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 »
Ive found that statistics only become obvious facts when they support the ideology you already hold.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I’ve found that figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:43 PM
oh yeah since you’re so edumacated where is your research, your links, you know, to back up anything you say?
didn’t they teach you in college to reference your writings???
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Certainly haven’t ignored it. The link to NRO by Kurtz explicitly states that there isn’t cause & effect demonstrated but rather that he reads correlation that casts some doubt. However, the study group is a skewed society in the Netherlands that has many many cultural oddities affecting its young people. It is very difficult to control for these factors.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 4:47 PM
why don’t you quote that part? seems like you’re replacing his conclusion with your own.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:49 PM
providing you with links is like giving a pig a computer. He ignores it and keeps rooting around in s**t.
right2bright provided you with several links and you ignored them.
I am not terribly educated, I am a regular college graduate working on a law degree part-time while serving my country.
The difference is I dropped my snooty college freshman attitude when I grew up and got a life. You are still clinging to it.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 4:50 PM
brick wall>>>>>>*thunk*
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 4:51 PM
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:07 PM
So? That’s their business. It doesn’t affect you, it doesn’t harm anyone else’s marriage, it doesn’t threaten families… what’s your point here?
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM
because they were meaningless. something about a child porn web site, which proved nothing.
talking to you is like talking to a brick wall
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Interesting how both of you find it easy to admit your homosexuality on a conservative blog. Neither one of you have ever attacked my lifestyle…maybe my posts or ideas.
I have found that people who violently attack the homosexuality lifestyle (not just disagree, but attack), often have another agenda.
A friend, after listening to years of his rant against such, took up a partner, I guess he just “gave in”. Others have “lost” loved ones, and others have felt if they agree their real feelings or desires would be compromised.
I am sure you have friends that put on the air of arrogance, or distaste—bravado—so they won’t be “outed”.
There seems to be an abnormal sense of that on some of these posts.
Some disagree, which is quite normal, others are obsessed…thou dost protest too much, me thinks?
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 4:54 PM
uh it does. that quote was to cast into doubt the ‘life long commitment’ of gay marriages.
the other quote described how marriages are threatened…reading is fundamental.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:55 PM
show me the child porn site that I posted to on this blog…if not you should be banned for making such an accusation.
Now show me what child porn web site.
AllahPundit, monitor this. This is way over the top.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 4:58 PM
He provided you with the very links you claimed did not exist to groups denouncing NAMBLA. You ignored them.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 4:58 PM
It does nothing to show that marriages are threatened.
You seem awfully pre-occupied with behavior of other people that doesn’t concern you. Why do you care what the average gay marriage duration is?
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 4:58 PM
And any suggestion that NAMBLA is anything less than a fringe group of extremist outcasts is, in my opinion, sufficiently offensive and imbecilic to warrant banning. That sort of idiocy only wastes everyone’s time.
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I have known plenty of people who have had 8+ partners in their past. They are happily married now, myself included.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Here is the first line from the quote Kurtz references from the Dutch letter.
Here is Kurtz’s concluding paragraph referencing the “many factors in play” and offering “serious doubt” rather than “cause & effect”:
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Let’s go right4life, show me the link to the child porn site…
An apology or banned, that accusation was in no way warranted.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 5:13 PM
thanks for proving you’re a lying piece of trash.
this is what I wrote:
something about…not that you posted a link to a child porn site…you really are pathetic.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 5:52 PM
you really are grasping at straws. in social science, absolute proof is difficult to come by. the article stands and your attempts to ‘interpret’ it are rather obvious.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 5:53 PM
since you’ve been married?? doubtful, but that is what the article stated about men in gay marriage. again, reading is fundamental.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 5:54 PM
I feel like I’m lecturing someone in kindegarten…why don’t you try reading what I posted in context, and then maybe you’ll have a clue…although since I’ve talked to you in the past, that is expecting too much.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM
and yes I expect you to apologize for falsely accusing me of that.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 5:56 PM
why don’t you go ahead and post wher I claimed what you say?
I said nothing of the sort. you’re lying…again.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:09 PM
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM
It’s a bit difficult to go back and find the relevant “context” when you post so many useless, ad hominem-laden, hit-and-run comments. If you’re going to even bother typing those three or four lines that say nothing, why not just provide the context?
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 6:18 PM
I think somebody mentioned this before, but what the heck:
Gay marriage is another item on the liberal social agenda. The liberal social agenda has been uniformly disastrous for America. The liberal social agenda has been very, very bad for the institution of marriage.
Thus, it would seem that the burden of proof is on proponents of gay marriage to show that it’s desirable and/or not destructive, as the other items of the liberal agenda have proved to be. And that burden, considering the past, should be much higher than a preponderance of the evidence, or even clear and convincing evidence. How about beyond a reasonable doubt?
And judging from the facts (of which I’m aware) that no state legislature and no state population has approved gay marriage, it would seem that the burden has not been met. I’m willing to listen, though.
So when open-minded, unbigoted proponents of gay marriage cast aspersions on opponents, they are casting those aspersions on a very large majority of the population.
Also, anecdotal evidence of how gay marriage has or hasn’t affected any individual marriage is not convincing. It’s the marginal cases society is worried about.
misterpeasea on June 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
the context was a statement about the ‘life long commitment’ of gay marriages…I just debunked it.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
And, again, why is it any of your business how many extramarital partners a married gay person has during their marriage? It doesn’t affect you, it’s none of your business.
You’re fighting a losing battle here. There is no justification for imposing your views on everyone else.
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 6:25 PM
do you libs ever tell the truth?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:25 PM
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
I don’t think it matters if they are “life long” and “committed”, nor do I think you debunked it. I think it’s clear that nobody meant to assert that all gay marriages were life-long and committed, just as you certainly wouldn’t dare to assert that all heterosexual marriages were life-long and committed.
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 6:27 PM
orwell would understand you very well..
actually it is YOU who are trying to force your views on us. and criminalize anyone who dares disagree with any part of the gay agenda.
again because I’m told by you gay proponenets how wonderful their marriages are…how they’re lifelong yadayada.. just like heterosexuals…but they’re not. just another of your lies. you’re full of them
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:27 PM
so dave, why are you trying to criminalize christians, and anyone else who dares to disagree with the gay agenda?
do you have a final solution in mind for christians?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:29 PM
I’m a “lib” now? LOL… Ok.
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 6:29 PM
yeah its pretty obvious. narrow-minded, hateful, liar. imposing your views on others by undemocratic means…yep thats you!
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:31 PM
I’m not a social scientist, though if I wanted someone to show me the mechanisms for the following correlations my guess is they could:
1.) Raising drinking age decrease drunk driving fatalities.
2.) Teenage pregnancy decreases future earning power of the mother.
3.) Quality of life arrests lead to reduction of more serious crimes.
It seems the argument is that the Netherlands had a general “cheapening” of marriage by dissociating it with child raising, and gays helped to do that. However, there was also a surge in the divorce rate and single parenting in the U.S. long before gays pushed for marriage that would have to be explained w/o the contribution of gay marriage.
If the divorce rate were to go down in MA, Canada or Spain following legalizing gay marriage would that be an argument in favor of it?
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 6:31 PM
but they haven’t now have they? you know it takes a while to accumulate data…and the netherlands have had it longer than anywhere else. do you think those social scientists are part of the vast right wing conspiracy?
but then if common sense wouldn’t inform of this, no amount of data would.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I think the Vermont Legislature approved Civil Unions correct?
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 6:34 PM
You need to take a few classes on logic, or critical thinking, or something. Then come back and read your comments. I dare say that you will be quite ashamed of how childish and illogical you sound.
There is no point in continuing this conversation. I do, however, want to go on record again with my belief that you are an unintelligent and unthinking kneejerk–which results in the blind hyperpartisan talking-point recitation–and that people like you are very damaging to the image of most of us on the right. You pretty much embody every cartoonish negative stereotype that people have of “right wing nutjobs”, and you would be doing all of us a favor if you just gracefully left.
There is no place in politics or in the future–certainly not in our party (and I’m assuming the Republicans will come back around eventually, and give me a reason to re-register with them)–for people like you.
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Liar, LIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR…I’m not a witch Im your wife!!!
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 6:35 PM
here’s another article from kurtz:
link
why don’t you take him up on his challenge, and provide that reason, other than gay marriage???
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:36 PM
McCain Hearts (loves) Log cabin Republicans and Democrats!
Did they git any drillin done?
Too bad he doesn’t heart (love) conservative ones.
dhunter on June 26, 2008 at 6:36 PM
this isn’t the first time I’ve mentioned this to you, but get some professional help.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:37 PM
I’d guess that social scientists tend to be fairly liberal–though I haven’t met any since college. Sure the Netherlands has had it longer but it also is culturally an outlier sample group–it could be the gay marriage thing or could be smoking lots of hash that is screwing up their family structure.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 6:37 PM
What web site…that is what I am challenging you…what child porn web site
the “they” you stated was referring to links from this comment you copied and were referring to.
See the word links, and see your word they?
Now retract and apologize, I never linked to a child porn…got it? I would never do such a thing and I am really pissed off that you accused me of linking to a child porn web site.
I swear, Allah Pundit should ban you for accusing me of linking to child porn.
Now here is the whole post with highlights to connect the dots you fool.
False accusation have to be corrected or people like you will say anything about anybody. You can’t go around stating someone is linking child porn, when that is not true.
So man up and apologize, or just remove yourself from Hot Air. These kind of accusations, with no regards to being honest, just to try to win an argument is not allowed on these posts.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 6:37 PM
thanks for confirming you have a final solution in mind for christians, and anyone else who disagrees with your gay agenda.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:38 PM
I never accused you of that you lying piece of trash, as I have proven. you should be banned for being such a liar.
I knew you wouldn’t have the integrity to apologize. scum.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:40 PM
No, that is the gays fault too.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Anyone who does not get a classic movie reference like that needs help.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 6:43 PM
right2bright,
He did not accuse you of linking to child porn. I think he is referring to the post about NAMGLA being taken down for links to porn while NAMBLA is more careful about it.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 6:44 PM
thank you!
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Ahhh I knew the accusations of persecution were coming…
classic right4life
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Your welcome.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM
did you read what he said?
there is no place in politics or in the future for people like me??
sounds like a threat.
what if he put said that about jews? what would you think?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:47 PM
That’s it, he had his 15 minute of fame hi-jacking this thread.
He is worthless, like the monkey on the end of the organ grinder chain, throw this monkey a few peanuts and move on.
He will eventually be banned for making false accusations about people. They all do.
He can’t even read and understand his own posts…but all the monkey does is dance…
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 6:49 PM
you sound like a good liberal. typical liar.
too bad you’re not man enough to own up to what you did.
grow up loser.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Then tell me what this means
I didn’t write this, he did.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 6:53 PM
don’t ya understand english son? try english 101.
you’re sick and pathetic.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I would imagine he was referring to loudmouth, feamongerers.
“Theyre out to recruit your children!!!!!!!!!!!”
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 6:58 PM
For the record–and for those who are less-than-intelligent–I was not proposing a “final solution”. I was merely pointing out the fact that certain types of people are destined to be irrelevant in the future. right4life is pretty much one of them.
But thanks for the Godwin. That was really great, and constructive.
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 6:59 PM
but you didn’t say that, now you’re ‘clarifying’ your remarks…are you a politician?
this is what you said:
There is no place in politics or in the future–certainly not in our party ….for people like you.
no place in the future for me…so the implication is rather obvious that I, and people like me, would not have a future in this world.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 7:02 PM
why can’t you libs just play the man, for once, and own up to what you said? I would graciously accept an apology…but you can’t do that.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 7:05 PM
no integrity, no surprise.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Here it is again English 101.
They is referring to several links, and they then is described a child porn web site.
See how easy it is to read that? But I know how difficult it is for you to understand.
Perhaps if you read it real slow and look at the bold words, you will see the connection.
See where it says “several links”, and see where you refer to them as “they” and then you refer to “they” as “child porn site”. That is called a correlation (oops too many letters for you).
That is how English works,and that is how we communicate. We reference words like “several” with words like “they”, see the correlation? (look up correlation in the dictionary)…see right4life run, see him run and hide from the truth, right4life is confused, do you know what confused means? Just read his posts…
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I crack me up, but you (I am referencing right4life in case you are confused) worry me…obviously a product of public schools. (see where “product” refers to right4life, that is also a correlation, but that one is very advanced for you)
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 7:15 PM
a lot of words that add up to the same old lies and BS.
there is a correlation of 1 to your posts and lies and stupidity.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 8:01 PM
6 pages of comments.
wow…
homesickamerican on June 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Wow, I need to check in more often.
So, have we identified all the queer sex supporters on this blog yet? It helps to know who the opponents claim to be vis-a-vis who they actually are.
A couple of points need to be made. Marriage is the social institution for raising children. In a triumvirate representative republic based on common law, the marriage model cannot be changed by legislative fiat, even if the people wanted it (which they do not by about 2-1).
Those males who practice deviant sex with other males have a lifespan that is twenty years less than normal males. They also are hosts to many communicable diseases that are more virulent than those diseases used to be because their immune systems are damaged by their sexual behaviors which allows the germs to learn to resist.
But the most important consideration is that deviant males are simply liars. They lie about the use of their bodies which are obviously not designed to be used in the way that they use them. This means that by pretending to be equivalent to normal males, they are lying.
When they claim to be equal in value to normal people, they are usually challenged at which point they demand to be shown how what they do in private affects normal people.
If it was private, there would not be a problem let alone a discussion. It is their public flaunting of their “private” perversions that involuntarily compel normal people to deal with them.
Yet they complain about the blowback they get for pretending (lying) about their deviant sex practices being somehow morally equal to normal sex practices and therefore entitled to legal recognition.
Those who want to do queer sex should keep it to themselves. They have no basis for demanding legal recognition since they are not forced to do what they are doing AND they do not contribute anything positive to the society that the society does not already have.
We must tell the truth. Queer sex is itself a lie since it involves deliberate misuse and abuse of the human body. Those who practice queer sex are basically big rebellious immature children.
platypus on June 27, 2008 at 2:47 AM
You keeping a list platypus? Going to submit our names to the Statsenpoleizi?
Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 6:26 AM
On last final reflection here: all the vitriol is directed at ‘deviant males.’ Why are ‘deviant females’ not also railed against?
Is it because tons of straight guys find the idea of two women togther attractive (while finding the idea of two men together repulsive)? Why the discrepency?
That is all.
Anna on June 27, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Solid +1
Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Never really understood where they got the name “log cabin” republicans.
I hope its not what I think. DD
Darvin Dowdy on June 27, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Hey platypus, you might want to read this post, you will find it interesting. You won’t like it at first, but you may learn to embrace it later.
right2bright on June 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Twenty years ago, I wrote comments like the following on papers: “Your argument here is rather shaky. What about X, Y, and Z?” By the time I retired, students’ ability to construct a logical, coherent argument had degraded to the point that most of the time all that could be said was, “So? What’s your point?”
And that’s really the only thing to be said about this. So? They’re Republicans. They’re part of the constituency. If it offends you, oh well, too bad. You need to grow up.
rightwingprof on June 27, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Ahhh I knew the accusations of persecution were coming…
classic Squid Shark
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Not a fan of Princess Bride? Inconceivable!
I don’t remember why, but they believe Lincoln was gay.
Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Probably. I know men who don’t even consider it cheating if their wife is with a woman. I even had a friend who used to make out with girls at parties she would throw while her husband watched.
Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I’ve read/skimmed every post on this thread, and people don’t seem to be offended by McCain’s meeting here. For the most part people have said, as you said, “well, they are Republicans.”
Though a few have expressed disappointment that McCain would reach out to this group while he continues to alienate conservative Republicans.
The real disagreements have come in the discussions not about the meeting but about homosexuality and homosexual marriage.
Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I can think of at least two reasons not related to the eevil patriarchy: more people of both sexes consider the female body to be an object of beauty than the male body, and deviant female sex is not focused on the anus.
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 10:57 AM
its more fun when its all part of the conspiracy
don’t ya know??
behind it all is a cabal of:
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 11:01 AM
And maybe, just maybe, lesbians, woman to woman relationships are generally different then male to male.
Gay men (and I am talking in general here) are much more sexual and aggressive. Seldom do you find women “cruising” restrooms, parks, etc. looking for the one nighter or one-minuter.
I think most would find the lesbian relationships to be more consistent with “love”, that is comforting, caring, nurturing, etc. Not to say that some gay men don’t have that, it is just that even stuff like gay parades are largely men doing there thing. And in fact the men that show that “love” have a much easier time integrating into society. I think the repulsion comes from the attack mentality of the angry gay man (and sometimes gay women).
To use a couple of icons: The acceptance of someone like Ellen DeGeneres as opposed to Rosie O’Donnell, one is more gentle and considerate, the other is brash and repulsive.
I find women not to be as demonstrative or “in your face” (skip the puns) in their relationship. Once again, it is a relationship not a challenge to society.
We discern between “healthy” and “un-healthy” relationship. Both gay and straight.
Generally, I think society finds that the lesbian women have “healthier” relationships then gay men.
right2bright on June 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Well since were going after:
Global Warmers
Illegal Immigrants
Club Gitmo Haters
McCain Feingold first amendment haters
Hillary Clinton Liberals
and now… the gays
Why not just go all out in this “big tent” crap and get:
Drug Dealers
Bank Robbers
Child Rapist
Code Pink
Hell, the tent sure is big enough. All that matters is winning this “principle thing” is blown way out of proportion. As long as you have an R by your name, hell you gotta be OK. Right?
I never thought I would say this but we would have been better off with Huckles.
Big Orange on June 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Just a couple are going after the gays…notice one person is the dominant attacker of gays.
Most of us just say “whatever, just don’t stick it in my face”, so to speak.
right2bright on June 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM
more lies and BS.
disagreeing with the gay agenda is not ‘attacking’ gays…but just as with ‘tolerance’ any disagreement of the gay agenda is hateful bigoted intolerant and is becoming a crime
just another step in the attempt to impose a gay sharia law in this country. no dissent will be tolerated…welcome to rainbow amerikka
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 12:06 PM
you’re an active supporter of the gay agenda. to pretend that you are indifferent is another of your many lies.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 12:07 PM
It seems most things we do, we do for more than one reason, for our various reasons are more amenable to compromises than to being excluded altogether. McCain probably met with the homosexual Republicans out of mixture of decency and political calculation. After all, it’s worth considering, along with everything else, that homosexual men, if they’re unmarried and childless, probably have much more time to think about politics or to be actively involved in it, and they may have money to spare. Moreover, that portion of decent voters who believe snubbing gays is indecent can more easily be won over if McCain makes a quiet show of decency.
Kralizec on June 27, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Bush did this in 2000, I think it helped soften him up a bit.
But evangelicals conveniently forget that.
Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I am sorry, with every post I just see the old hag from Princess Bride:
“Liar….LIAAAAAAAR!!!”
Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 12:41 PM
a wacko liar is calling me a liar…yawn.
sonny, if you were on my side, I’d be worried.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM
If you aren’t attacking gays then my post doesn’t apply to you does it?
You are awful sensitive, like I said the dominant attacker is basically one person. If it is not you, then it must be someone else…
That is good that they let you use a computer in the home they have you in, tell them to increase your meds.
HAHAAAHAH, I crack me up…
right2bright on June 27, 2008 at 12:49 PM
to people like you ‘attacking gays’ is disagreeing with then in any way.
whats amusing is that you think I’m defensive about this issue, or any issue!! to quote a deranged piece of trash…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH moron
the laughter of the deranged.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I didnt call you a liar, I called you a wicked, crazy old crone.
But we all know what you really are, a barely-20 college sophomore who just took a debate and logic class and thinks he is just sooo super duper smart.
Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 2:08 PM
well sonny boy, making you look stupid takes no effort on my part, you do it to yourself with every post.
Every time I talk about this issue, you wackos come in, and are unable to argue the issues, instead relying on personal attacks.
Its amusing, and its really funny to see wackos like you thinking you’ve ‘won’ on this issue.
as in every other encounter we’ve had, I make you look foolish, easily. thats why you’re upset with me, even though you say you agree with me.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM
That part was soft sarcasm.
Several reasons. There are substantially less of them. They are not a homogenous group politically. They are nowhere near as medically dangerous to the general population as males who practice queer sex. And the males are the ones who marry and have children in an effort to camouflage their deviant sex practices, which is a primary reason that HIV and AIDS are as widespread as they are.
Well, they wouldn’t be if I was in charge. They are not part of the Republican constituency, or they only are because Republicans placated feminazis early on instead of standing up to them on principle. And yes it offends me, as well it should because there is nothing conservative about misusing human sexual organs and human excretory organs AND BEING PROUD OF IT. Growing up is what practitioners of deviant queer sex refuse to do, which is why they should get nothing special from society (like government benefits).
I’m pleased that SOMEBODY else “gets it.”
When less than 4% of the population (minus the 1.5% females) can demand rights and get them, based on nothing more than sexual activity choices, we have lost this country. Almost everybody knows one or more members of the Church of Deviant Sex but to extrapolate that behavior into the general group is simply nonsense. In any event, the emergence of AIDS should have been handled by regular public health protocols. But those protocols would have caused segregation of the carriers of the disease, likely preventing much spillover into the general population.
But the side effects of proper medical response would have been social disapproval of those who joined the C.D.S., possible legal consequences for refusing to stop spreading the disease, etc.
The massive cost of the government effort to “control” the disease would likely be a small fraction of what it is today, only because they want to do things they should not do and have everyone else bear the costs.
Not very Republican and certainly not conservative.
platypus on June 27, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I agree with you on some of the problems with managing the AIDS crisis early on. Recognizing and approving of gay relationships where they pledge fidelity would likely be more positive than negative with regard to the spread of HIV.
dedalus on June 27, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Guess you’re not familiar with Ellen, Rosie O’Donald, the “man” who just gave birth to a child, the first gay couple married in Mass., etc….
In charge of the Log Cabin Republicans? Doubt it even then. They seem to believe the GOP has a better platform. I doubt even you could convince them the Dems are better.
And I’m sure you realize this, but I feel compelled to say it anyway. That “deviant sex practice” is practiced by heterosexuals as well.
Funny thing… apparently the anus actually has a pleasure receptor in it, and many men and women enjoy having something press against it, even lesbian women (shocker–pun intended) though they have to use some type of object as they lack the proper God-given equipment.
Now before you start calling me a “queer supporter” or whatever your choice term is, I’m not saying the above is my personal opinion. I’m just stating facts, which is what this party needs to do if it’s going to make a case against homosexual marriage.
Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I still haven’t seen a good argument Against gay marriage.
Everything I’ve read in comments here can be applied to the heterosexual population.
bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 3:37 PM
because for people like you no argument matters.
why don’t you go ahead and answer Kurtz’ question:
As we’ve seen, the upswing in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate coincides with the enactment of registered partnerships and gay marriage. A diligent search for alternative explanations, such as access to contraception and women in the workforce, yields nothing that correlates well with the rise of out-of-wedlock birthrates in the Netherlands. Both opponents and supporters of gay marriage linked the willingness to embrace same-sex marriage with increasing social and legal acceptance of cohabitation rather than marriage for couples with children. Although pinpointing cause and effect raises particular challenges when studying the intricacies of human social life, there are now at least strong indications that Dutch gay marriage has contributed significantly to the decline of Dutch marriage.
Perhaps there is an alternative explanation. But it is up to those who wish to argue that gay marriage has not undermined marriage in the Netherlands to provide a more plausible reason for the last seven years of Dutch marital decline.
I won’t hold my breath….
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I love you, in a totally platonic, internet way. It’s ’cause you’re awesome.
And thank everybody else for your answers.
Anna on June 27, 2008 at 3:47 PM
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Okay, you have given a ‘plausible’ reason for the decline in Dutch marriages. In no way a fact, but a nice theory.
What’s the reason for the decline of marriage in America? Is that gay people’s fault?
You can’t be serious.
bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Thanks. I think you’re awesome too.
Esthier on June 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM
you have no other answer for it, no surprise there! but facts don’t matter to people like you….you never let facts get in the way of your ideological agenda.
oh several things, like government welfare programs, but in the netherlands they have had all that, and as Kurtz says
you cannot deal with the issues, obviously, nor do you care about the effects on children or society…all you care about is pandering to the gay movement.
next you’ll resort to calling me ‘homophobic’ and ‘bigoted’
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »