Report: McCain meets with president of Log Cabin Republicans

posted at 7:27 pm on June 25, 2008 by Allahpundit

Unconfirmed as yet by the campaign, but the LCRs say it’s so:

A source with close ties to the Log Cabin Board of Directors provided information about the meeting to GayPatriot earlier this week. This source disclosed that the Log Cabin meeting was not reflected on Senator McCain’s published schedule in advance and the meeting…

Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed the meeting with Senator McCain in email correspondence with GayPatriot earlier today…

Based on published news reports, the meeting with Senator McCain would be the first between any national-level gay Republicans and a Republican Presidental nominee since “The Texas 12″ met with then-Governor George W. Bush in 2000.

One of Maverick’s more appealing mavericky qualities during the campaign has been his attempt to expand the tent by reaching out to minority voters. The rift’s not going to be healed anytime soon and he surely realizes it, but this gets us a tiny bit closer to healing it eventually. It’s commendable that he’s willing to devote resources to the task. What’s especially impressive — or insane, from the strict Machiavellian point of view — is that meeting with the LCRs could actually cost him votes among the most strident members of a social conservative base that’s not real keen on him to begin with and even less so after he dumped Hagee and Parsley. Surely there aren’t so many gay Republicans and independents that winning them over will offset the potential loss in votes among evangelicals, so what’s McCain’s game here? Or is there no game at all and he’s simply acting out of decency towards a GOP constituency?


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 5 6 7

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Answer? What’s the question?

What facts are you talking about?
just because Kurtz says that out of wedlock birthrates coincide with the enactment of registered partnerships and gay marriage…..does not make it the cause. That does not make it Fact.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 4:14 PM

just because Kurtz says that out of wedlock birthrates coincide with the enactment of registered partnerships and gay marriage…..does not make it the cause. That does not make it Fact.

prove him wrong.

but you can’t. you make no other arguments, other than to deny it.

you have no facts, but as I said, facts don’t matter to ideologues like you.

thanks for proving my point.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM

You can’t be serious.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM

I have a hard time imagining that right4life isn’t.

Say what you want about him (it is him, right), but insincerity doesn’t seem to fit.

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 4:33 PM

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM

You aren’t dealing in facts, either. You can’t prove him right. He can’t even prove him right, eh?

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 4:33 PM
That was said in jest.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 4:37 PM

That was said in jest.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 4:37 PM

I couldn’t tell. Sorry.

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Sure is nice to see the two sisters sit down away from the line of fire. :)

As far as pleasure goes, lots of things that are pleasurable are not good to do.

One comment mentioned the birth of babies to females who claim lesbian status, as if that had something to do with lying deviants who pretend they are normal (tricking females into marrying them and making babies and then inflicting incredible damage when they “celebrate” their perversion with a public announcement).

I think that the problem with out-of-wedlock births (making bastard children) is not impacted much by including female-female partnerships. It’s the publicity of such high profile celebrities doing perverted things that causes the damage to society (the issue of fatherless children must wait for another thread).

There is no identifiable differentiating characteristics between male deviant sex actors and male normal sex actors. This shows that the term “homosexual” is a lie if the term is intended to mean a fundamentally distinct person.

So the entire existence of these relationships and/or lifestyles is based on conduct, not characteristics. If it is based on conduct, then the negative consequences of such conduct can be escaped by simply declining to do it. Anne Heche did that, as well as hundreds of less-famous males who have been involved with Exodus.

For a clue as to how damaging deviant sex practitioners can be when society tries to be polite, look at the qualifiers that Esthier and Anna used in their “sisterhood” posts. The word “platonic” was used. Why? Because public expressions of affection between two members of the same gender now has sexual connotations, thanks to the toleration of deviant sex promoters putting their beliefs into the mainstream of society even though they have always been (rightly) on the outer fringe.

Society is damaged by the efforts to politically accommodate perverted choices. Every society that has embraced deviance has fallen.

platypus on June 27, 2008 at 4:45 PM

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM

You aren’t dealing in facts, either. You can’t prove him right. He can’t even prove him right, eh?

obviously I am. you just refuse to acknowledge it. no surprise, you’re a good lib.

as he says later in the article:

Who has the burden of proof here? I would argue that the burden lies with the advocates of radical change to the existing definition of marriage, one that no society we know of has embraced, to show that this kind of social experiment will do no harm.

Given the fact that marriage in both Scandinavia and the Netherlands is in dramatic decline, it is now up to the advocates of same-sex marriage to show why we should believe them when they say that same-sex marriage won’t deeply weaken marriage as a social institution, block efforts to strengthen the connection between marriage and parenting, and commit law and government to the idea that many kinds of alternative family structures deserve the same legal protections as mothers and fathers united in marriage.

you have no facts on your side that this is good for children or marriage. indeed the facts lie on the other side. the only argument you have is to some kind of ‘fairness’ but who decides what is fair?? oh I know you good libs…and if gay marriage is OK, why not polygamy?

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:46 PM

and in another article he says:

The Evidence Is Clear
So the real question raised by Badgett’s comparison is why Holland should be virtually the only traditionally low out-of-wedlock birthrate country in which couples have easy access to birth control where out-of-wedlock birthrates are now “soaring?” I’m grateful to Badgett for (inadvertently) drawing this additional factor to my attention. Rather than weakening my point, it greatly strengthens it. It is clearer than ever that something very unusual is happening in the Netherlands. Demographically, we have a kind of Dutch exceptionalism — and the key difference is that the Dutch added gay marriage to their precarious balance between socially liberal attitudes and traditional family practices. Gay marriage — not restricted contraception or the collapse of Communism — upset that balance, with the result that the out-of-wedlock birthrate began to zoom.

The decline of marriage in the Netherlands in tandem with the growing success of the Dutch movement for gay marriage is the clearest example of gay marriage’s impact on marital decline. Badgett does her best to evade the problem by claiming that the increase in non-marital births began before Dutch registered partnerships took effect in early 1998. That is a weak argument, since an increase of two-percentage points in the out-of-wedlock birthrate for seven consecutive years is rare. It was anything but inevitable that a two-percent increase in non-marital births in 1997 would be followed by six consecutive increases at the same level. In any case, the final vote to establish registered partnerships took place in 1997.

link

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:48 PM

These are all run by straight people.

Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Did you read that stuff? They are run by angry, unhappy people. Argueably dysfunctional and probably advocates of being childless because they’ve relized no one will want to have children with them.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 4:50 PM

Did you read that stuff? They are run by angry, unhappy people. Argueably dysfunctional and probably advocates of being childless because they’ve relized no one will want to have children with them.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 4:50 PM

Yeah, I read that stuff a lot. People like that fascinate me.

And platypus, I qualified my post with ‘platonic’ not to make it non-sexual, but really to make it less stalker-esque. We are on the internet and all.

Chort, there’s a nasty storm brewing outside, I didn’t here it until just now. Making a hasty exit to shut down my computer (we always lose power when I leave it on).

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Has anyone ever thought of the simple reason why McCain is reaching out to the Log Cabin Republicans…maybe he’s afraid of turning his back to them…

right2bright on June 27, 2008 at 4:57 PM

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:46 PM

Please try to refrain from calling me names, like liberal or ideologue…You don’t know me, and it’s quite annoying.

I’m not going to address the polygamy angle again. That’s a totally different concept, a totally different thing. When I’m convinced that polygamy treats women and young girls with dignity and respect, then I’ll address it. But it absolutely nothing to do with two consenting adults who are of the same sex forming a union.

As for your claim to be dealing FACTS, here is an old article regarding Kurtz and same sex marriage…And with this, please stop saying that I don’t deal in facts. I strive only to do so.

—-

New research published Tuesday claims to refute the notion that same-sex unions have a negative impact on heterosexual families in European countries where gay and lesbian couples are able to get married or enjoy partnership benefits.

During the failed effort to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) in the Senate this week, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., claimed, “In the Netherlands, which adopted de facto same-sex marriage in 1997, the proportion of children born outside the marriage has tripled.”

But according to economist Lee Badgett of the University of Massachusetts, that claim is untrue. “It hasn’t even tripled,” she said. “It rose a lot before the Netherlands passed the law. But people couldn’t register [for partner benefits] until 1998.”

According to Badgett’s research, “It is true that the Dutch nonmarital birth rate has been rising steadily since the 1980s, and sometime in the early 1990s the nonmarital birth rate started increasing at a somewhat faster rate. But that acceleration began well before the Netherlands implemented registered partnerships in 1998 and gave same-sex couples the right to marry in 2001.”

Badgett’s study, titled, “Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage?” was published by the Council on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.

Badgett told the PlanetOut Network she was motivated to do the study while doing research on same-sex marriage in the Netherlands. “These articles by Stanley Kurtz started appearing, making these strong claims based on the data, and when I looked at the data, I realized the claims were untrue.”

Stanley Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. His research on the ill effects of same-sex marriage has been published in articles like “The End of Marriage in Scandanavia,” where he claimed registered same-sex partnerships established in the late 1980s contributed significantly to the decline of marriage in that region. His research has been cited in newspaper op-ed pieces as well as Wednesday’s USA Today.

“His spin on the data is everywhere,” said Badgett.

The PlanetOut Network was unable to contact Kurtz for comment by press time.

Among Badgett’s findings:

Heterosexual marriage rates in the Scandanavian country of Denmark actually increased after adoption of same-sex marriage. They are now the highest they have been since the early 1970s.

The majority of families with children in Scandinavia and the Netherlands are still headed by married parents. In Norway, 77 percent of couples with children are married and 75 percent of Dutch families with children include married couples. By comparison, 72 percent of U.S. families with children are headed by married couples.

Acceptance of same-sex partners has not weakened commitments to children. In fact, the average Scandinavian child spends more than 80 percent of his or her life living with both parents — more time than the average American child.
“In the end, the Scandinavian and Dutch experience suggests that there is little reason to worry that heterosexual people will flee marriage if gay and lesbian couples get the same rights,” Badgett concluded.
-Christopher Curtis

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Did you read that stuff? They are run by angry, unhappy people. Argueably dysfunctional and probably advocates of being childless because they’ve relized no one will want to have children with them.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 4:50 PM

I notice that Anna has now decided to raise a question about whether she herself participates in deviant sex practices. It is hard to avoid the strong inference when she posits an implication of proportional equality between “straights” and “deviants” despite the vast numerical difference between the two groups.

And as far as childlessness goes, queer sex can never reproduce queer offspring. Ergo, their only method of increasing their numbers is to either conscript or adopt children for indoctrination.

platypus on June 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM

And as far as childlessness goes, queer sex can never reproduce queer offspring. Ergo, their only method of increasing their numbers is to either conscript or adopt children for indoctrination.

platypus on June 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM

If there is indeed a genetic correlation (which my limited observation says may be possible) they could pass it on through sham marriages, surrogate parenting, or the carrying of submissive genes.

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 5:05 PM

More facts for right4life about kurtz:

http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

Do read the whole thing.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 5:06 PM

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 4:58 PM

So a lesbian woman interpreting information at the bequest of a homosexual advocacy group will be the final arbiter of the truth.

Your funny.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 5:12 PM

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Did I say there was a ‘final arbiter of the truth’ here?
No, I didn’t.
and, it’s “you’re”

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 5:19 PM

And with this, please stop saying that I don’t deal in facts. I strive only to do so.

You’re funny and you have a short memory.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Huh? How can you possibly get out of that that I said it was the final truth?

You are making no sense.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 5:31 PM

I still haven’t seen a good argument Against gay marriage.

A number of “social justice” claims are deceitfully brought forth to advance the drive for same-sex marriage.
Discrimination
While opposition to same sex marriage is decried as “discrimination,” it is worth remembering that the purpose of education, actually, is to teach discrimination, i.e., the ability to discriminate between the good and the bad. What we as a society abhor is not discrimination per se, but discrimination on an irrational basis. Since sodomy and other homosexual acts are measurably harmful, both to the individuals who engage in them and to the public health as a whole, it is reasonable, rational and even intelligent to design public policy so as to discourage sodomy and all homosexual acts. The time-tested wisdom of this stance is demonstrated in the opposite-sex requirement for marriage documented throughout history and across cultures.
Love
It is often claimed, “We should be able to marry whomever we love.” It sounds reasonable at first blush, but this is not and has never been sufficient criteria for marriage. Otherwise, we could marry our parents, our siblings, or several people at once since most of us have many people whom we love. While sentimental, love alone is insufficient grounds for marriage.
Massachusetts legislator Ben Swan said he would vote against any protection of marriage amendment because he does not want to remove rights. When asked to identify which rights are removed by confirming marriage is heterosexual, he refused to explicitly identify even one. Mr. Swan recognized the hollowness of the common answer — the right of each of us to marry whomever he or she loves. Unable or unwilling to admit this aloud, Swan left empty air. Tragically, however, homosexual activists are plunging forward in the moral and intellectual vacuum left by weak-willed politicians.
Sexual orientation
There are many sexual orientations: Some are to children, some to animals and some to cadavers. The existence of an orientation does not confer its protection under law. In fact, most paraphilias remain punishable under law for good reasons. While sexual orientation may fluctuate over a lifetime as “ex-gays” attest, one’s sex is not malleable or elective. Human beings are neatly and irretrievably divided into male and female.
The concept of a “transgendered or transsexual person” does not contradict this fact. For example, a person who was male before sexual reassignment surgery (breast implants, hormonal treatment, and removal of the genitals) remains a male after the surgery, although now genitally mutilated and hormonally manipulated. Every cell in his body continues to proclaim maleness.
Civil Rights
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “[h]omosexuality is not an immutable characteristic, it is behavioral and hence is fundamentally different from such traits as race, gender, or alienage.”
Swedish and Dutch statistics show only a tiny fraction of homosexually attracted persons choose to form legal ties confirming that the core of “gay” identity is about sexual liberation, not family formation. Moreover, same sex couples are short-lived. In Sweden, same-sex legal ties rupture more often than heterosexual counterparts: 50% higher with men and 167% (more than two times) higher with women.
Martin Luther King, Jr., who fought the civil rights battle and died in its service, said,

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Certainly, one’s sexual behavior is a component of character, and is, therefore, a valid basis for making judgments. Furthermore, were Dr. King homosexually coupled, he would not have had four little children for whom to dream.

By John Diggs, Jr., M.D

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 5:35 PM

By the way,

“Gay” author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many “gays” that:

Gay liberation was founded … on a “sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,” and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 5:38 PM

platypus on June 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Nice. So you attack me, not even slyly, while I mention I’m not going to be around.

My mother is one of those ‘queer deviants’ you keep talking about. A Lady of Lesbos, if you will. (My posts always get moderated when I use the ‘L-word.’) I, on the other hand, am straight. What either my mother or I do in the privacy of our respective homes is nobody’s concern. While personally, I do not approve of gay marriage (civil unions are different), I choose to remember that gays are humans too, worthy of basic human respect.

Besides, there are more straights into ‘deviant sex’ than gays, because there are more straights than gays period. I say this, because I have a gut instinct anything other than basic missionary with the lights out is ‘deviant’ to you.

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 5:38 PM

As if there is not promiscuity in the hetero population.
So, we should do away with man/woman marriage as well?

That argument doesn’t fly~

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM

because I have a gut instinct anything other than basic missionary with the lights out is ‘deviant’ to you.

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM

LoL. I had the same thought! Too funny

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM

If you don’t see the logic in that passage it is obvious the purpose/origin of your position is to justify your own behavior.

Again, you are very funny.

You could be the case study for moral relativism. Clinical trials are in order to define it as a sociopathy.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Please try to refrain from calling me names, like liberal or ideologue…You don’t know me, and it’s quite annoying.

the truth hurts.

I’m not going to address the polygamy angle again. That’s a totally different concept

obviously its not. you won’t address it, because you can’t address it.

oh yeah badget:

Even so, gay-marriage advocates are worried. M. V. Lee Badgett, research director for the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, has issued a new critique of my work on Scandinavia and the Netherlands. In “Unhealthy Half-Truths,” I refuted Badgett’s first attack. Now she’s back. Badgett’s critique of my work is long on statistical tricks and short on engagement with my actual argument.

The bottom line is the neither Badgett nor anyone else has been able to get around the fact that marriage in both Scandinavia and the Netherlands is in deep decline. In Scandinavia, that decline began before same-sex registered partnerships were established, but has continued apace ever since. In the Netherlands, marital decline accelerated dramatically, in tandem with the growing campaign for gay marriage.

from your article:

Badgett’s study, titled, “Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage?” was published by the Council on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.

yeah we know who’s buttering her bread. propoganda.

here’s one of the dutch researchers that kurtz quoted…bet you think he’s part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

Van Loon does not want to talk of a clear causal connection between the introduction of same-sex marriage and the devaluation of marriage. “But I obviously do see a strong correlation. Both development have a common source. It’s no coincidence both take place at the same time. It’s a consequence of the rejection of normative schemes that are based on eternal values–whether they are connected to the natural law or to God–and the adoption of a different approach, one that says that we are quite capable of redesigning society based on our own fashionable preferences.” Van Loon does think that the debate about gay marriage has contributed to the decline in the reputation of marriage. “Supporters of gay marriage often based their argument for legalisation on the separation of marriage and the raising of children. Those two things were supposed to be completely unconnected. It’s difficult to imagine that an intensive media campaign based on the claim that marriage and parenthood are unrelated and that marriage is just one among a number of morally equivalent cohabiting relationships did not have any serious social consequences.”

link

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:09 PM

the bottom line is the gay movement wants to use gay marriage to destroy not only the family, but any who dare disagree with their agenda, especially christians.

they are sueing christians for not wanting to photograph their gay ‘weddings’ or have them in a church. ultimately they want to suppress any criticism of their lifestyle and criminalize it with hate crimes legislation.

they want to impose a gay sharia law in this country. they want ‘tolerance’ but are intolerant and hateful of any who dare disagree.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:17 PM

For a clue as to how damaging deviant sex practitioners can be when society tries to be polite, look at the qualifiers that Esthier and Anna used in their “sisterhood” posts. The word “platonic” was used. Why? Because public expressions of affection between two members of the same gender now has sexual connotations, thanks to the toleration of deviant sex promoters putting their beliefs into the mainstream of society even though they have always been (rightly) on the outer fringe.

platypus on June 27, 2008 at 4:45 PM

I’m not trying to question your intelligence, but do you actually know what the word means or where it came from?

As it sounds, it has its origins with Plato, which actually does have a homosexual side to it, as such was common at the time, but it generally means that you see someone else’s beautify, and it directs you to spiritual things. Basically, it’s Nicholson’s quote from As Good As It Gets, “You make me want to be a better man.”

Generally the term applied to people who were formerly in a relationship but had moved past the sexual aspect.

Though today it’s used to clarify the word love, since, unlike the Greeks, we only have one word for it. Whereas Greeks could say “agape” to each other and have the meaning understood easily, we’ve only got “love” or “love you like a sister.”

You act as though it’s some complete denigration of the culture that two women would have to clarify what type of love they have for each other as though it’s only OK to clarify love when it’s between two of the opposite sex, but even when it’s clear that the love being described isn’t of a sexual nature, clarification is still necessary.

If I say I love you, then I likely mean that I love you because you are a person and for no other reason, since I don’t know a thing about you. I could be saying it sarcastically. I could be saying it ironically, or I could be saying it because I’m a psycho who knows where you live and has plans to steal your sperm so I can have your children.

That’s the risk you run when you have a conversation on the Internet using a word that has several different meanings.

Though, Anna didn’t need to clarify for my sake. I’ve talked to her before and would have understood her anyway. She isn’t a pervert or a stalker and is happily married to a likely wonderful man who is the father to her children.

But, there are several people over here who would have twisted her words, so it was because of those people, not lesbians, that she had to add the qualifier.

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 6:23 PM

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Why is it that if I post something, it is agenda driven, yet all of your posts are not?
Let’s try and be honest, eh?

If I could find an actual study of the societies that do allow gay marriages that weren’t written by a conservative, or gay, I’d post it.
I can’t find one.
Do share it if you have one.
Otherwise, it can all be said to be empty propaganda, huh?

FACTS are what I’m seeking. And you’ve given NONE.

You scream liberal as if you hate liberals. Then why are you so into government control of people’s lives, just like the liberals are??

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM

and, it’s “you’re”

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 5:19 PM

That one always bugs me, but I try not to say anything.

I say this, because I have a gut instinct anything other than basic missionary with the lights out is ‘deviant’ to you.

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Wait… there are other ways????? Don’t tell my husband.

/Baptist upbringing

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 6:29 PM

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:17 PM

I think you fear gay people because you are totally ignorant of them.
You take a news story from here or there…that’s like saying all heteros are wife beaters because I’ve seen a few stories about men beating up their wives.
It’s absurd.

Quit talking about sharia. You are advocating a sharia by dehumanizing the gay community. That’s what sharia law does. You are closer to that than any gay person I’ve ever known or read about.

You are ignorant of them as people, so you fear them.
That’s sad.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 6:29 PM

LoL…I usually ignore the ‘you’re’ thing as well..but I was being attacked so I decided to be a brat.
:)

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Well, I’ve got to go on a short weekend trip and will be without the Internet all week, but have fun guys and stay safe, Anna.

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Wait… there are other ways????? Don’t tell my husband.

/Baptist upbringing

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 6:29 PM

Great. I have tea on my monitor now.

And yes, my husband is wonderful, and having a heck of a time trying to get home this weekend. And you were spot-on as to why I did clarify.

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 6:34 PM

I think you fear gay people because you are totally ignorant of them.

so predictable. and lame. but when you don’t have an argument, or logic, or anything else on your side…

You are advocating a sharia by dehumanizing the gay community

I’m sure you gays have a nice final solution in mind for people like me..you know, to shut me up.

You are ignorant of them as people, so you fear them.
That’s sad.

you and your gay friends are the fearful, hateful, intolerant, tyrannical ones…

and you just proved it.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:35 PM

LoL…I usually ignore the ‘you’re’ thing as well..but I was being attacked so I decided to be a brat.
:)

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 6:34 PM

I do the same, especially when someone corrects someone else’s grammar.

Then I go total grammar troll on their @ss and point out every single mistake.

I notice he corrected it the very next time.

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Well, I’ve got to go on a short weekend trip and will be without the Internet all week, but have fun guys and stay safe, Anna.

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Have a good time, and travel safely. : )

And enjoy the internet-free week!

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 6:35 PM

And enjoy the internet-free week!

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Sorry, meant weekend.

And yes, if I can only tear myself away….

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Why is it that if I post something, it is agenda driven, yet all of your posts are not?
Let’s try and be honest, eh?

when the person you quote is working for a gay group..its kind of obvious. at least to anyone but you.

Let’s try and be honest, eh?

its painfully obvious you don’t know how to be honest.

If I could find an actual study of the societies that do allow gay marriages that weren’t written by a conservative, or gay, I’d post it.

ah I did post that quote from those dutch social scientists….again you think they’re part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY laughable, but predictable.

FACTS are what I’m seeking. And you’ve given NONE

lies are you are posting, and all you can see.

. Then why are you so into government control of people’s lives, just like the liberals are??

again, this is laughable. are you for real? the gays want to impose sharia law on this country so any who disagree are punished…I can post lots of support…but you can only post a bunch of lies from some lesbian to back up your lies….laughable.

you want to impose your agenda, usually by courts, because you hate the democratic process. bunch of nazis.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:40 PM

And yes, if I can only tear myself away….

Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 6:36 PM

100% understand.

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Again, you are very funny.

You could be the case study for moral relativism. Clinical trials are in order to define it as a sociopathy.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 6:05 PM

she would be funny if the intolerant, hateful, gay rights movement wasn’t so powerful, and so intent on forcing their lifestyle on the rest of us…and silencing any who dare disagree…

Orwell would understand the gay community and their use of language very well…..

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:43 PM

that’s like saying all heteros are wife beaters because I’ve seen a few stories about men beating up their wives.
It’s absurd.

As if there is not promiscuity in the hetero population.
So, we should do away with man/woman marriage as well?

You’re cracking me up!

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Good grief.
You are so filled with hate, right4life, that you can’t even join me in attempting to have a rational discussion.

It’s so sad.
forcing a lifestyle? You are forcing a lifestyle on them, are you not? By denying them their own partnerships?
I’d build a movement myself if I were in that place. I’m not. I’m lucky to have been born a white, hetero woman. It is very acceptable in this society to be so. Although not so long ago, even the women had to form groups and fight for equalities.
You sound very shallow and hateful. And I’m sorry for you.
I’ll send prayers up for ya~

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 6:51 PM

You are so filled with hate, right4life, that you can’t even join me in attempting to have a rational discussion.

its called projection…look it up, and look in the mirror.

forcing a lifestyle? You are forcing a lifestyle on them, are you not? By denying them their own partnerships?

yeah absolutley…via the court system…because they FEAR democracy. marriage isn’t a ‘right’…and no one has a ‘right’ to marry…get a clue…I know thats asking way too much…

Although not so long ago, even the women had to form groups and fight for equalities.

oh yeah the tired old tactic of making the gay movement like the civil movement…you can make the same case for the pedophiles too!

You sound very shallow and hateful. And I’m sorry for you.

yeah don’t worry, your gay friends have a final solution for all us ‘hateful’ people who dare disagree.

you are the one filled with hatred, and lies…I truly feel sorry for you. May God (the real one) have mercy on you.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:55 PM

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:55 PM

So sanctimonous yet arrogant enough to use G-d’s full name.

tsk tsk.

See now I am imposing my morals on you.

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 7:00 PM

You are forcing a lifestyle on them, are you not? By denying them their own partnerships?

There you go, finally stating the only basis for your position that you have. A hollow, emotional statement. It means absolutely nothing and is without logic or reason. In your orwellian world partnership already equals marriage? So who will you deny “partnerships” to? And are you the one to decide that? Polygamists? People who love animals? How about those who love children? How do you feel about laws of consent?

In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a “Gay Rights Platform” that includes the following demand: “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”

Having an opinion based on how you think people will perceive you for having that position and not on reality is the sure sign that you are a liberal.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:23 PM

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:23 PM

That platform has been repudiated over and over again by everyone outside of NAMBLA.

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 7:30 PM

That platform has been repudiated over and over again by everyone outside of NAMBLA.

Lots of platforms have been repudiated for political expediency.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 7:30 PM

And a link to a prominent organization repudiating that position would be interesting.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 7:30 PM

I thought you were a lawyer? What “rights” are two people of the same sex precluded from giving each other by entering into a contract?

I’ll tell you what they are precluded from and it’s not a right. It’s acceptance and normalization. The push for gay marriage is not a push for civil rights for 3% of our population, it’s the restriction of speech and thought on the other 97%.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:38 PM

And a link to a prominent organization repudiating that position would be interesting.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Scroll back, it was posted by right2bright

I believe one of them was GLAAD I do not remember the others

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 7:49 PM

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Why do people keep bringing up beastiality and sex with children?
What does that have to do with Two CONSENTING ADULTS engaging in a relationship???????

Absolutely Nothing.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 7:49 PM

…gay marriage is not a push for civil rights for 3% of our population, it’s the restriction of speech and thought on the other 97%.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:38 PM

How is it restricting speech Or thought on the rest of the population?

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM

I thought you were a lawyer? What “rights” are two people of the same sex precluded from giving each other by entering into a contract?

That is the problem, we have melded the religious marriage with the contracted union endorsed by the state.

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM

You are forcing a lifestyle on them, are you not? By denying them their own partnerships?
There you go, finally stating the only basis for your position that you have. A hollow, emotional statement. It means absolutely nothing and is without logic or reason. In your orwellian world partnership already equals marriage? So who will you deny “partnerships” to? And are you the one to decide that? Polygamists? People who love animals? How about those who love children? How do you feel about laws of consent?

In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a “Gay Rights Platform” that includes the following demand: “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”
Having an opinion based on how you think people will perceive you for having that position and not on reality is the sure sign that you are a liberal.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Because I responded to another poster, trying to have a discussion, YOU decide that it is the Only basis for a position that I have.
And again, bringing up sex with children has nothing to do with consensual sex between two adults.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 7:54 PM

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Bingo!

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 7:55 PM

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 7:49 PM
bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Please don’t go around telling people you are a conservative, your thought processes, lack of reason and logic and style of debate easily prove you are a liberal. You argue in circles even if it contradicts your own statements.

Two persons of the same sex are not capable of having coitus with each other. Vain attempts to create a new order of things require inconvenient invention. Homosex requires a perversion of the natural usage of body parts. The medical consequences of homosexual acts have been studied by professionals but could have been easily anticipated by lay persons.
One common homosexual act attempts to use the alimentary canal, designed to absorb nutrients and expel wastes, as a genital. The Latin core of the word “genital” is gignere meaning to beget, as in genesis, generation, genealogy. That one’s genitals would be mixed with the bacteria-laden organ used for waste disposal is too ironic to conceive

Altering our society, culture, language and laws so 3% of our population, who insist on being defined by what they do with their genitals, feel good about themselves and then telling the other 97% how they are to think is a restriction on their free speech and thought.

The other thing that proves you are a liberal is that you automatically think the worst of someone who disagrees with you. No one on this post has said gays should be arrested, institutionalized, hospitalized, treated, ostracized, imprisoned, attacked, etc. etc. No one has said gay people can’t have partners. The people you disagree with on this post don’t believe logic and reason and reality should be thrown out the window, that we shouldn’t redefine our laws and culture so a few people can feel ok about having sex with others of the same sex.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:08 PM

we have melded the religious marriage with the contracted union endorsed by the state.

Yes, and besides the usual control and money the government seeks out of regulating our lives, government stepped into marriage to protect women and children, not help to Mike and Mike’s self esteem.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Nice. So you attack me, not even slyly, while I mention I’m not going to be around.

My mother is one of those ‘queer deviants’ you keep talking about. A Lady of Lesbos, if you will. (My posts always get moderated when I use the ‘L-word.’) I, on the other hand, am straight. What either my mother or I do in the privacy of our respective homes is nobody’s concern. While personally, I do not approve of gay marriage (civil unions are different), I choose to remember that gays are humans too, worthy of basic human respect.

Besides, there are more straights into ‘deviant sex’ than gays, because there are more straights than gays period. I say this, because I have a gut instinct anything other than basic missionary with the lights out is ‘deviant’ to you.

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Straw man (or straw woman). Logical analysis is not attack. Besides, the rest of your post indicates that you are quite comfortable with the queer lifestyle, to the point of identifying your mother as being of that persuasion.

It’s only fair that I point out that you would not be here if there was such a thing as a lesbian and if your mother actually was one. But I digress.

Most “straights” who practice deviant sex do not have hundreds of sexual encounters with hundreds of different people. If they do have deviant heterosexual practices, it is usually inside a monogamous relationship.

I agree with you that what you do in your private abode is your business. But I have a question – how would I know what you do in that private abode of yours? Assuming I am not committing a crime (trespass, voyeur, etc.), the only source of that information is YOU SPEAKING IT.

So how is it private if you SPEAK IT IN PUBLIC? Not to mention who is responsible (not me).

No, dear Anna, your mommie is deceived but she doesn’t fight her own battles. She indoctrinates her child to do her fighting for her. This is not a good thing for children.

To the extent that your love for your mother has a condition of approving her deviance, it isn’t really love but merely a transaction. And not a fair one, since it deceives you into believing that your mother’s deviant behavior is both worth defending and worth proclaiming to the world.

The mark of a deceived mind is the loss of personal shame. Neither you nor your mother appear to have any shame about queer sex. That’s sad but it does not have to be permanent.

platypus on June 27, 2008 at 8:11 PM

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:08 PM

Well, knowing a few gay couples myself, I can tell you that things are not all about having sex. These are loving unions between two consenting adults.
A marriage contract doesn’t have anything to do with Sex either.
And, again, from what you write, I assume you have no problem with lesbian sex. It’s just the men that you are against, huh?

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:17 PM

And again, bringing up sex with children has nothing to do with consensual sex between two adults.

It absolutely does and that’s what you don’t understand. You feeling enlightened and compassionate today by throwing reality out the window leads where? What standard is next? What taboo is next? You are a post modernist and probably don’t even realize it. Most traditions, morals, taboos came out of practical reasons and were couched in religion to make it more palatable for the heathens. These things grew out of the negative and harmful results of bad behavior. Post modernism wants to tear down everything that came before, taboos, traditions, morals without consideration of the underlying purpose.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:20 PM

And, again, from what you write, I assume you have no problem with lesbian sex. It’s just the men that you are against, huh?

There you go again. you knee jerk liberal.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM

A marriage contract doesn’t have anything to do with Sex either.

Well when you and your fellow moral relativists have your way it won’t mean anything. Gay people have all the rights that are bundled into marriage now. What possibly could a government conveying some kind of legitimacy on a relationship add to it?

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:25 PM

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:20 PM

No. You are wrong.
Children do not consent to sex with people who molest them.
Two Adults DO consent.

blah, blah, blah with your trying to box me in and label what I am.
If I am not understanding how forcing sex on a child or animal is different than TWO Adults consenting…explain how you think I am wrong.
Get over your trying to define me.
We’re talking about Gay relationships. Try to focus.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:25 PM

There you go again. you knee jerk liberal.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM

There I go again? I asked a question. You won’t answer it? You kneejerk butter knife.
sheesh

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:27 PM

platypus on June 27, 2008 at 8:11 PM

This is the last time I will ever engage you in public discourse. I do not often hold people in contempt – but do not consider yourself privilaged that I do so to you.

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 8:37 PM

There I go again? I asked a question. You won’t answer it? You kneejerk butter knife.
sheesh

I know you think you are smart but you really aren’t. You keep coming back with nonsensical, liberal handbook statements. Trying to refute your stupid statements would be like banging my head against the wall and I am smarter then that. I’ll make one more statement and then I’m on my way and you can add anything you want. I refer to people like you as flatlanders. You think nothing will ever change, nothing has consequences, that this country will be exactly the same in 100 years as it is now. And to answer your question, again, you think it is ok to fundamentally change something that most of your fellow citizens disagree with against their will and believe that nothing you feel strongly about will ever changed against your will. Your in for a rude awakening.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:38 PM

Anna on June 27, 2008 at 8:37 PM

And I don’t think anybody would blame you for feeling that way.
I read that person’s comment and I actually hoped you were done coming to this thread so you wouldn’t have to read the nonsense.
Ugh!

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:43 PM

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 8:38 PM

Apparantly you are too smart to actually have a dialogue here.
Are you afraid to answer my simple question? And what is the harm in ‘trying to refute my stupid statements’?

You have no idea what I think is okay or what I think about anything.
I came around here questioning people. I am simply trying to understand why people are so freakin afraid of the gay lifestyles.
Oh, but you are gone now..so I’m typing to myself. That’s actually a good thing. I tire of hearing you try and define what I am, and avoiding any discussion.

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:46 PM

So sanctimonous yet arrogant enough to use G-d’s full name.

tsk tsk.

He’s my Father, and He lets me. too bad you don’t know Him.

See now I am imposing my morals on you.

this is just laughable…you think you’re making some profound point, when all you’re doing is revealing your stupidity…I mean you must be in a great deal of pain.

you are exercising your freedom of speech, your right…and you’re not imposing your morals on me….you would have to do that through force of law…like the gays are doing…

are you ever going to get a clue???

grow up.

thanks for the laughs…are you for real?? no one can be such a dope.

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 7:00 PM

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 9:30 PM

There you go, finally stating the only basis for your position that you have. A hollow, emotional statement. It means absolutely nothing and is without logic or reason. In your orwellian world partnership already equals marriage? So who will you deny “partnerships” to? And are you the one to decide that? Polygamists? People who love animals? How about those who love children? How do you feel about laws of consent?

you know she can’t answer that, it would require thought…none of these ‘gay rights’ types can answer that!!

oh no, because their ‘logic’ can be used to justify pedophiles, murderers, rapists, anyone…its ‘genetic’ so there’s an excuse for anything.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 9:32 PM

I came around here questioning people. I am simply trying to understand why people are so freakin afraid of the gay lifestyles.

we understand people like you all too well..you will never understand us…it would require intelligence, thoughtfulness, and maturity, none of which you have demonstrated

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 9:34 PM

That platform has been repudiated over and over again by everyone outside of NAMBLA.

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 7:30 PM

oh yeah a ‘sister souljah’ moment…I DENOUNCE you…wink…wink….*smirk*

although you are naive enough to buy it!!

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 9:35 PM

Lots of platforms have been repudiated for political expediency.

peacenprosperity on June 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM

what these clowns don’t get is that NAMBLA EXISTS…

and that says it all.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 9:36 PM

How is it restricting speech Or thought on the rest of the population?

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM

this has gotten to the point of casting pearls before swine, but I enjoy seeing you run like a scalded dog when confronted (go ahead and tell me I’m full of HATE again)

As gays make gains, some religious institutions are coming under pressure. For instance:

• A Christian high school in Wildomar, Calif., is being sued for expelling two students on suspicion of being lesbian. The parents’ suit claims that the school is a business under state civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

• Catholic Charities in Boston, where same-sex marriage is legal, recently shuttered its adoption agency rather than serve gay and lesbian couples in conflict with church teaching. The church’s request for a religious waiver from state antidiscrimination rules has made no headway.

• Christian clubs at several universities are fighting to maintain school recognition while restricting their leadership to those who conform to their beliefs on homosexuality.

Meanwhile, the Christian Legal Society and similar groups are mounting a national effort to challenge antidiscrimination policies in court, claiming they end up discriminating against conservative Christians.

link

the gays are using this as a club against christians in order to silence and legally sanction christians, basically to drive us out of existence.

and given our judges, you’ll win, in the short term…in the long term…well…..you know about he who laughs last…right??

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 9:41 PM

I know you think you are smart but you really aren’t. You keep coming back with nonsensical, liberal handbook statements. Trying to refute your stupid statements would be like banging my head against the wall and I am smarter then that

yeah these pro-gay types are legends in their own minds…only.

their like darwiniacs, they spew talking points, but are unable to think for themselves…it really is amusing…and sad…

but you know their savior will soon raise his wounded head….

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 9:43 PM

I read that person’s comment and I actually hoped you were done coming to this thread so you wouldn’t have to read the nonsense.
Ugh!

bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:43 PM

I am seriously interested in what I said that you consider nonsense. Or is it something someone else said?

Before you answer, you might want to think about what it is that was added to the conversation by Anna outing her mother. And what it is that is so sacred about her momma’s lesbian behavior that I am condemned for my views about it?

Seriously – just what is it that is nonsense?

platypus on June 27, 2008 at 11:49 PM

No, dear Anna, your mommie is deceived but she doesn’t fight her own battles. She indoctrinates her child to do her fighting for her. This is not a good thing for children.

To the extent that your love for your mother has a condition of approving her deviance, it isn’t really love but merely a transaction. And not a fair one, since it deceives you into believing that your mother’s deviant behavior is both worth defending and worth proclaiming to the world.

The mark of a deceived mind is the loss of personal shame. Neither you nor your mother appear to have any shame about queer sex. That’s sad but it does not have to be permanent.

platypus on June 27, 2008 at 8:11 PM

In the three years I have posted on HA, I believe this ranks as one of the most incredibly obscene, mean spirited, obnoxious, disgusting posts I have ever read.
You think…never mind, you won’t get it, but others (except for maybe one or two posting) will see your post and shake their head in disgust and realize that minds like yours is how we have reached a new low in society…complete intolerance, you are obviously not a Christian or a person of any real faith.
Unbelievable post, unbelievable hate…from someone with so little to offer, you must have a very lonely and pathetic life, or you keep your thoughts to yourself and use these posts to live a life you can’t expose publicly.
Here is a link that will make you feel comfortable and accept your vitriol…it is a gift to you (and a couple of others would embrace this also) from me, acknowledging your belief.
May you find peace…

right2bright on June 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Wow, still going.

It’s ok, my list for the concentration camps to put people like right4life for their reeducation is growing.

Soon we shall round you all up.

SouthernDem on June 28, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Soon we shall round you all up.

SouthernDem on June 28, 2008 at 11:31 AM

no doubt.

right4life on June 28, 2008 at 6:01 PM

In the three years I have posted on HA, I believe this ranks as one of the most incredibly obscene, mean spirited, obnoxious, disgusting posts I have ever read.
You think…never mind, you won’t get it, but others (except for maybe one or two posting) will see your post and shake their head in disgust and realize that minds like yours is how we have reached a new low in society…complete intolerance, you are obviously not a Christian or a person of any real faith.
Unbelievable post, unbelievable hate…from someone with so little to offer, you must have a very lonely and pathetic life, or you keep your thoughts to yourself and use these posts to live a life you can’t expose publicly.
Here is a link that will make you feel comfortable and accept your vitriol…it is a gift to you (and a couple of others would embrace this also) from me, acknowledging your belief.
May you find peace…

right2bright on June 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM

This qualifies as nonsense.

How are true statements construed as hate? Truth is truth or as the phrase goes, it is what it is.

Anna, in a fit of desperation, played the my-mommy’s-one-of-them card. I guess she thought that since she was a nice person, that made her mommy less of a deviant.

Exactly how does that work?

Once again, hypocrisy seems to be rule #1. This deviant behavior is supposed to be acceptable and okay yet if I talk about it or draw conclusions from it, then it is somehow negative, hateful, and vitriolic to talk about.

So if it is not so good, why talk about it? We were having a perfectly good discussion until Anna played her “trump” card. Why, I haven’t got a clue.

And here comes a knight in battered armor to . . . ???

Please identify what I said that is not suitable for hotair. (I am fairly sure that this was put in to try to get the attention of AP or EM, hoping they might be upset.)

Just so we are clear, If I were to be quoting the Bible or making moral pronouncements, you might be justified in being upset with me. But I merely asked the three questions I always ask the deviant sexual practitioners:

1. How would I know if you didn’t announce it?

2. If you announce it in public, how can it be private?

3. How can it be natural if it cannot reproduce its kind?

Those are the three keys to opening up hell, as the post I quoted shows quite dramatically.

platypus on June 28, 2008 at 9:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7