• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"I'm not gay" says another Republican.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,523
4,198
126
If you take these guys as being real you ought to be able to see how it all arises out of self hate. It explains the split personality, the contempt for one part of the self for the other, and the compulsive need to act out and get caught so you can feel how deeply ashamed you were made to feel about being gay. When we look at these hypocritical freaks we are looking at ourselves. We all live the same duplicitous lie, a big phony hypocritical ego who hates our inner child, that deeply persecuted little self that's all that's left of what's true and good.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Yet many republicans denounce Hillary's marriage as a sham.:roll:
It is. Now what does that have to do with a State Rep from Washington's supposed "gayness"?

What I find interesting with all these cases is that the ever so tolerant liberals get pretty nasty with the "gay" jokes and belittlement. It's as if it's OK to do that since it's a "Republican".
Exactly. If he has spoken out against homosexuals, then fine, make fun of his hypocrisy.

But just like the Craig thread, many just make fun of his homosexuality, which ironically, shows their own hypocrisy.
I haven't made fun of his homosexuality though if I did I wouldn't be hypocritical as I often make fun of certain gays people like Richard Simmons, Rupaul,Ted Nugent etc. Now if I advocated against them having the same rights as straights I would be hypocritical.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Now that Bill Clinton got outed over interns and Mark Foley over pages, I think they watch interns and pages a wee mite closer. And now this Curtis tried a member of the general population and that backfired too.

Life was so much simpler during the days of slavery when they could just buy it.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Yet many republicans denounce Hillary's marriage as a sham.:roll:
It is. Now what does that have to do with a State Rep from Washington's supposed "gayness"?

What I find interesting with all these cases is that the ever so tolerant liberals get pretty nasty with the "gay" jokes and belittlement. It's as if it's OK to do that since it's a "Republican".
You don't see the connection between calling marriage a sacred institution and banning gays from entering into it, all the while one after another of these republicans who voted that way all married women even though they were gay?

And your other argument is made in every thread every time another repubublican gets outted. When you are a hypocrite and vote for anti-gay legislation, then you get to be made fun of.

Dems don't consider gays to be genetic freaks or sub-persons like hardcore republicans do, so we get to make jokes. Bigots don't get the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
ANOTHER gay Republican???
Just think about how many there are, conisdering that most probably don't act so recklessly and get caught.
This guy is a state rep. Given 50 states, each with it's own House & Senate, there are many thousands of such polititions throughout the US.

With that kind of large population you're gonna get a few who "stand out"

Fern
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Yet many republicans denounce Hillary's marriage as a sham.:roll:
It is. Now what does that have to do with a State Rep from Washington's supposed "gayness"?

What I find interesting with all these cases is that the ever so tolerant liberals get pretty nasty with the "gay" jokes and belittlement. It's as if it's OK to do that since it's a "Republican".
It is, and this argument is made in every thread every time another repubublican gets outted. When you are a hypocrite and vote for anti-gay legislation, then you get to be made fun of.

Dems don't consider gays to be genetic freaks or sub-persons like hardcore republicans do, so we get to make jokes. Bigots don't get the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions.
And this guy has voted for this supposed "anti-gay legislation"?

But, even if that is the case, it doesn't absolve the ever so tolerant liberals of their making fun of his "gayness".
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
I'm not gay, I just like to play dress up and hide the sausage with other men
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Yet many republicans denounce Hillary's marriage as a sham.:roll:
It is. Now what does that have to do with a State Rep from Washington's supposed "gayness"?

What I find interesting with all these cases is that the ever so tolerant liberals get pretty nasty with the "gay" jokes and belittlement. It's as if it's OK to do that since it's a "Republican".
Exactly. If he has spoken out against homosexuals, then fine, make fun of his hypocrisy.

But just like the Craig thread, many just make fun of his homosexuality, which ironically, shows their own hypocrisy.
I haven't made fun of his homosexuality though if I did I wouldn't be hypocritical as I often make fun of certain gays people like Richard Simmons, Rupaul,Ted Nugent etc. Now if I advocated against them having the same rights as straights I would be hypocritical.
Ted Nugent? :confused:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
ANOTHER gay Republican???
Just think about how many there are, conisdering that most probably don't act so recklessly and get caught.
This guy is a state rep. Given 50 states, each with it's own House & Senate, there are many thousands of such polititions throughout the US.

With that kind of large population you're gonna get a few who "stand out"

Fern
With so many Federal and State legislators, Fern is 100% correct that there are probably hundreds if not thousands of those that are gay. Then we can greatly increase that number if we want to include in their extended families or other high profile people. Perhaps the most high profile one is Barney Frank who is an openly gay Federal congressman. And we can add in the openly gay daughter of Dick Cheney or the sister of Newt Gingrich. The point being, few except bigots have any real problems with those that are openly gay. No news value or excitement there.

Yet in the past few years, those high ranking public officials that are in the closet and get outed are almost always republican. Can't remember the name of the democratic governor of NJ right now, but we can now add the name of Curtis to the names Foley, Craig, Swaggert, as well as a few Republican State legislators that have been outed in the past year or so, it does become a predominantly Republican problem especially when the Republican party claims to stand for family values being mutually exclusive of gays. And then to add insult to injury, when the outed gay Republicans were guilty of drafting and supporting gay bashing legislation and public positions, one really has to wonder about the raw hypocrisies of these outed Republican luminaries.

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
ANOTHER gay Republican???
Just think about how many there are, conisdering that most probably don't act so recklessly and get caught.
This guy is a state rep. Given 50 states, each with it's own House & Senate, there are many thousands of such polititions throughout the US.

With that kind of large population you're gonna get a few who "stand out"

Fern
With so many Federal and State legislators, Fern is 100% correct that there are probably hundreds if not thousands of those that are gay. Then we can greatly increase that number if we want to include in their extended families or other high profile people. Perhaps the most high profile one is Barney Frank who is an openly gay Federal congressman. And we can add in the openly gay daughter of Dick Cheney or the sister of Newt Gingrich. The point being, few except bigots have any real problems with those that are openly gay. No news value or excitement there.

Yet in the past few years, those high ranking public officials that are in the closet and get outed are almost always republican. Can't remember the name of the democratic governor of NJ right now, but we can now add the name of Curtis to the names Foley, Craig, Swaggert, as well as a few Republican State legislators that have been outed in the past year or so, it does become a predominantly Republican problem especially when the Republican party claims to stand for family values being mutually exclusive of gays. And then to add insult to injury, when the outed gay Republicans were guilty of drafting and supporting gay bashing legislation and public positions, one really has to wonder about the raw hypocrisies of these outed Republican luminaries.
one really has to wonder about the raw hypocrisies of these outed Republican luminaries

This kind of hypocrisy is rampant in the Republican party. They pass a law to allow more pollution and call it "Clear Skies". Or a law to limit Americans freedoms and call it the "Patriot Act"

 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,299
511
126
At least he was man enough to resign instead of playing footsie with his party.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Yet many republicans denounce Hillary's marriage as a sham.:roll:
It is. Now what does that have to do with a State Rep from Washington's supposed "gayness"?

What I find interesting with all these cases is that the ever so tolerant liberals get pretty nasty with the "gay" jokes and belittlement. It's as if it's OK to do that since it's a "Republican".
It is, and this argument is made in every thread every time another repubublican gets outted. When you are a hypocrite and vote for anti-gay legislation, then you get to be made fun of.

Dems don't consider gays to be genetic freaks or sub-persons like hardcore republicans do, so we get to make jokes. Bigots don't get the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions.
And this guy has voted for this supposed "anti-gay legislation"?

But, even if that is the case, it doesn't absolve the ever so tolerant liberals of their making fun of his "gayness".
http://www.kxly.com/news/?sect..._id=559&story_id=15407
"The alleged late night encounter is in sharp contrast to Curtis' political persona. While in Olympia, Curtis has voted against domestic partnerships for gay couples and opposed a bill that would have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation."
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Yet many republicans denounce Hillary's marriage as a sham.:roll:
It is. Now what does that have to do with a State Rep from Washington's supposed "gayness"?

What I find interesting with all these cases is that the ever so tolerant liberals get pretty nasty with the "gay" jokes and belittlement. It's as if it's OK to do that since it's a "Republican".
It is, and this argument is made in every thread every time another repubublican gets outted. When you are a hypocrite and vote for anti-gay legislation, then you get to be made fun of.

Dems don't consider gays to be genetic freaks or sub-persons like hardcore republicans do, so we get to make jokes. Bigots don't get the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions.
And this guy has voted for this supposed "anti-gay legislation"?

But, even if that is the case, it doesn't absolve the ever so tolerant liberals of their making fun of his "gayness".
http://www.kxly.com/news/?sect..._id=559&story_id=15407
"The alleged late night encounter is in sharp contrast to Curtis' political persona. While in Olympia, Curtis has voted against domestic partnerships for gay couples and opposed a bill that would have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation."
Fine, some see that as "anti-gay" and it's their right. As noted though, it doesn't absolve those poking fun at his "gayness". You can attempt to claim hypocrisy but unless the guy was actually against someone being gay it holds little weight as voting against some special protection for homosexuals doesn't mean one is "anti-gay". I'm not "anti-gay" but I wouldn't vote for special protections or status either.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Now CadsotaGUy is in complete denial with--------I'm not "anti-gay" but I wouldn't vote for special protections or status either.

Wrong, marriage as an institution confers special legal rights to married couples. Denying domestic partnerships or outlawing gay marriage denies exactly those equal protection freely given to heterosexuals from similar couples who are gay.

As a biological heterosexual male, happily married to a biologically heterosexual female, I find it somewhat pleasant to be in a majority. And I advocate the institution of marriage very strongly. But I am completely baffled on why extending the institution of marriage to gay couples would threaten my marriage in any way. I have my legal right and why should I deny those same rights to others? It simply makes no sense which is one of the reasons I will not vote for family values Republicans who go out of their way to deny equal rights.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Don't fall for this 'Dem intolerance' crapola and indignity. They are shovelling it as fast as they can because they have no defense of their hypocrisy.

They have taken down his legislation page:

This Representative's page is no longer available

The Representative you are looking for is no longer a member of the Legislature and the page has been removed accordingly.

You may find the Representative who represents your district by either going to the list of current House members or by using the District Finder on this site.
Curtis got his freak going and the Cons are scrambling to cover it up. And if any of yah Con Homophobes are feeling freaky travel on out into the gay blogosphere - they are having more fun with it than anyone. As an example:

With apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein?

Pay-for-it blowjobs in pale, silky knickers
Anti-gay GOP sex-crazy vicars
Caught all too often in FBI stings
These are a few of my favorite things.
or

I blew a guy once, but it was only because I needed a ride?okay, okay, that?s not true. I didn?t really need the ride.
What really hissed 'em off is that Curtis did not want to wear a condom and have 'bareback' anal intercourse with Castagna .

I?m just sickened by how cavalierly these hypocrites put innocent people at risk. If these assholes want to die for their sex practices, god speed.
So, my dear hypocritical homophobic Cons, go rain on someone else's parade . . . save your mock indignation . . . and be very, very afraid - BOO! - You might catch GAY
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Yet many republicans denounce Hillary's marriage as a sham.:roll:
It is. Now what does that have to do with a State Rep from Washington's supposed "gayness"?

What I find interesting with all these cases is that the ever so tolerant liberals get pretty nasty with the "gay" jokes and belittlement. It's as if it's OK to do that since it's a "Republican".
It is, and this argument is made in every thread every time another repubublican gets outted. When you are a hypocrite and vote for anti-gay legislation, then you get to be made fun of.

Dems don't consider gays to be genetic freaks or sub-persons like hardcore republicans do, so we get to make jokes. Bigots don't get the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions.
And this guy has voted for this supposed "anti-gay legislation"?

But, even if that is the case, it doesn't absolve the ever so tolerant liberals of their making fun of his "gayness".
I'll spell this out nice and clear: we're making fun of his hypocrisy, not his "gayness".

It's especially satisfying given how scumbags like this one use gay politics to dupe the working-poor religious population into voting against its own interests.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now CadsotaGUy is in complete denial with--------I'm not "anti-gay" but I wouldn't vote for special protections or status either.

Wrong, marriage as an institution confers special legal rights to married couples. Denying domestic partnerships or outlawing gay marriage denies exactly those equal protection freely given to heterosexuals from similar couples who are gay.

As a biological heterosexual male, happily married to a biologically heterosexual female, I find it somewhat pleasant to be in a majority. And I advocate the institution of marriage very strongly. But I am completely baffled on why extending the institution of marriage to gay couples would threaten my marriage in any way. I have my legal right and why should I deny those same rights to others? It simply makes no sense which is one of the reasons I will not vote for family values Republicans who go out of their way to deny equal rights.
Why would I be in denial? Because I don't think groups who are different should get special protections? That's a riot - I thought libs were for equality. I am all for equality and IMO providing SPEACIAL protections to certain groups is not in line with equality.

No legal rights are kept from anyone. A male is afforded legal rights and responsibilities when they marry a female - REGARDLESS of their "orientation". This can not be denied and has been covered time and time again but is dismissed by the likes of you because you want SPECIAL legal protections for other groups.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Yet many republicans denounce Hillary's marriage as a sham.:roll:
It is. Now what does that have to do with a State Rep from Washington's supposed "gayness"?

What I find interesting with all these cases is that the ever so tolerant liberals get pretty nasty with the "gay" jokes and belittlement. It's as if it's OK to do that since it's a "Republican".
It is, and this argument is made in every thread every time another repubublican gets outted. When you are a hypocrite and vote for anti-gay legislation, then you get to be made fun of.

Dems don't consider gays to be genetic freaks or sub-persons like hardcore republicans do, so we get to make jokes. Bigots don't get the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions.
And this guy has voted for this supposed "anti-gay legislation"?

But, even if that is the case, it doesn't absolve the ever so tolerant liberals of their making fun of his "gayness".
I'll spell this out nice and clear: we're making fun of his hypocrisy, not his "gayness".

It's especially satisfying given how scumbags like this one use gay politics to dupe the working-poor religious population into voting against its own interests.

Wrong - there has been belittlement that is not about hypocrisy. There is no reason to make fun of his "gayness" or even bring it up - except in the direct context of hypocrisy - which is not done all the time. Some posts are better than others with the plausable deniability with regards to the belittlement but others are less so.

Examples:
Yeah. But maybe they are really Al-Qaeda operatives sent to s*ck Republican d*cks to defeat us in the War on Terror?
...they don't have the gay problem over there like we do here! ...
Since Curtis, as a man, was dressed up as a woman, it's only logical and certainly reasonable to assume that the young man in the "Hollywood Erotic Boutique" was actually a woman dressed as a man.
I'm not gay, I just like to play dress up and hide the sausage with other men
Wow, now there is some comedy! :roll: <chuckle> :roll:
Take a peak at the other threads too - you'll see similar comments - that have NOTHING to do with hypocrisy but have to do with ridiculing the "gayness". Even comments that use "catch teh gay" are mocking and ridiculing. Pretty disgusting IMO.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now CadsotaGUy is in complete denial with--------I'm not "anti-gay" but I wouldn't vote for special protections or status either.

Wrong, marriage as an institution confers special legal rights to married couples. Denying domestic partnerships or outlawing gay marriage denies exactly those equal protection freely given to heterosexuals from similar couples who are gay.

As a biological heterosexual male, happily married to a biologically heterosexual female, I find it somewhat pleasant to be in a majority. And I advocate the institution of marriage very strongly. But I am completely baffled on why extending the institution of marriage to gay couples would threaten my marriage in any way. I have my legal right and why should I deny those same rights to others? It simply makes no sense which is one of the reasons I will not vote for family values Republicans who go out of their way to deny equal rights.
Why would I be in denial? Because I don't think groups who are different should get special protections? That's a riot - I thought libs were for equality. I am all for equality and IMO providing SPEACIAL protections to certain groups is not in line with equality.

No legal rights are kept from anyone. A male is afforded legal rights and responsibilities when they marry a female - REGARDLESS of their "orientation". This can not be denied and has been covered time and time again but is dismissed by the likes of you because you want SPECIAL legal protections for other groups.
How dishonest can you get????????????? What you are saying is really over the top.

I have no problem with a male marrying a female which I did. What you are saying is that the State granted institution of marriage is fine if a male marries a female, but not fine if a male marries a male or a female marries a female.

The only person in denial of your hypocrisies is you and your ilk who DO deny equal rights
to same sex couples. Not special rights but the SAME RIGHTS as heterosexual couples is what we are talking about here. NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT, YOU ADVOCATE SPECIAL RIGHTS TO ONLY OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES.
 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
I didn't care when Bill Clinton got a blowjob. I didn't care when Larry Craig solicited sex in a men's room. I don't care that this guy cross-dresses and tries to have sex with men.

If he solicited sex with a minor, then he should be tried for whatever crime he committed.

Otherwise, I couldn't care less.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
As funny as this thread is (I've been laughing for 3 minutes), the only wrong doing here is the adultery. I cannot wait for the day that homosexuality isn't made fun of, it makes about as much sense in my head as making fun of straight people does (none, for the retards out there).
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,302
9
81
Originally posted by: manowar821
As funny as this thread is (I've been laughing for 3 minutes), the only wrong doing here is the adultery. I cannot wait for the day that homosexuality isn't made fun of, it makes about as much sense in my head as making fun of straight people does (none, for the retards out there).
From TFA:

The young man alleges Curtis offered him $1,000 for unprotected sex at a nearby hotel.
If this allegation is true, soliciting sex for money is illegal in most locations and is therefore technically "wrongdoing".

However, the "real" wrongdoing is that this guy is the very definition of hypocrisy. I have no problem with any guy dressing up in women's clothing and having sex with other guys. I do have a problem when these same people are in public office voting a conservative agenda.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,218
655
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Yet many republicans denounce Hillary's marriage as a sham.:roll:
It is. Now what does that have to do with a State Rep from Washington's supposed "gayness"?

What I find interesting with all these cases is that the ever so tolerant liberals get pretty nasty with the "gay" jokes and belittlement. It's as if it's OK to do that since it's a "Republican".
Hillary's marriage may very well be a sham but they're holding it together aren't they?

The reason we get such a kick out of this is because republicans make such a big deal out of condemning homosexuals and their lifestyle so when some of the most vocal turn out to be gay...yeah, it's just too good to pass up. It's not that they're gay so much as it is that they're hypocrites.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY