Left-winger threatens to reveal gay GOPers because of ‘out of control’ ‘right wing’

posted at 2:05 pm on October 11, 2006 by Ian

CNS reports:

Homosexual activist Mike Rogers said he will reveal the identities of homosexual Republicans on Capitol Hill each day “for hypocritically opposing gay rights for political reasons when they themselves are gay.”

But according to Rogers, who runs a web log called BlogActive.com, he’s “reporting on hypocrisy,” not “outing them.”

“The right wing of this country is so out of control beating up gay people,” Rogers told Cybercast News Service on Tuesday.

The right wing is so out of control, the right wing! And he has the audacity to call us hypocrites.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

pullingmyhairout, that 9:30 comment is ridiculous, with all due respect. How can you honestly justify being against gay marriage, while at the same time, saying you believe they are born that way. Follow me for a second… Your marriage position you say is dictated by God. Well, I’ve tried to keep religion out of this because the second you bring it in all the gay appeasers freak out. But this is only a direct response to you, so everyone who’s ready to say “keep your religion to yourself” take a seat please. If you think marriage should be between a man and woman because God said so, then certainly you should be opposed to “homosexuality” because God said so. Or do you think you can pick and choose what parts of God’s word to believe? Back to the point, my argument wasn’t about what God said, it was about what seems obvious and natural, and the fact that you chose not to address any of my specific points is very telling. Instead you just, without reason, say that you believe they’re born gay and go on your merry way.

As for your question about “party line”, it’s not about that. It’s about choosing to live a complete lie. Why would I want someone being elected as a member of the party I support, who’s entire life is a lie? Perverting human nature isn’t the same as differing on tax policy.

And quickly, “civil unions” aren’t all that gays want. If you’ve ever watched a debate between a couple of these guys on O’Reilly (Who supports civil unions) or anywhere else, that’s not good enough for them. And if you give civil unions, then you better be prepared for an extremely effed kup country, because equal protection. Polygamists sucking resources dry with their dozens of kids and multiple wives, etc. etc.

Other than that I don’t have much else to say because while you claimed to be responding to me, you didn’t respond to any of my specific points. I’m not going to waste my time retyping it, but how about my question on whether it’s just a coincidence that there are two sexes and that sex between the two is the only way to create a child. No matter how hard gays try, they simply can’t do it. How about my point about Foley? You talk about “consenting adults”, who are you to say what a consenting adult is, those are just ages settled on by states and feds, but they aren’t truly…anything. As I said, what if someone claims to be born only attracted to kids. Terrifying and disgusting thought, huh? Well, I argue that we’d say the same a couple decades ago about gays. Again, I don’t want to waste my time repeating myself, so if you wish to actually discuss this, please actually respond to my previous post first instead of pretending to and then just saying you believe gays are born that way and picking and choosing what you believe the Bible says.

RightWinged on October 12, 2006 at 12:07 PM

They set up a system DESIGNED TO KEEP YOU IGNORANT, that’s why they talk to you in a language you cannot understand, contrary to the expressed will of Jesus Christ.

By your analogy, speaking in tounges today is contrary to the expreseed will of Jesus Christ. How many people in Atlanta Georgia speak Arabic?

Newsflash Soothsayer: The Catholic mass has not been singularly spoken in Latin since the Second Vatican Council almost 40 years ago.

That was a glaring error. Just ponder the potential of how many other things you are wrong about.

Second Newsflash: Without the Catholic and Orthodox church carrying the torch of Jesus Christ for 1500 years, there would be no record, no bible, and no Church. Including yours.

You are welcome to your opinions. It’s not my desire or responsibility to judge you. Everyone’s day of judgement will come and it will be one on one arrangment. I hope you relinquish your hatred before that day comes. Only God knows the true hearts of men.

natesnake on October 12, 2006 at 1:00 PM

Rightwinged said:

Other than that I don’t have much else to say because while you claimed to be responding to me, you didn’t respond to any of my specific points.

You asked earlier:

do any of you who are mad that some of us don’t accept “homosexuality” do you accept gay marriage? And if not, how do you justify that?

Rightwinged, I made a half-assed attempt to answer that. See the 9:30 post that you don’t agree with.

you didn’t respond to any of my specific points.

BTW,
I still think you are wrong for wanting to kick gays out of the republican party. Axe said it’s about compromise. I agree. We don’t all believe the exact same things all the time. But, we agree on most things. That’s important to remember.

What other questions were directed towards me specifically? I’d be glad to try to answer them. I’ll take a shot at it:

1.

It’s about choosing to live a complete lie. Why would I want someone being elected as a member of the party I support, who’s entire life is a lie?

Well, is total transparency a requirement to hold public office? shouldn’t there be some things that are off-limits? A private life for one?
Being a closet homosexual is his/her own business/problem/issue, however you want to define it. It doesn’t/shouldn’t affect how someone legislates.

2.

You talk about “consenting adults”, who are you to say what a consenting adult is, those are just ages settled on by states and feds, but they aren’t truly…anything.

Yea, they are just ages. what they choose to do behind closed doors is their business, as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others.

3.

As I said, what if someone claims to be born only attracted to kids. Terrifying and disgusting thought, huh?

Uh, yea. but it’s illegal to have sex with children. it isn’t illegal to be gay. big difference. One can be acted upon, the other can’t.

Anyway, I hope I answered some of your questions. My kids are home from school and my attention needs to be focused on them. gotta run.

pullingmyhairout on October 12, 2006 at 3:42 PM

I’m beginning to get frustrated pullingmyhairout, first you respond to me, but in a way that implies you put no thought in to it, and you chose to only respond to a very small part of my comment, and then when I point that out, you ask:

What other questions were directed towards me specifically?

None of them were addressed to you specifically, but you chose to reply, but ignored almost all points raised. But anyway…

Again, I have to point out that I didn’t bring God in to this, but YOU talking specifically to me said that you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, because that’s what God said. You somehow don’t see the hypocrisy, when you claim that gays are born that way. Again, before I get back to the God part, if gays are born that way (which I don’t believe), they should be entitled to everything we are, right? You claim no, because God said it’s between a man and a woman. But why do you continue to ignore Bible verses where he condemns “homosexuality”? Could it be because “progressive” society and possibly a relative claiming to be gay has forced you to accept it, and then pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe?

As for the “living a lie” thing, you’re talking about their private lives, etc. Well you’re missing my point. I believe these are dishonest people at their core. You don’t have to agree, but you’re not understanding what I’m saying. I DON’T ACCEPT “homosexuality” as real, so it’s not a “what they do is their business” issue. If they are doing it, then as far as I’m concerned they are dishonest 24/7, and I don’t want that type of person representing a party I belong to. Again, you can disagree and think homosexuality is real, but since I don’t think it is, my point stands (for me). Also, if you want to take it to the closeted area, don’t you think spending time hiding that lifestyle could distract and take away from the ability to represent us? It’s not like having an old story from when you were younger guried, it’s an ongoing thing and drains a large percentage of one’s energy.

Again, you’ve totally ignored a lot of my points from the earlier post in your most recent response, but at least you tried a few more. But you ignored my response about civil unions. (i.e. polygamists, etc.)

As for this:

Uh, yea. but it’s illegal to have sex with children. it isn’t illegal to be gay. big difference. One can be acted upon, the other can’t.

Is this your test of whether it’s okay or not? Laws? It was against the law to “act upon” gay sex in many states until very recently. It was still being battled out in Texas in 2003 last I knew. In fact there may still be a few states where sodomy is against the law, but I’m not certain of that. But my point is, would you have not been okay with gays a couple decades ago when it was still illegal to “act upon” it in many states? And are you saying that if pedophile sex was legalized, you’d suddenly accept that? Why is it wrong to have sex with kids? What if a person claims that they’re born that way? What if they get a growing group to push for their rights for a few generations until laws are overturned? I’m sure you’d say “it’s not the same as gays because in that case we’re talking about 2 consenting adults”, well who says what an adult is? That is a human/American law. A few generations ago most people would have condemned homosexuality the same way you and I justifiably do pedohpilia today. But homos have been mainstreamed so many people have compromised and accepted it. But that’s not the point. Explain why gays are born that way, but pedophiles aren’t, after acknowledging that “adult/child” are artificial labels.

