Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
lol, good of the country. Look, if someone firmly believes that being gay is immoral and wrong but they are also gay, then it obivously makes them immoral and wrong. How can a person be looking out for the 'best interests of the country' if they know that they are immoral and wrong.
Or maybe they are just power hungry people willing to stab their own people in the back to get to the next level? It's similar to a black man calling for the re-instatement of Jim Crowe laws.
|
I dispute comparison to blacks. Race isn't a choice. But that's another arguement entirely. When I see "foe of gay rights" I tend to take that to mean they are in favor of keeping marrige how it should be, i.e. one man one woman. I read that as liberal spin. If he was really advocating that gays should lose the right to vote, or be lynched, or not be able to drink at hetero water fountains, or go to hetero schools, then that would be different. If however, he has just stated his support for marriage to remain how it is, he's not really against gay rights.
And a great deal of people do things that they know/believe to be moral and wrong, but still work for the country's best interest. The democratic messiah Bill Clinton would be a great example of this.
Quote:
|
Whatever. Being a Rep or Dem doesn't mean you have to take the traditional party line on every issue (for reasonable people, at least). A simple "I usually support my party but they are wrong on this issue" would suffice. I guess it's too much to ask that people have a spine.
|
But you had a problem with a gay Republican stating his views, which happen to be Republican views. Why should he diverge on that issue if he believes what he's saying? What if he doesn't feel his party is wrong? The spineless thing would to be to give in to the gay mafia and go against what he believes.