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

Sometimes you can tell a lot about a man by his enemies

California Conservative on October 11, 2006 at 2:11 PM

We need to “out” the heterosexual lefties. Anybody know any?

RedWinged Blackbird on October 11, 2006 at 2:12 PM

Now, that’s funny…

California Conservative on October 11, 2006 at 2:15 PM

Um, today is National Coming Out Day… just a thought. This is a coincidence.

Editor on October 11, 2006 at 2:16 PM

… ISN’T a coincidence

Editor on October 11, 2006 at 2:16 PM

Aren’t the libs all about “choice.” So shouldn’t this nut honor people’s choice about whether they want to reveal aspects of their private life? Or aren’t the libs all about “compassion.” Shouldn’t he have compassion for people that can’t face the internal “conflict” about their sexuality and let them work it out themselves, in private? Or, lets try tolerance. Shouldn’t he be tolerant of those who live a gay life that is different from how he defines a gay person should live?

Of course this backfires and he is seen as an intolerant and mean-spirited fanatic. Conservatives are not against gays; they oppose the imposition of the gay agenda on our society. If someone opposes the gay agenda and turns out to be gay, where is the problem? As long as they are doing their job and representing my interests, fine.

Mallard T. Drake on October 11, 2006 at 2:16 PM

This a-hole has been making these threats since the Foley thing blew up. Just do it already, that way we can rid the party of them, I say. He’s just trying to keep his 15 minutes going, after appearances on Nancy Gracy, Tucker, etc.

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 2:18 PM

Rogers is a malicious SOB. Of course, his link outing that beauty Barbara Mikulski is broken.

Valiant on October 11, 2006 at 2:20 PM

Just do it already, that way we can rid the party of them, I say.

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 2:18 PM

Are you saying you would throw them out of the party because they are gay?

BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 2:24 PM

I know we have some gay conservatives who chime in now and then – what do you say about all this? do you think it is inconsistent to be gay and republican? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Also, do all people who are gay want gay marriage? And if not, why not?

Those are some questions I’ve been pondering since this Foley Scandalette happened.

pullingmyhairout on October 11, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Just do it already, that way we can rid the party of them, I say.

Geez, Rightwinged. I didn’t peg you as someone who was intolerant. I would hope that the republican party has room for everyone. And I’m being serious.

pullingmyhairout on October 11, 2006 at 2:28 PM

Way to go, Democrats! Attacking HOMOsexuals is back in vogue!

If we don’t get at least ONE Republican candidate making the point of how liberals are currently promoting Homophobia, then we deserve to lose the upcomming elections. SHEESH!

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 2:28 PM

Get GLAAD out there to protect the republicans :-p

Defector01 on October 11, 2006 at 2:29 PM

Danno, you’ve been tops on this topic – you see it with clarity. Wish many others would too.

I hope the Reps who are gay preempt this bastard, stand up for their sexuality and explain their positions on the issues.

Going forward that would prevent hypocrisy and force candidates to be honest when they run.

No one should be held hostage by this operative. We don’t respect/love Mary Cheney any less. It’s a liberal myth that we’re all mean and ignorant homophobes. Perfect timing to show them the truth

Being against gay marriage is not equivalent with being anti-gay.

Entelechy on October 11, 2006 at 2:33 PM

I’ve already outed myself on here, so phbbbbllltt to you, Mr. Rogers.

SouthernGent on October 11, 2006 at 2:34 PM

SouthernGent, and nothing untoward happened to you or us – we respect your posts, agree or disagree with them, unrelated to your private life, just like you appear to do the same for ours,

Entelechy on October 11, 2006 at 2:39 PM

Southern Gent, if you don’t mind my asking, are you feeling deprived of a right to marry?

Honestly, I’m coming around to Kinky Freidman’s position: You should be able to be just as miserable as everyone else.

Pablo on October 11, 2006 at 2:42 PM

Hi, Entelechy. Did ya miss me when I lost my Internet connection for a week? :oD

I just ran an Al-Google search for reports on recent gay bashing activity, and none were to be found within the time that the Foley debacle erupted. I did see that Rush is working the issue along the same lines as I am though. Great minds, or just common sense? You decide.

I have several issues with the homosexual activist groups, but I get along with most gay people I encounter. I believe that the republicans could, and should take the high road on this issue. I wonder if I can sell the idea to one of the schmucks …

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 2:44 PM

He made the big announcement on his blog Moday night after appearing on O’Reilly…I guess from lack of news coverage..his little hate message was a bust!

Pam on October 11, 2006 at 2:44 PM

I didn’t know we had secret gay republicans. I mean, I know we have gay republicans, but I didn’t realize they were secret.

I wish the VRWC leadership would get its act together and start getting me the important memos.

Axe on October 11, 2006 at 2:47 PM

For those questioning my earlier comment… It’s not about intolerance, it’s about not acceptance. First of all, we saw what happened with Foley. Most would argue that it was because he was a pedofile and had nothing to do with him being gay. I just personally disagree. And I simply don’t accept homosexuality. It’s not a matter of tolerance. They’re more than welcome to support the party, but I don’t want them being elected to office as part of it, when I would like to believe the party does accept and legitimize the behavior. I know everyone is going to call me a “bigot” because the country has “progressed” so far, even though a generation or two ago I would have been of the majority opinion. Quite simply I believe they are a perverting human nature and I don’t want to be part of a party that would openly accept that lifestyle choice. Anyway, I don’t think that this guy really has anything, and if he does, where did he get the information? Do you really want gay Republican elected officials who hide it, yet somehow are open enough that some liberal gay activist knows about it?

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 2:51 PM

I’d out myself if it were believable.

I dress like crap.
I can’t cook water.
I prefer PBR to wine.
I don’t smell very good.
And I have the style sense of a badger.

natesnake on October 11, 2006 at 2:53 PM

Wouldn’t the fact that he, Michael Rogers, has in effect made the statement that it is okay to be gay and be Republican, be a windfall for the Republicans. Instead of running from it counter punch by bringing up the fact that while they say they are a big tent party they continue to porve time and time again that they aren’t. While this latest stunt is in some sort of perverted way I guess supposed to embarass those who may be gay and Republicans isn’t this in essence the same tactic they use on African Americans who are also Republicans.
The Dems feel that all minority groups owe their allegiance to them unquestionably. These various groups are slowly realizing that the Dems are NOT looking out for their best interests.

