Gay politicians

[archangel]

I can agree with the premise of your statement. My reference was more in line with the 70's to present. I cannot predict the future with certainty, and do not much speculate on what American society will and won't accept. As stated previously, what we "accept" is forced upon is more in the present and past 10-15 years than in times previous.

Some change is inevitable because common sense and/or logic finally clicks. Homosexuality defies logic and common sense, and so the percentages reflect. 80+% believe homosexuality is abnormal, and I doubt it's ever been much higher than that.

But a betting man would put his money on the vocal minority and politically correct shoving "acceptance" down the majority's throats. THAT, is not acceptance, IMO. It is abuse of our laws.

and the majority is now becomming more vocal to the shigrin of the minority!

 

[Isaac Brock]

I can agree with the premise of your statement. My reference was more in line with the 70's to present. I cannot predict the future with certainty, and do not much speculate on what American society will and won't accept. As stated previously, what we "accept" is forced upon is more in the present and past 10-15 years than in times previous.

Some change is inevitable because common sense and/or logic finally clicks. Homosexuality defies logic and common sense, and so the percentages reflect. 80+% believe homosexuality is abnormal, and I doubt it's ever been much higher than that.

But a betting man would put his money on the vocal minority and politically correct shoving "acceptance" down the majority's throats. THAT, is not acceptance, IMO. It is abuse of our laws.

Perhaps, but to me, I see homosexuality as something found in nature, but perhaps that is the scientist in me. 80% of people think that right now, but i'd imagine in 20 years it'd be more like 50-60 and in a hundred more, we'd scarcely blink an eye, but that is mere speculations at best.

As for the judicial process, I'm not well acquainted with US laws, but I know legislation in Canada using what we call a not-withstanding clause can trump the judiciary with a 66% majority. If it is so prevalently opposed in the States, I cannot see why laws could be drafted as such, not that I think it is remotely necessary.

 

[mattskramer]

Exactly. What DOES free speech have to do with anything? I don't care what you do within the privacy of your own home as long as no one is being abused.

The "free speech" only applies to those that want to flaunt their abnormal lifestyle in everyone's faces.

It makes America great when used correctly. When abused, it gives nutjobs and in this case abnormal people an avenue to shove their disgusting behavior down everyone's throats.

Good. You should not object to homosexuals having sex in the privacy of their own homes.

Free speech applies to everyone - even to those who want to flaunt Christianity and Conservative views in everyone's faces.

For the most part, people are allowed to say things even when you dislike what is said.

 

[Bonnie]

Seems like a vocal majority of people on this forum are anti-gay.

What would you do if a major politician "came out"? Suppose the president, vice president or secretary of state either admitted to being gay or were exposed. Would it change your support or make you call for impeachment?

This is just theoretical. I am not implying any of those people are gay.

As long as they had good character I wouldn't care, by that I mean not imposing a gay agenda on the rest of the country, some like Barney Franks have come close to crossing that line, in fact I beleive he did some law breaking, not sure if it was ever proven, only alleged.

I have volunteered at various causes that were near to my heart with gay people. "Lesbians For Life" was one, and many who worked on political campaigns with me who did positive things to make change happen without foisitng their sexual proclivity on me, and I returned the favor by not doing that to them either. It worked out nicely

 

[Gunny]

Good. You should not object to homosexuals having sex in the privacy of their own homes.

Free speech applies to everyone - even to those who want to flaunt Christianity and Conservative views in everyone's faces.

For the most part, people are allowed to say things even when you dislike what is said.

I suppose you missed the part where I said I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes?

Free speech not only applies to nimrods spouting stupidity, it applies to those of us that oppose their views.

 

[mattskramer]

I suppose you missed the part where I said I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes?

Free speech not only applies to nimrods spouting stupidity, it applies to those of us that oppose their views.

Okay. I caught myself starting to do the same thing that I accuse other of doing - making assumptions about one person based upon comments that he makes that link him to other people. Okay. So you don't oppose what some people would call "unnatural" sex. Then what is your objection to homosexuality? Is it that you don't want it mentioned in front of you - the free speech issue - or is it simply gay marriage that you oppose?

"Free speech not only applies to nimrods spouting stupidity, it applies to those of us that oppose their views."

Silly name-calling removed, I could not agree more!

 

[Gunny]

Perhaps, but to me, I see homosexuality as something found in nature, but perhaps that is the scientist in me. 80% of people think that right now, but i'd imagine in 20 years it'd be more like 50-60 and in a hundred more, we'd scarcely blink an eye, but that is mere speculations at best.

As I previously stated, the difference between it being found in "nature," and being found in Man, is that Man has the ability to reason, animals do not. Animals are doing what feels good; therefore, the stigma of homosexuality is improperly applied.

Man, with his ability to reason, KNOWS that homosexuality is abnormal behavior, and socially unacceptable behavior. If he chooses to do it anyway, then he needs to not be whining about the consequences of not conforming to the norms of society.

As for the judicial process, I'm not well acquainted with US laws, but I know legislation in Canada using what we call a not-withstanding clause can trump the judiciary with a 66% majority. If it is so prevalently opposed in the States, I cannot see why laws could be drafted as such, not that I think it is remotely necessary.

What happens is, the ACLU or similar groups KNOW which judges are sympathetic to their views, and they file most of their lawsuits where they know they have a chance of a sympathetic ear. Justices who overstep their bounds of interpreting law, will either create their own interpretation or just declare a law or laws unConstitutional.

 

[Bonnie]

What happens is, the ACLU or similar groups KNOW which judges are sympathetic to their views, and they file most of their lawsuits where they know they have a chance of a sympathetic ear. Justices who overstep their bounds of interpreting law, will either create their own interpretation or just declare a law or laws unConstitutional.

And I would add to this that Judges are used because gay activist groups know the only way to get their agenda thru is to circumvent the voters and go straight for symapthetic activist judges. That's what angers me, and it is that action of having that agenda rammed down our collective throats behind closed judge's chamber doors that thas many in this country very angry, and rightly so. And this certainly does not stop with Homosexual rights, it encompasses many different issues.

 

[Gunny]

Then what is your objection to homosexuality? Is it that you don't want it mentioned in front of you - the free speech issue - or is it simply gay marriage that you oppose?

"Free speech not only applies to nimrods spouting stupidity, it applies to those of us that oppose their views."

Silly name-calling removed, I could not agree more!

My objection to the homosexual agenda has been stated several times. It is abnormal behavior, and I consider it an abuse of the intent of the Constitution to force the views and/or lifestyle of less than 20% on the ovewhelming majority who oppose them.

Homosexuality itself isn't my problem since I'm not one.

I oppose gay marriage for the same reason you oppose a religious emblem on state property. If you don't want my religion in your state, keep your state out of my religion.

Marriage is a term historically reserved for a man and woman. As a married person, I prefer not to have that institution perverted by any coupling the state decides is okay.

As far as free speech goes ..... it is not the homosexuals who go about their business making all the noise here. It's the shock troops. The ones that want to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's faces.

That is inappropriate behavior for heterosexuals ...so how come it's okay for homosexuals?

 

[Gunny]

And I would add to this that Judges are used because gay activist groups know the only way to get their agenda thru is to circumvent the voters and go straight for symapthetic activist judges. That's what angers me, and it is that action of having that agenda rammed down our collective throats behind closed judge's chamber doors that thas many in this country very angry, and rightly so. And this certainly does not stop with Homosexual rights, it encompasses many different issues.

Agreed. Well said.

 

[mattskramer]

I still don't understand.

My objection to the homosexual agenda has been stated several times.

Could you be specific and itemize it? Is it that you oppose the way it is supposedly being taught? If so, would you support privatizing education? Is it that they are allowed to speak about it? We went over that topic.

It is abnormal behavior, and I consider it an abuse of the intent of the Constitution to force the views and/or lifestyle of less than 20% on the ovewhelming majority who oppose them.

You said that you don't mind homosexual activity behind closed doors, so you would not outlaw this "abnormal behavior". How is free speech "forcing" people's views onto you. You don't have to agree with what they say or believe.

I oppose gay marriage for the same reason you oppose a religious emblem on state property. If you don't want my religion in your state, keep your state out of my religion.

Fair enough. So you oppose the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" or the Federal government's attempt to define marriage within the US Constitution?

Marriage is a term historically reserved for a man and woman. As a married person, I prefer not to have that institution perverted by any coupling the state decides is okay.

Slavery was a historical institution. Interfaith marriage was not acceptable by society. Just because something has a history does not make it right. Even if gay marriage is allowed, it will not damage heterosexual marriage. My marriage is strong enough for it to be next to homosexual marriages.

As far as free speech goes ..... it is not the homosexuals who go about their business making all the noise here. It's the shock troops. The ones that want to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's faces.

That is inappropriate behavior for heterosexuals ...so how come it's okay for homosexuals?

It is free speech. To the degree that it is okay for homosexuals it is okay for heterosexuals. Go ahead. Speak and let your voice be heard! So I'll ask you in a more specific manner: Specifically what is it about homosexuality that you would not allow?

 

[Gunny]

I still don't understand.

My objection to the homosexual agenda has been stated several times.

Could you be specific and itemize it? Is it that you oppose the way it is supposedly being taught? If so, would you support privatizing education? Is it that they are allowed to speak about it? We went over that topic.

I oppose the way it is taught. I oppose the way the left attempts to pass it off as normal behavior. I oppose the way it is being shoved down everyone's throats via legislation from the bench.

To clarify even further, I see no difference between a homosexual and a farmer and his sheep. I consider the behavior itself beneath contempt.
It is abnormal behavior, and I consider it an abuse of the intent of the Constitution to force the views and/or lifestyle of less than 20% on the ovewhelming majority who oppose them.

You said that you don't mind homosexual activity behind closed doors, so you would not outlaw this "abnormal behavior". How is free speech "forcing" people's views onto you. You don't have to agree with what they say or believe.

I have not stated I would outlaw it. There's a big difference between outlawing and nonacceptance.

If I don't agree with you and you're in my face, you're forcing your views on me. In reality, you probably wouldn't like the violent reaction you would be the recipient of.

I oppose gay marriage for the same reason you oppose a religious emblem on state property. If you don't want my religion in your state, keep your state out of my religion.

Fair enough. So you oppose the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" or the Federal government's attempt to define marriage within the US Constitution?

I believe those powers to be relegated to the states.

Marriage is a term historically reserved for a man and woman. As a married person, I prefer not to have that institution perverted by any coupling the state decides is okay.

Slavery was a historical institution. Interfaith marriage was not acceptable by society. Just because something has a history does not make it right. Even if gay marriage is allowed, it will not damage heterosexual marriage. My marriage is strong enough for it to be next to homosexual marriages.

Matter of opinion. I prefer mine to yours.

As far as free speech goes ..... it is not the homosexuals who go about their business making all the noise here. It's the shock troops. The ones that want to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's faces.

That is inappropriate behavior for heterosexuals ...so how come it's okay for homosexuals?

It is free speech. To the degree that it is okay for homosexuals it is okay for heterosexuals. Go ahead. Speak and let your voice be heard! So I'll ask you in a more specific manner: Specifically what is it about homosexuality that you would not allow?

I'm wondering how many times I have to say this ......... I would not allow homosexual marriage, nor legislation from the bench that forces the views of less than 20% on the 80+% who oppose those views. And they wouldn't be flaunting their sexuality out in the street. You can call it free speech if you want. What it is is inappropriate behavior in public, and an abuse of the intent of freedom of expression.

 

[Gabriella84]

As for the subject of "gay politicians," how about Condi Rice?
The woman is 48 years old and is not yet married. You never see her in the company of men, or even discussed.
Don't ask, don't tell perhaps? :whip3:

 

[manu1959]

personally i agree all politicians should be happier

 

[sitarro]

Can they convert a "left" handed person to a "right" handed person too? No? damn..more thumper BS.

Phil Michelson, very talented professional golfer, learned golf by mirroring his father's swing. Even though he is right handed, he plays golf left handed.

 

[Merlin1047]

Rational discussion of homosexuality is always challenging at best, next to impossible at worst.

This thread is in danger of deteriorating into the usual "faggot" / "homophobe" format.

Let's try to avoid that, if at all possible.

 

[OCA]

Insecure big time! Anybody who worries about any other adults sex life has a problem with their own. When they see something that bothers them it's because they are afraid they are the same way or would do the same thing given the opportunity.

No Mr. homosexual apologist, it simply is about standing up for what is obviously right. Continue to call me insecure, reveal yourself to be the weak debater that you really are. Calling someone a homophobe or insecure in his sexuality is like the hail mary in football, its a last second desperate chance at getting lucky and coming out on top, unfortunately it never works.

For your sake shall we move on to another topic?

 

[OCA]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


Still get the impression that if your sex life were interesting you wouldn't be interjecting yourself into that of others.

If it purely is just about sex life then why the need for marriage? Lots of people like to piss on each other, people think they are freaks but as long as they keep it to themselves they don't get bothered, so why can't queers doi the same?

I'll tell ya, its all to legitimize their perversion of choice.

 

[OCA]

When the majority gang up on the minority rather than giving them their rights, the majority prove themselves to be girlie-men.

What rights are they missing that doesn't preclude them from legitimizing their vile acts?

 

[archangel]

If it purely is just about sex life then why the need for marriage? Lots of people like to piss on each other, people think they are freaks but as long as they keep it to themselves they don't get bothered, so why can't queers doi the same?

I'll tell ya, its all to legitimize their perversion of choice.

I already tried that approach with nucular..he is just angry that no parts have been offered to him...actors are in fact very shallow people...if they are not in the limelight...well they create discourse...pure and simple! :crutch: