The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-left lobby, announced yesterday that it will host a one-hour Democratic presidential debate on August 9 on Logo, the Viacom gay channel and sister network to CBS. (CBS News has its own newscast on Logo with gay anchor Jason Bellini, formerly of CNN.) Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have confirmed their attendance. As a colleague joked yesterday about Democrat refusal to acknowledge Fox as a news network: "Oh, so the Democrats won’t go on networks with an agenda."
The debate won’t be moderated by Bellini or any journalist, but by HRC Chairman Joe Solmonese and rock singer Melissa Etheridge. Actually, it’s not so much a debate as a series of interviews, a lot like the CNN/Sojourners magazine event designed to highlight the Democrats’ religious views – except this pander-to-the-libertine-left event ought to cancel out the impression that these candidates are devoted to their Bibles.
The official HRC press release includes this official welcome:
"We’re honored to give the presidential candidates a historic opportunity to share their views directly with the LGBT audience," said Brian Graden, president, entertainment, MTV Networks Music Group, and president, Logo. "This forum continues MTV Networks’ tradition of engaging vital niche audiences with voting and the electoral process."
The forum will include significant online components at LOGOonline.com and HRC.org, including online question submission. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Logo invited the leading Democratic and Republican candidates to participate in the forum.
Does that mean Rudy Giuliani will show up? He would agree with Hillary a lot. Nope. Variety reports:
HRC spokesman Brad Luna said there will be no forum of Republican presidential candidates, even though the Human Rights Campaign did extend invites. Among HRC's criteria for holding the debate was that it would have to secure at least two top-tier contenders to participate. Mitt Romney's campaign said no, and HRC never got a response from the campaigns of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, Luna said.
The reporter added that it will be interesting where the candidates disagree, "if at all. In a recent Human Rights Campaign survey of the candidates on an array of issues, the entire field was in agreement on such issues as the need to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' passage of a hate crimes bill and support for civil unions. But only Kucinich and Gravel supported same-sex marriage."
Former ABC News Political Unit member Marc Ambinder poked at Matt Drudge for highlighting the "gay debate" news yesterday on his Atlantic blog:
But the August 9 debate is indeed an accomplishment for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights lobby. It suggests that the Democratic presidential candidates either no longer believe gay rights is a real wedge issue, or that they don't care anymore -- gays deserve rights.
This will be the gay network's first live broadcast. HRC hosted a Democrat presidential debate in 2003, but it wasn't televised live.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Its another
July 11, 2007 - 07:41 ET by reelman46Another liberal panderfest... "because they care" (about every vote). Disgusting.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D.
(theconservativecrawfish)
Ya know, of all people here
July 11, 2007 - 08:02 ET by sarcasmoYa know, of all people here, I really have nothin' against the gays, and I actually enjoy some lesbos, but this is weird. Maybe it's just me, but now there's both a gay-channel and a golf-channel, but no POKER channel. I understand how there wouldn't be too much demand (well, at least publicly...) for a gambling channel from conservatives, but I'd LOVE IT. I'd even love a "boring" concept like "Disciple-cam" following Chris "Jesus" Ferguson ONLY for an entire poker tournament, rather than concentrating only on when he gets 4 aces like the rest of the media does right now. I'm sure the gay channel will bore me about as much as the golf channel does (watching golf is like watching grass grow, unless Tiger's playing and I'm drunk as hell). I'm equally sure my proposed poker channel would bore most homosexuals & golf fans. But I still want it, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if "my" channel ended up with the best ratings of the three, so it's weird that it's not being offered.
JMR
No poker channel? I thought t
July 11, 2007 - 08:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberNo poker channel? I thought that is what ESPN2 was... :p
Rog - they just haven't got
July 11, 2007 - 08:58 ET by Free StinkerRog - they just haven't gotten around to changing the name yet! ;-)
What ESPN shows is what I c
July 11, 2007 - 08:59 ET by sarcasmoWhat ESPN shows is what I call "pokerporn" (not that I'm not addicted just because I don't really like it, of course). Real poker is MUCH more boring than that ESPN garbage most of the time -- but that's part of poker's charm! Occasionally, it's all-too-exciting, anyway. And by the way, I can't abide Jamie Gold, but his win makes me even more sure that someday I can win the damthing too... Supposedly the WSOP is available now on PayPerView of some sort, but I still don't see why the golf channel or the homo channel can't be PPV and my stuff can't be free!
JMR
Sarc - I think you've found
July 11, 2007 - 09:03 ET by Free StinkerSarc - I think you've found a million dollar idea. The Poker Channel. Now available on Cable, FiOS & Satellite. ;-)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in on
I want it free, and my cabl
July 11, 2007 - 09:10 ET by sarcasmoI want it free, and my cable system (Time-Warner, but everyone hates them so much they changed the name!) doesn't offer it as a choice even if I wanted to pay for it. In fact, I'd want it to be commercial-free, but with a constant crawl of commercial text and regular verbal endorsements to pay for it. IMO the Poker Channel should be an experience, and I'd target people willing to watch for a few hours.
JMR
I want it freeMaybe you can
July 11, 2007 - 09:20 ET by Free StinkerI want it free
Maybe you can get the government to pay for it? ;-)
/Crazy on
I'm sure you will agree that big government programs are good for country!
/Crazy off
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in on
What I don't get about this m
July 11, 2007 - 08:08 ET by LeonWhat I don't get about this move by the Dems is why they would go out of their way to court gay voters like this.
I mean, come on, it's not like the gays are voting Republican. You don't have to pander to them while alienating all of those good old American gay haters. It's a silly move.
Why try to get in the the good graces of a group that has nobody else to vote for but you?
same o
July 11, 2007 - 08:17 ET by the mad poleJust like you, they THINK it is an chance to bash conservatives
I don't know what you mean.
July 11, 2007 - 08:20 ET by LeonI don't know what you mean.
What a shock.
July 11, 2007 - 08:23 ET by Free StinkerWhat a shock.
FS,Do you ever speak in anyth
July 11, 2007 - 08:26 ET by LeonFS,
Do you ever speak in anything other than short bursts of words or corny catch phrases?
What a shock. Three bags full.
What's the point of posting if you never add anything to the discussions except mis-guided attempts at comic relief?
As for madpoles assertion, why would the Dems need to go on a gay channel to bash conservatives? They can bash conservatives on any channel and they do that daily. So what does the channel being gay have to do with the Dems being able to bash conservatives? How is it any different from any other channel?
Leon
July 11, 2007 - 08:34 ET by Free StinkerWhat's the point of posting if you never add anything to the discussions except mis-guided attempts at comic relief?
If you would post more than talking points, or give a straight answer, you wouldn't get treated as a troll. See your buddy Shawn and how he behaves. People disagree with him, but he doesn't run with snide talking points.
As for madpoles assertion, why would the Dems need to go on a gay channel to bash conservatives? So what does the channel being gay have to do with the Dems being able to bash conservatives?
They will go anywhere to bash conservatives & the GOP. It is merely another chance for them to do so, and in this case try and paint the GOP as "mean" or "close minded". Otherwise, it's much like any other channel. I have satellite and there are 190 chanells, of which there are 160 with nothing I find interesting. LOGO is merely just as boring as 159 other channels I get in the Standard package.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in on
FS,1) Talking points, blah
July 11, 2007 - 08:41 ET by LeonFS,
1) Talking points, blah blah blah. You can accuse me of a lot of things, but not of using talking points.
And I don't get treated like a troll. Troll's get ignored. Take a look at what happens when I enter a thread. That's doesn't look like I'm being ignored to me. So you can continue to put out your tired old LEON talking points, but it's pretty much pointless.
2) Right. So you agree with my point. They can bash conservatives anywhere, they don't need to go onto a gay channel to do it. And the GOP is close-minded, or at the very least, close-minded towards gays. You can see that without even leaving the safety of this website.
Troll's get ignored.
July 11, 2007 - 08:47 ET by Free StinkerTroll's get ignored.
Actually, many here give them canned replies such as "Scooty Libby" or "Ta ta Troll." Many waste their time trying to reason with them. (Dave High)
Point 2, I agree they can bash the GOP anywhere, but they use every opportunity to try to frame the debate as open-minded Liberals vs close minded conservatives. In my experience at work, it is without fail the Liberals that give any gay employees crap about their lifestyle. Funny how that is.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in on
Free "Many waste their t
July 11, 2007 - 09:38 ET by vrwc13Free "Many waste their time trying to reason with them". Go figure, you try and reason with them but end up going in circles. Told one of them yesterday he was like "a yappy little dog humping my leg and won't let go". I think I am done with that. Simple and plain.
