generis]

20. I admire your restraint!

:hi: :rofl:

[Solly Mack]

24. It wasn't easy

:)

[beam me up scottie]

27. Good idea.

You wouldn't want to insult any closet guckert wanna-bes...
Why, that would be insensitive!

[Solly Mack]

30. Yes, and I believe in being sensitive to the feelings of low-life garbage

I would never want to insult those piss poor excuses for human beings.

It just wouldn't be me.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Oh, I know.

We should really pity those pathetic, delusional, ferret faced, miserable, stupid pukes with eyes.

[Solly Mack]

34. That's downright poetic!

[beam me up scottie]

41. Thanks!

Just when you think you've met the stupidest motherf*cker on the face of the planet, another one always comes along...
:banghead:

[Solly Mack]

44. LOL! Ain't that the truth!

I notice that other thing is still up. Course, it is still early across the pond..so maybe it'll be deleted soon.

[beam me up scottie]

52. LOL!

I almost forgot about it, can you BELIEVE that?
Sometimes I wish this wasn't a virtual forum, most of these guys wouldn't dare say something like that in front of dozens of women.
He would be torn to shreds...

[Solly Mack]

53. True....wouldn't last a minute saying that to our faces

kinda like the cowardly people on this poll.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Yep.

A couple of months ago I would have sworn this poll was being freeped.
Now I'm not so sure. I spent the last couple of weeks trying to forget the hatred that was evident on the minuteman threads.

[Solly Mack]

55. Between you, me and the gate post (all of them)

I don't think it's being freeped either.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Got Raid?

[Solly Mack]

59. lol!

I call'em "Zell Miller Democrats"

They're registered as Democrats but they enjoy Republican talking points so much they don't mind singing in the Republican choir.

which in my book... :)

[beam me up scottie]

67. *Snort*

"Why of course I'm a democrat who believes in civil rights; just as long as they don't give them to those people."

Right...
:mad:

[CTLawGuy]

71. It's called the DLC

these are people so afraid of being labelled as liberal that they'll sell anyone out to avoid it.

Are you surprised about this when our last presidential candidate:

-voted for the Patriot Act
-voted to allow Bush to go to war (despite famously serving in another unnecessary war)
-supported most of bush's tax cuts (despite voting against them)
-refused to rule out supporting a MA ban on gay marriage

[beam me up scottie]

75. Actually, I'm not.

Sell-outs have always been around.
I fail to understand what Senator Kerry's positions, whether we agree with them or not, have to do with that.

[CTLawGuy]

77. I believe Kerry's

stands on those issues were tactical moves to the right to try to get the mythical "middle" and win the election.


Giving up rights is a typical way of moving to the middle... ie Gay marriage.

[beam me up scottie]

80. That may well be,

however I still see no correlation between his campaign and bigots who consider themselves to be democrats.
Do you really believe that racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots form their opinions based on their party's most recent presidential candidate?

[CTLawGuy]

85. no, thats not what i said

both kerry and these people are reacting to the same philosophy of "If we don't rock the boat too much, compromise, and smile then we'll win!"

I don't think anyone voting to give up rights really opposes those rights, but they are under the false impression that the entire country is against them and that you can't get their votes without also appearing to be against them.

[beam me up scottie]

91. Alright.

I agree that is perhaps the reason some du'ers may have voted for that option in this poll, but I was talking about the presence of intolerance on DU as evidenced by the minuteman threads.

[CTLawGuy]

92. ah ok

I gotcha.

I truly don't think John Kerry really wanted war in Iraq, but he was just trying to be politically expedient. And some people here may be acting that way as well.

[beam me up scottie]

107. I really hope so.

It's wrong, IMO, to abandon any of our brothers or sisters just because some people think it might cost us votes, but it's much worse if some DU'ers actually find it acceptable to ignore anyone's civil rights because of their own intolerance.

BTW, I like your avatar.
I'm originally from Vermont and I don't think Dr. Dean would allow anybody to be left behind.

[CTLawGuy]

110. Dean would not leave anyone behind

he put his neck on the line in an ELECTION YEAR to fight for the rights of VT gay couples. I remember meeting him in DC at the College Dems conference in 2000 and personally thanking him for signing the bill.

You have to go back to LBJ for bravery like that.

[beam me up scottie]

113. Yes, he is

one hell of a guy. I was living in my home state when all that was happening. He refused to give in to the homophobes and bible-thumpers and when it came time for him to sign the bill, he didn't rub their noses in it (I would have, but that's me). I couldn't have been more proud of my Governor.

[foreigncorrespondent]

37. ROFLMAO

I could not have said it better myself. :)

[Solly Mack]

40. and I'm usually such a soft spoken lass

(precious pup snicker)

[GiovanniC]

45. I Agree

I will not point out that these short-sighted, ignorant, rat bastard dumbfuck pieces of dog shit are metaphorically selling the car to get gas money.

I will also not call them short-sighted, ignorant, rat bastard dumbfuck pieces of dog shit.

[Solly Mack]

49. That's awfully kind hearted of you to not point that out!

LMAO

[FormerDittoHead]

10. How about ending the "war on guns"...

which has failed as the "war on drugs"...

..take that away from the Right we'll have all our majorities back...

[spooked911]

11. How about the rights of rethuglicans?

[goodboy]

12. none.

[radwriter0555]

13. NONE. How DARE you? NO one's rights should be usurped, ever. How dare

you? What the hell is wrong with you?

What a terrible premise.

And shame on anyone who voted for any of these horrendous suppositions.

[kitkatrose]

31. I'm going to guess that this is a response

to the thread in LBN about a Dem who switched sides on the parental notification bill. I really hope he/she doesn't really think this and feh on those who voted the way they did.

[ck4829]

14. NONE. If we become like the RW then the RW has won!

[sui generis]

16. wow - pay attention homophobes:

how about giving up your own rights instead of everyone else's.

and "gay rights" are not gay rights. If you discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation you can fire them for being straight. Doesn't sound like a gay right to me.

If you can determine that only non-gay people can get married or approximate marriage, sooner or later you will have to have a test for gayness, or else Real Estate Investment Trusts that have exclusively same sex investors will have to be dissolved. Doesn't sound like a "gay right" to me.

[Deja Q]

163. I'm gay and I voted for gay rights. Another reason why:

Not an easy decision, but thanks to 2004 you know the repukes will bring up the topic at just the right time. Part of their "moral values" chicanery.

So, yeah, let's drop it. And pick it up later. But it is divisive and an issue that some will solely use against the Democratic party.

And none of this was easy to say either.

