Report: McCain meets with president of Log Cabin Republicans
posted at 7:27 pm on June 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 [3] 4 5 6 7 »
But the difference is where the money comes from. Yes, states might possibly get Senators to enact a law on their behalf… but the tax bill would go to the states.
States could raise taxes. But the beauty of the system, was that if a state raised its taxes too high, people could always move to a different state. States had to compete on tax rates.
Federal taxes negate the choice and competition inherent within the original design.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 11:28 PM
LOL… did he just imply that we are all gay?!?
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 11:28 PM
That was me. Couple things:
I wasn’t asserting that JetBoy was a pro-war liberal. I don’t presume to know all of his positions. But I’m a suspicious person. If you take even one liberal position, you’re an ad-hoc conservative. If you don’t have a consistent and coherent philosophy, you’re an unprincipled moderate, at bottom. And an unprincipled moderate is a liberal who hasn’t been properly shamed yet.
I wasn’t trying to be offensive. And it’s only offensive, it seems to me, if he actually is a pro-war liberal and is trying to fool people into thinking he’s something else. And then it’s offensive because it’s foiling his plan.
Apologies, JetBoy, for making it look like an accusation.
misterpeasea on June 25, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I’m a gay Republican and a conservative. (believe me, it’s possible - LOL)
I don’t really care about the Log Cabin Republicans one way or the other. I don’t need an “affinity group” through which to build or brand my political philosophy.
All that said, I think it’s good that he met with them. It wouldn’t cost him anything great in terms of social conservatives in the party, in my opinion. The LCRs are a far cry from the nuts at Human Rights Campaign and the other more strident homo-lobbies.
D2Boston on June 25, 2008 at 11:30 PM
I could accept that definition of social conservatism, if you’ll accept the definition of social liberalism as, objectively, any desire/attempt to destroy or change social mores by legislatively imposing them upon the population.
And. I’m not a Christian bigot. You don’t even have to be Christian to see that, objectively, Christianity has been a huge and powerful force for good in human history. Or to see that, objectively, social liberalism has been a huge and powerful force for evil in America.
How is aversion to big government incompatible with opposition to gay marriage? It does not require one extra gummint worker. And government is NOT imposing those beliefs. Government is reflecting those beliefs, which is exactly what government is supposed to do.
And as far as “scrambling to define marriage,” there was no need to define it until the liberals decided to try to weaken marriage to strengthen government.
And. Someone, please: why in the world should we accept even one more item on the liberal social agenda, when every single previous one has had terrible consequences?
The burden of proof is not on the folks who want to maintain and protect the traditions and institutions that have endured, to good effect, for thousands of years.
misterpeasea on June 25, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Peacocks!
Sink me!
Think ye, sir,
How those feathered boys love to flaunt their tails!
Stallions!
Zounds, sir!
Hounds sir! Stags!
Of the goosie and the gander, sir
Which gender is the grander, sir
To render total candor, sir, the spendour is the male’s!
Be an example to your sex
Give your boot a dapper strap
And it’s smarter if your garter has some snap!
Cravats should be flounced about our necks
Wear a nightcap when you nap
Be bewitching with some stitching on your cap!
Now, drape your cape
And puff your cuff
Embroider those lapels!
Be the king of the beasts in pastels!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
And that is why the Lord created men
Strut, sir!
What, sir?
Roosters do!
Give a cock his comb and the hens will pale!
Bucks! Bulls!
More, sir!
Boars, sir! Rams!
Of the nanny goat and billy, sir
Whose beard is fully wooly, sir?
It’s bully for the billy for he’s willy-nilly male!
Sir, be a lion-hearted prig
Fill those pantaloons with light!
I could dangle down a spangle out of sight!
Oh, yes! Be bold, sir!
When it’s cold, slap on that wig
Draw your britches in quite tight
Even more so, and your torso will ignite
Now, smock your frock
Perfume your plume
I’ll let my waistcoat swing!
And the jungle will bow to its king!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
And that is why the Lord created men
Yes, that is why the Lord created men
Remember what we’re here for
Why we must be dressed to kill
If we have to look like Cleopatra
Then we will!
If you’re out to make a splash, cheri,
Do know your haberdashery!