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
LOL!
July 11, 2007 - 09:41 ET by Free StinkerLOL!
Gay hater* reporting for duty
July 11, 2007 - 11:33 ET by TruthMongerGay hater* reporting for duty...what did I miss:)?
*truly concerned for the health and well-being of gays, very much unlike these so-called "progressives" like Leon here who really couldn't care less about them but love to fool themselves into calling their truly neglectful indifference as tolerance and understanding...
Concerned as in concerned for
July 11, 2007 - 12:03 ET by BinxlyConcerned as in concerned for those who are permiscuous and therefore in danger due to those choices? Or concerned for them in the sense that they need 'fixed' or 'corrected?'
I mean, two men, monogamous, happy, sexually safe even thought only with each other, where would there need to be concern for that situation? Would there in your mind? (honest question, no smarmy-ness)
eh I always prefer a well we
July 11, 2007 - 10:01 ET by Binxlyeh I always prefer a well we just disagree. I don't think much else can come of this so we'll agree to disagree.
To me, a response that is even slightly attacking like the dog comment, only de-validates your point, and in your case, as often you have many good points, it'd be a shame to give them some ammo by stooping to the name calling level. There's nothing that an idiot hates more than when you end a conversation you've dominated than just walking away. The snide comments just takes the focus off the issue and onto name calling. Its like a sig line I read on here
'don't argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.' haha
"don't argue with an idi
July 11, 2007 - 10:07 ET by vrwc13"don't argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". Thanks Binxly, I'll be saving that one. No more pearls before swine, eh?
haha oh boy I feel dumb but I
July 11, 2007 - 10:16 ET by Binxlyhaha oh boy I feel dumb but I'm a bit at a loss on the pearls before swine thing, I don't know what that even means haha.
However, yea, about the arguing, there are just situations when both sides are too entrenched in their own views and its best just to move on to someone who may be more open-minded. Like I said, you've got alot of good points in many areas and articles on here, I'd hate to see ya bother wasting time trying to educate someone on them that refuses to be educated and would rather parrot the MSM.
As much as me and Leon may di
July 11, 2007 - 08:51 ET by BinxlyAs much as me and Leon may disagree in ideology and belief of what the government's role should be in America, I have to agree. Conservatives seriously would have every single election if they would stop viewing social situations only through their own moral kalidescope (sp?) I call it that because no one person is morally 'perfect' and I think the old belief that 'Gay is wrong cause the bible says so' is quite dated since most refer to the story of Soddom and Gahmorrah (again sp?)
The story does speak out at men who indescriminately lay down with many men, but also men who lay down with many women indescriminately. Given, homosexuality is counter-intuitive for procreation but I see many more conservatives that disagree with a same sex couple that's in love over a hetero couple that chooses not to have kids. If the main argument is procreation, then why is the outrage different from the two? Both will never procreate, one is by choice, the other restricted by the impossible.
I think the Dems pander to homosexuals and are actually equally intolerant of homosexuals as most conservatives or care as little as many libertarians do, but simply act more concerned as to give the false idea that they are indeed oppressed (when the truth is they aren't, but are still sadly viewed as 'less' and 'abnormal') This is what leads to radical homosexual agendas when if conservatives just kept their religion in their own lives and treated others like people before treating them in regards to their sexuality, it'd be one less thing Dems could exploit and we could focus on REAL issues like defense, lowering taxes, and fixing or rediculously sue-crazy litigation system.
Leon - Three bags full
July 11, 2007 - 09:13 ET by Six String SpiffFIRST of all, you are the one who began the 'gay haters' crap. I don't want to hear you complain about somebody elses post that annoys you. Three bags full (BTW thanks for using my words). Leon, you are a troll. You should never ever complain about somebody elses suposed lack of content and meaningful dialogue. You libs reeally have no idea how dumb you sound sometimes.
It's pandering to the MAX. The Democrat(ic)s are nothing but a bunch of immature cry babies. Afraid to go pn 'faux' news.... Yeah thats the kind of people I want to run things. Can't even go on FOX news, how the hell are they supposed to stand up to people who want to kill them? Dumbasses
What the MSSM doesn't report can kill you.
Six String Spiff
July 11, 2007 - 09:30 ET by shawn228FIRST of all, you are the one who began the 'gay haters' crap.
