Why are the Republican gays such freaks?

[RJ]

Why are these guys so into the weird stuff? I mean, being openly gay isn't so unusual these days. Seems like you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a homosexual lately..... Note to Peta: I don't swing dead cats. I first attempt to resuscitate them, then I take them to the nearest vet..... So what's with the drug dealing gay prostitute, airport mens room and young boys? Why can't these guys just act like normal gay men? Find a boyfriend, renovate a downtown loft, open an antique shop and act like a respectable citizen.

Why is it they need to live on that edge?

[Laz]

when sexuality is repressed it gets twisted

[Deberg_1990]

Im Not Gay!!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RABQBG1&show_article=1

[Ultra Peanut]

when sexuality is repressed it gets twistedhttp://www.edb.utexas.edu/ATLab/Clipart/devicepics/bingo.jpg

[ChiefaRoo]

when sexuality is repressed it gets twisted

I'm a conservative but I love me some hot monkey loving. I think it misses the point to put this on one party or another. People are people.

[RJ]

I'm a conservative but I love me some hot monkey loving. I think it misses the point to put this on one party or another. People are people.


Barney Frank appears to be your average middle aged gay man.

Larry Craig cruises the mens rooms.

I don't mean to imply that conservatives can't be gay, I just wonder why they gots to do the freaky stuff.

We're talking about middle aged men here, seems like they should be past that sort of behavior.

[jAZ]

I'm a conservative but I love me some hot monkey loving. I think it misses the point to put this on one party or another. People are people.
If you mean that it's possible for members of both parties to live sexually repressed lives... yes. That's true. It ignores the fact that the Republican party has built a large plank of it's party platform on sexually repressing society.... and the Dems have typically not catered to that crowd... but there are surely a few dems who are sexually repressed and some are likely closet homosexuals.

[Laz]

I'm a conservative but I love me some hot monkey loving. I think it misses the point to put this on one party or another. People are people.
i didn't say 'when republican sexuality gets repressed .......'


sex is pretty much hardwired into human beings. It will come out somehow. If it gets repressed then it tends to get pretty twisted ... the more it gets repressed the more twisted it gets.

[ChiefaRoo]

i didn't say 'when republican sexuality gets repressed .......'


sex is pretty much hardwired into human beings. It will come out somehow. If it gets repressed then it tends to get pretty twisted ... the more it gets repressed the more twisted it gets.

You may not have but it's been said by others on this thread.

[ChiefaRoo]

If you mean that it's possible for members of both parties to live sexually repressed lives... yes. That's true. It ignores the fact that the Republican party has built a large plank of it's party platform on sexually repressing society.... and the Dems have typically not catered to that crowd... but there are surely a few dems who are sexually repressed and some are likely closet homosexuals.

I don't think the Reagan Republicans of which I am one have done anything to repress sexuality. You are thinking of the Falwell era which was well outside of the government and that issue was settled between Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell a long time ago.

[Nightwish]

I wouldn't say that Republican gays are really any more freaky than non-Republican gays. It just seems that way, because Republicans tend to take a much more oppressive, and sometimes puritanical stance on issues of sexuality, and especially homosexuality. So when they're caught in the act, they stick out like a sore thumb.

[ChiefaRoo]

I wouldn't say that Republican gays are really any more freaky than non-Republican gays. It just seems that way, because Republicans tend to take a much more oppressive, and sometimes puritanical stance on issues of sexuality, and especially homosexuality. So when they're caught in the act, they stick out like a sore thumb.
I'd agree with that by and large. Personally, I am much more socially moderate than I am on Governmental issues and America's role in the world. I'm not a big fan of evangelicals.

[keg in kc]

It's a problem with american society and the way we view sexuality. We're taught from childhood sex is something "dirty" and "naughty". Beyond that, regardless of party affiliation or religion, homosexuality carries a cultural stigma (which is often internalized).

I think in the end it should come down to respect. Respect for yourself and your body, respect for the human, in general, and respect for other people. Live and let live, and find a way to get in touch not just with sexuality but with emotion in general.

We're one puritanical bunch of f*cked up people, we are.

[ChiefaRoo]

It's a problem with american society and the way we view sexuality. We're taught from childhood sex is something "dirty" and "naughty". Beyond that, regardless of party affiliation or religion, homosexuality carries a cultural stigma (which is often internalized).

I think in the end it should come down to respect. Respect for yourself and your body, respect for the human, in general, and respect for other people. Live and let live, and find a way to get in touch not just with sexuality but with emotion in general.

We're one puritanical bunch of f*cked up people, we are.

Listen Keg. It's not an American issues it's a people issue. There are people all over the world that run the spectrum from A to Z sexually. It's just part of being human.

[keg in kc]

Listen Keg. It's not an American issues it's a people issue. There are people all over the world that run the spectrum from A to Z sexually. It's just part of being human.I'm not talking about the sexuality, the act of sex, I'm talking about the way we view sexuality as a culture. We're Victorians in the 21st century. I'm sure the stories coming out are only the tip of the iceberg. Because until we grow up and come to grips with the fact that sex is something good, something beautiful, something to be celebrated and enjoyed rather than whispered and joked about, we're only going to see more and more of this kind of bizarre shit. As long as we're repressed and suppressed this is what we get.

[Taco John]

I can tell you this: Larry Craig isn't going to survive a gay scandal in Idaho. You'd be hard pressed to find a more conservative state in The Union. It's "liberalled-out" a little in Boise, Pocatello, and *some* of Northern Idaho. But for the most part, you're looking at farming communities and mormon country. Not that mormons have a monopoly. Plenty of Catholics and Pentecostal Evangelicals there as well.

Just the scent of gay on him will finish his political career in Idaho. He might as well start shopping for homes in San Francisco.

[Pitt Gorilla]

We're only going to see more and more of this kind of bizarre shit.
As long as we're repressed and suppressed
this is what we get.Dude, you should rap.

[a1na2]

I can tell you this: Larry Craig isn't going to survive a gay scandal in Idaho. You'd be hard pressed to find a more conservative state in The Union. It's "liberalled-out" a little in Boise, Pocatello, and *some* of Northern Idaho. But for the most part, you're looking at farming communities and mormon country. Not that mormons have a monopoly. Plenty of Catholics and Pentecostal Evangelicals there as well.

Just the scent of gay on him will finish his political career in Idaho. He might as well start shopping for homes in San Francisco.

A republican in the land of the liberals? He'd be better off in Idaho.

[chagrin]

I wouldn't say that Republican gays are really any more freaky than non-Republican gays. It just seems that way, because Republicans tend to take a much more oppressive, and sometimes puritanical stance on issues of sexuality, and especially homosexuality. So when they're caught in the act, they stick out like a sore thumb.

That's a very good point, Laz also made a good observation. What I find the most insulting about this is that the dude voted against all the ghey issues on the ballot and appears to be in the closet; he did himself and his true peers a disservice.

[a1na2]

That's a very good point, Laz also made a good observation. What I find the most insulting about this is that the dude voted against all the ghey issues on the ballot and appears to be in the closet; he did himself and his true peers a disservice.

Good to see the planet judicial system in action.

I don't know if he is gay or not, but according to virtually all of the posts here he has been judged and is awaiting execution.

[Amnorix]

Good to see the planet judicial system in action.

I don't know if he is gay or not, but according to virtually all of the posts here he has been judged and is awaiting execution.

I wasn't aware that this was a courtroom, or that all of society was required to consider him innocent until proven guilty.

Don't confuse the rules in the courthouse with the rules of public opinion.

[chagrin]

Good to see the planet judicial system in action.

I don't know if he is gay or not, but according to virtually all of the posts here he has been judged and is awaiting execution.


Whoa, hang on - I don't condemn him

[StcChief]

Those 'gay' Republicans should just switch parties.

Then it won't matter they wont have to believe or stand for anything.

[memyselfI]

Those 'gay' Republicans should just switch parties.

Then it won't matter they wont have to believe or stand for anything.

Yes, we affirm your right to be a flaming hypocrite. All gay CON freaks are welcome.

[oldandslow]

Good to see the planet judicial system in action.

I don't know if he is gay or not, but according to virtually all of the posts here he has been judged and is awaiting execution.

He is the one that pled guilty....the planet judicial system had nothing to do with it.

[stevieray]

I'm not talking about the sexuality, the act of sex, I'm talking about the way we view sexuality as a culture. We're Victorians in the 21st century. I'm sure the stories coming out are only the tip of the iceberg. Because until we grow up and come to grips with the fact that sex is something good, something beautiful, something to be celebrated and enjoyed rather than whispered and joked about, we're only going to see more and more of this kind of bizarre shit. As long as we're repressed and suppressed this is what we get.

ya, forty million abortions later, almost half the kids born out of wedlock sounds real repressed. The old tried and true someone else is responsible for my actions.

bottom line is, getting laid has become more important than the repsonsibilites that come with it.

[oldandslow]

ya, forty million abortions later, almost half the kids born out of wedlock sounds real repressed. The old tried and true someone else is responsible for my actions.

bottom line is, getting laid has become more important than the repsonsibilites that come with it.

I don't think gay men can procreate in a gay relationship, but maybe I am missing missing.