[sui generis]

217. but Hypnotoad

you have to realize that if not supporting gays is a winning strategy, then the democratic party will end up never supporting gays. If it's a weakness now, it will always be a weakness.

We're letting them frame the issue. We need to fight better, not give up. Stand up for yourself, because you can be 100% certain that no one else is obligated to if they don't want to.

[demnan]

17. It's a good point you are making in this poll

I'm tired of the Democrats pandering to cave in on the reproductive rights of women. Screw them. I'll become greennan if they don't watch out.

On edit,

What disturbs me is that people are actually making a selection in this poll. Hey I ain't cashing in on my gay and black brothers ans sisters to get the dems in power. As I said, the dems can screw themselves.

[sui generis]

18. we're being freeped - these poll results do not represent DU

anyone?

[indigo]

23. ITA

The five-voters-in-hiding are just trying to keep the contention going because of a recently deleted thread.

[sui generis]

26. well there is no contention

just lurkers and the rest of us.

I'm sure if there was a perfectly logical reason to put forth they'd be happy to step up and explain. We're waiting . . . (sound of foot tapping)

[gollygee]

50. I agree

at least most of the voters must be freepers.

I can't believe anyone would answer this poll with anything other than "other" meaning NONE

[Djinn]

196. after the election

there were HEAPS of posts here saying that Dem's needed to "shut-up" about "gay rights" (can someone explain which rights are being proposed for gay folk that no-one else has????) or about reproductive choice or about the bullshit war on terror.

It's not a freep thing it's about people who identify more with the NAME Democratic Party than any generally held liberal views. If a Dem is in the Whitehouse then all is good in the world according to them, they don't seem to care what those Dem's actually stand for - hence Bill Clinton.

[Bridget Burke]

19. Other = "None" in my case.

Are the homophobes real DU'ers or visitors from elsewhere?

[Inland]

22. ROFL! As if you have "rights to give up" with repugs in power!

Hi-LAR-rious. Doesn't anybody remember where we are and how much things suck? Is it really the best time to begin a vague list of demands that have to be satisfied before the republicans can be removed?

[DS1]

25. None at all. To even suggest otherwise is counterproductive.

n/f/t

[sui generis]

28. come out come out where ever you are . . . .

Those of you who failed this test of democratic integrity, please give us your reasons. You must be very proud of them . . .

[lukasahero]

29. Other = none

Since it wasn't an option on your poll but it's the only option for me.

Just let me add that I am appalled that there are people here voting to sacrifice anyone's rights and agape that people have actually clicked the "gays" choice. Sorry but that's not right.

[etherealtruth]

33. Like everyone else.... NO ONE's

I would even defend the rights of the craziest "right wing fundie" to believe what they want and act as crazed as they need to, with in the law. Hopefully that's what separates us from them.

[Demit]

38. I seriously question the OP's motives for this post.

I've seen this question before on DU. I don't understand why it is being asked, except to introduce the premise that some rights should be considered okay to give up. I think that's despicable, and I call out Onlooker to explain himself.

[sui generis]

72. just now read OP's explanation

I agree, but it is interesting what kind of insect and slime-mold life it's pulled out of the woodwork.

There are no "rights" of non-discrimination you can be against for any group that can't be used against you even if you don't belong in that group.

We don't have a clear definition of anything in this society that permits discrimination, i.e., what is the real "test" for gayness? Or for being "black", or "native American", given that unless you can prove a pure pedigree you can basically claim to be anything if you work hard enough at it.

So if non-discrimination based on sexual orientation is too "gay" and you're willing to give it up, you can be fired for being straight. By your straight boss. And collect no unemployment, COBRA, or retirement, AND lose your 401K vesting.

If you think that discrimination against illegals is okay, then maybe the local born adult children of those "illegals" should have no rights either, since they are here as a result of illegal activity. That's a whole shitload of people in the southwest.

I can't believe that the respondents to this poll are really democrats, and if they are, they sure aren't very proud of themselves.

[Demit]

83. Yes. For those voters & readers of this thread, this bears repeating:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

--Pastor Martin Niemöller


I hope they'll understand what this means in our present day.

[Sapphire Blue]

178. An updated version...

Then They Came for Me

by Stephen F. Rohde, Esq.


First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.

Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.

Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.

Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.

Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.

Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.

Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.

Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up.


Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of Southern California, is indebted to the inspiration of Rev. Martin Niemoller (1937).

http://www.janrainwater.com/htdocs/Rohde.htm

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. Flame bait!

No one should have to give up their rights in order to get officials elected to office. But I do know of some who believe us queers need to shut up so they can get their elected officials in office.

And no,I didn't vote in your poll. I'm not American, so I won't be giving up anything (even though my partner is American.)

[Fifth of Five]

42. No one's rights

are on the auction block as far as I am concerned.

This is a ridiculous question. If we are willing to sacrifice people's rights for power, how are we better than the opposition?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leesa]

46. None. Why should we become evil like the Republicans?

Why would you give up your ethics to win? Why do you single out one civil rights issue vs another?

[Mandate My Ass]

47. Ah, the first misogynist has shown up

I know there are more here. The place was crawling with them last November.

[Lars39]

48. Their not exactly thin on the ground.

Quite a few crawled out on a LI breast cancer thread.

[tyedyeto]

51. Other = no rights to be taken away from anyone. n/t

[Dorian Gray]

56. I refuse to vote in this poll.

Nobody should have to give up any rights.

[Onlooker]

58. Since DemItAllAnyway asked the reason for this poll ...

As a gay man, married a year ago in Massachusetts, I shudder to think that prominent Democrats are calling on the Party to be more flexible on civil rights issues--including abortion and gay rights. Already, the party is "more flexible" on affirmative action, protection of the poor, and immigrant rights.

The intent of the poll was to raise awareness that some of us are prepared to give up the rights of others. I think some liberals are not thinking the issue through. We may lose rights as a result of a Republican majority, but what's the point of losing rights as a result of a Democratic majority?

The Democratic Party has to return to educating people and making the case for civil rights. When it did that most aggressively, it was very successful.

I myself did not vote in this poll.

[Solly Mack]

61. I didn't vote either.

[Demit]

82. Well, you did turn over the rock at DU, all right. I count 20 people who

would betray their fellow human beings in a specific way. Among the 21 who voted "other" were some who, facetiously or not, would betray their fellow human beings because they were Republicans.

It was a kind of trick question, a sort of entrapment--that is the most generous thing I can say about the people who took it seriously enough to answer it. The sad fact about entrapment is that it does draw out the type of person you only suspected were there. Sad statement about us, huh?