The topic is regarding gays isn't it? Leon was just responding to FS's post. The dialogue between between them, even though it was tongue and cheek has been pretty civil today. In fact this whole thread has been pretty civil till you came in and started flaming? What gives?
Where are the flames?
July 11, 2007 - 10:37 ET by Six String Spiff"I mean, come on, it's not like the gays are voting Republican. You don't have to pander to them while alienating all of those good old American gay haters. It's a silly move."
Shawn, if I am to understand this correctly, the statement above is implying that if the gays are only 'safe' around promonent liberal democrats. Leon has a history of being smarmy. I slapped the silly little fool. What was 'un-civil'? about my post?
What the MSSM doesn't report can kill you.
True, Leon is often out of sy
July 11, 2007 - 10:50 ET by BinxlyTrue, Leon is often out of sync with the views here, and in my own humble opinion, wrong on MANY issues where a liberal approach is the wrong approach, yet if he's smarmy, what are you? Saying you 'slapped the little fool' merely because you disagree is not only childish, but also speaks alot about your openminded-ness (If you disagree with me, you deserve to be slapped seems to be the approach you advocate.)
You'll get alot farther with people with less agression and less narcissism. People like to talk, not to be talked down to or talked at.
Bashing Conservatives
July 11, 2007 - 09:16 ET by PawpawNIsn't bashing a certain section of the population "HATE MONGERING"? Shouldn't these people be taken to court by the ACLU? You state, "They can bash conservatives on any channel and they do it daily." Isn't that showing bias? Guess the return of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE would allow for bashing of Liberals in return, but Conservatives do have values, so guess that's out of the question. And you bash someone for just anwering your post!
susplain
July 11, 2007 - 08:25 ET by the mad polesee my lower post for example, this average conservative doesn't care that you are queer, just don't try to recruit my kids.
Your use of the word 'recruit
July 11, 2007 - 08:27 ET by LeonYour use of the word 'recruit' belies your claims of ambivalence towards the gay community.
recuit
July 11, 2007 - 08:33 ET by the mad polewould you prefer "educate"
Considering it's impossible t
July 11, 2007 - 08:35 ET by LeonConsidering it's impossible to make someone turn gay (unless you go deliverence style), I have no idea what you're talking about.
oh yeah
July 11, 2007 - 08:44 ET by the mad poleI forgot to mention that my brother is a father of two sons prior to his trip to San Francisco? Upon his return, he announces his new preference to men. ping
How long was his trip?
July 11, 2007 - 08:48 ET by shawn228How long was his trip?
vacated
July 11, 2007 - 09:15 ET by the mad poletwo months
Do you think your brot
July 11, 2007 - 09:35 ET by shawn228Do you think your brother was convinced to like men during his trip, or did he go to San Francisco with the intention of having a sexual experience with another man and was always curious?
tripped
July 11, 2007 - 09:42 ET by the mad poleHe went with his wife, who announced her preference for women on the same day and has been with female partners to this day. 20 years later. I never asked what happened. I don't know that it matters, I still love them.
Wow!! that is pretty messed
July 11, 2007 - 09:51 ET by shawn228Wow!! that is pretty messed up. That must have been especially rough on their two sons.
yes
July 11, 2007 - 10:01 ET by the mad poleThey turned out better than the parents! the youngest is gay but they are smart hard working individuals contributing to society
To think that influence is *i
July 11, 2007 - 08:57 ET by BinxlyTo think that influence is *impossible* to change one's viewpoint would be foolish, but again, Leon has a point to a greater degree that your argument. While I believe it is possible one may be 'on the fence' and a certain atmosphere can make one feel more 'experimental' in their lifestyle, I have to say 99% of gays I've met have always known. The reason they wait till they have kids or a wife is *because* our society so views homosexuality as 'wrong' and these people, *wanting* to do the right thing, they find a mate, have kids, and when they find that still unfufilling, many hit a 'breaking point,' especially when exposed to an area where they are free and safe to be who they are, they often realize their mistake and decide to stop hiding.
Homosexuality is not what breaks up marriages and families, it is the person's inability to admit their *true* feelings, and while not all, many have that fear because, aside from what sex they prefer, they are still *very* normal people. Only when we are tolerant and judge people by their character and not their sexual preference will we avoid these problems.
Great post.I do admit there p
July 11, 2007 - 09:03 ET by LeonGreat post.
I do admit there probably are some people, outsider types, that go gay simply to fit in somewhere. They feel welcome for the first time in their lives and so they buy into the scene. You see this happen with many fringe groups - many of the members are simply looking for a sense of belonging.
However, I don't consider these people to be gay. Their behavior is real gay, but they themselves are not.
Your post, in my opinion, is the reality of the situation. 99% of gay people are not gay by choice.
It's the John Kerry complex!
July 11, 2007 - 09:18 ET by PawpawNI was before it before I was against it! The John Kerry complex.
ok, Im confused, honestly.
July 11, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Binxlyok, Im confused, honestly. Care to elaborate? Again, Im not being snide, I genuinely want to know your take on the issue, its just the verbage confuses me as I havent read anywhere where me or Leon or anyone really 'double-spoke.'
ok, Im confused, honestly.
July 11, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Binxlysorry, double post, haha, how ironic.
Oh, God. Please tell me we're
July 11, 2007 - 08:45 ET by Roger the ShrubberOh, God. Please tell me we're going to get into another gay debate.
How people turn out gay has never been proven one way or another, and making statement like you have, Leon, only shows you to be foolish.
This is a tired, old topic, that becamse tired and old months and months ago. Yawn.
Roger,It's just my canned res
July 11, 2007 - 08:52 ET by LeonRoger,
It's just my canned response to any comment that implies gay is a choice.
I intend to hammer that point home whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Not starting a whole debate about gay, just doing a little needling/reminding.
Unfortunately, you are remind
July 11, 2007 - 09:03 ET by Roger the ShrubberUnfortunately, you are reminding people that you really do not have the answer, because the answer hasn't been found yet. You can say "leading researchers believe..." or whatever, but claiming "the debate is over" puts you in the "zealot" category in the eyes of many people, and nothing turns people off faster than a blind zealot. Okay, perhaps seeing Mikey Moore naked might turn people off faster, but you get my drift...
Rog,I usually love your posts
July 11, 2007 - 09:13 ET by BinxlyRog,
I usually love your posts, but I think you as well are just as caught in the 'lack of info' web that you claim Leon is. If there isn't info proving it 'is or isn't a choice,' then you too don't have the answer (I'm aware you never claimed you did, Ill explain what I mean.)
It seems, since we don't have 'undeniable proof' (and what is that today anyways? anything is debateable anymore.) but since the 'proof' is absent, it seems yes, Leon 'believes' it is *not* a choice for those legitimately homosexual and not just doing it for the fast lifestyle or the 'charm of feeling like they fit in' since the homosexual culture, the more stereotypical parts, accept anyone as to many it *is* an 'us v.s. them' attitude. However, while we didn't force that, much of that movement is a knee-jerk reaction to intolerance of homosexuals, not the stereotypical permiscuous lifestyle.
you however, seem to maintain belief that the possibility it *is* a choice. That is also you perogative. I just think its a shame to call out Leon on this particular issue due to previous disagreements. I'll tell you, me and Leon are probably polar opposites on *many* issues, however, just because he claims its not a choice, and you claim it could be, neither point is more valid than the next.
For what it's worth too, having my fair share of gay friends and a few gay family members, when you see it from *that* angle, when its someone you love as a person or even your own blood, and you see the anguish they go through the years trying to 'be normal' you realize while, yes, *everything* is a choice, thats like someone saying *you* can't do anything *you* enjoy, because its not the societal norm.
Gay = birth defect?
July 11, 2007 - 09:36 ET by Six String Spiff"It seems, since we don't have 'undeniable proof' (and what is that today anyways? anything is debateable anymore.) "
Good bye logic..
Leon is trying to prove his point by saying there isn't enough evidence to support the 'other' side of the argument. It is an old topic. I could care less if someone is gay. The thing I have an issue with is the prancing and the lisping and the VERY public affection. That is to say it goes way beyond anything I've seen hetero sexuals perform in public.
Question:
Do you think it's a birth defect if a male wants to be female and visa versa?
That is NOT an attack. It s a very logical and scientific question.
What the MSSM doesn't report can kill you.
In essence, yes I would consi
July 11, 2007 - 09:51 ET by BinxlyIn essence, yes I would consider it a birth defect. However, that does NOT mean what you may think. It's a defect in the sense the personality and overall brain function is more apt to be accepted by a physical female, and many of these transgendered people, as they age, especially through puberty, go through large depression bouts because what they are isn't what they know they should be, what they think they should be.
