Originally Posted by 7960 Why is there a distinction between a congressman and mr. rogers? Either it's ok to out both or neither, take your pick. Not really, as a public servant you give up quite a bit of your privacy rights....
10-11-2006, 03:44 PM
| #21 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent 
| Originally Posted by 7960 Not really, as a public servant you give up quite a bit of your privacy rights. 
| ||||
     |
|
10-11-2006, 03:48 PM
| #22 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by Phantom They are just staffers.
| ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 03:50 PM
| #23 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz I guess that sucks for the staffers, but there's not much you can do to stop someone from saying the truth
 | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 03:51 PM
| #24 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist
| Originally Posted by Phantom Why? Why is whether he dates men or women an issue? Why isn't whether a congressman dates blondes or brunettes an issue?
Specifically, why is it hypocritical to work in the white house/be in the GOP and be gay? | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 03:54 PM
| #25 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by Phantom I'm not suggesting anybody can stop him. I'm suggesting it's being done for political reasons. It shows the true colors of the liberals.
| ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 03:55 PM
| #26 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| Originally Posted by 7960 it's an issue because someone thinks its an issue. Anyone can decide what they want to make an issue out of
whether it's hypocritical or not is really a matter of opinion, and again, people can decide for themselves. What is your specific concern with people being "outed"? | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 03:56 PM
| #27 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz that's a perfectly fair opinion...
| ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 04:00 PM
| #28 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by Phantom Oh I don't know...maybe because it's that guy's private life and it's nobody's business but his?
Maybe his father blah blah blah....... Maybe his place of work blah blah blah........ Maybe his religion blah blah blah........ Maybe it's nobody's business but his who he tells who he sleeps with. | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 04:03 PM
| #29 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| Originally Posted by 7960 It sucks, but if you want privacy you really have to protect it yourself.
I am guessing Mr. Rogers isn't getting his info by bugging offices or through trickery, he probably just heard who's gay from his friends/contacts. If he's getting the info through normal means, the gays didn't do enough to protect their gayness... | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 04:22 PM
| #30 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz That they are willing to expose people for political gain?
 They are the only ones to ever do such a thing. | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 04:30 PM
| #31 | ||||
| Noob Progressive
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz
...kinda reminds me of all the gay marriage measures on the ballots in 2004 It matters not how gay rights issues affect the lives of gays, or how gay rights issues DO NOT affect the lives of heterosexuals. It only matters how the election results are affected. | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 05:13 PM
| #32 | ||||
| interwebberus professionalus  Independent
|
i used to watch the west wing pretty religiously, and one episode had josh (deputy chief of staff or something) arguing with a GOP congressman about being involved with them, and the congressman quite poignantly stated that his sexuality was not his whole life, and that there was more to either party than the stances they take on homosexual civil unions. i wish i had a transcript of the show because it was one of the few times in my life i have been notieceably moved by something i've seen on the tube, and it offered me an understanding of how gays could be justifiably involved with the party, given their discriminatory acts against them. i think its a pretty fucked up thing to do to these people, regardless of any apparent hypocrisy. i do understand the hyposcrisy arguement, especially if they are voting against measures of equality for gays, and i almost want to say that they should be outed for this reason alone. but these men and women have families who may not know, and they have the right to be the sole source of information regarding their sexuality to their families. | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 05:19 PM
| #33 | ||||
| Banned  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| No one forced these guys to go to gay clubs and enter gay social circles where the rule is "Never out someone unless they are harming homosexuals in gender" It was a contract he entered in, and this is the result | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 05:57 PM
| #34 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by imind season 2, episode 207, "The Portland Trip"
http://www.twiztv.com/cgi-bin/thewes...stwing-207.txt JOSH | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 06:04 PM
| #35 | ||||
| Last Starfighter  Independent Northern California
| Huh? First of all, people are assuming that homosexual members of the GOP generally support the GOP position that Gay marriage is wrong and should be illegal or banned or whtever. This is notneccessarily true. Politics makes stange bedfellows, and here's an examp0le of what I'm trying to say: The radical Feminists, the ones who hate men and say men are nothing more than potential rapists, are against pornography because, at least acording to them, it degrades other women. Now, if you want to discuss t5hat aspet that'sd another thread. Now, the things is they've allied themselves with Christians who're also against pornography because they have a common interest, despite the hatred of homosexuals that Christians have. People who assume that Gay Republicans who support the Christian agenda of ostracising homosexuals out of the country for their erroneous fear of homosexuals being a threat to the traditional nukelear(sp?) family are wrong. They may have other common interests that the Democratic party doesn't share. One of the big things about politics is thst it's all about common interests, and never morality. | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 06:04 PM
| #36 | ||||
| interwebberus professionalus Independent
| Originally Posted by 7960
 posted like a champion. well done. | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 06:08 PM
| #37 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by imind this is teh intarents........it's got this shit all over it!
 | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 06:11 PM
| #38 | ||||
| Yeah, that guy.  Progressive Oregon
| Originally Posted by 7960
When the religious right powerhouse is dealt with, then gay republicans might be understandable. Until that time, any gay person working for the GOP right now is a hypocrite, as the GOP is currently pandering shamelessly to the religious right. | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 06:13 PM
| #39 | ||||
| Last Starfighter Independent Northern California
| So if one works for a party, they absolutely have to support the entire platform on hundred percent? | ||||
| |
|
10-11-2006, 06:32 PM
| #40 | ||||
| Yeah, that guy. Progressive Oregon
| Originally Posted by Diamond Cross |