[MadHound]

60. And wtf is this happy horseshit all about anyway?

Don't you fucking get it, WE GIVE UP NOBODY'S RIGHTS, PERIOD! Geez why does this look like some sneachy DLC/New Dem push poll? Or freeper flamebait?

And the fact that there are thirteen people ready to throw our GLBT brothers and sisters to the wolves, and one who want women to join them is absolutely disgusting. I really, really hope those folks are trolls, otherwise . . .:puke:

[CrownPrinceBandar]

62. Nobody's. Equal rights for ALL..........

compromise on is this issue is not acceptable.

[Dr Fate]

63. Rush Limbaugh and Jeff Gannon's.

They belong in prison.

[Catholic Sensation]

64. other: the 35% who said gays and the idiot who said women

amazing, simply amazing.

[bklyncowgirl]

65. I'm not willing to give up anybodys rights.

I am willing to explain why these rights matter in ways that are different from what we are doing now if that will get the right wing lunatics out of office.

[CTLawGuy]

66. nobody's

Human rights are not for transfer or bargaining.


If we have to be like George Bush to win, then whats the point of winning?

[newyawker99]

68. Other=None n/t

[erichzann]

69. None. Rights are not mine to give away.

I'd rather be out of power and fighting for what is morally right than in power and morally bankrupt.

Thanks.

[rodeodance]

70. stupid poll

[all.of.me]

73. none of the above

maybe the right of republicans to run for office. ;)

[tjwash]

74. I can't believe there were votes for any of these.

We still have a looooong ways to go it appears.

[Lone Pawn]

76. Well, since I've never been convinced affirmative action has done any

actual good to either the DNC or America, I voted for that. I mean, there are plenty of individual cases where it did good, and a plenty of individual cases where it fucked over all parties involved.

But as for colleges, even though affirmative action polices have been in place for 40 years, the number of black college students remains proportionately lower. College dropout rates are disproportionately high for black students, in part because many black students are let into schools in situations where white students would have rightly been rejected as being of insufficient academic caliber. In the only study done on college graduation rates as related to AA, it was found that black graduation rates would rise by about 7% if AA were ended. (Richard H. Sander, A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools, 57 STAN. L. REV. 367 (2004))

Moreover, unless anyone has statistics to prove me wrong, the black poverty rate has not changed appreciably since affirmative action was instated.

I know I have an unpopular opinion on this in DU, but while AA has a lot of good arguments, I've never seen any evidence that it does any good.

[frictionlessO]

116. WOW!! You've got big brass ones thats for sure Lone Pawn!

I'll actually disagree with you on this, but not with stats and figures. Just 6 friends I have that made it in on AA and through college and have lended me money and support because for a long time they were way better off than I was.

Anecdotal and Im sorry 'cause I know you don't like those for debate... but thats just me.

Hey at least you came out and said what you voted for and why, but your still wrong! lol:P

[Lone Pawn]

120. Well, thanks for the compliment, and

I certainly don't deny that it's helped quite a few people. But it's also certainly kept an equal number of people out of their first choice of school, and it's thrown quite a few people into academic or professional situations that they're not quite suited to. For example, I don't know if we have more black doctors because they get into better schools more frequently, or if we have fewer because too many black students got into schools too highly competitive than they would be suited for, grew discouraged, and dropped out of medicine--which would mean that every classroom seat they took in medical school before dropping out would have been more or less a waste to the academic community.

Anyway, I certainly don't know if the net effect is positive or negative. I've never seen conclusive data either way. But I do know that if I was Dictator of the DNC and I were given the opportunity to remove a program that may or may not be a benefit in order to implement programs that would certainly be benefits (that is, to assure that Democrats retake the Senate and/or House and be given the ability to impliment the rest of our progressive agenda) I would do it in an instant. Of course, the question then arises:

How much does AA hurt us with moderates and conservatives, and in removing it from out platform would we make sufficient electoral gain to justify abandoning it?

That's a much more pressing point to argue, I think, and I'm undecided, but leaning towards abandonment. However, since the question was "WHICH WOULD YOU REMOVE TO PUT US IN POWER?" I think that the question also presupposes that removing one WOULD put us in power--or, on the other hand, could be asking "If you were to drop one, which would it be?"

[More Than A Feeling]

128. I would like to concur on that opinion.

I read of that study as well. I would also like to add that I don't believe that affirmative action, as such, is a right. Rather it is a policy, or a program, and someday it can and should be ended. Whether that is now is certainly debatable, but of those choices, that should be the first and hopefully only to go.

on edit: I would further note that there are other ways than affirmative action to help african-americans, such as reforming the justice system, that I would wholeheartedly support.

[ecstatic]

174. I guess you forgot, or don't care to realize

That affirmative action has and will continue to benefit white women the most.

[XemaSab]

78. I think we should

throw the gays to the wolves.

/sarcasm

Now HONESTLY, who voted against civil rights for gays???? Would you vote against cilvil rights for women or black people? Now why are the gays not worth defending?

Like women and blacks, they didn't choose to be gay, and they're not hurting anyone, so why not stand up for them?

[Quixote1818]

79. This poll makes an interesting point. If we want to win we may have to

pick and choose what rights we are going to fight for first. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he wrote in a part about ending slavery but the discretion of his southern colleagues struck it out. This disagreement could have ended the Revolution all together but Benjamen Franklin, a man of wisdom recommended the fight to end slavery would have to come later and the important thing was to gain independence at that point. If Democrats want to get back into office we may have to pick and choose on whose rights we fight for this time around. Once we are in power then perhaps we can pick up the fight again for those rights put on the back burner this time.

[sui generis]

88. but "rights" aren't the issue

by even responding to that framework we've already lost. We're not about picking and choosing "rights". Moral clarity dictates inclusiveness, and "moral values" are the values of standing up for the rights of individuals regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, or political or religious beliefs.

It's not hard to stand behind that 100%. We lose if we let them tell us what part of that is acceptable to support.

[Quixote1818]

180. Sorry, you are living in a dream world

That's not the way the game is played. Look at how dirty the Right plays and thats why they win. Gay Marriage basically lost this last election for us in Ohio. They used it as a wedge issue. Clinton knew how to play the game and win. He pushed for many more rights for Gays but opposed Gay Marriage. You can't tell me Clinton really cares if Gays get Married! He understood where the electorate was at that particular time. It's sad but sometimes you HAVE to play the game to win. Thats just reality!

Better example: You can't run for Gov. of Alabama on a Progressive platform unless you want to get trounced! You have to moderate your stances on things sad as that may seem. Thats just reality.

[Pushed To The Left]

185. Instead of appeasing the bigoted voters

why don't we just outsmart them? It shouldn't be too hard..the right wing has been taking advantage of their stupidity for years to get them to vote against their own self-interest! I know that sounds a bit harsh, but I have no respect for bigotry.

[Demit]

205. When there are leaders who regard leading our country as more than a game

they find more followers. People are drawn to people with true principles; they inspire us. We've had those leaders in the past. I don't know who we have now. What we have instead are people who think it is a "game", who are playing with other people's lives so that they themselves can "win". Win what? Win access to personal power and wealth, I suppose. But America, the great ideal of what America was supposed to be--what we used to strive to be--loses.

[sui generis]

213. sorry you are the one living in the dream world

We didn't fight right on "gay" marriage. Get your terminology straight. It's same-sex marriage. If you want to claim moral high ground you lose when you agree that same sex marriage is a moral issue at all. That's reality. We lost because of a failure of moral clarity and a failure of leadership, not because of gays in the party.

You don't play a game to win by using a strategy to win that you can't reclaim. I guess you suck at chess.

[junkiebrewster]

81. how about the rights of RWers?

I'll willingly sacrifice the rights of all RWers to get the Dems back in power. Deport 'em all.



:sarcasm: or maybe not....

[surfermaw]

84. Not even on right, to the re publicans...The table will turn

Shortly, when the ignorant in the south wake up to the fact that they are voting to cut their own throats, they will change. Matter of fact I see some of the good people who thought,the democrats would keep thing running smoothly even though they voted for republicans are waking up, I heard one Southern Baptist giving Frist hell over religion just this morning, it is still in the south's head that they are voting states rights, and segeration....Let Bush stick it to the south as he did with Bankruptcy and Credit Cards and the south will do an about face.

[LynnTheDem]

86. Other = NONE.

I'm a liberal, not a republican.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

90. And I second that....

whole-heartedly.

[Cash]

87. Maybe some people are playing the percentages.

Women make up half the population, so you really don't want to ignore them. No one (to this point) has voted to take rights away from the poor. Both parties are fighting over a growing number of immigrants who are to become close to half the population in the coming years. And African Americans (currently the largest minority) vote heavily Democratic. I'm just venturing to guess that since the "Gay" community, as outlined in this poll, make up the smallest percentage of actual voting bodies of those being considered, that statistics might indicate that if you had to choose, that would be the one that would have the least amount of overall effect.

I'm just throwing this out as an idea, just thinking out-loud, so to speak. I've got no evidence to prove that's why the votes are as they are one way or the other.

[sui generis]

89. no, I think we just have lurkers aboard or else people who

haven't really thought through what being a democrat means.

If you throw out any of that stuff, it's really hard to tell how you differ from a republican.

[Cash]

98. I know people who are Democrats....

... (who continue to be active supporting Democratic Party candidates) and have been longer than I've been alive who hold views on social and economic issues that are a stark contrast to what the majority of those at this site hold, so I for one am not ready or even willing to define for them or anyone else "what being a democrat means" or to even suggest they "haven't really thought through" various issues. I'm not interested in discussing specifics on this, just pointing out that I'm not gonna go there.

[sui generis]

100. I am quite willing to define it

my vote doesn't count any less than an old timer's.

And if there's not difference between the two parties, the only thing they can count on is that I won't vote for either, and I won't be alone in that.

If either "conservative" side wants my vote, they had damn well better court my vote.

[Cash]

108. Exactly my point.

The old timer would say the same thing.

Here's another point to consider. The 5 issues mentioned in this poll plus "other" is not, to me at least, making a point beyond what we already know. If all Democrats agreed completely on all 5 of these issues, there would be another 5 this pollster could have injected which would have the same results. In other words, there's always going to be those who are going to make "a" particular issue "the" issue for them, and if the Party doesn't take their side, or as in your case if they see both parties as having no difference on the issue, then like you they'll claim they'll walk.

Point being if it weren't for these 5, there'd be another 5, and after that another 5, and all just as important to party members as these 5. There's always going to be those issues. Always.

We're getting off subject. My only point was that some might be thinking "If I had no choice but to toss one in order to save the whole, which would I choose?", which to me might be what's going on. But again, I don't know for sure.

Anyway, that's enough on this for me. Best to you.

[sui generis]

112. I understand what you're saying

but at least for me particularly and many people who proudly identify themselves as "liberal", issues of personal freedom and anti-discrimination are not acceptable babies to throw out with any bathwater.

Once you've decided that "gay rights" (I don't like that term, see my other posts above) are politically expendable, there is nothing that dictates that you would ever relinquish that idea. Same goes for anything else the party is willing to expend to stay ahead. To be successful, you do more of what works and less of what doesn't, and if you've decided abandoning liberal issues is what's working then you're never voluntarily going to support those issues again. If the democratic party wants to rid itself of liberals, then that is exactly what will happen, and the democratic party will NEVER win another election. When Democrats distance themselves from social issues, they may attract some moderate voters from the Republican side, but they will lose their liberal base and that could be a total wash, creating a real three party system for the first time ever, with the third party being the "Progressive" party.

Fortunately, at least for now, the democratic party is a mostly liberal democracy.

[DanCa]

93. other none

[shockra]

94. Let's give up the rights of rich white men.

They have too many.

[Radical Activist]

95. The fact that you didn't include rights of working people & unions

says a lot. Rights from those groups are the ones given up the most often thanks to corporate Democrats. Unions are supposed to just suck it up and go with electability while choice groups demand 100% conformity to their views.

[Az]

96. The only answer that makes sense to this question is: Your rights

That should put things in the proper perspective.

[Bluebear]

97. NONE! What a revolting idea!

[begin_within]

99. The rights of SUV owners and Hummer owners.

[arwalden]

101. Wow! THIRTY Percent? Thirty Fucking Percent ?!?!?!?!?!

Who are all these people who think that equal rights and equal protections for homosexuals are negotiable or disposable?

WHO ARE YOU? And WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

I think I'll BOOKMARK this thread. The next time someone tries to tell me that there "everyone" here fully supports equal rights and equal protections and equal benefits for homosexuals, we'll have this amazing poll to show differently.

Apparently DU is full of stealth bigots! Just look at the numbers!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

118. I really think this is a trend on the left, not just some DU freeping

In the latest issue of Counterpunch, the author Joe Bageant who inspired a long thread here in GD about poor white folks has another bigoted diatribe this month...he cloaks it in the economic issues of poor whites in rural areas, but it is a bigoted screed.

Then we have the Di-Fi's buying into the "gays cost us the election shit", the Howards and Hillary's pandering to the religious bigots and the like.

I fear it's a trend.