Again, I don’t want to keep repeating points when you largely choose to ignore them and selectively half-assed respond to certain parts in a way that makes clear you’ve never thought much about this, but exist in a generation that has accepted gays so you went along with the pack.

So if you want to respond to all points in my previous comments do so, but if you are going to continue dancing around like this, please don’t bother.

RightWinged on October 12, 2006 at 5:14 PM

So if you want to respond to all points in my previous comments do so, but if you are going to continue dancing around like this, please don’t bother.

This is my last post on this topic. I find it VERY difficult to respond to ALL of your points when I have two kids wanting Animal Planet and juice, at the same time that I try to get dinner cooked, work on household issues, walk the dog, volunteer at school, help with homework, get ready for a slumber party, etc. sorry if I don’t put as much thought or energy into my comments, but I do try my best.

we will just have to disagree on this topic. Time to move on now.

pullingmyhairout on October 12, 2006 at 6:10 PM

This is my last post on this topic. I find it VERY difficult to respond to ALL of your points when I have two kids wanting Animal Planet and juice, at the same time that I try to get dinner cooked, work on household issues, walk the dog, volunteer at school, help with homework, get ready for a slumber party, etc. sorry if I don’t put as much thought or energy into my comments, but I do try my best.

we will just have to disagree on this topic. Time to move on now.

pullingmyhairout on October 12, 2006 at 6:10 PM

Agreed.. I just wish someone else would have even made an attempt.

RightWinged on October 12, 2006 at 6:48 PM

By your analogy, speaking in tounges today is contrary to the expreseed will of Jesus Christ. How many people in Atlanta Georgia speak Arabic?

Wrong. Paul specifically dealt with the subject of when tongues are appropriate and when they are not. He specifically said that when you speak in tongues it EDIFIES you. Not the church, just you. This is great and necessary, as Paul said, don’t be children in understanding, meaning, don’t think he’s talking AGAINST tongues because he wasn’t. However the 14 chapter of 1 corinthians was written in RESPONSE to an out of contol church that had ministers speaking in tongues from the pulpit, just to show how “holy ” they were. Paul counseled against this in the scriptures you are debating where he SPECIFICALLY said that unless he speaks words easy to understand, what is the point?

To the rest who now have branded me an extremist for actually believing what the Bible says, I feel sorry for you. The corruption that is in this world through lust, has already corrupted your heart since, as the scripture says, I have to let God be true and EVERY man a liar. You who know nothing about the scriptures and instead are led by your feelings of political correctness, look up this proverb 14. Your “feelings” aren’t worth a flying fart to the Lord..

PROVERBS 14:12
12. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

The Lord put this in the Bible to show you that you dont’ have a clue HOW to feel about anything, because you generally don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. He gave you a NEW value system, where you are required to “love what God loves, and hate what God hates”, one of the things that God “hates” is ABOMINATION. I’m sorry to see that more of you are not Christian. It’s the reason I joined the Republican party. Judging by the lukewarm, antagonistic to scripture, responses I have received, I’m glad I no longer belong to the Republican party. Good bye.

Soothsayer on October 12, 2006 at 11:26 PM

Uh. what?? Since when is the republican party the party of just Christians? What an absurd, repulsive post.
pullingmyhairout on October 11, 2006 at 5:04 PM

If you want to worship satan or be an atheist, GO BE A DEMOCRAT, they’d love to have ya. This is a CHRISTIAN PARTY numbnutz, read the party platform would ya? Where do you think the opposition to abortion comes from, if not Christianity? Take you “tolerant” fake assed, non-bible reading, scripturally illiterate ass to the next “anti-war” rally, kiss Cindy Sheehans dimpled butt and call it a day.

Soothsayer on October 13, 2006 at 12:17 AM

read the party platform would ya? Where do you think the opposition to abortion comes from, if not Christianity?

