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

[R-Type]

oh I see.. I thought you were implying majority should rule absolute...

[Diamond Cross]

Have you ever heard of the phrase "tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority"?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

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

Great logic!

I didn't imply that. In fact I was implying the opposite. Which is what makes people who attack the idea of gays being republican quite humorous.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

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

for now, but that's not the trend



Summary of Findings: Less Opposition to Gay Marriage, Adoption and Military Service

[6SpeedTA95]

I dont really see what hte argument is against homosexual marriage. If the state/government is going to recognize marriage between two heterosexuals then they need to for two consenting adults regardless of sexual preferences.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I dont really see what hte argument is against homosexual marriage. If the state/government is going to recognize marriage between two heterosexuals then they need to for two consenting adults regardless of sexual preferences.

it's not natural, so we have to make laws against it

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by 7960

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.

Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage - The Boston Globe

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.

Bush Reversal On Homosexual "Civil Unions" Proves Republican Party Platform Sucker-Bait To Fool Christian/Conservative

So what is your point?? Lookie, lookie, a democrat opposes gay unions?? That means nothing to me. Lookie, lookie, Dubya, approves? Im not sure who he was pandering to but he has stated numerous times he opposes gay marriage and gives no real indication that he would support civil unions that would provide equal rights under the law. The base would shit!

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

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

So much for a reasonable conversation, you just blew it out the window with this one.

[7960]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

So what is your point?? Lookie, lookie, a democrat opposes gay unions?? That means nothing to me. Lookie, lookie, Dubya, approves? Im not sure who he was pandering to but he has stated numerous times he opposes gay marriage and gives no real indication that he would support civil unions that would provide equal rights under the law. The base would shit!

my points, because apparently you haven't been paying attention, are:

1. a gay person in the GOP isn't a hypocrite *just* for being a republican, and
2. a person (any person) can be a member of a group and not believe in 100% of their platform.

rebuttal?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

So what is your point?? Lookie, lookie, a democrat opposes gay unions?? That means nothing to me. Lookie, lookie, Dubya, approves? Im not sure who he was pandering to but he has stated numerous times he opposes gay marriage and gives no real indication that he would support civil unions that would provide equal rights under the law. The base would shit!

Because people have been making arguments like this throughout the thread:

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Being against gay marriage is the consensus in the Republican party.

When in reality, many Republicans are now like Bush and would support equal rights. And many Dems (even Senators from Mass.) are against gay marriage.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

When in reality, many Republicans are now like Bush and would support equal rights. And many Dems (even Senators from Mass.) are against gay marriage.

Do you know what consensus means?

Are you honestly going to tell me that, as far as the GOP goes, they are on the fence about gay marriage?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Do you know what consensus means?

Are you honestly going to tell me that, as far as the GOP goes, they are on the fence about gay marriage?

I understand your posts, but the general overview of this thread has been people stereotyping gays and the GOP. Just trying to show why people are countering the stereotypes.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because people have been making arguments like this throughout the thread:


When in reality, many Republicans are now like Bush and would support equal rights. And many Dems (even Senators from Mass.) are against gay marriage.

I highly doubt a majority of Republicans would even support civil unions, let alone marriage for gays.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by 7960

my points, because apparently you haven't been paying attention, are:

I have been paying attention and do not think you are in any position to criticize as you refuse to acknowledge any logic to my posts whatsoever. You just really choose to argue and ignore the fact the as a platform Republicans do not respect homosexual relationships and this stand has been used to drive many a political race.

1. a gay person in the GOP isn't a hypocrite *just* for being a republican,

I have voiced my opinion on this time and again in this thread and have stated why I feel this way. As long as the republican party spends time money and effort to drive the voters by using any sort of anti gay message, then I consider gays helping with that message to be a hypocrites. You cant change my mind on this. I dont think you are right and you dont think I am right. Nuff said.

2. a person (any person) can be a member of a group and not believe in 100% of their platform.

rebuttal?[/quote]

With this I agree 100%, however, when a platform actually attacks the very lifestyle I may live and my individuals right to equal protection under the law, then my own character wont allow me to give support in any way, due to this this single very important issue.

Good Example: I refuse to be part of a political phone bank that is working to encourage lazy voters to get out and vote, why? I hate solicitous phone calls of any kind so it would be very hypocritical of me to participate in something I detest. As badly as I want to see the leadership change, I cant go against my own principles in any way to accomplish the task.

I can agree with only parts of something and not throw out the rest because of it. Like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But this topic is so funamentally basic to the human condition, I just cant imagine aligning myself with any of it because, in the end all the good becomes soured in light that my very lifestyle is considered less than credible.

That is my opinion and nothing you have said has waivered it in the least.

A rebuttal isnt necessary. If there is no genuine interest to even attempt to find middle ground on an issue then arguing for the sake of arguing eventually becomes tedious and boring. Now if republicans want to give less voice to the the religious right and more to reason and logic for all this nations citizens, then I might rethink my position. Since that isnt the case, I stand firm with my take on hypocrites in any party.

[7960]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I have voiced my opinion on this time and again in this thread and have stated why I feel this way. As long as the republican party spends time money and effort to drive the voters by using any sort of anti gay message, then I consider gays helping with that message to be a hypocrites. You cant change my mind on this. I dont think you are right and you dont think I am right. Nuff said.

Agree, 'nuff said. Everyone has the option to choose an opinion that's wrong

(note: I didn't say which of us is wrong )

With this I agree 100%, however, when a platform actually attacks the very lifestyle I may live and my individuals right to equal protection under the law, then my own character wont allow me to give support in any way, due to this this single very important issue.

I was a republican but was also a teacher. Republicans fought against the union, fought against higher taxes to pay my salary, fought against my benefits......republicans were against everything being a teacher meant. Was I a hypocrite for remaining in education?

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by 7960

Agree, 'nuff said. Everyone has the option to choose an opinion that's wrong

(note: I didn't say which of us is wrong )

I was a republican but was also a teacher. Republicans fought against the union, fought against higher taxes to pay my salary, fought against my benefits......republicans were against everything being a teacher meant. Was I a hypocrite for remaining in education?

No, my big question would be why remain a republican and you certainly did nothing to help your profession. That is okay, you can always choose a new profession and I can almost understand that there are other things more important than you livelihood and credibility to your chosen profession, i think. On the other hand you cannot choose your sexual preference or even who you truly fall in love with.

Imagine the person you love most in the world dying in the hospital and you cant be there because you are not considered next of kin nor are you able to participate in care or consultations. Many families still do not honor these relationships. You cant put that person on your health insurance because they are not your legal spouse. And worse case scenario, your will may not even hold up in court as there is nothing legal to prove that your partner was more important to you than your family. And the list could go on. These are basics in the human condition.

Now I will concede in one area. If you are gay, and you are a republican, and you openly do not support legislation that prohibits other gays in the prusuit of happiness, then, I would call that honorable. About the first time you voted along party lines to condemn and discriminate against the rights of gays as equal citizens, then you are either a hypocrite or you honestly believe being gay is wrong.

Now I ask,,,, Does any of this work for you?

[7960]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Imagine the person you love most in the world dying in the hospital and you cant be there because you are not considered next of kin nor are you able to participate in care or consultations. Many families still do not honor these relationships. You cant put that person on your health insurance because they are not your legal spouse. And worse case scenario, your will may not even hold up in court as there is nothing legal to prove that your partner was more important to you than your family. And the list could go on. These are basics in the human condition.

A few legal documents and I can indicate anyone is my medical proxy and durable power of attorney. Those are solid and a challenge in court would lose, and in the meantime that person would still be making medical decisions for me.

[Thorgrim]

We're some 3 weeks from one of the biggest elections in modern history, and all you guys want to argue about is gay marriage and kennedy in the 1960s...this is why Charlie Cook is predicting today that its more likely Democrats will gain 30+ seats than 15+ seats

The Cook Political Report National Overview

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I dont really see what hte argument is against homosexual marriage. If the state/government is going to recognize marriage between two heterosexuals then they need to for two consenting adults regardless of sexual preferences.

why not three ? four ? Adult brother and sisters ?


Get the govt out of marriage/civil unions.