Sexual Orientation

[jaxmike]

I hope you all will remember back to the second Bush-Kerry debate (the one where Bush CLEARLY was better than Kerry as Kerry was in the first debate) when Kerry decided that outing (though many already knew) Cheney's daughter as a lesbian was an appropriate thing to do. Honestly, he has no reason to do this other than to make sure that the base for Cheney and Bush know that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, something that many people feel would for some reason hurt W and Cheney. Recently, Bill Clinton responded to a gay Republican authors book with comments that referenced his homosexuality and referring to the author as possibly being self hating.

These are two major and public examples of Liberals using someones sexual orientation as an attack. Let's be clear and intellectually honest here, they WERE attacks. So, please provide me with some examples of similar things Republicans have done on the issue of homosexuality. I, for one, cannot think of a case LIKE these.

So, the question is, who is REALLY intolerant? It's not the Conservatives, so who could it be?

[Edge34]

I have nothing to add to this thread, although I know where I stand...I just wanted to have it on record that this is gonna get UGLY.

[kurto]

"when Kerry decided that outing (though many already knew) Cheney's daughter as a lesbian" How can he out someone who is not only out, but publicly active? Furthermore, it had already been raised earlier in this campaign. Was it not public knowledge?

I find it odd that some Republicans vehemently attack gays, then have the audacity to be offended when someone discusses a gay relative of a Republican.

"These are two major and public examples of Liberals using someones sexual orientation as an attack." Personally, I find that an odd way to look at it. (I'm not familiar with your second example, so I should say... I think your first example is way off. Kerry is defending the rights of Cheney's daughter and pointing out the hypocrisy of Cheney defending a position he (I think clearly) doesn't actually agree with)

"So, the question is, who is REALLY intolerant? It's not the Conservatives, so who could it be?" Sigh. This is like Limbaugh/Coultier-lite. Yes, let's try to stereotype more and make stupid generalizations. This is real the heart of the issue.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

I find it odd that some Republicans vehemently attack gays, then have the audacity to be offended when someone discusses a gay relative of a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is your basis for this opinion. Where is the attacking of gays? You support nothing.

You are NOT being honest with yourself if you do not ADMIT that the REASON that Kerry used Cheney's daughter as an example was POLITICAL.

[ QUOTE ]
This is like Limbaugh/Coultier-lite. Yes, let's try to stereotype more and make stupid generalizations. This is real the heart of the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I gave two examples, and you respond with the Limbaugh/Coulter rebuttal. You again provide nothing of substance.

[kurto]

"Where is your basis for this opinion. Where is the attacking of gays?" Sigh. Are you for real? Honestly? Somehow you've missed which party is trying to deny gays rights to get married (some don't even want them to be able to have civil unions)? I have to believe you're being intentionally obtuse.

"You are NOT being honest with yourself if you do not ADMIT that the REASON that Kerry used Cheney's daughter as an example was POLITICAL." Weird, you ignored where I pointed out the flaws in your own thesis. Kerry did not out Cheney's daughter. She was out, it had been addressed already in the campaign, she was involved in a gay political group AND the Bush campaign made Homosexuality a political topic with the laughable, 'defense of marriage act'... intended to appeal to all the bigotted sheep on the right. But continue being silly.

"Again, I gave two examples, and you respond with the Limbaugh/Coulter rebuttal. You again provide nothing of substance." This is ironic coming from the guy who's conclusion is to label liberals as being intolerant and conservatives of the opposite. Dude, you're making stupid generalizations based the actions of one person in a debate and you started with false premises. Don't talk to me about substance, you might make me spit out my drink on my keyboard.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Are you for real? Honestly? Somehow you've missed which party is trying to deny gays rights to get married (some don't even want them to be able to have civil unions)? I have to believe you're being intentionally obtuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one does not have the right to marry in this country. There are some restrictions on who you can marry though. This is NOT attacking gays, its a policy decision based on their moral/religious code. This is much differently than using sexual orientation as an attack.

[ QUOTE ]
Weird, you ignored where I pointed out the flaws in your own thesis. Kerry did not out Cheney's daughter. She was out, it had been addressed already in the campaign, she was involved in a gay political group AND the Bush campaign made Homosexuality a political topic with the laughable, 'defense of marriage act'... intended to appeal to all the bigotted sheep on the right. But continue being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

More attacks, yet still nothing accurate. My thesis is NOT flawed. In it I accounted for the fact that she was already "out". But she had not been outed on a national stage as of yet.
How do you justify calling people on the right biggots? Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married? That does not make someone a biggot. You are fitting the definition pretty well with your continued baseless attacks on people on the "right" side of the political spectrum.

[ QUOTE ]
This is ironic coming from the guy who's conclusion is to label liberals as being intolerant and conservatives of the opposite. Dude, you're making stupid generalizations based the actions of one person in a debate and you started with false premises. Don't talk to me about substance, you might make me spit out my drink on my keyboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still no facts, still nothing. You are making a fool out of yourself. I did not start this thread under false pretenses. I stated facts, and suggested hypocracy and asked for examples of Republicans doing what has been done. I LAUGH at your responses because you are doing EXACTLY what I expect. You are doing what you have been programmed to do.

[kurto]

blah blah blah. Quit speaking in empty platitudes. You're regurgitating babble but saying nothing.

Let's start simple... explain the defense of marriage. I got married a year ago. My parents have been married for about 40 years. Let's say my neighbors are two gay guys who get married. Please show a logical cause and effect of how my and my parents marriages need defending from this threat. Thank you.

"This is NOT attacking gays, its a policy decision based on their moral/religious code" On their religious code????? Oh that's right, this is to appeal to the people who want America to be a theocracy. (BTW, there's a lot of debate about whether or not its even frowned upon in the Bible, which I would to discuss with something who seems well read and open minded... but I'll skip it with the guy who wants to point out his interpretation of ONE person's conduct and then generalize about a whole group of people. That's the actions of a fool.)

" In it I accounted for the fact that she was already "out". But she had not been outed on a national stage as of yet." Wrong. You're inaccuracies are tiresome.

"How do you justify calling people on the right biggots? Just" I'm not classifying all of the right as bigots. I believe I earlier pointed out that there are many intelligent Republicans/Conservatives. I am refering to a subset of the Right (generally, I believe referred to as neoconservatives) who are bigotted. Unfortunately, this is the segment of Right that the GOP reaches out to a lot these days.

There are plenty of bigots all over the political spectrum. You just don't see the bigots on the left being powerful enough to try to get their bigotry codified into law (or change the Constitution).

"Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married?" Some people think its immoral for people of different skin color to marry... they're still bigots.

"Still no facts, still nothing." You're right. All liberals are intolerant. Conservatives are just the opposite. Just because many of them want to do all they can to make sure that 2 men or 2 women can't have a legal binding relationship... is just proof of how tolerant they are! I stand corrected. I bow down to your fantastic arguments.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[bholdr]

buy a dictionary, it'll help you stop putting your foot in your mouth:


[ QUOTE ]
How do you justify calling people on the right biggots? Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married? That does not make someone a biggot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights


hmmmm.... mr webster disagrees with you, jamike.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married? That does not make someone a biggot. You are fitting the definition pretty well with your continued baseless attacks on people on the "right" side of the political spectrum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstand people's complaints against the republican's and their gay marriage stance.

It is okay for someone to have religious beliefs and a moral code. It is okay for someone to formulate any opinion based on these beliefs.

IT is NOT okay for someone to legislate those beliefs. By doing so, they would be attacking anyone with a different belief. Therefore, the republican's attempts to legislate their reglious beliefs and morals IS an attack on those who believe differently.

[jack spade23]

UMMMM,kurto, kerry is a catholic but wasn't going to let that affect his position on abortion, etc. Therefore, you can't say that Cheney is wrong to defend a position he doesn't believe in. They are too similar.