Gore sexual assualt Follow

Elinda,

I assure you...



Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and most religions for that matter agree that homosexuality is a crime against nature. I'm sorry if this upsets you.

Bard,

Then you should be happy they agree on something right?

If you've seen the picture, you wouldn't need to assume. It's pretty much guaranteed.

And for the n-th plus 1 time, that argument only works if you assume that all gay people must adopt the same political positions, assume that said positions must be what you want, and therefore conclude that since the GOPs positions don't match those that any gay person who is a member of the GOP is being hypocritical.

I've explained this several times. Why aren't you getting it? I wasn't presenting a strawman, but an absurdity of your own position. I know darn well that we don't require disclosure of sexual orientation as a prerequisite for a career in politics and more so that we shouldn't. What I was trying to get you to grasp is that many on the left only hold that to be so long as the person isn't entering a political career as a conservative.

Please tell me that you can see that the combination of positions you're expressing results in a double standard. It's not about *everyone* having to disclose their sexuality, but only conservatives. If they don't, they've somehow done something wrong. Can't you see that there's a problem with that?

Wow, that was actually a really well thought out post, gbaji. The more I think about it, the more I can see the cracks start to spread through my ideology. I think I need to take some time to really examine my core beliefs.

This... this has really shaken me.

Of course I do. Are you going to bother to read it?



It was a complete statement before you edited out the first half of the sentence. Is this a trick question?




That is a cogent sentence. I suspect you're either being deliberately obtuse, or your reading comprehension is somewhere around 3rd grade level. You apparently never learned this thing called "antecedent". Look it up.



No. I disagree with this completely. How on earth are you getting this? I'm saying that you (more correctly, a bunch of liberals) falsely believe this to be true, and thus arrive at the false conclusion of hypocrisy.




See? False conclusion. Apparently, my approach of trying to take your own assumptions and show how absurd they are isn't working. Let me be more direct:

The believe that GOP positions don't match those any gay person would want is false. It's wrong. Those who believe it are wrong. Those who derive further conclusions (like that gay Republicans are hypocrites so it's ok to out them) are wrong. If you believe these things, or support them, then [b]YOU ARE WRONG[b].

Get it yet? This is what I was trying to gently get you to grasp by repeatedly talking about how we can't make an assumption that all gay people must conform to our opinion about what gay people should believe politically. Who the hell are you to tell someone that since he's gay, he must support X position, and oppose Y position, and cannot join Z party, etc...?

Gay people are individuals too. They have rights. They have their own opinions. Thus, they have the right to hold opinions even on gay issues which other gay people disagree with. Get it yet? Or do I have to repeat them 50 more times? It's like your head is made out of wood or something...

Oh, I'm not confused at all. I said that, according to the site you linked, he targets "politicians", not "conservatives". You seem to think the second half of that quote somehow invalidates what I said but it really doesn't. Exhibit A: You dodging answering my hypothetical because you know the answer doesn't help your case. Demanding that I present a list of outed Democrats doesn't help your case either since, for all we know, he has yet to come across a closeted Democratic lawmaker who is voting against his trigger issues. After all, it's a lot easier to vote for gay causes when your party isn't filled with rabid homophobes even if you're not openly gay. But the bottom line almost certainly boils down to Rogers being more concerned about seeing legislation passed which helps homosexuals than worrying directly about whether they wear a red tie or a blue one.

Now, if you had evidence that he does know about a closeted Democratic lawmaker who votes against gay issues but refuses to release the information, that would actually support your case. But you don't have anything like that so you're forced to rely entirely on spewing out your conjectures and just assuming that if you type enough, people will believe it's the truth.

It's simple, bsphil. It's all so simple. Here. Let me explain.

You see, the gay republican doesn't see the things he is contesting as rights. We all agree that calling homosexuality evil and ******* men is an act of hypocrisy or sustained weakness of conviction. But! Let's think about other things too, OK? OK. Marriage. Is marriage a right? Not in their opinion, so to them it is not an issue of gay rights.

Also. Voting against your own self interest doesn't make you hypocritical. What kind of mad troll logic is that? You were born ugly, my son; must you compound your misfortune by being stupid as well? If they were in a gay marriage then yes, you'd have a point. Seeing as they aren't, you're just being stupid. Really, really stupid.

But don't take my word for it. Do your own research...

Two problems:

1. No, it wouldn't. I already addressed this. I'm white, but I don't support "white rights" as defined by folks like the KKK. Does that make me a hypocrite?

2. Who defines what "gay rights" are? I've pointed this out several times already as well.

You cannot assume that everyone who is a member of some group must all adopt the same political or ideological positions. For your argument to work, you have to make that assumption about gay people. I don't agree with that. I don't agree that all black people should hold a common set of positions, nor that all women should. Why should all gay people?

Don't you see that when you do this, you're treating people as stereotypes? You're assuming (more like demanding!) that they must conform to a set of assumed positions based solely on who they are. And if they don't, you label them hypocrites and allow attacks against them which you would otherwise not allow.

Got it in one. Sadly, I suspect you don't actually "get it".



None of this is relevant.



They don't believe that receiving state benefits is *ever* a right, whether it's about marriage, education, foodstamps, or medical care. None of them are "rights". They are benefits. That's kinda one of the core ideological differences between liberals and conservatives. Why would you insist that a gay conservative should somehow abandon his normal conservative position on government benefits only as it applies to gay marriage?

Wouldn't *that* be hypocritical?



No, it doesn't. It makes you altruistic. It means you are evolved enough to realize that quite often what is best for the society as a whole isn't what would directly benefit you the most. Did you actually write this thinking you were mocking the conservative position here? Would we be better off if everyone were selfish? What point do you think you're making here?

Absolutely. If the gay person in question were a liberal, but for some reason opposed the liberal agenda on homosexuality while secretly being a homosexual and a member of the GOP, he would be a hypocrite (I suppose).

That's not even remotely what's going on here though, is it? You can't judge someone else's political positions as though they hold the same ideological assumptions which you do and then judge them to be hypocritical because they don't arrive at the same conclusions you do. A conservative does not believe that the things being discussed are "rights" at all. Thus, when he opposes them, he's not opposing "gay rights". It is beyond unfair to label him a hypocrite by insisting that he's somehow in violation of his own beliefs. He's not. He's in violation of some liberal person's beliefs, which isn't the same thing at all.


As I pointed out above, what would be hypocritical would be a gay conservative holding a different position on government benefits only when it came to those which applied to gay people. Hypocrisy isn't about whether the position you take benefits or harms you, but whether or not it is consistent with past positions or statements. It's not hypocritical for a gay conservative to oppose legislation changing marriage laws to extend benefits to gay couples. It *is* hypocritical for someone who normally would oppose outing a homosexual to allow and even encourage it when that homosexual is a member of a political party he doesn't like.

What we're really talking about here is whether one stands on their convictions, or whether they cast them aside when it's beneficial for them personally to do so. Which "side" is doing which?

You're right and I apologize. It's just that in this case, your "joke" appeared to be parodying my position and/or response, and mixing statements and positions I've made and hold with ones I absolutely do not agree with. It annoys me because whenever someone does that, I end out having to clarify my position for the next page or two of the thread because people assume that I *do* hold the joke positions you wrote.




Except that wasn't an example of hypocrisy. It was an example of a stereotypical anti-gay bigot position, and not at all even remotely relevant to why a gay person might choose to be a conservative and even run for office as a Republican.