Gay politicians

[Powerman]

There would have to be audio, video, pictures, letters, emails, deposits into bank accounts, witnesses, etc.

Someone walks into CBS today and tells them they had a homosexual affair with Cheney or Rice, you know there would have to be some kind of corraborating evidence.

You must not be thinking of the same CBS that I am. Forged documents anyone?

 

[GotZoom]

You must not be thinking of the same CBS that I am. Forged documents anyone?

After that fiasco, CBS would be the first ones to insist on evidence "overkill."

Then again, depending on how close to the election for that politician was.....

 

[mattskramer]

No Mr. homosexual apologist, it simply is about standing up for what is obviously right.

Who is to say what is right or wrong - you - (LOL) - the majority - it was wrong before - Who is to say?

Continue to call me insecure, reveal yourself to be the weak debater that you really are.

I reasoned that, deep down. you may be insecure about your own identity. If you are so secure then why are you so interested in denying gay marriage. Why do you continue to rant that homosexuality is abnormal and not to be tolerated? It is by no means an indication that I am a weak debater. I have outdebated you on almost every facet of the homosexuality issue.

I grant you just 1 point. In the area of Libertarianism, you asked if I would support beastiality. I could not support that even though, with Homosexuality, it is a victimless crime. I suppose that there should be limits even when it comes to "consensual crimes". It just depends on where you draw the line. You probably support more restrictions on personal activity than I would.

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.

I never used the word homophobe. No. I reasoned that, deep down. you may be insecure about your own identity. If you are so secure then why are you so interested in denying gay marriage. Why do you continue to rant that homosexuality is abnormal and not to be tolerated? It was simply one notion among many points that I have made.

For your sake shall we move on to another topic?

LOL - perhaps you are desperate to move on.

 

[Gunny]

No Mr. homosexual apologist, it simply is about standing up for what is obviously right.

Who is to say what is right or wrong - you - (LOL) - the majority - it was wrong before - Who is to say?

Continue to call me insecure, reveal yourself to be the weak debater that you really are.

I reasoned that, deep down. you may be insecure about your own identity. If you are so secure then why are you so interested in denying gay marriage. Why do you continue to rant that homosexuality is abnormal and not to be tolerated? It is by no means an indication that I am a weak debater. I have outdebated you on almost every facet of the homosexuality issue.

I grant you just 1 point. In the area of Libertarianism, you asked if I would support beastiality. I could not support that even though, with Homosexuality, it is a victimless crime. I suppose that there should be limits even when it comes to "consensual crimes". It just depends on where you draw the line. You probably support more restrictions on personal activity than I would.

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.

I never used the word homophobe. No. I reasoned that, deep down. you may be insecure about your own identity. If you are so secure then why are you so interested in denying gay marriage. Why do you continue to rant that homosexuality is abnormal and not to be tolerated? It was simply one notion among many points that I have made.

For your sake shall we move on to another topic?

LOL - perhaps you are desperate to move on.

My question for you is this:

If you find religious symbols on state property offensive and I say don't look and you argue that you cannot help but look .....

How is it suddenly a different situation when homosexuals are flaunting their agenda in our faces?

Seems you're mighty selective in who is deserving of rights accorded by the Fitrst Amendment. Homsexuals are deserving of free speech, Christians are not.

 

[mattskramer]

My question for you is this:

If you find religious symbols on state property offensive and I say don't look and you argue that you cannot help but look .....

How is it suddenly a different situation when homosexuals are flaunting their agenda in our faces?

Seems you're mighty selective in who is deserving of rights accorded by the Fitrst Amendment. Homsexuals are deserving of free speech, Christians are not.

Oh please. No offense, but the logic is so simple. The following may serve as an example:

(Disclaimer: If public displays of gay affection don't constitute part of the gay agenda, please give an example.) Pretend that I am a homosexual. My partner and I are walking down the street. We pause and kiss a few yards in front of you. It may be difficult for you not to notice. You may even describe our actions as "flaunting our agenda in your face". Did the federal government provide me with your tax money in order for me to do this? No.

If I visit the Supreme Court, I am likely to see a statue depicting the "10 Commandments". The statue is "supported" by federal tax money.

(Did you know that anti-gay-marriage people flaunt their agenda too?)

 

[mattskramer]

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.

(SIGH)

Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.

Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.

Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.

Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.

Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.

Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.

The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

 

[Gunny]

Oh please. No offense, but the logic is so simple. The following may serve as an example:

(Disclaimer: If public displays of gay affection don't constitute part of the gay agenda, please give an example.) Pretend that I am a homosexual. My partner and I are walking down the street. We pause and kiss a few yards in front of you. It may be difficult for you not to notice. You may even describe our actions as "flaunting our agenda in your face". Did the federal government provide me with your tax money in order for me to do this? No.

If I visit the Supreme Court, I am likely to see a statue depicting the "10 Commandments". The statue is "supported" by federal tax money.

(Did you know that anti-gay-marriage people flaunt their agenda too?)

I kind of that that would be the justification for your double-standard.

Here's some simpler logic ..... my tax dollars pay for the building and maintenace of that sidewalk you're smooching your boyfriend on.

 

[mattskramer]

I kind of that that would be the justification for your double-standard.

Here's some simpler logic ..... my tax dollars pay for the building and maintenace of that sidewalk you're smooching your boyfriend on.

Oh. I thought that it was obvious that you are allowed to use the same tax-supported sidewalk to promote your anti-homosexuality agenda in my face. You can even smooch your partner on the sidewalk while in front of me.

I have a statue of Buddha. Will you support it's placement in the Supreme Court? Don't you see the parallel? Try to reason outside your sexual orientation and religious bias. Look around.

 

[Gunny]

Oh. I thought that it was obvious that you are allowed to use the same tax-supported sidewalk to promote your anti-homosexuality agenda in my face. You can even smooch your partner on the sidewalk.

I have a statue of Buddha. Will you support it's placement in the Supreme Court? Don't you see the parallel? Try to reason outside your sexual orientation and religious bias. Look around.

I AM reasoning outside my personal biases. I contend that YOU are not. Perhaps you should not only look around, but look INSIDE.

 

[mattskramer]

I AM reasoning outside my personal biases. I contend that YOU are not. Perhaps you should not only look around, but look INSIDE.

No, you are not. You did not even fathom that as homosexuals are supposedly pushing their agenda onto you, heterosexuals are pushing their agenda onto homosexuals - until I practically had to spell it out for you. As homosexuals are allowed to kiss in public, heterosexuals are allowed to kiss in public.

 

[archangel]

No, you are not. You did not even fathom that as homosexuals are supposedly pushing their agenda onto you, heterosexuals are pushing their agenda onto homosexuals - until I practically had to spell it out for you. As homosexuals are allowed to kiss in public, heterosexuals are allowed to kiss in public.

If you are a truly "happily married hetrosexual" as you admitted in previous posts why do you get so excited about the oppostion being against public display of homosexual affection? Be honest for once...what are you-gay or straight? Agnostic or closet Islam homosexual? closet <<< er maybe!

 

[mattskramer]

If you are a truly "happily married hetrosexual" as you admitted in previous posts why do you get so excited about the oppostion being against public display of homosexual affection? Be honest for once...what are you-gay or straight? Agnostic or closet Islam homosexual? closet <<< er maybe![/QUOTE]

I have always been honest here. I don't get excited about the opposition being against public displays of homosexual affection. I simply think that if we are to allow public displays of heterosexual affection, we should allow public displays of homosexual affection. It is as simple as that. Personally, I'm an agnostic heterosexual - if it makes any difference to the debate. What are you - a heterosexual? - Oh.

 

[Gunny]

No, you are not. You did not even fathom that as homosexuals are supposedly pushing their agenda onto you, heterosexuals are pushing their agenda onto homosexuals - until I practically had to spell it out for you. As homosexuals are allowed to kiss in public, heterosexuals are allowed to kiss in public.

Dishonest argument. Heterosexuals are normal. Homosexuals are not.

And please quit flattering yourself. It's annoying and makes you less than worthy as an opponent. You haven't had to spell out anything for me. You just aren't that smart.

The whole point to both your arguments -- common denominator, if you will -- is that in both cases you think the minority should be able to force it's will on the majority, and that's just bullshit.

 

[William Joyce]

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

Bingo. They don't want to feel left out. But it shouldn't be the job of the government to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. The job of the effing government is to pave the roads and defend the borders. And if you haven't noticed, they have not been doing a very good job of that, so maybe they could get to that before taking up the next gay issue.

 

[mattskramer]

I have always been honest here. I don't get excited about the opposition being against public displays of homosexual affection. I simply think that if we are to allow public displays of heterosexual affection, we should allow public displays of homosexual affection. It is as simple as that. Personally, I'm an agnostic heterosexual - if it makes any difference to the debate. What are you - a heterosexual? - Oh.

____________________________
If ya can't tell by my posts..well ya are dumber than a ox.....geeeez![/QUOTE]

I tried to make a point by throwing the question back at you. I guess that I missed. Sheesh. Do I have to spell it out for you too? One's association within or outside a group in question is irrelevant to the legitimacy of his comments about the "rights" that the group should or should not have. Am I to conclude that you are anti-gay-marriage because you are a heterosexual? Oh good grief. Take a beginner's course in logic. Sheesh.

 

[archangel]

you make absolutely no sense whatever....OCA stated you had a... how shall I say it...feelings for a young man 'unnatural' in your past...you admitted it and then went on to say you were a "happily married hetrosexual"...how can anyone distance your previous comments from reality...now you are saying you are outside the box defending "others" preference....sorry does not compute!

 

[Gunny]

____________________________
If ya can't tell by my posts..well ya are dumber than a ox.....geeeez!

I tried to make a point by throwing the question back at you. I guess that I missed. Sheesh. Do I have to spell it out for you too? One's association within or outside a group in question is irrelevant to the legitimacy of his comments about the "rights" that the group should or should not have. Am I to conclude that you are anti-gay-marriage because you are a heterosexual? Oh good grief. Take a beginner's course in logic. Sheesh.[/QUOTE]

Dude ..... you need to chill. YOU are turning this into something more than a discussion with your usual, elitist, condescending attitude. Give it a rest, or quit trying to play "above it all" when the trash you deal comes flying back in your face.

 

[mattskramer]

Dishonest argument. Heterosexuals are normal. Homosexuals are not.

And please quit flattering yourself. It's annoying and makes you less than worthy as an opponent. You haven't had to spell out anything for me. You just aren't that smart.

The whole point to both your arguments -- common denominator, if you will -- is that in both cases you think the minority should be able to force it's will on the majority, and that's just bullshit.

LOL - Is it normal to color your hair - No? Is it okay - Yes? Normalcy has nothing to do with it. By choice and/or due to genetics, homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply lifestyles.

Yes. I did have to spell it out for you.

All sides (pro-gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage) use the rights that they have (free speech, freedom of assembly, etc.), and legal / political processes to get what they want. Considering all of this, do you think that the majority should force its will on the minority on all issues and in all cases? - That's just bullshit. Thankfully we have relatively knowledgeable people in government who, we hope, take issues into consideration when making, applying, and interpreting law.

 

[Gunny]

LOL - Is it normal to color your hair - No? Is it okay - Yes? Normalcy has nothing to do with it. By choice and/or due to genetics, homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply lifestyles.

Yes. I did have to spell it out for you.

All sides (pro-gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage) use the rights that they have (free speech, freedom of assembly, etc.), and legal / political processes to get what they want. Considering all of this, do you think that the majority should force its will on the minority on all issues and in all cases? - That's just bullshit. Thankfully we have relatively knowledgeable people in government who, we hope, take issues into consideration when making, applying, and interpreting law.

I guess you can't read English and I'm tired of trying to be polite with a egomaniacal, elitist nimrod. You don't have to spell out shit for me. Your dishonest motive and double standard is clear as bell to any third grader that looks. That's the problem with you elitists ... you think you're so damned smarter than everyone else you don't think you have to conceal your dishonesty.

THE POINT ... above all others is that you want to force the will of the minority onto the majority.

The only realitively knowledgeable people who champion your backwards-assed, bullshit argument are the ACLU, American Communist Party, and/or any other left-wingnutjob with a micorphone.

This is two threads you've jacked up with your unwarranted condescension and delsusional, pseudo-intelectual yet dishonest arguments where I am concerned.

Please feel free to ignore me in the future as long as you can do nothing but resort to acting the fool once cornered.

 

[mattskramer]

you make absolutely no sense whatever....OCA stated you had a... how shall I say it...feelings for a young man 'unnatural' in your past...you admitted it and then went on to say you were a "happily married hetrosexual"...how can anyone distance your previous comments from reality...now you are saying you are outside the box defending "others" preference....sorry does not compute!

A long time ago I was mildly physically attracted to a young man. Sexually, we did not go very far. After a few months we parted ways. That was the extent of it. That was, if I remember well, over 15 years ago. Perhaps I'm 20 percent gay and 80 percent straight. It really does not matter to the debate about homosexuality. I consider myself as being "outside the box". I might be wrong but I think that I actually imagine what life must be like from other people's perspectives. I'm not a Muslim but I think about how a Muslim, particularly a Muslim against terrorism, faces life. I am not a homosexual but I think about how homosexuals see things. I've talked with Muslims though I'm not a Muslim. I've visited with gays though I'm not gay. I don't see how that does not compute.