Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, safe sex said:

They'll start the second Abbott's signed it

This. When Ken Paxton is the top lawyer in the state, never underestimate the damage that can be done whether or not it is constitutional.

Posted (edited)

 

I’m tired of being the strongest person I know just to fucking be able to live a life most just get to take for granted. Its exhausting. I pretty much want to quit life today.

Edited by troph
  • Like 4
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
1 minute ago, troph said:

 

I’m tired of being the strongest person I know just to fucking be able to live a life most just get to take for granted. Its exhausting. I pretty much want to quit life today.

6d1cc902-5df3-4070-b9e2-b59d4d29bb8a_tex

I know times are hard but remember there's an end goal for you and yours, to get the fuck out of this state. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

This is definitely a 'them' not 'us' issue. Look at what's happened to Republican support in the last three years.

Click Gallup article heading for more.

Record Party Divide 10 Years After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Republican support has dropped 14 points since 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A decade after the Supreme Court’s milestone Obergefell v. Hodges ruling declared same-sex marriage a national right in the U.S., a steady 68% of Americans support it.

Since 2021, the percentage of U.S. adults who think marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized with the same rights as traditional marriages has ranged from 68% to 71% (the trend high in 2022 and 2023). Yet, this stability in Americans’ backing for same-sex marriage masks shifts in partisans’ views over the same period. Democrats’ support has risen to 88%, the record high for this group by one percentage point. Independents’ backing for same-sex marriage has been relatively stable in recent years and currently stands at 76%, one point shy of the record high.

At the same time, Republicans’ support, which peaked at 55% in 2021 and 2022, has gradually edged down to 41%, the lowest point since 2016 after the Obergefell decision.

The current 47-point gap between Republicans and Democrats is the largest since Gallup first began tracking this measure 29 years ago.

Screenshot_20250529_164825_Chrome.thumb.jpg.46ce70f9ff9803cd529cad581a589b4a.jpg

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

that's why the right has gone apeshit over trans rights. they realized they lost the gay marriage issue (but haven't yet lost the gay discrimination issue - married today, fired tomorrow is still a thing). but on trans rights it's an apocalyptic approach to ensure we can never get there.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

LGBTQ clubs are now banned in Texas schools. Parental control ensured. Kids not endangered. All according to republicans. 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
10 hours ago, Mittens said:

Godspeed John Redcorn

Image

First I heard of what happened and the history. Fuck that hits hard. I just can’t imagine watching your husband/wife/loved one dying like that right in front of you. Fuck. So sad

  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
6 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

image.thumb.png.28cb925d5a6ef27ef87e7b38a321beb4.png

If it were Texas, the legislature would immediately pass a ban on cities doing that, and make it a criminal offense for the Mayor and city council

Posted
7 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

If it were Texas, the legislature would immediately pass a ban on cities doing that, and make it a criminal offense for the Mayor and city council

you know, because the party of personal freedom's favorite activity is passing laws that restrict what we can and can't do. fucking hypocrites

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The renaming is time to coincide with Pride Month. Why?

Because their god hates fags. 

  • Like 2
Posted
10 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

First I heard of what happened and the history. Fuck that hits hard. I just can’t imagine watching your husband/wife/loved one dying like that right in front of you. Fuck. So sad

SA po-po claim there is no evidence to support the husband’s accusation. And, they say, no evidence of a hate crime.

Except, you know, the husband’s eyewitness testimony. And the dead dog.

  • Like 1
Posted

There was a double rainbow in town yesterday. A friend posted this with the caption “But how come there’s no straight pride month?”

image.thumb.png.2bab60ed14319b77e1164c9b3bf2426d.png

Posted
On 6/3/2025 at 5:47 PM, Bookman said:

Because their god hates fags. 

This false belief comes from a complete misunderstanding of scripture.  In Matthew 21:18-19, we see what Jesus really meant:

Quote

18 Now in the early morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. 19 And seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves alone; and He said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered.

The real message of scripture is that "God hates figs."

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Guadaloopy said:

This false belief comes from a complete misunderstanding of scripture.  In Matthew 21:18-19, we see what Jesus really meant:

The real message of scripture is that "God hates figs."

 

Ha, yeah and fig trees too. Because if a fig tree doesn't produce fruit for human beings, fuck that tree and fuck all the other species who may have some use of it. That's the Christian way. 

Posted (edited)


absolutely fantastic listen, 4+ hours, details how youth trans health care started, what happened and how we got to outright bans. It’s a commitment but worth the listen. I may post it as its own thread for broader dissemination. I’ll add my comments later too. But if you comment on these issues and haven’t listened to this podcast then you need to stop commenting and listen - to the whole thing.

Edited by troph
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, safe sex said:

Ngl I'm hugely suspicious of anything trans-related that the NYT puts out, but I'll give it a listen.

It’s great. Doesn’t gloss over complaints. Episode 5 I think Marci Bowers basically says, “look, there aren’t two sides of the issue - trans identities exist and gender affirming health care is the answer. Now there is nuance on who (proper assessment not age cut offs or bans), when and how, but there are not two sides to this issue.” 

bowers also says this current surge in bans is a redo of the 1979 closure of the Johns Hopkins clinic and it set back trans health care 30 years. 

The opponents are arguing more research is needed yet Trump and conservatives in the US defund the research except research into regret and detransition. The opponents won’t fund research and ignore clinical practice where doctors treat the patient as they can and see positive outcomes in the face of needing better data which is not uncommon in medicine at all. It’s clear the needed data is in determining who is truly trans (yes hits historically gate keeping crap) in a world where trans identities have increased quite a bit and the detransition and regret rate which is historically very low has possibly doubled (see below for more).

the psychiatrist in episode 6 is so good, gives a clear picture of the vast majority of what these gender clinics look like.

They interview the author of the Cass report and allow her to defend her position and allowfor criticism of it. There is a significant debate over assessment versus patient led determination (I transitioned at the end of the gate keeper era and embraced the requirements but as a grown adult it wasn’t too much to bear it made me be sure). This is one of the underlying themes did patient led diagnosis lead to the backlash, spoiler alert it seems like it might have but the force for bans was a foregone conclusion.

They interview the whistleblower and she comes across as a total piece of shit by her own doing. Her story doesn’t add up at all. And before anyone gets up in arms here that I’m biased, listening to the entire podcast it becomes clear there are trans kids that receive gender affirming care and are thriving and that the opponents like her used minuscule numbers to advance their cause to achieve bans and they have no defense for outlawing care that benefits most who come to these clinics. The whistleblower completely dismisses the severity of gender dysphoria too claiming she suffered from it as a teen so she knows what everyone is going through. That’s part of how the whistleblower sounds like a piece of shit by her own doing. 

a strangely high(er) percentage of kids identify as trans now and it does seem like it’s more than the left handed phenomenon all though that is a big part. HOWEVER, very few teens are transitioning, very few. And of those that do the historical percentage of regret and detransition was 2-3% max (some say as low as 1%), which the podcast doesn’t say but that’s a remarkable success rate for a treatment. They do postulate that the rate is now probably closer to 5% of those who transition, meaning 95% or 19 out of 20 benefit from the care.
 

trans health care opponents have used this harm to the 5% to pursue bans and prohibit the good outcomes for the 95% and no one wants to come forward and share their stories because of the vitriol that’s coming if they stand up and say this care saved my or my kids life. There are a number of high profile detransitioners that are used to amplify the concerns while the success stories are less common as a percentage of patients because let’s face it, all we trans folk want is a life free from dysphoria and congruent with our gender identity, calling attention to ourselves isn’t really part of what we want, so few stand up and say “look at me.” Opponents have taken advantage of that discrepancy. 

The middle episodes are hard. I’ll admit.  But the end makes it clear what we all know, gender affirming care saves lives and increases quality of life for many many kids and people and the bans were a foregone conclusion but are a grave mistake.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, safe sex said:

I appreciate you going into detail about it. Will def put it on tonight/tomorrow.

I’m still editing btw - done now.

Edited by troph
Posted

I’m glad the courts are holding and remain the bulwark against tyranny:

AP: U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will likely appeal.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/us/southern-baptist-obergefell-same-sex-marriage.html?unlocked_article_code=1.OE8.GRQj.6BWGznRAHajS&smid=url-share

Southern Baptists Endorse Effort to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage

The nation’s largest Protestant denomination was motivated by conservative Christians’ success in reversing Roe v. Wade.

Southern Baptists voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to call for the overturning of the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, with strategists citing the successful effort that overturned the right to legal abortions as a possible blueprint for the new fight.

The denomination has long opposed gay marriage, but Tuesday was the first time its members have voted to work to legally end it. Expanding on conservatives’ success in overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, the vote signals growing evangelical ambitions to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruling that was handed down 10 years ago this month.

Spoiler

“What we’re trying to do is keep the conversation alive,” said Andrew Walker, an ethicist at a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky who wrote the resolution.

Mr. Walker leads the Southern Baptist committee that gathers proposals from Baptists around the country to be debated and put to a vote at the meeting. Baptists, he said, are taking the long view, inspired by the tactics of the anti-abortion movement. Roe v. Wade granted a constitutional right to abortion that stood for nearly 50 years before activists and legal strategists defeated it, powered by support from Christian conservatives.

The Baptists’ vote against Obergefell took place at the end of the first day of the denomination’s annual meeting, which is being held this year at a convention center in Dallas. Attracting thousands of pastors and church members from large and small congregations across the country, the meeting is being closely watched as a snapshot of evangelical sentiment on a range of political, theological and cultural issues.

The measure opposing same-sex marriage was part of a sweeping and unusually long resolution under the title, “On Restoring Moral Clarity through God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family.” It includes calls for defunding Planned Parenthood, for “parental rights in education and healthcare,” and ensuring “safety and fairness in female athletic competition,” a reference to the debate over transgender women in women’s sports.

The resolution is nonbinding, but suggests that evangelicals have long-term ambitions to dismantle an institution that many Americans now accept as a basic right. Southern Baptists who supported the resolution acknowledged that same-sex marriage has wide support.

“It puts Southern Baptists on the record,” said Denny Burk, the president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which advocates for distinct roles for men and women. “We know that we’re in a minority in the culture right now, but we want to be a prophetic minority.”

The resolution also echoes the language of pronatalism that has taken hold in many conservative circles, including those influencing the second Trump administration. The resolution that passed on Tuesday criticizes the pursuit of “willful childlessness” and refers to the country’s declining fertility rate as a crisis. That language goes beyond Baptists’ traditional support of general “family values,” embracing a cultural agenda that encourages larger families as a matter of civilizational survival. Baptist theology does not oppose birth control per se.

Other resolutions passed on Tuesday called for banning pornography, and condemning sports betting. “We denounce the promotion and normalization of this predatory industry in every athletic context,” the gambling resolution stated. It called on corporations involved to “cease their exploitative practices,” on policymakers to curtail sports betting, and on Christians to refuse to participate.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, and is often seen as a bellwether for conservative evangelicalism writ large. Like many Christian denominations, it is broadly in decline, with about 12.7 million members in 2024, a 2 percent decline from the year before. But church attendance and baptisms were up, suggesting an ongoing vitality in the pews.

Passing the resolution against same-sex marriage could suggest to policymakers that conservative Christians have the will to sustain long-term opposition to positions without much popular support, including from some conservative politicians.

Last year, the convention adopted a resolution opposing the use of in vitro fertilization, frustrating many Republicans who wanted to reassure voters that their opposition to abortion would not endanger widely popular fertility treatments. President Trump called himself the “father of I.V.F.” during the 2024 campaign, and said he wanted to make the treatments free for all Americans.

On Wednesday the delegates, called “messengers”, will consider whether to abolish their own public policy arm, which its critics say is out of step with conservative Baptists in the pews. They will also discuss a constitutional amendment cracking down on women pastors, which failed to pass last year but seems to have gained support.

Some messengers in the room said the mood at the convention feels steadier this year, after several years of bruising internal battles. Speakers on the main stage and from the floor have often mentioned unity. Many messengers are weary after contentious debates over issues on which the denomination broadly agrees.

About 10,500 messengers have registered for this year’s meeting, a downtick from years past when hot-button disputes drew high numbers of church leaders and members to make their voices heard. The proceedings on Tuesday consistently ran ahead of schedule. It was a distinctly unusual development for a sometimes rowdy, chaotic gathering at which any participant is invited to speak from the floor, and which attempts to conform to Robert’s Rules of Order sometimes devolve into exasperation or laughter.

Clint Pressley, the pastor of a large church in North Carolina, was easily elected to a second term as president of the denomination on Tuesday afternoon. Mr. Pressley, an affable preacher who has largely avoided controversy, told messengers in an address on Tuesday morning that although the denomination has “found ourselves in a little bit of a storm the last little bit,” its convictions and churches are largely solid.

“It is good to be a Southern Baptist,” he concluded.

Ruth Graham is a national reporter, based in Dallas, covering religion, faith and values for The Times.

 

  • Rage+1 5
Posted
47 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Im sure you’ll vote accordingly lol

I'm sure the continual self-righteousness by the left will convince me to change, moreso than the unending idiocy and attack on humanity by the right. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Iceman said:

I'm sure the continual self-righteousness by the left will convince me to change, moreso than the unending idiocy and attack on humanity by the right. 

Yes, one of those things definitely isn't considerably worse than the other.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Iceman said:

I'm sure the continual self-righteousness by the left will convince me to change, moreso than the unending idiocy and attack on humanity by the right. 

Yeah slorch, we know. You're happy to use any excuse to never change and always be the biggest peice of raider trash you can. Now go lay off some employees

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 6/9/2025 at 2:51 PM, Satchel said:

I’m glad the courts are holding and remain the bulwark against tyranny:

AP: U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will likely appeal.

Goddamn I'm old.  Jon Tigar's dad was one of my law school profs.

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Bojack said:

I would vote against unending idiocy and attacks on humanity except someone on the left acted self righteous on a message board. 

No. The point is there is a lot of shit changing my mind. And I couldn't be more serious. I already did not vote R in the last 2 Presidential races. 
 

But then when I talk about it, here come 58 'I told you so's' as if the left's shit is also squared away. 

Edited by Iceman
Posted
3 minutes ago, Iceman said:

No. The point is there is a lot of shit changing my mind. And I couldn't be more serious. 
 

But then when I talk about it, here come 58 'I told you so's' as if the left's shit is also squared away. 

Yes, those who deep down question their own beliefs tend to be the ones that get most offended when called out on it. 

But that's on you. Own up to it and change for the better. In the end, people will welcome you into the fold. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I'd lay off Slorch. Yeah, he's right-leaning, and we’re certainly not going to agree with him on everything. But on the fundamental basics of democracy and opposition to the Trump Regime, the dude is an ally. He formally renounced any lingering support for the fuckface years ago, immediately after Helsinki and Trump shitting all over the vets and skipping out on visiting that cemetary in France. That was all well before the 2020 election.

Edit: I generally think he's a more live-and-let-live guy who won't offer full-throated support on a lot of social issues. He probably shouldn't be considered an ally, per se, for the LGBTQ community, but I think he'd just rather not have stuff shoved in his face. Call him a neutral party on this front, unless I'm misreading him.

I think that's about the best that can be expected for a fundamentally conservative straight white guy from Texas, and I don't mean that condescendingly or as a put down. It just is.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 4
Posted
5 minutes ago, Iceman said:

No. The point is there is a lot of shit changing my mind. And I couldn't be more serious. I already did not vote R in the last 2 Presidential races. 
 

But then when I talk about it, here come 58 'I told you so's' as if the left's shit is also squared away. 

The left's shit IS squared away, if you look at two determinative issues:

1) Believe that we should continue to have a Republic instead of an autocratic Monarchy, subject to no checks, balances, or laws.

2) Believe in baseline human rights and treating human beings like human beings.

Everything else is secondary, because without those two things, not a single other thing fucking matters.

 

Funny thing is, I grew up and voted mostly "conservative" because I (apparently mistakenly) believed those were core values of conservative political thought.  Those are, were, and always have been pretty foundational points for me, and I've never deviated from them.

Imagine what today's "conservatives" reaction would be to namby-pamby shit like this:

Quote

And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one -- a small story about a big ship, and a refugee, and a sailor. It was back in the early eighties, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, 'Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.'

.....

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the People.' 'We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. 'We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the People' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the People' are free. 

.....

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the 'shining city upon a hill.' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

.....

After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

That pussy-ass RINO would be run out of today's "conservative" party before the evening's Hannity show was over.

America doesn't have a conservative party any longer.  It has a fascist, xenophobic, authoritarian party.  Those are its sole bedrock values.  And as long as they are, it must be opposed as we have opposed such movements in the past.  My grandfather shot fascists in the face.  The least I can do is vote against them every fucking chance I get.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The left's shit IS squared away, if you look at two determinative issues:

1) Believe that we should continue to have a Republic instead of an autocratic Monarchy, subject to no checks, balances, or laws.

2) Believe in baseline human rights and treating human beings like human beings.

Everything else is secondary, because without those two things, not a single other thing fucking matters.

Exactly. When/if I get shit from friends or family saying "Hank is a bleeding heart lefty!", I don't get offended. You're goddamned right I have a steadfast belief system and moral compass. And I feel exactly zero shame or doubt about it. It feels good. It's liberating

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Iceman said:

No. The point is there is a lot of shit changing my mind. And I couldn't be more serious. I already did not vote R in the last 2 Presidential races. 
 

But then when I talk about it, here come 58 'I told you so's' as if the left's shit is also squared away. 

Both sides! Drink!

Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

I'd lay off Slorch. Yeah, he's right-leaning, and we’re certainly not going to agree with him on everything. But on the fundamental basics of democracy and opposition to the Trump Regime, the dude is an ally. He formally renounced any lingering support for the fuckface years ago, immediately after Helsinki and Trump shitting all over the vets and skipping out on visiting that cemetary in France. That was all well before the 2020 election.

Edit: I generally think he's a more live-and-let-live guy who won't offer full-throated support on a lot of social issues. He probably shouldn't be considered an ally, per se, for the LGBTQ community, but I think he'd just rather not have stuff shoved in his face. Call him a neutral party on this front, unless I'm misreading him.

I think that's about the best that can be expected for a fundamentally conservative straight white guy from Texas, and I don't mean that condescendingly or as a put down. It just is.

at a minimum just stop quoting him please.

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Iceman said:

 

What you call self-righteousness is what I call being right for almost a decade about the threat posed by turnip to our Constitution.

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/11/2025 at 7:40 AM, bolverk said:

I'd lay off Slorch. Yeah, he's right-leaning, and we’re certainly not going to agree with him on everything. But on the fundamental basics of democracy and opposition to the Trump Regime, the dude is an ally. He formally renounced any lingering support for the fuckface years ago, immediately after Helsinki and Trump shitting all over the vets and skipping out on visiting that cemetary in France. That was all well before the 2020 election.

Edit: I generally think he's a more live-and-let-live guy who won't offer full-throated support on a lot of social issues. He probably shouldn't be considered an ally, per se, for the LGBTQ community, but I think he'd just rather not have stuff shoved in his face. Call him a neutral party on this front, unless I'm misreading him.

I think that's about the best that can be expected for a fundamentally conservative straight white guy from Texas, and I don't mean that condescendingly or as a put down. It just is.

All of that may be true but he’s still a Tech fan

Posted
12 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

All of that may be true but he’s still a Tech fan

Got my undergrad at Tech (wanted to go to UT but my parents were against it because of its liberal leanings) and made some good friends there, including gays and a transperson. Saw a couple of drag shows just a couple of blocks off campus in the early 90s. Slorch/Iceman walked the same campus during the same years as me. Brian Fantana is also a Tech fan. The alma mater has nothing to do with it. All three of us grew up in small West Texas towns.

Got my master's at UT and lived in Austin for 28 years.

I'm a fan of both schools. Now, with them in different conferences, that makes it easier.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/11/2025 at 9:40 AM, bolverk said:

Edit: I generally think he's a more live-and-let-live guy who won't offer full-throated support on a lot of social issues. He probably shouldn't be considered an ally, per se, for the LGBTQ community, but I think he'd just rather not have stuff shoved in his face. Call him a neutral party on this front, unless I'm misreading him.

Thank you for the words of support.

On the LGBTQ front, I am supportive of equal rights.  Period.  I think a lot of the legislation is repetitive and unnecessary, IF and only IF people( the opposers) truly believed in liberty. Alas, they do not in reality, so the additional laws must be written. I support gay marriage.  I used to have issues with gays in the military but have changed.  Go serve and do your thing.  Again, that liberty thingy.

As a neighbor, IDGAF.  Two people love each other? Go for it.  It's getting rarer by the day. I respect the precious nature of that relationship.  Maybe that's too folksy or whatever, but that's my POV.  There's a metric shit-ton of straight folks who I see out there fucking shit up, and I roll my eyes regularly.  Straights certainly own no high ground here.

As a co-worker, it don't make a fuck to me.  I work with everyone.  If you're there to do a good job, let's go.  If you suck, it's not because of your sexuality.  As a people leader,  I helped employees get benefits for their partners when our company, while generally progressive, made it deliberately a pain in the ass to get it done before gay marriage was recognized. I have celebrated marriages, births, and sadly funerals of fellow gay employees; and in saying that, I don't mean at the break room at work, but after being invited to their place. The first time one of my employees got to introduce her wife to our team at an outing is one of my favorite experiences ever. Maybe it's a product of my growing up adopted, but I dare say some of these folks and I became family, not in the blood sense, but of the heart.

 

There are things on which we are gonna disagree.  That's called life.  Fiscally I have no political party any more.  There's nobody even pretending to be responsible.  Socially, the right is pushing me away. Bigtime.  I have shared those feelings on here, and maybe it isn't fast enough for some on here.  I understand that sentiment. I'm not sure what constitutes an "ally," but I don't really care about a certain title.  The people who need to know, know I have their back.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3


×
×
  • Create New...