This is where many want to say 'see!? They are mental, they need help!' Very true on the help part. However, many phobic people mean help as in drugs to sedate these 'urges' as they call it (to smoke is an urge, to do drugs is an urge, to call a man feeling like a man is *not* an urge, it's nature) is foolish. These people's mental nature is not in coordinance with their physical bodies and that is the deficiency.
I agree with you the whole 'leaping, lisping gay' cliche is *very* obnoxious. Women in the girliest sense fall short of that level of dramatics. However, many gays *aren't* like that and yes, many transexual/transgendered people 'alter' their voice, but its only because they *want* to fit in, they want to eventually fit into social situations without worry they will be seen as a transexual. Most don't *want* to be seen as that, it isn't why they go through surgeries and voice training to be femenine. These arent 'deviants,' these are people who have serious dysphoric issues and as I said before, there is no drug to make someone male think female, or vice versa. So, when someone feels female but is born male, their only real option besides 'just sucking it up' (which is exceedingly heartless to advocate) is to begin treatment in hopes that one day they can be who they are physically who they are mentally.
I know many will probably poo-poo this idea, and its fine, but it's much more rational than to simply throw equally debateable 'facts' from the other side of the argument when the *real* motivation for such disapproval is that most think of transexuals as hairy, fat men in skirts, when in actuality, I'd bet most of you have seen a transexual in public before and mistaken them for a genetic female. They aren't out to 'trick' people, they just wanna be 'normal' in their sense. Again, to anyone who *cannot* understand, think, if you woke up tomorrow the other gender, would you 'just suck it up and deal with it?'
Very good post binxly
July 11, 2007 - 10:53 ET by Six String SpiffGreat post, binxly
I do not think these people need 'help' in the sense of any medication, or needing any time in an instutute. I will say this:
I have noticed two types of homo-sexuals. This goes for male and female.
The first type is VERY open and in-your-face almost to the point of suspected spite on my behalf. Then we have the second type. This group is, like you mentioned in your post, just trying to be themsleves by dressing themselves in the opposite sex's clothes and taking hormone pills. Honestly, I prefer the person just trying to fit in, than the in-your-face annoying person.
One last thing. Do you think homosexual men behave worse (regarding the lisping and prancing) as opposed to the females who act 'butch'?
What the MSSM doesn't report can kill you.
Well homosexuality and transg
July 11, 2007 - 11:17 ET by BinxlyWell homosexuality and transgender people are different. Transgendered people often feel like 'normal females' trapped in a 'man's body.' Homosexuals are men who identify as men but also favor men exclusively.
I also agree on the two types but two types as in the in your face and the 'being myself' homosexuals AND transexuals. You have drag queens, you have transexuals who only close friends and family know they arent or werent always female.' You have the stereotypical gay club guy who lisps all over the place, is super touchy and cares only for themselves. yet you also have people like my friend John who have monogamous, fufilling, otherwise normal relationships and his actions are that of an average man and the only hint he's gay is his signifigant other is not his 'girfriend' but 'boyfriend.'
As for your question, yea, I have met way more gay men than women, but most 'butch' lesbians end up having identity issues and may indeed be transgender. Most lesbians, the handful I met, still love being a woman, just prefer women sexually. So yes, Id say lesbians are much less 'over the top' than stereotypical gay males.
It IS a choice
July 11, 2007 - 10:20 ET by exLibI recently spoke with a guy whose story is very similar to most homosexuals up to a point.
He belongs to a group called Exodus international, they are a Christian Group of Men who have lived the homosexual lifestyle and have realized they are not bound to that lifestyle and now live normal hetroseuxal lifestyles. many are happily married to women. There is a similar group for women but I can't remember the name.
You will NEVER hear of this group in the MSM since it runs counter to the lie that is being put out there and these activits who control the media, or at the very least seem able to bully the media into following their demands despite being a vast minority.
Anyway, this guy states emphatically that it is NOT genetic and that is a behaviour that is being increasingly encouraged from the beginnings of grade school and thouhout the media.
I learned a long time ago in a debate tatics and in Logic that if you make a statement such as "It is Genetic and Can't be changed" then you are then forced to prove that NO ONE has EVER changed or made a decision to be different. Otherwise the statement is FALSE.
Also, members of this group travel from town to town and speak mostly to church groups and get serious harrassment by Homosexual Groups, even to threatening bodily harm on these people. Most of the time the police do nothing.
Now you're just getting redic
July 11, 2007 - 10:46 ET by BinxlyNow you're just getting rediculously literal. Everyone is wired differently, for some, yes, homosexuality is *purely* preferential with sex and is more a choice than a feeling. They choose men for whatever reason but are open to women too. However, like I said, just because some men have 'reformed' from a gay lifestyle and married women doesn't mean they were gay men who were 'changed.' Some could have just been bicurious, some maybe had a hard time finding a woman so went to men because in the stereotypical subcultures in the gay life, finding a mate isnt a problem. However, many homosexuals reform, marry women, but are still unhappy and *only* doing it because it is 'ASSUMED' that some authority figure from above is going to damn them to eternal hell merely because what they feel and like is different.
Until we say 'neither is superior, neither is to be endorsed or promoted, both sides are equally taught (for safety purposes such as safe sex and the perks of monogamy in sexual relationships regardless of sexual preference) until then, we will always have one side wanting to endorse their side, and vice versa. NO side is superior. One IS imperative to procreation but to think the majority of people can be even influenced to homosexuality is ludicrous. Same with thinking everyone can be influenced to heterosexuality.
Most homosexual reformers are only that way because closed minded people who believe in freedom only when it comes to what THEY want have made them so ostracized from having a normal social life reguardless of sexual preference that they will renounce their own inner being for the sake of your comfort. You should thank these people, they are scaraficing way more for your comfort than you would ever be willing to sacrafice for them. Where is the grace in that I ask you?
Grace is about
July 11, 2007 - 10:55 ET by exLibGrace is about forgiveness when it isn't deserved it is NOT about letting someone do something destructive or in direct oppostition to the laws of God.
You don't let your kid play with a knife "cause they want to" because you know it's dangerous and they don't realize it yet.
Since I was in HS or probably before, I have had "homosexual" friends and it was never an issue since it wasn't made an issue.
No one who holds to the Truth of Bible will ever says homosexuality is "superior" to anything. This is purely humanistic thinking and has nothing to do with spirituality.
The Bible is clear in what is right and what is wrong on a myriad of issues, homosexuality being one of them. If you want to contradict that, you again are fully within your rights to do so and I will not argue with you since, for me, it's not a point to be argued.
I merely point out that you are in opposition to the clear teaching of the Bible.
I have found that the people I deal with in the Christian community are very in touch with what goes on in their hearts and minds since they are willing to be contradicted by the Word of God and not their own whims and desires.
My final thought on that is i
July 11, 2007 - 11:27 ET by BinxlyMy final thought on that is if God judges someone to be damned, regardless of their countless good acts and all else which they were more 'in the right with Jesus' word' than others but is still damned because of who they chose to love in an intimate sense then I want no part of that God. No one is better than another based on our own personal choices that affect our lives. If you infringe on someone else's life or drag others into your problems on your own, its different. however, any choice that affects only ourselves is not one to be judged. If god is willing to damn someone to eternal torment for falling short of his infallible view, then I weep for our afterlife. It sounds like almost a 'moral country club' in which only the 'Elite' are let in based on only a few standards and ignoring all other important standards of judgement.
Point being, if God damns a good man (or woman) merely for who they choose to love, then I cannot accept any kingdom he may or may not offer to me. Perhaps that is dramatic, but I refuse to suffer from human hypocrisy in a place that is supposed to be infallible and impossible to be flawed by such things.
I realize many of you will NEVER change your minds, and I respect that. however, right or wrong, I suspect many (not necessarily here) only bring up the religion argument as a front to why they really are against homosexuals. They think its different and weird, and therefore don't want it around. Again, not saying that is anyone here, but if you DO care about God and growing as a person through life and love of God, I ask you, ask yourself that question. God aside, why am I so strong-willed on this being a 'wrong' act?
Afterall, what if it was switched? what if only same sexes could procreate and you had the whole homosexual world calling YOU out as wrong for liking the opposite sex? Again, just a thought, take what you will from it.
It is a choice in that you st
July 11, 2007 - 10:00 ET by contraryIt is a choice in that you still have to make a choice to engage in said gay acts. It isn't a choice in the idea that people have predipositions based on genetics. Like an alcoholic who chooses to drink. By and by, I am not equating alcoholism to the gay lifestyle.
