• 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!

Gay Republican Group Prompts Split Among Conservatives

Vincent said:
Hey, homosexuals have every right I have. I can marry an adult member of the opposite sex: they can marry an adult member of the opposite sex. I cannot marry John from class, my sister Hannah, or Fido the labrador from Petsmart.
Click to expand...

You get to marry who you love, they do not. Seperate but equal is not equality.
 
Vincent said:
Okay. I'll explain.

If sodomite "marriage" becomes a legalized thing, then Christians lose. Because a wrong lifestyle that was formerly kept private and out of public eye for the most part will become something that everyone is expected to approve of. It isn't simply, "If you think homosexuality is wrong, heh, stay away from homosexuals." It becomes, "You think homosexuality is wrong? You need sensitivity training. You need to be expelled from your school, or fired from your job. People need to publicly disown you."
It will move to destroy my freedom of religion, the religion that a huge amount of this country has had since it's beginning. When homosexuals trash a church then, or threaten terrorism, it's no longer criminal acts, it's a persecuted minority striking back at horrible people. When parents become upset that their ten year olds are being taught at school that they might be gay, and that homosexuality is good and normal, they become the bad guys or religious bigots.

Real Christianity that actually believes in the Bible is incompatible with the homosexual agenda. Only one can have the 'rights'.
Click to expand...

Despite what you say here no Christian will be forced to admit anything. At most, sometime in the distant future, you might have to keep your thoughts to yourself. But hey, Gays have been doing that for thousands of years...surely Christians can do the same?

(yes I'm being sarcastic in part of this post)
 
Kal'Stang said:
You get to marry who you love, they do not. Seperate but equal is not equality.
Click to expand...

"Marrying who you love" is not a right in any country, and the government isn't bound to recognize marriages that don't fit a certain definition. Also, what about the poor other minorities you're leaving out? People who love dogs or horses? There are plenty of those people. Or what about people who love their sisters or brothers?

And gays can marry, they just can't force the government or anyone else to declare it is marriage, as it is perversion of marriage. You do know that until 1973 I believe it was, homosexuality was a recognized mental disorder? And going with results in the Gay Report, it seems very likely that homosexuality is encouraged by sexual abuse, which stunts development.
 
Vincent said:
"Marrying who you love" is not a right in any country, and the government isn't bound to recognize marriages that don't fit a certain definition. Also, what about the poor other minorities you're leaving out? People who love dogs or horses? There are plenty of those people. Or what about people who love their sisters or brothers?

And gays can marry, they just can't force the government or anyone else to declare it is marriage, as it is perversion of marriage. You do know that until 1973 I believe it was, homosexuality was a recognized mental disorder? And going with results in the Gay Report, it seems very likely that homosexuality is encouraged by sexual abuse, which stunts development.
Click to expand...

A post full of Strawmans, falsities, absurdities and personal prejudices.
 
Vincent said:
"Marrying who you love" is not a right in any country, and the government isn't bound to recognize marriages that don't fit a certain definition. Also, what about the poor other minorities you're leaving out? People who love dogs or horses? There are plenty of those people. Or what about people who love their sisters or brothers?
Click to expand...

So I know, intuitively, why anti-gay marriage folks ALWAYS go here. You've really got nothing else. And I get that, I do. I'd just be embarrassed to keep bringing it up over and over and over again after it gets shot down. Apparently that's just me.

Vincent said:
And gays can marry, they just can't force the government or anyone else to declare it is marriage, as it is perversion of marriage. You do know that until 1973 I believe it was, homosexuality was a recognized mental disorder? And going with results in the Gay Report, it seems very likely that homosexuality is encouraged by sexual abuse, which stunts development.
Click to expand...

Annndddd...now it's not. Funny how culture changes like that, huh? And the "Gay Report?" Sounds very scientific.
 
Kelzie said:
So I know, intuitively, why anti-gay marriage folks ALWAYS go here. You've really got nothing else. And I get that, I do. I'd just be embarrassed to keep bringing it up over and over and over again after it gets shot down. Apparently that's just me.



Annndddd...now it's not. Funny how culture changes like that, huh? And the "Gay Report?" Sounds very scientific.
Click to expand...

You've never heard of "The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out about Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (Summit Books, 1979)? It's written by two homosexual researchers, recognized pioneers in the study of homosexuality. You really don't have any business debating about this subject if you don't even know what that is. That's like talking about the history of ancient Israel and not knowing who King David was, or talking about Communism and not knowing who Karl Marx was, or talking about guns and not knowing who John Browning was.

And also, if the argument about how incest and bestiality is so bad, please do me the favor of cutting and pasting whatever rebuttal you've come up with.
 
Last edited:
Vincent said:
Wow. You're arguing, but are you saying anything? No.
Click to expand...

You haven't really said anything this whole thread, except how, by granting people equal rights, you will lose rights. Which is so ****ing absurd it's not even remotely imaginable. :coffeepap
 
Vincent said:
You've never heard of "The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out about Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (Summit Books, 1979)? It's written by two homosexual researchers, recognized pioneers in the study of homosexuality. You really don't have any business debating about this subject if you don't even know what that is. That's like talking about the history of ancient Israel and not knowing who King David was, or talking about Communism and not knowing who Karl Marx was, or talking about guns and not knowing who John Browning was.

And also, if the argument about how incest and bestiality is so bad, please do me the favor of cutting and pasting whatever rebuttal you've come up with.
Click to expand...

From the 70s? Really? I think society might have changed a touch since then.
 
Jetboogieman said:
You haven't really said anything this whole thread, except how, by granting people equal rights, you will lose rights. Which is so ****ing absurd it's not even remotely imaginable. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Where are you even getting the notion that homosexuals have a right to have officially recognized marriages? There's not even any proof that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore sodomites have no more 'right' to marriage than incest.

According to the American Psychological Association, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."
And according to the Gay Report by gay researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, roughly 20% of homosexual men and 17% of lesbians are in sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex. Also, 13% of gay men and 18% of lesbians have biological children from having straight sex, which deals a huge blow to the claim that homosexuals can't do it with the opposite sex.

Now, I know this is a big request, but try to refute me using some actual facts, not feelings or "someone told me" or some claim that I'm being ridiculous. Perhaps you could quote some source worthy of a school paper? I look forward to a worthy rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
chevydriver1123 said:
I strongly doubt it, remember there are also the issues of war which majority of right love more than liberals love taxing the rich.
Click to expand...

Many were fooled by Obama and the democrats claim to be anti-war. As we have all seen, the current foreign policy is a continuation of Bush's, so the anti-war faction isn't going to be so excited this go round.
 
Vincent said:
Where are you even getting the notion that homosexuals have a right to have officially recognized marriages? There's not even any proof that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore sodomites have no more 'right' to marriage than incest.

According to the American Psychological Association, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."
And according to the Gay Report by gay researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, roughly 20% of homosexual men and 17% of lesbians are in sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex. Also, 13% of gay men and 18% of lesbians have biological children from having straight sex, which deals a huge blow to the claim that homosexuals can't do it with the opposite sex.

Now, I know this is a big request, but try to refute me using some actual facts, not feelings or "someone told me". Perhaps you could quote some source worthy of a school paper?
Click to expand...

Whats the point?

You clearly believe by some misguided sense of morality that you're superior to a homosexual because why? The bible told you so? A study from 1970 told you so? You DESERVE to get married because you like *****? And gays shouldn't because they don't. Real nice.

Gay people have every right to get married like the rest of us, and why? Because if we believe in the freedom of the individual, and 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their bodies, then they have the right to be recognized as a legitimate couple by a neutral and secular government.

You bring in the strawman of bestiality. Which is absolute bull, an animal cannot consent, therefore they cannot be recognized as a couple.

You sir, are a bigot. Sorry but YOU are. Point me for all I care, if it quacks like a duck... Your reasoning is flawed, and your opinion is sickening. Gays are people just like the rest of us, we're all ****ed up, they're no more messed up then the rest of us. To believe somehow because we're straight, we're normal, or superior is delusional at best.

Equality and freedom of the individual.

That's whats up.

That IS the word, I stick to it.

Jetboogieman.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Whats the point?

You clearly believe by some misguided sense of morality that you're superior to a homosexual because why? The bible told you so? A study from 1970 told you so? You DESERVE to get married because you like *****? And gays shouldn't because they don't. Real nice.

Gay people have every right to get married like the rest of us, and why? Because if we believe in the freedom of the individual, and 2 consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their bodies, then they have the right to be recognized as a legitimate couple by a neutral and secular government.

You bring in the strawman of bestiality. Which is absolute bull, an animal cannot consent, therefore they cannot be recognized as a couple.

You sir, are a bigot. Sorry but YOU are. Point me for all I care, if it quacks like a duck... Your reasoning is flawed, and your opinion is sickening. Gays are people just like the rest of us, we're all ****ed up, they're no more messed up then the rest of us. To believe somehow because we're straight, we're normal, or superior is delusional at best.

Equality and freedom of the individual.

That's whats up.

That IS the word, I stick to it.

Jetboogieman.
Click to expand...

So... what? You're dodging my whole argument? Or are you admitting that there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic and not just a chosen lifestyle or perhaps result of emotional damage? I was accused of dodging questions and not presenting a good argument, so I delivered. You haven't rebutted my argument in the least. And, you can't call someone a bigot for thinking homosexuality is wrong if you can't even prove that it's not the result of emotional damage.

BTW, here's my source for "an 70's paper." She's recognized as a pioneer in the field of gay and lesbian studies. Who are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Jay

And, so the question is two consenting adults? So then you think incest should be recognized as perfectly normal and as marriage, right?

And by the way...

Yeah. I am much more normal than homosexuals, since I am a male that's sexually attracted to females as opposed to other males. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
 
Last edited:
Vincent said:
I'm curious, what exactly are you smoking/inhaling? Or perhaps you were just never taught how to write and think properly?
Click to expand...

translation: you cant defend your stance


its cool though, i knew that ahead of time because there is no defense for it :D
 
Vincent said:
So... what? You're dodging my whole argument? Or are you admitting that there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic and not just a chosen lifestyle or perhaps result of emotional damage? I was accused of dodging questions and not presenting a good argument, so I delivered. You haven't rebutted my argument in the least. And, you can't call someone a bigot for thinking homosexuality is wrong if you can't even prove that it's not the result of emotional damage. And, so the question is two consenting adults? So then you think incest should be recognized as perfectly normal and as marriage, right?

And by the way...

Yeah. I am much more normal than homosexuals, since I am a male that's sexually attracted to females as opposed to other males. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Is your heterosexuality a chosen lifestyle? You realize they are both part of the same thing, orientation, which no one knows for sure how it forms. By the way, just because something is not genetic does not make it a choice.
 
Jetboogieman said:
You haven't really said anything this whole thread, except how, by granting people equal rights, you will lose rights. Which is so ****ing absurd it's not even remotely imaginable. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

thats true and all he did is SAY it, he hasnt proven it at all
but we both know there is no proof because it isnt true :D
 
Vincent said:
I'm curious, what exactly are you smoking/inhaling? Or perhaps you were just never taught how to write and think properly?
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Posts like this can and will result in thread bans and infractions. There will be no further warnings.
 
Redress said:
Is your heterosexuality a chosen lifestyle? You realize they are both part of the same thing, orientation, which no one knows for sure how it forms. By the way, just because something is not genetic does not make it a choice.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't think so. The reactions and hormonal shift I feel while looking at attractive woman has always seemed natural and instinctive. And considering that there's billions of people and everyone agrees that the human race has been around for quite a while, I'd say I'm part of a vast majority.

Also, I'm sure homosexuality is a result of something, but I doubt very much it's a result of genetics. And if it's not a result of genetics, then homosexuals are not born that way, and they cannot be appropriately compared to race or ethnicity. And therefore, while one can be called narrow-minded or a religious snob or hateful if one loathes homosexuals, it's not accurate to call me a bigot and compare me to a racist, since homosexuality is not a genetic trait like race. That is really my peeve about this whole argument, to be honest.

It's like saying, "Oh, you loathe muslims? You bigot!" That is a false argument because islam is not a race, it's a religion, a chosen ideaology. People are born Jewish or Sunni or Romanian, they aren't born muslim. Or if you say now that Christians like me are hateful horrible people you loathe. I can say you hate Christians, but if I say you're a bigot, it's just idiotic, in my opinion.

Please see Wesbters dictionary.

Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Now I know what someone is going to say, that in today's usage it also extends to religious beliefs or homosexuality, but if you go by that definition, then I can also call you a bigot if you hate Nazis. So let's not go there, and let is remain with the true definition of the word.

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Vincent said:
Nope, I don't think so. The reactions and hormonal shift I feel while looking at attractive woman has always seemed natural and instinctive. And considering that there's billions of people and everyone agrees that the human race has been around for quite a while, I'd say I'm part of a vast majority.
Click to expand...

So if your orientation is not a choice, why do you claim that gays oritentation is?

Also, I'm sure homosexuality is a result of something, but I doubt very much it's a result of genetics.
Click to expand...

That is something we call a guess. It is worthless.

And if it's not a result of genetics, then homosexuals are not born that way,
Click to expand...

False. Prenatal care can effect children as one example.

and they cannot be appropriately compared to race or ethnicity.
Click to expand...

Sure they can. They are treated as different for something beyond their control. See, you can in fact compare them to a race or ethnicity with 100 % accuracy.

And therefore, while one can be called narrow-minded or a religious snob or hateful if one loathes homosexuals, it's not accurate to call me a bigot and compare me to a racist, since homosexuality is not a genetic trait like race. That is really my peeve about this whole argument, to be honest.
Click to expand...

Mirrian Webster and their dictionary disagree with you: Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It's like saying, "Oh, you loathe muslims? You bigot!" That is a false argument because islam is not a race, it's a religion, a chosen ideaology. People are born Jewish or Sunni or Romanian, they aren't born muslim. Or if you say now that Christians like me are hateful horrible people you loathe. I can say you hate Christians, but if I say you're a bigot, it's just idiotic, in my opinion.

Please see Wesbters dictionary.

Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...

Your definition that you provide says you are entirely and 100 % wrong.

Now I know what someone is going to say, that in today's usage it also extends to religious beliefs or homosexuality, but if you go by that definition, then I can also call you a bigot if you hate Nazis. So let's not go there, and let is remain with the true definition of the word.

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

LoLz
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Your definition that you provide says you are entirely and 100 % wrong.



LoLz
Click to expand...

yeah i didnt get that either, by Websters he is definitely wrong. weird
he still hasn't told anybody what rights he loses or responded to my post about rights, "real Christianity" and the constitution :D
 
With the whole "bigot" thing, what we're coming down to and what we need to realize is we're at that threshold where a particular thing that has long been considered deviant/weird/non-supported is finally at that near equilibrium point where in common every day practice the notion is changing from its old status to "acceptable" or even "positive".

Frankly, I'd say that about 70-80% of the people hold honest and reasonable views with regards to it based on their morals, ethics, and principles and not based off either extreme true bigotry, extreme guilt, or selfish individually focused interest.

Look, lets top pretending that somehow its "bigoted" to view certain things negatively. While yes, I fully believe personally that homosexuality can be a natural occurrence (I also do think it can be environmental), the need to be "Flaming" or "In your face, out and proud" is no more a biological impartitive then being goth, being geeky, being a bully, being a scientologist, being a sleezy guy, being fat, looking "punk", living an open S&M lifestyle, etc. When's the last time you seen someone making fun of Tom Cruise for being a scientologist a bigot? How about someone piking on Goth kids? How quickly do people roll eyes when someone gets on a high horse talking about bigotry towards fat people?

What is "normal", "acceptable", "Okay", etc is essentially a social construct. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no universal "acceptable" or even unacceptable. Its a construct of society. And as such, society right now is reaching that point where there's enough that view the issue on both sides that conflict is occuring at its peak level. Over the next few years inevitably its going to start coming down the other side and it will begin to be looked at more and more universally as acceptable and then even normal. However, its not there and its not been close to that, and I don't think people simply holding on to traditional cultural views and principles because of their entire lifes teaching and environmental experience equals automatically a "bigot". I think its ridiculous hypocritical the VAST majority of times people throw it out there because I guarantee that almost every person that has thrown it out there has been entirely and completely "bigoted" and negative towards something they view as odd, not normal, weird, deviant, etc before...it just happens that society as a whole is still okay with them acting that way towards that attitude, action, style, what have you.
 
Zyphlin said:
With the whole "bigot" thing, what we're coming down to and what we need to realize is we're at that threshold where a particular thing that has long been considered deviant/weird/non-supported is finally at that near equilibrium point where in common every day practice the notion is changing from its old status to "acceptable" or even "positive".

Frankly, I'd say that about 70-80% of the people hold honest and reasonable views with regards to it based on their morals, ethics, and principles and not based off either extreme true bigotry, extreme guilt, or selfish individually focused interest.

Look, lets top pretending that somehow its "bigoted" to view certain things negatively. While yes, I fully believe personally that homosexuality can be a natural occurrence (I also do think it can be environmental), the need to be "Flaming" or "In your face, out and proud" is no more a biological impartitive then being goth, being geeky, being a bully, being a scientologist, being a sleezy guy, being fat, looking "punk", living an open S&M lifestyle, etc. When's the last time you seen someone making fun of Tom Cruise for being a scientologist a bigot? How about someone piking on Goth kids? How quickly do people roll eyes when someone gets on a high horse talking about bigotry towards fat people?

What is "normal", "acceptable", "Okay", etc is essentially a social construct. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no universal "acceptable" or even unacceptable. Its a construct of society. And as such, society right now is reaching that point where there's enough that view the issue on both sides that conflict is occuring at its peak level. Over the next few years inevitably its going to start coming down the other side and it will begin to be looked at more and more universally as acceptable and then even normal. However, its not there and its not been close to that, and I don't think people simply holding on to traditional cultural views and principles because of their entire lifes teaching and environmental experience equals automatically a "bigot". I think its ridiculous hypocritical the VAST majority of times people throw it out there because I guarantee that almost every person that has thrown it out there has been entirely and completely "bigoted" and negative towards something they view as odd, not normal, weird, deviant, etc before...it just happens that society as a whole is still okay with them acting that way towards that attitude, action, style, what have you.
Click to expand...

You know Zyphlin, I may not always agree with you.

But you make far too much ****ing sense it should be a crime :2razz:
 
danarhea said:
That's right, folks. Bigots are no longer welcome in the Republican Party, but that further divides a party already in the midst of a Civil War. Want to know my take on this? There is no place for bigots in the GOP. Let the nutters and birfers have them. If they leave, I believe that the Republican Party will be better off without them, as the moderates are beginning to come home. Big tent, anyone?

Away from Conservative principles? I call BS on that one. Conservatism is about personal freedom and responsibility, not about the Government having the power to dictate over ANY group. But don't take it from me. Take it from Ronald Reagan who, as he was about to run for President, personally got involved in Florida's Briggs initiative, backed by Anita Bryant, which had overturned an anti discrimination law there. His forceful intervention helped to get rid of the initiative. In the wake of Reagan's intervention, the Log Cabin Republicans were formed, and became part of Reagan's Big Tent.

Here is a link to the web site of the Log Cabin Republicans.

May the Republican Party once again be the party of Ronald Reagan and his big tent, and may the bigots, birfers, and other nutters leave and never come back. They are not needed, nor are they wanted. Let them join the Skinheads, the KKK, or the Neo-Nazi party, which is where they belong.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Or let them become a democrat senator!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom