Spokane Mayor, Another Republican Foe of Gay Rights is Outed
 

When will closeted Republican politicians stop their hypocrisy?
They continue their attack on gays and gay rights, and the press continues to out them. Is it dysfunction, self loathing, or denial that makes these guys tick?

What is it with gay or bi people who are against gay rights? I just don't get it. IMO, I'd respect someone's right to keep their gayness a secret unless they are openly speaking against gay issues. In that case they need to be exposed for the hypocrite they are.

So the only gays free to speek about gay issues are the ones that agree with the democratic party line?

And you left out a choice about what makes these guys tick: they know what they're talking about, and are able to think in the best intrest of the country and not themselves.

No. Unless they're doing something illegal that needs to come to the attention of the authorities, it's still despicable to out them against their will.

Why would that make them a hypocrite? Maybe they are just looking past their self-intrest and looking at the good of the country (which is what public officials are supposed to do). Alot of Democrats call for higher taxes on the rich, despite the fact that they are rich. Are these people also hypocrites?

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.

What is despicable is for them to act all high and mighty criticizing other gays while secretly getting pounded in the ass. They lost that right to be private about it when they chose to attack the rights of other gays.

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.

No, they didn't. People have every right to hold whatever political positions they want without it negating their right to privacy. They have every right to be filthy stinking evil hypocrites without the sensitive areas of their public lives being displayed for all to see.

But hey, feel free to drag yourself down to their level.

Sure, just like the Republicans treated Clinton regarding Monica?

Depending on the nuances of the cases we're comparing, that may be a good point.

But which side were you taking, then? Do you think that it was right to bring Clinton's indiscretions to light? If so, why? If not, then why would it be okay to make public revelations in this case?

IMO, some of the responses here are illogical and reflexive. This is an example of long historyof persecution and harrassment driven by hypocrisy or dysfunction.

I'm not gay, i just enjoy having sex with men. ;)

He is probably extremely ashamed of himself for being gay, over compensates by publicly taking a hardline antigay stance. Just like any confused homophobic teenage boy.

As far as privacy goes, i thought part of entering politics was giving up most of your privacy. The public eye is the public eye.

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.



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.

Oh, yes, it's to be expected.

But if the guy hasn't actually committed any legal wrongs, then I'd tend to view those people who expose his sexuality as scumbags, and not a whole lot better than him.

SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS NOT A FUCKING CHOICE.

Goddam. How many times does that have to be made clear?

Once would do. And by made clear, I mean proven with science, not propaganda and political correctness.

You call them scumbags, i call them politicians. Who did it and why isn't really that important. The guy had to have expected to be outed at some point. Furthermore, he completely misled his constituency by not being forthright with them. Do you think the people who would elect someone with his stance on homosexuality would knowingly elect a homosexual? Sounds like someone was jesseing his helms.

How about you ask yourself when you chose to be straight. Then ask yourself if you currently have a choice in who you are attracted. I don't need a weatherman to tell me that its raining outside, and it would be foolish to refuse to admit that its raining until the weatherman says so.

Why does this bring an ex-president, a blue dress, and a blow job to mind?

Thinking like that is why people thought the earth was flat for 100's of years, "Hey, it looks flat, good enough for me". True, you might not need a weatherman to tell you it's raining, but you might need a meteorologist to tell you WHY it's raining. Just like you don't need scientists to tell you if you're gay, but you might need them to tell you why you are gay.

Anyone else notice a theme of the left gleefully outing in an attempt to SHAME and HUMILIATE a homosexual from the right.

The left is comprised primarily of thugs employing hypocracy and double standards to further their assault on decency, responsiblity and accountablity.

Lets examine this issue briefly. Here we have a politician who opposes special privledges based on deviant sexual behaviours. Yet when he is discovered to be deviant himself, the deviants, who prefer to be lauded as benign and normal "out" this individual for his deviance, in an effort to stigmatize him. How would that be possible if the behaviour is not deviant. I really pity the left, they are just pathetic.

