• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-gay lawmaker caught in Craigslist scandal

Regardless of who you are responding to, it is what you said. And I asked the question earlier. You have had time to respond to it.

I understand why you don't want to answer my question. Too bad if you can't explain how opposition to SSM can be rooted in anything other than homophobia and hate because hate and homophobia are the only reasons to oppose SSM

You tried to suggest that what I said about the topic(a guy seeing a gay escort) and claimed it was about SSM. You also claimed that the third post in the thread was in response to the 66th post in the thread. You are not even bothering to make the slightest attempt to debate honestly. I have answered your questions, I have shown very clearly how you are wrong, and I have been 100 % consistent on topics like that, which is I do not care about the sex lives out politician, republican or democrat.
 
You are getting nowhere because the only defense you have is to repeat your unsupported and unsupportable claims about a lack of hate and homophobia.

Your personal attack has been noted and understood as demonctrating a lack of evidence for your claims

What claims have you made that you've actually supported with anything more than your opinion?

I know, I know, this is just a personal attack right?
 
You tried to suggest that what I said about the topic(a guy seeing a gay escort) and claimed it was about SSM. You also claimed that the third post in the thread was in response to the 66th post in the thread. You are not even bothering to make the slightest attempt to debate honestly. I have answered your questions, I have shown very clearly how you are wrong, and I have been 100 % consistent on topics like that, which is I do not care about the sex lives out politician, republican or democrat.

You still haven't explained how opposition to SSM can be explained by anything other than hate and homophobia.

And your claims about I said are nothing but lies. Those lies won't hide the fact that you can't explain opposition to SSM without hate and homophobia.
 
What claims have you made that you've actually supported with anything more than your opinion?

I know, I know, this is just a personal attack right?

The claim that opposition to SSM requires hate and homophobia which I have supported using logic and reason and posts from Redress. You, on the other hand, have posted nothing worthwhile
 
The claim that opposition to SSM requires hate and homophobia which I have supported using logic and reason and posts from Redress. You, on the other hand, have posted nothing worthwhile

You're pro-choice right? Clearly you hate babies as there are no other logical reasons to support abortion rights. ;)

I did ask you to substantiate your opinion with something other than your opinion so, yeah, in that you'll never do it, I can see why you'd think it was worthless.
 
Last edited:
You still haven't explained how opposition to SSM can be explained by anything other than hate and homophobia.

And your claims about I said are nothing but lies. Those lies won't hide the fact that you can't explain opposition to SSM without hate and homophobia.

Actually I have. What you have not done if prove your claim that it has to be hate and homophobia. No amount of twisting my words and taking comments out of context will change the fact that there are arguments, which I presented, which oppose SSM without being hateful nor homophobic.

You jumped all over a guy who did nothing that affects you, all because you thought he was being a hypocrite(even though he wasn't), and when that argument failed, you try a tangent which you thought would work better, but has failed miserably too.

I support SSM. It is an important issue for me. I am one of the strongest proponents of SSM on this board. I do not need to demonize and call names of those who oppose SSM to win SSM arguments. Why do you?
 
"Indiana state Rep. Phillip Hinkle is under pressure to resign, just a day after a series of emails was released to The Indianapolis Star suggesting the politician had arranged a sexual rendezvous with an 18-year-old man via Craigslist.

The Republican state representative had apparently responded to a posting on Craigslist’s “Casual Encounters” section, and offered a young man $80 plus a tip to meet him at an Indianapolis hotel.


Read more: Phillip Hinkle | Gay Affair | Indiana State Representative | The Daily Caller


Phillip Hinkle | Gay Affair | Indiana State Representative | The Daily Caller




//
 
Emails obtained by the Indianapolis Star reveal that Indiana State Rep. Phillip Hinkle arranged a tryst with a young man after reading his ad in the “Casual Encounters” section of the online classifieds site.

The Star reports that Hinkle responded to an ad in the “m4m,” or men for men, section posted by 18-year-old Kameryn Gibson, who said he was 20 and looking for a “sugga daddy.” The lawmaker arranged to meet him at an Indianapolis hotel and pay him up to $140 “for a really good time.”

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

Again with this? Is there any strong opponent of gay rights who isn't secretly in the closet?
 
So what you are saying is a politician cannot publicly have one stance on an issue and personally have another? This would mean that politicians should never listen to the electorate, among other things. All you know is he is against SSM, which has exactly jack **** to do with this whole thing.

Having lived in Indianapolis, he's a pretty far right-winger. But what's worse is that he used phinkle86@comcast.net (his home email address) to correspond with the kid - where he offered him money for meeting up with him - AND when the kid showed up, he showed him his ID and told him he was a state representative.

I personally don't care about one's sexual peccadilloes, however, the fact that he was that STUPID is why he should resign.

In a horrible way, though, he may have gotten lucky as the tragedy at the State Fair (5 died when the concert stage collapsed into the crowd) will overshadow this story for a quite a while.
 
The root issue is that he is obviously working out some issues he has with his own identity by hurting other people that remind him of his issues. That's completely unacceptable. And, frankly, I think that is the motivation behind an awful lot of the more extreme of the right wing anti-gay bigots.
 
You're pro-choice right? Clearly you hate babies as there are no other logical reasons to support abortion rights. ;)

I did ask you to substantiate your opinion with something other than your opinion so, yeah, in that you'll never do it, I can see why you'd think it was worthless.

Actually there are other logical reasons to support choice besides hating babies. If you want to start a thread, I'll be happy to share them with you, but this thread is about this homophobic politician who just got caught trolling for gay hookers on the internet.
 
Actually I have. What you have not done if prove your claim that it has to be hate and homophobia. No amount of twisting my words and taking comments out of context will change the fact that there are arguments, which I presented, which oppose SSM without being hateful nor homophobic.

You jumped all over a guy who did nothing that affects you, all because you thought he was being a hypocrite(even though he wasn't), and when that argument failed, you try a tangent which you thought would work better, but has failed miserably too.

I support SSM. It is an important issue for me. I am one of the strongest proponents of SSM on this board. I do not need to demonize and call names of those who oppose SSM to win SSM arguments. Why do you?

I am not demonizing anyone. I'm just telling you how it is. There is no reason to be opposed to SSM besides homophobia and hate and I explained how. Even you justified your support for SSM on the basis that it doesn't affect you. It's obvious that those who oppose SSM beleive that it will somehow affect them negatively, and that belief is based on a fear of change.

I didn't twist your words. You were the one who said that SSM would have no effect on you. And it was you who described the opposition to SSM as being based on not wanting change. Obviously, they are not opposed to it becaused they think the change would be good for them. It's just as obvious that they believe that allowing SSM would be a change that would be bad for them. What you haven't done, no matter how many times you claim the opposite, is show how this belief that SSM would lead to unwanted results could be based on anything other than homophobia and hate.

And as far as me jumping on some guy who's done nothing to me, that is load of BS. This man makes laws. His actions have an effect on the country I live in. His actions have helped deny people their rights. I'm not going to ignore the damage this hypocrit does and then claim that I am "one of the strongest proponents of SSM on this board".
 
I am not sure how opposition to SSM and it's ties to rightwing "family values" goes without your noticing the connection

That damn Obama and his opposition to SSM. And Clinton. Damn left wingers and their right wing values.

FMMs...
 
Again with this? Is there any strong opponent of gay rights who isn't secretly in the closet?

Bill Clinton? Barrack Obama? I'm betting you can find at least a few more dems that support civil unions but oppose gay marriage...
 
homophobic politician who just got caught trolling for gay hookers on the internet.
That makes as much sense as the arachnophobic who collects poisonous spiders. If you don't understand what a phobia is, please don't use the word.

Now, tell us. Why is it that you hate gay people so much?
 
It's called research gosh! lol jp. In all seriousness tho what do you expect from a politician? consistency between words and actions? psshh
 
That damn Obama and his opposition to SSM. And Clinton. Damn left wingers and their right wing values.

FMMs...

And here we have the absurd and childish argument of "but they do it too". You should have left that argument on the playground where it belongs.
 
That makes as much sense as the arachnophobic who collects poisonous spiders. If you don't understand what a phobia is, please don't use the word.

Now, tell us. Why is it that you hate gay people so much?

I'll add "homophobia" to The Long List of Things Rightwingers Don't Understand"
 
I'll add "homophobia" to The Long List of Things Rightwingers Don't Understand"
What we'd like to understand is why you hate gay people so much? Doesn't it bother your husband?
 
Last edited:
What we'd like to understand is why you hate gay people so much?

I don't think he hates gays, I think he is just confused that being gay somehow means you have to believe certain things. He is kinda the opposite end of the spectrum from people who stereotype all gays as limp wristed wimps and fat bull dykes. It would probably shock him to know there are gay people who do not support SSM.
 
And here we have the absurd and childish argument of "but they do it too". You should have left that argument on the playground where it belongs.

When talking to a myopic idiot that can only see things through a leftist filter one has no choice but to point point out very clearly and very plainly the stupidity of their words. Someone like Redress, who is very liberal but one of the more balanced folks while being one of the staunchest proponents of gay rights, points out your stupidity...you ought to have the good sense and grace to stop...THINK...and realize what a fool you are being. Obviously the tap on the head with a stick didnt do it...

"Homophobia"...yet another thing democrat presidents clearly dont understand...
 
When talking to a myopic idiot that can only see things through a leftist filter one has no choice but to point point out very clearly and very plainly the stupidity of their words. Someone like Redress, who is very liberal but one of the more balanced folks while being one of the staunchest proponents of gay rights, points out your stupidity...you ought to have the good sense and grace to stop...THINK...and realize what a fool you are being. Obviously the tap on the head with a stick didnt do it...

"Homophobia"...yet another thing democrat presidents clearly dont understand...

The only stupidity in this thread are the arguments about how this wingnut politician is not a homophobe. The wingnut argument is that he has some sort of "reasonable" argument for opposing SSM when there is none, and none of the rightwingers can describe what this wingnuts "reasonable" argument is.

And consistent with that fact is the hate-filled spew you just posted. Just like the rightwing homophobes, you have posted no argument about the issue. All you have is more bigoted nonsense to fill your posts with
 
Emails obtained by the Indianapolis Star reveal that Indiana State Rep. Phillip Hinkle arranged a tryst with a young man after reading his ad in the “Casual Encounters” section of the online classifieds site.

The Star reports that Hinkle responded to an ad in the “m4m,” or men for men, section posted by 18-year-old Kameryn Gibson, who said he was 20 and looking for a “sugga daddy.” The lawmaker arranged to meet him at an Indianapolis hotel and pay him up to $140 “for a really good time.”

According to the Gibson siblings, Hinkle offered them $100, his iPad and his BlackBerry if they promised not to go to the police or the media. Hinkle’s family, they said, also offered to pay them $10,000 if they kept quiet.

Anti-gay lawmaker caught on Craigslist

Busted....

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

Anti-Gay Rep. Busted At Hotel - YouTube

If true, I think he is a jackass and I would have a hard time voting for him because he betrayed the trust of his family and those who trust him the most.

If true, he should be investigated by the House Ethics Committee and sanctioned if found guilty of violating the law.

With that said, this has nothing to do with same sex marriage or homosexuality. This is about prostitution and breaking the laws of the land. If he broke the law, he should be punished according to the law and sanctioned by the House.

If he was caught cheating on his wife, the voters should and will decide his fate in the next election.
 
Back
Top Bottom