How many gay men have had abortions? Maybe we need a poll.

[Nightwish]

I don't think gay men can procreate in a gay relationship, but maybe I am missing missing.
I don't think you're missing missing. In fact, you threw it in there twice, for good measure! ;)

[stevieray]

I don't think gay men can procreate in a gay relationship, but maybe I am missing missing.

How many gay men have had abortions? Maybe we need a poll.

sarcasm from such an intelligent and caring man....playing semantics to avoid the point being presented...

claiming to being sexually "repressed" isn't relegated just for homosexuals.

the damage from the breakdown of family is already done. you'll see it more than ever by the way we treat our seniors in coming years...exactly why the generation that opened pandora's box wants socialistic healthcare.

[BucEyedPea]

We're Victorians in the 21st century.

We're hardly Victorian anymore. Things are freer and more open than that era. How much freer or tighter things get have ebb'd and flowed throughout history. When things go to far there's a backlash to the other extremes at times. That's how we got the Victorian era.

I wouldn't want to be hit up in a public restroom though by another lesbian. I just wouldn't want to be put into a position to even have to deal with it. Now if I went into a gay bar or area, then I ought to know what to expect and make that choice. Then I'd have to deal with it, even if I wanted to refuse.

[Nightwish]

sarcasm from such an intelligent and caring man....playing semantics to avoid the point being presented...

claiming to being sexually "repressed" isn't relegated just for homosexuals.

the damage from the breakdown of family is already done. you'll see it more than ever by the way we treat our seniors in coming years...exactly why the generation that opened pandora's box wants socialistic healthcare.
Neither side is without fault. I agree with you that the relaxation of traditional family values has had a damaging effect in many instances. But you can't deny that the stigma placed on sex by many of the more conservative elements of American culture has also had a damaging effect, which has led to both the repression and oppression of sexuality in many instances. Blame is equally shared, in my opinion.

[Jilly]

It's a problem with american society and the way we view sexuality. We're taught from childhood sex is something "dirty" and "naughty". Beyond that, regardless of party affiliation or religion, homosexuality carries a cultural stigma (which is often internalized).

I think in the end it should come down to respect. Respect for yourself and your body, respect for the human, in general, and respect for other people. Live and let live, and find a way to get in touch not just with sexuality but with emotion in general.

We're one puritanical bunch of f*cked up people, we are.

I think that's exactly right. I also think part of it has to do with if someone has been raised in a more conservative household, then this "dirty" and "naughty" mentality is heightened... and the idea of being a homosexual becomes even more of a stigma. And I think that's right, yes, it gets more repressed and comes out in an even more twisted way.

[BucEyedPea]

Here I thought liberals claimed scientifically that homosexuals were born that way or it was genetic? Now it's allegedly caused, with no proof, from growing up in a conservative home. Go figure. They wanna have their cake and eat it too.

[patteeu]

What I find the most insulting about this is that the dude voted against all the ghey issues on the ballot and appears to be in the closet; he did himself and his true peers a disservice.

I disagree. There's no reason why being gay means you have to favor the concept of hate crimes or expanding marriage to same sex couples.

I oppose hate crimes legislation period. That includes hate crimes against men, despite the fact that I'm a man. I don't think that does men a disservice.

Personally, I favor gay marriage because I think stable, monogomous, lifetime partnerships are good for society. I think they are taming. But I can understand why some people would want to set heterosexual partnerships that have a greater likelihood of producing offspring on a higher pedestal than other relationships in order to encourage strong families for the sake of raising kids and I don't think it would be a disservice to other gays if a gay person held that view.

[Laz]

Here I thought liberals claimed scientifically that homosexuals were born that way or it was genetic? Now it's allegedly caused, with no proof, from growing up in a conservative home. Go figure. They wanna have their cake and eat it too.
except for people aren't saying that

it's the expression of sex(ie sexuality) that gets twisted from repression ... not sexual preference.

besides it's not even the conservative background ... it's a repressed background. I consider there to be a difference, maybe you don't. :shrug:



But hey ..... keep taking it personally.

[StcChief]

Yes, we affirm your right to be a flaming hypocrite. All gay CON freaks are welcome.
Me a Flaming hypocrite..... that's rich.

I don't live in Idaho or know this guy. Was he setup, is he gay? stupid likely.

Let the court decide.

[Iowanian]

Who is really creapier? The Republican geezer-queer who wants a BJ from some dude while he's taking a dump in a public restroom.....or the far left liberal queer, who is waiting in the rest room, waiting to give mouth secks to creepy old geezers?


stc..you back off dense. I'm sure she has extensive experience performing similar acts at rest areas to put herself through stayathomeandbitchontheinterweb college.

[jAZ]

I don't think the Reagan Republicans of which I am one have done anything to repress sexuality. You are thinking of the Falwell era which was well outside of the government and that issue was settled between Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell a long time ago.
If you voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004... you made yourself a Bush Republican. You might have since removed yourself, but you empowered this version of the Republican party. And this version made sexaul repression a major part of it's party platform. I'm not saying you yourself support it, but you empowered the people who enacted it (and said going in that they would).

You get what you vote for.

[patteeu]

If you voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004... you made yourself a Bush Republican. You might have since removed yourself, but you empowered this version of the Republican party. And this version made sexaul repression a major part of it's party platform. I'm not saying you yourself support it, but you empowered the people who enacted it (and said going in that they would).

You get what you vote for.

That's dumb. Sexual repression is no more a part of the Republican platform, than it is the democrat's. President Bush gives me no reason to believe he has a problem with gays and Dick Cheney lovingly raised a wonderful daughter who happens to be a lesbian.

[Jilly]

Here I thought liberals claimed scientifically that homosexuals were born that way or it was genetic? Now it's allegedly caused, with no proof, from growing up in a conservative home. Go figure. They wanna have their cake and eat it too.

you're an idiot. We're talking about deviant behavior...twisted behavior...not homosexuality itself.

[jAZ]

I don't think the Reagan Republicans of which I am one have done anything to repress sexuality.
And don't forget Reagan's stance on the AIDS epidemic that blew up during his tenure. He avoided the subject publicly (at a time when public awareness and education were critical) for 6+ years until.

That might have had something to do with Regean choosing Bill "Homosexuality takes 30 years off your life" Bennett to be his Secretary of Education... and Gary "Homosexual activity is not a civil right" Bauer to be his Chief Domestic Policy Advisor.

But I guess that whole crowd doesn't fall into the catagory Reagan Republicans?

[jAZ]

Sexual repression is no more a part of the Republican platform, than it is the democrat's.
Which party seeks to change the alter the constitution to ban gay marriage? Which one wants abstinence only education on AIDS?

[patteeu]

Which party seeks to change the alter the constitution to ban gay marriage? Which one wants abstinence only education on AIDS?

I don't get it. What do either of those things have to do with sexual repression?

[memyselfI]

Me a Flaming hypocrite..... that's rich.

I don't live in Idaho or know this guy. Was he setup, is he gay? stupid likely.

Let the court decide.


Unless you are a gay con freak then that remark wasn't directed at you...

It was directed at hysterical homophobes who end up secretly liking that they profess to loathe. That doesn't describe you, does it. You said they should go to the Dems because we stand for nothing. I agreed that we just love your CON rejects when they are exposed for who they truly are.

[Laz]

Sexual repression is no more a part of the Republican platform, than it is the democrat's.

more denial

[jAZ]

I don't get it. What do either of those things have to do with sexual repression?
Banning gay marriage and refusing to provide sexually explicit medical education doesn't in any way qualify as sexual repression in your view.

I know you are and endless apologist, and will gladly deny any ills of the Bush Administration, but please.

Even you aren't really this blind.

[Jilly]

I don't get it. What do either of those things have to do with sexual repression?

abstinance has a tendency to sexually repress people... while a good thing, it doesn't address that people make mistakes...instead it has a tendency to make that mistake even more naughty, therefore forcing people into the closet even more.

[StcChief]

Unless you are a gay con freak then that remark wasn't directed at you...

It was directed at hysterical homophobes who end up secretly liking that they profess to loathe. That doesn't describe you, does it.
Gay con freak - what's that again? I'm not gay, a convict or a freak.

Maybe this Sen.Craig from Idaho is, who knows, it will come out now....

What would a democrat do if caught.

Pull a Bill Clinton...and lie/deny until 100 proof was found, still hoping it would go away.

Or say Gay's are cool and I am one.... and convince his wife to support him on the statement.

It's up to him to decide. His days a senator are likely numbered.

(R) Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter would appoint his replacement...


so no dancin' yet Libbies :p

[Laz]

being gay is a sin
gay marriage is illegal
'gayness' is ruining the moral fiber of america
gay subject in school are forbidden


these thing are a major part of the republican platform


Hypothetical example: A loyal republican, Sen. Larry Craig, has homosexual feelings. But everyone in his party tells him that such feeling are "evil" so he pushes them out of his mind and tells himself "i will NOT do this!!"


that is sexual repression


as Craig has these feeling and keep telling himself not to have them .... feelings of guilt start to build. The sexual feelings won't go away so they start to manifest themselves in other ways. The person with start have sexual fantasies. Their mind with start trying to find someway to be express that won't bring public shame and guilt. Evidently the "hidden and secret" part of the sexual fantasies start to become part of the sexual arousal .. the adrenalin rush of doing something secret and naughty will take a bigger and bigger role in the sexual fantasies. Eventually the person will actually do something. It escalates to more and more actions with bigger and bigger danger.

sex has been twisted into adrenalin rush/Naughty guilt/sexual fantasies.

all because the persons originally sexual feelings were repressed.

[patteeu]

abstinance has a tendency to sexually repress people... while a good thing, it doesn't address that people make mistakes...instead it has a tendency to make that mistake even more naughty, therefore forcing people into the closet even more.

Now that's a good point! I suppose abstinence is, technically speaking, an actual form of sexual repression so I stand corrected.

OTOH, most parents, liberal or conservative, advocate abstinence for their underage kids so there's some repression going on on both sides and most of us would agree that's not a bad thing.

[patteeu]

Banning gay marriage and refusing to provide sexually explicit medical education doesn't in any way qualify as sexual repression in your view.

I know you are and endless apologist, and will gladly deny any ills of the Bush Administration, but please.

Even you aren't really this blind.

This is why I still disagree with you. Jilly made a good point, but that's not at all what you are trying to say. I still think your attempt to smear Republicans is dumb. Especially on the gay marriage point. Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with repression sexuality. Advocating abstinence encourages people to repress their own sexuality to a more responsible level, but it doesn't force anything on anyone.

[patteeu]

being gay is a sin
gay marriage is illegal
'gayness' is ruining the moral fiber of america
gay subject in school are forbidden


these thing are a major part of the republican platform

Preventing gay marriage may well be a part of the platform, but so what? That's not anti-gay and it's not sexually repressive.

The rest of your charges are rubbish.

Hypothetical example: A loyal republican, Sen. Larry Craig, has homosexual feelings. But everyone in his party tells him that such feeling are "evil" so he pushes them out of his mind and tells himself "i will NOT do this!!"


that is sexual repression


as Craig has these feeling and keep telling himself not to have them .... feelings of guilt start to build. The sexual feelings won't go away so they start to manifest themselves in other ways. The person with start have sexual fantasies. Their mind with start trying to find someway to be express that won't bring public shame and guilt. Evidently the "hidden and secret" part of the sexual fantasies start to become part of the sexual arousal .. the adrenalin rush of doing something secret and naughty will take a bigger and bigger role in the sexual fantasies. Eventually the person will actually do something. It escalates to more and more actions with bigger and bigger danger.

sex has been twisted into adrenalin rush/Naughty guilt/sexual fantasies.

all because the persons originally sexual feelings were repressed.

Your hypothetical would work equally well with a liberal politician who spends a lot of time around and depends on the support of one of the constituencies of the democrat party that have large anti-gay streaks (e.g. labor, blacks, etc.). Anti-gay sentiments are not exclusively found in the Republican party and the party itself is not anti-gay nor is it's platform.

[Laz]

Preventing gay marriage may well be a part of the platform, but so what? That's not anti-gay and it's not sexually repressive.

The rest of your charges are rubbish.
are you saying that "Gay = Sin and bad" is not an active part of the Republican platform?

[patteeu]

are you saying that "Gay = Sin and bad" is not an active part of the Republican platform?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

[Laz]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
wow ... talk about disingenuous :eek:




could i get a republican with a bit of honesty to chime in here?



Stevieray???


.

[trndobrd]

wow ... talk about disingenuous :eek:




could i get a republican with a bit of honesty to chime in here?



Stevieray???


.



The 2004 RNC platform is online. You can google it yourself.

[jAZ]

Preventing gay marriage may well be a part of the platform, but so what? That's not anti-gay and it's not sexually repressive.
banning gay marriage is either anti-gay or anti-family.

I know which one it is... and so does every other person with an IQ over 4. And yes, that incudes you. I'm certain your IQ is over 4.

[Laz]

The 2004 RNC platform is online. You can google it yourself.
the items that are listed:

States should not recognize gay marriage from other

Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service


but if you look to WHY these items are worthy of actually be listed on the national GOP platform ....



if the GOP didn't believe the "Homosexuality is wrong" then these political objectives wouldn't be necessary.

[patteeu]

banning gay marriage is either anti-gay or anti-family.

I know which one it is... and so does every other person with an IQ over 4. And yes, that incudes you. I'm certain your IQ is over 4.

It's anti gay marriage.

[patteeu]

the items that are listed:

States should not recognize gay marriage from other

Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service


but if you look to WHY these items are worthy of actually be listed on the national GOP platform ....



if the GOP didn't believe the "Homosexuality is wrong" then these political objectives wouldn't be necessary.

I presume you are opposed to letting kids work 60 hours a week in dirty factories. Does that mean you're anti-kid? Of course not.

Come on, Laz, you're trying too hard to force your paranoid view onto the GOP. They aren't trying to ruin your mansex.

[Chiefnj2]

What is so freaky about having a wide stance while taking a dump in a public restroom, making foot contact with the person next to you and giving them a friendly hello wave under the stall? Boy, the people on this board are pretty unfriendly.

[jAZ]

It's anti gay marriage.
It's anti-gay.

[RJ]

What is so freaky about having a wide stance while taking a dump in a public restroom, making foot contact with the person next to you and giving them a friendly hello wave under the stall? Boy, the people on this board are pretty unfriendly.



Since shaking hands while taking a dump is generally considered bad form maybe footsie is the next best form of greeting. Part of a Senator's job is to be out there meeting the public, even in states other than his own.

[BucEyedPea]

you're an idiot. We're talking about deviant behavior...twisted behavior...not homosexuality itself.
I got your apology on calling me this. Why not take it out if you mean it?

Anyhow...

It doesn't matter if it's considered deviant or not, since that depends on what are considered cultural norms of right and wrong in any given era. There are people out there ie NAMBLA that want manboy sex to be legal because they think its not deviant. In Greece and Rome homsexuality and pedophilia was the norm. They were hardly sexually repressed but pretty free. I believe it's already been acknowledged, that a certain percentage of adults feel attraction for children. I has nothing to do with repression in one's home. In a conservative,or any home for that matter, whatever is taboo behavior would just be hidden including homosexuality as well as pedophilia. If these things are true, and apparently they are, it's illogical that such things stem from repression. It's more likely that it occurs regardless of the home in a certain % of the population and no one really knows the cause.

I think it sounds Freudian since everything stemmed from sex per him.
Even Kinsey claimed pedophilia as normal. That's hardly being sexually repressed. He's one man that took sex out of the field of morality, altogether, because all sexual sexual activity of any kind was biologically normal to him.

[RJ]

Something I always wonder about when these people are exposed is, are they men who were gay first and then decided to be Republican or were they Republicans who later realized they were gay? I guess that answer depends on whether you believe sexual preference is from birth or a choice.

It just seems odd for a person to fight against the very thing that he is.

[BucEyedPea]

Something I always wonder about when these people are exposed is, are they men who were gay first and then decided to be Republican or were they Republicans who later realized they were gay? I guess that answer depends on whether you believe sexual preference is from birth or a choice.

It just seems odd for a person to fight against the very thing that he is.
I don't think it has anything at all to do with being a Republican. The Republican's have homosexual members. They're called Log Cabin Republicans. I don't know why a gay wouldn't be a Republican since they are economically successful as a group due to not having children. It would seem a natural fit. The fact that they prefer to be discreet about it (except for pedophilia) is just how they deal with it. That's fine by me. I don't need to know everything they're doing on this nor anyone elses. It's their business.

I'm not so sure they all fight it either, as much as they don't want others to know about it due to it being considered taboo by many in this society. Or taboo to be public about it.

However, as far as any scandals go on this topic,or others, I say it's just that the Republicans have been in power more. It's unlikely that there are any less scandals by Democrats. I just think the type of people that are politicians are hypocritical as a general rule because the public trough is draw. Another reason for limited govt.

[patteeu]

Something I always wonder about when these people are exposed is, are they men who were gay first and then decided to be Republican or were they Republicans who later realized they were gay? I guess that answer depends on whether you believe sexual preference is from birth or a choice.

It just seems odd for a person to fight against the very thing that he is.

I've often wondered something similar. Were gay democrats gay before they became democrats or did joining the democrat party somehow make them gay? :p

Seriously though unless you can only conceive of politics in terms of putting personal and identity group interests ahead of the broader society, your question doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, most people aren't single issue voters. It's perfectly possible that some gays believe that the Republican party is right on more things than not even if they disagree with the position on gay marriage and hate crimes.

And going beyond that, some gays might not even agree with gay marriage and hate crimes on their own merits. If I voted only my own pocket book, I'd be for all kinds of crazy special interest tax breaks and government handouts. But I don't. When it comes to government policy, my main considerations are usually related to what I think is best for society as a whole.

BTW, I think it's safe to say that in most cases, whether due to nature or nurture, people develop their sexual orientation before they form their political identity.

[go bowe]

* * * We're talking about middle aged men here, seems like they should be past that sort of behavior.whoa there...

i was a middle aged guy once...