[Catholic Sensation]

119. did you forget the threads regarding clinton's idiotic advice to kerry

how he should support anti-gay marriage amendments in battleground states, and a host of people supported Clinton's bigotry? One post in particular called for Democrats to start proposing these amendments.

[readmoreoften]

138. It's high time we faced that not EVERY poll is being freeped

in the exact same proportions of about 25%. Maybe the hard truth is that 25% of DUers are actively willing to sacrifice us. So, about 90% of our enemies and 25% of our so-called friends.

I think just maybe rights are something we're going to have to take and not beg for.

[Catholic Sensation]

183. I never bought the idea that DU polls with results some of us dislike are

"freeped." Too many people on this board are democrats first and liberals second. I would gladly vote for a pro-choice/pro gay rights Republican who is good on the environment over some Democrat like Nelson of Nebraska who is "liberal" on labor issues and awful on everything else. Others on this board seem to believe party affiliation is more important than the issues.

[Djinn]

197. not wanting to hijack at all

and I mean this without any ill-will - but as someone who agrees that no-one rights should be curtailed to win elections, isn't a bit contradictory to have JP2 as your avatar, he was pretty keen on fucking up the rights of women and gay people.

Jesus in the sigline fair enough, don't believe he ever called anyone intrinsically evil but the Pope was an ardent supporter of moves to restrict the rights of women and gay people and hinder any progress made in these areas?

Just curious

[LostinVA]

206. All of those who voted to take away MY rights make me SICK

You don't deserve to call yourself Democrats or Progressives or Liberals. You are nothing but selfish fucks who don't mind throwing someone else under the train for your own good.

Jesus. This makes me SICK.

[depakid]

102. This poll is an example of why the Dems don't deserve

to be in power- and also the very reason why they are not- and probably won't be for the foreseeable future.

[In_The_Wind]

103. No rights should be given up and the Democrats should be back !

[RetroLounge]

104. Other

NONE OF THE ABOVE!

RL

[tokenlib]

105. Corporate welfare and tax breaks..

We've been losing ground since Reagan. It's time for the conservatives and Democrats for the Leisure Class to lose..

No surrender and NO forgiveness for dems on the bankruptcy bill vote.
If Democrats fail to stand up for working people--like the dem leadership failed on bankruptcy reform--they won't get back in the majority.

And to all who whine that we must vote for even a flawed dem before a repuke... I tend to agree with you. But I think support groups--unions, PAC's, etc should make it known publicly that their support of a candidate is under protest. These politicians need to be publically flogged --figuratively speaking--- when they betray the less fortunate and struggling working classes.

[ultraist]

106. Where are the 17 people who voted to give up Gay rights?

Interesting, that they voted but don't have the courage to post their position.

Either DU is crawling with freepers, moles, and trolls or there are people here who are hardcore DINOs.

Despicable.

[Dob Bole]

109. Nobody's rights, not even conservatives...

And that is what separates us from them.

[gulliver]

111. Nice framing, but unfortunately a BS poll in my opinion.

I'm against all of the rights you mentioned as they are understood in the extreme by their most radical supporters. All progressive rights have to be given their due based on simple ethical rules like "the most good for the most people." None of the rights you mention are in any danger of being thrown overboard by anyone but Republicans. So your poll is poorly premised.

The rights you ask about (and those you fail to ask about) should not be thrown overboard, but that doesn't go for some of their loudmouthed representatives. People who fight for their own rights to the point where they endanger the rights of others are assholes, and they can be done without. Somehow a few (thankfully few albeit loud) have gotten the idea that the selfish pursuit of their own political goals in extremis is akin to idealism. Nope. Just selfishness. Just foolishness.

[Gelliebeans]

114. your poll got me thinking

about inner prejudges and I think we all have them on some subconscious level even if most aren't willing to admit that.

Even on a conscious level most Democrats know better than to sell a minority group down the river for a few false votes.

Today it is our GLBT brothers and sisters that are the sacrificial lambs but who will it be tomorrow peeps?

We all have inherent bias but we need to look within ourselves to right the wrongs period.

I found this Implicit Association Test https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/measureyourattitudes.html

they have about 12 tests including one on Gays and Lesbians that don't take long to give us some insights to our own prejudice.

If your poll hasn't been freeped, then we really need to look within ourselves. <IMHO>

[MsTryska]

115. I'll take.....the Rights of Angry White Men

for $500 please, Alex.

[tom_paine]

117. Other: I would give NO ONE'S rights up to get Dems in power

If that were even possible in vote-rigged Bush-Occupied Aemerica.

[Lone Pawn]

121. A surprising number of people here

saying that they would prefer to let the Republicans run roughshod over the rights of all above groups than sacrifice one group to save the rights of the rest.

[Solly Mack]

123. Let me guess...straight white male?

Just asking...

[Lone Pawn]

124. Bisexual white male.

Why?

[Solly Mack]

126. You ever wonder why the rights of straight white males aren't ever

offered up as a sacrifice by politicians? Why their rights are not called "special rights"?

Have you ever considered the "whys" of all that?

[Lone Pawn]

127. Because that would be removing rights, which is not what we are doing.

Nobody, for example, is suggesting removing the rights of blacks to vote. We're considering not making "create gay marriage" a plank in the platform.

We're talking about ceasing to publically support giving additional rights to one of the above groups of people for an election cycle, which would then allow us to halt the actual rollback of rights which occurs under Republicans and redefine the terms of debate on the issue, at which point we can recommence equalizing rights.

Take, for instance, the Gay Marriage Backlash in the '04 election. The election was close enough that it's quite possible that had we not decided that an election year was the best time to begin a social movement, John Kerry would be president at the moment, and there would have been no reason for all the anti-gay marriage state-constitution amendments around the nation to exist. We actually lost ground in this war by pushing too hard. Wouldn't it have been smarter to, say, WAIT until we had taken power before pushing an unpopular but moral idea on the American people?

Now, I didn't vote for Gays, though that would have been my third choice. I would have voted first for Affirmative Action (see my reasoning in an earlier post,) second for Immigration, and third for Gay rights. And I would only abandon Affirmative Action, whereas I would merely suspend the other two. And no, I would not vote for abandoning all three.

[Solly Mack]

129. What additional rights? Marriage isn't an additional right

People already have that right. Gays are people too you know.Gays could legally and rightfully get married based solely on the rights in place if not for the bigotry of others. So it's not a special right or an additional right...it's just a matter of not discriminating against a segment of society.

It was never a question of additional rights for African Americans to vote...it was discrimination that prevented them from voting.

Same with voting rights for women...

These are NOT additional rights. The problem is a racist, sexist, and bigoted country.

