Sexual Orientation

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason that you and other conservatives percieve these two instances as attacks upon the specific persons that they were refrencing is thet YOU think that it's shameful or wrong to be a homosexual.


the reason that Kerry, et al, thought that the 'outing' (i don't see how you can out someone who is already both 'out' and a public figure) is that it reveals the utter hipoccracy of conservatives. YOU are the one that is ashamed of homosexuality, to you it would be an insult to be called a homosexual, i suppose.


your positions, IMO, are indefensible, and founded upon a CULTURE of intolerance...


[ QUOTE ]
So, the question is, who is REALLY intolerant?

[/ QUOTE ]
I want to get you on the record here: what is YOUR position on the MORALITY of being a homosexual?

[Dead]

Dick Armey called Barney Frank a nice name: Barney f-g.

What Kerry did wasn't homophobic at all. Neither was what Clinton did.

Kerry was just pointing out the hypocrisy to possible Bush voters.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Kerry owned GWB in all three debates.

[/ QUOTE ]

And of course this lead to his historic victory in last Nov election....where he piggy packed the entire party to wider congressional victories than had been seen....

Back to reality..

[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.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Kerry owned GWB in all three debates.

[/ QUOTE ]

And of course this lead to his historic victory in last Nov election....where he piggy packed the entire party to wider congressional victories than had been seen....

Back to reality..

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush obviously won the election. That doesn't mean he won the debates.

[zaxx19]

If the Democrats want to keep pushing the Gay issues they are more than welcome to....

Its a loser for them amongst swing voters and its also appaling that some liberals would stoop to comparing the gay rights movement of now with the civil rights movememnts of yesteryear...(homosexuality is a behavior...being black is not.)

I personally dont really care if gays get married or not.

But I do think that by ramming the gay lifestyle down everyones throats and pretending its as normal and natural as heterosexuality liberals are not connecting with the mainstream of America.

OTOH, far right wingers saying gays deserve AIDS and that gay people are going to hell....are alos out of touch IMHO.

How about a civil union law where gays would share every right that married couples get but they wouldnt be "married". Seems like this type of compromise would be tolerable to the wider part of American people than say gay-marriage is.

[andyfox]

The consensus of opinion was that Kerry clearly dominated the first debate, but that the next two were pretty close. Kerry started to look better in the polls after that debate but couldn't sustain any momentum. Winning the debates, obviously, does not necessarily mean winning the election. Ronald Reagan did terribly in his first debate with Walter Mondale and people just didn't care. It was widely believed that the way Richard Nixon appeared in his televised debate with John Kennedy hurt him, but I'm not sure if there is scientific evidence of that. Reagan, in contrast to his first debate with Mondale, did particularly well against Carter ("There you go again"), but since that election turned out to be a landslide it's hard to say just how much impact it really had compared to, say, economic conditions or the Iran hostage crisis.

[zaxx19]

I dont think Bush won the debates...but I dont agree that Kerry dominated the 2nd or 3rd ones...

The first one was a complete debacle. Bush looked tired and disinterested/frustrated.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever hear about Alan Keys' comments about Dick Cheney's daughter?

[kurto]

There's some faulty logic there. I think we can all agree that winning a debate doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how a nation votes.

If I recall correctly, many people who voted for Bush, said they agreed with a majority of things that Kerry said but just felt 'safer' with Bush in terms of national security.

It would be erroneous to conclude that winnning or losing the debates decides the election.

Frankly, I think 2 things lost the election for Kerry:
1) The vile Swift Boat campaign.
2) Kerry. He was a weak campaigner.

I have no problem saying Kerry was a weak candidate. Personally, I'd prefer him to Bush, but I think someone's wrong with our country when these 2 people were our final choices.