[Ultra Peanut]

ya, forty million abortions later, almost half the kids born out of wedlock sounds real repressed. The old tried and true someone else is responsible for my actions.

bottom line is, getting laid has become more important than the repsonsibilites that come with it.Do you support abstinence-only education?

[Ultra Peanut]

Preventing gay marriage may well be a part of the platform, but so what? That's not anti-gayHahahahahaha. I guess being anti-miscegenation and pro-segregation wasn't anti-black, either.

[patteeu]

Hahahahahaha. I guess being anti-miscegenation and pro-segregation wasn't anti-black, either.

I wonder if black anti-miscegenationists would have considered themselves "anti-black"?

I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that while most people who are anti-gay probably oppose gay marriage, not all people who oppose gay marriage are anti-gay. It's just like most people who want America to fail in the GWoT would support a democrat or Ron Paul for the 2008 election. That doesn't mean that every democrat/Paul supporter actually wants America to fail.

[Taco John]

not all people who oppose gay marriage are anti-gay.


Why quibble over the exceptions to the rule?

[HolmeZz]

I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that while most people who are anti-gay probably oppose gay marriage, not all people who oppose gay marriage are anti-gay.

And then there are people who oppose all gay rights issues just so people won't catch on to them.

[patteeu]

Why quibble over the exceptions to the rule?

Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage. Why is Ron Paul anti-gay? Why do you support an anti-gay candidate?

[ClevelandBronco]

Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage. Why is Ron Paul anti-gay? Why do you support an anti-gay candidate?

Please tell us you aren't a one-issue voter, TJ.

I'd hate to think that you're supporting Ron Paul just because he's anti-gay.

[Laz]

And then there are people who oppose all gay rights issues just so people won't catch on to them.
for real .... complete crap


against all gay issues but just DON'T SAY the words makes it all better.

:shake:


it's silly ..... for the most part they are openly anti-gay, actually proud of being against homosexuality.

until it's politically inconvenient ..... then they start playing word games.

[Baby Lee]

for real .... complete crap


against all gay issues but just DON'T SAY the words makes it all better.

:shake:


it's silly ..... for the most part they are openly anti-gay, actually proud of being against homosexuality.

until it's politically inconvenient ..... then they start playing word games.
I think he's making more of a 'he who smelled it, dealt it' argument.

[penchief]

for real .... complete crap


against all gay issues but just DON'T SAY the words makes it all better.

:shake:


it's silly ..... for the most part they are openly anti-gay, actually proud of being against homosexuality.

until it's politically inconvenient ..... then they start playing word games.

Because they are type-A, borderline obsessive-compulsive perfectionists that can't live up to their own standards, like me.

If the truth be known, I'm the freak because I'm a type-A, borderline obsessive-compulsive perfectionist liberal.

[RJ]

[QUOTE=patteeu]I've often wondered something similar. Were gay democrats gay before they became democrats or did joining the democrat party somehow make them gay? :p

ROFL

Good one patteeu.

As to the rest of your post, my question was mostly tongue in cheek......mostly. :)

[Baby Lee]

[QUOTE=patteeu]mostly tongue in cheek......mostly. :)
Uh, dude, tossing salad is the preferred nomenclature.

[CHIEF4EVER]

I'm not talking about the sexuality, the act of sex, I'm talking about the way we view sexuality as a culture. We're Victorians in the 21st century. I'm sure the stories coming out are only the tip of the iceberg. Because until we grow up and come to grips with the fact that sex is something good, something beautiful, something to be celebrated and enjoyed rather than whispered and joked about, we're only going to see more and more of this kind of bizarre shit. As long as we're repressed and suppressed this is what we get.

And I would say that as long as people try to impose their views of sexuality on others, no understanding will be found. Example...you try to articulate open sexuality as something to be accepted but are intolerant to those who disagree with you. Leave ME out of this. My opinion is neither articulated nor expressed. I am simply making the argument that your attitude is just as intolerant as those you demonize.

[Nightwish]

for real .... complete crap


against all gay issues but just DON'T SAY the words makes it all better.I'm in agreement with Baby Lee, here, I think he was making a "he who smelt it, dealt it" (or a Shakespearean "methinks the [lady] doth protest too much" argument, for the highbrow), meaning that they put on an aggressive front of being against all gay issues in order to hide the fact that they are, themselves, gay, or tending in that direction. I'm sure not all of the more vehemently anti-gay personages are that way for that reason, nor probably even a large percentage of them, but I have no doubt that there are still quite a few.

[HolmeZz]

I'm in agreement with Baby Lee, here, I think he was making a "he who smelt it, dealt it" (or a Shakespearean "methinks the [lady] doth protest too much" argument, for the highbrow), meaning that they put on an aggressive front of being against all gay issues in order to hide the fact that they are, themselves, gay, or tending in that direction.

Yes.

I'm sure there are quite a few of them who are insecure about it and feel the need to overcompensate in different ways.

[Baby Lee]

I'm in agreement with Baby Lee, here, I think he was making a "he who smelt it, dealt it" (or a Shakespearean "methinks the [lady] doth protest too much" argument, for the highbrow), meaning that they put on an aggressive front of being against all gay issues in order to hide the fact that they are, themselves, gay, or tending in that direction. I'm sure not all of the more vehemently anti-gay personages are that way for that reason, nor probably even a large percentage of them, but I have no doubt that there are still quite a few.
Only I didn't bring salmonoid fish or processes for the fusion of metals into the mix. :D

[RJ]

Uh, dude, tossing salad is the preferred nomenclature.



I thought that only applied when the participants were in prison. Thank you for the clarification.

[ChiefaRoo]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SPijibzAwVw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SPijibzAwVw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[jAZ]

Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage. Why is Ron Paul anti-gay? Why do you support an anti-gay candidate?
He also doesn't support gay addoptions. He's anti-gay, or at least, he votes such because the Republicans in his district are anti-gay and he wishes to continue getting elected in his district.

[jAZ]

Stupid video won't embed... but it's worth the click.

It's the William (Bill) Bennett interview on the Daily Show talking about gay marriage.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=70273

[Mi_chief_fan]

I don't think it has anything at all to do with being a Republican. The Republican's have homosexual members. They're called Log Cabin Republicans. I don't know why a gay wouldn't be a Republican since they are economically successful as a group due to not having children. It would seem a natural fit. The fact that they prefer to be discreet about it (except for pedophilia) is just how they deal with it. That's fine by me. I don't need to know everything they're doing on this nor anyone elses. It's their business.



Gays are not the same thing as pedophiles. I hope you weren't suggesting that they were.

[BucEyedPea]

Gays are not the same thing as pedophiles. I hope you weren't suggesting that they were.
No I wasn't, I was exempting that with the word "except"....although I'm sure a pedophilia would attempt discretion because they wouldn't want to be caught.

[BucEyedPea]

He also doesn't support gay addoptions. He's anti-gay, or at least, he votes such because the Republicans in his district are anti-gay and he wishes to continue getting elected in his district.
I find this hard to believe, knowing his views on the Constitution. This would be a state issue and have nothing to do with the Federal Govt. I don't see how he would bother to vote for anything gay pro or con...it would simply not be a Fed Govt reponsibility in his view and so he'd say no to it for that reason. That says nothing about being pro or anti gay.

I would like to see some proof on this. This idea about Paul has been thrown around on the web, by some gay activists who use the opposite interpretation of the Constitution than Paul which is that the Fed govt should step in on the issue. It's just a rumour he's anti-gay or a misunderstanding.

Paul was asked in one of the debates about the "Don't ask don't tell" in the military. His answer was that he did not believe in group identity politics and that if a behavior was disruptive in the military then just target that behavior if it's disruptive. That's pretty neutral which is how a libertarian would decide the issue.

[jAZ]

Paul was asked in one of the debates about the "Don't ask don't tell" in the military. His answer was that he did not believe in group identity politics and that if a behavior was disruptive in the military then just target that behavior if it's disruptive. That's pretty neutral which is how a libertarian would decide the issue.
Does he support kick you out for sleeping with another soldiers' girlfriend? That's pretty disruptive.

His voting record isn't as libertarian as you might like to believe.

He has justified supporting "Dont ask Don't Tell" by saying he doesn't want to hear about hetero's "faults" either. But he has yet to create a bill that modifies "don't ask, don't tell" and move to kick out heteros if they the bosses find out that you had sex out of wedlock with the girlfriend of a fellow soldier.

Until such time, he's trying to have it both ways. Or being dishonest about his views.

[jAZ]

It's just a rumour he's anti-gay or a misunderstanding.
Ron's words about gay marriage...

"I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman".

He's asserting that marriage is defined in his mind (not sure of his source) as "a union between one man and one woman".

He's in favor of legislation (Defense of Marriage Act), "which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state".

Again, he does not create an exclusion for all marriage licenses... leaving them up to the states. He singles out only gay marriages. And simultaeously prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriage while permitting it recognize hetero ones.

That's not states' rights. And it's surely not libertarian. That's just anti-gay.

[Direckshun]

I'm late to the party here, but I think there's a brilliant commentary on this issue from a guest blogger at Andrew Sullivan's blog:
Indeed, this scandal could not have arrived at a more opportune moment. The same day that Andrew--who has spent much of his intellectual life advocating for gay marriage, when many in the gay rights movement were trumpeting separatism, the necessity of being "queer," and other such indulgences--gets married, a United States Senator --who has been a loyal foot soldier in the movement to deny gays (perhaps, like himself) civil rights-- is revealed to have allegedly sought out sex with an anonymous man in an airport restroom.

Perhaps there is no greater comparison between the stability of being comfortable with who you are and the self-denial and self-hatred of the closet. It's not just the "old" gay culture of anonymous sexual encounters vs. the "new" gay culture of monogamy; it's self-loathing vs. self-affirmation. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/old-gay-culture.html

[jAZ]

I'm late to the party here, but I think there's a brilliant commentary on this issue from a guest blogger at Andrew Sullivan's blog:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/old-gay-culture.html
Add to that the fact that the "hetero" Senator was in a supposedly stable marriage.

ROFL

At least Foley was single.

[patteeu]

Ron's words about gay marriage...

"I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman".

He's asserting that marriage is defined in his mind (not sure of his source) as "a union between one man and one woman".

He's in favor of legislation (Defense of Marriage Act), "which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state".

Again, he does not create an exclusion for all marriage licenses... leaving them up to the states. He singles out only gay marriages. And simultaeously prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriage while permitting it recognize hetero ones.

That's not states' rights. And it's surely not libertarian. That's just anti-gay.

You hurt my head when you make inane arguments like this. Is it news to you that marriage is currently (with only a couple of recent, local exceptions) defined as a union between one man and one woman? That's just a fact. It's not Paul expressing his philosophy.

Every one of Paul's official positions on gay marriage that I've been able to find is consistent with a view that states have the right to make the decision without interference from the federal government and with a libertarian view of Federalism. What we don't know is whether Paul would support or oppose gay marriage in his own local jurisdiction where he says the decision should be made.

[patteeu]

Please tell us you aren't a one-issue voter, TJ.

I'd hate to think that you're supporting Ron Paul just because he's anti-gay.

LMAO :Poke:

[jAZ]

Is it news to you that marriage is currently (with only a couple of recent, local exceptions) defined as a union between one man and one woman?
Link?

[patteeu]

Link?

Just one example: your state (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/25/00101.htm&Title=25&DocType=ARS)

[noa]

100!

PBJ PBJ PBJ

[Radar Chief]

100!

PBJ PBJ PBJ

:LOL: :clap:

[BucEyedPea]

Thank for the info jaz. Those quotes are out of context. I checked them myself last night after leaving here. He voted against The Federal Marriage Amendment and supports legislation that prevents the Feds telling any state how to interpret their constitutions. Libertarianism is about improper govt force more and the agression doctrine.

Paul's whole stand has to be read to fully understand what he is saying because the devil is in the details. It's far more nuanced than just saying he is "anti-gay."

Federal Marriage Amendment is a Very Bad Idea (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html) by Ron Paul
The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it."

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage.

I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty.

[jAZ]

Just one example: your state (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/25/00101.htm&Title=25&DocType=ARS)
Ron Paul's voting record or bill endorsements aren't gay-neutral. They are anti-gay.

Paul's statement ("federal efforts to redefine marriage") assumes that there is some universal, historic defenition of marriage that should not be "redefined" federally.

There is no such universal, historic defenition.

There are lots of different localized defenitions.

For example, your Arizona example was a derived in 1975 from a moment of AZSC "judicial activism" (sourced upon the Bible) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States_by_state) and a resulting law passed by the legislature (clearly local, clearly not historic). Prior to that, the issue in AZ wasn't addressed at all.

So if formal law is the source for a defenition of marriage in your mind (as your link suggests), then marriage (at least in AZ) didn't get defined until some time between Hippies and Disco.

Think about that.

And your statement ("with only a couple of recent, local exceptions") proves that there is no "universal" defenition (federal or otherwise) to be "redefined" federally.

And again, this is the key point...

Paul isn't applying his "anti-federal" standard to marriage generally... he's singling out gays and supporting a ban on federal recognition of their marriages.

On this issue, he's not merely pro-state. He's anti-gay as well. Were he to endorse a similar policy making marriage entirely a state issue... and permitting any state to reject any marriage... then it would have nothing to do with gay.

But he's targeting gays with his policies, despite his claims otherwise.

Also, were he to endorse a "civil unions for all" policy as we've talked about here before (meaning, take government out of the role defining "marriage"... only define legal contracts equally for all... leave marriage to churches, or individuals, etc)... then he'd be a real libertarian on this issue.

And he'd be gay-neutral as he (and his supporters) wishes to be seen.

But he's not.

[jAZ]

Thank for the info jaz. Those quotes are out of context. I checked them myself last night after leaving here. He voted against The Federal Marriage Amendment and supports legislation that prevents the Feds telling any state how to interpret their constitutions. Libertarianism is about improper govt force more and the agression doctrine.

Paul's whole stand has to be read to fully understand what he is saying because the devil is in the details. It's far more nuanced than just saying he is "anti-gay."

Federal Marriage Amendment is a Very Bad Idea (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html) by Ron Paul
He's doing both.

He's being pro-state.

But he's also being anti-gay.

He's not pushing to make marriage a non-gov't issue at all.

He's not pushing to allow states to reject staight marriages from other states.

He's targeting gays with his policies.

There is no escaping that, no matter how much rhetorical support he provides for arguing the issue on federal/state merrits. It doesn't change the fact that he's picked a side on the gay/straight merrits as well, by signing out gays for legilation.

[jAZ]

To be more clear.

According to Ron Paul.

Straight marriages merit federal endorsement. Gay marriages don't.

It's really that simple.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't agree. I think that's interpretative. It's a lack of understanding of libertarianism. It's a left libertarian pov. Libertarians just don't believe in using the govt to force others to accept it. It attempts to be morally neutral as much as possible. He's not targeting anybody. He's preventing others from being targeted by gay activists who want to force it on others.

He may be against the idea of marriage between gays personally but if you read the link he says marriage precedes govt, which is my stand as well. A more correct inference would be that he feels they should be left alone and others who don't agree be left alone.

Take the point down to a local level:Within this level would tell if he believes in it or not as marriage but perhaps does as a civil union or perhaps keep the govt out altogether, which is libertarian. That would really tell his total pov.

I know Lew Rockwell, who is similar Paul feels this issue should be at the state level.Then within that level Lew would say no govt at all in the matter because I've seen him say as much. He's also a huge Paul supporter and even had to give up his tax exempt status on line as an educational to support Paul.

I know one thing, I am pretty certain he'd be for gays being allowed to will or inherit property to anyone they want, just as if they were a spouse.

[jAZ]

It's a lack of understanding of libertarianism.
This is the understanding of libertarianism that I think is fairly straightforward and universally agreed upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty

Ron Paul is not allowing gay's the same liberty of federal, interstate recognition of their marriages that he allows straights.

Does that make him a bad guy? Or unworthy of your support? No. But don't confuse what he believes for something akin to gay-neutral and libertarianism.

It's neither.

[jAZ]

I know one thing, I am pretty certain he'd be for gays being allowed to will or inherit property to anyone they want, just as if they were a spouse.
He supports a "seperate but equal" doctrine then.

[BucEyedPea]

I wouldn't say there's a univerally agreed upon definition. Obviously there isn't or this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I also wouldn't trust wiki on this. I've seen this same misunderstanding all over the web because many leftist think I am like them on some social issues because of it, but I'm really not. I only support some of their views if they can be done within a different paradigm: property rights being used as the basis one's liberties which includes not paying for other's lifestyle choices and having less govt involvement overall. That means virtually no welfare state and no govt social engineering. Total freedom of association. That may be separate but equal to some, but it's not enforced by the govt. It's done on each individual's own volition. Paul supports this.

This is an entire political philosophy. There is a left-libertarianism and a right-libertarianism. Left libertarians are communitarians. Everybody equal. Not true for those on the right. It's a property rights based system with markets mitigating social issues. They believe in no govt regulation on such things as it is force. It's live and let live.

BTW I've met Evangelical Born-Agains at Libertarian seminars and institutes and they'd allow gays to be left alone, have their own union ceremonies and share property but they also want to be granted the same respect: to be left alone and leave their children alone to be educated in their values. I see many of the more contentious social issues only being mollfied by this paradigm because if the govt is involved in too many areas it creates more conflict. It would also cost a lot less money for the govt.

[patteeu]

Ron Paul's voting record or bill endorsements aren't gay-neutral. They are anti-gay.

Paul's statement ("federal efforts to redefine marriage") assumes that there is some universal, historic defenition of marriage that should not be "redefined" federally.

There is no such universal, historic defenition.

There are lots of different localized defenitions.

For example, your Arizona example was a derived in 1975 from a moment of AZSC "judicial activism" (sourced upon the Bible) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States_by_state) and a resulting law passed by the legislature (clearly local, clearly not historic). Prior to that, the issue in AZ wasn't addressed at all.

So if formal law is the source for a defenition of marriage in your mind (as your link suggests), then marriage (at least in AZ) didn't get defined until some time between Hippies and Disco.

Think about that.

Duh. You're just making my point. Like I said, Paul's quote refers to a fact not some personal philosophical position about a generic concept of marriage.