The amendments (to vote) only insured a right that was already theirs but denied because of racism and sexism... Just righting a wrong.

[Lone Pawn]

130. By "additional rights" I mean "granting people rights which

they do not currently enjoy," which is quite different from "taking away rights currently enjoyed by people."

And gays, in most parts of the country, do not enjoy the right to marry.

[Solly Mack]

131. It's still not an additional right.....

and the only reason they don't enjoy it is because of ignorance and bigotry.


and by denying gays their right to marry, we are taking away rights they have but are denied on the basis of stupidity.

Why do you think reich wingers are so big on creating laws banning it?...because there existed no laws preventing it in the first place.

and that's a point many forget...no laws existed forbiding it in the first place..so the idiots had to come with with laws banning it....so they are in effect banning rights Gays already had

it's why they had to come up with a law defining marriage....cause no such law existed in the first place.

[Lone Pawn]

132. Whether it was technically legal or not,

the fact is I am just as unable to marry a man in Ohio now as I was two years ago as I was twenty years ago. They're not taking away rights, they're making it harder to grant them.

[Solly Mack]

136. Yes, they are taking away rights

Name the law that grants the right for straights to marry? Before DOMA...name that law granting straights the right to marry. You can't because it never existed. It never existed because getting married was a freedom no one questioned until it dawned on the idiots that there was no law making it illegal for gays to marry...so they had to invent one. And you don't call that discrimination? You don't call that taking away a right?

African Americans went to the polls after the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments...but they still couldn't vote. Jim Crow made damn sure of that. They made laws preventing African Americans from voting. ...even though laws existed saying they could.

The exact same right straights have to marry applied to Gays and Lesbians...only discrimination prevented it.

By inventing laws to ban gays from getting married and inventing laws to define marriage, those idiots are taking the right away from gays.

That's the whole point of creating the laws...to strip. to prevent. to take away...because legally, a gay persons right to marry held just as much legal weight as straight persons did...

[Lone Pawn]

150. It doesn't matter what laws exist,

what matters is what rights exist. Considering what rights supposedly exist by law is a purely intellectual exercise; what actually makes a difference in peoples' lives is which rights people actually enjoy. No court would grant same-sex marriage before DOMA or afterward. As such, the right to marry did not exist, despite their being no laws on it.

And finally, legally speaking, gays neither had nor did not have the right to marry, as federally, no judge had ever ruled either way. Legally, it was an unresolved issue.

Also, while it is never explicitly stated that straights may marry via US code, I would say
42USC416 has enough implied references that marriage exists.

[Solly Mack]

156. implied is good enough for straights

but that no law existed making it illegal for gays doesn't matter.


and I hardly think who gets what benefits determines the right of straights to marry..no law existed giving straights the right to marry...it was taken for granted. So effectively, gays are denied the full rights enjoyed by others simply because people presumed they had a right no law gave them and they never thought it would be challenged.

But I do find it interesting that you chose that particular code

http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS-1996MQC/7-7-1996.2.html

Honestly, if you can't see how it's denying rights I know of nothing that would ever change your mind other than you suffer the same fate you so willingly accept for others. Only, I can't wish that on you because I do support human rights for all. It's what makes people a Liberal.It's the very foundation of being a Liberal. So I'm sure you can understand how alien a concept is to a Liberal to suggest it's OK to sacrifice anyone's rights. It just isn't done.....not by a Liberal anyway.

[Lone Pawn]

176. It's certainly *denying* rights. I never claimed it wasn't.

I merely said it wasn't *stripping* rights from people, as that implied that they once enjoyed said rights. No court has ever ruled that they even had those rights in the first place--there just was nothing preventing them from being able to have those rights. Unfortunately, by the time people realized that gays *could* enjoy those rights, they were immediately barred from doing so. But since none had enjoyed those rights, those rights were not taken away, but merely withheld as they were before.

I don't accept that right either. I didn't vote for throwing away gay rights, and I never supported it in any form. All I did was claim that I thought there was a fundamental difference between stripping people of rights and denying them rights never granted.

And my initial post was just surprise that so many would rather see the Republicans destroy the rights of all groups than put the agenda of one group on hold for a single election cycle.

You're confusing me with a different enemy.

Oh, and I picked that section of the US code for the same reason Sen. Nickles did -- it's the section of the pre-DOMA US code that mentions marriage the most.

[Solly Mack]

198. Human Rights are NOT an agenda

and by your own words you admit the right was taken from them

"by the time people realized that gays *could* enjoy those rights, they were immediately barred from doing so. "

Thank you!

[beam me up scottie]

177. Well Solly, we wanted

to know who would sell out and why, now we know.
It really hurts me to see this done to gay people because MY friends would be the first to stand up for others if the situation were reversed.
I can't stand to watch this anymore. Today has been a shitty day right from the start.

[Solly Mack]

199. ((((((Beam))))))))

for the shitty day

[beam me up scottie]

211. Thanks, I needed that.

Two awesome and very appropriate quotes
I love them.

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

140. Straw man

:hi:

[Lone Pawn]

144. How?

When I'm saying the critical difference between not supporting gay marriage and institutionalizing discrimination against straight white males is failure to grant rights vs. the removal of rights, how is arguing over the definition of "removal of rights" a strawman? Usually when throwing around a fallacy buzzword, it helps if the fallacy applies.

[Swamp Rat]

147. I can't help you if you do not understand

"Usually when throwing around a fallacy buzzword, it helps if the fallacy applies." - Already an ad hominem.

ciao:hi:

[Lone Pawn]

152. Actually, that wasn't an ad hominem either.

Ad Hominem would be if I said, "You are a stupid liberal, therefore your point is incorrect."

Instead, I said "Your point does not apply, because what you referred to as a 'strawman' is actually the exact point being debated. As a result of this, the fallacy does not apply, which does not help your case and makes me suspect you're simply applying it without fully understanding the situation." This is not an ad hominem, as I am not using it as a logical step or justification.

Since you appear to have miscited two commonly-referenced logical fallacies, I continue to hold my opinion that you do not actually understand the fallacies. Note how since this is a conclusion drawn from evidence and not evidence from which to draw a conclusion, this is not an ad hominem argument.

[Swamp Rat]

157. :-D

"Ad Hominem would be if I said, "You are a stupid liberal, therefore your point is incorrect." - interesting choice... I see you! :D

[Lone Pawn]

173. Well, I don't know anything else about you,

save that you're presumably liberal ;)

[Swamp Rat]

187. heathen, actually

:D

sweet dreams

[ultraist]

165. Depriving a group their civil rights...IS "taking away"

Your spin, of "additional rights" or idea that depriving Gays of their RIGHTS is not "taking away" or "removing" any rights is absurd. Of course we are "taking away" we are DEPRIVING them of their civil rights.

[LostinVA]

207. By your logic, Blacks should have never been given the vote

These are NOT "special right." They are rights we deserve because other people have them. And, it's not just gay marriage, it's marginalizing gays into some repulsive fringe element, very akin to what the Nazis did to Jews during the mid to late 1930's. I don't want any fucking special rights, I want my rights that being a citizen gives me.

[Megami Kitsune]

153. is fighting illegal immigration removing someone's right?

Unless a person is willing to take the position that border/immigration controls are innately unjust, then what is wrong with enforcing immigration laws? Every country in the world tries to prohibit illegal immigration, so given the economic and social consequnces I am in favor of tough enforcement. How is this taking away a right, since no right to illegally immigrate is recognized?

Kitsune

[Lone Pawn]

154. How is that even related?

Nobody is referring to illegal immigration. Nobody. Nobody even referenced illegal immigration.

[benevolent dictator]

193. When we stop fighting for our rights

then the Republicans are free to remove them.

This "sacrifice their rights for the greater good" is bullshit. The Dems endless quest to appear "more mainstream" and "more centrist" is futile, all it does is push the "middle" to the right until the Democrats are all Republicans and the Republicans are all Fascists. No one seems to realize how many Leftists the Dems are losing to apathy (both parties are the same, so why bother voting?) and to third parties like the Greens and the Socialists.

Maybe instead of giving up rights, we should try running someone who isn't "Republican-Lite" for a change. I bet that if we had focused a ton on Kucinich before the primaries that Kerry would have won regardless of the Gay Marriage issue. If they had seen what a REAL liberal wanted to do, they wouldn't have been able to paint Kerry and Edwards as "the most liberal people ever who are going to turn our country into a communist state and we'll all starve and die and gay people will get married in the streets and they'll make abortions mandatory!!" </over-dramatization> Maybe if Democrats stood up for their policies and their platforms once in a while, they'd win. I'm sick of this "we'll win if we just move more righ- I mean center!" bullshit.

[NoPasaran]

122. None whatsoever

[Stinky The Clown]

125. No fucking 'give ups' when it comes to the rights of people

Not a fucking one am I willing to give up. There's other room for compromise, I suspect ... but not on rights.

[noiretextatique]

134. playing footsies with the rw is a part of the current problem

of the democratic party's lack of power. it is NOT a part of the solution.

[bvar22]

135. OTHER.

I am willing to sacrifice the right of Corporate Personhood.

I am willing to sacrifice the right of the VERY RICH to buy legislation.

I am willing to sacrifice the right of the RICH to escape their fair share of the Tax Burden.

I am willing to sacrifice the right of sociopaths to serve in our government.

[readmoreoften]

137. Hilarious, that 23% of the people chose gays.

Pretty much on many of the polls on DU, consistently 1/4 of DUers, the most progressive forum site on the web doesn't give a good goddamn about the survival of GLBT people.

This is the same exact amount of Catholics on DU who liked Ratzinger's appointment to Pope (which many said was freeped).

So, a heads up to all those who say NEVER ON DU, all progressives support gays blah blah blah. Crock a shit, eh mates?

How about willing to sacrifice the rights of straights? No more hospital visitations for you!

[Spider Jerusalem]

139. This poll is attracting a significant number of fuckwits as responders.

If you're willing to give up ANYONE'S rights, they should be YOUR OWN; otherwise, you aren't "giving up" anything, now are you?

Of course, the appropriate answer is "none of the above".

[Zenlitened]

141. Well, horseshit polls like this are DESIGNED to play DU for a sucker.

There's a word for this kind of post... flambé? No, that's not it. Um, flame-something. Hmmmmm...

[Swamp Rat]

142. Just yours

for asking the question. :D

[bemildred]

143. Well, I might be willing to give up yours.

But otherwise I don't think I'd be interested in that sort of deal.

[slackmaster]

145. None, nada, zero, zip, goose egg, null set, fuggeddaboudit!

I do not support Democrats (or anyone else) who wants to curtail anyone's rights.

[janx]

146. Why would this be necessary?

Where on earth did this come from?

[MisterP]

148. none: that would be like "Barbecue Babies to Defeat Bush"

and I'm not exaggerating.
At least 51% say "other," probably meaning "none"

[Vinca]

151. No offense, but stupid poll.

Whenever Dems regain power we're sure to become reacquainted with the rights we seem to be losing by the hour under the current regime. My biggest fear is Frist winning in 2008 and a total theocracy immediately taking hold. Of course, I hope to be comfortably ensconced in Canada by then.

[JanMichael]

155. Your's.

:-)

[Pithlet]

158. If we have to become like them

to win the fight, then we've lost. None of the above.

[Sapphire Blue]

159. If you asked me which of my children I would sacrifice to escape the Nazis

... I would have to answer that I would embrace all of my children fiercely, not sacrificing any of them. I would, instead, search for & find a successful escape route. The escape achieved in sacrificing a child is not a success, but a devastating loss.

In asking “Whose rights would you be willing to give up to get Dems back in power”, my answer would be the same… I would embrace everyone’s rights fiercely, not sacrificing any of them… and I would campaign & vote for candidates who would do the same. I wouldn’t want the others in power... their winning would be a devastating loss.



“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

- Martin Luther King Jr.

[arcos]

160. To the 29% who chose civil rights...

FUCK YOU!

[Deja Q]

162. Gay rights.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I dunno. I've always been a second class citizen; mistreated and misunderstood. Maybe I enjoy being used to the concept. But with more at stake, I must concede. (I also didn't like it when gay marriage conveniently became an issue by election 2004 time. Seemed a pretty dumb time to start crying out about that.)

[ultraist]

166. Taking a utilitarian approach on civil rights is Un-American

What portion of our Bill of Rights should we shred? What group should we treat as less than human?

What if the disabled were on that poll? Would people be willing to vote to overturn the ADA and allow the disabled to be treated as second class citizens?

When one groups' rights are denied we ALL are adversely eafected. I do NOT want my children going out into a society where it is LEGAL to treat "certain" groups of people as less than human.

I'm shocked to see so many here promote an unethical stand on civil rights.

[KnowerOfLogic]

195. Fine; give up the gays. Dems will lose anyway, and damage the party

in the process. When will they ever learn...

[sui generis]

215. put on your flame jacket buddy

what the hell do you think is a "gay" right?

I've posted it a dozen times and nobody gets this. I own several businesses. If there is no law that says I can't discriminate against people for their SEXUAL ORIENTATION (that's right, nobody uses the word "gay" in law) THEN I CAN FIRE ANYONE I WANT FOR BEING STRAIGHT.

Why would I do that? Because I don't want to pay their unemployment. Because I don't want to pay their COBRA. Because I don't want to pay their retirement or separation bonus. SEXUAL ORIENTATION is not a "gay" issue. People are so fucking stupid about this, and I mean even democrats, that it makes me purple faced crazy screaming hair on fire pissed off.

Repeat after me: SEXUAL ORIENTATION NON-DISCRIMINATION IS NOT A GAY ISSUE.

Will post a longer article on this later. Remove the word GAY from your vocabulary. Any "right" you thing anyone is seeking is one that can be used against anyone regardless of whether they are gay or straight or pink with fuzzy green stripes.

[blondeatlast]

164. Whose rights am I willing to defend to get the Dems in power?

I'd even defend Karl Rove's, my friends.

Maybe if we could think more like this, we wouldn't have to ask such an inane question.

[ultraist]

167. Good point!

We are defending all of our CIVIL LIBERTIES when we support Gay rights.

Civil rights should be protected and afforded to everyone. This is NOT about a few "sacrificing" for the good of many, it's about upholding our Bill of Rights.

[blondeatlast]

218. Damn straight (no pun intended). My mom was on the front lines

for abortion rights and I was right there with her.

Gays, women, and minorities are already horribly discriminated against with this administration. There is nothing to lose--NOTHING TO LOSE--by vowing to support them unconditionally.

[hyphenate]

168. None

Because a true Democrat in power would not espouse ANY compromises on the issues that mean the most to us.

Many people are liberal or conservative based on single issues. That's fine if you're not into politics, but not fine if you love your country and believe in what your party has to say.

That's why there is NO room for compromise on some issues such as these. I would rather go to my grave saying "I told you so" to all the assholes who vote for pukes based on their stand on a single issue, than compromise on what Democrats think and want to do for our country. I LOVE my country, and what's been happening to it makes me very sick--very sick indeed.

[Darranar]

169. None. The minor differences between the two parties...

are not worth sacrificing much of anything.

[beevul]

170. None, but that means not sacrificing rights of gun owners too...

All of you who posted NONE at all, do you consider the rights of gun owners to be included among that none?

[ecstatic]

171. WHY are people so outraged at the results?

Hey, the Democratic party is a BIG TENT party. We have huge groups and alliances who have their own specific agendas. Not everyone under this big tent is going to agree with the opinions and viewpoints of everyone else. For instance, the OP left out the extremist environmental groups, and extreme animal rights groups. Those are people whom I would prefer not to be associated with.

[Zenlitened]

175. You been punk'd.

:popcorn:

[Pushed To The Left]

181. There is a difference

between giving up on an issue and giving up on groups of people.

[Jack_DeLeon]

190. I concur 100%

everybody has thier own ideas and opinions, its only natural.

For those that say we can only think and act in a certain way they are our enemies.

[Pushed To The Left]

179. Some dissapointing results so far!

I chose "other" as in "none of the above". I'm surprised that so many DUers would be willing to give away the civil rights of entire groups of people.

[IndianaGreen]

182. I would give up the rights of white hetero males

Let them get a taste of their own medicine for a change!

:dilemma:

[beam me up scottie]

184. Some are already screaming

"DISCRIMINATION" because of AA.
NO, discrimination is when someone tells you you're INFERIOR and don't deserve the same respect and rights as others.
A white straight man will NEVER have to hear that.
Quotas may not be "fair" but they do not equal discrimination.

(Oh, and I second your motion, but only for the jerks!)
:evilgrin:

[Jack_DeLeon]

188. IMO there are far more important things...

that need to be done first, than to fight for gay marriage.

[beam me up scottie]

191. What is more important to dems than

equal rights?
And how long should gay people have to wait?

[Jack_DeLeon]

201. Whats more important to Democrats....

depends on which Democrats you are referring to.

I'm sure most "polticians" think winning elections and getting into power are more important.

I personally think fixing the economy, the environment, and making sure everybody has thier basics taken care of are far, far more important than two men or two women getting married to each other.

However I'm sure those men or women "might" rate thier marriages more important than those other things I think should take priority.

But hey, everybody has thier own opinion about what is important or what isnt, and there isnt anything wrong with that.

As for how long gay people should wait, well its "supposidly" a democracy, I suppose they could wait till they are the majority if they like, which would probably be never, or maybe they could atleast wait till those that champion thier cause are actually in a position to do anything about it.

[beam me up scottie]

212. Oh please...

it's not about gay marriage, it's about standing up for everybody's civil rights.
Bigotry is inexcusable but allowing discrimination to continue until we are in a "better position" to help them is just as revolting.

I refuse to sell out my friends because fighting for their rights is unpopular.

But that's just me.

[porphyrian]

189. Nobody's.

We shouldn't be eliminating people's rights, we should be restoring them.

[Kenneth ken]

192. other: corporate "personhood" rights n/t

[KnowerOfLogic]

194. Un-freaking-believable; close to 30% of dems would give up gay rights.

Fine, give 'em up. you'll lose just like you lost when you gave up the moral high ground on the war.

[B Calm]

204. The vast majority of them are freepers who know better than post

anything for fear of being banned.

[LostinVA]

208. I don't necessarily agree with that. Look at some of the posts

on here defending the 1/3 who wants to throw my rights and my life under a train. Alot of long-time posters. This should be a big tent -- with room for everyone's RIGHTS. You all who voted for this should be ashamed of wanting to get what you want on someone else's back. You should not call yourself Progressive. I am very glad not everyone who fought for the rights of other classes had your shoddy ideals, or women and African Americans would be even worse off than they are.

[sui generis]

214. they don't call themselves progressive

that's for sure. Personally I don't give a crap if I alienate them, if they really are claiming to be democrats. They're just too massively underinformed to be for real. After you throw out progressive issues, what's left to differentiate us from the other side? A democrat who doesn't want anything but to balance the budget? Wow, that's a real winner in an election.

These people are flaming shitbrained stupid.

[entanglement]

200. So do these poll results indicate that

4% of DUers are sexist, 1% anti poor, 28% homophobes, 5% racist and 10% xenophobic? I hope not. :evilfrown:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

202. This poll makes me sick

x(

[GirlinContempt]

203. None. EOM

[AlienGirl]

210. NONE. No compromise.

[IronLionZion]

216. Let's oppress corporate fascists

I think they've had enough rights for now. :shrug:

And if you want to oppress more people, then white protestant males haven't had their fair share of oppression.