LockeColeMA wrote:
Ok, so of the three, I have talked about 2 of them; one being soliciting anonymous sex in a bathroom, another being sending sexually explicit messages to a former employee about 1/3 of the federal employee's age (52 at the time? I could be wrong. I BELIEVE he was over 50, and the younger man 18. Pardon me if I round up).
Ok. So one out of the three so far could be called "sexually depraved".
Quote:
I did not speak about the last one because I'm not sure who you're talking about. Was it Roy Ashburn? Who was pulled over in a state owned vehicle, under the influence, with a record of voting against every gay rights measure in the state senate and being the divorced father of 4, but with a young man from a gay club as his passenger?
Yes. Didn't double check the name, but it's one of the two links BD included in his post and which he labeled "sexually depraved politicians". It's right up there if you care to read. That's specifically why I asked the question. Brownduck included both the link and the label. I'm asking why he included that one.
Do you consider what he did sexually depraved? I'm going to assume not, right? That's all I was saying...
Quote:
Quote:
And that was orchestrated by a liberal organization which specifically targets gay closeted republicans.
For my own interest, what liberal organization "orchestrated" this entire event?
There's a guy named
Mike Rogers who runs a site called blogactive.com. It's pretty much his mission to out gay conservatives who oppose his view of what gay rights should entail. While I suppose we could speculate that he's doing this all on his own and doesn't receive any funding or donations from anyone else, I doubt seriously that is the case.
He's the source of what you all keep calling "hypocrisy". He's the one who decided that it was hypocritical to be gay and oppose gay marriage, for example, as though gay people aren't allowed to have different viewpoints. And his response? Instead of arguing the issues, he goes after the people. He looks for people who might be gay and then spreads rumors about them. Sometimes, it leads to someone being outed, but most of the time it's just him spreading rumors.
Of course, one would wonder why, if he doesn't think there's anything wrong with being gay, he'd feel that spreading rumors about someone being gay would constitute a way of attacking the person, but you'd have to ask him. What's strange is how many people have adopted the same warped acceptance of that methodology and now just parrot the assumption that it's ok to out someone who's in the closet if that person is a conservative who opposes gay marriage or even if that person just works for someone who does, or is in some way associated with a political party which has people who do. Guilt by association, I suppose.
Quote:
Quote:
No. I'm just pointing out a pattern of attacks against republicans for being gay.
Understandable. Honestly, being gay and a Republican are often seen as the antithesis of each other. I don't think it should be that way, but hey - I'm a social liberal.
And it doesn't help out the liberal political cause if that assumption is allowed to grow in the minds of the public? I could talk about another pattern here if you want. I'll give you a hint: It has to do with women and politics. Women conservatives are also attacked viciously for being opponents of the "cause". Is that fair? Who gets to decide what all women, or all gays, or all black people must believe? Apparently, the liberals are. I don't agree, but that's the assumption you're accepting when you accept that sort of thing.
Quote:
Nope, not at all. The Republican party is known for their social agenda more than their fiscal one.
Gee. I wonder why that is? Is what they are "known for" really representative of what they "stand for"? Or is there some layer in between them and you which might possibly be skewing your perception?
Quote:
And that social agenda is vehemently anti-homosexual.
No, it's not. It's portrayed that way though. Thanks for playing.
Quote:
So when a homosexual pops up they are destroyed from all sides - by the left for being a "sell-out" or "anti-gay" or "a hypocrite" and by the right for "being gay" or "a hypocrite." Common denominator? More often than not, these folken have voted with party lines AGAINST what they actually do.
Really? Could you please list off the number of gay conservative politicians who've opposed gay marriage who have themselves obtained marriage benefits for themselves and their gay partners? Or is that number zero?
Being opposed to benefits for a group does not mean that you hate or oppose that group. That's the first mistake most people make when dealing with identity politics. It's not about the group, it's about the law in question.
Quote:
Against, common denominator is hypocrisy.
Yes. Because you assume that any conservative who is gay and opposed to the "gay rights movement" is hypocritical. Does that mean that since I'm white and I don't support the white pride guys, that I'm a hypocrite? Or am I taking a position on an issue of conscience?
Are you arguing that a gay person can't disagree with the majority of gay people on the issue of gay marriage? Isn't this supposed to be a free country? Yet you're accepting an attack on someone's personal life because they hold a view that is unpopular, something you would *never* accept if the situations were different.
The hypocrisy isn't quite where you think it is...
Edited, Jun 25th 2010 3:43pm by gbaji 
