"I'm not gay" says another Republican.

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael
You can be intolerant of intolerance in the same way that you can be an anarchist or a nihilist.

Are you referring to the way that anarchists and nihilists are more or less all petty megalomaniacal dictators at heart?

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Saint Michael
You can be intolerant of intolerance in the same way that you can be an anarchist or a nihilist.

Are you referring to the way that anarchists and nihilists are more or less all petty megalomaniacal dictators at heart?

No, I mean the way that you can support the abandonment of government and order... with the exception of the government-like order that ensures that such an abandonment take place and be made permanent. Likewise nihilists believe in nothing, even though they believe in believing nothing.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

First, your insistence that polygamy is equal to gay marriage is stupid. You are not the only person being restricted by polygamy laws, everyone is equally.

Gay marriage laws are not a valid analogy because they do target a specific demographic.

If your basis is the ridiculous "sanctity of marriage" argument, you need to re-examine how sanctimonious it truly is. Divorce rates are ~ 50%, people get married and divorced for fun in Vegas and you can also get married for money. Marriage has no sanctimony.

If you want to argue that it is a religious ceremony that should be preserved...I'd be willing to advocate that if you were willing to advocate that the government stop dealing with anything related to marriage like licensing, tax benefits and visitation rights. Civil unions for everyone no matter of whether they are same sex or not in all states.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Marriage, from the perspective of the state, is a type of contract between two people. Two people enter into the contract under terms set by the state, which affords them certain additional rights and privileges that unmarried people do not have.

Currently, the state says that Joe can enter into this type of contract with Jane, and Jane can enter into this type of contract with Joe, if both Joe and Jane agree.

However, with a ban on gay marriage, the state is saying that Joe cannot enter into this very same contract with John, because John is a male. That's discrimination on the basis of gender, and its unconstitutional.

So, contrary to Republican spin, gay marriage is not about giving "special rights" to a certain class of people, but rather it is about the equalization of rights and putting a stop to gender discrimination.

 

[TheNetAnalyst]

I would like to propose the creation of a "bobble-foot" character for this senator. It will be the new trend for bobble-head celebrities and politicians!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Saint Michael
You can be intolerant of intolerance in the same way that you can be an anarchist or a nihilist.

Are you referring to the way that anarchists and nihilists are more or less all petty megalomaniacal dictators at heart?

No, I mean the way that you can support the abandonment of government and order... with the exception of the government-like order that ensures that such an abandonment take place and be made permanent. Likewise nihilists believe in nothing, even though they believe in believing nothing.

How's this different from what I said?

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Saint Michael
You can be intolerant of intolerance in the same way that you can be an anarchist or a nihilist.

Are you referring to the way that anarchists and nihilists are more or less all petty megalomaniacal dictators at heart?

No, I mean the way that you can support the abandonment of government and order... with the exception of the government-like order that ensures that such an abandonment take place and be made permanent. Likewise nihilists believe in nothing, even though they believe in believing nothing.

How's this different from what I said?

Uh...

 

[preslove]

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.

Because of this:

Curtis is married with children ? and votes conservatively. He has voted against a domestic partnership bill, and a bill that would have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This makes him an evil piece of shit. I don't care about their being gay. Hell, my favorite congressman is Barney Frank. Anti gay closet cases are just pathetic. About as pathetic as calling the case against these pieces of shits "prudish."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: preslove

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.

Because of this:

Curtis is married with children ? and votes conservatively. He has voted against a domestic partnership bill, and a bill that would have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This makes him an evil piece of shit. I don't care about their being gay. Hell, my favorite congressman is Barney Frank. Anti gay closet cases are just pathetic. About as pathetic as calling the case against these pieces of shits "prudish."

You're emotional and confused. An elected official's duty is to his constituency, not to himself. Think of this way: when you go to work, do you do what your boss tells you to do, or whatever the hell you want to do? Likewise, a selfish politician is a corrupt politician.

And yes, I do find America's twisted fascination with condemning the sexual activities of others to be prudish. And beyond pathetic. What business is it of yours? Your emotionalism clearly blinds you from noticing the obvious fact that it is exactly this nosy attitude that created laws that made certain sexual activities illegal in the past.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Saint Michael
You can be intolerant of intolerance in the same way that you can be an anarchist or a nihilist.

Are you referring to the way that anarchists and nihilists are more or less all petty megalomaniacal dictators at heart?

No, I mean the way that you can support the abandonment of government and order... with the exception of the government-like order that ensures that such an abandonment take place and be made permanent. Likewise nihilists believe in nothing, even though they believe in believing nothing.

How's this different from what I said?

Uh...

Sorry, in both posts I was being sarcastic. The contradiction in thinking that is essential to both anarchism and nihilism, which you pointed out, will usually lead an individual into believing that their worldview of right and wrong is the only correct one, and that all those who oppose them do so only because they are evil. They usually never realize that the actual conflict lies within themselves, because they have built their worldview upon a contradiction (and worse yet, a contradiction which they're fighting to make real).

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: preslove

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.

Because of this:

Curtis is married with children ? and votes conservatively. He has voted against a domestic partnership bill, and a bill that would have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This makes him an evil piece of shit. I don't care about their being gay. Hell, my favorite congressman is Barney Frank. Anti gay closet cases are just pathetic. About as pathetic as calling the case against these pieces of shits "prudish."

You're emotional and confused. An elected official's duty is to his constituency, not to himself. Think of this way: when you go to work, do you do what your boss tells you to do, or whatever the hell you want to do? Likewise, a selfish politician is a corrupt politician.

And yes, I do find America's twisted fascination with condemning the sexual activities of other do be prudish. And beyond pathetic. What business is it of yours? Your emotionalism clearly blinds you from noticing the obvious fact that it is exactly that nosy attitude that created laws that made certain sexual activities illegal in the past.

And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

He lives in a marriage with a wife while soliciting men for sex, the marriage is obvoiously the masqerade Red Dawn is talking about, did you think it was sociciting gays for publicity that was the masquerade?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

LOL sexual notion of mine, nice try. He's living a lie and he doesn't have faith in his cinstituency to accept him for what he is unlike a Barney Frank for example.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

He lives in a marriage with a wife while soliciting men for sex, the marriage is obvoiously the masqerade Red Dawn is talking about, did you think it was sociciting gays for publicity that was the masquerade?

For all you know it was an open marriage and his wife knew all about it. Once again, what business of that is yours? And even if she didn't, what business of that is yours? That's what I'm talking about. The use of word "masquerade" period. Is it a "masquerade" if you cheat on your wife with your hand? No? Why not then, using your very same logic?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

LOL sexual notion of mine, nice try. He's living a lie and he doesn't have faith in his cinstituency to accept him for what he is unlike a Barney Frank for example.

Ridiculous. You and presolve are basically saying "The only good gay is an outed gay." That's what's upsetting me here. I find that attitude to be offensive and bigoted.

I imagine it's difficult to be open-minded while partisan loyalty forces you to condemn someone for their sexuality. Quite the conflict there. I avoid it myself, by putting my ideals first.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

LOL sexual notion of mine, nice try. He's living a lie and he doesn't have faith in his cinstituency to accept him for what he is unlike a Barney Frank for example.

Ridiculous. You and presolve are basically saying "The only good gay is an outed gay." .

No what I'm saying is that the only good politician is a politician who is at least honest with himself. If he can't be honest with himself how in the hell can you expect him to be honhest with any of his other dealings.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

LOL sexual notion of mine, nice try. He's living a lie and he doesn't have faith in his cinstituency to accept him for what he is unlike a Barney Frank for example.

Ridiculous. You and presolve are basically saying "The only good gay is an outed gay." .

No what I'm saying is that the only good politician is a politician who is at least honest with himself. If he can't be honest with himself how in the hell can you expect him to be honhest with any of his other dealings.

I didn't say that he was a good politician. But... OTOH, I don't see how bisexuality requires self-dishonesty either. I'm a little confused on that one.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

LOL sexual notion of mine, nice try. He's living a lie and he doesn't have faith in his cinstituency to accept him for what he is unlike a Barney Frank for example.

Ridiculous. You and presolve are basically saying "The only good gay is an outed gay." .

No what I'm saying is that the only good politician is a politician who is at least honest with himself. If he can't be honest with himself how in the hell can you expect him to be honhest with any of his other dealings.

I didn't say that he was a good politician. But... OTOH, I don't see how bisexuality requires self-dishonesty either. I'm a little confused on that one.

Yeah I guess you have something in common with Richard Curtis .

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

LOL sexual notion of mine, nice try. He's living a lie and he doesn't have faith in his cinstituency to accept him for what he is unlike a Barney Frank for example.

Ridiculous. You and presolve are basically saying "The only good gay is an outed gay." .

No what I'm saying is that the only good politician is a politician who is at least honest with himself. If he can't be honest with himself how in the hell can you expect him to be honhest with any of his other dealings.

I didn't say that he was a good politician. But... OTOH, I don't see how bisexuality requires self-dishonesty either. I'm a little confused on that one.

Yeah I guess you have something in common with Richard Curtis .

Meaning that you think bisexuals are confused? Or just closeted gays in general? Either way, this comment of yours proves my point... so thanks.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

LOL sexual notion of mine, nice try. He's living a lie and he doesn't have faith in his cinstituency to accept him for what he is unlike a Barney Frank for example.

Ridiculous. You and presolve are basically saying "The only good gay is an outed gay." .

No what I'm saying is that the only good politician is a politician who is at least honest with himself. If he can't be honest with himself how in the hell can you expect him to be honhest with any of his other dealings.

I didn't say that he was a good politician. But... OTOH, I don't see how bisexuality requires self-dishonesty either. I'm a little confused on that one.

Yeah I guess you have something in common with Richard Curtis .

Meaning that you think bisexuals are confused? Or just closeted gays in general? Either way, this comment of yours proves my point... so thanks.

No it doesn't. The only thing you proved is that you can argue in circles.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

LOL sexual notion of mine, nice try. He's living a lie and he doesn't have faith in his cinstituency to accept him for what he is unlike a Barney Frank for example.

Ridiculous. You and presolve are basically saying "The only good gay is an outed gay." .

No what I'm saying is that the only good politician is a politician who is at least honest with himself. If he can't be honest with himself how in the hell can you expect him to be honhest with any of his other dealings.

I didn't say that he was a good politician. But... OTOH, I don't see how bisexuality requires self-dishonesty either. I'm a little confused on that one.

Yeah I guess you have something in common with Richard Curtis .

Meaning that you think bisexuals are confused? Or just closeted gays in general? Either way, this comment of yours proves my point... so thanks.

No it doesn't. The only thing you proved is that you can argue in circles.

BS.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think I see Vic's point here...

(In my opinion) He's saying that there isn't anything necessarily inconsistent about a gay politician that votes for anti-gay legislation, (or against "pro-gay" legislation) if in so doing he is properly representing the attitudes and desires of his constituency by voting that way. That may or may not be the case in this particular circumstance, but the larger point is that it isn't really anybody's business whether or not a politician is gay or straight, so long as he/she is properly representing his constituency.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Garth
I think I see Vic's point here...

(In my opinion) He's saying that there isn't anything necessarily inconsistent about a gay politician that votes for anti-gay legislation, (or against "pro-gay" legislation) if in so doing he is properly representing the attitudes and desires of his constituency by voting that way. That may or may not be the case in this particular circumstance, but the larger point is that it isn't really anybody's business whether or not a politician is gay or straight, so long as he/she is properly representing his constituency.

QFT

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And masquarading as a straight family orientated individual while being just the opposite isn't self serving?

What is masquerading in this context, Red? Failure to fit into some preconceived sexual notion of yours? I don't follow.

LOL sexual notion of mine, nice try. He's living a lie and he doesn't have faith in his cinstituency to accept him for what he is unlike a Barney Frank for example.

Ridiculous. You and presolve are basically saying "The only good gay is an outed gay." .

No what I'm saying is that the only good politician is a politician who is at least honest with himself. If he can't be honest with himself how in the hell can you expect him to be honhest with any of his other dealings.

I didn't say that he was a good politician. But... OTOH, I don't see how bisexuality requires self-dishonesty either. I'm a little confused on that one.

Yeah I guess you have something in common with Richard Curtis .

Meaning that you think bisexuals are confused? Or just closeted gays in general? Either way, this comment of yours proves my point... so thanks.

No it doesn't. The only thing you proved is that you can argue in circles.

BS.

Great argument you got going there.