LakeRuins on October 11, 2006 at 2:53 PM

Mike Rogers deserves a wedgie, at the very least.

He’s being extremely self-righteous at invading other’s privacy. Regardless of his “justification,” he’s wrong at doing so.

As nobody is without sin, I wonder what secret sins he has that he doesn’t want the world to know about?

Karma has it’s ways….

georgej on October 11, 2006 at 2:55 PM

I’m Spartacus!

natesnake on October 11, 2006 at 2:55 PM

The Dems feel that all minority groups owe their allegiance to them unquestionably. These various groups are slowly realizing that the Dems are NOT looking out for their best interests.

LakeRuins

Exactly right, and, IMHO, the reason that these groups are so slow to realize which party supports them more honestly is that republicans do not speak up.

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 2:57 PM

Southern Gent, if you don’t mind my asking, are you feeling deprived of a right to marry?

Personally, no! :-) Although I should have the legal means to leave my assets to my partner (if I had one). However, I understand that most people in this country are opposed to that. I don’t like it, but I deal with it. I am not bitter like so many others apparently are, but I digress.

I know gays, and for a lot of them being “gay” is all there is. They are “gay” before they anything else. I have a different perspective, I suppose. I am an American before I am anything else. I understand the danger posed to me as an American by the “evangelical muslims” who wish to spread their religion by the sword. They would kill me just to look at me. I will never for the life of me understand how gays that live in America with almost unprecedented freedoms compared to most of the world whoemphasize being gay above all else can’t understand they would be killed for being gay by the muslim evangelicals, not to mention for being an American (or for listening to Cher!).

SouthernGent on October 11, 2006 at 3:00 PM

Yeah, like whatever. This story is soooo last week.

Rogers jumped the shark. Then he tied him up and had his way with him.

JammieWearingFool on October 11, 2006 at 3:01 PM

SouthernGent
If people can leave assets to pets I don’t know why you wouldn’t be able to leave any assets you have to anybody or anything you wanted to. Isn’t that the purpose of a will?

LakeRuins on October 11, 2006 at 3:02 PM

Danno, of course I missed ya – you’re my e-buddy; I thought you were on vacation or on a business trip…

LakeRuins and Danno, I agree with all you wrote.

Do you really want gay Republican elected officials who hide it, yet somehow are open enough that some liberal gay activist knows about it?

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 2:51 PM

No we don’t. I’d like to see everyone be open about it when they run. We can then decide. I have no doubt that some would be elected and others wouldn’t, but not based on their sexuality.

The Reps are way more progressive about this than the Libs can imagine – because they have them in their families, like all other, and they love them just the same.

Again, this is the perfect timing to make this known so the gay-voting-bloc knows the truth.

Entelechy on October 11, 2006 at 3:05 PM

Southern Gent, I can forgive you for being gay and American, but not for listening to Cher. BTW, Fox is reporting that a small plane has crashed into a NYC highrise. Deja vu.

RedWinged Blackbird on October 11, 2006 at 3:05 PM

I just found this Newsday article via Drudge …

Four young men were arrested for luring a gay man to a remote location with an online promise of a sexual encounter, then attempting to rob him — an incident that left the victim in critical condition after he ran into traffic to escape the attack, a police commander said Wednesday.

Thus it begins. Way to go, Democrats!

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 3:06 PM

Although I should have the legal means to leave my assets to my partner…

Isn’t it called a “last will and testament?”

I know gays, and for a lot of them being “gay” is all there is. They are “gay” before they anything else. I have a different perspective, I suppose. I am an American before I am anything else.

Amen. Actually, I was going to quote your entire post. Instead let me say how nice it is to hear some common sense about this “issue.” thanks.

Mallard T. Drake on October 11, 2006 at 3:12 PM

Setting aside the invasion of privacy and focusing on the strictly political, I say “Bring it on.”

It’s a Will&Grace-QueerEyeForTheStraightGuy world now.
Well before those shows Rock Hudson’s death changed a lot of preconceptions among my conservative friends – the first time they saw that a gay man didn’t have to be a cartoon-like personality. Or British.
“A decent man. A good man.”, they said. Hell, everyone said that. I watched a lot of people, some quickly and lots slowly, just… let go. Of animosity.
I never cared one way or another about the gay thing. No credit to me for that. It’d be like taking credit for my indifference toward the color beige. Anyway, I think most people are like me about gayness – don’t care. Don’t care for the idiotic parades, but otherwise don’t care much at all.

Plus, if we’re gonna lose the mid-terms anyway, here’s a great opportunity to clean house on this issue. Take the weapon out of the Dems hands. Next time they’ll have nothing. NOTHING.

Stephen M on October 11, 2006 at 3:17 PM

I don’t think outing really applies to public figures the same way as for private citizens. If politicians have some major aspect of their lives that they are keeping secret it exposes them to blackmail potential.

I would want to know if my representative or his/her staff had secrets that could compromise their representation. Then I and other constituents could decide how important the revealed information was to our rep or staff continuing in that position.

MRegine on October 11, 2006 at 3:18 PM

It isn’t a matter of not being allowed to leave the assets to your partner, it is a matter of the taxes surrounding it. When a married couple dies, the estate transfers to the surviving spouse with no tax penalty, in his case, they are taxed as if there was no marriage. The same is true of the patient advocate papers..My husband is mine and visa versus, but my (gay) sil’s are not in the same boat as us..see even though they appointed each other as the advocate, a family member can legally trump their voice…

Pam on October 11, 2006 at 3:19 PM

I agree, Stephen M; bring it on and we will see if there are more Stephen M’s or RightWinged’s in our party.

I hope there are more of the former.

BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 3:23 PM

SouthernGent, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. In NY, a few gays I’ve talked to chilled their enthusiasm for a state recognized marriage when they realized it entailed being subject to NY’s divorce laws.

chsw

chsw on October 11, 2006 at 3:30 PM

I wonder why this clown thinks anyone will care who’s gay and who’s not gay? It’s not like it’s 1950.

p0s3r on October 11, 2006 at 3:38 PM

No we don’t. I’d like to see everyone be open about it when they run. We can then decide. I have no doubt that some would be elected and others wouldn’t, but not based on their sexuality.

The Reps are way more progressive about this than the Libs can imagine – because they have them in their families, like all other, and they love them just the same.

Again, this is the perfect timing to make this known so the gay-voting-bloc knows the truth.

Entelechy on October 11, 2006 at 3:05 PM

As is typical for you, Entelechy, you make good sense.

thirteen28 on October 11, 2006 at 3:46 PM

I know we have some gay conservatives who chime in now and then – what do you say about all this? do you think it is inconsistent to be gay and republican? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Also, do all people who are gay want gay marriage? And if not, why not?

Those are some questions I’ve been pondering since this Foley Scandalette happened.

pullingmyhairout on October 11, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Yeah, I’m one of those mythical gay conservatives, and I’ve never made any real effort to hide the fact. There is far more to my identity than just my sexual orientation. In fact, I deeply resent the belief of “you’re gay/straight/religious/etc., therefore you must believe a certain way.” Such broad-sweeping statements are indicative of a small mind incapable of accepting the individuality of others.

SouthernGent said earlier that being gay is all some people have, and I’m in complete agreement. These folks have wrapped their entire identity to fit their sexuality. IMHO, it makes for a pretty pathetic excuse for a person if that’s all they have going for themselves.

I think party afiliation means nothing. Standing for issues is far more important than toeing any party’s line.

I believe coming out is a very personal and difficult process for many, and it should be done on one’s own terms in one’s own time. The idea of “outting” others for any reason is utterly abhorrent – political expediency or revenge being the worst reasons of all.

I’m pretty much a fence-sitter on gay marriage. Why should gay couples be any less miserable than straight couples? The Gay Left, however, seems to be ready, willing, and able to shoot themselves in the foot over this issue. Mind, they’re using a AK-47 while doing the shooting.

As far as Foley, I don’t have all the facts to make a final judgement. Were his actions creepy? Yes. Inappropriate? Definitely. Illegal? I don’t know; there aren’t enough facts to say, so I’ll leave that up to the investigators and any legal entities that may get involved.

Vic on October 11, 2006 at 3:54 PM

I am just appalled at this “Outing” thing that blogActive has going on! This is a person’s personal decision not to share his or her sexual desires with anyone. Why should that EVER be made public unless they wish for it to be???

They aren’t cheating, they aren’t stealing, they aren’t killing anyone.

Disgusting.

Rightwingsparkle on October 11, 2006 at 3:57 PM

I’m cradle Catholic, so my stance is somewhere in the middle. We are taught (and I believe this) hate the sin and love the sinner.

Although I believe that spiritually it is a sin, I hold no personal ill will towards people that have that orientation. I have no problem voting for a closeted or openly gay person. What they do in their spare time (outside of legislating) is their own business so long our political objectives are the same. Lust and greed are deadly sins that many of us have indulged in. No one is perfect.

Opposition to gay marriage is just one item on a long slate that is the conservative agenda. I think I can consider someone a conservative who is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-national defense, pro-death penalty, pro-capitolist, anti-nanny state, and pro-gay-marriage. Six out of seven isn’t bad.

Hell, I oppose the death penalty. Does that make me any less conservative?

natesnake on October 11, 2006 at 3:57 PM

Personally, no! :-)

Just as I suspected.

Although I should have the legal means to leave my assets to my partner (if I had one). However, I understand that most people in this country are opposed to that.

Is that the case? I can see an issue with marriage and with tampering with the definition of it, but civil unions I don’t see the least bit of an issue with. I may be mistaken, but I thought that was also the general consensus.

At any rate, it’s good to know we’ve got a hypcritical, out-of-control right winger on board! Along with Mr Rove, I salute you! ;-)

Pablo on October 11, 2006 at 4:18 PM

Here is a thought. Conservatives who are gays do not define themselves as gay first and everything else second. It is only one aspect of who they are. Liberals who are gays are gay first and formost and everything else filters through that. They are GAY! While this is a generalization, does it seem to be fairly accurate?

Mallard T. Drake on October 11, 2006 at 4:22 PM

Mallard, that would explain why left wing gays place gay marriage over national security.

CT on October 11, 2006 at 4:26 PM

Are you saying you would throw them out of the party because they are gay?
BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 2:24 PM

YESSIREEE BOB! I am so sick of some of the “tolerant’ fake assed Christians on this site! Not calling you that Blue, you just asked a fair question. One that I think needs an answer. It’s time for the Republican party to declare it’s allegiance. Either your allegiance is to Jesus Christ or it’s to the devil, PERIOD. The church of Jesus Christ is AGAINST homosexuality and declares them to be DESERVING OF DEATH, although the enactment of that penalty is the province of Jesus and Jesus alone, no gay bashing necessary, there can still be no doubt that the Lord HATES ABOMINATION.

BUT how does he feel about you so-called “tolerant of sin” Christians? You think you’re mister big stuff by being so “big tentish” when all you’re really doing is bringing DOOM to the REPUBLICAN PARTY. Because the Son of Man, will surely judge those that practice such things, AS WELL AS YOU WHO TOLERATE THEM. Try reading the BIBLE in ENGLISH instead of LATIN and you might acutally LEARN SOMETHING.
ROMANS 1
24. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26. BECAUSE OF THIS, GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO SHAMEFUL LUSTS. EVEN THEIR WOMEN EXCHANGEDE NATURAL RELATIONS FOR UNNATURAL ONES.

27. IN THE SAME WAY THE MEN ALSO ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. MEN COMMITTED INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN, AND RECEIVED IN THEMSELVES THE DUE PENALTY FOR THEIR PERVERSION. (Aids etc)

28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31. they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32. ALTHOUGH THEY KNOW GOD’S RIGHTEOUS DECREE THAT THOSE WHO DO SUCH THINGS DESERVE DEATH, THEY NOT ONLY CONTINUE TO DO THESE VERY THINGS, (here’s where some of us come in), BUT ALSO APPROVE of those WHO PRACTIVE THEM. (so much for your “big tent”)

So in closing BLue, you can either take this opportunity to rid your party of the sodomite vermin that is trying to corrupt your morality or you can GO TO HELL WITH THEM. (according to plainly written scripture)

Soothsayer on October 11, 2006 at 4:42 PM

uhhh that would be, “BUT ALSO APPROVE OF THOSE WHO “PRACTICE” THEM. sry.

Soothsayer on October 11, 2006 at 4:51 PM

No one can corrupt my morality, Soothsayer. I make my own choices.

The God I believe in is a fair and just God, and is too benevolent to have as much hate as you have in your heart.

BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 4:51 PM

Try reading the BIBLE in ENGLISH instead of LATIN and you might acutally LEARN SOMETHING.

I’m pretty sure that was directed at me.

Soothsayer, does the hatred keep up at night?

natesnake on October 11, 2006 at 4:52 PM

Was the Bible originally written in English?

BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 4:54 PM

Try reading the BIBLE in ENGLISH instead of LATIN and you might acutally LEARN SOMETHING.

Growing up, did they also tell you that Catholics have horns under their hair? You’d do well to trace your roots.

I believe in a loving and forgiving God. You can keep the hate filled vengefull god that was ingrained into you from an early age.

It’s pointless to have a theological debate with someone that already has all the answers.

natesnake on October 11, 2006 at 5:00 PM

Soothsayer:

We are all sinners, and we are all deserving of death and the penalty of hell. Only through the redemption of Christ are we saved and spared. Homosexuality is one of many sins. All sins are equal in that they keep us separated from God. Since you are quoting from the Bible, let me paraphrase one from Jesus: ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ I would humbly suggest you participate on a study of God’s grace.

Mallard T. Drake on October 11, 2006 at 5:02 PM

Rightwinged said:

Quite simply I believe they are a perverting human nature and I don’t want to be part of a party that would openly accept that lifestyle choice.

My respect for you is over.

Soothsayer said:

It’s time for the Republican party to declare it’s allegiance. Either your allegiance is to Jesus Christ or it’s to the devil, PERIOD.

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

Was the Bible originally written in English?

BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 4:54 PM

it was written in Greek.

pullingmyhairout on October 11, 2006 at 5:04 PM

And Vic and SouthernGent,
Thanks for your honest and frank responses. It serves this site well to have people such as you contribute.

pullingmyhairout on October 11, 2006 at 5:07 PM

Wow, soothsayer – your post is a perfect illustration why some people assert that Christianity is as intolerant as islam. Good to know that all Christians are not like you though, otherwise I’d probably join the chorus.

thirteen28 on October 11, 2006 at 5:46 PM

I know gays, and for a lot of them being “gay” is all there is.

And not just “Being Gay,” I beg to add. Go surf around MySpace and see a continuing exercise in one person after another (sigh: no, not everyone) “Being x,” where x is any convenient thing. Being x is so much easier than being a whole person.

I suppose everyone is probably guilty of a little of that. Especially younglings.

Axe on October 11, 2006 at 6:08 PM

Who let Fred Phelps in?

BeachBaby on October 11, 2006 at 6:09 PM

Rightwinged said:

Quite simply I believe they are a perverting human nature and I don’t want to be part of a party that would openly accept that lifestyle choice.

My respect for you is over.

pullingmyhairout on October 11, 2006 at 5:04 PM

And you people talk about tolerance? I can’t have a different opinion of gays? I can’t believe, what seems like common sense to me, that homosexuality (a term I hate to use because it legitimizes it) is unnatural. I’m sorry the “progressive” times have led you to be so politically correct and acceptant of things that you are no longer acceptant of those who don’t agree. Telling.

I don’t try to hammer people with the Bible, even though I am a Christian, when I express my opposition to homosexuality (ugh, that artificial term again), yet you guys still flip out. Please commenters, explain to me when (if ever) it’s okay to not accept homosexuality. Keep in mind I don’t walk up to gays telling them they’re going to hell, etc. I just simply don’t accept them. It’s funny that it used to be that gays stayed in the closet out of fear, yet after all the “progress” we’ve made in recent decades, it’s now those who don’t accept gays who have to keep it to themselves. Very interesting. It’s cool for these people to come out and have their in your face parades, but don’t you dare mention your opposition to gays in a public place! Tolerance, right?

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 6:10 PM

Tolerating hate is not tolerance. Left wingers tolerate hateful jihadis, that doesn’t make them tolerant.

CT on October 11, 2006 at 6:12 PM

I hope you’re not talking to me CT, because I never said anything about hate.

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 6:14 PM

This isn’t about tolerance. It’s about people minding their own business.

BeachBaby on October 11, 2006 at 6:18 PM

Are you a Republican, RightWinged, because you are anti-gay?

You said you hate to use the term homosexuality, because it legitimizes ‘it’.

Well, I don’t like that the label “Christian” is used to legitimize hate.

BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 6:22 PM

Keep in mind I don’t walk up to gays telling them they’re going to hell, etc. I just simply don’t accept them…

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 6:10 PM

RW, you do have a right to your beliefs, as do all others have a right to theirs. It doesn’t appear that you intend to offend or harm anyone.

I’m glad we’re having this discussion as this society/country has become way too sensitive. Most all subjects are or will become taboo, if we don’t fight for freedom of belief and expression, via civilized debate.

No need for personal attacks, whatever the stand.

I don’t check the DU or Kos, but wonder if such a thread exists over there…I find it honestly refreshing to address complex issues, from a range of sources.

Entelechy on October 11, 2006 at 6:24 PM

And you people talk about tolerance? I can’t have a different opinion of gays?

You can have any opinion you want. But we can disagree with you, especially when you effectively suggest purging them from the party by not allowing anyone of that persuasion to run for/hold office as a Republican.

Speaking at least for myself, that’s where I believe you crossed the line.

At the end of the day, I really don’t care what any Republican does with another adult behind closed doors. My big concern is how they govern.

thirteen28 on October 11, 2006 at 6:25 PM

Where is the Hot Air crew on this? …

AP Exclusive: Reid Got $1M in Land Sale

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.
In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

According to liberal logic, the democrats knew this story was about to break, thus they rushed out the Foley debacle early in an effort to cover-up. :oP~~~

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 6:31 PM

…homosexuality (a term I hate to use because it legitimizes it)…

Splitting hairs here maybe, but homosexuality would be the “clinical” term for same sex attraction. Heterosexual, homosexual, asexual… If anything, the term gay is more of a legitimizing term. But this is just semantics…

Mallard T. Drake on October 11, 2006 at 6:37 PM

HotAir has a post on the Reid land deal already Dannojyd. Refresh the home page.

Are you a Republican, RightWinged, because you are anti-gay?

You said you hate to use the term homosexuality, because it legitimizes ‘it’.

Well, I don’t like that the label “Christian” is used to legitimize hate.

BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 6:22 PM

So, what exactly are you saying? I specifically made the point that my opposition to gays doesn’t come from the Bible, mainly because if that is where it comes from it’s not going to matter to gays because they likely aren’t Christians in the first place. But that’s taking this in a totally different area.. what does that have to do with anything I’ve said? And further what does hate have anything to do with what I said? Your problem is that YOU’RE intolerant and just can’t imagine that there are people who still don’t accept “homosexuality” as something natural and something people are born with, or else you wouldn’t start throwing the word “hate” around and trying to turn it in to a religious thing.

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 6:39 PM

…homosexuality (a term I hate to use because it legitimizes it)…

Splitting hairs here maybe, but homosexuality would be the “clinical” term for same sex attraction. Heterosexual, homosexual, asexual… If anything, the term gay is more of a legitimizing term. But this is just semantics…

Mallard T. Drake on October 11, 2006 at 6:37 PM

Point taken MTD, however I my problem is still with the “clinical” term because the fact that they had to come up with a “clinical” term indicates it’s real, which I don’t believe.

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 6:41 PM

I dun did do dat refresh thingy, RightWinged, but I have yet to find it.

Time to do some digging, and by that I do not mean Digging.

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 7:00 PM

Weird Dannojyd, the post is there. Here’s the link.

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 7:03 PM

I am coming out on this site. I am a transgendered lesbian who is strongly conservative. I voted for President Reagan and President Bush. I am not afraid of evanglicals, in fact I would rather have an evangelical Christian watching my back in any fight than any limp wristed cowardly liberal any time. Conservatives are the back bone of this country. Liberals are not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being conservative and gay.

marianpaul on October 11, 2006 at 7:34 PM

I wonder why this clown thinks anyone will care who’s gay and who’s not gay? It’s not like it’s 1950.
p0s3r on October 11, 2006 at 3:38 PM

I thought so too. But it seems it’s still hard for some to separate civics from religion.
Which, I don’t care how anyone takes this, is too Talibany for my tastes.

The question is, I now see; how many in the GOP think that imposing their religious beliefs on anyone, at any time, for any reason is a cool idea? It doesn’t even seem Christian to me.
It’s an important question. For the party, for the country.
And ultimately, it’s an important question for those who think they have a right to even try to strong-arm me.

Stephen M on October 11, 2006 at 7:53 PM

I am not afraid of evanglicals, in fact I would rather have an evangelical Christian watching my back in any fight than any limp wristed cowardly liberal any time.

This is what I was thinking. The other way around, I mean; I’ve the evangelical. I’m not gay. I’m saying that so firmly because women believing I’m gay would change my status from little hope to no hope, and no one wants to be hopeless.

Gonna go watch Betheny. Again.

Axe on October 11, 2006 at 7:56 PM

Who’s trying to impose religious beliefs on you Stephen M?

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 8:01 PM

RW, you said:

Quite simply I believe they are a perverting human nature and I don’t want to be part of a party that would openly accept that lifestyle choice

This is why asked if you are a republican simply because you are anti-gay.

I agree with about 98% of what you say here at HotAir, but this is part of the other 2%.

BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 8:03 PM

Who’s trying to impose religious beliefs on you Stephen M?

Scroll up and read Soothsayer’s post. Scary stuff. I’m Republican through and through, but that ain’t me.

p0s3r on October 11, 2006 at 8:08 PM

This is why asked if you are a republican simply because you are anti-gay.

I agree with about 98% of what you say here at HotAir, but this is part of the other 2%.

BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 8:03 PM

Then you’ve answered your own question BSB. If you agree with 98% of what I say, then clearly it’s not all about being anti-gay. And by the way I don’t think of myself (though you’re welcome to) as “anti-gay”, just pro-nature and not acceptant of what appears obvious to me. I just don’t believe there is “gay” to be “anti” of.

And p0s3r, I see you’re responding to my question to Stephen M, but you’re missing the context of Stephen M’s comment that I was responding to. He was talking as if there is this vicious gay hating movement in the GOP, and wasn’t addressing specifically soothsayer’s comment. So I’m still waiting for Stephen M’s answer.

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 8:15 PM

RW, with all due respect, I think Stephen M was referring to people which Soothsayer is representative of. I get that context from his “I now see” statement. Whether or not Soothsayer’s views are shared by a “movement in the GOP” is debatable, but his views clearly are vicious and gay hating.

p0s3r on October 11, 2006 at 8:21 PM

I get that context from his “I now see” statement.

Except that it’s followed by: how many in the GOP

RightWinged on October 11, 2006 at 8:31 PM

I agree with about 98% of what you say here at HotAir . . .

I’d second that.

I’ve known you RW since the commenting in Ian’s Political Teen days, and I know you aren’t hateful or spiteful or hurtful. I’ve always considered, and still do consider you a friend, as much as this cyberspace thing allows for friendship.

I do disagree with you, if I understand your position correctly in this instance. I think I get it. If I do, in my opinion you are going wrong about here:

–if the GOP had a plank in the platform that was “Pro Circuit Party,” I’d be with you. But it doesn’t. It’s a matter of purview. I don’t think supporting the same candidate, through the same mechanism (political party) is a compromise.

This gay guy–make him an Agnostic–standing in the booth next to me isn’t compromising his values by voting for The Candidate because I, the heterosexual conservative Christian, am also voting for The Candidate. I’m not compromising either. So when we’re shoveling money into The Candidate’s treasure chest, we still aren’t endorsing each other, and so compromising, and when we are showing up at The Candidate’s GOP Event, we still aren’t endorsing each other. I just don’t see the compromise. He never says it’s ok to run around “Jesus this,” “Jesus that,” with a stone-aged mentality about sex, and I never say it’s ok to have sex with another man.

~shrug~ We both just want a real border and lower taxes.

… but whatever. I could be missing it. And I could be flat wrong. I’m keeping my farm’s deed in my pocket.

Axe on October 11, 2006 at 8:35 PM

Scroll up and read Soothsayer’s post. Scary stuff. I’m Republican through and through, but that ain’t me.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, this is the voice that the rest of America is hearing. They don’t hear the moderate conservatives. They hear the bible thumping bigot. Congratulations on where your party has come.

GregH on October 11, 2006 at 9:00 PM

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, this is the voice that the rest of America is hearing.

No, GregH, thats the stereotype the MSM and the left try to perpetuate about the conservatives.

p0s3r on October 11, 2006 at 10:01 PM

I’m not saying that the MSM doesn’t perpetuate the image. My point is that the voice of moderate conservatives is being drowned. Think about how people perceive your party, remembering that their perception is their reality.

GregH on October 11, 2006 at 10:16 PM

Thanks for the link, RightWinged. That was wierd indeed. I guess it is time for me to run Window Washer again. BTW, I understand and pretty much agree with your point of view. I just got tired of arguing what seems to me to be common sense years ago. ;o)

GregH, if all that Americans hear are the Bible thumping, extremist Republicans, then why have democrats been losing ground for over a decade? Are those in the liberal party just that lousy poor at representing mainstream America?

DannoJyd on October 11, 2006 at 10:18 PM

I just got home from my second job and I am therefore late to this thread, but I’ve learned a few things about some otherwise normal people that I find troubling.

I am a proud Southern Evangelical Christian, and I accept homosexuality as a natural biological state. No logical person can say otherwise.

Animals are incapable of sin, and yet, homosexuality is normal in most animal species in roughly the same proportions as it is in humans. From a scientific perspective, that is a fact that proves a norm. Homeosexuality not an aborration.

From a theological perspective, it shows that homosexuality is part of God’s grand design for life on this earth. Christians accpet as fact that God knew you before you were born, made you who you are, and who you were meant to be. God made gays the way he wanted them to be. To doubt that is to doubt God.

As for soothsayer and Fred Phelps and others that hate gays and claim that Jesus Christ did as well, I’d ask you to return to the Bible, and show me any passage where it says your hatred is a Christian virtue. To claim that Jesus endorse hate or the killing of people for sins is to not know Jesus in any way, shape, or form. Chrsit’s message was one of love. Soothsayer, you may think you are a Christian, but you have missed Christ’s entire message. I’ll pray that one day you’ll overcome that.

Personally, I’ve been fortunate enough to meet and interact with a few dozen people in my life who are gay. I’ve liked the vast majority of them. The militant gays who have nothing but their gayness as their reason for being are a bit hard to take, but then, so is just about any zealot, of any stripe.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’ll stand up for myself and say that as long as I have a voice as a conservative blogger, and an Evangelical Christian one at that, I’ll be happy to welcome anyone who agrees with the majority of conservative vlaues to stand together with me.

Bob Owens on October 11, 2006 at 11:33 PM

And he has the audacity to call us hypocrites.

Ian? “Us”? Should we be expecting an announcement from Mike Rogers?

Kralizec on October 12, 2006 at 12:04 AM

I am a proud Southern Evangelical Christian, and I accept homosexuality as a natural biological state. No logical person can say otherwise.

Bob Owens, while it seems your comment was directed more towards folks like Soothsayer, I have to take issue with that comment, and your elaboration in to the animal world.

First of all, you’re calling the majority of conservative Christians who don’t accept homosexuality as a natural born thing. And for those here that claim to, do you accept gay marriage? If you don’t, then you’re a hypocrite.

As for the animal thing, are you serious? Animals don’t have a conscience the way we do. They are just horny/in heat, etc. Does a dog that humps your leg mean it was born with a natural attraction to human legs? And if you were to try to make that leap (which I assume you wouldn’t) what would that dog do if it were born somewhere that it never encountered a human? I once knew a female chihuahua that would hump the hell out of a penguin stuffed animal. Not others, just the penguin. The family thought it was funny and would bring out the penguin and this female chihuaua would just rape the hell out of this thing. Was that because it was a natural attraction? Come on. The animal comparison is ridiculous. As for liking most gays you’ve met and interacted with, that irrelevant to whether the behavior is right or natural. Plenty of people have encountered serial killers and had good relationships too. Before any of you take that somewhere it wasn’t intended, I’m not comparing gays and serial killers, just showing that the “point” about getting along with people is irrelevant. I’ve known some real flamers that have been VERY open and enjoyed being teased about how gay they were and were likable individuals, but that doesn’t mean traveling the hershey highway was right or natural.

Again, as I just asked in that last paragraph, 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? Is that not the picture of hypocrisy? To go further, how do you prove “pedophiles” aren’t born that way? What if Foley said he was “born that way”, and that he’s only attracted to 15 year old boys? Based on your acceptance of gays who claim they were born liking the same sex, who are you to claim Foley and friends weren’t born liking who they like? Who are you to claim that someone isn’t born liking a parakeet? Who are you to claim that someone isn’t born with the desire to only be with 20 people at the same time?

Also, I find it funny that so many are willing to blast anyone who disagrees with homosexuality and doesn’t want any homosexuals representing our party that we’d like to believe is based on a lot of traditional values, yet are willing to stay home or straight vote Democrat in this election if Bush doesn’t pass the fence pill. Sorry if some of us hold traditional values that would be mainstream a couple decades ago and haven’t become as “progressive” as the rest of you.

Admittedly this comment is a little scattered, but I have to point out quickly that no matter how hard they’ve tried, they’ve yet to locate a “gay gene”, even though they can isolate so much else and can practically genetically engineer kids now.

Back to the “natural” thing real quick… Homo”sexuality” by it’s definition and name is about the type of “sex” one wishes to engage in. Do you think it’s a coincidence that there are two genders? Do you think it’s a coincidence that sex between these two genders is the only way to produce a child and that no matter how hard you try, gay sex cannot? Do you guys really think that hetero-sex=children is just some magnificant coincidence? Really?

Here’s where everyone comes in and attacks me for being a bigot and that everything I’ve said is “hate speech”, etc. etc. I thought most of you all were traditional conservative types, but I guess I was confused. As society has “progressed”, it seems traditional values and common sense have gone out the window, and suddenly it’s unacceptable to not accept “homosexuality”. I’m glad to see I’m not totally alone here, and I hope the lack of comment from many is just ignoring this post, rather than fear of stating their opinion, because as I said earlier we’ve reached a point when gays can be in your face and have their parades, but someone who doesn’t agree with the lifestyle better not dare say so in public. I’ve just never been one for following the PC line.

As for Axe, you make the most thought out and non-emotion based case here, and I thank you for that. And believe it or not, I largely agree with you. I’ll say that my initial comment about ridding the party may have been (or at least seemed) over the top… But my point I’ve been making is that I feel we’re talking about an artificial lifestyle here. And sense that is the case, I don’t feel like I want someone who’s life is essentially a lie to have an “R” next to their name. Especially when they are so dishonest that they hide this artificial lifestyle, so they are basically double-lying as far as I’m concerned. My intiial comment was definitely not in support of this Rogers guy, but it was more out of frustration of what the party of traditional values has turned in to.

To that point, look at Rudy Giuliani… He’s for abortion and gay rights, right? Are we that far off from accepting abortion soon? Can someone explain to me why over the past few decades suddenly we’ve (well not me) accepted “homosexuality”, and why I shouldn’t believe the same will slowly happen with abortion?

Well, I’m bored with this rant for now… I’m sure some of you will have something to say about this. But before you do, here are a few guidlines…. Don’t scream “Bible thumper” at me, while I am a Christian, if you are intending to be honest, acknowledge that I haven’t used that to support position here. Also don’t scream “hate”, I never said anything about hating anyone. I don’t accept the behavior, plain and simple. If I was to be a “hater” like those who hate based on race, that would mean I “hate” someone based on something they are born with. I simply don’t believe gays are born that way, and I don’t “hate” them by any means. It’s not a senseless “I hate them because they’re different”, so please spare me that BS, I’ve heard it from enough libs.

RightWinged on October 12, 2006 at 12:12 AM

Youre all a bunch of cafeteria “Christians”, to use the term very loosely. I could get the same scriptural understanding over at the DAILY KOS! ROFLMAO.
I print exactly what the Bible says on a subject and you talk about your feelings. What a bunch of women! You who claim to be Christian, don’t get to pick and choose which parts of Jesus you like, how stupid would that be?

Jesus through Scripture told you that Homosexuals are the way they are because somewhere along the way, they dissed Him IN THEIR HEARTS.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, HE GAVE THEM OVER TO A DEPRAVED MIND, to do what ought not to be done. And you waste LIFE blaming me…

I show you that their condemnation has manifold expression, mainly that Jesus linked the rise of homosexuality with his second coming LUKE 17….You of course, blame me.

I show you how YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUALS PLACES YOU IN DANGER because you are “approving” of their practices and just to be clear, we’re not talking about someguy watching porn or something, we’re talking about legislation, a seat at the table and all the things they’re teaching your children in school!!…You as is typical, blame me…I’m the bad guy…

32. ALTHOUGH THEY KNOW GOD’S RIGHTEOUS DECREE THAT THOSE WHO DO SUCH THINGS DESERVE DEATH, THEY NOT ONLY CONTINUE TO DO THESE VERY THINGS, (here’s where some of us come in), BUT ALSO APPROVE of those WHO PRACTIVE THEM. (so much for your “big tent”)

See friends it doesn’t matter what kind of God you think you believe in. JESUS’ EXPRESS WILL IS CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURE. You would do well to acquaint yourself with His Word because you are all so illiterate as to almost be retarded when it comes to scripture….Lemme guess, you’re of the Jesus loves everybody and ain’t sendin’ no one to hell variety, huh? Well, here’s Jesus telling you the EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE JUNK YOU BELIEVE! Riddle me this Batman….Who’s right, YOU, or JESUS, ’cause this Jesus is DEFINITELY sending folks to HELL.

MATT 7:21-22
21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.( oops I thought he “loved” everybody)

22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? ( your fake church tells you that all you have to do is “CALL ON HIS NAME” and you’ll be saved, Jesus says, that’s not ENOUGH!)

23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.( HMMMM, so here we have Jesus TURNING PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ON JUDGEMENT DAY, quite in oppostition to the feckless expressions of faith by the “I believe in a loving God”, crowd huh?)

The catholic church is the false church prophesied by the apostle PAUL in 1TiM 4:1-4, he prophesied that EVIL men would arise from their midst and CORRUPT THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. They did. At the time of his writing “64AD” or thereabouts, there was no such thing as the “Catholic Church”. The only teaching followed was the Apostles Doctrine of water baptism in JESUS’ NAME and indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT, evidenced by speaking in tongues like the Apostles did (ACTS 2:1-4). This would remain constant until the death of the Last Apostle, (John, isle of patmos, revelation). Then the corrupt men that were inspired not by God but by the enemy, could CHANGE the doctrine and corrupt the fruit (you) of the Tree.

Paul and the other Apostles had to continually warn the church against “changing the gospel”(Galatians 1:7-9). The Christian Church was going through the greatest oppression it has faced to date, remember the lions? Well the opposition to Christianity centered around the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, so COWARDS within the church did exactly what the apostles warned them not to do….they changed the doctrine of Jesus Christ. They formed the Liberal Church, I bet you didn’t even know that the word “CATHOLIC” means “LIBERAL, OR GENERIC” did you? Well, it does. These cowards changed water Baptism from Jesus’ NAME to the empty titles, “Father, Son and Holy Ghost”. These same corrupt men no longer demanded that one have proof one has received the Holy Ghost, prior to this a believer had to wait until JESUS changed their language through glossalalia (speaking in tongues) see acts 2:1-4 Acts 2:38, Acts 4:12, Acts 10:42-end, Acts 19:1-6 etc.. The corrupt men made it like a club, anyone can join, no proof necessary! Enter the Mega-church. Consequentially they lost all NINE GIFTS of the SPIRIT not to mention the initianl indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT itself, which is evidenced by speaking in tongues!

Now, the Catholic church and it’s offshoots, ( Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalian, Protestant) no longer have the power that Jesus promised his followers, nor are they saved. The catholic church was set up almost in complete opposition to the scriptures, complete with idolatry, and feigned status. 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.

1Corinthians 14:9
So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

Guess the Pope missed that one ‘eh? How about him making you blaspheme and violate an express commandment of Christ, each time you address him as “Holy Father”?

Matt 23:9
And do NOT call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. (If you can find a bible you will notice that the words that came directly out of Jesus’ mouth are printed in RED. Hard to miss, what’s the popes excuse?)

Hmmm. Caller? What say you? Anyhoo, the fake church began it’s reign and all of it’s offshoots are what you are familiar with, it’s why you don’t know anything about the faith you embrace. You think you can have a “position” on something that is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the expressed will of JESUS and it’ll work out well for you?

Well, why do YOU think the story of SODOM and GOMORRAH is IN your BIBLE? Extra space? They ran outta words so they threw SODOM in? Why do you think the LORD HIMSELF told you that HOMOSEXUALITY is an ABOMINATION and that people (in the O.T) should be KILLED FOR IT? These words came from the LORD HIMSELF not from some heckler in the crowd!

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an ABOMINATION, they shall surely be put to DEATH; their blood shall be upon them.

So, what’s the weak, pablum puking, let’s all get along, answer to the question? Why is this in your bible if GOD doesn’t mean it? See, it’s easy to talk that “GOD is love” stuff when you have no specific scripture on a specific SUBJECT!! It’s easy to forget that HELL is gonna be FULL of somebody! So why? I’d like to hear what you great theologians think. Why did PETER, in the New testament for those of you in Rio Linda, specifically say that the DESTRUCTION OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH was an example for you, so that you would not live as they lived or tolerate what they tolerated, if it were not so? Why does Peter SPECIFICALLY say that LOT was “Just” for being “intolerant” of the homosexuals that were surrounding his house trying to ass rape his guests?

2PETER 2
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. IF HE CONDEMNED THE CITIES OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH BY BURNING THEM TO ASHES, AND MADE THEM AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE UNGODLY
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

Why is all this in your BIBLE if it isn’t true? Why did God say he hated homosexuals if HE didn’t? You do know what abomination means don’t you? Why did he say you’ll share their fate for tolerating them, if he didn’t mean it? You people act like I said all that stuff, I didn’t, I just told you who were deceived by men in pointy hats, who read the bible in languages that you don’t know, WHAT THE BOOK ACTUALLY SAYS! As opposed to what you’d like it to say.

And NEWSFLASH, you know next to nothing about what the WORD actually says,you are the Christians who celebrate the day that was started IN OPPOSTION TO THE LORD, trick or treat?

You are the type of people WHO THINK THAT JESUS CAME TO BRING “PEACE ON EARTH” RIGHT? Well perhaps this will convince you of your ignorance. Christ DID NOT come to bring PEACE he came to bring the opposite. Since this is diametrically opposed to every lukewarm thought you have of Christ, I’ll back it up with scripture in a moment. See, an Angel( who wasn’t omniscient or omnipotent), wished “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. This has been perverted by the evil men you learned from, to have been some “mission statement” for Jesus. WRONG. By following those who had no proof of the Holy SPirit that allegedly lay within them, you being blind, have followed the blind. Because you don’t know the FIRST thing about JESUS if you don’t even know WHY HE CAME! You would at least give me that one, huh? If you don’t know WHY Jesus came, you don’t really know that much about him, now do you? He did NOT come to bring, “Peace on Earth”, quite the contrary… MATTHEW 10.

34 .”Do NOT suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did NOT come to bring peace, but a sword.
35. For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law –
36. a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.
37.”Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38.and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
39.Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

How does this comport with the liberal version of Jesus that you learned about? Trust me, you’re the ones who are wrong. Waaaay wrong. Anyway I’d love to hear your scriptural rebuttal, notice I didn’t say “your thoughts”. THIS should be a hoot.

Soothsayer on October 12, 2006 at 1:42 AM

. . . homosexuality is normal in most animal species in roughly the same proportions as it is in humans. From a scientific perspective, that is a fact that proves a norm. Homeosexuality not an aborration.

Bob, without taking issue with your larger point, this idea, others notwithstanding, seems to imply that every condition present in a particular person is a natural, healthy, normal (not-aberrant) state, if people can be said to be born with the condition, and if it can be found in another animal (please give me the benefit of the doubt; it would take a few more sentences to narrow that down properly). I’ve had to wrestle my way through all this like everyone else, for my own answers, and I’m pretty sure that this idea just doesn’t work out.

Again, without taking issue with your larger points. This thread, like every other thread anywhere near the topic, is running hot hot hot, and I figure taking issue with everything here I don’t think is just right would require a career choice :)

Axe on October 12, 2006 at 2:17 AM

Heh … I bet I could even disagree with myself on a few finer points, if I really really tried.

Axe on October 12, 2006 at 2:49 AM

This guy pretended to out Messrs Dreier of CA and Mehlman on Monday, as news. He’s been outing these two, or insinuating to out them for over a year now.

Nothing happened to either of them, or to us…and nothing will.

Entelechy on October 12, 2006 at 2:56 AM

The right wing of this country is so out of control beating up gay people–

Wish the thread had gone this direction; this is the interesting bit to me. I’m trying to understand what he’s thinking. Out of control.

Hmm … out of whose control, maybe?

Axe on October 12, 2006 at 3:36 AM

Soothsayer: Who died and made the Republican Party the sole dominion of rabid Christians?

I reject that label, and you do nobody except yourself a service when you confuse your religion with my politics.

Patton on October 12, 2006 at 3:55 AM

Scroll up and read Soothsayer’s post. Scary stuff. I’m Republican through and through, but that ain’t me.

me too.

Rightwinged, I think what many are saying is that kicking someone out of the republican party because of his personal lifestyle is just flat wrong. especially if their given lifestyle is between two consenting adults. I continue to disagree with you on this point. Are you saying that if someone doesn’t completely tow the party line that they shouldn’t be republican? I’m pro-life. To me, that means no abortion and no death penalty. And I consider myself to be an 8 on the liberal-conservative scale (10 being ultra right wing).
As for the gay marriage debate, I am one of those who think that being gay is not a choice. Marriage is dictated from God, between a man and a woman. God defines it, not man. So therefore, although I believe that people who are gay are born that way, marriage should be reserved for man/woman unions, because that what God dictated. I have no problem with civil unions, which is really all they want anyway. To me, it’s not a hypocritical position at all.

soothsayer said:

The catholic church is the false church prophesied by the apostle PAUL in 1TiM 4:1-4, he prophesied that EVIL men would arise from their midst and CORRUPT THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST.

So, what’s the true church then? Orthodoxy? Yes? Since Catholicism is an offshoot of Orthodoxy, that makes sense.
And catholic with a small “c” means “universal.” Greek translation, I believe.

and soothsayer, republicans come in all different shapes and forms. To make it a party of just Christians doesn’t make sense.

pullingmyhairout on October 12, 2006 at 9:30 AM

And I also think that God is the ultimate judge and jury of people. Let Him judge gay people (and us, for that matter.) That’s just not my job.

pullingmyhairout on October 12, 2006 at 9:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2