And your statement ("with only a couple of recent, local exceptions") proves that there is no "universal" defenition (federal or otherwise) to be "redefined" federally.

Nor does there need to be for Paul's comment to be true and based on fact.

And again, this is the key point...

Paul isn't applying his "anti-federal" standard to marriage generally... he's singling out gays and supporting a ban on federal recognition of their marriages.

On this issue, he's not merely pro-state. He's anti-gay as well. Were he to endorse a similar policy making marriage entirely a state issue... and permitting any state to reject any marriage... then it would have nothing to do with gay.

But he's targeting gays with his policies, despite his claims otherwise.

Also, were he to endorse a "civil unions for all" policy as we've talked about here before (meaning, take government out of the role defining "marriage"... only define legal contracts equally for all... leave marriage to churches, or individuals, etc)... then he'd be a real libertarian on this issue.

And he'd be gay-neutral as he (and his supporters) wishes to be seen.

But he's not.

When you come up with an example of Paul trying to interfere with a state's attempt to sanction gay marriage from the federal level, you'll have a point. Until then, you're just trying to demonize a guy with a misguided, illogical argument at best and politically correct, can't-mention-one-without-the-other, dishonest, poorly conceived sleight of hand at worst.

[jAZ]

It's a property rights based system with markets mitigating social issues. They believe in no govt regulation on such things as it is force. It's live and let live.
Paul accepts federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between straight couples.

He objects to federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between gay couples.

This is unavoidable fact.

[patteeu]

This is the understanding of libertarianism that I think is fairly straightforward and universally agreed upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty

Ron Paul is not allowing gay's the same liberty of federal, interstate recognition of their marriages that he allows straights.

Does that make him a bad guy? Or unworthy of your support? No. But don't confuse what he believes for something akin to gay-neutral and libertarianism.

It's neither.

Balderdash. Gays have just as much ability to get together in committed monogamous lifetime partnerships as straights right now. It's not until the government intervenes (a non libertarian event by your own definition) that a difference between these two arrangements* appears. If he advocated including gays in the state definition of marriage, he'd be no more libertarian than if he advocated excluding them. Instead, he focuses on keeping the federal government from dictating one definition or the other to the states. That's libertarian. We don't know what he thinks the states should do with the issue, AFAIK, so we don't have enough information to judge that stance against libertarian principles.


________

* other than the obvious, inherent reproductive difference of course).

[jAZ]

Duh. You're just making my point. Like I said, Paul's quote refers to a fact not some personal philosophical position about a generic concept of marriage.



Nor does there need to be for Paul's comment to be true and based on fact.



When you come up with an example of Paul trying to interfere with a state's attempt to sanction gay marriage from the federal level, you'll have a point. Until then, you're just trying to demonize a guy with a misguided, illogical argument at best and politically correct, can't-mention-one-without-the-other, dishonest, poorly conceived sleight of hand at worst.
See my last post. His position is exactly what I've said.

You are unable to refute it.

[patteeu]

See my last post. His position is exactly what I've said.

You are unable to refute it.

Sure I can. Has he voted against "federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between straight couples"? If not, how do you know he accepts it? Does he have to tilt at every windmill to prove his bona fides? I don't think so and I'm confident other reasonable people wouldn't think so either.

We'll find out where he stands on it when he speaks on the issue or when someone puts legislation to that effect in front of him and he casts a vote.

[Taco John]

Paul accepts federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between straight couples.

He objects to federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between gay couples.

This is unavoidable fact.



I'd be curious about your source on that. I haven't heard him say that explicitly.

I have heard him say that his medical liscence isn't recognized in every state of the union, despite his extensive qualifications as a doctor. He seemed ok with that, advocating that every state has different standards.

[BucEyedPea]

Paul accepts federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between straight couples.

He objects to federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between gay couples.

This is unavoidable fact.
If true, and I am not sure it is, then he'd be conservative on the issue.
He does support national borders which he's also conservative on as opposed to being purely libertarian on this as well. So I do know there are a few issues he's conservative on.

[jAZ]

Sure I can.
Great, let's see it.

[bkkcoh]

why should there be hate crimes against anyone who is different then the perp. A crime against humanity should be treated the same regardless. Ok, so I have rose-colored glasses on. But does murder of a gay at the hands of a homophobe make the murder any worse then a drug deal gone bad. Not in my eyes.

There are enough laws on the books that there shouldn't be any laws added for preferential treatment or punishment because of the perp victim backgrounds.

[Amnorix]

The police interview of the Senator. Website has NSFW elements:

http://www.break.com/index/senator-craig-police-audio-tape.html

[Nightwish]

why should there be hate crimes against anyone who is different then the perp.
There are specific criteria that have to be met for a crime to be classified as a hate crime. It's a lot more than just the victim being of a different ethnicity/orientation/religion/etc. than the aggressor.

[patteeu]

why should there be hate crimes against anyone who is different then the perp. A crime against humanity should be treated the same regardless. Ok, so I have rose-colored glasses on. But does murder of a gay at the hands of a homophobe make the murder any worse then a drug deal gone bad. Not in my eyes.

There are enough laws on the books that there shouldn't be any laws added for preferential treatment or punishment because of the perp victim backgrounds.

I agree. I'd oppose any hate crime legislation that would increase punishments for hate crimes against Bush supporters relative to punishments for crimes against people who support any other politician. I wonder if that makes me anti Bush Supporter?

[patteeu]

Great, let's see it.

I suspect I'm in for a long wait on a more serious response. I think I'll have a snickers.

[jAZ]

I suspect I'm in for a long wait on a more serious response. I think I'll have a snickers.
You said you could refute this...

Paul accepts federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between straight couples.

He objects to federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between gay couples.

Do it.

Show me the bill Paul introduced during his 10 years in the House that created an exception to the Full Faith And Credit Clause for all "marriages" similar to the DOMA.

If Paul didn't accept the status quo ("federal regulations forcing (states to recognize) weddings between straight couples"), he had the opportunity and authority to move to change it.

The absence of action proves he accepts the status quo (even if he has not explicitly supported it).

So if you can do it... do it. Show me how he acted to change the status quo. Any lack of action to change it, is an acceptance of it.

[bkkcoh]

There are specific criteria that have to be met for a crime to be classified as a hate crime. It's a lot more than just the victim being of a different ethnicity/orientation/religion/etc. than the aggressor.

Agreed, but that is one of the factors, black on white crime, straight on gay crime and that being the main reason for the crime because they where white or black or gay or jewish or etc....

[patteeu]

The absence of action proves he accepts the status quo (even if he has not explicitly supported it).

:spock:

That's a meaning of "accepts" that renders your accusation pretty hollow.

If we agree to use your concept of "accepts" then I can agree that what you say about Paul wrt gay marriage is true, but it doesn't support your original contention that he's anti-gay. A reasonable person would not consider that kind of "acceptance" to be significant evidence that he opposes gay marriage and even less so that he's anti-gay, IMO.

If we were talking about "accepts" as if it meant something similar to "supports" then it would carry more weight in an argument that he's against gay marriage, but then your statement that he "accepts" such a thing would be wrong (or at least unsupported by the facts at hand).

[jAZ]

:spock:

That's a meaning of "accepts" that renders your accusation pretty hollow.

If we agree to use your concept of "accepts" then I can agree that what you say about Paul wrt gay marriage is true, but it doesn't support your original contention that he's anti-gay. A reasonable person would not consider that kind of "acceptance" to be significant evidence that he opposes gay marriage and even less so that he's anti-gay, IMO.

If we were talking about "accepts" as if it meant something similar to "supports" then it would carry more weight in an argument that he's against gay marriage, but then your statement that he "accepts" such a thing would be wrong (or at least unsupported by the facts at hand).
If you would stop trying to parse away the central facts that are uncomfortable, you might figure it out.

Accepting federal regulation forcing states to accept all straight marriages doesn't make him anti-gay on it's own.

But accepting the above while explicitly rejecting the same for gay marriage means to him, it's not an issue of states rights (with all things equal). It's an issue of states rights on the issue of gay marriage alone.

That's anti-gay.

Were he to hold the same view of both gay and straight marriage... ie... accept both as a federal issue... or reject both federally and force both down to the state level... then one could logically argue that it's a state issue... not a gay issue.

That's impossible to argue given the facts.

[BucEyedPea]

You said you could refute this...

Paul accepts federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between straight couples.

He objects to federal regulations forcing Arizona to recognize Massachusetts weddings between gay couples.

Do it.

Show me the bill Paul introduced during his 10 years in the House that created an exception to the Full Faith And Credit Clause for all "marriages" similar to the DOMA.

If Paul didn't accept the status quo ("federal regulations forcing (states to recognize) weddings between straight couples"), he had the opportunity and authority to move to change it.

The absence of action proves he accepts the status quo (even if he has not explicitly supported it).

So if you can do it... do it. Show me how he acted to change the status quo. Any lack of action to change it, is an acceptance of it.

Full Faith and Credit Clause I don't believe applies to public policy of a state.
I believe public policy of a state is an exception to it.
I believe FFCC applies to judgements.

I'd have to find it but there is a quote by Paul where he says: He accepts all voluntary associations and he doesn't care what they're called.

[ClevelandBronco]

Full Faith and Credit Clause I don't believe applies to public policy of a state.
I believe public policy of a state is an exception to it.
I believe FFCC applies to judgements.

I'd have to find it but there is a quote by Paul where he says: He accepts all voluntary associations and he doesn't care what they're called.

What the hell are you doing up this early? I'm just up late, but you're posting at 4:45 a.m.

[ClevelandBronco]

Full Faith and Credit Clause I don't believe applies to public policy of a state.
I believe public policy of a state is an exception to it.
I believe FFCC applies to judgements.

I'd have to find it but there is a quote by Paul where he says: He accepts all voluntary associations and he doesn't care what they're called.

BEP, it's time you stopped "believing" one way or the other about government. If you're "believing" in any way about government (and that includes your fantasy government-that-could-be) at all your sense of belief is warped, IMO.

You'd be doing us all a favor if you'd stop "believing" and "feeling" about government. Just agree or disagree.

[BucEyedPea]

What the hell are you doing up this early? I'm just up late, but you're posting at 4:45 a.m.
So you're EST too I see.

I just woke up very early, after some disturbing news late last night and couldn't sleep on it for very long....that's all. There's nothing to do except read, on the net of course, or..or...well here I am. :p

[BucEyedPea]

From an Interview with Ron Paul (http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id447.html)

Muckraker Report: Another social issue of concern to many people in Ithaca is gay rights. You’ve said you’re against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but you’re also against changing federal law to allow for same-sex marriages. Can you explain your stance on this?

Congressman Ron Paul: Just like with abortion, I believe that marriage is an issue best decided by the states, not the federal government. I’m opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage, but it also goes both ways: I’m against the courts at the federal level pressuring the states into accepting same-sex marriage licenses. What we’re talking about in both cases is the redefinition of an ancient social institution by the federal government that’s best left to the people to decide at the local level. I have introduced legislation called the We the People Act to remove deeply personal social issues like marriage and abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts so the states and local governments can make the decisions, as the Constitution intends.


Muckraker Report: So if the city council of San Francisco, if the town assembly of Burlington, if the state of New Hampshire decided to legalize civil unions between gay couples, you would be okay with that?

Congressman Ron Paul: Yes, if those decisions were made by legislatures, and not by courts.

[ClevelandBronco]

I just woke up very early, after some disturbing news late last night and couldn't sleep on it for very long....that's all.

I'm sorry. I hope it's something that doesn't hit you very hard.

[ClevelandBronco]

From an Interview with Ron Paul (http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id447.html)

Muckraker Report: Another social issue of concern to many people in Ithaca is gay rights. You’ve said you’re against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but you’re also against changing federal law to allow for same-sex marriages. Can you explain your stance on this?

Congressman Ron Paul: Just like with abortion, I believe that marriage is an issue best decided by the states, not the federal government. I’m opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage, but it also goes both ways: I’m against the courts at the federal level pressuring the states into accepting same-sex marriage licenses. What we’re talking about in both cases is the redefinition of an ancient social institution by the federal government that’s best left to the people to decide at the local level. I have introduced legislation called the We the People Act to remove deeply personal social issues like marriage and abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts so the states and local governments can make the decisions, as the Constitution intends.


Muckraker Report: So if the city council of San Francisco, if the town assembly of Burlington, if the state of New Hampshire decided to legalize civil unions between gay couples, you would be okay with that?

Congressman Ron Paul: Yes, if those decisions were made by legislatures, and not by courts.

On the one hand, it is an issue that the federal government will have to deal with. Survivor rights when it comes to Social Security are a problem. The way married people are dealt with under the IRS code is a problem. States can't control those issues.

I want the federal government to get out of the marriage issue entirely.

Gays will then be free to marry each other in those states that choose to allow it without interference, advantage or disadvantage. It'll simply be a choice.

Vive la choice.

[ClevelandBronco]

Mean spirited. Gone.

[BucEyedPea]

On the one hand, it is an issue that the federal government will have to deal with. Survivor rights when it comes to Social Security are a problem. The way married people are dealt with under the IRS code is a problem. States can't control those issues.
True.
We're just discussing what Paul's stand is on the issue. I'm sure in his world view ss would be phased out eventually along with the IRS. He's not for denying those who already paid in as that's a contract with the govt. But he'd allow younger folks to opt out. So this issue would be out of the federal area even more.

I want the federal government to get out of the marriage issue entirely.

Gays will then be free to marry each other in those states that choose to allow it without interference, advantage or disadvantage. It'll simply be a choice.

Vive la choice.
That's my stand.

BTW when I use the word "believe" it's the way my lawyer told me to use it...like when I'm relatively certain but not totally certain. I'm not using it in a religious sense.

[penchief]

Hate crimes are different than ordinary crimes. They are intended to send a message. Their victims are singled out because of who they are. In effect, hate crimes are acts of terrorism because they are designed to intimidate (or terrorize) an entire group of people.

I understand the resistance to, and the argument against, hate crimes. I also understand that the politics of it can be taken too far in the same manner as political correctness. However, when it comes to the fundamental reason for commiting a hate crime I think there is a notable distinction. Hate crimes are premeditated attempts to deprive a specific group of people their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

[jAZ]

From an Interview with Ron Paul (http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id447.html)

Muckraker Report: Another social issue of concern to many people in Ithaca is gay rights. You’ve said you’re against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but you’re also against changing federal law to allow for same-sex marriages. Can you explain your stance on this?

Congressman Ron Paul: Just like with abortion, I believe that marriage is an issue best decided by the states, not the federal government. I’m opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage, but it also goes both ways: I’m against the courts at the federal level pressuring the states into accepting same-sex marriage licenses. What we’re talking about in both cases is the redefinition of an ancient social institution by the federal government that’s best left to the people to decide at the local level. I have introduced legislation called the We the People Act to remove deeply personal social issues like marriage and abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts so the states and local governments can make the decisions, as the Constitution intends.


Muckraker Report: So if the city council of San Francisco, if the town assembly of Burlington, if the state of New Hampshire decided to legalize civil unions between gay couples, you would be okay with that?

Congressman Ron Paul: Yes, if those decisions were made by legislatures, and not by courts.
Interesting...

He says "marriage" (unqualified with "gay") twice. That's promising. He does however, speak to gay marriage betwen the two references. Makes sense given the interview.

If the "We the People Act" is what he just claimed. I'll stand 100% corrected. You will have done what Patteeu didn't even try to do.

Good work on that if nothing else.

[jAZ]

If the "We the People Act" is what he just claimed. I'll stand 100% corrected. You will have done what Patteeu didn't even try to do.
Well... "anti-gay" it is, then!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h4379:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

It doesn't "remove deeply personal social issues like marriage ... from the jurisdiction of the federal courts". It removes "the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation" from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

So Dick and Jane can still move from Mass. to Iowa and be married. Dick and John can't.

Which calls into question his willingness to speak in terms of marriage broadly (for PR purposes?) when the bill is about gay (or transgendered) marriage narrowly.

[jAZ]

I want the federal government to get out of the marriage issue entirely.
Governments should get out of "marriage" entirely.

"Civil Unions For All" I tell ya.

And Civil Unions For All has to be a federal issue for the reasons you just mentioned. IRS, SS survivorship, etc.

[stevieray]

I want the federal government to get out of the marriage issue entirely.


they will, after they are forced to abolish marriage.

and that will be great, won't it?.... abortion gives us and out for kids and and civil unions will give us an easy out of our commitments...we'll have a society that doesn't require any responsibilty to one another on an intimate level...

[BucEyedPea]

Marriage predates government. At the height of the Christian era, people just up and married...no state involvement. Was done by the churches. Same in ancient Rome. It will just be privatized and govt will have to honor it as a contract if there's a divorce.

[jAZ]

Hate crimes are different than ordinary crimes. They are intended to send a message. Their victims are singled out because of who they are. In effect, hate crimes are acts of terrorism because they are designed to intimidate (or terrorize) an entire group of people.

I understand the resistance to, and the argument against, hate crimes. I also understand that the politics of it can be taken too far in the same manner as political correctness. However, when it comes to the fundamental reason for commiting a hate crime I think there is a notable distinction. Hate crimes are premeditated attempts to deprive a specific group of people their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
They need rebranding (not kidding) then.

Because even I object to "hate crimes" laws as duplicative, but I can accept terrorism legislation (minus the anti-civil liberty issues).

And ultimately that's what supporters of hate crime laws are trying to accomplish. The exact same thing supporters of terrorism laws are trying to accomplish.

In fact, I wonder what value hate crime laws have in terrorism cases and vice versa for terrorism laws in hate crime cases.

If they both add value, then intruduce a new bill cross addressing both under a domestic terrorism policy. Because some racist hick dragging two "n*ggers" behind a truck can be act of terrorism. Just like a religios nut someone setting off a pipe bomb in from of an abortion clinic. Just like some environut rigging a tree to rupture a chain saw and kill/injure the logger. Just like some anti-advancement nut like the unibomber sending out package bombs.

If they are all trying to send a message, they are all acts of terrorism. If they aren't, they are acts of criminal violence.

It is time to table the hate crime laws in favor of domestic terrorism laws that accomplish the exact same thing (minus the anti-civil liberties porotions).

[jAZ]

Marriage predates government. At the height of the Christian era, people just up and married...no state involvement. Was done by the churches. Same in ancient Rome. It will just be privatized and govt will have to honor it as a contract if there's a divorce.
Though, I'm not sure what date "government" started. I'm betting "gay" predates government too.

And I am quite sure that in any case, this post is an attempt to justify (right or wrong) Ron Paul's anti-gay stance on this issue. I welcome an acknowledgement that I've made my point and it's accurate, even if you agree with Paul's position and see legit justification for an anti-gay exception to marriage being a federal issue.

[jAZ]

they will, after they are forced to abolish marriage.

and that will be great, won't it?.... abortion gives us and out for kids and and civil unions will give us an easy out of our commitments...we'll have a society that doesn't require any responsibilty to one another on an intimate level...
Man... every post you make is like an Easter basket of rhetorical candy. Always a variety of treats.

First, and for the record... marriage... as it is practiced today.... with all of the government involvement you seek to ensure... is a completely failed policy.

And the solution isn't more federal law (or state law). It's stronger personal commitments which aren't going to be derived from government policy.

Moving marriage to the state level (bad idea) doesn't "abolish marriage". Moving marriage out of government entirely (federally recognized civil unions for all... good idea IMO) doesn't end marriage.

It moves it to the rightful location... churches and other religious institutions. Where it is actually "sacred" and for who it matters that it be a life long commitment.

[jAZ]

True.
We're just discussing what Paul's stand is on the issue. I'm sure in his world view ss would be phased out eventually along with the IRS. He's not for denying those who already paid in as that's a contract with the govt. But he'd allow younger folks to opt out. So this issue would be out of the federal area even more.
But he'll act today to prevent gay couples who marry in Mass and pay SS and IRS taxes today (post We The People Act)... from marriage tax discounts (as the Republicans would put it... "Ron Paul Wants to Raise Your Taxes!!!" :p) or SS survivor benefits.

[jAZ]

...we'll have a society that doesn't require any responsibilty to one another on an intimate level...
And the best of all of the basket of candy is your admission that you need federal laws to help you "on an intimate level".

ROFL

[stevieray]

Man... every post you make is like an Easter basket of rhetorical candy. Always a variety of treats.

First, and for the record... marriage... as it is practiced today.... with all of the government involvement you seek to ensure... is a completely failed policy.

And the solution isn't more federal law (or state law). It's stronger personal commitments which aren't going to be derived from government policy.

Moving marriage to the state level (bad idea) doesn't "abolish marriage". Moving marriage out of government entirely (federally recognized civil unions for all... good idea IMO) doesn't end marriage.

It moves it to the rightful location... churches and other religious institutions. Where it is actually "sacred" and for who it matters that it be a life long commitment.

the fact that you look at marriage as a policy proves my point.

[stevieray]

And the best of all of the basket of candy is your admission that you need federal laws to help you "on an intimate level".

ROFL

....that's right jaz, I've only been married for 15 years because the gov't made it possible for my wife and I to be intimate.

you truly are a douche of epic porportions.

[BucEyedPea]

Jaz, of course gay predates govt.
Don't understand the rest of what you're saying I thought I gave evidence that Paul had no problem with an area allowing gay whatever-it-is-you-want-to-call-it. His stance is the same as mine....as close as possible to neutrality as it can get.

[BucEyedPea]

Obama doesn't support gay marriage at all. That makes him anti-gay too. In fact many black civil rights leaders don't support it either and don't think it's equivalent to black civil rights. They're all anti-gay as well. Now I don't agree with this thought. Nevertheless, it's the logical conclusion in applying the same argument to Ron Paul. Just sayin.

[noa]

Obama doesn't support gay marriage at all. That makes him anti-gay too. In fact many black civil rights leaders don't support it either and don't think it's equivalent to black civil rights. They're all anti-gay as well. Now I don't agree with this thought. Nevertheless, it's the logical conclusion in applying the same argument to Ron Paul. Just sayin.

Ron Paul IS anti-gay. He didn't look through the hole in the stall when I tapped his foot on the john.

[RJ]

Governments should get out of "marriage" entirely.

"Civil Unions For All" I tell ya.

And Civil Unions For All has to be a federal issue for the reasons you just mentioned. IRS, SS survivorship, etc.



Agreed. I'm in no way against marriage, just the government being involved in it. I don't like the government connection to a (often) religious ceremony or a religious connection to the government. I don't get why my marital status is the government's affair, especially concerning my taxes.

[banyon]

Ron Paul IS anti-gay. He didn't look through the hole in the stall when I tapped his foot on the john.

They call Ron Paul "Narrow Stance" .

[jAZ]

the fact that you look at marriage as a policy proves my point.
I look at the government's role in marriage as a policy. It's (gov'ts) only purpose is to manage the contractual bond.

The Church handles the sacred bond.

You as a couple handle the intimate bond.

Anyone who tries to pretend that the gov'ts role in marriage has any impact on the sacred bond or the intimate bond is a fool. That comes from the two people involved, from the families, the church, etc.

But American's don't get divorced 40-50% of the time because government let's committed gays get married. And that statistic... 40-50% divorce rate... is why "marriage... as it is practiced today.... with all of the government involvement you seek to ensure... is a completely failed policy".

Government involvement in marriage does nothing to fix the instittion of marriage, nothing to build life long, healthy commitments, nothing to keep intimacy healthy, nothing to keep the relationship sacred.

All of those things are more than a policy... more than a contract... and more than government can possibly offer no matter what regulations you put in place.

[jAZ]

....that's right jaz, I've only been married for 15 years because the gov't made it possible for my wife and I to be intimate.

you truly are a douche of epic porportions.
It's your view of the need for government regulation to give your marriage meaning that leads to that conclusion. I'm just an observer of your skewed view... not the creator of it.

[jAZ]

Jaz, of course gay predates govt.
Don't understand the rest of what you're saying I thought I gave evidence that Paul had no problem with an area allowing gay whatever-it-is-you-want-to-call-it. His stance is the same as mine....as close as possible to neutrality as it can get.
It can get closer... in fact it can get completely gay-neutral.

It's called "civil unions for all".

[jAZ]

Obama doesn't support gay marriage at all. That makes him anti-gay too. In fact many black civil rights leaders don't support it either and don't think it's equivalent to black civil rights. They're all anti-gay as well. Now I don't agree with this thought. Nevertheless, it's the logical conclusion in applying the same argument to Ron Paul. Just sayin.
Yep... that's exactly right.

[stevieray]

It's your view of the need for government regulation to give your marriage meaning that leads to that conclusion. I'm just an observer of your skewed view... not the creator of it.

blahblahblah..keep thinking you know what gives my marriage meaning.

if anyones view is skewed, it's yours..the word civil itself indicates government involvement.

[stevieray]

But American's don't get divorced 40-50% of the time because government let's committed gays get married. And that statistic... 40-50% divorce rate... is why "marriage... as it is practiced today.... with all of the government involvement you seek to ensure... is a completely failed policy".

hilarious, only you would blame the institution of marriage rather than the people who engage in the commitment.

[tiptap]

Just a question. Is Senator Graham of S. Carolina, member of a Baptist church, gay, not perverted gay but in the closet gay nonetheless? Will he get married to prove he isn't?

[go bowe]

We're hardly Victorian anymore. Things are freer and more open than that era. How much freer or tighter things get have ebb'd and flowed throughout history. When things go to far there's a backlash to the other extremes at times. That's how we got the Victorian era.

I wouldn't want to be hit up in a public restroom though by another lesbian. I just wouldn't want to be put into a position to even have to deal with it. Now if I went into a gay bar or area, then I ought to know what to expect and make that choice. Then I'd have to deal with it, even if I wanted to refuse.another lesbian?

does that mean you are a lesbian?

or just that this is not the first time a lesbian had tried to hit on you?

[patteeu]

If you would stop trying to parse away the central facts that are uncomfortable, you might figure it out.

Accepting federal regulation forcing states to accept all straight marriages doesn't make him anti-gay on it's own.

But accepting the above while explicitly rejecting the same for gay marriage means to him, it's not an issue of states rights (with all things equal). It's an issue of states rights on the issue of gay marriage alone.

That's anti-gay.

Were he to hold the same view of both gay and straight marriage... ie... accept both as a federal issue... or reject both federally and force both down to the state level... then one could logically argue that it's a state issue... not a gay issue.

That's impossible to argue given the facts.

No, first, it wouldn't even mean he was anti-gay if you were able to get away with your shifting meaning of the word "accepts".

But more centrally, you are trying to use the word "accepts" in two different ways. On the one hand, it just means he hasn't taken the initiative to make a change. Fine, but in that case you can't say that he sees the state's rights issue two different ways depending on whether we're talking about gay marriage or straight marriage. Instead, as the focus of the conversation shifts to the implication of his "acceptance" of the status quo wrt straight marriage, you want the meaning of "accept" to suddenly mean something more like "endorse".

As t