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

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Wow.

Maybe all republicans are gay. Even the gay ones.
No, the gay ones are actually repressed heteros, because all republicans are hypocrites.
rofl!!

:laugh::thumbsup:
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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.
Can the crap, CAD. And drop the self-righteous indignation. Nobody is buying it - nor does anyone accept your faux argumentative personal smears and obfuscation.

The only one being ridiculed here is you

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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.
Can the crap, CAD. And drop the self-righteous indignation. Nobody is buying it - nor does anyone accept your faux argumentative personal smears and obfuscation.

The only one being ridiculed here is you
Now who is in denial? Hmmm.... figures...
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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.
WTF are you talking about?

You can try to sing and dance around this thing, playing semantics all you want. It doesn't change the fact that he WAS anti-gay in his public persona. There is no denying to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that voting against equal rights for a subclass of people IS BEING ANTI-whatever.

You are full of shit if you think that it doesn't and I am personally insulted that you think you could pull that duplicitous, Orwellian crap on us like we are idiots and wouldn't see it for the lie that it is.

"Uh...sure I voted against everything that would allow them equal rights to the rest of the heterosexual population...that doesn't mean that I said that they aren't equal." :roll: :cookie:

It's posts like this one that make people not want to take you seriously when you do have a valid point.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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.
WTF are you talking about?

You can try to sing and dance around this thing, playing semantics all you want. It doesn't change the fact that he WAS anti-gay in his public persona. There is no denying to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that voting against equal rights for a subclass of people IS BEING ANTI-whatever.

You are full of shit if you think that it doesn't and I am personally insulted that you think you could pull that duplicitous, Orwellian crap on us like we are idiots and wouldn't see it for the lie that it is.

"Uh...sure I voted against everything that would allow them equal rights to the rest of the heterosexual population...that doesn't mean that I said that they aren't equal." :roll: :cookie:

It's posts like this one that make people not want to take you seriously when you do have a valid point.
That's fine if you hold the opinion that voting against special rights is "anti-gay" but it doesn't mean everyone holds that opinion. This is the same BS you libs tried to play with the schip thing. Obviously anyone who votes against it is somehow "anti-children". It's nothing but disgusting politics IMO.

Again, you can voice your opinion and I can voice mine and I could care less how seriously you take me. I take some people here less seriously than others due to their tactics and "logic" and I imagine others take me less seriously due to my positions. Meh - that's life. :)

The bottom line is that just because someone votes against expanding, or extending something doesn't mean they are "anti" whatever it was. Now, he may have been, but that isn't the point. Every time this happens it becomes a GOP thing where "obviously" he must be "anti", but that's absurd "logic". If he railed against homosexuality - fine beat him up as a hypocrit but IMO it's pretty disgusting for people to use the event as a free pass to ridicule homosexuals/crossdressers/whatever.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
I think it's easy enough for Cad to ferret any closeted bigots wearing mules clothing by simply asking said suspects: do you dislike gays for being gay?" If their answer is no, then why would they be lying? To pretend to be tolerant of others? It's silly really, and your argument is unfortunately kind of sad. Perhaps you're reacting with defensiveness because you're steeling yourself for the inevitable hyperbole "all conservatives are gay." If so, you reacting immaturely to an immature situation. Accept the fact that these men deserve their ridicule.

Posters have repeatedly attacked this fellow for what they see as betraying his god-given inclinations with publicly made overtures towards limiting the rights of the very people that share those same inclinations. No one here, not even you, has criticized this fellow for being gay. What has been criticized is his betrayal of those that share his nature, and the debate should end there.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I think it's easy enough for Cad to ferret any closeted bigots wearing mules clothing by simply asking said suspects: do you dislike gays for being gay?" If their answer is no, then why would they be lying? To pretend to be tolerant of others? It's silly really, and your argument is unfortunately kind of sad. Perhaps you're reacting with defensiveness because you're steeling yourself for the inevitable hyperbole "all conservatives are gay." If so, you reacting immaturely to an immature situation. Accept the fact that these men deserve their ridicule.

Posters have repeatedly attacked this fellow for what they see as betraying his god-given inclinations with publicly made overtures towards limiting the rights of the very people that share those same inclinations. No one here, not even you, has criticized this fellow for being gay. What has been criticized is his betrayal of those that share his nature, and the debate should end there.
That is incorrect. I pulled examples of the ridicule from this thread. Those are acceptable? What exactly did they have to do with hypocrisy?
Perhaps GOP stands for Gay Old Party?
Another one? Hmmm... I think it's about time people here start walking the walk instead of talking it. No one here will flat out state they dislike gays for being gay - it's just a stupid question to even throw out there. However, it seems that these sorts of threads provide cover for people to ridicule the behavior and "gayness" and that is disgusting IMO. Yap yap yap about tolerance.... and then ridicule them when enough cover is provided. sick.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I think it's easy enough for Cad to ferret any closeted bigots wearing mules clothing by simply asking said suspects: do you dislike gays for being gay?" If their answer is no, then why would they be lying? To pretend to be tolerant of others? It's silly really, and your argument is unfortunately kind of sad. Perhaps you're reacting with defensiveness because you're steeling yourself for the inevitable hyperbole "all conservatives are gay." If so, you reacting immaturely to an immature situation. Accept the fact that these men deserve their ridicule.

Posters have repeatedly attacked this fellow for what they see as betraying his god-given inclinations with publicly made overtures towards limiting the rights of the very people that share those same inclinations. No one here, not even you, has criticized this fellow for being gay. What has been criticized is his betrayal of those that share his nature, and the debate should end there.
That is incorrect. I pulled examples of the ridicule from this thread. Those are acceptable? What exactly did they have to do with hypocrisy?
Perhaps GOP stands for Gay Old Party?
Another one? Hmmm... I think it's about time people here start walking the walk instead of talking it. No one here will flat out state they dislike gays for being gay - it's just a stupid question to even throw out there. However, it seems that these sorts of threads provide cover for people to ridicule the behavior and "gayness" and that is disgusting IMO. Yap yap yap about tolerance.... and then ridicule them when enough cover is provided. sick.
The comments here do nothing to ridicule gay people.. just the people pretending to be tough on this and that including being anti-gay... and then they are the party with an incredible amount of gay people.

You could make fun of heterosexual activity without ridiculing heterosexuality.. same goes for gay.

Let gay people come in here and say that they are offended instead of feigning care for them in order to dismiss the pure disgusting hyposcrisy of the current republican party's stance on gays.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I think it's easy enough for Cad to ferret any closeted bigots wearing mules clothing by simply asking said suspects: do you dislike gays for being gay?" If their answer is no, then why would they be lying? To pretend to be tolerant of others? It's silly really, and your argument is unfortunately kind of sad. Perhaps you're reacting with defensiveness because you're steeling yourself for the inevitable hyperbole "all conservatives are gay." If so, you reacting immaturely to an immature situation. Accept the fact that these men deserve their ridicule.

Posters have repeatedly attacked this fellow for what they see as betraying his god-given inclinations with publicly made overtures towards limiting the rights of the very people that share those same inclinations. No one here, not even you, has criticized this fellow for being gay. What has been criticized is his betrayal of those that share his nature, and the debate should end there.
That is incorrect. I pulled examples of the ridicule from this thread. Those are acceptable? What exactly did they have to do with hypocrisy?
Perhaps GOP stands for Gay Old Party?
Another one? Hmmm... I think it's about time people here start walking the walk instead of talking it. No one here will flat out state they dislike gays for being gay - it's just a stupid question to even throw out there. However, it seems that these sorts of threads provide cover for people to ridicule the behavior and "gayness" and that is disgusting IMO. Yap yap yap about tolerance.... and then ridicule them when enough cover is provided. sick.
The comments here do nothing to ridicule gay people.. just the people pretending to be tough on this and that including being anti-gay... and then they are the party with an incredible amount of gay people.

You could make fun of heterosexual activity without ridiculing heterosexuality.. same goes for gay.

Let gay people come in here and say that they are offended instead of feigning care for them in order to dismiss the pure disgusting hyposcrisy of the current republican party's stance on gays.
:roll: I am not "feigning" anything. I happen to think it's disgusting that people use this as cover to make their little jokes.

Plus, I have not dismissed the hypocrisy of those who rail against it yet participate in it. I have stated that railing against his hypocrisy is ok...but I guess your knee got in the way of you seeing that.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I think it's easy enough for Cad to ferret any closeted bigots wearing mules clothing by simply asking said suspects: do you dislike gays for being gay?" If their answer is no, then why would they be lying? To pretend to be tolerant of others? It's silly really, and your argument is unfortunately kind of sad. Perhaps you're reacting with defensiveness because you're steeling yourself for the inevitable hyperbole "all conservatives are gay." If so, you reacting immaturely to an immature situation. Accept the fact that these men deserve their ridicule.

Posters have repeatedly attacked this fellow for what they see as betraying his god-given inclinations with publicly made overtures towards limiting the rights of the very people that share those same inclinations. No one here, not even you, has criticized this fellow for being gay. What has been criticized is his betrayal of those that share his nature, and the debate should end there.
That is incorrect. I pulled examples of the ridicule from this thread. Those are acceptable? What exactly did they have to do with hypocrisy?
Perhaps GOP stands for Gay Old Party?
Another one? Hmmm... I think it's about time people here start walking the walk instead of talking it. No one here will flat out state they dislike gays for being gay - it's just a stupid question to even throw out there. However, it seems that these sorts of threads provide cover for people to ridicule the behavior and "gayness" and that is disgusting IMO. Yap yap yap about tolerance.... and then ridicule them when enough cover is provided. sick.
The comments here do nothing to ridicule gay people.. just the people pretending to be tough on this and that including being anti-gay... and then they are the party with an incredible amount of gay people.

You could make fun of heterosexual activity without ridiculing heterosexuality.. same goes for gay.

Let gay people come in here and say that they are offended instead of feigning care for them in order to dismiss the pure disgusting hyposcrisy of the current republican party's stance on gays.
:roll: I am not "feigning" anything. I happen to think it's disgusting that people use this as cover to make their little jokes.

Plus, I have not dismissed the hypocrisy of those who rail against it yet participate in it. I have stated that railing against his hypocrisy is ok...but I guess your knee got in the way of you seeing that.
There is nothing anti gay about any of the jokes.. they are all aimed at the hypocritical republicans who hate gays and are them... Again, no gay is stepping into this thread saying they are offended... nothing offensive toward them has been said. You are feigning care in their defense. They don't need you, trust me.

If this was anti-gay, it would also likely be locked as a thread.

 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,874
44
91
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I think it's easy enough for Cad to ferret any closeted bigots wearing mules clothing by simply asking said suspects: do you dislike gays for being gay?" If their answer is no, then why would they be lying? To pretend to be tolerant of others? It's silly really, and your argument is unfortunately kind of sad. Perhaps you're reacting with defensiveness because you're steeling yourself for the inevitable hyperbole "all conservatives are gay." If so, you reacting immaturely to an immature situation. Accept the fact that these men deserve their ridicule.

Posters have repeatedly attacked this fellow for what they see as betraying his god-given inclinations with publicly made overtures towards limiting the rights of the very people that share those same inclinations. No one here, not even you, has criticized this fellow for being gay. What has been criticized is his betrayal of those that share his nature, and the debate should end there.
That is incorrect. I pulled examples of the ridicule from this thread. Those are acceptable? What exactly did they have to do with hypocrisy?
Perhaps GOP stands for Gay Old Party?
Another one? Hmmm... I think it's about time people here start walking the walk instead of talking it. No one here will flat out state they dislike gays for being gay - it's just a stupid question to even throw out there. However, it seems that these sorts of threads provide cover for people to ridicule the behavior and "gayness" and that is disgusting IMO. Yap yap yap about tolerance.... and then ridicule them when enough cover is provided. sick.
The comments here do nothing to ridicule gay people.. just the people pretending to be tough on this and that including being anti-gay... and then they are the party with an incredible amount of gay people.

You could make fun of heterosexual activity without ridiculing heterosexuality.. same goes for gay.

Let gay people come in here and say that they are offended instead of feigning care for them in order to dismiss the pure disgusting hyposcrisy of the current republican party's stance on gays.
:roll: I am not "feigning" anything. I happen to think it's disgusting that people use this as cover to make their little jokes.

Plus, I have not dismissed the hypocrisy of those who rail against it yet participate in it. I have stated that railing against his hypocrisy is ok...but I guess your knee got in the way of you seeing that.



We are not making fun of all gay people. Only the true hypocrites that are anti-gay, rant that homosexuals are unnatural/sinful, and use that as a platform for their political agenda.


Its ok though you can pretend to be outraged over the liburals making fun of teh gays. Never understood why they let a troll like you back in. (Though I am sure you had an alias or two)


If he was a Troll he would have never been let back in and I can assure you he never had any other aliases so let's put that to rest right now!

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sirjonk

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.
WTF are you talking about?

You can try to sing and dance around this thing, playing semantics all you want. It doesn't change the fact that he WAS anti-gay in his public persona. There is no denying to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that voting against equal rights for a subclass of people IS BEING ANTI-whatever.

You are full of shit if you think that it doesn't and I am personally insulted that you think you could pull that duplicitous, Orwellian crap on us like we are idiots and wouldn't see it for the lie that it is.

"Uh...sure I voted against everything that would allow them equal rights to the rest of the heterosexual population...that doesn't mean that I said that they aren't equal." :roll: :cookie:

It's posts like this one that make people not want to take you seriously when you do have a valid point.
That's fine if you hold the opinion that voting against special rights is "anti-gay" but it doesn't mean everyone holds that opinion. This is the same BS you libs tried to play with the schip thing. Obviously anyone who votes against it is somehow "anti-children". It's nothing but disgusting politics IMO.

Again, you can voice your opinion and I can voice mine and I could care less how seriously you take me. I take some people here less seriously than others due to their tactics and "logic" and I imagine others take me less seriously due to my positions. Meh - that's life. :)

The bottom line is that just because someone votes against expanding, or extending something doesn't mean they are "anti" whatever it was. Now, he may have been, but that isn't the point. Every time this happens it becomes a GOP thing where "obviously" he must be "anti", but that's absurd "logic". If he railed against homosexuality - fine beat him up as a hypocrit but IMO it's pretty disgusting for people to use the event as a free pass to ridicule homosexuals/crossdressers/whatever.
This is where I think that you and I are on completely different wavelengths. I see the fact that you and I get to marry the person that we are naturally attracted to and benefiting from all of the "perks" that go along with that while denying gays that same opportunity as completely anti-gay.

Someone that is gay does not get that same opportunity. They have to marry whom society DICTATES that they marry. That is not equal.

You cannot claim that someone has the same opportunities as everyone else does when you are limiting those opportunities to what is desirable to the you.

Maybe an example of how this is discriminatory will help show why everyone arguing for gay marriage believes that it is completely illogical to think otherwise?

Thinking back to the mid 20th century, according to your logic, we still should not be allowed to have an interracial marriage. After all, everyone has the same opportunity as other married couples to marry someone of their own race.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sirjonk

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.
WTF are you talking about?

You can try to sing and dance around this thing, playing semantics all you want. It doesn't change the fact that he WAS anti-gay in his public persona. There is no denying to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that voting against equal rights for a subclass of people IS BEING ANTI-whatever.

You are full of shit if you think that it doesn't and I am personally insulted that you think you could pull that duplicitous, Orwellian crap on us like we are idiots and wouldn't see it for the lie that it is.

"Uh...sure I voted against everything that would allow them equal rights to the rest of the heterosexual population...that doesn't mean that I said that they aren't equal." :roll: :cookie:

It's posts like this one that make people not want to take you seriously when you do have a valid point.
That's fine if you hold the opinion that voting against special rights is "anti-gay" but it doesn't mean everyone holds that opinion. This is the same BS you libs tried to play with the schip thing. Obviously anyone who votes against it is somehow "anti-children". It's nothing but disgusting politics IMO.