You’re a bit extreme on a lot of stuff, though not completely wrong, and it would take too much time to argue about each individual thing, but I have to say that opposition to abortion doesn’t come only from Christianity. Opposition to abortion comes from a logical and scientific understanding of what human life is. I am a Christian and of course that is enough to oppose abortion, but I think there are plenty of reasons to oppose it regardless.

RightWinged on October 13, 2006 at 1:39 AM

Right you are Rightwinged! HOWEVER, I was pointing out where the specific impetus for the Republican party platform came from. While there are a great many secularists and even atheists who can logically understand that the moment you have cellular reproduction, you have life, the prohibition against abortion as it relates to the Republican Party Platform, is religious.

You’re a bit extreme on a lot of stuff, though not completely wrong,RightWinged on October 13, 2006 at 1:39 AM

Is it extreme to point out what the Bible actually says, as opposed to those who are led religiously by their “feelings”? I believe what the WORD says on Homosexuals, abortion, etc. How is that extreme? Only in a land where people go to a church for years and still don’t have a clue as to what is or is not in the Word! Only in LUKEWARM land. I have Three of the NINE GIFTS of the SPirit. I have been healed by Jesus, I have laid hands on the sick and they have recovered. I have received the strength in times of trouble that would be akin to a miracle in your world. In 2004 I was shot 4 times, face, chest, arm and shoulder. The Lord gave me the strength after being shot multiple times, to knock my attacker unconscious and save my life and the life of my since departed mother. I know Jesus in SPirit and in truth. I received the word of knowledge shortly after being saved in 1992, because of this gift, I have an unerrant knowledge of scripture. I know the entire the great majority of the New Testament by memory, though I hardly studied. I prophesied in a Bible study a couple of years ago that the time would come when schools would discriminate against Christianity yet accept Islam and Judaism, this has recently come to pass. I know so much more about Jesus than the fake Christians that you’ve been exposed to that it’s not funny. And by fake, I mean, people who are baptized DIFFERENTLY than the way Jesus instructed his Apostles to baptize and who think they have been filled with the Holy Spirit WITHOUT the evidence given to the Apostles( tongues) and others, myself among them.

So I am extreme I guess, but it’s not borne of blind faith, my friend. It’s born of ANSWERED FAITH and Holy Ghost Power which I fully possess. It is the surety of one who learned at the feet of the King, which guides my speech. THAT’s why I’m appalled at the “Loose allegiance” some of the “so-called” Christians on this site have to the WORD of GOD. I’ve never discussed scripture with unregenerated people who thought they were Christian before.

Soothsayer on October 13, 2006 at 9:56 PM

Your approach which comes off very angry and extreme Soothsayer, though at the core I’d have to say I agree with most of what you’re saying. I just think you should show a little more tact otherwise you’re only going to drive folks away. Basically, whether or not your believe someone is going to hell, telling them at the offset “you’re going to hell” is going to cause them to tune you out immediately. I understand passion, but you have to approach different people different ways. That’s why when I argue against “homosexuality” I argue from a logical standpoint rather than a Christian one because, well, if the person is (claiming to be) gay, then they obviously aren’t a Christian in the first place, so what do they care what the Bible says. Get me? As for the “blind faith” part, that has nothing to do with what I said about extreme, and I’m not sure where that even came from. However I do myself get pretty frustrated by “blind faith” Christians, because I wonder if their “belief” is more of an insurance policy (incase there’s a Heaven) than anything else. I’m constantly reading about Creation science and I can’t stand those who think you can compromise and not accept the literal interpretation of Genesis. Bring that up randomly and you can imagine the looks you’ll get and watch people tune you out… however lashing out at them (whether it’s using The Word or not) isn’t going to help these people.

RightWinged on October 14, 2006 at 1:38 AM

Soothsayer,

By neglecting to address my two Newsflashes, I assume you stand corrected.

I know the entire the great majority of the New Testament by memory

Well I sincerely commend you for that. Keep in mind that Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell, and David Coresh also had an encyclopedic knowlege of the bible. Quotation of the bible a virtuous man does not make.

natesnake on October 16, 2006 at 9:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2