Gay Group "Log Cabin" Throws Fit

[rtwngAvngr]

not comparable? laughable? assault and battery may still be illegal, but does that stop it from happening? not hardly. Look at the issue today in both political and domestic terms. It's polarizing to the point of gays vs. straight, homo's vs. homophobes, and the infighting is only increasing. When it tears us apart domestically, we're still destroyed, just not in a physical sense like an outside attack would.

I'm talking about real, actual destruction. I will give you a million bucks the day the gay and straight armies rumble in the streets.

 

[DKSuddeth]

typical.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

typical.

If you really feel homophobia is a bigger threat to our country than terrorism, I pity you.

 

[DKSuddeth]

If you really feel homophobia is a bigger threat to our country than terrorism, I pity you.

pity me then, if you feel it will placate you. you know as well as I do that a country can implode or explode. Terrorism, homophobia, abortion rights, health care, and any other number of polarizing issues will all have the same effect. The only difference is the length of time it will take to occur.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

pity me then, if you feel it will placate you. you know as well as I do that a country can implode or explode. Terrorism, homophobia, abortion rights, health care, and any other number of polarizing issues will all have the same effect. The only difference is the length of time it will take to occur.

No. The issue of gay marriage could never destroy our nation. That's absurd. But believe what you must to avoid taking a stand.

 

[DKSuddeth]

No. The issue of gay marriage could never destroy our nation. That's absurd. But believe what you must to avoid taking a stand.

I could have sworn I stated my stand earlier in this thread, or are there only two recognizable positions for you? for bush or against bush?

as for gay marriage destroying america, I don't believe I said that at all. It will be the issue of homo's vs. homophobes as a whole....but you knew thats what I was saying. Did you grasp at this to avoid taking a stand?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I could have sworn I stated my stand earlier in this thread, or are there only two recognizable positions for you? for bush or against bush?

Well those are actually the choices on the table. It's not up to me.

as for gay marriage destroying america, I don't believe I said that

I don't believe you said it either. It's pretty absurd.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Well those are actually the choices on the table. It's not up to me.

are we wiping the third parties out of existence now?

I don't believe you said it either. It's pretty absurd.

now add the rest of my sentence in there, "It will be the issue of homo's vs. homophobes as a whole....but you knew thats what I was saying. Did you grasp at this to avoid taking a stand?"

 

[KarlMarx]

ah, republicans. the party of inclusion.

Why should the Republican Party abandon its core constituency to attract the votes of a group of people that, for the most part, oppose practically everything that they stand for? All for the name of "inclusion"? When the gays start talking and acting pro-family, then we'll talk.....

Speaking of the "Party of Inclusion", if you mean the Democrats, you'd better think again. Name one speaker at the DNC that was pro-life. If you can't think of anyone, that's because there weren't any. Democrats and Liberals will tolerate almost any type of outrageous behavior but won't tolerate any difference of opinion or belief. They'll stand up for "diversity" but can't stomach diversity of belief. They'll stand up for freedom to sodomize and the freedom to kill babies, but they won't tolerate the free exercise of religion nor the free exercise of thought.

Democrats and liberals like to badmouth Southerners, NASCAR fans, WalMart, stay at home mothers, Christian Evengelicals, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, pro-lifers ...... do you get the picture?

If anyone needs to become more inclusive, it's the Democrats and more to the point, "liberals".

So if you want to criticize someone, talk a good long look in the mirror.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Why should the Republican Party abandon its core constituency to attract the votes of a group of people that, for the most part, oppose practically everything that they stand for? All for the name of "inclusion"? When the gays start talking and acting pro-family, then we'll talk.....

so homosexuality is the 'core' constituency of the republican party?

Speaking of the "Party of Inclusion", if you mean the Democrats, you'd better think again. Name one speaker at the DNC that was pro-life. If you can't think of anyone, that's because there weren't any. Democrats and Liberals will tolerate almost any type of outrageous behavior but won't tolerate any difference of opinion or belief. They'll stand up for "diversity" but can't stomach diversity of belief. They'll stand up for freedom to sodomize and the freedom to kill babies, but they won't tolerate the free exercise of religion nor the free exercise of thought.

read the rest of my posts karl, you KNOW I don't think much of the democrats either so this paragraph of your's didn't have alot of merit.

Democrats and liberals like to badmouth Southerners, NASCAR fans, WalMart, stay at home mothers, Christian Evengelicals, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, pro-lifers ...... do you get the picture?

well, I live in texas, love nascar, hate walmart, my wife is a stay at home mom.....hmmmm.

If anyone needs to become more inclusive, it's the Democrats and more to the point, "liberals".

gee, I thought I was pretty damn inclusive.

So if you want to criticize someone, talk a good long look in the mirror.

I have, have you?

 

[007]

depends on which party(s) stop being hypocritical. If I find that neither party can stop being hypocritical, I'll find one thats not or start my own.

Any ideas what you're going to call it?

 

[KarlMarx]

so homosexuality is the 'core' constituency of the republican party?

No, quite the opposite.....which is my point...

read the rest of my posts karl, you KNOW I don't think much of the democrats either so this paragraph of your's didn't have alot of merit.

Sorry if you took that to post to be directed at you personally...it wasn't meant to be. I have heard my fill of snide remarks about the groups I mentioned from liberals both personally and via the media.

The truth is that many liberals are pretty closed minded individuals and are pretty damn sanctimonious. I realize that not all liberals fall into that category but a lot certainly do and the Democratic party reflects much of those biases.

 

[DKSuddeth]

No, quite the opposite.....which is my point...

ok, what I MEANT was opposing homosexuality. Because I always thought that less government and less taxes was the core constituency of the republican party.

Sorry if you took that to post to be directed at you personally...it wasn't meant to be. I have heard my fill of snide remarks about the groups I mentioned from liberals both personally and via the media.

no problem

The truth is that many liberals are pretty closed minded individuals and are pretty damn sanctimonious. I realize that not all liberals fall into that category but a lot certainly do and the Democratic party reflects much of those biases.

sadly, this is true.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Any ideas what you're going to call it?

I suppose the DK party would be too full of nepotism so I'd have to think about it for awhile.

 

[KarlMarx]

ok, what I MEANT was opposing homosexuality. Because I always thought that less government and less taxes was the core constituency of the republican party.

Opposition to homosexuality is not a plank of the Republican party, that I am aware of. The party isn't actively trying to wipe it out.

But what does believing that the gay lifestyle is wrong have to do with government? I believe that the government shouldn't be subsidizing the gay lifestyle (which it does here in New York), should not be writing laws that force affirmative action for gays (which I believe will eventually happen), etc.

Actually, homosexuals have managed to increase our taxes and expand the role of government in our lives already. One example is AIDS.

The government is spending billions on AIDS, a disease which has affected less than 900,000 people since 1981 and according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) primarily affects gays and drug users. The reason for this vast amount of money being spent on a disease that affects such a small segment of the population? Aggressive lobbying by the gay activists. Plus a lot of that money isn't being used for research to eradicate the disease or find a cure but for "education" (i.e. pushing the World's value down the throats of our kids whether their parents agree with them or not)

Contrast that with the amount spent per year by the government on Alzheimer's disease research (about 500 million dollars per year). Alzheimer's disease will affect millions of people in this country alone within a decade and it affects the elderly. So why isn't more money being spent on this? Again, the reason is lobbying, or the lack of it.