Again, you can voice your opinion and I can voice mine and I could care less how seriously you take me. I take some people here less seriously than others due to their tactics and "logic" and I imagine others take me less seriously due to my positions. Meh - that's life. :)

The bottom line is that just because someone votes against expanding, or extending something doesn't mean they are "anti" whatever it was. Now, he may have been, but that isn't the point. Every time this happens it becomes a GOP thing where "obviously" he must be "anti", but that's absurd "logic". If he railed against homosexuality - fine beat him up as a hypocrit but IMO it's pretty disgusting for people to use the event as a free pass to ridicule homosexuals/crossdressers/whatever.
This is where I think that you and I are on completely different wavelengths. I see the fact that you and I get to marry the person that we are naturally attracted to and benefiting from all of the "perks" that go along with that while denying gays that same opportunity as completely anti-gay.

Someone that is gay does not get that same opportunity. They have to marry whom society DICTATES that they marry. That is not equal.

You cannot claim that someone has the same opportunities as everyone else does when you are limiting those opportunities to what is desirable to the you.

Maybe an example of how this is discriminatory will help show why everyone arguing for gay marriage believes that it is completely illogical to think otherwise?

Thinking back to the mid 20th century, according to your logic, we still should not be allowed to have an interracial marriage. After all, everyone has the same opportunity as other married couples to marry someone of their own race.
And yet today there are many things limited legally by the gov't. Are they discriminatory as well? I am naturally attracted to atleast 2 women. By your logic my opportunities are limited. There are many other examples of this as well so unless you support undoing ALL of these sorts of things - your emotional logic doesn't hold water.

As to the other 2 chirping birds - I still call BS. The statements I pulled out were NOT about hypocrisy - they were "jokes" about homosexuality meant to deride/make fun of. But whatever - I guess it's OK if you have a bit of cover. I am comfortable with my position on homosexuality and those that I've encountered over my life(professionally and within my groups of freinds) have understood and accepted my position(some agreed and some did not). They know I am not judging them and that I have no issue what so ever with their "orientation". Just so we're clear - I do not support a "ban" - I just would not vote to give SPECIAL rights. Sheesh - I swear some of you are stuck on stupid with you assumptions that all Conservatives "hate" gays.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
CADsortahypocrite was complaining bill oreilly's remarks in that harlem restaurant were not racist, yet here he is claiming people are making fun of homosexuality on what are truly flimsy grounds. Oversensitive :)?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And yet today there are many things limited legally by the gov't. Are they discriminatory as well? I am naturally attracted to atleast 2 women. By your logic my opportunities are limited. There are many other examples of this as well so unless you support undoing ALL of these sorts of things - your emotional logic doesn't hold water.

As to the other 2 chirping birds - I still call BS. The statements I pulled out were NOT about hypocrisy - they were "jokes" about homosexuality meant to deride/make fun of. But whatever - I guess it's OK if you have a bit of cover. I am comfortable with my position on homosexuality and those that I've encountered over my life(professionally and within my groups of freinds) have understood and accepted my position(some agreed and some did not). They know I am not judging them and that I have no issue what so ever with their "orientation". Just so we're clear - I do not support a "ban" - I just would not vote to give SPECIAL rights. Sheesh - I swear some of you are stuck on stupid with you assumptions that all Conservatives "hate" gays.
Can you cite me the law that states that you cannot be attracted to two different women? Or even sleep with two different women? Can you show me a law that states that a woman cannot be attracted to and sleep with two men?

Can you show me a law where a man cannot sleep with anoth.....oh wait, THOSE LAWS DO EXIST!

Do you not see the false dichotomy that you are trying to put on?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
CADsortahypocrite was complaining bill oreilly's remarks in that harlem restaurant were not racist, yet here he is claiming people are making fun of homosexuality on what are truly flimsy grounds. Oversensitive :)?
Hey you think it's easy to spin this into a fault of Democrats?:laugh:
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And yet today there are many things limited legally by the gov't. Are they discriminatory as well? I am naturally attracted to atleast 2 women. By your logic my opportunities are limited. There are many other examples of this as well so unless you support undoing ALL of these sorts of things - your emotional logic doesn't hold water.

As to the other 2 chirping birds - I still call BS. The statements I pulled out were NOT about hypocrisy - they were "jokes" about homosexuality meant to deride/make fun of. But whatever - I guess it's OK if you have a bit of cover. I am comfortable with my position on homosexuality and those that I've encountered over my life(professionally and within my groups of freinds) have understood and accepted my position(some agreed and some did not). They know I am not judging them and that I have no issue what so ever with their "orientation". Just so we're clear - I do not support a "ban" - I just would not vote to give SPECIAL rights. Sheesh - I swear some of you are stuck on stupid with you assumptions that all Conservatives "hate" gays.
Can you cite me the law that states that you cannot be attracted to two different women? Or even sleep with two different women? Can you show me a law that states that a woman cannot be attracted to and sleep with two men?

Can you show me a law where a man cannot sleep with anoth.....oh wait, THOSE LAWS DO EXIST!

Do you not see the false dichotomy that you are trying to put on?
Yep, in D.C. they have(had?) a adultery law. So when bubba was getting his knob polished - he was breaking the law. But that isn't the point anyway. You keep trying to twist things but it doesn't work. I can not marry 2 women so the law discriminates. Laws do this all the time, but it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional or against "civil rights" or whatever.

Red - this is not about Democrats. I haven't even attempted to put blame on them. All I've done is point out that the libs seem to always take these opportunities of cover to make jokes about "gayness". Pretty sick, considering they are the ones constantly demanding "tolerance".
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
CADsortahypocrite was complaining bill oreilly's remarks in that harlem restaurant were not racist, yet here he is claiming people are making fun of homosexuality on what are truly flimsy grounds. Oversensitive :)?
Like I said earlier, he is feigning care/outrage... seems to be the IN thing nowadays.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
CADsortahypocrite was complaining bill oreilly's remarks in that harlem restaurant were not racist, yet here he is claiming people are making fun of homosexuality on what are truly flimsy grounds. Oversensitive :)?
Like I said earlier, he is feigning care/outrage... seems to be the IN thing nowadays.
Faux outrage has bene the M.O. of conservative blowards for well over a decade, it's the entire premise of FOX news.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And yet today there are many things limited legally by the gov't. Are they discriminatory as well? I am naturally attracted to atleast 2 women. By your logic my opportunities are limited. There are many other examples of this as well so unless you support undoing ALL of these sorts of things - your emotional logic doesn't hold water.

As to the other 2 chirping birds - I still call BS. The statements I pulled out were NOT about hypocrisy - they were "jokes" about homosexuality meant to deride/make fun of. But whatever - I guess it's OK if you have a bit of cover. I am comfortable with my position on homosexuality and those that I've encountered over my life(professionally and within my groups of freinds) have understood and accepted my position(some agreed and some did not). They know I am not judging them and that I have no issue what so ever with their "orientation". Just so we're clear - I do not support a "ban" - I just would not vote to give SPECIAL rights. Sheesh - I swear some of you are stuck on stupid with you assumptions that all Conservatives "hate" gays.
Can you cite me the law that states that you cannot be attracted to two different women? Or even sleep with two different women? Can you show me a law that states that a woman cannot be attracted to and sleep with two men?

Can you show me a law where a man cannot sleep with anoth.....oh wait, THOSE LAWS DO EXIST!

Do you not see the false dichotomy that you are trying to put on?
Yep, in D.C. they have(had?) a adultery law. So when bubba was getting his knob polished - he was breaking the law. But that isn't the point anyway. You keep trying to twist things but it doesn't work. I can not marry 2 women so the law discriminates. Laws do this all the time, but it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional or against "civil rights" or whatever./q]

No one is allowed to marry two persons. The law is not discriminatory in that case. The majority of people in this country can marry the person that they are physically, emotionally and sexually attracted to or compatible with. Gays do not have that ability. Gay marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

Your example of adultery laws is also a fallacious argument as they apply to ALL married persons and not just some of them. It's also a complete red herring that has nothing to do with the validity of gay marriage law debate. The examples that I gave are there to show you that there is a complete discriminatory mindset when the laws of sodomy are enforced. Why should there be a law against a consensual act between two adults? That's right, cause if it wasn't outlawed, then the ability to be open about your sexuality in the olden days might have decreased the population cause some of the most uptight people would have not had to put on a sham marriage front.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And yet today there are many things limited legally by the gov't. Are they discriminatory as well? I am naturally attracted to atleast 2 women. By your logic my opportunities are limited. There are many other examples of this as well so unless you support undoing ALL of these sorts of things - your emotional logic doesn't hold water.

As to the other 2 chirping birds - I still call BS. The statements I pulled out were NOT about hypocrisy - they were "jokes" about homosexuality meant to deride/make fun of. But whatever - I guess it's OK if you have a bit of cover. I am comfortable with my position on homosexuality and those that I've encountered over my life(professionally and within my groups of freinds) have understood and accepted my position(some agreed and some did not). They know I am not judging them and that I have no issue what so ever with their "orientation". Just so we're clear - I do not support a "ban" - I just would not vote to give SPECIAL rights. Sheesh - I swear some of you are stuck on stupid with you assumptions that all Conservatives "hate" gays.
Can you cite me the law that states that you cannot be attracted to two different women? Or even sleep with two different women? Can you show me a law that states that a woman cannot be attracted to and sleep with two men?

Can you show me a law where a man cannot sleep with anoth.....oh wait, THOSE LAWS DO EXIST!

Do you not see the false dichotomy that you are trying to put on?
Yep, in D.C. they have(had?) a adultery law. So when bubba was getting his knob polished - he was breaking the law. But that isn't the point anyway. You keep trying to twist things but it doesn't work. I can not marry 2 women so the law discriminates. Laws do this all the time, but it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional or against "civil rights" or whatever./q]

No one is allowed to marry two persons. The law is not discriminatory in that case. The majority of people in this country can marry the person that they are physically, emotionally and sexually attracted to or compatible with. Gays do not have that ability. Gay marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

Your example of adultery laws is also a fallacious argument as they apply to ALL married persons and not just some of them. It's also a complete red herring that has nothing to do with the validity of gay marriage law debate. The examples that I gave are there to show you that there is a complete discriminatory mindset when the laws of sodomy are enforced. Why should there be a law against a consensual act between two adults? That's right, cause if it wasn't outlawed, then the ability to be open about your sexuality in the olden days might have decreased the population cause some of the most uptight people would have not had to put on a sham marriage front.
First - learn to quote. Sheesh.

Second. The adultery point goes to the issue about me loving 2 women. I can not marry two women at the same time, but according to the "logic" you and others use it is "discriminatory" and wrong. It sure is discriminatory, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Like I've stated, almost all of our laws discriminate and this issue is no different but it doesn't mean it's wrong. You and others need to find something other than your emotional relationship argument because it just doesn't fly.

As to the same old BS from the tweeting birds - There is no "outrage" or fake "outrage". I have just noted the sick tactics by the ever so tolerant liberals.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,530
9,508
126
These public scandals always bring up that same old moral dilemma that I myself have been wrestling with for years: how does one be intolerant of intolerance? There is no easy answer. In this particular instance, considering a minor small town politician from a minor state legislative district (the one I grew up in BTW), I see a lot of much a do about nothing and wonder why Americans care so much about the sexual activities of politicians and are such sexual prudes.
 

Saint Michael

Golden Member
Aug 4, 2007
1,878
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
These public scandals always bring up that same old moral dilemma that I myself have been wrestling with for years: how does one be intolerant of intolerance? There is no easy answer. In this particular instance, considering a minor small town politician from a minor state legislative district (the one I grew up in BTW), I see a lot of much a do about nothing and wonder why Americans care so much about the sexual activities of politicians and are such sexual prudes.
You can be intolerant of intolerance in the same way that you can be an anarchist or a nihilist.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY