Outing gay Republicans: Fair game or invasion of privacy?
posted at 12:55 pm on April 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Rick Moran erupts in outrage over, well, Outrage — a documentary which promises to “out” a number of prominent Republicans as gay. These politicians have cast what the filmmakers consider “anti-gay” votes, and so believes that their personal lives have direct bearing on their political stands. Rick cries foul:
Imagine being a homosexual who, for whatever reason – family, business, or personal – chooses not to publicly divulge their sexuality?
For some, it is a question of politics. And after 8 years of hearing the left say that a person’s sexual life is not the business of the public and what someone does when they are not doing the people’s business should be their own affair, it takes a lot of sand to suddenly become interested in such matters when they involve a member of the opposite party.
There exists a small homosexual clique that has taken it upon themselves to “out” gay Republicans. These vicious slime merchants inhabit “alternative” media including websites, newspapers, and now, Hollywood. Their stated goal; to expose “hypocrisy” by outing conservative politicians, and even more incredibly, those who work as aides for the lawmaker.
I’m more of a live-and-let-live conservative, myself, which gives me a bit of a libertarian bent. If Republican officeholders are gay, that’s their own business. I’m more concerned about policy stands than who sleeps with whom in Washington, and in the end, it’s the policy that matters.
However, sometimes policy gets affected by the personal. Conservatives have no problem reminding people that Barney Frank hired a former male prostitute whom he had patronized at least once, and then lived with another man who was an exec at Fannie Mae. Frank himself has argued that personal life should be fair game for political criticism, at least in relationship to Republicans like Sarah Palin.
Is outing gay Republicans sleazy? Sure. Is it outrageous? I guess that depends on the nature of the “anti-gay” votes they’re going to discuss. If they’re votes against gay marriage and hate crime legislation, I’d call that rather weak tea. There are legitimate policy reasons to oppose both; I’m much more opposed to the latter and ambivalent at worst to the former, but I’d hardly call opposition to gay marriage “anti-gay”. Unless they’re participating in rallies that demand the criminalization of homosexual sex or something along those lines, their sexual preference should remain their private business until they themselves choose to make it otherwise.
For a group of people who profess to also adhere to live-and-let-live policies, the filmmakers seem pretty intolerant of gays who wander off the political reservation — but that’s hardly surprising from the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
well, i guess i have nothing to add here.
i’m sympathetic to the minimal gay “marriage” idea – that the states have the right, through their respective legislatures, to enact measures, such as civil unions, to secure the 14th amendment rights of gay citizens. by that token, i believe that the federal marriage amendment was an ugly pursuit which betrayed a hostility to gays and the constitution. ted haggard is a fitting symbol for what that effort deserved.
but leftwing “rights” groups have decided that there are too many people like me, and so now the argument is over semantics: “…and it must be ‘marriage’ or else!” and that’s an unsustainable assertion. a homosexual couple is as identical to a heterosexual couple as a tampon is to a …well, there is no male analogue to a tampon. given what marriage is and why it exists in the first place, the drive to construct some kind of “marriage right” for gays is like a man pursuing a 14th amendment claim to secure his “right” to get his ovaries examined by a gynecologist.
eh on April 24, 2009 at 2:08 PM
@Cindy Munford the odd thing is many gays can pretend to be straight, and this is the crux of the problem, we can practice avoidance until something blows up and everyone around us is hurt. this is the flip side of the outing campaign, they can mollify themselves by thinking that they are simply lighting a bomb that was already in place and in some regards they are correct. However as someone stated outing yourself isn’t easy and sometimes shows little good for years as you repair your ties to families and friends. This is why most gays encourage the young to come out early, you end up with less psychological issues over all.
Yes there are many good posters here and many gays but this wasn’t always the case…
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 2:10 PM
political weapon
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 2:10 PM
More chum for the liberal base to feed on.
I know many gay conservatives. I know there are more than a few who read and post here. Liberals cannot fathom this. Homosexuals are like blacks to them, a “constituent group” that they think they own. It does not compute to them that a person might hold political views that have nothing whatsoever to do with whom they have sexual attraction to.
So they believe they can embarrass gay Republicans by “outing” them. But most of them aren’t really “in the closet” to begin with. (Mark Foley sure wasn’t. His homosexuality was the worst kept secret in Washington and Florida.) Their friends and most of their constituents probably know they are gay but it really is a “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing. Liberals believe that conservative voters are all anti-gay bigots, so if they “out” a gay Republican he or she will be thrown out of office by those bigoted voters.
rockmom on April 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Why would someone be ashamed of a birth defect they have no control over in this current culture where it is celebrated? F’n out em. Like I give a sheet what happens to the GOP anymore.
ClassicCon on April 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Sexuality is a private matter.
Homosexual Activists need no “outing” and show their radical disrespect for the rights of privacy towards individuals. Homosexual Activists are ideological Marxist radicals who will tolerate no individualism. Socialists do not tolerate any difference of opinion. That culture pervades the language of meaning via PC revisionism of definition aka Newspeak.
Socialists are Cannibals:
American Thinker posted that observation as well, this past week. From an economic point, socialism steals our wages giving nothing back to the one essentially “eaten” alive. Spreading the wealth effectively eats up our life (energy, effort, time–blood, sweat and tears).
maverick muse on April 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Bunk! They only want marriage so they can go after the church. Dismantling the church is their ultimate goal.
vapig on April 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Vulgarity and slurs seems to permeate contemporary culture. It’s hard to avoid. It’s shows a lack of respect, not only for the targets, but also for all listeners and readers. It is demeaning of our humanness. And it also shows a lack of self-discipline. Not believing in speech codes or the PC Police, I still wish people would police their own language and show greater respect for all of us.
Loxodonta on April 24, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Yes, and I’ve called many of them out on their rhetoric. Regardless of who’s doing the outing, it is still a repulsive tactic. The left has engaged in this tactic quite a bit over the last few years. As but one example, Bruce over at GayPatriot was threatened to be outed to his workplace by the left-wing zealot Mike Rogers, and most conservatives rallied to his defense.
Vic on April 24, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Sorry, but it doesn’t matter what they do in private or what stands they personally hold.
We send these yahoos to DC to REPRESENT us. They’re not supposed to be voting the way they prefer, they’re supposed to vote the way we prefer.
I spent some time as a member of the National board of an organization I was a part of. The very first vote in the very first meeting happened to concern something that was to my benefit and I was personally in favor of. Unfortunately having it was not in the best interests of the membership so I voted against it, as did almost every other member.
Ah, if only our ‘public servants’ in DC held themselves to the same standards….
KCSteve on April 24, 2009 at 2:17 PM
+100
vapig on April 24, 2009 at 2:19 PM
+1
maverick muse on April 24, 2009 at 2:20 PM
It’s only going to get better, Kiddo, hang in there. Just remember hateful people aren’t a reflection of you but of themselves, they alone should suffer. Don’t give them the power to hurt.
I agree, as I posted earlier, Mr. Foley had a job for life until his creepiness with the pages was made public. Even though it appears he didn’t actually do anything illegal, he seemed to be lucking on the edge of the unacceptable.
Cindy Munford on April 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM
+1
maverick muse on April 24, 2009 at 2:22 PM
the counter-effort should be to “out” people with ordinary views of gays and gay marriage, with the aim of showing these self-appointed “civil rights” groups out as partisan hacks.
you can start here: obama’s buddy, Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell,
eh on April 24, 2009 at 2:22 PM
since I’m not even a christian this seems highly unlikely. I’m pretty sure my secret gay memo says it’s to promote more long term stable gay households, and attack the root causes of depression and alienation that leads many gays to suicide or unsafe life choices and addictions.
oh crap now you know our secrets!!
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I’m only posting this because it desperately bears repeating.
Vic on April 24, 2009 at 2:24 PM
I agree with ‘rockmom’ and ‘cindy munford,’ and the posts themselves tell the story. ‘Hot Air’ seems to be a place where most everyone — at least everyone of a conservative stripe and/or non-conservatives who are willing to engage in thoughtful dialog — are more than welcome to participate.
Are there a few bigots, an extremist or two, and maybe a couple of turds floating in our communal punchbowl? Sure, but it’s that way with society in general. Seems that’s just the price one pays in order to enjoy the liberties of free-speech; a lesson our liberal friends seem to have forgotten.
CaptFlood on April 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM
@Vic @Cindy Munford
Thanks for your support!
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM
It would appear that a more accepting society requires rudeness, most unfortunate. I realize that I am not of the generation of most of the posters here but seriously I never look at another human and wonder about their sex life. I have a ninety-three year old maiden aunt, I don’t want to think about her desires at all, let alone make a moral judgment on what they might be or have been. Please, World, I don’t want to know.
Cindy Munford on April 24, 2009 at 2:27 PM
You know you’re not supposed to divulge our secrets! I’m reporting you to the Don of the Gay Mafia!
Vic on April 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM
@Vic Geffen will flog me!! I’ve been very naughty!!
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Your secrets and my support are safe. Come back more often. You may ultimately not like what I have to say about some of these issues but I wish you nothing but happiness.
Cindy Munford on April 24, 2009 at 2:31 PM
This is a cheap, dirty Democratic boogie man KKK trick attempting to “offend” political conservatives. It worked pushing out Idaho’s Senator Larry Craig.
What did conservatives get from booting him out of office? One more Socialist vote to permanently dissolve our Constitutional government.
maverick muse on April 24, 2009 at 2:34 PM
So what!! It won’t make a bit of difference to most of us, but may make the folks in question uneasy. It appears that the gay community is becoming it’s own worst enemy. If they don’t want to believe that they need only look at Perez Hilton.
jeanie on April 24, 2009 at 2:35 PM
@Cindy Munford LOL you have days to change your mind
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Yawn… Just wake me up after this comes and goes…
newton on April 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Prior to election, platform must be understood.
Following election, platform must be respected.
When the platform and promises are destroyed, public outcry must be respected.
maverick muse on April 24, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Like I said a few days ago on another thread… I’m a gay Christian conservative. I’m out to people who I choose to let know, not because I’m embarrassed of my orientation, but for fear of being associated with the most visible segment of the gay population that I find to be vile and disgusting. I don’t believe in or support gay marriage, special hate crime legislation, or any of the other special rights they demand. I’m deeply offended by their x rated antics at the Folsom Street Fair and gay pride festivals. What I’ve seen at the ONE gay pride I did go to many years ago was nothing to be proud of.
As for the film, it just goes to show how pathetically slimy and full of hate the makers of the movie are.
behiker on April 24, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Outing someone’s private sexuality is blackmail and extortion period. Is the purpose of these liberals merely to embarrass someone? No, they seek to force them to change their political and policy positions through a despicable act of extortion.
What would happen if some right wing group produced a movie ‘outing’ every Democrat that had an abortion?
The flames of Hell don’t even burn that hot.
JonPrichard on April 24, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Off limits. I believe that the sexual orientation should not be an issue. If they can make good sound judgment on Policies that make the USA safe, then that is all I need to know.
hawkman on April 24, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Actually, you not being a Christian makes it even more likely. Why would a real Christian want to dismantle the church? It doesn’t make much sense.
What does make sense is soddomites that want to destroy the church through forcing Christian ministers to marry them by threat of litigation. If you reply to this with “we want government equality, not religious equality”, then why wage war against a religious group that considers the sanctity of marriage to be a union between a man and a woman blessed by God? Why not, then, just demand that a civil union be granted the same governmental perks that marriage is granted, provided that you have the ability to reproduce and create another tax paying citizen to make up for the tax break you’ll get (which you cannot)?
Why not instead start being straight (pun very much intended) with yourself and simply admit that it has nothing to do with equality, or visiting your soddomizing partner in the hospital and being able to sign your name on the dotted line to pull the plug so that you can get the insurance money, and instead admit that the only reason you queers are attacking marriage is to piss off Christians that would otherwise rather be in church rather than trying to fend off your moral degradation of what was once a society based on values?
I await your response with bated breath.
leetpriest on April 24, 2009 at 2:47 PM
maverick muse on April 24, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Don’t you think Social Cons learned their lesson on that though? It’s like all the Libertarians/Conservatives who sat out the election and woke up to find that they can’t buy ammo and Universal Health Care is coming down the pike. Only the most self-destructive will lose want to lose red seats on the principle of minding someone elses business.
Or am I underestimating the allure of being an oppressed minority?
Rob Taylor on April 24, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I’ve encountered posters here who seem to consider themselves real Christians, but consider my church not to be Christian at all. I’m Catholic.
I’ve also encountered posters here who are homosexual and demonstrate great respect for Christianity.
So, it’s not all one way or the other.
Loxodonta on April 24, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Either you have beliefs or you change what you believe in to be in power. I’d rather not have a single seat in Congress then sell my belief system down the river.
dpierson on April 24, 2009 at 2:59 PM
but then, the reason “anti-gay” democrats get the pass in these sorts of things is because we’ve got this guy:
…and our party, at it’s highest strategic levels, values this guy’s vote over any others’.
eh on April 24, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Not being gay myself makes it somewhat difficult to respond. Your remarks are so harshly put that it provokes one to answer you in as personal a way as you address both the subject and some of the posters here. Still, in wading through your screed I find your argument specious and probably off the mark.
I’m sure there is some segment of the gay population that wishes to destroy ‘the church’, whatever that is taken to mean. After all, it is a major aim of all leftists. But it seems that the broader portion of the gay population just wants to be accepted as ‘normal’, ‘regular’ or the ‘same’ as anybody else. There’s really only one group that doesn’t find gay acceptance, well, acceptable. And that is religious organizations and large parts of their membership base.
The concept of marriage is dominated by religious belief. Most people in society belong to a religious order or some sort. To gain full acceptance in society requires acceptance within the norms and conventions of the majority of the people in a society.
Where else or on what other standards can gays fight this battle?
JonPrichard on April 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
@leepriest yes my secret gay memo said you would say that.
my suggestion is that you hold your breath for 5 minutes (count slowly!) while contemplating your personal regard for for other humans who you don’t know.
attacking any one person for the actions of a group is a rather poor attempt at rationalization. only about 25% of gays really want traditional marriage, however all of us would like legal recognization for our relationships because of both the social and legal ramifications that it entails. It protects our property, it’s church groups that make the fight over religion by staking a claim that only religiously approved marriages should be legal. If you want to step in front of a train don’t be surprised when it hits you.
and as for gays protesting the mormon church (which I think you are referencing) they did donate the bulk of the money in the prop 8 vote and therefore enter the field of public politics. Just like the gays in politics that wish to remain in the closet, it’s not always their choice.
As for your society of values, I suggest you read your history more closely, the values you seem to aspire to are responsible for some of the worst race crimes in the hemisphere. Need I remind you that those founding values conscripted an entire group of people and their children into perpetual slavery.
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
The Republican Party is soooo lame! If outing gays is the most important thing on their agenda, they are indeed lost forever! I might suggest a return to conservative principles like small government and national defense would be a good place to start. Then think about staying the hell out of people’s personal lives. That is the proper role of the Federal Government! Idiots!
sabbott on April 24, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Agreed.
No, as reading some of the threads here will demonstrate.
Cam you cite any stating that they regret their decision? I haven’t read any.
Loxodonta on April 24, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Hypocrisy can take on many forms, for liberals it’s called “nuance”.
GarandFan on April 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM
a “real” conservative glossary:
“PRINSIPUHLLS!!!!”
spoken as a totem for a prejudiciously conceived conviction which the speaker wishes to remain un-interrogated in debate.
often spoken with the tenor of a mental patient calling attention to the bugs under his skin.
eh on April 24, 2009 at 3:09 PM
I think the issue here is one of Democrats outing only Republican gay people and the hypocrisy of so-called liberals not respecting privacy of others. Maybe you’re the idiot.
JonPrichard on April 24, 2009 at 3:12 PM
social cons didn’t actually sit out. they actually voted (for palin, they’ll say) in greater numbers for mccain than they did for bush in 2004.
there was no “sitting out”. they like to misremember their “resistance” for narrative purposes.
eh on April 24, 2009 at 3:12 PM
eh on
I bet you don’t understand what faith and honor are either. Some people do have deeply held convictions and principles that guide their daily lives. Just because they are not the same as yours does not give you the right to dismiss them.
I think this falls into the: “We fear what we don’t understand” category.
dpierson on April 24, 2009 at 3:12 PM
There are heterosexuals determined to destroy the church. Should we stop them from marrying?
SnarkVader on April 24, 2009 at 3:13 PM
FTFY
LibTired on April 24, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Logic on April 24, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Sheesh, what’s not to like about you. May you have many and better friends.
Cindy Munford on April 24, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Dittos.
Loxodonta on April 24, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Mega Dittos!!!
txag92 on April 24, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Let’s see. All homosexuals are for gay marriage, and anyone who looks like or sounds like he has ancestors who were once from Mexico is for unlimited immigration and amnesty, and any gay (closeted or not) or “Mexican” who betrays his “people” is a hypocrite, and worthy of at least derision, if not ruin, if not worse.
Is that about the narrative?
bbhack on April 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Frankly as a former liberal
I think this is a BS move by liberals. I remember hearing every single time the Democrats thumping their chests about how tolerant they were and how they didn’t care about a person’s sexual preference. From there they do this and spend a ridiculous amount of time ‘outing’ gay republicans. I agree if they’ve been a major gay basher then that’s an issue of hypocrisy. But to believe that all gays have to support all gay issues is the same sort of hypocrisy that blacks and asians and latinos deal with when they don’t support sex education or affirmative action or illegal immigration or whatnot. Because you don’t agree with your ‘groupthink’ you are a hypocrite and must have everything about you exposed.
This is no one’s bleeping business. I don’t care that Frank is gay or whom he’s sleeping with. I care about a prositution ring because that violates the law (which I don’t agree with frankly) and because his bf is attached to freddic mac. Those are times where the law seriously has an interest. Otherwise, who cares.
Liberals will look sleazy for this and these people will be harassed.
Oh and has anyone considered the possibility that these claims will be nothing but BS in the first place?
Defector01 on April 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM
the Monster continues to devour itself
entagor on April 24, 2009 at 3:26 PM
The Republican party should have anticipated this sleaze attack from the left and have a plan in place to combat it.
Or just employ the brilliant duck, dodge and bolt for the tall grass strategy. That seems to be the new-found favorite.
RMR on April 24, 2009 at 3:26 PM
I think you nailed it there, ad infinitum per
Loxodonta on April 24, 2009 at 3:26 PM
i get honor.
i know what “faith” means, but knowing it is to know i have no use for it. it means something like, what?
“belief in the existence of things for which no evidence exists and no proof can be ascertained.”
something like that? sounds stupid to me. i’m more of a “shit in one hand and pray into the other, and see which one fills up first” kinda guy.
christian “honor” seems to consist of arsoning the church for the insurance money and preaching one thing while puffing peckers in a motel afterward.
i have every right to dismiss, reject, mock or ignore any conceit presented to me.
that you don’t think people reserve the constitutional right to dismiss your “PRINSIPUUHHLLS!!!” (see definition above) is an excellent example of why christians are corrosive to conservatism and the gop.
eh on April 24, 2009 at 3:27 PM
That’s what I think, too.
Loxodonta on April 24, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I have a lot of problems with Charlie Crist. And his sexual orientation ain’t one of them.
Branch Rickey on April 24, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Thanks, All – Too many gay people simply can’t deal with it when one of their “own” doesn’t tow the party line. We’re all supposed to believe the same things and the gay universe can’t tolerate dissension, individuality or other opinions. They’re even all in favor of shredding the Constitution if it means getting what they want (or what they think they want).
Logic on April 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM
eh on
Why do you guys make everything a constitutional right? Show me were ignorance and stupidity are protected and I’ll agree.
You should try to distinguish between church as an institution and religion as a belief. To make it easy for you; it’s like a bar and drinking.
dpierson on April 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM
i don’t quite know where you’re coming from, but regardless, i should note that the appalling thing about that sort of imposture is that it’s how progressives have dealt with their legacy for as long as i’ve observed.
and i remember the conservatives of the clinton era retained the honor of their convictions enough to not revise them so vis a vis bush41 or reagan.
eh on April 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Yes… There has to be a reason why Crist was so hot and anxious to get married last summer to a woman that he knew for a few months. Can anyone say beard??? I don’t like Crist and think it seemed desperate when he got married last summer. (Alson, he didn’t get very far in the VP sweepstakes, so I think that the vetters probably uncovered some rumors/ personal issues that they were uncomfortable with).
On a more serious note, if they are going to go after gay Republicans and out them, then shouldn’t they out gay Democrats who aren’t gung-ho on gay marriage as well? There has been some rumors about a certain high level staffer in the Obama administration from Chicago. Apparently, said staffer spends lots of time “mentoring” young, hot gay men in their twenties and thirties and getting them introductions to the top firms in Chicago. Since said staffer has the same gay marriage position as Barry and has a “family,” then if this “activist” wants to be fair, shouldn’t he be outted for hypocrisy as well??
Illinidiva on April 24, 2009 at 3:41 PM
because, in matters of policy, the constitution is the supreme document and your bible is utterly irrelevant.
eh on April 24, 2009 at 3:43 PM
“Amen” to that! I once saw a clip Gay marchers in the NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade doing things that only made me think “What in the hell does that filth have to do with St. Patrick or being Irish?” Yeech!
Logic on April 24, 2009 at 3:45 PM
uh-uh. remember gerry studds: it’s “homophobia” when you do it.
out straight democrats with ordinary views on gay marriage. that’ll make the point.
eh on April 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM
eh on
Funny that you somehow assume that because I mention faith and honor you think that I am a bible-thumping evangelist. You can have faith in human kindness and show honor in dealing with people without ever having picked up the bible. I think you just hate religion so much that you are blinded to the possibility of having moral values at all.
dpierson on April 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Agreed. I only go to gay pride parades to make fun of everyone there. They’re only doing harm to the gay community’s image.
Vic on April 24, 2009 at 3:56 PM
if you are possessed of a secular faith in human kindness, then you are a rousseauvian jacobin. a libtard from first principles.
what moral values have you observed me rejecting?
eh on April 24, 2009 at 3:56 PM
You’re welcome. If I keep reading and posting, I’m sure we will disagree about something. Horrors!
Loxodonta on April 24, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I had a great time at the last Pride march, and was surprised how many straights were there. I am sure there can be problems and some people can be offended but I don’t see straights boycotting parades because Mardi Gra
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Not hardly. My vote doesn’t count in your Republican party. Case in point: John McCain won the primary. Only neo-cons and moderates that wish to please the statist’s every desire counts in your Republican party, this is why your Republican party loses voters like myself who choose to vote for a candidate that more closely represents his views, like Chuck Baldwin. You and your Republicrat party of center-left politicians will never again win an election until you start paying attention to conservatives.
Mark that last sentence for reference over the next 16 years.
Since when do I need to PC up my comments in order not to offend a set of people that have done everything they could possibly do to be as cruel and intolerant as possible to people with traditional values? Do you honestly think I care what a homosexual thinks of me? Did Perez practice such tact? Do anti prop-8 mobs that spit on little old ladies that support what was obviously the will of the collective people of California practice such tact? When homosexuals are standing in front of churches after Sunday services spitting on Christians and screaming obscenities with little children present, do they practice such tact?
But see, here’s where the double standard exists. If I went down to the local soddomite hangout on Mainstreet on a Saturday night with all my “bible/gun-clingy redneck right wing extremist” buddies with baseball bats, a few pieces of rope, and our pitchforks, or whatever you think it is that I carry around, and spit on or screamed obscenities at a few soddomites, what would you say?
On that note, homosexuals have been cramming their lifestyle down my throat since I was a kid. At 10 years old, I could no longer go to a parade downtown because I didn’t want to sit and watch the soddomites slobber all over each other and dry hump each other at a Christmas parade.
How many times did I see Santa feeling up some hot female elf? (to quote the most prominent HotAir queer) ZILTCH! ZIP! NADA!
Tolerance indeed.
So you consider sodomy being the only form of sex that a homosexual has as “normal”?
Likewise, there’s only one group that homosexuals don’t accept, and that’s religious organizations.
Good question. They shouldn’t. Why should 90% of the population bend to the will of 10%? The same is true of fiscal conservatism. Why should 5% of the population pay 70% of the taxes? The penalty for success is the same as the penalty for morality in this country.
Rights are given by the creator. Since marriage is dominated by religion that disapproves of gays, as you say, this “right” is dictated by the deity of that religion, the doctrine inspired by the deity has the ultimate say in who that right is afforded to. This being the case, the government can’t control what it has no authority over, this case being marriage. It can however make your legal partnership subject to the same tax laws, legal liabilities, etc etc.
Did your like-minded soddomites do the same to all the people they spat on that were exiting Sunday church services?
Didn’t think so.
Your like-minded soddomite friends didn’t have a problem doing that to Rick Warren.
Pastors that perform legal marriages would also be required perform homosexual marriages that they do not agree with under current anti-discrimination laws.
Show me proof of your claim, and I’ll show you mine.
So that gives soddomites the right to vandalize their private property and verbally assault their members?
Gee. How tolerant of you.
There’s always 2 elements to every transaction. A Seller, and a buyer. You’re only blaming the buyer. Why not blame the seller that sold THEIR OWN PEOPLE INTO SLAVERY as well?
No, you just want to blame white Christian males. Gee, how tolerant of you.
leetpriest on April 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Wow. Which particular ‘church’ did you learn that hate-filled screed at?
Being Agnostic, I shall now stand aside and allow my Christian brothers to have at you…
CaptFlood on April 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Excellent Logic! If elected Republicans had shown the same clarity the threat of being “outed” will now be meaningless.
RMR on April 24, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Funny how if someone disagrees with you it’s “hate”.
As for calling someone a soddomite, it’s the appropriate term to describe anyone that practices the act of soddomy, which, funny enough, is the only way a homosexual can practice intercourse.
leetpriest on April 24, 2009 at 4:18 PM
What difference does it make if a politician is gay or not? As long as they don’t break any laws like screwing in a public toilet or worse; pedophilia, then I don’t care if they are gay or not. I do care if they start forcing gay issues into the legal and tax code however.
But on the other hand, look at Barney Frank. If this is what we can expect from a gay politician then I say definitely ban them. Extreme? Sure it is, but this is the same tack they are taking against anyone that isn’t liberal / socialist so what’s good for the goose….
Spiritk9 on April 24, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Its cute that you people still don’t understand the hypocrisy of gay repubs and they agenda they promote.
Comparing them to Democrats only adds to the entertainment value.
benny shakar on April 24, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Fetal stem cells should take care of that.
JiangxiDad on April 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM
It’s easy. Screaming obscenities at Mormons = cool. Being denied acceptance (but not being discriminated against) because that would violate someone’s deeply held beliefs = hate
dpierson on April 24, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Then by your own logic, should I not then refer to you as a ‘fornicator?’ No, of course not, because there are other, less volatile terms I can use that would hopefully allow us to engage in dialog as opposed to verbal combat.
Hey, you’re angry, I get it. I get angry, too, sometimes REAL angry. I’ve lost friends over this last election, and live in a state where my beliefs keep me in a perpetual minority. But I read a post like yours and I’m thinking, “Who does this help?” Isn’t this just more grist for the Garofalo/Olby/Daily Kos mill? Are you really going to change any attitudes with this type of spleen-venting, or is it more the fact that it just feels so good to chuck a Molotov every now and again?
CaptFlood on April 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM
The only thing that makes a homosexual a homosexual is the act of sex (that’s why it’s in the name) so the comparison is not really a good one. Unless of course you can find other distinguishing marks that make them what they are and that I am not aware of.
dpierson on April 24, 2009 at 4:53 PM
It’s cure that you’ve demonstrated perfectly how liberals are totally incapable of seeing past your own noses.
Most liberals, and I say “most” because I obviously can’t know every single liberal in the world, are bigots and racists. Under the guise of being liberal and tolerant, they never cease to expose their underlying hatred of anything conservative and that exposes their true racism and bigotry.
Liberals have no problem spewing the most hateful filth at anyone they consider even a little right of center, and they have no problem using every racist, bigoted, stereotype to do it.
This has nothing to do with “exposing hypocrisy” of gay Republicans. It’s about insulting and hurting them. If it was simply about a member of Congress voting differently than his or personal values, every pro-abortion Catholic would be just as hypocritical.
Remember when that reporter was “outed” as being a gay porn star a few years ago? Jeff Gannon? Something like that? Remember how quickly the libs jumped all over it and accused Karl Rove of being his gay lover and had compromised the presidents security by giving him his White House press pass? Like gay people are such a security risk.
Cripes.
Jaynie59 on April 24, 2009 at 4:53 PM
@leetpriest given your irrational focus on anal intercourse (which is actually practiced by straights too) and your inability to see people as anything other than stereotypes I doubt words mean much if you don’t hear them from someone you trust. But your representing your side about as well as the gays that harassed straights over prop 8. If you think the one time vandalization of church property is horrible imagine the lifetime threat that gays live under and the fight for property rights and legal recognition may make more sense to you.
Like I said churches put them selves in the middle of this battle, and every piece of legislation presented has had clear language stating that churches need not comply. Your fears are such that you will take any situation and magnify your own worries.
your sneering attitude however tells your true opinion of gays and reminds me why I felt the urge to post on this forum in the first place.
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 4:58 PM
mccain was a social con: sponsored defense of marriage legislation, high and consistent pro-life rating, etc.
new vocabulary i see. like when the talibangelicals moved over from the progressive cause and adopted the language of conservatism the first time. now we’re supposed to take them for rothbardians because they pepper their language with words like “statist”.
you are not a conservative. you are a christian. and so-called “social cons” turned out and voted for mccain in greater numbers than they did for bush.
the definition of “faith” again is: “belief in the existence of things for which no evidence exists and no proof can be ascertained.”
this is especially true for things which are verifiably untrue.
eh on April 24, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I am going to be so upset if I am answering a troll. I want to make sure I understand your post. Are you under the impression that the GOP is making the movie to out gay Republicans? Your post is unclear.
Cindy Munford on April 24, 2009 at 5:01 PM
@dpierson your argument if silly and the reason i prefer the term ‘gay’, a homosexual is a homosexual not because of the sex they have but because of the fact that they can only form deep bonds with the same sex. Straight porn stars have gay sex all the time, and straights can and do have anal, oral, armpit sex if they want. that does not make them gay. Thats why gays laugh at the argument that getting married, or conversion therapy works, our bodies simply bond stronger with the same sex and we are attracted to them.
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 5:02 PM
actually dpierson as a gay i can loose my job or be fired if i tell the wrong person. I think that counts as discrimination. I worry that the wrong person could see me holding my bf’s hand, and that I’ll have to fight for my life. That’s discrimination too. I can be denied housing, kicked out of the military, killed. Yeah pretty sure that counts as discrimination…
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I’ve had many discussions with people who claim that being gay has nothing to do with sex but yours is, without a doubt, the dumbest.
Jaynie59 on April 24, 2009 at 5:06 PM
@Jaynie59 whatever…but tell me why can a man be married and than feel compelled to leave his wife when he falls in a deeper love with a man?
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Beats me. Probably for the same reason some men leave their wives for a younger woman.
They’re dickwads?
Jaynie59 on April 24, 2009 at 5:10 PM
For me to be a fornicator, I would have had to have sex outside of marriage – as it is defined (yes, I’m fully aware that your bunch has problems understanding definitions). This word does not apply to me. Call me what you may, however, next time, make sure you know that the word applies to someone.
It’s more or less chucking back the combative tone that’s been pushed in my face since I was a kid. Do you think I care what Gore-awful-o, Olberdouche, and the Daily Pus socialists think? When will you moronic moderates learn? You give them $100 they’ll take it, accuse you of being a racist, take a piss on you, then go on national television and call you a greedy asshole because you didn’t give them $1000. So why do I care what those statist morons rant about on their site? Why would I even visit to check.
Who does it help? Why would I care who it helps. No matter what I say, how I say it, regardless of what logic I spit at you with whatever authority, it’s not going to change your opinion, nor is it going to stop any homosexual from indulging in every single wicked desire that toots their horn. The sooner you learn that, the better. In essence, we’re all on here ranting about something. It’s just that your argument is fundamentally fallacious, and mine only has a few ad hominem attacks here and there.
Sorry to burst your bubble about life, son.
leetpriest on April 24, 2009 at 5:11 PM
@Jaynie59 ahh I didn’t realize you were a deep thinker my bad, carry on!
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 5:11 PM
No problem. Like most liberals (again, I don’t know all of you) you are incapable of thinking through your arguments to their logical conclusion.
Any man who would leave his wife because he thinks he found a better place to stick his dick is an asshole and the fact that he decides to stick in another man doesn’t make him any more noble than the average cheating scumbag.
Jaynie59 on April 24, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I think “privacy” is another of those concepts that liberals employ purely as a means to an end, i.e. their own rise to power, and discard whenever it impedes that end. You can also put “fairness”, “equality”, “color-blindness”, “constitutional right”, “partisanship”, “torture”, “fiscal responsibility”, and others on that list.
Socratease on April 24, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Yes, friend, anyone that practices sodomy is a soddomite. It just happens to be the only way that you can have intercourse as a homosexual.
Which stereotype are you referring to? Is is one that most of you live up to?
I represent no side. I only represent myself. You will treat any further conversation as such.
Exactly my point. You can’t stand that someone doesn’t accept your lifestyle like the rest of the world does. Gee, how tolerant of you.
You forget, Obama was against gay marriage too. McCain also left his wife that waited for him after he came back from being a 5-year POW for some good looking hussie that had money. Nothing socially conservative about that, guy. McCain also supported amnesty. So in truth, he was a social centrist at best.
This is actually Mark Levin’s vocabulary that I used. I no longer refer to lefties as “liberals”, they’re statists. Read his new book, enlighten yourself a little.
States rights – Check
Pro Gun – Check
Pro life – Check (this goes hand in hand with individual liberties)
Fair Tax proponent – Check
Strict constitutionalist – Check
Limited Government – Check
Supportive of Fiscal conservatism – Check
Sounds a lot like a conservative to me, bub. Reread my writings, I don’t give a damn what you people do out in whatever state you reside in, as long as it’s the will of the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE (pay attention, now). You see, if you conjure up this federal marriage “right” that you think you’re “entitled” to, you’re affecting my state, which the majority of people do not agree with. Therefore, you’re now opposing the will of the people, and I have a problem with that.
Truth be known, I’d love for your business to be your business, and for you to mind it. And I’d love for my business to be my business, and I mind it. And we’d never have to worry about you getting into my business, or me getting into your business. But when you wave your dirty laundry in my face, please believe I’m going to point out your skid mark to the whole world. Make sense?
Oh, like the term “sexual orientation” as applicable to a homosexual? Or evolution? All too true. I agree. For you to believe that you somehow evolved from nothing into a thinking (sometimes) and reasoning (hardly) human being takes a far greater amount of faith than simply accepting intelligent design in some way.
leetpriest on April 24, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Funny, I was in the military for 5 years, never saw a single gay killed for being gay (except maybe by a bunch of muslims that don’t believe in a homosexual’s right to exist), nor have I seen them kicked out, even after trying. Even after making out with their soddomite partner on camera and showing the commander.
Sorry guy, you can’t pull that crap out and expect someone to buy it that knows better.
leetpriest on April 24, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Why are liberals so obssessed with sex? What a bunch of peeking Pervs.
BrideOfRove on April 24, 2009 at 5:34 PM
The only thing that makes a
homosexualheterosexual ahomosexualheterosexual is the act of sex (that’s why it’s in the name).But again, I’d probably opt for ‘Tom,’ or ‘Sally,’ or ‘dpierson,’ as opposed to ‘fornicator…’
CaptFlood on April 24, 2009 at 5:35 PM
@LEETPRIEST
why would I offer you something you don’t offer to me? you sound very abusive like your trying to command me. take a hike troll
Zekecorlain on April 24, 2009 at 5:35 PM
There are 2 likely scenarios -
-The politician is married and has homosexual affairs. I’m not saying it should be fair game to expose extramarital affairs, but it’s a common practice and it’s well-accepted regardless of political ideology.
-The politician is an unmarried, sexually active homosexual. That’s dicier. The media plays the who’s-dating-who game all the time, but now it’s an outrage because the target is a politician instead of a celebrity?
In any case, conservatives believe sexuality is a legitimate political issue; specifically that homosexuality is immoral. I’d think that conservatives would be happy to find out about the moral failings of their candidates, especially considering the emphasis conservatives place on “character” and “values.”
RightOFLeft on April 24, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Speaking of Christ has anyone seen this: HB 11 – Cigarette User Fees: Replaces all references to cigarette tax in ch. 210 with cigarette user fee; increases amount of cigarette user fee;
I have been pondering all day how a one use commercial good can be hit with a user fee. Dude. It’s a tax. Call it what it is.
I had no idea Christ was gay btw. Didn’t he just get married?
BrideOfRove on April 24, 2009 at 5:53 PM
yeesh.
i see the connection. it’s not a logical one, but it definitely exists as an intersection of interests.
good for you. he’s a step up from hannity. levin is also appropriating language as a means of repositioning his schtick.
top of the page.
lol!
eh on April 24, 2009 at 6:06 PM
FIFY.
The truth is that intercourse is defined as:
Coitus is defined as:
So the real truth is that sexual intercourse is limited to normal people. Normal people get married in the only way possible – to a member of the opposite gender.
Sodomites CANNOT get married because they cannot have intercourse; i.e., they are incapable of consummating their union. Call it what you wish but it will NEVER be marriage.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. If anybody gets incurable TB, you can thank the sodomites and their excessive use of antibiotics to combat all the diseases they transmit by performing their defining behavior.
platypus on April 24, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »