oh the tolerant liberal left

Sitting here and waiting for LGF to crank up is about to cause an anxiety attack. LOL

bastards

all of your gays are belonging to us
~ L3

That's absolutely disgusting, but not a bit surprising. Especially after the kossacks gleefully swarmed on Jeff Guckert and used his sexuality against him when it suited them.

These gay terrorists are hamasexuals.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. Disgusting.

#6 Gagdad Bob
I am not worthy to touch even the hem of your garment

AP says Zarqawi surrounded (according to Drudge). Hoping they get that SOB...

OMG! NO WAY!

I love GayPatriot!

The Polipundit crowd loves GayPatriot!

And they have an evil troll that has done all kinds of shit like sendiing threatening pop ups to commenters to kill that blog.

Polipundit is the one of the classiest sites that believes in free speech for the commenters-and how have they been rewarded the evil troll spams their site and sends threats to commenters at that blog one commenter at a time.

If there are LGFers that know how to keep their firewalls up and disable their Microsoft Update...Polipundit deserves more traffic.

Seems to me GayPatriot should not have removed the post without a legal injunction. It's true that the Left most vehemently hates those who they think should be on their side -- i.e., conservative blacks, gays, etc.

At the same time, if you buckle under pressure, you're at fault as well.

#6 gagdad bob "we're not worthy, we're not worthy!" your punniness knows no bounds.

and RE: the topic... i just LOVE those tolerant lefties!

typical leftist horseshit. if you're black or gay and not a democrat, the dems will call you the most offensive things and try to destroy you. such tolerance.

This is business as usual among the Left nowadays. Consider, for example, the case of Ward Connelly. So too, think about how the Left treats Joseph Lieberman.

First they stereotype you by racial or religious inclination or sexual orientation. So all Blacks must be Democrats; all Jews must be liberals; so too all Gays.

Politically, this rigid classification system is the very basis of the organization principal known as "Corporatism". You may know it by it's more common name- Fascism.

I am mirroring what there is here, of GP's silenced post, on my blog. If anyone has a copy of the original post, please email me, and I'll post it.

I guess that's another example of the tolerant left-wing today

I'm no Matlock, but isn't the kind of behavior this "activist" engages in against the law?

Seems like it would qualify as harassment at the very least.

According to one source who monitored BlogActive, Rogers was working on a story that was supposed to out a female in the Bush administration as a lesbian. There was speculation that it was Condi Rice and that it was to happen in February, but nothing had come of it as of this month.

The guy is a bottom feeder, but he probably gets his info from Democrats who use him as a front to out gay Republicans.

matlock
tee hee
QUINCY!

But silencing of dissent is only when conservatives won't listen to our wonderful Marxist arguments about why you are all evil Nazis! You don't have free speech because of how intolerant you are!/LLL

How dare you have a different opinion than us!

/LLL

Their level of Tolerance is totally underwhelming. This, my friends is becoming transparent. This is also why they are losing. They have lost the house, senate, et al.

I sometimes think that the Oakland Chapter of Hells Angels would be more open and inclusive.

#13

Funny thing... same thing happening in the deaf community. There's actually a website called Deaf Republicans

A deaf organziation claimed to speak on behalf of the deaf community in their endorsement of John Kerry. Man, oh man, the brouhaha!

JG

#22 saylorfam
Oh but they are!

The first part of this Stephen Crane poem fits the oh so tolerant left to a T.

"Think as I think," said a man,

"Or you are abominably wicked;

You are a toad."

And after I had thought of it,

I said, "I will, then, be a toad."

Good Morning Babba,
Nice to see your posts.

#11 Globular Cluster

Seems to me GayPatriot should not have removed the post without a legal injunction. It's true that the Left most vehemently hates those who they think should be on their side -- i.e., conservative blacks, gays, etc. At the same time, if you buckle under pressure, you're at fault as well.

All well and good from a theoretical standpoint..but if you read the article these asshats were calling GP's place of employment, and threatening a boycott of his employer.

Principles are great..but they don't pay the rent and they don't put food on the table.

Mornin ;-)

Good thing Charles is a "failed musician" otherwise he'd have gotten this treatment long ago...

Only one flavor of Gay is tolerable as far as these so called activists are concerned.

#18 Section 9

According to one source who monitored BlogActive, Rogers was working on a story that was supposed to out a female in the Bush administration as a lesbian. There was speculation that it was Condi Rice and that it was to happen in February, but nothing had come of it as of this month.

But...I don't get it. I have a profound lack of caring as to anybody's sexual preferences. Why this obsession, because obsession seems to be what it is.

Yeah, hypocrisy of the left, etc etc.

Has anyone stopped to wonder why such people would be so devastated by being "outed"? Why they would feel the need to actively hide the fact that they're gay?

I am not proposing, for example, that every gay person don a tutu and parade out into the open. I am, however, pointing out that the Republicans are in many ways reaping what they sowed. Honest people, people who believe in individualism and personal (ie property) rights, often gravitate towards the republican party, despite all its flaws. But the party (and its backers) have become hypocrits themselves; while expounding freedom to own property, to have a private job, and to control your own retirement, they deny such related rights as the right to, say, have sex with whomever one pleases, for whatever reasons, ie the right to govern interactions with your body.

The problem here is that the republicans have created such a culture that being "outed" when one is conservative is a major blow to your career and your stance in the party. What, then, does that say about republicans? That it does not matter if you stand for property rights, individualism and personality responsibility, if you prefer someone of your own gender in the bedroom?

The only possible parrallel I can imagine is Israeli politicians "outing" someone for eating pork. Is that the kind of party the republican party is? As intolerant and hypocritical as the left is, I do not see the republicans being much better.

Umm, don't take that the wrong way. I meant that if Charles had a corporate job, his employer would have been harassed over LGF.

#31 SwampWoman
I see the obsession as a twisted need for self validation ~ an extension of the daddy love me - mommy come home complex...
when people are insecure in themselves and confused about who they are they seek to validate by associating their identies with established, famous or admirable personalities/ identities -
if XXX is (Gay, jewish, whatever) that validates my position and makes me important and viable.

OT

Drudge is reporting the Zarqawi is surrounded.

Here's hoping, but it seems mighty preliminary.

MiB,

I dont hear repubs calling WASPs who dont join the party "crackers", do you? jackass.

Whre is Randy Andy Sullivan?

maybe they aren't hiding it
they just dont feel the need to parade their private sexual lives down the street begging for validation and or acceptance

#31 - Swampwoman, I think people like Rogers have a fairly delusional world-view that Bush supporters are, ipso-facto, rabid gay-bashers who loathe homosexuals the way hippies hate soap.

So, in his insane calculus, the way to split the religious right away from the Republicans and Bush is to out gay people working for 'the enemy,' because this will so turn off the religious right that they will abandon the party.

Also, they take a vindictive personal delight in destroying the personal and professional lives of people they don't agree with.

Turkey's government on Monday played down soaring sales of Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitic book "Mein Kampf" ("My Struggle") and said there were no racists in the large Muslim country. Booksellers say "Mein Kampf", or Kavgam in Turkish, has featured among the top 10 bestsellers in the past two months, to the dismay of the country's small Jewish community and of the German embassy in Ankara.

Heaven forfend there are anti-Semites in Turkey.

One of my good friends is gay and he is also a (gasp) Republican. He is shunned by many in the "tolerant" gay community because of this. Such hypocrites.

Can't say much about gay patriot.

I can say, however, that the 7W woman looks like she is REALLY enjoying her jewelry today.

40 zulubaby

I alawasy was pro Turk because the Greeks were always such virulent antiSemites. however I am not so sure any nore regarding Turkey.

Unfortunately there are people for whom being Gay is a very big deal. Let's not kid ourselves. Corporations want no part of any controversy. You can bet they called GayPatriot in and showed him some obscure policy that shut him down.

All well and good from a theoretical standpoint..but if you read the article these asshats were calling GP's place of employment, and threatening a boycott of his employer.

If I were GP's boss I would have told Rogers, in no uncertain terms, to "F*ck off." Rogers is the despicable party here, not GP.

I'm a big believer in standing by one's people (By "people" I mean employees, not same sex oriented people).

Morning all, hope you all had a nice Easter,

I'll just post that I'm more concerned about the sexual preferences of these deviants that prey on children than someone that is just a gay person trying to make a living as the rest of us.

Typical Rat Bastard Lefto's

As intolerant and hypocritical as the left is, I do not see the republicans being much better.

There are no people less tolerant than liberals.

Let the record reflect that neither American Infidel nor I started the 7W talk this morning!

41 loppyd

HI:

I too have known many Gay conservatives (and not Andrew Sullican types either).

Heaven forfend there are anti-Semites in Turkey.

They were all sold out of Leon Uris' Exodus.

They gotta read something . . .

I think that Michael Rogers better get ready for jail, I think he has just commited hate crimes against gaypatriot. Harassment at work, should be enough to put this guy away.

#32 MiB

Has anyone stopped to wonder why such people would be so devastated by being "outed"? Why they would feel the need to actively hide the fact that they're gay?

I know a young man that is "hiding" his orientation from his family because it upsets them so much (democrats, by the way). The people in his workplace know.

Personally, I think that people have a right to privacy if they so desire.

Really, if it were revealed that my sexual orientation was really toward women, my workplace couldn't care less. My husband, on the other hand, would be considerably surprised and also say that that probably explained my hair cut.

Joel, it's not that anti-Semitism went away, it's that it was unacceptable to be an openly frothing Jew-hater. Not so anymore.

From Drudge:

Zarqawi Surrounded

Iraqi Interior Minister Falah al-Nakib announced today that AbuMusab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (Iraq), hasbeen surrounded.

The Sofia News Agency reports the Interior Minister as saying, "Heis surrounded in a certain area, and we hope for the best'... Developing...

Allah, prepare the raisins!

Sheet o' Glass

I dont hear repubs calling WASPs who dont join the party "crackers", do you? jackass.

Yeah, of course, you're not as bad as them, so therefore it makes anything you do morally permissable?

I did not say (notice) that republicans are worse or the same as democrats. That is besides the point. The point is that republicans, on this issue and many others, are hypocritical, intolerant, and grasping at pointless straws. As #31 says, why does it matter what your orientation is? Well, apparently, it has been made to be so. By both parties, true, but Republicans cannot claim they do not have a hand in creating the fact that these scenarios would even matter.

In a world where republicans were not hypocrits, the outing of a republican senator would be met with yawns and "Okay...moving on to something that actually matters..." Instead, it is met with shame and resignation. The Republican party and its constituents are largely responsible for that.

Maine's Michael, LOL!

You must have missed this part ...

The current number one bestseller in Turkey, ahead of "Mein Kampf", is "Metal Storm", which depicts a U.S. invasion of the country. The Turkish hero avenges his homeland by destroying Washington with a nuclear device.

#50 Joel

Hi.

He's just a regular guy with conservative values...and he was horrified by the spectacle during the gay marriage on parade days last spring. He thinks it only made the situation worse.

#45 Dirk Diggler

If I were GP's boss I would have told Rogers, in no uncertain terms, to "F*ck off." Rogers is the despicable party here, not GP.

Totally agree with you Dirk...but not alot of bosses are willing to go that step, unfortunately.

MiB

"Yeah, of course, you're not as bad as them, so therefore it makes anything you do morally permissable?"

Ohhh! I see, now liberals have a corner on morals? Where have I been? When did this happen? Don't you have a starvation to be defending? tool!

#54 Swampwoman

I know a young man that is "hiding" his orientation from his family because it upsets them so much (democrats, by the way). The people in his workplace know.

Personally, I think that people have a right to privacy if they so desire.

Really, if it were revealed that my sexual orientation was really toward women, my workplace couldn't care less. My husband, on the other hand, would be considerably surprised and also say that that probably explained my hair cut.

Of course you have a right to privacy, if you so desire. What I am saying, however, is that it should be a moot point if brought into public. Both parties have worked very hard to make sure it isn't.

Fingers crossed on the Zarqawi story. While I realize the potential value of his being captured alive, I can't help but hope that he winds up beating Uday and Qusay in the "who has the greatest number of new 5.56mm orifices" competition.

#35 Proudgut-

Bad news can make you sick.. I am wondering if the human brain is wired to handle all of the world's woes...

Any good doctor will tell you that the line between the physical and psychological is blurry.

So I am thinking that we could use some good news and if Zarqawi would be captured that would be a good anti-dote.

55 zulubaby

The current European media could give lessons to the Nazis in anti Semitism.

59 loppyd

There is no reason why Gays (provided that they are not militant Larry Kramer types)- need to be on the political Left.

#63 Occasional Reader-

LOL!

Has anyone stopped to wonder why such people would be so devastated by being "outed"? Why they would feel the need to actively hide the fact that they're gay?

That doesn't even matter. The issue is that whether or not a person decides to be 'out' is a choice that should belong to that person and that person alone. And people who violate that are completely despicable.

Joel asked, "Whre is Randy Andy Sullivan?"

Sullivan doesn't post very frequently any longer. However, Sullivan has always been against "outing" and has spoken out against many, many times.

MiB

How would you react if repubs were outing dems who were closet CHRISTIANS?

#61 Sheet o' Glass

Ohhh! I see, now liberals have a corner on morals? Where have I been? When did this happen? Don't you have a starvation to be defending? tool!

First off, not a liberal.

Second off, you have not addressed the point. The liberals are incorrect, stupid, hypocritical and intolerant. That does not excuse similar, but less intensive, behavior on behalf of the republican party and their backers.

When are these people going to stop letting their own insecurities and doubts rule them? If they are truly comfortable in their gay skins (which seem to be awfully thin) then they wouldn't feel the need to attack people in their sexual identity group. Either that, or they are leftist first and gays second, and are using and abusing their "otherness", to forward their own radical agendas.

It just goes to show how low the left has sunk when they gleefully and without reservation, employ the very tactics that they falsly accuse the right of, such as; veiled physical threats, economic blackmail, and general disenfranchisement. Like the Klan before them, their tactics are no less than bigotry, disguised as a leveling agent, against their emotionally based views of what they consider threatening and unacceptable social behavior.

In a world where republicans were not hypocrits, the outing of a republican senator would be met with yawns and "Okay...moving on to something that actually matters..." Instead, it is met with shame and resignation. The Republican party and its constituents are largely responsible for that.

Sounds kinda like a blanket statement to me. OTOH, who is intent on doing the outing and causing the perceived embarrassment? I haven't gone on any gay hunts. I do not care.

MiB

Dont even put repubs in the same boat as the loony left. The left is exponentially more hypocritical.

Turkey under the curretn Islamic gov't is going in all the wrong directions.

If you think this is bad, wait till they start blaming the EU's refusal to take them in on the Jews.

#57 MiB

In a world where republicans were not hypocrits, the outing of a republican senator would be met with yawns and "Okay...moving on to something that actually matters..." Instead, it is met with shame and resignation. The Republican party and its constituents are largely responsible for that.

*YAWN*..well..that did happen in the case of Congressman Ed Schrock, who was outed by Rogers. In fact, Mr. Schrock's constituents from his conservative district in Virginia, urged him to stay on and run again.

Yep...we're just a bunch of intolerant hypocrites!

This action should not be tolerated.

This is no different than being 'accused' of being a Jew by these haters.

The real bad haters accuse everyone that disagrees with their world view of being Jewish.

I guess the world view of radical gay leftists is similar in most regards.

We should rally to support the GayPatriot.

#56

With "area" being the operative word. Very vague.

His further comments were more optimistic in my opinion - he said the insurgency would probably be over by year's end.

It would be morally satisfying to contact GP's employer and threaten a boycott if GP doesn't come back "on the air."

Doubt it will happen, though.

I definately agree with Swamp Woman - who the hell CARES about the sexual preferences of our politicians as long as they are of legal age?

Then again, you can't be blackmailed about something you don't care gets out. If someone were to come to me and say, "Pssst! Hey, bratty girl - if you don't immediately go form a nonviolent protest at your base gate against Chimpy we're going to release that you're a heterosexual female who doesn't cheat on her husband!" I would have to laugh them off the phone. In fact, here, let me put the sign up in the yard myself...

There's nothing to be ashamed about in being gay - so acting as if there is really doesn't help matters any.

As to whether my job is threatened by something... My father is a small town city manager in a bible thumping area. He didn't hide his support of my cousbian, no one made an issue of it when we threw her committment ceremony reception.

Sheet o' Glass

How would you react if repubs were outing dems who were closet CHRISTIANS?

If they did not want to be outed? They are dispicable. The same as they are dispicable for outing a gay man who did not wish to be outed, be he blogger or senator. If he wishes it to be private, then it should be private.

However, that does not change the fact that a senator was not 'forced' to resign because of some valid reason, he was 'forced' to resign because the party stance places importance on sexual orientation and the party backers dislike said orientation very much. If you switch out "republican" for "democrat" and "christian" for "gay," you have (in many reguards) the same situation, only worse.

Again, I am not (repeat: NOT) defending the dispicable acts of an individual putting out private information, nor am I saying democrats are better (quite the opposite.) I am saying, with all this in mind, that republicans have a problem that needs to be addressed and if that problem (ie the obsession with homosexuality) did not exist, such blows as the resignations of congressmen and the harassment of bloggers would be a non-issue.

The left's treatment of Gay conservatives is no less awful than their treatment of black ones. Look at the attacks on Condi Rice-absolute trash.

68 MJ

The problem with Andrew Sullivan is that if a Republican outed a Gay Liberal, he would be all over it talking about bogotry,
etc.

What's the difference between this and blackmail?

In any case, they may be getting an 'official' visit soon. I hope so, in any case. I can't stand bullies so I've set some of the biggest on those two. Let's see them try to 'out' me!

The real issue, to me, is the LLL using anything and everything to silence views that they don't want heard. Hijacking GP's sexual orientation is just the means to the end. Both the means and the end, in this case, are disgusting. But, modern liberal (read: totalitarian) philisophy is disgusting, so it comes as not surprise.

Terrible news about GayPatriot.

I thought he had a great blog. I hope he can be persuaded to return.

The disingenuous tactics used to silence him just make me angry.

Peacekeeper

Good Morning!

Hope you had a good Easter :)

This stuff is so infuriating. I have plenty of gay friends both lib and conservative. That they are being outed as a means of silencing them on other topics makes me sick. The calls to the place of employment must be harrassment on some level. What are the most effective means of fighting back?

#79 MilitaryBrat

who the hell CARES about the sexual preferences of our politicians as long as they are of legal age?

I will add a caveat, if you do not mind, MilitaryBrat: And as long as their partners are of legal age...

Okay, that's all I have to say about it.

#75 Bucky Katt

In fact, Mr. Schrock's constituents from his conservative district in Virginia, urged him to stay on and run again.

Now you just stop that. You're stepping all over his stereotype!

(#55) zulubaby

it's that it was unacceptable to be an openly frothing Jew-hater. Not so anymore.

Speaking of which (not that it's hard to find them anymore): Shame of Iceland

On Sept. 11, 2001, [Bobby Fischer] told a Philippine radio station that the attacks in his native country -- not Iceland -- were "wonderful news." He added that he hoped "the country will be taken over by the military, they'll close down all the synagogues, arrest all the Jews and secure hundreds of thousands of Jewish ringleaders." Mr. Fischer, clearly deeply unbalanced, should perhaps be considered a subject of pity, rather than hatred. But he should certainly not be a subject of legislative honor -- not unless his new countrymen want their nation shamed every time this chessman opens his mouth.

And even al-Guardian calls him on it:

Bobby and Me:

But is it possible still to lionise this crazed anti-semite with his theories that every grandmaster game is fixed (by the Jews, of course), that conventional chess is played out (he proposes an alternative version called Fischer random chess), that the CIA has been targeting him for 30 years, that he is right and the rest of the world is wrong?

[...]

As he is leaving Copenhagen, he is cornered in a car park by the agitated man from Channel 1 and gives some characteristically robust quotes - to summarise, death to the Jews, death to Japan, death to America, death to George Bush. (Probably death to Tony Blair, too - Fischer refused to fly via London because he feared he would be grabbed by the police there.) Anyway, Fischer has let off steam, the Channel 1 man's job is saved, we have a news story.

[...]

Palsson will also be interviewed, and I have almost forgiven him for yesterday's debacle. He hadn't seen Fischer for 33 years until they met three weeks ago, separated by a glass panel, in the Japanese detention centre near Tokyo where Fischer was held for almost nine months. While enjoying his 15 minutes of fame, Palsson is visibly embarrassed by Fischer's views on the Jews - or the "stinking Jews", as Fischer always calls them - and hopes he can persuade him to moderate his language.

"I will try to calm him down," Palsson says in the lobby of the Loftleidir hotel, where Fischer has again been installed in the presidential suite which he occupied throughout the two months of the 1972 match. "We are friends and he will have to listen to me. He is his own worst enemy. Citizenship brings with it responsibilities: Icelanders don't usually talk in such a hostile way about other people. I hope he will stop blaming Jews and Americans for everything."

[...]

Fischer has finished lunch, trimmed his beard, had a haircut. He has decided to give a press conference to the 20 or so journalists camped in the lobby. The presence of American sports journalist Jeremy Schaap adds a frisson. He is the son of Dick Schaap, a New Yorker who was a close friend of the young Bobby but later declared that Fischer was mad. Fischer quickly makes the connection (Schaap's TV channel, sports broadcaster ESPN, may have planned it this way). "I knew your father," he drawls to the young, dark-haired Schaap. "He said I didn't have a sane bone in my body: I don't forget that."

I ask about chess; a Russian TV crew asks about Kasparov; the Icelanders ask whether Fischer likes herring, but the Schaap affair won't go away. Fischer insists on returning to it, and things suddenly turn ugly. "Let me get back to this guy," says Fischer, pointing at Schaap. "I hate to rap people personally, but his father many years ago befriended me, took me to see Knicks games, acted kind of like a father figure, and then later, like a typical Jewish snake, he had the most vicious things to say about me."

MiB

For someone "not defending the despicable acts" of the left, you sure do alotta... uh... defending.

I see if you don't agree with them. You’re really evil. Since your evil then it's no holds barred. Because you’re evil you know. You guys understand don't you?

#72 Swamp Woman

Sounds kinda like a blanket statement to me. OTOH, who is intent on doing the outing and causing the perceived embarrassment? I haven't gone on any gay hunts. I do not care.

Well, what caused these people to resign, then? Support from their party and constituencies, social acceptance, etc etc? I know I would want to resign if people did not give a crap about a private fact about me that became public.

Obviously, then, some force within the party is doing this. If you don't like it, work against it.

#75 Bucky Katt

*YAWN*..well..that did happen in the case of Congressman Ed Schrock, who was outed by Rogers. In fact, Mr. Schrock's constituents from his conservative district in Virginia, urged him to stay on and run again.

Then what caused him to resign? See above. Some group within the republican party or its constituency is making this an issue.

I have been accused of making blanket statements, so I'll clarify for all of your's benefit: Not every republican is this way, obviously. However, enough of them are to make this an issue that needs to be addressed.

Swamp Woman:

I did mean their partners - bad grammar, sorry.

I kind of take it as a given that most of the politicians are of legal age...

Mornin Loppy. We already had a throwdown over 7W on the previous thread this AM. Sorry you missed it.

I'll say it again, moonbats are just enraged and jealous of Repub's, and they will do or say anything to show them in a dim light, because...well because they are supid!

#89 MilitaryBrat

Yikes, nevermind! Boy, did I misread that (and is my face red!)

Sheesh! (I have been supposed to be going out to look at a project for over an hour now and have been putting it off. Time to gooo!)

Swamps. bye! Watch out for the skyball.

Sheet o' Glass

For someone "not defending the despicable acts" of the left, you sure do alotta... uh... defending.

Untrue. I am attacking the culture at least some republicans seem determined to create that makes it very bad to be outed as a conservative.

Let me put it very clearly: Nobody should have been outed in the first place. The people who did that are slime. However, it wouldn't be a political tactic, or an issue, without the above culture being put into the party by, I suppose, "religious conservatives." IE people who take the bible literally and who also wish to push these views onto all around them. The second qualifier is meant to exclude religious conservatives who believe homosexuality is wrong but just don't think its worth discussing in politics.

#92 Sheet o' Glass

In his defense *cough* he isn't actually defending them, he's excusing their schoolyard bullying by pointing the finger of accusation at Republicans.

Now, why is it that the Left doesn't consider Rogers a "gay basher"? He obviously hates gay people. He's on a mission to destroy the lives of gay people. He will, apparently, go to any length to ruin their lives.

Michael Rogers is a gay basher.

I missed 7W bashing? I feel so left out.

MiB

this is about the acts of the left, and you somehow find a way to blame the repubs for some percieved action. meds up.

I have as much interest in someone's sexual proclivities as in which flavor of jam they prefer on their toast in the morning.

All I request (as a parent of young children) is a little discretion concerning how and where sexuality is expressed by anyone.

Gaypatriot should not silence himself. Ugh. I hope he has understanding and supportive work colleagues.

Michelle Malkin receives horrific email from lefties. I realize she's not gay, but she gets slammed for being of Phillipino descent and ...GASP..conservative. She is considered a political traitor to her skin color.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

Joel-
I don't always agree with Andrew Sullivan but I think your take on him isn't really fair to his intellectual proclivity. Sullivan criticizes both the Left and Right, especially on the issue of Homosexuality. Indeed, it's probably safe to assume that, over the years, Sullivan has had much more venom directed toward him by the Left.

I am absolutely OUTRAGED!
How dare this twit call his boss. That is such an underhanded bullshit thing to do.

#94 MiB

Well, what caused these people to resign, then? Support from their party and constituencies, social acceptance, etc etc? I know I would want to resign if people did not give a crap about a private fact about me that became public.

I dunno. Maybe they felt ineffective because people were too interested in their sexual orientation and not interested enough in their programs/agenda? Since that didn't happen in my area, I couldn't say why they felt compelled to resign.

#32 MiB

Is that the kind of party the republican party is? As intolerant and hypocritical as the left is, I do not see the republicans being much better

I will have to respectfully disagree. In Arizona we have a Republican Representative that was going to be outed for similar reasons , i.e., political blackmail. But Jim Kolbe beat them by announcing before their article was published. In the following election his relection numbers were higher than ever. The problem with most Republican politicians is that they believe the polls. They need to trust their constituencies more and not listen to polls and political strategists.

alaric

#120 FountainHead

Hypocricy is the hallmark of the left -- they can be gay-bashing, racist, bigoted anti-Semites, as long as they believe in the moonbat leftist philosophy and hate the US and conservatives.

That poor man (Gaypatriot, I mean)! How, and why, did homosexual activists turn into fascists?

spiny norman

yeah. he/she/it is quit the thinker. so nuanced.

#101 Spiny Norman

In his defense *cough* he isn't actually defending them, he's excusing their schoolyard bullying by pointing the finger of accusation at Republicans.

See previous post. They are slime, the people should have never been outed. In addition to that, it shouldn't be an issue if it did ever occur.

Perhaps it is hard to keep in your minds in today's bipartisan-only thinking that someone might hold in his head the idea that both parties are absolutely wrong in a case.

*quite

pimf

Re: my 111 that should be #102, not #120

I just don't care who's gay, lesbian, straight, bi or celebate.

I care about taxes, foreign policy, winning the WOT and having a hard-working, educated citizenry.

Consenting adults can do whatever, whenever in their own space.

What will the LLL do when we disarm them by all outing ourselves in a Spartacus moment?

Gay people are everywhere and I think life wouldn't be as good if I made decisions based on sexual orientation.

alaric 1633

I will have to respectfully disagree. In Arizona we have a Republican Representative that was going to be outed for similar reasons , i.e., political blackmail. But Jim Kolbe beat them by announcing before their article was published. In the following election his relection numbers were higher than ever. The problem with most Republican politicians is that they believe the polls. They need to trust their constituencies more and not listen to polls and political strategists.

I see. If that is the case, then who is making the polls, what kind of people are they hiring for strategists, etc?

As I said, I do not think all republicans are like that. In light of that information, perhaps not many are. But enough are and in key positions to, again, make this an issue. What kind of silliness is it when your strategists and pollsters contradict reality in such a blanant way as you describe?

Again, a problem that needs to be fixed.

#94 MiB

Then what caused him to resign? See above. Some group within the republican party or its constituency is making this an issue.

YAWN again MiB...he decided to resign because he has a wife and 2 kids and Rogers was threatening to release some fairly nasty, gory details about his "other life". It was all laid out in Schrocks' interview with Chris Core on WMAL.

Shouldn't let facts get in the way though, should we? But of course you have to stereotype and say it's all those bad, evil, nasty-wasty Republicans making him step down. Yess...it wasss, my precious.

Oy gevalt.

#105 11B1969

All I request (as a parent of young children) is a little discretion concerning how and where sexuality is expressed by anyone.

Hear, hear!

As an addendum to my #111, recall that the moonbat left, particularly in Hollywood, still love Roman Polanski, who, IIRC, was convicted in abstentia of drugging and seducing a teenaged girl.

The left are incredibly sick hyprocrits.

How, and why, did homosexual activists turn into fascists?

Nazi drag is such a turn on!

(Not to me, of course)

always 2 clues short of a bowl, i have been reading for days about the 7W woman and wondered which thread she was posting in...
meanwhile, i had also several times clicked on the seven windows jewelry (JEWelry? well, that explains everything) site because i thought some of the items had really nice craftsmanship and quality.

it really is true that they remove your brain when you go to the nco academy.

i support the OT 7W discussion!

Sieg heil!

Vee are zee tolerant unt luffing Left! Anybody who disagrees mit uns is a Zionist/Crusader/Gay schweinhund, unt vill be dealt mit accordingly!

(The modern Left has more Gay-hate, Jew-hate, disabled-hate and we-hate-everybody-hate than all those horrible red-state, redneck Evangelicals they look down on!)

#106 rightymouse

Michelle Malkin receives horrific email from lefties. I realize she's not gay, but she gets slammed for being of Phillipino descent and ... GASP.. conservative. She is considered a political traitor to her skin color.

The problem is that the Left's stereotype of the GOP is lilly-white, racist & homophobe, and anything that upsets that image threatens their entire message.

121 christheprofessor

You do recall correctly. He received a standing ovation in absentia at last year's Oscars.

#6 Gagdad Bob

Gay Terrorists = Hamasexuals
LOL, too funny :)

Not every republican is this way, obviously. However, enough of them are to make this an issue that needs to be addressed.

NO! Goddammit, there is a presence of malice in this tactic. The object is to inflict pain and damage a political opponent!

#57 MiB

In a world where republicans were not hypocrits, the outing of a republican senator would be met with yawns and "Okay...moving on to something that actually matters..." Instead, it is met with shame and resignation. The Republican party and its constituents are largely responsible for that.

You're talking thru your ass. Log Cabin Republicans is an openly gay Republican lobbying organization, and at least one member, Steve Gunderson was a U.S. Congressman from Wisconsin. Mr. Gunderson was openly gay during his tenure in the House and it cause him absolutely no problems with his colleagues or constituents.

OT
FoxNews reporting 8.2 earthquake in Sumatra, Indonesia
approx 260 s of Banda Aceh

#119 Bucky Katt

YAWN again MiB...he decided to resign because he has a wife and 2 kids and Rogers was threatening to release some fairly nasty, gory details about his "other life". It was all laid out in Schrocks' interview with Chris Core on WMAL.

Shouldn't let facts get in the way though, should we? But of course you have to stereotype and say it's all those bad, evil, nasty-wasty Republicans making him step down. Yess...it wasss, my precious.

Oy gevalt.
.

Oh, so he cheated on his wife, was gay, and decided to hide all of that? My mistake.

And, if you would actually read what I wrote instead of generalizing about me, you'll note I've stated twice already that I am not stereotyping all republicans.

As a fairly regular commenter on gaypatriot, I'd also add that there are people who post there who become completely unhinged at the idea that to some of us, issues like defeating global jihad, lowering taxes, private social security accounts, a strong national defense, and reigning in the courts are more important and more relevant to our private lives than 'marriage.'

Yowza! How did I screw up that link? Let's try again, shall we?
Log Cabin Republicans

EEEww Gay cooties Ewww!
It'd be funnier if some people didn't actually think like that.

#36 Sheet o' Glass - Mib said:"The problem here is that the republicans have created such a culture that being "outed" when one is conservative is a major blow to your career and your stance in the party. What, then, does that say about republicans? That it does not matter if you stand for property rights, individualism and personality responsibility, if you prefer someone of your own gender in the bedroom?"

I believe the Republican Party is actually HEADING the other way, towards being more tolerant of individual, ADULT, sexual preferences. But (and this is a "big" but) there are some religious groups who tend to be Republican in their leanings, to whom homosexuality is a mortal sin.

I am very sympathetic towards gays, whether or not they are Republicans or Democrats; I actually got semi-demoted at one law firm (extremely conservative and mostly Republican) because the Senior Partner of the firm, in the partner's dining room, said he abhorred the "faggot lifestyle". As Ron White said in his comedy routine, I had the right, but not the will, to remain silent and challenged him right then and there by saying
"what lifestyle is that? Something like the "black lifestyle" or the "Latin Lifestyle"? Some friends of mine who are gay have been physically beaten up by some insecure "straights" for walking down the street (in Greenwich Village, no less) holding hands. There are conservative gays, blacks and latins and you know some of them and like them as people, you just don't know that they are homosexual).
As has happened once or twice (!) on LGF, my comments sorta made the whole dining room go silent. I really gotta work on a more diplomatic approach to such things.
A week later, although still a partner, a good deal of my responsibilities in the firm (and the perks that went with them) were taken away. This was in 2001.
Calling his boss was, in my not so humble opinion as an attorney, actionable. I hope he goes after the sob.

In a world where republicans were not hypocrits,

No blanket statements from MiB, eh?

#129 grayp

You're talking thru your ass

Hi, grayp. I always appreciate your way with words when engaging in smack-down!

Hope you had a happy easter...

:)

#119 Bucky Katt

YAWN again MiB...he decided to resign because he has a wife and 2 kids and Rogers was threatening to release some fairly nasty, gory details about his "other life". It was all laid out in Schrocks' interview with Chris Core on WMAL.

Shouldn't let facts get in the way though, should we? But of course you have to stereotype and say it's all those bad, evil, nasty-wasty Republicans making him step down. Yess...it wasss, my precious.

Which brings me back to my surmise that MOST people are private about their sex lives because of concerns for their family.

Ironsides was a gay wheelchair Republican and nobody ever outed him. Of course that was back in the bad old days. Before Ellen outed herself and started us on the slippery slope we all live on today.

She did start the whole thing your know.

I got called at work once because someone disliked something I had to say.

Needless to say, I was somewhat unhappy.

Ironsides? Gahh!
Next thing you know you'll be outing Dr. Smith...

Ahhh! William!

#131 MiB

Sorry dude but to quote you exactly:

Some group within the republican party or its constituency is making this an issue.

Which wasn't what happened, which means you are talking out of your ass. Until you can get your facts straight, STFU.

107 MJ

You are entitled to your feelings regarding Sullivan. His blog used to be the first that I would look at in the morning. However he has become Andy One Note in that he is obsessed with Gay Marriage. His attempt to make John Kerry the best candidate for conservatives to vote for has been laughable. He also as Horsefeathers pointed out, has proven himself not to be the guy you would want in the foxhole next to you (and not because he is gay) because his opinions on Iraq change from hour to hour - he is not very stout hearted. He also seems to think that Abu Ghraib made us no better then the Baathists which is not only slander but is totally ignorant.

#131 MIB

Oh, so he cheated on his wife, was gay, and decided to hide all of that? My mistake.

And what does this have to do, exactly, with being a Republican?

#135 Realwest

I certainly hope the party is moving that direction. I think it is, from the fact of the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans and gay R representatives.

The problem is that the people you mention are still a big part of the party - enough to get Bush to at least windowdress with his Gay Marriage amendment (which, I know, has no chance of getting through. The point is he had to appease that constituency by doing something. This implies they have great political power.) I suppose not everyone for the gay marriage amendment hates gays and wouldn't want one as their representative, but I would also mention that they would form the activist core of that sentiment. The question again becomes: Why are republicans tolerating fellow republicans bothering so much over this?

I'd be interested to know whether MiB is gay and a Republican, and "out" on both subjects. I am - and from personal experience regarding people's reactions to my sexual orientation and politics, I'm willing to bet that he's talking out his nether orifice.

Gay Marriage Amendment

It's time to GAZE people...

#144 Swamp Woman

And what does this have to do, exactly, with being a Republican?

Nothing, which is why I did not mention the fact that he was a republican in the post, if you'll recall.

Bucky Katt

Which wasn't what happened, which means you are talking out of your ass. Until you can get your facts straight, STFU.

So you say there is no force within the republican party that is very against homosexuality on moral grounds, and very active about this opinion?

Okay. If you say so.

SoCalJustice (#91)

Bobby Fischer is a raving moonbat and should STFU already.

I'm glad that you are with us hcq!

149 zulubaby

Re: Bobby Fischer - Iceland deserve him.

hcq:

I'd be interested to know whether MiB is gay and a Republican, and "out" on both subjects. I am - and from personal experience regarding people's reactions to my sexual orientation and politics, I'm willing to bet that he's talking out his nether orifice.

I am neither republican, nor gay. If you'll also recall: I mentioned (and amended; this one is for Sean) that from the facts presented by other people here, not even a majority of republicans on the ground really give a damn about sexual orientation.

Some people, however, do, and they are worth considering and (if one really does not think the issue matters) condemning. As realwest said:

I believe the Republican Party is actually HEADING the other way, towards being more tolerant of individual, ADULT, sexual preferences. But (and this is a "big" but) there are some religious groups who tend to be Republican in their leanings, to whom homosexuality is a mortal sin.

That is the problem.

#125 Spiny Norman

"The problem is that the Left's stereotype of the GOP is lilly-white, racist & homophobe, and anything that upsets that image threatens their entire message. "

Yep. And nothing could less true about the GOP today, as we know. Dr. Rice said it best - and I paraphrase - that she was attracted to the GOP because she was considered an individual rather than a member of a group.

#125 Spiny Norman

The problem is that the Left's stereotype of the GOP is lilly-white, racist & homophobe, and anything that upsets that image threatens their entire message.

Exactly.

As an aside - my GF switched her party affiliation to (R) this year. AFAIK she's told a total of TWO people, of which I am one.

The names I have been called by my "sisters" for being a Republican would curl a longshoreman's hair. I have never been treated other than politely by a Republican (or evangelical Christian, for that matter) who knows my sexual orientation.

#83 Joel:

We haven't heard a lot from Andrew Sullivan lately. Not since the last time...if you know what I mean!

#131 MiB

And, if you would actually read what I wrote instead of generalizing about me, you'll note I've stated twice already that I am not stereotyping all republicans.

In comment #32 you most certainly did, now you're backtracking. Examples contradicting your claims have been cited, so maybe you should just drop it. The anti-homosexual attitude in this country crosses political boundaries, but is dwindling rapidly. I believe that, in a generation or so, it will cease to exist entirely.

Whether "outing" someone as gay or even as a Jew ("dual loyalty," anyone?) is harassment for political gain and is the surest sign of a bigot.

#152 MIB

I am neither republican, nor gay.

Thanks for confirming that haven't got the slightest personal knowledge of what you're talking about.

Incredible.

LLLs, please do tell us who Gay Patriot's employer is, so I can suport them!

#148 MiB

Typical tactic...change the subject when you can't argue the facts. Look asshat you were the one making blanket statements like this little gem:

In a world where republicans were not hypocrits, the outing of a republican senator would be met with yawns and "Okay...moving on to something that actually matters..."

here's another one:

The problem here is that the republicans have created such a culture that being "outed" when one is conservative is a major blow to your career and your stance in the party. What, then, does that say about republicans?

I could go on but I'd hit the character limit. Either back up your opinion with specific facts (and you haven't yet) or shut up.

#157 Spiny Norman:

Yes, I did make a blanket statement, which I amended. I will put it here for your benefit:

My earlier blanket statement was incorrect and an overgeneralization. So I (as seen) changed my stance on that when it became apparent.

"The anti-homosexual attitude in this country crosses political boundaries, but is dwindling rapidly. I believe that, in a generation or so, it will cease to exist entirely."

Sure, but why do you allow your party to associate itself with that same bigotry? You seem to be pretty passive on that point.

"Whether "outing" someone as gay or even as a Jew ("dual loyalty," anyone?) is harassment for political gain and is the surest sign of a bigot. "

Agreed.

#144 SwampWoman

#131 MiB (continued)

Oh, so he cheated on his wife, was gay, and decided to hide all of that? My mistake.

I'd say that had a lot to do with character. Speaking as a member of the human race and having nothing to do with political parties/ideology, I think that a person that willingly and repeatedly cheats on a parter, exposing him or her to diseases that he/she does not know that he/she is being exposed to and does not take precautions against is somebody of pretty poor character indeed.

Geez, if only I had a dollar for every time some numbskull was asked by their physician if they had informed their husband/wife/partner in a supposedly monogamous relationship of their positive HIV test only to hear "No, I'm afraid he/she will be MAD." Sigh.

I hate to break it to you, MiB, but it's not just a nasty homophobic minority in the Republican party that's opposed to "gay marriage". That erroneous assumption plays right into the fascism of those that are trying to silence any dissenting homosexuals such as Gaypatriot.

I just find it incredibly ironic when Republicans are gay, given that their own party is moving to persecute them.

#132 V the K

"As a fairly regular commenter on gaypatriot, I'd also add that there are people who post there who become completely unhinged at the idea that to some of us, issues like defeating global jihad, lowering taxes, private social security accounts, a strong national defense, and reigning in the courts are more important and more relevant to our private lives than 'marriage.'"

Yep - I got turned off by Andrew Sullivan for that very reason. I could have cared less that he was gay. But he kept making his sexuality a major "talking point" instead of sharing his otherwise magnificent brain on other issues. He became boring after a while.

Bucky Katt:

Yes, those blanket statements were incorrect. Not all republicans hate gays (which i never implied) but I do stil lstand by the claim that some force within the party is creating this kind of culture (or trying to) where being outed is politically "bad." There are biggoted forces within the republican party - and my curiousity is why nobody roundly (and rightly) condemns them within the republican party.

Silence speaks a lot. Democrats remain silent, even work against, minority judges and the like, proving that they give exactly no care about minorities at all. Republicans keep silent on the wing of their party which actively moralizes about how the sin of being gay and creates instances where the above (being "outed" being blackmail) is actually possible.

Yes, I did make a blanket statement, which I amended.

Put the goalposts back where you left 'em!

So this LLL wants every gay person to be publicly identified- especially those who are his political oponents- and we're the homophobic Nazis?

Not every republican is this way, obviously. However, enough of them are to make this an issue that needs to be addressed.

So, as individuals, they must give up their rights to express their personal opinions. As elected legislaters, they must deny constituencies majority their right to have their views expressed by their representative. All in the name of political correctness.

Who decides what is right or wrong here? What precedent do they, the right, have? They have traditional values. The left has their unbridled urges. Who is right? Who cares? You have to grant all the right to assemble and express their groups percieved primary concern through the franchise of representative goverment. I believe it is in the constitution somewhere.

Personal privacy comes in here somewhere. All have the right to it regardless of their views. And, with privacy comes responsibilitiy, therefore, I personally don't want to hear about anyones sexual preferences in the workplace or any public arena. That is unless, I am allowed to spout off bout the size of my wife and mines dildo and S&M equipment collection and how we plan on breeding every chance we get so that Christiandom is not completely overun by the Islamists .

Once again, the left illustrates that their tolerance only extends as far as their myopic world views. I wonder how Rogers sleeps at night?

Actually, this doesn’t surprise me at all.

The left (straight & gay) has an indescribable hatred of anything even remotely “conservative”. They preach diversity and tolerance and are some of the most bigoted people I’ve ever met in my life. Want proof? Walk into a gay bar wearing a “W 2004” cap and see how much tolerance and understanding is expressed for your minority view. F’ing hypocrites.

My politics aren’t defined by my sexuality. My politics are defined by my morality, my intelligence, and my common sense. I don’t ask for anyone to validate my sexuality or my opinions.

Seems to me that the people most concerned about everybody else's sexuality are the ones who don't have any/aren't getting any.

LOL SwampWoman!

#171 Blue Chip

That might be true where you come from. However, I grew up in Colorado Springs, Colorado, home of Focus on the Family, is arguably the most conservative town this side of Salt Lake City. The nutjobs at Focus on the Family are one of the most homophobic organizations in America. Now, Focus on the Family types are becoming more and more powerful in the Republican party.

#165 krazykounselor

I just find it incredibly ironic when Republicans are gay, given that their own party is moving to persecute them.

Not half as ironic as a non-Republican het thinking he knows how this Republican dyke should think.

Rightymouse has it on the money: "to some of us, issues like defeating global jihad, lowering taxes, private social security accounts, a strong national defense, and reigning in the courts are more important and more relevant to our private lives than 'marriage.'"

(Particularly if one's leanings are libertarian, and think the government has no business involving itself in marriage contracts in the first place.)

Oh, dear. "Krazy" is back.

#164 is a total troll whose modus operandi is to spout unfounded allegations that it can't back up.

There is no Republican effort to persecute gays (unless you distort the meaning of 'persecute' to the same degree the New York Times distorts the meaning of 'torture' {i.e. depriving a terrorist of spa treatment}.)

GAYZE

Ackomanyuki

So, as individuals, they must give up their rights to express their personal opinions. As elected legislaters, they must deny constituencies majority their right to have their views expressed by their representative. All in the name of political correctness.

Oh, you thought I was advocating that? No. I said (and am) curious as to why republicans who report to think sexual orientation does not matter do not condemn those who make such an issue out of it as bigots, but will condemn the person who exposes the person as bigots. I am not saying they do not have the right to representation (they do,) but am asking why those who disagree with them do not publically say "this is wrong."

You do not hear a lot of conservative pundits (to my knowledge) saying that being gay is an absolute non-issue, as many people here have expressed. Why then are republicans who do not think this is an issue tolerating other (as some have pointed out, most liekly a minority) people within the party and their views? Why don't they say "That isn't what being a republican is about"?

Who decides what is right or wrong here? What precedent do they, the right, have? They have traditional values. The left has their unbridled urges. Who is right? Who cares? You have to grant all the right to assemble and express their groups percieved primary concern through the franchise of representative goverment. I believe it is in the constitution somewhere.

Again, see above: I am not saying "do not allow bigots to vote" (that would exclude a great deal of the upper echelons of the democrat party) but asking why republicans who think otherwise don't seem to care that people are using the party name in order to do this.

Personal privacy comes in here somewhere. All have the right to it regardless of their views. And, with privacy comes responsibilitiy, therefore, I personally don't want to hear about anyones sexual preferences in the workplace or any public arena. That is unless, I am allowed to spout off bout the size of my wife and mines dildo and S&M equipment collection and how we plan on breeding every chance we get so that Christiandom is not completely overun by the Islamists .

I see nothing wrong with any of these statements.

#172 SwampWoman

"Seems to me that the people most concerned about everybody else's sexuality are the ones who don't have any/aren't getting any. "

LMAO! Maybe it's because they talk politics in bed.

#162 Swampwoman

I'd say that had a lot to do with character. Speaking as a member of the human race and having nothing to do with political parties/ideology, I think that a person that willingly and repeatedly cheats on a parter, exposing him or her to diseases that he/she does not know that he/she is being exposed to and does not take precautions against is somebody of pretty poor character indeed.

Upfront..let me say that Schrock didn't come out and discuss the details. I don't know (and neither does MiB) if this other relationship occured while he was married or prior to the marriage. And to be honest...that's something between him and his wife to sort out. It's no one else's business. Period.

Character was exactly the issue put to the VA voters in a survey irt the Schrock case. There was some concern on the character issue, but many respondents felt that because he had served his congressional district so well, his exceptional service overcame the character flaw problem. They felt he should run again, despite the outing. This, in a conservative congressional district in Virginia. I think this is one example that belies the whole "intolerant" sterotype that MiB was peddaling earlier, which is used to excuse Mr. Rogers aborrhent behavior.

Off to work now.

I think it would be somewhat clarifying (and resolve the issue of where I am coming from) if I mention that I am, in fact, a libertarian.

Have fun Lizardoids, cut some taxes for me before I get my paycheck.

#161 MiB

GAZE...

Ya'll are feeding it!

#180 Bucky Katt:

Before I go, I do not know how man ytimes I have to agree with you when you say that Rogers is a bigot, an idiot, and his actions are inexcusable.

Perhaps this one last time will help:

RODGERS IS A BIGOT, AN IDIOT, AND HIS ACTIONS WERE INEXCUSABLE.

Somebody turn the bilge pump on, it's getting deep in here.

I think that a person that willingly and repeatedly cheats on a parter, exposing him or her to diseases that he/she does not know that he/she is being exposed to and does not take precautions against is somebody of pretty poor character indeed.

Damn, you right-wingers just can't get over Bill Clinton, can you?

#163 thinkingmom

Exactly.

I was thinking along those very same lines.
Nicely put.

#185 V the K

"Damn, you right-wingers just can't get over Bill Clinton, can you? "

Too funny!

I just find it incredibly ironic when Republicans are gay, given that their own party is moving to persecute them.

Yet you have no compunctions about actual persecution, when it's right in front of your face, do you, pondscum? It's all about what the evil right-wing is "moving" to do, yet never actually does.

Whatever. You and your inability to offer anything productive to whatever thread you stink up need a bannin', methinks.

I thought this was bad, but, incredibly, the Tsunami warning thread up above is morphing into a Schiavo discussion. I'll take Krazy Klown over that.

#184 andthenblammo!

Somebody turn the bilge pump on, it's getting deep in here.

You can say that again...Management..troll-fecal pile cleanup in aisle 4!

#189 Peacekeeper

Thanks for the warning!

Bottom Feeder

#191 Peacekeeper

You did name yourself well, didn't you? Now get BACK UP THERE and do some peacekeeping!

Despicable. "Tolerance? There are houses for that!" (Paul Claudel) ;-)

I really like the "Andy-one-note" term. I too used to have him on my daily reading list, and I didn't terribly mind him discussing his sexual orientation in and out of season. When it became clear that his views on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE were colored by his obsession with homosexual "marriage" I gradually stopped reading him.

#122 V the K

How, and why, did homosexual activists turn into fascists?

Nazi drag is such a turn on!

(Not to me, of course)

"It's a crazy idea, but it just might work.
I see a line of beautiful girls dressed as storm troopers,
each one a gem,
with leather boots and whips on their hips!
It's risqué, dare I say, S&M?"

From the song "Keep it Gay," Mel Brooks-The Producers

alaric

Well, this certainly invited in the krazies.

#196 zulubaby

"Well, this certainly invited in the krazies."

Yeppers.

alaric,

"LOVE IT!"

(and thanks, ChicagoBlue)

Charles -

A sincere, heartfelt thanks for posting this.

I too am a regular poster at GayPatriot (under the same nick as here).

I didn't know the story until just now.

While I was slightly peeved at you on the Schiavo thread, I am glad to see once again that you're fighting the good fight.

You're the greatest.

Mib,

I think it would be somewhat clarifying (and resolve the issue of where I am coming from) if I mention that I am, in fact, a libertarian

Roger that! I am sympathetic to libertarian ideals. I just wish that everytime I meet one on a street corner their eyes aren't spinning in two different directions like some kind of cultists. You guys need to spend more time getting the word out with a little bit more articulation than a lot of your 'street preachers' are capable of. I would have lot more confidence in your party and would contribute more to it if I thought it was efficacious to do so. What happened to LaRue with the IRS caused me to remain an independent since then. I was a Republican then considering a move to the libertarian party due to the bigotry of the Christian far right and the WOD. I will never join a party due to the labeling that goes on with all sides. I am an individual with concerns that no party is able to fully address to my satisfaction. Last year I gave $20 to a libertarian on a street corner in Seattle, $1000 to my States GOP victory fund, and $500 to Speaker Hassert and the GOPNC. Even though I am appaled by the views expressed by some Republicans, I still feel that as a group they are the best qualified to drive the ship of state.

BTW, have any of you read "The new Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce (an openly lesbian former NOW bigshot who got in trouble for dissenting from the party line)? The funny thing is that the one person who reached out to her and helped her most was that so-called "homophobe" Dr. Laura Schlesinger.

184 andthenblammo! - I hate to say it, but not one, but two bilge pumps have been working for a while now! If it gets any fucking deeper, I'm out of here!

#175 hcq

Are you still in the thread?

You said..."(Particularly if one's leanings are libertarian, and think the government has no business involving itself in marriage contracts in the first place.) ".

I'd love it if LGFers could debate this sometime. Interesting point. My husband is a libertarian so I understand where you are coming from.

Buzzsawmonkey: the specific act proscribed by the Torah is what is known in American slang as "fudge-packing" or "going up Old Dirt Road". There is rabbinical dispute over whether the same prohibition applies between a man and a female.

Homosexuality as an orientation is not discussed at all in the text, let alone non-anal forms of homosexual intercourse. Lesbianism isn't discussed at all. The "Mishneh Torah", Maimonides' encyclopedia of Jewish law, states that if two women have sexual congress in public they ought to be flogged --- but it says the same about husband and wife having it off in public :-)

The "sin of Sodom" of Gen. 19 (and the "abomination of Gibeah" in the Book of Judges) are actually homosexual gang-rape (a common method of humiliation in that part of the world in those days, and in some places still today). Contrary to popular belief, most such gang-rapes are carried out by people who think of themselves as heterosexual.

Even though I am appalled by the views expressed by some Republicans, I still feel that as a group they are the best qualified to drive the ship of state.

Entirely by default, of course.

I'm much more appalled by Republican fiscal irresponsibility than I am by support for the FMA. If the Democrats came up with policies to reduce spending, fight the war on terror, and do something about illegal immigration I could see myself changing sides.

I also think Rick Santorum was right when he said if a court can decide that sodomy is a Constitutionally-protected right, there is nothing (no logical reason, anyway) a court can not decide that polygamy or adult incest are not also protected.

Particularly if one's leanings are libertarian, and think the government has no business involving itself in marriage contracts in the first place

Now, I am not a Libertarian mainly because I do believe that there are certain substances that need to be banned i.e heroin or crack but as for the governmental intrusion into marriage, I fully agree that they are out of place. But that issue opens up a whole host of others, polygamy for one. There are laws on the books all over the country about that one.

Joel-
Here's what Andrew Sullivan just posted on blog about Gay Patriot:

"GAY PATRIOT SILENCED: I don't buy everything that GayPatriot writes; and his rhetoric can be a little much at times. But it's a shame he has been intimidated by the gay far-left into ending his blogging. A shame but unsurprising. If the gay "outers" spent a fraction of the time they spend attacking other gay people actually making the case for equality to straight people, the world would be a better place. "

#202 Former Belgian

"BTW, have any of you read "The new Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce (an openly lesbian former NOW bigshot who got in trouble for dissenting from the party line)? The funny thing is that the one person who reached out to her and helped her most was that so-called "homophobe" Dr. Laura Schlesinger. "

Have heard of the book. Not surprised that she became lefty cannon fodder. Nor am I surprised that Dr. Laura reached out to her. Truth is truth, regardless of sexual orientation, skin color, etc.

Registered at last - registered at last - thank God Almighty, I'm registered at last !

The Tolerant Left strikes again.

As a gay man who is "Out", I am totally disgusted with the so called gay activists such as John Aravosis and Michael Rogers. Outing anybody is total bullshit. These turds think they have a moral obligation to out anyone who disagrees with them and their Leftist drivel. Their hypocracy is stunning. In the last elections, a woman was elected as a sheriff in Dallas, but it wasn't until after she had won, that she "came out" to the public and announced that she was a lesbian. No one in the Gay community in Dallas said one word about her sexuality. No one accused her of "betraying" gays and lesbians because she didn't "come out" to the public prior to the election. One's sexuality should not matter, just as one's color shouldn't matter when being considered for a job.

From reading the original post by Charles, my guess is that Micheal Rogers didn't out GayPatriot in his phone calls to his boss and secrety; he most likely threatened the company where he works with a boycott.

Doing what the left does best - silencing those with whom they disagree.

Castro would be proud.

The left are just sooo tolerant of ideological diversity - just so long as it aligns perfectly with there own left wing beliefs. If not - then look out - you might get it - Theo Van Gogh style.

Nice going tolerant leftists!

Just want to get my two cents in. I have gay friends. I have gay co-workers, many still in the closet, even though my workplace is fully prepared to recognize gay life-partners, if asked. I even am acquainted with a gay couple with a beautiful daughter. I do not care if they are gay. They are my friends. Nothing LLLers say about people's sex history or lifestyle will shock me or make me turn away.

*sigh* Everyone talks about homosexuality as an abomination unto God as though sexual sins are somehow worse than other sins. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" concerns me a great deal more than "Thou shalt not commit sexual immorality" right now. Jesus sided with adulturesses over the ancient equivalent of machine politicians. I think I can safely say any true follower of his should side with any homosexuals willing to buck the politics of victimization over anyone who tries to silence them.

Here's the part that I don't get. If GayPatriot was blogging "anonomously," how is it that Rogers was able to not only identify him, but to also identify his employer so he could threaten a boycott? Doesn't sound very anonomous to me. Can somebody explain that?

I totally disapprove of the tactics that Rogers is using, but in this day and age politics is a brutal contact sport, so if you are going public with opinions, you better be truly anonomous, or otherwise put yourself in a position where it doesn't matter if your identity is known. GayPatriot apparantly did neither.

#204 rightymouse

I'm not a libertarian myself; just trying to point out that if a person believes that the government has no business defining marriage as two-party heterosexual, he would be most consistent by arguing that government shouldn't define marriage at all - that marriage should be a strictly private contract with no special benefits assigned to it.

The flip side of that (and where I stand) is that society has both an interest in and responsibility to promote contractual arrangements that most benefit both individuals and society as a whole. While some argue that "legitimizing" homosexual relationships with civil marriage will stabilize such relationships, I'd point out that legislating monogamy is rarely successful - even less so when you're dealing with a subculture which for decades has celebrated promiscuity.

How can gay activists want gays in the military, and gays out of the Republican party confuses me. I know all military aren't Republicans, but there is some inconsistency here. When I was a gay activist, I was vehemently against the forced outing of people. If the world is so hostile to gays, then we shouldn't be forcibly outed. Such vile tactics.

Steve Gunderson was a U.S. Congressman from Wisconsin. Mr. Gunderson was openly gay during his tenure in the House and it cause him absolutely no problems with his colleagues or constituents.

I lived in "Steve's" district during this time (I was in high school and college). It was surprising how little it mattered to the Republicans in the district when he made this public. He even brought his guy friend to the election night party.
I think it helped that he was a gay guy who didn't make a big deal about it. He was a supporter of the dairy industry and of Pres Reagan first.

#79 militarybrat:

He didn't hide his support of my cousbian, no one made an issue of it when we threw her committment ceremony reception.

Cousbian? That's a new one on me, although it does seem to have been used previously...

Rogers expressed feeling threatened by the post and compared it to posts by anti-abortionists who posted the names of doctors performing them.

That's why Rogers called GayPatriot's employer?

If anybody behaves as "anti-abortionists who posted the names of doctors performing them" it's Rogers himself of course, when he outs gay Republicans (why not gay Democrates too? only an idiot would believe that there are no closet gay Dems), but of course the lefties are unable to argue without producing some kind of Nazi anal-ogy.

#94 MiB

Well, what caused these people to resign, then? Support from their party and constituencies, social acceptance, etc etc?

What about protecting their privacy and the privacy of their loved ones from intrussion by dirty Leftist "activists", including always obliging press?

Not every republican is this way, obviously. However, enough of them are to make this an issue that needs to be addressed.

Why? Here - Not every Democrate is an idiot, obviously. However, enough of them are to make this an issue that needs to be addressed.

Such acts of intrussion of privacy will only take voters away from the Dems, unless Democratic leadership condemns them loudly. Love of personal privacy does not have political affiliation for most Americans.

It is true Republicans are not extremely tolerant of gays. They don't CLAIM to be, the Democrats, however, do.

It is true Republicans are not extremely tolerant of gays. They don't CLAIM to be, the Democrats, however, do.

Democrats aren't always tolerant. Example:

Some local guy put a huge sign on the side of a truck last fall that said if you favor gay marriage, vote Democratic.

Hey drove it to the AFL-CIO picnic and was attacked. The police had to come and escort him and his truck to safety.

Oh, man, there's another doll's head for the fence, Rayra. Nice work!

Howard Dean - keep on making racist similes about the kitchen help.

But please leave the kittens alone

#229 V the K

Where's Pinkey The Cat when you need him?

Entirely by default, of course.

V the K,

My support for the GOP has always been based on national security and tax issues. I too, would like to see them be a bit more thrifty than they have been these past few years. On immigration, I am affraid it has become another third rail due to nearly even split in the electorate and the need of both parties for the 'hispanic' vote.

Pols have no Cajones, even Bush only prosecutes the WOT to the degree that keeps apperances up for the bubba vote.

My ideal politician would have the strategic good sense, balls and conviction of Patton, the fiscal sense of Steve Forbes and the tolerance for personal deviance of Anton Wilson.

Frankly, I don't think Gay Patriot is due too much sympathy for being forced off the internet.

Putting the word "Wanted" on his post is the tipoff. This is an extremely loaded term, as anyone who watches old Steve McQueen TV shows or peruses the Post Office bulletin board should know.

The extreme language used by Gay Patriot is an example for all bloggers of what NOT to do to make one's point.

Gay Patriot could have easily made the same point in a non-threatening way. He didn't, and now he is silenced. If and when he returns, I hope he has learned the difference between an argument and a threat.

And, reliably, LOVEMEDADDY immediately leaps to the defense of bullying fascists.

in case this sob thinks he might have the ultimate by outting someone like, CONDI RICE..how disappointing that will be for those jerks when NO DAMM BODY CARES

#233 V the K: I think Rogers is execrable, and he probably would have done the same thing even if Gay Patriot hadn't been threatening.

But if I saw my name on another blog associated with the words WANTED and "crimes" and "let's do something" I might just have called Gay Patriot on it too.

I think most people are smart enough to understand the concept of a 'metaphor.' Rogers is either a flaming pussy idiot if he really expected bounty hunters to come after him just because someone created put his picture next to the word 'Wanted,' or he's an opportunistic fascist bully looking to silence a critic.

Either way, he is not worthy of anyone's defense. I've cleaned up stuff my cats have vomited that were more worthy of respect.

And, notably, your first instinct is to attack the person Rogers was bullying. That says it all. Always at the feet of the powerful, always at the throat of the powerless.

Gordon - Good point about the "Wanted" issue. I view it as a threat.

#237 Baldy - Well, maybe not a threat, but a little close for comfort.

Gordon!

(waves)

The quality of trolls has been going way down. Good to see you.

Re GayPatriot's "wanted" post - I think it is obvious that the intent of the post was not to do violence on the "wanted" bloggers, but rather to turn the tables on them and point out that they (John Aravosis (Americablog) and Michael Rogers (BlogActive) ) were conducting witch hunts. I doubt anyone who read it got his/her shotgun and when hunting for them.

What happened to GayPatriot proves that Aravosis and Rogers are indeed witchhunters. GayPatriot's posting style is not my style, but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it.

#236 V the K:

Always at the feet of the powerful, always at the throat of the powerless.

Oh, I think Gordon occasionally finds the middle ground.

I think Rogers is execrable, and he probably would have done the same thing even if Gay Patriot hadn't been threatening.

"It's alive!"

"A-L-I-V-E!"

/cue peals of thunder and maniacal laughter

For the record, at the time of the original post, I commented on GP that I thought the "terrorist" designation was overblown.

But I wouldn't say now, "GP had it coming."

242 V the K - I agree.

MJ

I am glad that Sully denounced it. However he still has spent all his bile denouncing conservatives the past year. He endorsed Kerry, 'nuff said.

otter:

it was used previously by ME! ;)

I say that going on a jihad to invade people's privacy and out gays who don't want to go public with their gayness just because you don't like their politics qualifies as a form of terrorism. It's a privacy thing.

#240 andthenblammo!:

#236 V the K:

Always at the feet of the powerful, always at the throat of the powerless.

Oh, I think Gordon occasionally finds the middle ground.

Hmmm...

{scratches head}

Hmmm...

Oh...oh...SHEEEYUT!

ROTFLMFAO! :)

#218 hcq

"I'm not a libertarian myself; just trying to point out that if a person believes that the government has no business defining marriage as two-party heterosexual, he would be most consistent by arguing that government shouldn't define marriage at all - that marriage should be a strictly private contract with no special benefits assigned to it.

The flip side of that (and where I stand) is that society has both an interest in and responsibility to promote contractual arrangements that most benefit both individuals and society as a whole. While some argue that "legitimizing" homosexual relationships with civil marriage will stabilize such relationships, I'd point out that legislating monogamy is rarely successful - even less so when you're dealing with a subculture which for decades has celebrated promiscuity."

I'm not a libertarian either. My husband is libertarian and we have rather interesting discussions. :)

I agree with what you say.

I also think that it is a far more complex issue for our society today, given the legal "rights" of married heterosexuals that gays feel denied. If those "rights" did not exisit, what then?

Traditional marriage in our country is viewed as a civil (if not always religious) contract between a man and a woman, ostensibly for the protection of property and procreation of children.

In earlier days, marriage was often for convenience, especially in the upper classes, both parties knowing that love had very little to do with their union. Promiscuity among married people was rampant at the time.

Like I said, I would love to see an entire thread dedicated to this subject, because (if we can keep out the trolls), we could likely benefit from the thoughts of our fellow LGFers.

Regardless of some of the inovative hermaetics vis a vis homosexuality and the Tanach, the Greek Bible is 100 percent clear that Homosexuality along with a myriad of other sexual sins, is wrong!

Now I know that is not popular with you libertarians but I will side with the eternal truths of scripture before I will side with every hedonistic impulse that is glorified in our day and age as simply being 'alternative'...

Remember, their are many So Con's here too...I think its great that gays' want to fight on our side...and I have no problem rejecting the sin but loving the sinner...but I will never apologize for the truths of the All Mighty because CNN and Harvard say otherwise!

Thanks

i'm not in favor of discriminating (sp) against anyone: muslims, gays, evangelical christians, ahtiests, etc... BUT that's not the same as saying i approve of the gay lifestyle. once that's accepted as normal, then every other lifestyle that involves consenting adults MUST be accepted also, under equal protection principles. polygamy, polygyny, adult incest, etc... there's even stories in france of women marrying their dead boyfriends!

There is no reason not to extend the same civil protections to both types of couples.

Why just couples?

#251 buzzsawmonkey

You have good points and that's why I would like to see a thread dedicated to this issue. I know we have LGFers like you who are well-versed in law, history etc. who would be of tremendous value.

I just thought it should be a separate thread so as not to detract from this one.

#255 buzzsawmonkey

If you believe in already-extant equal protection principles, there is currently no reason not to extend marital rights to gays. That does not necessarily require opening the floodgates which you fear.

once you allow same sex marriage, on what legal grounds can you deny any other combination of consenting adults to marry?

on what legal grounds can you deny any other combination of consenting adults to marry?

Well, you see, traditionally, marriage has only been between two people, a man and a...

OK, never mind that. You see, it's not fair to keep two people who love each other from being together. But it's different when there's three people because ... um ... er...

Well, the Constitution says everyone has to have equal rights, so everyone should have the same right to marry one, and only one person, because it wouldn't be fair to people in traditional couples if other people got to have certain rights without the committment of... wait, never mind, don't go there...

Well, children might be confused if they're raised in a non-traditional household... wait, forget I said that...

Well, society just isn't comfortable with the idea of polygamy, and therefore... no, wait... that's not it either...

#255 buzzsawmonkey

"If that means nothing to you, consider this: there is absolutely no logic to "disapproving" of the supposed promiscuity within the gay subculture when the legal structure has been, and to a very large extent still is, set up to deny gays any of the stability which heterosexual couples take for granted because of marriage."

You lost me on that paragraph as it really is not logically coherent.

I thought this topic was most appropriate for another thread. My fireplace is beckoning, but I shall have to say one thing before I go.

A piece of paper (marriage license) does not guarantee the stability of a union, civil or otherwise, regardless of sexual orientation. It's up to the individuals - their character, commitment, values, etc.

I think it perfectly reasonable to not approve of promiscuity, whether it's perpetrated by heterosexuals or homosexuals. Promiscuity causes emotional/psychological problems in adult relationships, not to mention the trauma to their children.

This must be fought back with its own weapons. The best case was is there was a dossier for employers and media that could be handed/faxed/mailed on short notice to any person Mike Rogers contacts in his Freudian blackmailing game:

I. Track record - what has this stalker attempted so far, and how have known individuals, gay and straight, commented on it, as well as print media, blogs and businesses. This is the condensed file of facts that the boss would like to get from his own legal department, because he needs it now to tell his public relations department how to deal with the stalker on his business who has chosen an - exchangeable - individual to exploit existing confusion about homosexuality.

II. Blackmailing Psychology - What does it mean for a stalker to patrol the adult-only sections of the internet and click all through gaydar to pan for the gold of pornographic pictures of political opponents? This is more time- and effort-intensive than anything a person does when using these websites for their intended purposes, and it does tell more about the stalker than about the - exchangeable - individual on such pictures. What is wrong with a man who seeks political controversy rather than gay sadomasochism when he enjoys to call another man a "pig"? Psychologically, this is the "sophisticated" way to achieve the same bruhaha that you get when you pull down another person's pants in the street. Why might someone feel appointed to do that, and what is the most professional way to deal with such a person?

#247 Frank IBC:

ROTFLMFAO! :)

That's the first time I've gotten that one! I shall wear it with pride, sir!

So I can add another bitch to the pack? Sign me up!

WANTED! Let’s do something about these gay terrorists who have infected our community

FEAR!

What if, when AIDS was GRID, the "community" had reacted similarly? Maybe "infected" wouldn't be so scary. Who was saying, maybe, just maybe, having lots of anonymous sex was a bad idea? Could it be... Conservatives?!

#260

You can deny the right of related heterosexual adults to marry on the grounds that the genetic inbreeding which would result is against public policy.

the eugenics approach ? i don't know if that will hold up in court.

There is more support for multiple-spouse marriages than for same-sex marriage, if you are relying on religious criteria--as you clearly are. After all, the Bible is rife with examples of multiple-spouse marriages. However, we consider such marriages to be against public policy on the grounds that such relationships must inevitably result in a favoritism which disadvantages the other spouse(s). The Bible, by the way, also gives numerous examples of this.

you dont' know shit about me or my religion so, please dont' go there. i didnt' bring in god or the bible in my objection to same sex marriage.

#252 helloworld

there's even stories in france of women marrying their dead boyfriends!

Well, it makes sense then.

#266 Beagle:

"#252 helloworld

there's even stories in france of women marrying
their dead boyfriends!

Well, it makes sense then."

Well, they would tend to smell better.

beagle et al, here's the dead boyfriend link:
[Link: msnbc.msn.com...]

#31 SwampWoman,

because the L3 are not about any real moral base they are about power.

I am a Right-wing GOPer and I do not give a damn about a person's sexuality as long as it is a private matter. Wear it on your shirtsleeve and it can become my business if your overt behaviour is beyond the pale, hetero or homo for that matter.

RadGays wants to be protected in displays of public affection that heteros can be fined for it seems.

#122 V the K -

Nazi drag is such a turn on!

This year's Berlin film festival featured an interview with a pink triangle survivor recorded for posthoumous publication who told how he was forced to shave the bodies of dead Jews day after day before they went into the ovens.

However, not all of these for whom Tom of Finland is not authentic enough are aware of their sublimated necrophilia.

#269 and as long as their relationship meets "age reqs" I expect the same of everyone...

Nambla and stat rapists should be fried.

#270

But given the fact that homosexuality has existed in all human societies, and been widely documented in the animal world, your description of homosexuality as not being "acceptable as normal" in your post #252 has no scientific basis.

well some animals kill of the previous offspring of their future mates to insure the survival of their soon to be offspring, can i get away with this too? how would you feel about me killing off my wife's children with her previous husband so my kids can have a better chance to get ahead? after all it's observable in nature and hence natural, so it must be ok?

You can deny the right of related heterosexual adults to marry on the grounds that the genetic inbreeding which would result is against public policy.

No. You can't make the ability to produce genetically viable off-spring a prerequisite to marriage unless you disallow same-sex unions also. Biologically related pairs as well as same-sex couples can reproduce with the assistance of genetic material imported from outside the marriage.

By your logic, the state could also block marriages where one of the participant is known to carry a genetic predisposition toward a particlar disease or abnormality.

continuing #274... you see, in order to extend marriage to gay couples, it has to be decoupled from it's traditional purpose of providing a secure and stable environment for the raising of children and families.

We are in an era of post-modern marriage, and it is largely heterosexuals --- through no-fault divorce and the decline of monogamy and commitment --- that have brought us here. Post-Modern marriage is just a means of securing a certain set of social benefits.

Since accessing these social benefits are what marriage is all about, the traditional rationale for limiting it to heterosexual, biologically unrelated pairings can be... and must be... discarded.

After all, if marriage still required lifelong monogamous commitment --- let alone chastity prior to marriage --- I don't think very many gay people would be all that into it. Not too many heteros either, for that matter.

#274 V the K

By your logic, the state could also block marriages where one of the participant is known to carry a genetic predisposition toward a particlar disease or abnormality.

Some states used to do something close to that. I know in the 1940's in Pennsylvania epileptics could not marry. And racially mixed marriages were illegal in many if not most states for many years. Regarding legal grounds for marriage, the states have a history of doing scary stuff.

#277

But if you are done dredging up some of the dumbest reductio ad absurdum statements I can recollect in a while, maybe you can offer an actual, on-point statement--even one--suggesting a practical reason why same-sex couples should not be able to marry.

you were the one who introduced the "it happens in nature" arguement. lot's of things happen in the natural world, why do you look to some as examples to support your POV but ignore others as abusurd? ps did you know that rape is also an evolutionary advantage that some creatures use to insure the survival of their bloodlines, not evil or out of the ordinary but natural and beneficial.

No crime like apostasy...

Stay in lockstep or the Gay-stop-O will get you!

#164 krazykounselor -

I just find it incredibly ironic when Republicans are gay, given that their own party is moving to persecute them.

Outbid that. The real irony is that the most likely candidates to chop around in your nether regions are not some Christian chastity fetishists but the mullah-huggers in your local Gender Studies department.

Oooohhh Aaaalllaaahhh,

Aisha has two, okay, maybe three things to say to you Queerie Eye Village People at LGF:

1. Why is it that just about everyone here at LGF is playing haraam piano songs like Liberace? Aisha always knew you infidels were decadent girly-men. Why can't men just be men, Aisha asks you! Ohh no, they have to do men too. Oh Alllaaah protect us from the shaitaan!

2. When the kalifeh comes, insh'allah, we will know how to "silence" the lot of you for good. RasulAllah (SAW) has prescribed several punishments for this perversion, the least of which is throwing them of a mountain, or collapsing a wall on them, so it is clear that Allaah Ta'aala views these perverts with a special hatred. What Aisha finds amusing (and this never ceases to make Aisha feel all squirmy in the burkha) is that left-wing and Democrat Judy-Garland-Wizard-of-Oz men and their hairy-legged kufr sisters are doing so much to bring about the kalifeh, by their de-facto support for radical Islaam. Thanks for endorsing Kerry, Andy-poo! Truly, kufr, it is wondrous to behold.

When you feel the first delicious "thud" of the flying stone of Allaah (or the falling bricks of Our Beloved Nabi (SAW)) you infidel Queens of the Desert will know to thank the left and the Democrats for all they have done for you.

3. Oh krazycounselor, you kill me! Which is ironic, because that is what the Muslim brothers will be doing to you, insh'allah, when the kalifeh comes!

#280 -- That's not the basis on which legal argument for same-sex marriage is being made. The legal argument is entirely based on access to benefits.

Yes. Since you refused to discuss the religious basis of your bigotry, I anticipated your dredging up the "unnatural" line.

are you stuck on stupid or are you just trying to annoy me? who introduced god and religion into this discussion between us? i merely said if this is allowed the floodgates will open because under equal protection all consenting adults in whatever relationship they are in could demand and recieve the "right" to marry.

#255 buzzsawmonkey

If that means nothing to you, consider this: there is absolutely no logic to "disapproving" of the supposed promiscuity within the gay subculture when the legal structure has been, and to a very large extent still is, set up to deny gays any of the stability which heterosexual couples take for granted because of marriage.

You know, the "I have multiple anonymous sex partners because society won't give me a marriage license" excuse always struck me as kind of weak - particularly when it's gay men whose culture celebrates promiscuity, while the norm among lesbians is monogamy, even when young. AFAICS, it's a testosterone thing.

You really think that a piece of paper is going to make a man suddenly keep it in his pants? Heh.