Buttons, buckles, ruffles and lace
Represent the human race!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
Each species needs a sex that’s fated
To be highly decorated
That is why the Lord created men
Percy on June 25, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Throughout recorded human history, males and females have chosen to marry members of the opposite sex. While not all such unions resulted in children, enough did to result in an ever-increasing world population and ongoing human life on earth. While there have been differences through time and location (e.g., arranged marriages, patriarchy, etc.) the basic unit of 1 man + 1 woman living together, joined according to the religious and/or social rituals of their cultural background has been recognized as a “married couple.”
Within the past few decades, there has been an emerging movement to recognize same-gender “marriages.”
Could at least 1 proponent of this change present a reasonable argument as to how this is anything other than a dramatic redefinition of “marriage?” And, if this is recognized as a dramatic redefinition of what marriage means, the burden of proof as to the necessity of this change rests squarely upon those arguing for it.
cs89 on June 26, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Well said.
maverick muse on June 26, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Can’t top that..but heard this earlier..it’s catchy..and sort of topical. Katy Perry is the artist..now if it was Luke Perry, it wouldn’t be that interesting.
This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion
It’s not what, I’m used to
Just wanna try you on
I’m curious for you
Caught my attention
I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it
No, I don’t even know your name
It doesn’t matter
You’re my experimental game
Just human nature
It’s not what, good girls do
Not how they should behave
My head gets so confused
Hard to obey
I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it
Us girls we are so magical
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable
Too good to deny it
Ain’t no big deal, it’s innocent
I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it
austinnelly on June 26, 2008 at 12:20 AM
To top off that support, Obama’s camp is scraping out voters from prison for padding.
So it makes political sense for McCain to court LCR votes. But does the LCR diatribe match that from the 60-Gay-community-organizer with only the candidate name exchange?
maverick muse on June 26, 2008 at 12:35 AM
No, Dave. Marriage is NOT a contract between two people. No contact is between only two parties. There is always at least a third party, which agrees to be the arbiter and enforcer of the contract. That party, in the case of a marriage contract is “the state”. Or in plain English, you and me and everyone else. Society.
And if we don’t want to be a party to some contracts, we don’t have to be. For instance, if you make a “contract” with Vito to bump off your boss, then that is not a legally enforceable contract. In other words, you can’t take it to court and expect agents of the state to enforce it just because it was “a contract between two people”.
Not a lawyer, I see.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:52 AM
MAVERICKY!
I love that ‘word’.
hillbillyjim on June 26, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Personally, I think it is great that McCain is having a secret meeting with The Log Cabin Republicans… McCain is actually talking to Republicans.
That’s a switch….. And Much better than the secret meetings with the open border illegal alien amnesty folks and the ‘Kyoto Koolaid Krowd’.
LegendHasIt on June 26, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Non-issue to me.
His meetings with La Raza (and being honored by them)…..
That’s an issue.
Hawkins1701 on June 26, 2008 at 1:29 AM
I don’t care enough about this topic to spend all night reading this thread, but thought I’d weigh in. I’m apposed to allowing gay couples to adopt children, and I don’t see any reason to redefine the institution of marriage, which has existed for so long. However, I would support civil unions, at least to some extent. I don’t think that we need to burden our courts with gay divorces, etc, it’s burdened enough as it is, but I think that homosexual partners should be afforded some of the rights that married couples receive. I don’t know what all of those rights entail, since I’ve never been married, but one that I’ve heard about is that in certain circumstances a gay person can’t visit their, um, significant other in a hospital when a heterosexual partner would be allowed. That sort of thing should be remedied, at the least.
I don’t know enough or have strong enough opinions to comment about other issues, but one thing I’m apposed to is gays adopting children. It’s nothing personal, I don’t have anything against gay people, but if they want children they should have to go about it the natural way, and not artificial insemination, either. Putting children into a gay household is simply unnatural, and so is not likely to be conducive to a natural environment appropriate for a child to grow up in. The only exception to this that I’ve been able to think of is if somebody died and specified a homosexual as the legal guardian, (or however that process works). Then I think the will of the biological parent(s) should be respected.
FloatingRock on June 26, 2008 at 1:48 AM
How thoughtful of you.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 5:12 AM
I think a few Germanic barbarians would have a thing or two to say about that.
Or maybe I’m wrong and Rome was actually sacked by an army of hairdressers.
Lehosh on June 26, 2008 at 5:33 AM
Not federal issues.
hillbillyjim on June 26, 2008 at 6:44 AM
Dont mess with the Zohan.
LCR’s are just another group, McCain has already been quite clear on his stance on gay marriage, etc. He was not afraid to tell one of the biggest gay personalities in America his position on her show, I dont think that he is going to waffle for the LCR’s.
Leave it to the states.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 6:46 AM
Isn’t the federal government big and intrusive enough? Let’s make it easier on good ol’ Uncle Sam so he won’t have to pick our pockets so much. Let us not put things on his plate that belong elsewhere.
hillbillyjim on June 26, 2008 at 6:47 AM
I must apologize…
RushBaby on June 25,2008 at 10:46PM.
RushBaby: Don’t sweat it,a while back I went off on the
wrong person as well,I felt like a clown,you
apologized,move on.:) :) :).
canopfor on June 26, 2008 at 6:50 AM
Did he tell them he lied about that drilling in the gulf thing?
TAMPA - Even though he created a stir last week by advocating ending a moratorium on offshore oil drilling, John McCain supports continuing the current ban on drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, his campaign advisers said this week.
Bicyea on June 26, 2008 at 7:22 AM
People of the same sex already form unions and raise children as well.
They don’t have a contract with the state, but it is still happening.
People who are sooo opposed to gay marriage should probably cast out the Beam in their own eye.
Jesus didn’t come here to teach you to judge and control others.
(backing away now from the can of worms…heh)
bridgetown on June 26, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Then you’ve either not been paying attention, or you’re one of the few lucky ones.
Southern Gent is right, however. It’s far easier to come out as gay than it is to come out as conservative to liberals.
/gay, agnostic, socially libertarian, fiscally extremely conservative, against gay marriage
Vic on June 26, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Don’t ask, don’t tell .. .hee hee hee
vinman on June 26, 2008 at 8:48 AM
BS!! That kind of pandering is not going to heal a “rift”, it’s only moves the republican party closer to the left and makes it a rudderless, ship with no clear direction. Giving in to special interests so they’ll “like” us is just appeasement. If turning socialist and giving certain citizens an advantage based on their race then the republican party should change their name to demo-lite. If the log cabin republicans are for forcing Americans to accept, by law and therefore by the gun, that homosexuality is normal and natural, then they are not conservatives.
peacenprosperity on June 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM
LCRs are pretty active in California. And a lot of them have money, which McCain needs.
Making nice to the gays also helps McCain in the socially moderate suburbs, which have been turning Democratic in recent years mostly because of the social issues. This is exactly what Bush did in 2000, and it worked.
rockmom on June 26, 2008 at 9:25 AM
He did not pander in public on “Ellen”, why the hell would he pander to the LCR’s.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 9:35 AM
“Could at least 1 proponent of this change present a reasonable argument as to how this is anything other than a dramatic redefinition of “marriage?” And, if this is recognized as a dramatic redefinition of what marriage means, the burden of proof as to the necessity of this change rests squarely upon those arguing for it.
cs89 on June 26, 2008 at 12:12 AM”
This is a rather strange way to phrase the question, trying to cap your own liability in the conversation but I will take on the argument nonetheless, even though I am for a much more radical redefinition of marriage, one that is not married to Caesar like the current state. Here it goes:
It runs directly to the marriage to Caesar. You want government involved in marriage and you need government to sanction your marriage then it is not yours. It is whatever the government wants it too be. Marriage at one time must have been a sacred sacrament, but then the pearls were cast among swine and now those people greedily want their redistributionist tax cut all to themselves, which I think should be spread uniformly to everyone. So we married marriage to Caesar and must go by government’s orders. We have a Fourteenth Amendment and a recent Texas sodomy case has helped pave the way. Equal protection under the law? Marriage is a legal institution now, it isn’t whatever your fable book says. The fable books are not the law of marriage once you marry marriage with Caesar. So yes two human beings who love each other should be afforded the same legal rights as anyone else, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. Churches don’t have to recognize it, the First Amendment protects that, but we are not talking sacraments anymore.
To keep government marriage the same would be letting one group of people keep hospital visitation, a tax cut, and inheritance priveleges all on the basis of sex. That is disriminatory. Governments cannot discriminate, churches can and have for years but they don’t own marriage anymore.
LevStrauss on June 26, 2008 at 9:35 AM
So, given McCain’s hands off either way on gays, his approach to the LCR would be for a mutual GOP agreement on principle like lower taxes. I’m not sure exactly how getting their vote is giving in to gay sex that will occur regardless on its own. If the LCR gays “like” McCain, there must be a conservative reason since sex is off the table of negotiation. (knock on wood)
BTW, personally and professionally, it has been my experience that gays are initially coy while refining their assassination skills. So long as they are coddled, they play nice; but all the while they are maneuvering for the kill. If you are not gay, you have no legitimacy in their world (”the” world, aka your world). They personally find heterosexual values and traditions stupid and have manipulated not only our culture but our entire system of government to protect them as SPECIAL. Marriage is merely a metaphor trophy to be had, transformed and revised as their progressive socialist government becomes the only family. My opinion.
maverick muse on June 26, 2008 at 9:37 AM
This may be the case with some, some guys just want to love other dudes in peace.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 9:49 AM
yeah they contemptuously refer to heterosexuals as ‘breeders’ but they sure want us to breed more kids so they can lure them into their lifestyle.
they are so desperate for some sort of ’sanction’ for their lifestyle, they know they cannot get it from God, so they substitute the government for God, to get it’s ‘blessing’ for their lifestyle.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I love that phrasing, “lure”, it is so hard to forget that sex between consenting adults is just as perverse as pedophilia.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM
The math on this one is easy and no different than what he has set out to do from the start. He’s not trying to gain Republican votes. He’s trying to gain Democrat/left leaning independant votes.
Zetterson on June 26, 2008 at 10:01 AM
how naive you are. its all about new recruits. get a clue.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:07 AM
No that is just your unconscious trying to tell you something. I don’t think people are trying to recruit me for anything, no gay cold calls, no literature campaigns, hell two weeks ago they were all marching in Washington and none tried to convert me on my walk to the White House. If they are trying to “lure” me they need a new marketing director because the current one must be out to lunch.
LevStrauss on June 26, 2008 at 10:14 AM
no surprise, check the mirror.
again get a clue.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Talk about projection. The exact same could be said about many proponents of heterosexual marriage. God has been rather quiet on the matter since his word was voted on by “religious authorities” 1600 years ago and even then God did not speak in God’s own defense.
LevStrauss on June 26, 2008 at 10:18 AM
ahahhaha. Are saying is that comments that don’t agree with you are of a lesser quality than comments that do? Moreso, are you that you don’t like to have to defend what you believe in, that it ought to be “accepted”?
Poor poor you — to think that you might have to defend your point of view.
–
how naive you are. its all about new recruits. get a clue.
Actually, you are the naive one. If anyone is clamoring for recruits its self-professed, but seriously lacking, people like yourself?
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM
I’ve been called a ‘breeder’ by more straight women (the purposely ‘childfree’ as they call themselves) than by homosexuals. I’m also aware that there are gays that call other gays ‘breeders’ as an insult (my mom has gotten this before). It is more accurate to say that the two groups involved here are the childhaters and parents (potential or actual).
Growing up around gays, nobody tried to ‘lure’ me into also being gay, but I did have a plethora of straights from my grandmother’s church (herself included) that would alternate bribing/threatening me to be straight. It’s not like I made a choice in the end… I was naturally attracted to my husband (he’s a catch!), without the help of anti-gay forces in my life.
I’m neutral on McCain talking to the LCR, though. Still not voting for him.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM
only by an idiot. seriously.
its hard to even come up with an answer for such stupidity. you must be in constant pain, such stupidity has to hurt.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:21 AM
oh please, this is laughable…gays don’t go after kids, because they’re born gay…what BS.
did the catholic priest scandal even give you a hint?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:23 AM
right4life,
I want you to know that I will take great enjoyment in reading all your ‘melt-down’ comments between now and November, and beyond. Keep it up -
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I enjoy reading your inane comments. it shows how the level of education in this country is sinking.
why would I melt down??? I’m not voting for captain queeg or obama…looks like you need more than a clue.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:25 AM
did the catholic priest scandal even give you a hint?
Let me guess, your next comment will be something along the lines of the one you said to that other person a few posts back? The one where you asked him he was happy to be molested by the Priest? Save it for someone else, Im not Catholic, and I am not a male/
–
How does what you just wrote fall in with the likes of all the straight pedophiles? You know ALL those straight child rapists and killers? What exactly are they recruting for? Your “life style”???
You seemingly have issues with broadly painting ALL gays with the same strokes of Catholic Priests? So, when responding to you, I am going to assume that you are NO different than the thousands of (straight)wife beaters, and (straight) child rapists, and thousands of (straight) child killers that inhabit the planet we share.
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 10:30 AM
A statement and a question:
We aren’t arguing about “God” recognized marriage. We are arguing about state recognized marriage, as I previously said God has been silent on the matter since our constitution has been ratified and well before. He is free to speak up like he “did” to Jesus, but so far no voices from a mountain or anything.
Have you not substituted government for God since that is what we are debating, state sanctioned marriage?
LevStrauss on June 26, 2008 at 10:33 AM
I am going to assume that you are NO different than the thousands of (straight)wife beaters, and (straight) child rapists, and thousands of (straight) child killers that inhabit the planet we share.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:34 AM
you obviously miss the point I was making. no surprise.
obviously not. I’m not the one trying to overturn millenia of history to invent a new ‘right’
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I’m not going to cast any more pearls before swine, moron.
thats what you say every time someone throws your stupid remarks back at you. blah blah blah Come up with a new line, youre old and tired.
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM
better than fat, ugly and stupid
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM
It is not a new ‘right’. It is taking gender discrimination out of a state sanctioned privilege. The church sacrament that you are talking about when you state a millenia still exists and won’t change.
LevStrauss on June 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I’ve noticed, right4life, that you have had neither rebuttal nor incoherent internet sputtering to say about my reponse to your ‘breeder’/luring comment above. I wonder why that is?
/rhetorical question
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 10:44 AM
At least be honest.
You don’t simply argue against homosexual marriage or civil unions because of traditions or societal norms, you argue against homosexuality as a whole because you see them as vile, evil monsters who want to destroy you, your children and your lifestyle.
To you there are no sane homosexuals, no sensible, good homosexuals, just perverts who are waiting for an opportunity to convert the closest vulnerable child to the abomination they practice.
Your vitriol is frightening.
SouthernDem on June 26, 2008 at 10:45 AM
The bottom line is that the Log Cabin Republicans are republicans. They’re American citizens and part of the GOP. It makes sense for Sen. McCain to reach out to a group of GOP voters.
Jill1066 on June 26, 2008 at 10:46 AM
you’re a liar. the results of their ‘marriage’ are well documented. they destroy the institution of real marriage, and with it the family. and we are left with the results of children not being raised in families, and we have seen that in the black community and we get to pay for it with the rise in crime. but none of you pro-gay types want to talk about this. you cannot debate the issues, all you can do is call your opponents names.
absolutely they do. they want to silence any who dare disagree with them. and we’ve seen the results, ie the boy scouts, hate crimes, silencing people in canada for daring to criticize homosexuals…they want to impose a gay sharia law. plain and simple.
your stupidity is what is frightening.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:49 AM
and you cannot dispute what I say, only call me names, and try to silence me. Orwell would understand people like you, and the gay movement, VERY well…
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:52 AM
because you cite personal stories…do you want me to call you a liar? how can I dispute your story? but its meaningless.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:53 AM
here’s an example of your ‘tolerant’ gay movement…
link
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 10:57 AM
ironically, the only personal attacks in these comments is coming from you, right4life. Unless youre living in a parallel universe.
Your vitriol is frightening.
Tell me you are NOT just noticing that about this person?
While I was showering, I was thinking about how IF there was an actual recruitment going on.. how many would be lost, if that’s what they thought they had to buy into.
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I ask you for proof of one person who has been lured into homosexuality. Just one. Otherwise, you’re spreading lies and hatred, just making it up to explain your homophobia.
Do you dispute that heterosexuals use breeders as an insult as well? If you do not dispute this, then your initial arguement about how homosexuals are against heterosexuals having children is called into question.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Some sort of “acceptance” of gays is coming.
It’s the next step, y’see. First, the women got to vote, then the blacks got civil rights, gays are the next group.
I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m expecting polygamists to be next.
None of the above will destroy the country. None of the above change my definition of marriage, or the ones my family and friends use.
I’d be very, very happy to see this left up to the states, though that’s not realistic, any more than leaving civil rights up to the states was.
Poor humans.
Mew
acat on June 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM
ohhh, thats terrible, christians were arrested? Its especially a shame, since those people were OBVOIUSLY nothing like you. This is the sign you would be carrying, no doubt:
http://www.deepfocusproductions.com/images_films/LTK/kill_fags.jpg
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 11:01 AM
when I was younger I was recruited. I had several gay friends who confided to me that they were lured into the movement when they were younger.
thats as good as your ‘proof’ you gave me earlier. your word is not ‘proof’ sorry.
prove theyr’e not.
yeah you’re a liar. I’ve never heard it used by heterosexuals. you can say whatever you want, but why should I believe you?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:02 AM
no surprise, you obviously don’t have the intellect to argue the issues.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:03 AM
think again…
This week National Public Radio similarly highlighted the coming religious-liberty conflicts, opening with a remarkably frank and open admission of how serious the implications are: “As gay couples in California head to the courthouse starting Monday to get legally married, there are signs of a coming storm” — as NPR put it in their written version — “Two titanic legal principles are crashing on the steps of the church, synagogue and mosque: equal treatment for same-sex couples on the one hand, and the freedom to exercise religious beliefs on the other.”
link
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:04 AM
argue issues? sure, but you dont want to argue issues. Nothing you have said to me yet, is an issue.
You come from whatever twisted upbringing you come from — thats your problem, not mine.
when I was younger I was recruited. I had several gay friends who confided to me that they were lured into the movement when they were younger.
thats hilarious. I couldnt be happier that it didnt stick.
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Here’s proof of the breeders:
http://happilychildfree.com/rants/?cat=28
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/1285/childfre.html
http://cafechildfree.blogspot.com/
These are all run by straight people.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:06 AM
link
notice how none of you libs can back up what you say. laughable. but independent thinking is not encouraged among left-wingers.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM
From the blog of the Gay/Straight Alliance, in a post complaining about a Rhode Island court decision:
I can hear the breeders groaning now. It kind of sounds like a mellow, grotesque Tom Waits song.
This reminds us of a situation in Provincetown, Massachusetts in which people who signed a petition against gay marriage were harassed and attacked.
PROVINCETOWN — Town leaders here are holding a public meeting today to air concerns about slurs and bigoted behavior. And this time, they say, it’s gay people who are displaying intolerance.
Police say they logged numerous complaints of straight people being called “breeders” by gays over the July Fourth holiday weekend. Jamaican workers reported being the target of racial slurs. And a woman was verbally accosted after signing a petition that opposed same-sex marriage, they said.
And of course, on this same Marquette gay blog GSA President Jessica Cushion insisted that no speaker who opposes gay marriage should be allowed on the Marquette campus, since expressing such opposition amounts to “hate speech.”
It’s a chronic problem in the rarefied world of political correctness — and that world has spread out of academia into the mainstream media. Members of designated victim groups are allowed to be offended at the barest slight, but feel perfectly free to express rank bigotry toward those who disagree with them, or even merely adopt a different lifestyle.
link
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM
And, right4life, how did you escape the clutches of those horrible gays? It couldn’t have been that easy if you were suckered in so quickly. I mean, why did you get lured in the first place? Good sex, beautiful boys?
I’m running out of bait.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Nevermind, trying to engage you is an exercise in futility. Why are you so terribly hateful?
SouthernDem on June 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM
so you say.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
you obviously won’t run out of stupid.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Why are you so terribly hateful?
2 guesses :P
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I didn’t call you names (aside from vitriolic), nor tell you to shut up. On the other hand, you called me a liar and stupid.
Physician, heal thyself.
SouthernDem on June 26, 2008 at 11:10 AM
tell me, why do you have to lie, and cannot debate the issues?
oh I forgot that would take intelligence…
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Like I said, the breeder thing is between the childfree and those that actually like children. It’s moved beyond being a gay versus straight thing. And while it’s insulting no matter who calls you a breeder, it’s not good evidence of how homosexuals are trying to destroy us heterosexuals.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM
first you called me a liar, then you accused me of spreading ‘vitriol’ hatred…which is the SOP for you gay supporters to call any who dare disagree
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:12 AM
As long as you suck down oxygen, no, I won’t. : )
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I’ve already given you the evidence, which you have not even tried to dispute. you go off on some tangent about an insult because you cannot deal with the issues.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:12 AM
hahahahahhahaha Anna !!!!
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I’m explaining to you that you’re arguing with faulty evidence. Stick to quoting the Bible, it’s one of your stronger arguments. Leave popular culture terms such as breeder out of it, since that’s used by both sides.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:14 AM
lame as well as stupid.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Laughing at me, right?
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM
my evidence is not faulty, your reasoning is.
I haven’t quoted the bible, reading is fundamental..but I know its too much to expect from you.
why because you say so? please….laughable…like your ‘logic’
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I would like to thank right4life for reminding me why I’m no longer a Christian.
Vic on June 26, 2008 at 11:16 AM
As long as you suck down oxygen, no, I won’t. : )
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM
you never were.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM
lat post got truncated..
As long as you suck down oxygen, no, I won’t. : )
(laughing that that.)
Unlike some people on here, the fact you an I would disagree on things doesn’t keep me from seeing the humor in that :)
right4life will argue with you, even if you agree, as you can see.
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 11:19 AM
you never were.
wow, what a gift you must have to know someone else’s heart from wayy across the Internet. {{mock}}
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 11:21 AM
lets see the lib arguments amount to ‘you’re hateful’ if you disagree with gay marriage.
which what they accuse anyone who disagrees with any of their agenda.
just more proof libs are uneducated and easily led.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM
You’ve quoted it in the past. I was giving you a compliment. You’re quite good at arguing from your religious point of view. Obviously, though, you didn’t read my links. I gave three solid examples to your two.
Look, there’s no reason to attack personally, and I honestly regret stooping to that level. This can be debated logically and politely, but tossing down insults because we do not agree is not a firm course of action. However, I’m pretty sure this is a lost cause, if only because you’re not taking anybody seriously. Perhaps a lesson for the both of us in the future.
/second cup of tea/caffeine kicking in, waking up
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:23 AM
some things, like your lack of intelligence, are obvious.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:23 AM
you gave me blogs that dealt with only 1 issue, about whether straights call other straighs ‘breeders’…uh who cares? do you deny gays call straights breeders???
this is just a way of avoiding the real issue, which is the suppression of any speech, or action, which gays disagree with.
because all anyone ever gets who opposes any of the gay agenda is ‘you’re hateful’
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM
lets see the lib arguments amount to ‘you’re hateful’ if you disagree with gay marriage.
You know, that would almost work for you, except thats not where YOUR argument stops. Is it?
All one has to do, is read your comments, not just within these, but on other posts, to see that it’s not.
You ARE a liar if you try to say otherwise, and I can dig up countless comments by your that would betray your writing that.
which what they accuse anyone who disagrees with any of their agenda.
You said reading is fundamental — apparently writing is, since that doesnt even make sense. Hence, I cant even respond.
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Heh. It was wrong, but sometimes, it feels so good. Glad you liked it though, I’m not good at being funny. At all. Ability to be funny was removed at birth or something.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I would love to continue baiting this person, but I have a real job to go to. Cheers all.
your_worst_enemy on June 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM
you have definately reached incoherence.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM
don’t run away before you dig up all those comments of mine that were going to prove something
are were you lying about that too??
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM
No, I do not deny it. I’m saying, though, for the umpteenth time, that a lot of people use it. Not all gays, though, and not all straight childless people. Not all gays seek to limit speech on straights, either. Not all gays are having sex in the streets, raping children, or trying to destroy our country either. To imply otherwise smacks of fear and hatred. I am against anybody, regardless of orientation, that seeks to impose their lifestyle on me (or seeks to restrict my freedom of speech, or whatever).
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »