Anti-gay speaker booed off stage at - CPAC?

[mattpegher]

I often wonder how much of this is a silent majority who will not be bothered to cast their vote. I would like to believe that most americans would defend equal rites under the law for all citizens regardless of race, gender or sexual preferrence. In todays expanded society, most of us know and are friends with people of same sex preference. I for one would like my same-sex friends to have all the rights that I as a heterosexual man have. These are friends for whom I feel outrage at the populace's cavelier attitude toward their rites.

 

[Craig234]

We're clearly using different definitions of what defines a moral issue, and I'm going to just leave it at that, since most debates on semantics are pointless.

What do you mean by 'semantics'?

Regarding choice, and the highlighted paragraph, I personally don't consider whether an action is a "choice" when I consider whether it's also "moral" or not. For example, I've read studies suggesting a link between genetic factors and tendencies toward violence. Even if murderers may have little 'choice' in their explosive dispositions, I still consider murder to be immoral. Likewise, many pedophiles have claimed they've had sexual attraction toward children since birth; i.e., it's not a choice. That may be true, but sexual conduct with a child should still remain a crime.

We're discussing different issues. As I said, I'm rebutting the myth that it's a choice - not condoning discrimination if it is.

You're right, that 'natural' doesn't mean 'ok' - that's another discussion. But in this case you need to show homosexuality is similarly harmful to people to justify discrimination, and as you admit, it's not.

 

[werepossum]

We're clearly using different definitions of what defines a moral issue, and I'm going to just leave it at that, since most debates on semantics are pointless.

Regarding choice, and the highlighted paragraph, I personally don't consider whether an action is a "choice" when I consider whether it's also "moral" or not. For example, I've read studies suggesting a link between genetic factors and tendencies toward violence. Even if murderers may have little 'choice' in their explosive dispositions, I still consider murder to be immoral. Likewise, many pedophiles have claimed they've had sexual attraction toward children since birth; i.e., it's not a choice. That may be true, but sexual conduct with a child should still remain a crime.

Regarding homosexuality, as I already discussed above, we as a society need not concern ourselves with whether it's "moral" or "immoral" - if it only involves consenting adults, the gov't and the law need not be involved, or need only be neutral in their treatment of it. To me, it's similar to divorce, which some religions prohibit, but the law does (and should) not. If Joe Citizen considers divorce immoral, Joe and Sally Citizen should stay married, but not prohibit John and Jane Doe from separating if they decide their marriage is not longer working. The Doe's divorce doesn't affect the Citizen's marriage at all.

Exactly right. Homosexuality may be a choice for some, but it's a choice that does not materially affect other people. If we are to have freedom we must each first own ourselves. We should therefore be free to enter into whatever contracts and relationships we wish unless and until the majority can show a high probability that a particular action will likely result in material damage to another. There is and should be no right to not be offended by another's actions, and whether my neighbor's spouse is an innee or an outee affects me not at all.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally Posted by zsdersw
Yes, not that surprising. Until the Republican presidential candidate doesn't have to speak out against gay marriage and gay adoption to win the Republican primary, the GOP will never get my vote nationally.

This, 1000x this.

Never say never. You never know if the parties will take a dramatic shift on views like they did in the 50's-70's

 

[daishi5]

If CPAC has morals, they'd condemn the comments against gays.

Did I miss something, I thought the topic was about how CPAC drove the man making gay-bashing statements off stage.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I was just bringing up a discussion I was reading on the topic from both sides last month and one of the arguments were what would happen if the human race were to switch from heterosexual to homosexual. A lot of the counter arguments were that we would organize it so births would still occur. I disagree with that because right now the way we handle social issues is pretty bad and implementing something like that just wouldn't work for now...

You must be blissfully unaware of the gay couples who already resort to artificial insemination and surrogate pregnancy without the survival of the species at issue.

 

[rudder]

emocratsgoodrepublicansbadooompfwaahhh.txt

Perhaps you should step back and look in the mirror. You are full of self hate which you project. Hiding behind the visage of someone who thinks they know it all. Perhaps you are not hiding. Perhaps you do think you know it all. Look in the mirror at the hate. Hate towards the immovable object. Yes, you are the hate. Once you realize you do not know it all and that you spew the intolerance that you abhor... well actually my day would get boring because you would probably stop posting.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Anti-gay speaker booed off stage at - CPAC?
And this makes CPAC any less nutty ?
Palin/Beck - 2012 ?
LOL...

You must have missed the news; in this year's CPAC presidential straw poll, 31% of the votes went to Dr. Paul.

 

[soundforbjt]

You must have missed the news; in this year's CPAC presidential straw poll, 31% of the votes went to Dr. Paul.

how is that news?, happened last election too.

Paulbots to the rescue!

 

[werepossum]

how is that news?, happened last election too.

Paulbots to the rescue!

Makes you wonder how CPAC could take so long to come around to this point of view, since I've never heard Dr. Paul say anything bad about gays. Granted, neither Paul nor gay issues nor CPAC is high of my list of things important, so I might have missed something or may be more surprised than is warranted.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The gay issue is increasingly a looser for the Republicans as old folks who are often socially conservative die off. If they can jettison the religious fundies as well they might actually stand a chance against the Dems again.

There is already serious disillusionment among the gays with the Democrats/Obama and the clearly empty promises that were made.

ther is clearly NO disillusionment among the gays with anything concerning Obama.
You really need to get your head out of your ass and be truthful....
There is noway a gay person is going to ever agree with your slanted idiotic rhetoric!!

 

[Modelworks]

You must be blissfully unaware of the gay couples who already resort to artificial insemination and surrogate pregnancy without the survival of the species at issue.

Do you really have that much faith in humanity that everyone would do the same ? Lets be honest , for as long as the human race has existed it still has a very very far way to go.

 

[Amused]

ther is clearly NO disillusionment among the gays with anything concerning Obama.
You really need to get your head out of your ass and be truthful....
There is noway a gay person is going to ever agree with your slanted idiotic rhetoric!!

He's gay, dumbass.



Oh, and:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8802268

http://gay-rights-advocacy.suite101.com/article.cfm/will_obama_get_the_gay_vote_in_2012

http://socalvoice.net/caucasian-voice/the-gay-intolerance-of-president-obama/

oops

 

[woolfe9999]

Indeed, there is some dissatisfaction in the gay community over Obama, and even some anger. However, the notion of them switching to the republicans as an alternative is just pure comedy.

- wolf

 

[bfdd]

Intolerance of intolerance does not make a bigot, but your post makes you one and a poor speller too.

not to stamp on your parade, but the definition of a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" so yes intolerance of bigots makes you a bigot by default.

 

[jhu]

not to stamp on your parade, but the definition of a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" so yes intolerance of bigots makes you a bigot by default.

I suppose the abolitionists and women's suffrage activists were also bigots?

 

[K1052]

Indeed, there is some dissatisfaction in the gay community over Obama, and even some anger. However, the notion of them switching to the republicans as an alternative is just pure comedy.

- wolf

The Republicans aren't ready for that, maybe in 10 years if they can ditch some of the religious and social baggage they're carrying around. What can happen in relatively short order though is some of the Dem votes swinging to Independent and that can appreciably impact the balance of power.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

not to stamp on your parade, but the definition of a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" so yes intolerance of bigots makes you a bigot by default.

I bolded the important word for you. Would you say that a supporter of gay rights was prejudiced against heterosexuality?

 

[CallMeJoe]

(CPAC presidential poll for Dr. Paul) how is that news?, happened last election too.
Paulbots to the rescue!

It appeared to be unknown to heyheybooboo, since he characterized the CPAC attendees as a Palin/Beck crowd.

 

[wiretap]

Neocons are not conservatives. The true conservative position is seeing all men as created equal. That is not to be confused with a gay marriage issue, because that is a state issue as implicitly laid out via the 10th amendment. The federal government by law has no say for sexual orientation matters, nor marriage matters.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Do you really have that much faith in humanity that everyone would do the same ? Lets be honest , for as long as the human race has existed it still has a very very far way to go.

I'm not claiming that a homosexual populace would maintain anything like our current level of overpopulation. To imply, however, that no one would be reproducing with the survival of the species at stake is entirely unrealistic especially if you consider the lengths to which gay couples go today.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Intolerance of intolerance makes you intolerant.

Bigotry towards bigots makes you bigoted.

I don't know how you can get out of that. I begin now to understand what Moonie means by self-hatred.

The "poor speller" got to you, huh?

 

[jhu]

Neocons are not conservatives. The true conservative position is seeing all men as created equal. That is not to be confused with a gay marriage issue, because that is a state issue as implicitly laid out via the 10th amendment. The federal government by law has no say for sexual orientation matters, nor marriage matters.

And yet Don't Ask Don't Tell still exists.

 

[bfdd]

I bolded the important word for you. Would you say that a supporter of gay rights was prejudiced against heterosexuality?

If I said yes then by your logic all supporters of gay rights are prejudiced against heterosexuality and that isn't what it means at all. Now if the supporter of gay rights went on to start bashing others because they're "ignorant" etc for being anti-gay rights then yes he is a bigot. Intolerance of intolerance is intolerance. BTW I'm all for gay rights, I don't even know why it's called gay rights it should just be RIGHTS you know the kind we ALL have already, putting limitations on shit because someone is different than you is fucking retarded and backwards. That doesn't mean I should go around shitting on other people because they might be intolerant.

 

[WHAMPOM]

not to stamp on your parade, but the definition of a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" so yes intolerance of bigots makes you a bigot by default.

Ah, no. Try to understand your own definition and how it only applies to you.