This is why they are becoming more and more irrelevant in our society and thankfully will continue to have less and less say in the directions of our progress.

Keep it up folks. Your efforts are noted and appreciated.

-bear

So then you could choose to be attracted to men? If you could answer that question then we could maybe get somewhere.

Your analogy doesn't apply. The shape of the earth isn't defined internally by every human individually.

What special privledges are you referring to? The special priviledge of protection from being fired because of your sexual orientation or the special privledge of being given the same rights that straight couples enjoy? The Rush take is bogus crap.

The only double standard is from the man who tried to pass laws that would allow people to fire gays for no other reason than they are gay but he secretly engages in the same activities. Hypocrite?

The funniest thing is that when the gay person is a Republican, they rush to his support. Where are they when gay couples demand equal treatment?

I hope this continues. Republiqueers who beat their chests about morality and sancitiy of marriage (in a legal, not spiritual sense) but secretly bone men need to be exposed for the cowardly traitors they are.

I don't expect every gay person to be a gay rights activist. Go ahead and align yourself with the party of homophobic thugs if you wish and keep your real self in the closet. However, if you are going to support bills that seek to limit gay rights you need to be exposed.

I currently am not attracted to men. I am also not attracted to watersports, feet, crossdressing, or S&M. Would you also say that these fetishes are inborn as well?

My analogy is apt, it has to do with not looking at causes and instead basing all knowledge on what you simply observe. Your logic would also invalidate the majority of psychology, because many people who have severe mental disorders don't feel that they are suffering any such disorder, even when biological evidence is present.

What rights do straight couples have that gays don't?

Not at all. If he thinks that homosexuality is something that employers should be able to fire someone over, that's his opinion. Just because it isn't in his best interest doesn't inherently make him hypocritical.

Again, I fail to see where gays aren't equally treated. Many people disapprove of their actions, but that is their right. Maybe the gay mafia should quit trying to force their morality on the rest of the public.

What if they simply see marriage for what it is-a legal binding between a man and a woman, and don't think the government and businesses should support deviance.

And by your logic of labelling these people traitors, anyone who is American and comments negitively on America's practices is also a traitor.

If you are a dem/liberal (which I am assuming) your hypocracy is staggering. Essentially, you are saying that someone's private life has a bearing on how they do their job. And you are also saying that gays should be forcefully exposed if they don't follow the democratic line, or if they try to think for themselves. I'm glad you aligned yourself with a party of hypocritic, amoral, deviants.

Being able to work regardless of your sexual orientation is a special privledge as far as im concerned.

I realize this will chill your left wing ass to the bone...but I believe one can be FIRE for what ever fucking reason someone can invent.

I am conflicted on the marriage, inheritance, probate, hospital visits, etc...mostly because these are government defined "privledges" which AFAIC are nothing the government should be involved with. Here I favor removing governement administration of these 'privledges' all to together. Not further exacerbating the problem by broadening, redefining, or even broadening their definition.

Oh and your pretty little metaphors and quaint little play on words are appreciated...as I already pointed out in my previous post.

Keep up the good work, young fella ;-)

Irrelevant....

-bear

You know, as dirty as it makes me feel, I actually agree with alansmithee on the subject of outing gay politicians who have made anti-gay statements/actions.

On some level, I feel that they are getting their just desserts. On the other hand, I can't really condone outing anyone, no matter what. Just because the politicians may be hypocrites of the worst kind doesn't mean anyone else has the right to out them to the public. Just as I get really pissed when I read about teachers who out a kid to their parents, I get pissed when I read about anti-gay, closeted gay politicians being outed.

However, I can't really see myself taking seriously the arguments put forth by anyone who suggests that gays are deviants or that their sexual preference is a choice. Those beliefs are simply below contempt.

EDIT - Wow. Someone is actually suggesting that it is alright to fire someone for any reason, whether it be sexual orientation, race, or religion. Jimmy Crow lives!

The ignorance in this thread is astonishing.
I suspect that some of the same people denying the genetic component of homsexuality are the same people who deride evolution as "just a theory".

This whole thing reminds me of the Clayton Bigsby sketch from Chappelle's Show.
Instead of being physically blind, however, the mayor is simply in extreme denial. He knows deep inside that he is gay, but can't admit it because he hates the very idea of homosexuality. He hates it so much that he lashes out at fellow homosexuals as a way of attacking the homosexual in himself.

So we should then apply that to race as well? Let's see how that goes.

The govt isn't about to start taking those privledges away, therefore they need to be equally applied.

alantreesmith:

You know damn well what rights and privledges have been denied to gay people. Don't play dumb. It isn't enough that they won't allow marriage to gays, bigotted right wingers have been sucessfull at barring civil unions that give similar rights under a different name. It is hatefull and unecessary.

It may be hard for you to understand but it is the right wing that is trying to impose morals. Calling them deviant is passing a moral judgement and banning gay marriage and civil union is forcing YOUR morals on society. Gay activists are simply saying it is not the govt's place to define morality and therefore people need to be treated equally.

My use of 'traitor' is not meant as a nationalistic level, he is a traitor to other gay people, not the govt. Sorry for the confusion.

guy44, even Mike Rogers, the gay activist who has been so active in outing gay Republican political hypocrits, has mixed emotions about what he is doing. We see the evidence right here on this board concerning misguided attitudes about what it is to be gay in America.

When closeted gays use their political influence to attempt to make public policy that is anti gay, voting for legislation that mandates firing those discovered to be homosexual, from their jobs, is a strong example, I support outing as a means to diminish their political influence and hypocrisy.

I don't agree that outing anti-gay people is in anyway unconscionable. The only way to view it as unconscionable is to view homosexuality as somehow inferior or wrong. Outing a gay person who is publicly anti-gay is the best method of demonstrating to them that there is nothing inferior or wrong with being gay - something that person has yet to learn.

There is only one reason a gay person ever feels the need to keep their sexuality private: fear of ostracization. That ostracization is very specifically created by people who are anti-gay - especially public personalities who are anti-gay. Heterosexuals are not in any way closted because their sexuality is deemed "normal". Homosexual people should be out, just as heterosexuals are out. If an anti-gay politician feels discomfort at being outed for their homosexuality - they have brought that entirely upon themselves.

it's what some psychiatrists would call a classic "projection" : a defense mechanism, placing unacceptable impulses in yourself onto someone else

it's believed that anxiety is an underlying cause, in the sense that the thought/reality of being gay causes anxiety, and the mind's way of dealing with the issue causes the person to project.

something i looked up really quickly:


the issue always interests me because, as someone said, republicans always seem to come out in support of an outed gay politician, yet in all other facets of life, they seem to deride the very thought of gay rights.

sick, all the way. sick that closeting can still make homophobes out of queers. sick that people are willing to use their own sexual idenity as a weapon against those homophobic queers. and sick that we're still having the same heterocentrist conversation over and over again.

because i don't get to say this enough...alan s, your comments are despicable and willfully ignorant.

that was particularly well said.

agreed.

So far we have the following defenses for the blantantly bigotted hate filled hypocracy of the left:

It was actually argued that the theory of evolution is just a theory. Amazing. Someone actually TYPED those words out, and appeared serious about it. How can you possibly maintain credibility when you ACCUSE SOMEONE maliciously of claiming a theory is a theory. Not to mention the red hering, post hoc, hasty generalization, appeal to authortity, style over substance, attacking the person fallacies demonstrated and clearly required of the lefts debating tactic.

It's all they got...wait except for

platitudes, slogans, namecalling, slight of hand and outright deception.

Keep it up fellas...

as I've said: irrelevant

Manx, I will concede that your presentation was particularly well argued, reasonable, and persuasive. I've got some thinking to do on the subject.

-bear

host, I know lots of people have mixed feelings on the subject. It is one of those topics that I've given a whole lot of thought to and have yet to decide fully upon. On the one hand, I don't think people should feel ashamed about being gay. And these hypocritical politicians opened the door when they took sides - if they can't handle it, they shouldn't dish it out.

However, while those points are valid, I just feel too squeemish to condone outing people. Yes, nobody should be ashamed of being gay, and yes, these people brought it upon themselves, but there are still damn good reasons not to out people. Many people remain in the closet for their own personal reasons. Many are afraid of losing family or friends, or may be married or have a family. Even these bastard politicians most likely risk losing their jobs, friends, and family by coming out of the closet. And while they disgust me for their homophobic rhetoric, well, I just can't see where I've got any kind of a right to out them.

Why? Because I'd actually like some reason why deviant behavior should be accepted besides "uh...because"? Because I've repeatedly asked for anything showing that homosexuality isn't a choice and have yet to have anyone respond with anything other than insults?

If you find my comments despicable, it's only because of your own amorality and accetpance of deviance. It's a defense mecanism to avoid actually having to confront these issues. You cannot debate on logical terms, so resort to closing your ears and slinging insults. Because I don't get to say that enough.

This and that church in the south where the minister is kicking people out for being dems just shows the hypocrisy and the true colors of the republican party. This is what you voted for righities. Is this what your party condones?

Exactly.

I just don't find much value or respectability in responding with malice to malicious people.

It tends to increase the overall ugliness, rather than decrease.

You know, once upon a time you burst onto the scene and it took me about a week to set you to ignore. Then I gave you another shot and you were so good for such a long time...and now you're back to your original, stupid-ass ways. Shut up.

Man, am I ever going to get tagged by the mods for this one.

it seems difficult to say that heterosexuality is a choice. i'm a heterosexual, and i don't remember choosing to like women, it just happened. i'm not sure why the same can't be considered for homosexuality. add to that, homosexuality is not limited to humans, as it's seen in gorillas and grizzly bears amongst other animals. i think we would all agree that animals rely on instinct rather than choices.

as filtherton already asked:
personally, i didn't choose to be straight, i just am. so, i don't see how i can tell someone that their homosexuality is a choice.

but, say i were to believe/think that homosexuality was indeed a choice... then what would that truly say about this spokane mayor?!?! he is a "foe of gay rights" according to the article and the quotes of him seem to support that assertion. for him to deviate from a heterosexual lifestyle and choose to be a homosexual/have homosexual encounters would be even more perplexing. add to that, if this guy is choosing to be gay, then it would seem that he really deserves to be outed, as he chose to do it, rather than him just following what is natural.

I agree that this polititian is certainly a hypocrite but he has a lot of company. IMHO a large number of our polititians are hypocrites and say whatever it takes to get elected while conducting their private lives differently.

A few examples:

- The polititian who advovates higher taxes for the rich while hiring the best tax attorneys money can buy to pay as little as possible of their income and wealth in taxes.

- The polititian who advocates against tuition tax credits for the middle class and extolling the virtues of public education while at the same time sending their own kids to the best private schools.

- The polititian who advocates women's rights while taking advantage of their position and treating the less powerful women in their lives like tramps.

- The polititian who advocates a military draft while making sure their own kids will be exempt.

- and on and on....

I don't think it has anything to do with dysfunction, self loathing, or denial. The fact that he may be gay does not stop him from being ambitious. What this guy is doing seems just normal for a polititian who wants to keep getting elected.

What exactly are you doing?

If you find me despicable, it's only because of your own amorality and acceptance of repression. It's a defense mecanism to avoid actually having to confront these issues. You cannot debate on logical terms, so resort to closing your ears and slinging insults. Because I don't get to say that enough.

Who has burden of proof here is the only issue that make this whole circlejerk of a conversation keep running. You think that you have tradition at your back, and so do not question why your assumptions are right. The left thinks they have progress at their back...

And i'm left rolling my eyes as far back in to their sockets as they'll go. this isn't political football. this is about people's lives. and you don't seem to give a damn about that. i think that choice is immoral, and despicable.

you say you haven't been given a reason. everyone here knows that's not true. i've seen you ignore every posting that tries to point that out to you. so i say you're choosing to be willfully ignorant.

do i wish you made difference choices? sure. but i'm not holding my breath. you seem pretty convinced of your own amorality. :icare:

Yes, and when exactly did you decide that you weren't going to be attracted to men? A simple answer will suffice. Was it when you were in adolescence? Young adult? Regardless of whether something is inborn or not, what i'm talking about is choice. I want you to tell me unequivocally that you can choose to be sexually aroused by men.

Your analogy is not apt. I can't tell if the world is round just by looking out my window. I can, however, tell whether i am attracted to men or not by looking at a man.

As far as psychology goes, a lot of it is bullshit, but that's another discussion. Speaking of psychology, i would imagine that you believe that most mental patients choose to suffer from mental illness.

Above all, if you respond to this, please give me a rough estimate as to when you chose to be heterosexual, and then tell me all about how you can choose to be attracted to men.

This whole section makes absolutely no sense, so I won't respond unless you'd like to clarify.

Hmm, hypocracy much? Did you even read what the topic was about, or just come out to defend the gay mafia? A Republican senator who was a "foe of gay rights" (whatever that's supposed to mean, nobody yet has seemed to be able to say what rights gays are being denied) was outed in a sting operation, which liberals HERE have said they supported. They are doing exactly what you are accusing others of: using one man's sexuality as a political football and not caring about his life. But because it's a republican who didn't buy into the gay agenda, you don't seem to see anything wrong with his personal life being used as a political tool. You seem to be admonishing the wrong side.

Show me one posting i've ignored, otherwise your statement is false. The closest i've seen is filtherton's posts asking me when I chose to be hetero, and a link dealing with a book about how animals supposedly show gay behavior. Neither of these is even convincing, not to mention definitive. You are being willfully blinded by propaganda, and are refusing to see anything that doesn't fit into how you view the world.


Again, have no idea what this is supposed to mean or its relevance but it seems that irrationality is one of your hallmarks so statements like that should be expected.

Thinking back, it was probably in 3rd grade, 6 yrs old or so when I started having anything that could be described as attraction for women. And as for choosing to be attracted to men, I didn't even know it was possible until probably 6th or 7th grade.

And as for saying that I can unequivocally choose to be attracted to men, I can't say that at the time. But I also can't rule out the possibility in the future.

I'll concede this simply because it's not really necessary for the discussion at hand.

Some mental disorders are from choice, or start as lesser disorders that are deliberately choosen (or at least behaving with the symptoms is choosen). But I seriously doubt that most mental patients choose mental illness.

I covered most of this above, but i'll try for another example. As I've said before, I currently am not attracted to men, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility for the future. I also currently have no intrest in many fetishistic behaviors, but that doesn't mean that I won't like those in the future if I chose to try those either.

Alan...i don't support outing. Did you not catch that?

Outing only works when you have people saying the kind of shit that you say. It's only something to be feared when a culture of shame is built up to keep queer sexuality a dirty secret. Gay mafia? Screw that, man. I'm standing up for myself.

You want to think this is personal, or that i'm irrational, that's fine. I don't much care what happens in your head. that's your own. but what you say on this board is dehumanizing and wrong. and i take issue with that.

What do you mean standing up for yourself? I never mentioned you at all until you came in trying to attack me.

Also, how is stating my personal displeasure with certain forms of behavior dehumanizing or wrong? I do many things that people probably have problems with, but I don't demand special rights to practice those behaviors or force everyone to embrace those behaviors, nor do I start slinging names at them. But woe betide the person that speaks against "teh ghey", as a wave of liberals will decend upon him like locusts, and the skys will rumble with the thunder of their insults and be illuminated with the lightning of their self-righteousness. They wear their hypocricy like armour, and use their amorality as a shield as they strike against anyone who doesn't fall in line with their agenda.

I'm not talking about choosing to try. I'm talking about choosing to enjoy. The fact that you have no interest in fetishistic behaviors that you've never tried doesn't matter. What matters is whether you can make a choice, right now, without any cognitive dissonance whatsoever, without any self delusional trickery, to enjoy fucking men. Is sexual orientation was a choice, as you seem to believe, than you should be able to alter it at will. If you can't then it's not really a choice.

You aren't stating a personal displeasure. Complicity with the heteronormative culture is to accept what goes along with it. Suicide caused by fear and shame, politics of personal destruction, the breaking of families, leaving foster children without loving and waiting homes, allowing hospitals to deny vistation to lifelong partners, the list goes on and on.

When you use the vocabulary of virulant homophobia, i respond. For me. I don't belong to a gay mafia. Let me let you in on a secret. There isn't one. I'm queer, and i'm a person. That's it. So before you try to ascribe what i'm saying to some secret society, just can it and listen for one minute.

i think you need to change that a bit... it's not whether or not allensmithee can just up and choose to enjoy sex with a man. if he's ever had anal or recieved head, he could easily enjoy it. the issue is whether or not he could just up and choose to have romantic feelings for another man without any cognitive dissonance, etc.

<b>allensmithee</b>
it seems to me that sexual preferance isn't a choice. you call the animals seen engaging in homosexual activities as propoganda. i see it as observational evidence. does that mean that every instance of homosexuality in humans is 100% biologic? nope. my guess is that there are some people who are hardwired to be homosexual, and others are 'programmed' to be (something happened to them while developing mentally to unconsciously turn them off to the opposite sex or leave them open to finding both sexes equally attractive - not programmed as many homophobic people think gays are trying to 'brainwash' kids into being gay).

think about people you've been romantically attracted to. why have you been attracted to them? a lot of the time people fall in love for no particular reason... the person they fall in love with has a 'je ne se qua' (possibly horribly misspelled) quality. is it that you find big tits attractive? or is it that all of the people you fall for happen to have big tits? your 'type' is based on your genes and your experiences as you were growing. for some men, their type happen to have dicks. it's not a conscious choice just like i'm sure you meet women you find yourself attracted to and you do it just by seeing them without knowing anything else about them...

Alan and J8ear, I'm sure you've posted before on this somewhere, but why is it that you believe that homosexuality is wrong? What is your defence and or reasoning for your beliefs? You're of great interest to me, as I don't actually know anyone in person who shares your perspectives, and I'd like to know your reasons.

I don't think people should be outed. It's mean and bad experiences can lead someone to be even increasingly self-denying and ashamed. Coming out to someone often has a lot to do with trust and personal comfort, and it's cruel to make this decision for people.

I don't believe that sexual preference is a choice. In a world filled with so much hatred against homosexuals, why would anyone choose to become one? I'm lucky, and I've been able to explore my sexuality in a very accepting and embracing community, but why on earth would anyone choose to be gay? It seems that it would be much easier to be straight, in general.

so much for loving your neighbor as yourself, so much for judge not lest you be judged, so much for let he who is without sin cast the first stone---so much for every important tenant of the new testament. you would think that these repeated outbursts of bigotry--even in the microcosm of this thread--would give even the most convinced protestant fundamentalist reason to think about what they are saying, how it lines up with the religion they claim to represent, what their positions make christianity look like to others....they do a real disservice to an often quite beautiful vision of how people can and should be to each other in the world that jesus outlined...all in the name of that vision. you would think that eventually some kind of dissonance would turn up in this. you really would think so.

Heteronormative? You have got to be putting on some sort of an act to come up with stuff like that. That is the single most ridiculous thing I've read on these boards in awhile. The rest of the post isn't even worth discussing.


What I meant was that in the book the author (who is gay) interprets many behaviors as being homosexual that might not be. He admits himself that because it's dealing with animal behavior, there is much interpretation involved. I am not questioning what he observed, merely his interpretation of it, since he did have an agenda.

I don't care about attraction. People can be attracted to whoever they want, and I don't think that anyone cares. It's when people act on that attraction. And I personally don't even care if people act on their attractions, but when they want special rights based on their attraction is where I draw the line.

I personally don't care much about homosexuality, what happens between other people in their bedrooms. But I do care when people try to force their beliefs on me, which is what the gay mafia tries to do. They want everyone to accept sex between the same genders as not only normal but something to be celebrated, and anyone who thinks otherwise is attacked. And then they try to hijack marriage in order to get gov't support of their deviant lifestyle. And people aren't even supposed to blink.

Alan, you missed what I was asking all together. Here, let me clarify. What makes you not wish to embrace the idea of sex between the same gender as something that is okay? You seemingly do care about homosexuality, as you refer to it as a "deviant lifestyle" which, obviously, has a negative connotation. Why do you feel this way?

And as for the "gay mafia" thing, I hope that I'm misinterpreting what you're saying with this term. Could you clarify for me? If you mean what I think you mean, it seems that calling queer activists the "gay mafia" would be like calling the Christian conservatives the "God Mob" who are out to brainwash everyone into thinking that anything sexual for non-reproductive purposes is evil.

I don't agree with you alansmithee, but I'd like this discussion to be civil and clear... if you're rude I'll send the gay mafia after you! ;)

alan? It's not made up. A lot of people will recognize that vocabulary, and your outright refusal to consider my words reflects upon your willful ignorance that i mentioned in my first post.

i suppose this is the end of the discussion.

So i would assume that you have no qualms about religious discrimination since people choose to be religious?

How is homosexuality not normal? How do you define what is normal? I hope you're aware that given current divorce rates being in a marriage that hasn't ended in divorce is also a deviant lifestyle. Perhaps you wouldn't be attacked if you weren't so selective in defining what is normal and what is deviant.

btw, could you just up and choose to be attracted to a man without experiencing any kind of cognitive dissonance?

So we are clear, you also feel that I am allowed to fire any employee I may have for being Christian?
So firing someone for being black, christian, or gay are all okay, right?
If your going to stand on this prinicpal, then stand on it and state what you implied, that firing can be done "for what ever fucking reason someone can invent".
That of course means I can fire all the christians and jews for believing?
I can also fire someone for being Republican, or having a W sticker on their car, right?

So what is marriage to you J8ear?
Is it somethng about love, procreation, or monotary in nature (ie "privilages").
What is the meaning of it to you, and why does it hold importance.

You're under the dillusion that you have the ability to "bestow", as it were, anything upon me, a second chance in this instance. The grownups are talking Kadath. Please don't interupt with your tantrums.

Irrelevant

You make it so better then any argument I could present.

I don't think that at all. It is definately NOT normal, and is definately deviant...but it is not WRONG, imho. I don't believe it should be celebrated or even encouraged. I don't even believe homosexuals should be discrimitated against. That however conflicts with my belief that the discrimitating application of decision making is not mine to judge. And in fact is a violation of someones RIGHTS to judge. In other words I strongly support another fellas right to descriminate against homosexuals.

That's correct sport...WHAT EVER FUCKING reason someone can invent. What wasn't clear about that?

If you think you can run a successful business by firing christians, jews blacks, republicans...whatever....go right ahead. The market will WEED your looser business accumen out. Same with homos...the market will dictate how that plays out. I'll be there to pick up the scraps at the bankruptcy sale.

Of course, it is currently a violation of LAW to fire someone based on race religion, creed, gender or national origin. Some states have increased that list to include homosexuality. MOST haven't. Regardless I'll make my decisions based on what's best for the business. Compliance with law is an important consideration.

As far as marriage is concerned it is a private contract between my wife and I. It is important to me because it involves MY WORD.


Finally to Manx, I thought about your post earlier and have decided that the reason the "outing" was done was exclusively to punish, humilate, expose, and othewise negatively influence an individual. That is shameful, hypocritical and despicable. Those who perputrate these tactics are on the same level as Tom Delay and Chuck Shumer. People whose hair I wouldn't piss on if it was on fire.

-bear

I just wanted to add one more under the following heading:
Let me break this down:

1. You think much differently then I do.
2. You pushed the limits of my vastly superior intellect and experience.
3. I tolerated you for a week many moons ago.
4. Unable to counter or contain your poison, I banished you.
5. I bestowed a second opportunity upon your being out of the goodness of my supremacy.
6. You failed me with your insolence.
7. I have rambled on senselessly for several sentences, and had better close succinctly with some command instructing the heathen to refrain from further comment verbally on this matter.
8. Yuo misspelled a word; used, a comma incorrectly and a preposition ended your sentence with!!!!

hehe...I made eight up :)

Yikes, I better watch my pees and queues.

-bear

I'm not sure why I am bothering to respond to you considering the posts you've been making.

I'm quite certain the outing was done to "punish, humilate, expose and otherwise negatively influence an individual". In the very exclusive realm of those who view homosexuality as a behavior deserving of punishment, humiliation, exposition - resulting in a negative perception of the person exposed, by those who supported the position on homosexuality that comes from the person exposed. As I said - all negativity associated with the outing is brought about very exclusively by those with anti-homosexual positions, including the person who was outed.

The only other people who would view the person being outed in a negative light are those who disfavor hypocrisy. Such as myself. Though in that case, it is nothing more than fulfillment of the expectation of a politician.

Those who oppose outing are those who believe homosexuality is better left private - our society is heterosexual, and very far from private in that respect.

I don't care if he's gay. I don't care if you're gay. I don't care if I'm gay. I don't care if you can't get it up without being whipped. Sexual preference means nothing to me outside of relationships I have that include sexuality.

If you view this recently outed man with additional disfavor due to his sexuality, that is your flaw. And if you are gay - then you're a hypocrite like him.

I'm not sure what this serves aside from an attempt at condescention. This is your second time Manx, the first time you were dismissed out of hand, likely embarassed and not heard from in that thread again. There will not be a third time.

No on to more important matters:

Then why would you support anyones attempts to humiliate, punish...or blah blah blah...? That doesn't make sense. I can see what your saying. IT ~shouldn't~ matter. To me it doesn't...although frankly, if you started bragging about the whipping you need to be getting while your dog licked peanut butter off of your ball sack in order to even get a woodie...I would have SERIOUS hesitations about voting for you, to you it doesn't also. Fine. Your an enlightened soul, able to see past our mortal bodies...likely AWARE that your actions are unique, and not shared by everyone. In fact could be darn right damaging to someone. Yet you share anyway..knowing the damage and harm you will inflict.

This is done MALICIOUSLY...with purpose and intent to harm. Here is the thought train of the perpetrator. I do not think any one should be harmed by this...but I KNOW this guy will be. I'm going to OUT HIM in order to harm him. That'll show him. Vengeance is mine. The evil heathen. I know what it felt like...no so will he...<insert evil insane laughter>

Come on Manx. Are you really defending this? Malice and premeditation?

-bear

Let's be clear - when you say you disapprove of maliciousness, I don't believe you for a second - you consistently demonstrate your affinity for it in your posts. Therefore, it becomes clear that what you really disapprove of is maliciousness towards politicians who are more similar than dissimilar to yourself, or at the least, the desire to be malicious towards liberal viewpoints for the sake of maliciousness.

Having said that, I do understand the point you claim to be making. The reason I disagree is that in a culture of repression, it is not malicious to shine the light on those things that are unecessarily repressed. The maliciousness you speak of is not the creation of the person or people who outed this politician - it is the creation of this politician. Any harm he feels has been done to him has been done to him by himself. He supports the maliciousness.