[quote]buffballswell wrote:
Senator Craig may be telling the truth when he said he is not gay,
he’s bi. The devil is in the details.[/quote]
Are you one of those guys who condemns Clinton because of his definition of sex?
That aside, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that he’s proclaiming to uphold “christian values” while simultaneously cruising for hot boys.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
2. Bashing a Republican for being gay is gay bashing.[/quote]
Yes, obviously I hate fags. Can’t you do better then that?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
buffballswell wrote:
Senator Craig may be telling the truth when he said he is not gay,
he’s bi. The devil is in the details.
Are you one of those guys who condemns Clinton because of his definition of sex?
That aside, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that he’s proclaiming to uphold “christian values” while simultaneously cruising for hot boys.[/quote]
Yes, I condemn anyone who tries to cover their ass with ambiguous language. And by the way, your the guy with the avatar of a naked guy holding a pole
[quote]buffballswell wrote:
And by the way, your the guy with the avatar of a naked guy holding a pole[/quote]
And you’re the one who points it out…?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Right, he WAS gay, but officially -when elected- he was not. He had to go because of it. [/quote]
So one has to come out to be “officially” gay? I thought the pro-gay crowd is all about it being genetic. Now you say it’s not official until one announces it to the world.
And he didn’t leave because he was gay. He resigned because he was a crooked politician. Not that there’s any other kind, but he was not a victim of gay hatred.
[quote]And to quote Barney Franks: (whom I didn’t know and had to look up in the wiki)
“The fact is, yes, the Republicans do think [homosexuality] should be a crime. And I think there�??s a right to privacy. But the right to privacy should not be a right to hypocrisy … people who want to demonize other people shouldn’t then be able to go home and close the door, and do it themselves.”
[/quote]
He’s an ultra-liberal. I think it is equally wrong for the left to politicize the gay issue.
But they get a pass.
Why is that?
[quote]buffballswell wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
buffballswell wrote:
Senator Craig may be telling the truth when he said he is not gay,
he’s bi. The devil is in the details.
Are you one of those guys who condemns Clinton because of his definition of sex?
That aside, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that he’s proclaiming to uphold “christian values” while simultaneously cruising for hot boys.
Yes, I condemn anyone who tries to cover their ass with ambiguous language. And by the way, your the guy with the avatar of a naked guy holding a pole[/quote]
Yesss, he’s totally naked and unashamed, that little hussy.
The one thing I pity america for is it’s prudery.
Look around. The whole TNation is a totally horny place. Every fourth avatar (conservative assumption) has some sexy groove in it. Most articles include some frivolous joke or some such. The “Male Animal” subforum thrives. Despite that, I’ve never met so many homophobes. It’s OK to look at some guys well oiled gluteus maximus but you’re at least the fifth guy who mentions the naked truth about my avatar.
A bit of advice for the self-professed social conservatives who like the penis (and are male)-
Don’t call homosexuality an abomination. Don’t compare homosexuality to real crimes or moral and ethical outrages. You may get away with it forever, but if you’re caught with your dick in the [insert male orifice into which you’re doing the inserting] then you will look like the king/queen of all douchebags.
Instead I would suggest softening the blow before it happens. Call homosexuality the “jay-walking” of sins if you need to condemn it. If you want to pad it to avoid drawing undue attention, might I suggest the following:
“… then there are the ‘jay-walking’ of sins, which include working on Sunday, homsexuality, and Simony.”
Just sprinkle occasional lines like this into speaches/sermons on the public record and people won’t care quite as much when you’re outed.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
He’s an ultra-liberal. I think it is equally wrong for the left to politicize the gay issue.
But they get a pass.
Why is that? [/quote]
If the GOP didn’t make being anti-gay such an integral part of their party platform, no one would care about these guys that are being outted. Being hypocritical is being hypocritical, plain and simple. The left is not getting a free pass. The GOP is just getting a taste of the medicine that they have been dishing out to the DNC for the last several years. They are reaping what they sowed.
Besides, if it was just one or two, it still wouldn’t be a big issue. The fact of the matter is that there is a whole slew of them. More than anyone expected.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is amazing how liberals love to gay bash when the target is an in the closet Republican.
Hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. As usual.
Where is he bashing gays? Calling out hypocrites who happen to be both “anti-gay” and homosexuals themselves is not bashing.
[/quote]
Mind you I support the idea of gay marriage, just because you’re gay doesn’t make you HAVE to support their agenda.
mike
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
If the GOP didn’t make being anti-gay such an integral part of their party platform, no one would care about these guys that are being outted. Being hypocritical is being hypocritical, plain and simple. The left is not getting a free pass. The GOP is just getting a taste of the medicine that they have been dishing out to the DNC for the last several years. They are reaping what they sowed.
Besides, if it was just one or two, it still wouldn’t be a big issue. The fact of the matter is that there is a whole slew of them. More than anyone expected.
[/quote]
Show me where anyone called Frank out for the statements he made.
Being anti-gay, if that’s the term you want to use is not an exclusive of the right.
Very few candidates can run as openly gay - right or left.
You know that is true - so why pin it only on the right?
What is more fake, politics or professional wrestling? I was never so crushed as a kid when I saw two wrestlers, “sworn enemies”, two that beat each other up so often and with such viciousness, having dinner together.
Have to wonder, does this pale in comparison to all-star professional politics?
I just didn’t know all this went on inside airport mens rooms.
I am now enlightened about the ‘foot tap’…god forbid you men have a song in your hearts while visiting the john…its an invitation to gay sex! \o/
haha.
peeks through the stall and places baggage strategically
domedomedomedomedomedomeimaclosetgaypolitician
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
What is more fake, politics or professional wrestling? I was never so crushed as a kid when I saw two wrestlers, “sworn enemies”, two that beat each other up so often and with such viciousness, having dinner together.
Have to wonder, does this pale in comparison to all-star professional politics?[/quote]
I thought you were going to say having gay sex together.
With all the power the politicians in DC have, why don’t they devote some of it to curing homosexuality? Since it prevents people from having children (if the gays are 100% gay), its obviously some sort of defect: all living things seek to reproduce.
Is homosexuality a genetic defect or is it caused by a pathogen?
These things deserve a committee…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
its obviously some sort of defect: all living things seek to reproduce.
Is homosexuality a genetic defect or is it caused by a pathogen?
These things deserve a committee…[/quote]
These studies have already been done.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is amazing how liberals love to gay bash when the target is an in the closet Republican.
Hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. As usual.
Heh, you know damned well that Republicans use the gay issue to mobilize their voters. This makes it a great area to highlight when the opportunity arises. You do know this is not “gay bashing” but Republican party bashing?
Nice try spinmeister.
[/quote]
I don’t even think it is Republican party bashing, this is liar, hypocrite, and fraud bashing, always has been. It is and was never about the party or the actions, it was about the fact that these guys say homosexuals have a “choice” and that they are sinning (with more hell fire and brimstone, of course) and come to find out they are “choosing” to act this way.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
With all the power the politicians in DC have, why don’t they devote some of it to curing homosexuality? Since it prevents people from having children (if the gays are 100% gay), its obviously some sort of defect: all living things seek to reproduce.
Is homosexuality a genetic defect or is it caused by a pathogen?
[/quote]
Maybe nature is trying to work out an asexual, hermaphroditic way of reproduction for the human species and our interference will only hinder that.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
With all the power the politicians in DC have, why don’t they devote some of it to curing homosexuality? Since it prevents people from having children (if the gays are 100% gay), its obviously some sort of defect: all living things seek to reproduce.
Is homosexuality a genetic defect or is it caused by a pathogen?
These things deserve a committee…[/quote]
It has been done over and over again.
While there is still much to be researched and understood, we know that you can’t just “heal” people.
I honestly think that a certain percentile probably isn’t inherently gay, but somehow acquired these behavior patterns externally, I’ll give you that.
Where I strongly disagree with you and those uberhypocrites I posted above, is that homos are really in need of help or a cure and that it’s an important issue.
As far as I understand, most of those who can lead honest lives can be perfectly happy. Doesn’t sound like a disease to me.
From an egoistic viewpoint I couldn’t care less, since it means they are out of the “game”
The so called “homosexual lifestyle” you guys keep mentioning, isn’t annoying to me, nor it is dangerous to society, in contrast for example, to football fans, who regularly piss me off.
[Side anecdote: I live in one of the most gay corners of Berlin. Even though it’s sometimes crowded with gays, it’s also one of the most fertile places in Germany. So much for the theory that “deviant” sexual behavior will impede a “healthy” society.]
And from another perspective: Perhaps it’s Mother Earth’s response to overcrowding the earth. In any way, it’s good some couples won’t mindlessly procreate. Let’s hope there will be more free gays in China, India and the muslimic countries.
I knew of these studies which purport to show how natural homosexuality is. But I’d surmise that a certain small % of people also have a death wish, a small % of people are retarded and so on…yet we seek to help/fix those people with psychotherapy and special education.
Count me in a minority (perhaps of one) but it is abnormal to want to use sex and the pleasure built into the act for puerile purposes. Humans should be more noble than that.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Count me in a minority (perhaps of one) but it is abnormal to want to use sex and the pleasure built into the act for puerile purposes. Humans should be more noble than that.[/quote]
You give humans too much credit. I don’t understand why it is so “necessary” to import special status to us when in reality we are the most ideological, hypocritical, duplicitous and dangerous species on the planet, exhibiting utter greed, contemp and apathy in response to our surroundings.
Throw all the flowery language you want at it, we’ve got a long way to go before we’ll deserve any of it. What we do have is potential, if we could stop squabbling about inconsequential issues.