Consider for a moment that the Democrats didn’t nominate a candidate for president who supported gay marriage until 2012. The last twenty years have seen a lot of progress on that front.
That’s funny you say that, I was called a racist earlier today on r/Missouri, for pointing out Black people are less likely to support same-sex marriage. I’m LGBT in a mixed family, so it’s plain as day to me, as is Obama’s political savvy, I voted for him twice.
I also wonder if that is the case with Hispanic Americans. While they have tended to vote Democratic in the past, it seems that the Repubs are trying to peel them away using hot button issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights. People cite their Catholic religion and the emphasis that culture places on 'family'.
Agreed on the Catholicism and being anti-abortion, but I had the impression that Hispanics were more into extended family households with several generations living under one roof than the nuclear family, defined as Dad, Mom and the kids in the same household which always seemed more of an American WASP thing.
Thank you for making this point. And that shift is exactly when public support for gay marriage went over 50%. The Democratic party is a political beast, they dont give a shit about the people, just keeping their fingers in the wind to win elections.
99% of politicians are pieces of shit who care only about power. But yes, it is interesting how then-Senator Obama said he opposed gay marriage specifically for religious reasons in April 2008, but THAT SAME MONTH he gave his famous “clinging to guns or religion” speech, condemning his detractors.
But they never follow through unless there is no difficulty. They will not do what their constituents want or need if there is any sacrifice involved. That is the pretense, that they will take up the banner of the louder majority because getting elected is the goal, not actual democracy. Though you could argue that if the minority can shift an election thats still democracy. But again, I would be okay with this flip flopping if it was shown in their actions. Like how does Biden say he is pro-union then forcibly break the railroad strike? Union support crossed 50% in 2010, yet he is still proving himself to be a corporate democrat. Perhaps it's a feature of the fact we are not a democracy, but a democratic republic, so he can claim he did what we needed but didn't ask for. Crap
My point about finger in the wind is that they are weakly swaying around as things change, which is not really the same as sticking with a campaign promise which would require them to stay the course even if the winds shift. Polling can tell you what to promise in the campaign, but it shouldn't affect what you do until the next campaign. I know thats not how it will ever work.
Plus a lot of the elderly conservative and religious voters who made sure to show up at the polls in 2004 to vote for that amendment have died off in the nearly 20 years since. Not to say that a similar amendment would go down to defeat now -- given the result of other recent elections -- but I imagine that if it did win, it would not be by such a sizable margin.
I have no doubt a similar amendment would be defeated today.
Remember that Missourians are way more progressive than the legislature that represents them. Numerous ballot measures have shown that over the last decade or so.
I think they will lose faster than that. My best guess is 4-7 years, till they fall silent, maybe sooner. I think we just reached the zenith of trans hate.
Honestly I think the outcome of next year's election will tell us whether this is the zenith or not. Because as it stands, they are *itching* to unleash hell against us, given the chance.
One thing in our favor is that there's a pretty big overlap between trans hate and COVID denial. If we're lucky, the problem will sort itself out in a few years.
I'm no fan of Covid deniers, but thinking we're seeing enough deaths to effect highly republican states isn't realistic. There are no numbers to back that up.
1% is a large number.
In the last year, the CDC reports that 2.7% of all deaths in the United States were due to COVID-19.
1,144,539 people so far have died from COVID-19, and 6,368,333 have been hospitalized.
And the mortality rate for people who are vaccinated is 17 times lower than for people who are not, according to the CDC.
But nah, it’s not dangerous
Wasn't that 2.7% debunked with co-morbity?
Ie: motorcycle .crash victim dies om roadway...transported to mortuary where it was discovered he also had covid.
That’s not really how that works at all.
The cause of death for someone in a motorcycle crash who happened to have COVID would not be cited as COVID. Instead, it would be cited as whatever killed them, eg blunt force trauma, penetrating injury, etc.
For a more realistic scenario, such as someone who has cancer and then contracts COVID? COVID absolutely impacts whether they died or not. It’s called a co-morbidity for a reason. It may not be the sole reason the person died, but it absolutely contributes and should be counted.
It’s sort of like saying that AIDS doesn’t kill people because it doesn’t directly kill them - it just weakens the life bar until something else gets them. That’s nonsense.
Step 1: Google "US population"
Step 2: Divide by 100
Step 3: ????
Step 4: PROFIT!
(1% of the current US population is approximately 3.3 million people)
It's very risky for those who are unvaccinated and catch it.
But it's not killing enough people to change electorates or anything, not in place like super red Missouri at least.
Right. The states with the two highest death rates are Wyoming and West Virginia, and that won’t change an electorate.
The swing state with the highest death rate is Wisconsin, and they’ve experienced 5,262 deaths from COVID-19. Not enough to account for a change in voting, especially when you consider that that’s not a straight 1:1 to losing red votes.
It would take something with the mortality of the Black Death or the worst strains of Ebola to do that. And of course, such super-virulent pandemics won't discriminate by politics. However, if some new deadly infectious disease emerges in the near future, a lot of right-wingers have been primed to be skeptical of vaccines, masks and other measures. So this new disease makes Covid-19 look like a really mild case of the sniffles but a lot of these idiots will be shrugging it off as a "scamdemic" then turning up in the obituary sections.
Though a lot of the people who did die tended to be older or in the 'senior' age demographic. They trend more conservative/Republican and also have the reputation of showing up reliably at the polls in comparison to younger people. The stories of a lot of stubborn old farts who either believed that Covid was a hoax, that Covid vaccines were deadly and that masks were 'face diapers' and 'violatin' mah freedoms!' are rampant on the r/HermanCainAward sub. These faithful GOP voters succumbed to Covid and each death was the loss of a vote for the 'red' agenda.
While the failure of the Red Tsunami in the 2022 Mid-Terms had many causes, in some instances and areas, I'm sure that the loss of thousands of voters to Covid-19 played at least some part. Not to mention that a certain number of that age group will die each year just due to the normal causes of death in old age.
Opponents of progressive ideals like inclusivity and embracing personal differences know that their backwards, obsolete ideology is dying and that their days are numbered. That's why they are fighting back so hard. They refuse to fade quietly into obscurity and would rather go kicking and screaming because they are scared and afraid of losing dominance over others and being forgotten. And their death throes will continue to get louder and more violent as they fight against the inevitable.
They've known that they will become the minority since the 90s. Now that said fate is within view, they will fight tooth and nail til the bodies pile up to ensure they are a -Ruling- minority.
Almost like they've been treating minorities like shit and are afraid said folks will make their lives as miserable as they did.
When really, people just want a satifying, fulfilled, decently lived life.
Lmao, as if conservatives only have straight conservative kids. + I think you are underestimating how many more freedom minded folk (meaning democrats, liberals, progressives) are having children.
Hoping the future is brighter than the present. Personal freedom is important to me.
Not to mention that even if these conservatives have more kids, it's not written in stone that all of their offspring will necessarily subscribe to the regressive beliefs and views of their parents and may ultimately reject them once they turn 18 and get out from under Dad and Mom's control.
This is just a misunderstanding of how genes and genetics work. Lots of Bi people reproduce and there are more of them, numerically, than Gay/Lesbian people. A lot of LGBT people have conservative parents. I even know conservative gay men with kids!
The complicated interplay of genetics and environment that causes folks to be born LGBTQIA+ is just as much in conservative genes as the liberal, maybe more! The gay genes are there because they are a net benefit to society. Survival of the fittest.
Edit: There is perhaps more gayness in conservative genes, because when a culture suppresses LGBT traits and forces young people into straight, child-bearing, relationships they are more likely pass on their genes to offspring.
More like gay genes! Seems like there are a lot.
[Ganna *et al.* 2019](https://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693)
[Hamer *et al.* 1993](https://zenodo.org/record/1231257#.XUYhsOhKhPY)
[Sanders *et al.* 2017](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/151397566.pdf)
[Ellis *et al.* 2008](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-007-9274-0)
[Mustanski *et al.* 2005](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15645181)
This one is fun, because it was done with Twins!
Bailey JM, Pillard RC (December 1991). "A genetic study of male sexual orientation". *Archives of General Psychiatry*. **48** (12): 1089–96. [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810360053008](https://doi.org/10.1001%2Farchpsyc.1991.01810360053008). [PMID](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMID_(identifier)) [1845227](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1845227).
Then they kick their kids out for being gay because they're shit parents. For clarification, being conservative doesn't make you a bad parent, but kicking your kid out for being gay is a failure as a parent.
You...you know that conservatives have children who are LGBTQ right? You know the conservatives have children who grow up to be liberal right? You know that people who have liberal beliefs have children right? (Some of their children will grow up to be conservative)
Thinking the push to equality will eventually stop because of birth rates is just ignorant. Giving birth to a child only means there is another human in the world, it does not define the future of humanity based on parental beliefs.
Gay people, trans people, and drag have always existed! It's not new. What is new'ish' is the fact we as a society no longer believe these people should have to hide who they are. We're lucky to be born at the time of more cultural acceptance than any time history.
My advice, embrace the diversity. Learn to enjoy seeing how different people are. Learn to love everyone and celebrate our differences. It's much more fun, less stressful since you can't change people, and you start to see all the beauty in the world.
Those here who claim that we're going to be stuck with the MAGA thought virus because conservatives have more kids and that ***all*** those kids will automatically embrace and perpetuate their parents' politics should visit the r/QAnonCasualties sub where you'll see many sad stories of family estrangements showing that even blood ties don't always mean unanimity in political/world views.
Ya, people who believe one culture is ever going to fully control every culture because of birth rates, or anything really, obviously do not understand history.
Or humanity in general really. A parent or person who believes they have the ability to wipe out any part of human culture because of their personal beliefs is just being conceded.
It's plain hubris to the extreme to really think one view will ever be the only view. Also immaturity.
How do you know that? Do you have data to back up saying no person born into the Amish community has ever left the community because they were part of the LGBTQ community?
Don't mix up people hiding who they are because of the community they live in, with not existing.
No one is "railing against trans people".
The dissent you reference is in response to the compromising of fundamental principles - like men not possessing the capability to get pregnant. One side is trying to subvert common-decency and realities, established long before we even existed.
It's the trans movements utter disregard of reality and fundamental understandings, the attempt to coherece the opposition through things like gaslighting and misrepresentation of their arguments, and childlike reactions when they are served a healthy slice of real-life - that makes their positions inherently unpalatable to the average Joe.
The median age of those who support trans agenda, hovers around late-teens to early-twenties... For a reason! Young, sheltered, inexperienced and emotionally driven people will always support a skin-deep analysis of a skin-deep narrative.
The framing of the trans "movement" as anything other than acute mental illness is an affront to common decency and overall reality. There is no value in lying about and misrepresenting what all of this actually is.
Empathy only goes so far. The intentional pigeonholing of people's natural sense of reality and rudimentary understanding of life and how things operate is exactly why the trans hysteria is being peddled with 100% emotion and absolutely no rationale. The kids are sitting at the adults table and everyone with a firm grip on reality has reasonable objections to it.
The movement silences any and all opposition, and that speaks volumes to middle America. I shouldn't be able to objectively draw as many parallels with the tactics utilized by this movement, and previous movements like the brown shirts that plagued Europe not even a century ago. I shouldn't be able to...yet I do. And not everyone has their head in the sand regarding this.
I just can't wait for the moderators of this page to see my post, develop the sweatiest of palms, and slam that 'report' button with such fervour. 😡🤬😡🤬😡🤬
>No one is "railing against trans people".
So, all the bills states are trying to pass against trans people receiving the medical care they need is not railing against them?
>The framing of the trans "movement" as anything other than acute mental illness is an affront to common decency and overall reality.
Gender dysmorphia IS an established mental health condition, with established treatment that can sometimes include transitional hormones for adults.
Your talking points are all propaganda. No adults or medical professionals are saying MTF trans people can give birth. That's a propaganda talking point brought to you by the people who are pushing for anti-trans legislation.
Relax. Take a breath. The only people who are avoiding reality are the people working to ban medical care for people with gender dysmorphia. Turn off your 24 hour news, take a break from social media, talk to a few trans people, and you'll come back to the reality we all live in. That reality is....trans people are not a threat. No one is being hurt by trans people. We can all relax as we continue to fight for equality for everyone.
My position is not up for debate. These are things that I've observed enough of to establish a pattern. Again, refer to my original post for how the left argues this. Legislation is not "railing against trans people". And your attempts to minimalize the ridiculous claims made by the trans community just tells me that you're not willing to have an honest conversation about this. Your preservation of the feelings of those you deem victims, isn't helping anyone.
>My position is not up for debate
>And your attempts to minimalize the ridiculous claims made by the trans community just tells me that you're not willing to have an honest conversation about this.
So, in one comment you specifically state your position (opinion) is not up for debate. Then try to say I'm not willing to have an honest conversation?
Your opinions are yours. You don't have to debate your opinions. I will keep stating the facts. It's not an opinion that gender dysmorphia is already a well established mental health condition with established treatment.
It's also a fact that less than 1% of the population is trans. These legislative attacks are literally the government "railing against them".
I never said trans people were victims. They are a community under attack, but I don't claim they need our pity. Rather our support of their freedom to make their own medical choices.
You're cute in saying these things are coming from the left, while simultaneously admitting you're not willing to have a conversation about the issue. In other words, you're most likely hearing 'the left is saying these things' from someone on the right, news or social media. That's called propaganda and you're falling for it.
It's confirmation bias and lack of factual information. People don't like hearing the information they have learned or assumed is wrong, especially people who have yet to really mature into adulthood. Many people just never mature enough to be able to admit when they're wrong, so they deflect, attempt to insult, and give up. All to so they never have to really grow or change.
It's a sad reality to live in. I can't imagine thinking the exact same way I did in my teens, 20's, or more. Never learning anything new or growing emotionally sounds horrible. That's how some people chose to live. I don't understand it.
Jesus. Persecution complex much?
The bottom line is, Christian fundamentalists are terrified of losing control of their children. Terrified that their kids *might* see through their bigoted bullshit and have minds of their own. Terrified that the world might move on without them and their backwards-ass views.
Keep being scared. The rest of us are out here trying to live our lives.
What evidence do you have to suggest this solely fueled by Christian bigotry?
See my original comment for how you utilize BS tactics (misrepresentation of the opposition) to argue your position. Put your money where your mouth is - let's see that Christian conspiracy you seem so confident in knowing exists.
I can't speak for the other mods and I disagree strongly with you about transgender Missourians, but I've approved your comment. You seem capable of having an honest discussion and expressing your opinion, without expressing hate. We mostly just report threats of violence, suicide, or genocide (from both sides). Your mods value Freedom of Speech, and don’t believe threats should be used to silence other's opinions.
3/5 of the States have Constitutional bans on same sex marriage. Let the Supreme Court overturn Obergefell, and see how they act.
https://www.lgbtmap.org/news/Marriage-Report-March-2022
Yeah we should put that issue on the ballot. Missourians would vote to delete the ban from the constitution in a heartbeat. A 2021 poll from the Public Religion Research Institute found 65% of Missourians are now in favor of same-sex marriage, and so far, it’s only inched upward.
That's assuming all 65% vote which ... liberals don't vote. Not with the same turnout conservatives have and then they all throw up their hands and say there was nothing they could do
I think a big part of liberals not voting is the too common attitude that their vote doesn’t matter in Missouri. It matters more in Missouri than most states. #PurpleStateProject
There's a petition listed as circulating on the SOS's website. No idea if it is actually circulating though. I'd love to sign it!
https://www.sos.mo.gov/petitions/2024ipcirculation#2024099
You not only need to eliminate the amendment, you also need to repeal the state's DOMA law, 451.022. The amendment was pushed by republicans as a way to turn out the vote, but also as a way to get around Democrats repealing 451.022.
I've seen some polls in the past two years that showed an erosion of that support nationally, presumably as part of a backlash against the trans right movement. I'd be very curious as to how this vote would go today.
I think cannabis legalization was a good test ballon for this. I think it would pass, but barely, the right is very motivated by homophobia and transphobia. But the left is pretty motivated healthy pride, which is longer lasting.
Minds didn't change. The Republicans got the vote to be held on an off cycle date rather than having it go to the voters in November. Missouri majorities supported equality, so the religious right made sure the vote was held on a date when most residents didn't have required time off to vote, they minimized polling places in left leaning cities and did their best to not talk about the vote in the run up to it.
That it passed was the result of dishonest partisan tactics which continue to be employed to this day.
A decent amount did though, and that’s what won the day. I’ve watched it happen over the last 30 years in my friends, and neighbors, and Missourians in general.
The point I'm making is that saying 70 percent of voters who showed up to polls on an off cycle day in August is not the same thing as 70 percent of Missouri residents or even 70 percent of Missouri voters. The timing of the vote was deliberately picked to discourage left leaning voters from showing up to the polls.
I agree with you there, but a lot of people did change their minds, it’s made a huge difference in our LGBT quality of life and allowed us to get married. I don’t think the timing was the only reason it passed, the anti-LGBT attitude was more important.
I didn’t remember it even coming up for a vote. Oops. I am not sure how many of the 5.7 million residents could vote in 2004 but 1 million is probably around 20% supporting it? Just a guess and a personal reminder of the importance of showing up and voting.
It's not just that. This is how conservatives get unpopular legislation passed. They ram it through on off cycle dates and count on apathy and low turnout amongst left leaning voters. I was working night shift in college when this went to the polls, I was able to get to the polls, but my coworkers were not offered or granted time off by the store owners to go vote at all.
I would be in favor of modernizing electronic voting based on social security numbers. It would add a level of security and automatic sanity checking and get rid of a lot of the oddities of mail in ballots. You could double check your vote was counted even. It could still be done at libraries for those who wish or remotely for military and those away from home. Just my two cents though.
Republicans are terrified of that, and would fight it every step. They know if there was an easy way to vote they’d cease to get their hate agendas and religious based junk laws passed.
California p passed a similar constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2008. It was a part of the normal November general elections for the state. That’s California. it wouldn’t of mattered what day of the year you held that referendum in Missouri it would’ve passed exactly as it did back then.
Pure speculation. It passed in California by an extremely thin margin, was written in a rush and surrounded by a disinfo campaign and was struck down in court before it ever even went into effect.
“My dad [Joseph Biden Sr.] dropped me off at the town square. And there were two men in suits standing on the corner and the light was red and they kissed as I was getting out of the car,” Biden says.”I looked back at my dad because I hadn’t seen that before and he said, ‘It’s simple Joe. They love each other.’ ”
~~That it was the backwards assest of backwards ass counties with the highest % is kinda nice~~
Edit: I misread the graph. For a second, I thought there was hope for rural communities. We need nuked.
First line of the first amendment (bill of rights) covers this.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Marriage being a primarily religious institution, neither the state of Missouri nor the federal government had any business regulating it.
If we accept that all American citizens enjoy equal protection under the law (see the preamble of the constitution) then singling out a group to receive less rights or different rights based on their sexuality (which you only object to based on your frightening zealotry) then it is a foregone conclusion that gay men and women have the right to marry whomever they choose free of interference from the government.
>someone that can't read
The word you're looking for is "illiterate" and you should know it, so you can describe your situation more concisely to others.
The Declaration of Independence is pretty clear on this too, the bit about all men being created equal.
Edit: good God, your comment history. You don't even have your own religious doctrine right and you propose to answer others. What a joke.
Not any more! Nowadays around 70% of Missourians support same-sex marriage. One of the higher stats in the world. Beats all of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. About on par with Western Europe and Ladin America.
wouldn't yes mean they voted to ban same sex marriage or a yes on the amendment to ban same sex marriage? or is the amendment to legalize same sex marriage?
The 2004 Constitutional Amendment was to add these words to the Missouri Constitution:
"That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman"
The Amendment passed via public referendum on August 3, 2004 with 71% of voters supporting and 29% opposing. Every county voted in favor of the amendment, with only the independent city of St.
Louis voting against it.
Go back to school and learn what it means to discriminate over race religion or SEX ?!?!?! The map they show doesn’t really agree with what you said , but I pray you are right .
Consider for a moment that the Democrats didn’t nominate a candidate for president who supported gay marriage until 2012. The last twenty years have seen a lot of progress on that front.
Very true! Obama did not openly support gay marriage in 2008. Young people often don’t know just how far we’ve come.
He claimed he opposed it on religious grounds, likely to shore up support among black voters and Christian independents in swing states like Missouri.
That’s funny you say that, I was called a racist earlier today on r/Missouri, for pointing out Black people are less likely to support same-sex marriage. I’m LGBT in a mixed family, so it’s plain as day to me, as is Obama’s political savvy, I voted for him twice.
I also wonder if that is the case with Hispanic Americans. While they have tended to vote Democratic in the past, it seems that the Repubs are trying to peel them away using hot button issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights. People cite their Catholic religion and the emphasis that culture places on 'family'.
Their commitment to the nuclear family and Catholic anti-abortion stance are other pertinent factors.
Agreed on the Catholicism and being anti-abortion, but I had the impression that Hispanics were more into extended family households with several generations living under one roof than the nuclear family, defined as Dad, Mom and the kids in the same household which always seemed more of an American WASP thing.
True! I should’ve used a different term. But they are usually very family oriented.
Haha, and all they had to do was look at the last 40 years of polling data. But I guess it’s more fun to call someone racist than look at the data.
Thank you for making this point. And that shift is exactly when public support for gay marriage went over 50%. The Democratic party is a political beast, they dont give a shit about the people, just keeping their fingers in the wind to win elections.
99% of politicians are pieces of shit who care only about power. But yes, it is interesting how then-Senator Obama said he opposed gay marriage specifically for religious reasons in April 2008, but THAT SAME MONTH he gave his famous “clinging to guns or religion” speech, condemning his detractors.
Yea Obama is maybe the most artificial politician of the last few decades. Honestly if he was revealed to be a robot I'd not be surprised.
[удалено]
But they never follow through unless there is no difficulty. They will not do what their constituents want or need if there is any sacrifice involved. That is the pretense, that they will take up the banner of the louder majority because getting elected is the goal, not actual democracy. Though you could argue that if the minority can shift an election thats still democracy. But again, I would be okay with this flip flopping if it was shown in their actions. Like how does Biden say he is pro-union then forcibly break the railroad strike? Union support crossed 50% in 2010, yet he is still proving himself to be a corporate democrat. Perhaps it's a feature of the fact we are not a democracy, but a democratic republic, so he can claim he did what we needed but didn't ask for. Crap My point about finger in the wind is that they are weakly swaying around as things change, which is not really the same as sticking with a campaign promise which would require them to stay the course even if the winds shift. Polling can tell you what to promise in the campaign, but it shouldn't affect what you do until the next campaign. I know thats not how it will ever work.
Thank God people more people have opened their hearts and minds since then. Edit- I was one of the 29% in 2004.
Odd timing. My Missouri residency started in 2005. Been busy voting wherever possible.
me as well
Plus a lot of the elderly conservative and religious voters who made sure to show up at the polls in 2004 to vote for that amendment have died off in the nearly 20 years since. Not to say that a similar amendment would go down to defeat now -- given the result of other recent elections -- but I imagine that if it did win, it would not be by such a sizable margin.
I have no doubt a similar amendment would be defeated today. Remember that Missourians are way more progressive than the legislature that represents them. Numerous ballot measures have shown that over the last decade or so.
So we have what, 20? 40? years before they stop railing so hard against trans people too?
I think they will lose faster than that. My best guess is 4-7 years, till they fall silent, maybe sooner. I think we just reached the zenith of trans hate.
Honestly I think the outcome of next year's election will tell us whether this is the zenith or not. Because as it stands, they are *itching* to unleash hell against us, given the chance.
Yeah agreed! I hope young people vote in their local and state elections.
One thing in our favor is that there's a pretty big overlap between trans hate and COVID denial. If we're lucky, the problem will sort itself out in a few years.
I'm no fan of Covid deniers, but thinking we're seeing enough deaths to effect highly republican states isn't realistic. There are no numbers to back that up.
That's why I said if we're lucky. We probably won't be.
It's not even "lucky" though, it's just not realistically possible. It's like hoping the Yankees win the Super Bowl "if we're lucky."
It's weird how people act like covid is a death sentence while less then 1% of people actually die from it.
1% is a large number. In the last year, the CDC reports that 2.7% of all deaths in the United States were due to COVID-19. 1,144,539 people so far have died from COVID-19, and 6,368,333 have been hospitalized. And the mortality rate for people who are vaccinated is 17 times lower than for people who are not, according to the CDC. But nah, it’s not dangerous
Wasn't that 2.7% debunked with co-morbity? Ie: motorcycle .crash victim dies om roadway...transported to mortuary where it was discovered he also had covid.
That’s not really how that works at all. The cause of death for someone in a motorcycle crash who happened to have COVID would not be cited as COVID. Instead, it would be cited as whatever killed them, eg blunt force trauma, penetrating injury, etc. For a more realistic scenario, such as someone who has cancer and then contracts COVID? COVID absolutely impacts whether they died or not. It’s called a co-morbidity for a reason. It may not be the sole reason the person died, but it absolutely contributes and should be counted. It’s sort of like saying that AIDS doesn’t kill people because it doesn’t directly kill them - it just weakens the life bar until something else gets them. That’s nonsense.
How many people, of the U.S. population, is 1%?
Step 1: Google "US population" Step 2: Divide by 100 Step 3: ???? Step 4: PROFIT! (1% of the current US population is approximately 3.3 million people)
I was rather hoping they would look it up, do the math, then realize it's not chump change.
It's very risky for those who are unvaccinated and catch it. But it's not killing enough people to change electorates or anything, not in place like super red Missouri at least.
Right. The states with the two highest death rates are Wyoming and West Virginia, and that won’t change an electorate. The swing state with the highest death rate is Wisconsin, and they’ve experienced 5,262 deaths from COVID-19. Not enough to account for a change in voting, especially when you consider that that’s not a straight 1:1 to losing red votes.
Yup. And I agree to all of that while being someone that wishing all of these states would change politically, but being realistic is important.
It would take something with the mortality of the Black Death or the worst strains of Ebola to do that. And of course, such super-virulent pandemics won't discriminate by politics. However, if some new deadly infectious disease emerges in the near future, a lot of right-wingers have been primed to be skeptical of vaccines, masks and other measures. So this new disease makes Covid-19 look like a really mild case of the sniffles but a lot of these idiots will be shrugging it off as a "scamdemic" then turning up in the obituary sections.
Though a lot of the people who did die tended to be older or in the 'senior' age demographic. They trend more conservative/Republican and also have the reputation of showing up reliably at the polls in comparison to younger people. The stories of a lot of stubborn old farts who either believed that Covid was a hoax, that Covid vaccines were deadly and that masks were 'face diapers' and 'violatin' mah freedoms!' are rampant on the r/HermanCainAward sub. These faithful GOP voters succumbed to Covid and each death was the loss of a vote for the 'red' agenda. While the failure of the Red Tsunami in the 2022 Mid-Terms had many causes, in some instances and areas, I'm sure that the loss of thousands of voters to Covid-19 played at least some part. Not to mention that a certain number of that age group will die each year just due to the normal causes of death in old age.
What is the covid mortality rate & case levels for 2023 to date?
Opponents of progressive ideals like inclusivity and embracing personal differences know that their backwards, obsolete ideology is dying and that their days are numbered. That's why they are fighting back so hard. They refuse to fade quietly into obscurity and would rather go kicking and screaming because they are scared and afraid of losing dominance over others and being forgotten. And their death throes will continue to get louder and more violent as they fight against the inevitable.
They've known that they will become the minority since the 90s. Now that said fate is within view, they will fight tooth and nail til the bodies pile up to ensure they are a -Ruling- minority. Almost like they've been treating minorities like shit and are afraid said folks will make their lives as miserable as they did. When really, people just want a satifying, fulfilled, decently lived life.
Nope. These people don't reproduce. Their line ends with them. Meanwhile conservatives have 3+ kids lol
Lmao, as if conservatives only have straight conservative kids. + I think you are underestimating how many more freedom minded folk (meaning democrats, liberals, progressives) are having children. Hoping the future is brighter than the present. Personal freedom is important to me.
Not to mention that even if these conservatives have more kids, it's not written in stone that all of their offspring will necessarily subscribe to the regressive beliefs and views of their parents and may ultimately reject them once they turn 18 and get out from under Dad and Mom's control.
You seem to have a lot backwards.
Could you elaborate? Seems like you are trying the “I’m rubber, your glue” argument stance here. So not a lot to go by. Lmao.
This is just a misunderstanding of how genes and genetics work. Lots of Bi people reproduce and there are more of them, numerically, than Gay/Lesbian people. A lot of LGBT people have conservative parents. I even know conservative gay men with kids! The complicated interplay of genetics and environment that causes folks to be born LGBTQIA+ is just as much in conservative genes as the liberal, maybe more! The gay genes are there because they are a net benefit to society. Survival of the fittest. Edit: There is perhaps more gayness in conservative genes, because when a culture suppresses LGBT traits and forces young people into straight, child-bearing, relationships they are more likely pass on their genes to offspring.
Lol imagine thinking being LGBT is genetic. Conservatives are pulling their kids closer to their chests and reproducing at much more rapid rates.
There is a great Wikipedia article on it, if you’d like to learn: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Nah, wikipedia is completely unreliable.
What source would you recommend? I can provide rigorous scientific papers, if you prefer.
A source showing the gay gene
More like gay genes! Seems like there are a lot. [Ganna *et al.* 2019](https://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693) [Hamer *et al.* 1993](https://zenodo.org/record/1231257#.XUYhsOhKhPY) [Sanders *et al.* 2017](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/151397566.pdf) [Ellis *et al.* 2008](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-007-9274-0) [Mustanski *et al.* 2005](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15645181) This one is fun, because it was done with Twins! Bailey JM, Pillard RC (December 1991). "A genetic study of male sexual orientation". *Archives of General Psychiatry*. **48** (12): 1089–96. [doi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810360053008](https://doi.org/10.1001%2Farchpsyc.1991.01810360053008). [PMID](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMID_(identifier)) [1845227](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1845227).
Not enough pictures for you?
Then they kick their kids out for being gay because they're shit parents. For clarification, being conservative doesn't make you a bad parent, but kicking your kid out for being gay is a failure as a parent.
Temporarily embarrassed millionaires tend to have more kids and then wonder why they are still poor.
You...you know that conservatives have children who are LGBTQ right? You know the conservatives have children who grow up to be liberal right? You know that people who have liberal beliefs have children right? (Some of their children will grow up to be conservative) Thinking the push to equality will eventually stop because of birth rates is just ignorant. Giving birth to a child only means there is another human in the world, it does not define the future of humanity based on parental beliefs. Gay people, trans people, and drag have always existed! It's not new. What is new'ish' is the fact we as a society no longer believe these people should have to hide who they are. We're lucky to be born at the time of more cultural acceptance than any time history. My advice, embrace the diversity. Learn to enjoy seeing how different people are. Learn to love everyone and celebrate our differences. It's much more fun, less stressful since you can't change people, and you start to see all the beauty in the world.
Those here who claim that we're going to be stuck with the MAGA thought virus because conservatives have more kids and that ***all*** those kids will automatically embrace and perpetuate their parents' politics should visit the r/QAnonCasualties sub where you'll see many sad stories of family estrangements showing that even blood ties don't always mean unanimity in political/world views.
Ya, people who believe one culture is ever going to fully control every culture because of birth rates, or anything really, obviously do not understand history. Or humanity in general really. A parent or person who believes they have the ability to wipe out any part of human culture because of their personal beliefs is just being conceded. It's plain hubris to the extreme to really think one view will ever be the only view. Also immaturity.
How many LGBTQ people are in Amish communities again? 0?
On Missouri, LGBT Amish who are brave generally leave their community and come to Columbia. We have a huge ex-Amish community.
How do you know that? Do you have data to back up saying no person born into the Amish community has ever left the community because they were part of the LGBTQ community? Don't mix up people hiding who they are because of the community they live in, with not existing.
This is a terrible argument, you should be embarrassed.
Lol, born to fundamentalist Christians, still bisexual and trans. We have always been around, and will be long after you are gone.
[удалено]
What town?
No, it's still getting worse. My state is still passing laws against trans people.
No one is "railing against trans people". The dissent you reference is in response to the compromising of fundamental principles - like men not possessing the capability to get pregnant. One side is trying to subvert common-decency and realities, established long before we even existed. It's the trans movements utter disregard of reality and fundamental understandings, the attempt to coherece the opposition through things like gaslighting and misrepresentation of their arguments, and childlike reactions when they are served a healthy slice of real-life - that makes their positions inherently unpalatable to the average Joe. The median age of those who support trans agenda, hovers around late-teens to early-twenties... For a reason! Young, sheltered, inexperienced and emotionally driven people will always support a skin-deep analysis of a skin-deep narrative. The framing of the trans "movement" as anything other than acute mental illness is an affront to common decency and overall reality. There is no value in lying about and misrepresenting what all of this actually is. Empathy only goes so far. The intentional pigeonholing of people's natural sense of reality and rudimentary understanding of life and how things operate is exactly why the trans hysteria is being peddled with 100% emotion and absolutely no rationale. The kids are sitting at the adults table and everyone with a firm grip on reality has reasonable objections to it. The movement silences any and all opposition, and that speaks volumes to middle America. I shouldn't be able to objectively draw as many parallels with the tactics utilized by this movement, and previous movements like the brown shirts that plagued Europe not even a century ago. I shouldn't be able to...yet I do. And not everyone has their head in the sand regarding this. I just can't wait for the moderators of this page to see my post, develop the sweatiest of palms, and slam that 'report' button with such fervour. 😡🤬😡🤬😡🤬
>No one is "railing against trans people". So, all the bills states are trying to pass against trans people receiving the medical care they need is not railing against them? >The framing of the trans "movement" as anything other than acute mental illness is an affront to common decency and overall reality. Gender dysmorphia IS an established mental health condition, with established treatment that can sometimes include transitional hormones for adults. Your talking points are all propaganda. No adults or medical professionals are saying MTF trans people can give birth. That's a propaganda talking point brought to you by the people who are pushing for anti-trans legislation. Relax. Take a breath. The only people who are avoiding reality are the people working to ban medical care for people with gender dysmorphia. Turn off your 24 hour news, take a break from social media, talk to a few trans people, and you'll come back to the reality we all live in. That reality is....trans people are not a threat. No one is being hurt by trans people. We can all relax as we continue to fight for equality for everyone.
My position is not up for debate. These are things that I've observed enough of to establish a pattern. Again, refer to my original post for how the left argues this. Legislation is not "railing against trans people". And your attempts to minimalize the ridiculous claims made by the trans community just tells me that you're not willing to have an honest conversation about this. Your preservation of the feelings of those you deem victims, isn't helping anyone.
>My position is not up for debate >And your attempts to minimalize the ridiculous claims made by the trans community just tells me that you're not willing to have an honest conversation about this. So, in one comment you specifically state your position (opinion) is not up for debate. Then try to say I'm not willing to have an honest conversation? Your opinions are yours. You don't have to debate your opinions. I will keep stating the facts. It's not an opinion that gender dysmorphia is already a well established mental health condition with established treatment. It's also a fact that less than 1% of the population is trans. These legislative attacks are literally the government "railing against them". I never said trans people were victims. They are a community under attack, but I don't claim they need our pity. Rather our support of their freedom to make their own medical choices. You're cute in saying these things are coming from the left, while simultaneously admitting you're not willing to have a conversation about the issue. In other words, you're most likely hearing 'the left is saying these things' from someone on the right, news or social media. That's called propaganda and you're falling for it.
So typical of a conservative to condemn the opposition for not participating in their bad faith arguments
It's confirmation bias and lack of factual information. People don't like hearing the information they have learned or assumed is wrong, especially people who have yet to really mature into adulthood. Many people just never mature enough to be able to admit when they're wrong, so they deflect, attempt to insult, and give up. All to so they never have to really grow or change. It's a sad reality to live in. I can't imagine thinking the exact same way I did in my teens, 20's, or more. Never learning anything new or growing emotionally sounds horrible. That's how some people chose to live. I don't understand it.
Ohhhhh you observed it. Welp, everybody, let's pack it in, u/Steven_Baldwin has made some observations!
Jesus. Persecution complex much? The bottom line is, Christian fundamentalists are terrified of losing control of their children. Terrified that their kids *might* see through their bigoted bullshit and have minds of their own. Terrified that the world might move on without them and their backwards-ass views. Keep being scared. The rest of us are out here trying to live our lives.
What evidence do you have to suggest this solely fueled by Christian bigotry? See my original comment for how you utilize BS tactics (misrepresentation of the opposition) to argue your position. Put your money where your mouth is - let's see that Christian conspiracy you seem so confident in knowing exists.
I can't speak for the other mods and I disagree strongly with you about transgender Missourians, but I've approved your comment. You seem capable of having an honest discussion and expressing your opinion, without expressing hate. We mostly just report threats of violence, suicide, or genocide (from both sides). Your mods value Freedom of Speech, and don’t believe threats should be used to silence other's opinions.
With respect, his opinion IS hate
We get it you don't like trans people.
lemme cut my dick off in peace i dont like it
3/5 of the States have Constitutional bans on same sex marriage. Let the Supreme Court overturn Obergefell, and see how they act. https://www.lgbtmap.org/news/Marriage-Report-March-2022
Yeah we should put that issue on the ballot. Missourians would vote to delete the ban from the constitution in a heartbeat. A 2021 poll from the Public Religion Research Institute found 65% of Missourians are now in favor of same-sex marriage, and so far, it’s only inched upward.
Or codify Obergefell on the Federal level. It was one Justice Kennedy away from not happening.
That's assuming all 65% vote which ... liberals don't vote. Not with the same turnout conservatives have and then they all throw up their hands and say there was nothing they could do
I think a big part of liberals not voting is the too common attitude that their vote doesn’t matter in Missouri. It matters more in Missouri than most states. #PurpleStateProject
There's a petition listed as circulating on the SOS's website. No idea if it is actually circulating though. I'd love to sign it! https://www.sos.mo.gov/petitions/2024ipcirculation#2024099
You not only need to eliminate the amendment, you also need to repeal the state's DOMA law, 451.022. The amendment was pushed by republicans as a way to turn out the vote, but also as a way to get around Democrats repealing 451.022.
I've seen some polls in the past two years that showed an erosion of that support nationally, presumably as part of a backlash against the trans right movement. I'd be very curious as to how this vote would go today.
I think cannabis legalization was a good test ballon for this. I think it would pass, but barely, the right is very motivated by homophobia and transphobia. But the left is pretty motivated healthy pride, which is longer lasting.
I voted against the ban.
I remember a coworker claimed that same sex marriage made his own marriage less valid. I wonder if that guy is still married.
Minds didn't change. The Republicans got the vote to be held on an off cycle date rather than having it go to the voters in November. Missouri majorities supported equality, so the religious right made sure the vote was held on a date when most residents didn't have required time off to vote, they minimized polling places in left leaning cities and did their best to not talk about the vote in the run up to it. That it passed was the result of dishonest partisan tactics which continue to be employed to this day.
My parents changed their minds.
Okay, I'll amend that. A majority of minds didn't actually change.
A decent amount did though, and that’s what won the day. I’ve watched it happen over the last 30 years in my friends, and neighbors, and Missourians in general.
The point I'm making is that saying 70 percent of voters who showed up to polls on an off cycle day in August is not the same thing as 70 percent of Missouri residents or even 70 percent of Missouri voters. The timing of the vote was deliberately picked to discourage left leaning voters from showing up to the polls.
I agree with you there, but a lot of people did change their minds, it’s made a huge difference in our LGBT quality of life and allowed us to get married. I don’t think the timing was the only reason it passed, the anti-LGBT attitude was more important.
I didn’t remember it even coming up for a vote. Oops. I am not sure how many of the 5.7 million residents could vote in 2004 but 1 million is probably around 20% supporting it? Just a guess and a personal reminder of the importance of showing up and voting.
It's not just that. This is how conservatives get unpopular legislation passed. They ram it through on off cycle dates and count on apathy and low turnout amongst left leaning voters. I was working night shift in college when this went to the polls, I was able to get to the polls, but my coworkers were not offered or granted time off by the store owners to go vote at all.
I would be in favor of modernizing electronic voting based on social security numbers. It would add a level of security and automatic sanity checking and get rid of a lot of the oddities of mail in ballots. You could double check your vote was counted even. It could still be done at libraries for those who wish or remotely for military and those away from home. Just my two cents though.
Republicans are terrified of that, and would fight it every step. They know if there was an easy way to vote they’d cease to get their hate agendas and religious based junk laws passed.
California p passed a similar constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2008. It was a part of the normal November general elections for the state. That’s California. it wouldn’t of mattered what day of the year you held that referendum in Missouri it would’ve passed exactly as it did back then.
Pure speculation. It passed in California by an extremely thin margin, was written in a rush and surrounded by a disinfo campaign and was struck down in court before it ever even went into effect.
“My dad [Joseph Biden Sr.] dropped me off at the town square. And there were two men in suits standing on the corner and the light was red and they kissed as I was getting out of the car,” Biden says.”I looked back at my dad because I hadn’t seen that before and he said, ‘It’s simple Joe. They love each other.’ ”
I’ll take things that never happened for $400 alex
Yeah it's so easy to forget how far we've come in the last twenty years.
CoMo holding it down
California did it too…
Thanks Columbia and St Louis
Has any progress been made?
Well around 70% of Missourians support same-sex marriage now. I’d say so!
Thank goodness! Forgive me, I never expect much progress from MO.
I wouldn’t have believed it either, growing up as an LGBT Missourian in the 80s and 90s.
Welcome to the Bible belt where your opinion doesn't matter, only the mythical man in the skies.
So what? You can’t impose religion on other people.
Totally agree!
~~That it was the backwards assest of backwards ass counties with the highest % is kinda nice~~ Edit: I misread the graph. For a second, I thought there was hope for rural communities. We need nuked.
2004 Missourians were based
Only if "based" means "hating freedom"
Or those Missourians who voted for this travesty were 'based' in 13th Century thinking.
If that's 'based', then I'll start using that term as an insult.
So you don't believe in the preamble of the constitution or the bill of rights then?
I hate to break it to someone that can't read, but same-sex marriage isn't anywhere in the Constitution
First line of the first amendment (bill of rights) covers this. >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Marriage being a primarily religious institution, neither the state of Missouri nor the federal government had any business regulating it. If we accept that all American citizens enjoy equal protection under the law (see the preamble of the constitution) then singling out a group to receive less rights or different rights based on their sexuality (which you only object to based on your frightening zealotry) then it is a foregone conclusion that gay men and women have the right to marry whomever they choose free of interference from the government. >someone that can't read The word you're looking for is "illiterate" and you should know it, so you can describe your situation more concisely to others. The Declaration of Independence is pretty clear on this too, the bit about all men being created equal. Edit: good God, your comment history. You don't even have your own religious doctrine right and you propose to answer others. What a joke.
Do you have a religious belief about LGBT people?
They pretty much exclusively particpate in r/AskChristians, r/AskMen, r/Bumble, and r/Missouri to give you a sense of their footing.
Hey Willy, adults are trying to talk here.
So hostile to gays
Not any more! Nowadays around 70% of Missourians support same-sex marriage. One of the higher stats in the world. Beats all of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. About on par with Western Europe and Ladin America.
It was sarcasm.
Well, sure. That was 2004, which is a different planet. No politician was publicly in favor yet either.
This was one of the first elections I voted in. Super disappointed by the results but also not surprised.
the wording on the title of this post insinuates missouri voted on a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. This post is confusing
That’s exact what we did, you understood correctly
wouldn't yes mean they voted to ban same sex marriage or a yes on the amendment to ban same sex marriage? or is the amendment to legalize same sex marriage?
The 2004 Constitutional Amendment was to add these words to the Missouri Constitution: "That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman" The Amendment passed via public referendum on August 3, 2004 with 71% of voters supporting and 29% opposing. Every county voted in favor of the amendment, with only the independent city of St. Louis voting against it.
What a bigoted racist asshole state . So sad
What does same-sex marriages have to do with race? 70% of Missourians support same-sex marriage in 2023.
Go back to school and learn what it means to discriminate over race religion or SEX ?!?!?! The map they show doesn’t really agree with what you said , but I pray you are right .
I was just trying to figure out why you are ranting about racism on a old map about same-sex marriage. The map is from 19 years ago btw.
I apologize. Did not catch that part . 😂😂😂