Gays are coming out of the closet whether they like it or not - Page 8

KatKanPlay · 10-12-2006, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Why should we change the laws to support a minority that hasnt shown to give any benefit to us ?

I am fucking speechless......

RMNIXON · 10-12-2006, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

If evidence existed that suggested he was a pedophile, I would have supported his removal. Period. Same with Democrats. This isn't about him being gay, this is about him being a pedophile.

I respect your opinion.

But as for Democrats check your history! In fact a certain memeber of their party was given nothing more than censure after having sex with a 17 year old male page and was cheered by a number of Democrats when that happened!

RMNIXON · 10-12-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

This is the worst argument ever. 'Oh the horror that a gay might be a republican!!' It's obvious they don't choose their parties based on one issue. What's the problem?

The small (NO LIEBERMANS) tent party treats all Gay, Black, Brown, Republicans as traitors. They are such open minded tollerant people they are!

Scrum · 10-12-2006, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

But as for Democrats check your history! In fact a certain memeber of their party was given nothing more than censure after having sex with a 17 year old male page and was cheered by a number of Democrats when that happened!

I hear Clinton and Kennedy stood behind him pushing his ass while he sodomized that boy.

Diamond Cross · 10-12-2006, 10:04 PM

Remember, it's okay for liberaqls tro be Pedophiles but not conservatives.

RMNIXON · 10-12-2006, 10:20 PM

Foley's two political problems:

He was not a Democrat.

The boy was a page not a an over 18 female intern. Then using your power and authority to obtain sex is none of your god damn business!

As for his personal problems he has many.

Diesel66 · 10-12-2006, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Since they deny spousal rights in any form.

I cannot marry my cousin, is the republican party anti-cousin ?

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I am fucking speechless......

Why do you think marriage benefits exist at all ? To provide a benefit to society/govt.

JaJae · 10-12-2006, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It's absolutely not true. Just because they don't want gay marriage doesn't mean they hate gays.

This reminds me of the we support the troops, just not their mission...

garbagemanlb · 10-13-2006, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

This reminds me of the we support the troops, just not their mission...

So in order to wish the best for our troops, we must support the goals of this administration?

Great logic!

7960 · 10-13-2006, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

It is the Republicans that deny certain rights under the law to the gay community.

Well, the republicans *and* John Kerry

Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._gay_marriage/

Since civil union != marriage so kerry (a democrat, in case you didn't know) also opposes "certain rights" for gays.

And let's not forget good ol' W...... he rejects his party's platform and AGREES with civil unions!

Gibson: They could be born that way. If that's the case, just for sake of argument, that's an unalterable characteristic for them. That's like being black or being a woman. So, how can we deny them rights in any way to a civil union that would allow, give them the same economic rights or health rights or other things?

Mr. Bush: I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's when a state chooses to do so.

Gibson: But the platform opposes it.

Mr. Bush: Well, I don't. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman.

Gibson: So, the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?

Mr. Bush: Right.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=207

Diamond Cross · 10-13-2006, 01:33 AM

By the way, if the homosexuals are angry at the GOP, that's just more scapegoating. The majority of Americans, not just religious ones either, do not support homosexual marriage nor do they accept it.

Kytro · 10-13-2006, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

The majority of Americans, not just religious ones either, do not support homosexual marriage nor do they accept it.

404 Good reasoning not found

Diamond Cross · 10-13-2006, 01:55 AM

Sez you.

The GOP: are acting on behalf of their constituents, and most of them do not support homosexual marriage. They are only doing what they're paid to do: represent their constituents. The vast majority of Americans do not support homosexual marriage, but the GOP gets the blame?

Shame.

What gypocrisy.

Scrum · 10-13-2006, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Sez you.

The GOP: are acting on behalf of their constituents, and most of them do not support homosexual marriage. They are only doing what they're paid to do: represent their constituents. The vast majority of Americans do not support homosexual marriage, but the GOP gets the blame?

Shame.

What gypocrisy.

Limiting freedoms is the GOP way.

nbiggershaft · 10-13-2006, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Sez you.

The GOP: are acting on behalf of their constituents, and most of them do not support homosexual marriage. They are only doing what they're paid to do: represent their constituents. The vast majority of Americans do not support homosexual marriage, but the GOP gets the blame?

Shame.

What gypocrisy.

Thats quite possibly the silliest arguement I have ever heard. I typed and deleted about 5 different rebuttals until I decided that I couldn't manage without having a blood vessel pop in my brain. ..... for serious

R-Type · 10-13-2006, 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Remember, it's okay for liberaqls tro be Pedophiles but not conservatives.

It's not ok because the conservatives are usually the ones flaunting their supposed high standards of christian sexual morality during their campaigns. It's hypocrisy of the worst kind. What really amazes me is how the religious evangelical communities tolerate it. I guess they're too busy complaining about the 'atheist communist liberals' to notice.. Well now that I think about it, the well documented priest abuse cases sure didn't make them question their faith in their religious organizations. Maybe it is the mental alacrity of religious zealots that should be questioned..

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

But that is what you're doing, screwing over GOP homosexuals on the just because. There is no real morality to it at all.

You're exactly right. It's certainly unfair to the closeted who wish to remain so. However, when these people, in their political guises, denounce an activity/lifestyle that they are engaged in while respresenting (supposedly) the interests of their voterbases, it calls into question their integrity as officers.

Republicans have also targeted so-called sexual immorality at democratic integrity (clinton-lewinsky ad nauseum

). What I don't get is how either side can still justify their moral superiority in this area when they've both committed the kinds of acts they're accusing the other side of, AND they have both executed witch hunts on those bases. I don't even get why they bother anymore. People have straight sex. Some like it gay. Some are kinks. Some use a divider sheet. Some like it with teens. Others like them even younger. These have all been facts since the dawn of humanity. Get over it already and focus on real issues for once. Less airtime on sex scandals, please, and more time on solutions for energy, environment, security (physical and for my liberties too), and healthcare/retirement. If I wanted to watch sex scandals play out, I can turn on jerry springer.

What a waste..and they wonder why voter turn out is so low these days.

R-Type · 10-13-2006, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

By the way, if the homosexuals are angry at the GOP, that's just more scapegoating. The majority of Americans, not just religious ones either, do not support homosexual marriage nor do they accept it.

Any worthy conservative would strenuously object to government attempts at regulating his private matters, majority-willed or not. The 'rights of the majority' are not what needs protection, rather it is the liberty of individuals that need protection from the tyranny of the majority. Since gay and straight marriage can coexist, there's no sufferage for hetero couples.

Diamond Cross · 10-13-2006, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by R-Type

Any worthy conservative would strenuously object to government attempts at regulating his private matters, majority-willed or not. The 'rights of the majority' are not what needs protection, rather it is the liberty of individuals that need protection from the tyranny of the majority. Since gay and straight marriage can coexist, there's no sufferage for hetero couples.

I agree save for one thing, any sensible democrat or conservative should strenuously object to government regulating private matters. Government should be kept out of private matters altogether.

R-Type · 10-13-2006, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I agree save for one thing, any sensible democrat or conservative should strenuously object to government regulating private matters. Government should be kept out of private matters altogether.

oh so you changed your mind?

What should happen when private interests get too powerful and start to encroach on the private matters of others?

Diamond Cross · 10-13-2006, 03:41 AM

Changed my mind on what?

The Foley case? No, I want to see hard evidence not just a bunch of hearsay. If Foley himself confesses then that tells me he is at least attempting to take responsibilityh for it, although he should be in jail if he confesses.

I haven't changed my mind of the Democratic tit-for-tat tactic either. That's just bullshit and has no real morality behind it,

I believe in matters of sex between consenting adults should be left private and not regulated by the government, even among the most unpopular form of it.

In the southern states they did have such laws on the books, for example laws that made illegal certain sexual positions because they were more or less targeted at harassing