Too many people who argue their side can't separate the action from the person. For those who "logically" disagree with the gay lifestyle, it comes down to fundamentally believing the act of having sex with someone of the same sex is WRONG. For those who are for "equal rights" they often counter by saying this statement is founded on religious doctrine and therefore is forcing a religious perspective on the country. And therefore, you have a fundamental disagreement that prevents any coming together for real solutions.
"And therefore, you ha
July 11, 2007 - 10:08 ET by MightyMouth"And therefore, you have a fundamental disagreement that prevents any coming together for real solutions."
This is what I don't get, what is there to solve? If you want to be gay, you can live a gay lifestyle in this country. No one is stopping you. What needs to be solved? If you mean the gay marriage "issue" only.... well that's another discussion.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
That's just it, they cling to
July 11, 2007 - 10:09 ET by BinxlyThat's just it, they cling to the story of Soddom and Gahmorrah (sp again sorry) which they quote as God condemning a town where men laid down with men. This was *not* the point. The story was God condemned the city because sex was not sacred and practiced in the most open, lude, and perverse of ways. Sex was a sacred act. This can also be where religious people use that argument too against homosexuality but again, I think it *all* stems NOT from religion but that most people find homosexual sex (myself included) gross. The difference is, many homosexuals think *heterosexual sex* is gross. There are still many more heterosexual people speaking out against homosexuals than vice versa (though both exist.)
As for the 'choice' aspect, sure, it is a choice. However, I'm saying its easy for a heterosexual to be so easy to understand it, your predisposition in in the 'norm' and accepted. If someone told you tomorrow sex in general, in *any* sense is immoral, you'd eventually lose it. Say whatever you want, you would, we all would. Not because we are all addicted to sex, but because its human nature to want to be loved and loved romantically as well. For some its just not the same as others, for some that romance is indeed the same ethically, just not physically. To say your way is more correct in any area aside from pro-creation aspects is foolhardy and selfish.
So, how does one become "
July 11, 2007 - 10:16 ET by Roger the ShrubberSo, how does one become "legitimately homosexual"? Is there some sort of testing involved? A license issued? You may have uncovered a new potential funding stream for the federal government!
You also win an award for "most usage of the asterisk in a post". Congrads!
I just hate people speaking in absolutes, when there is not absolute. Regardless of which side of the fence that person sits.
legitimately homosexual
July 11, 2007 - 10:26 ET by LionKingAfter extensive research, here are the rules for being legitimately homosexual:
I'm still curious about whe
July 11, 2007 - 10:29 ET by sarcasmoI'm still curious about where this leaves victims of any proposed homo-bomb...
JMR
From the article: The Penta
July 11, 2007 - 10:34 ET by Free StinkerFrom the article: The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.
So, when a Democrat was President, this was going on. Hmmmn.
/partisan commentary off
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in on
sarc...it does not matter
July 11, 2007 - 10:34 ET by LionKingsarc...it would not matter as to why or how they became homosexual, they merely must follow the rules to be legit.
[Interesting concept. If homosexuality can be artificially created, then one might presume that it can also be cured. Sounds like a disease or defect.]
I'm just thinking whatever
July 11, 2007 - 10:44 ET by sarcasmoI'm just thinking whatever chemical this is might have various unintended consequences...I'm imagining Iran's entire parlaiment, after everyone drinks the water, suddenly degenerating from all-hate all the time to an anything-goes orgy of homosexual sex with long-term consequences! :)
JMR
And just think of all the &
July 11, 2007 - 10:48 ET by MightyMouthAnd just think of all the "colorful and hip" burkas that would result, Iran goes rainbow!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
See this is why the homosexua
July 11, 2007 - 10:59 ET by BinxlySee this is why the homosexual community DOES cling to liberals. You're taking what I said, albeit a poor wording, out of context. "Legitimately homosexual" was not to mean there is one better than another. I'm differentiating those who have sex with men because they like sex, the act in general and are ambivalent to who or what is involved as opposed to people who, much like heterosexuals, are exclusively attracted to one sex, but it just happens to be their own sex. The use of the term 'legitimate homosexual' is to debunk the assumption that homosexuals mean that flambouyant guy who makes out with his female friends, acts a fool and sleeps with 3 different guys a week. That is NOT most homosexuals. Like I said, if its THAT where you have a problem with homosexuality, I am all with you, but that is an act, not the lifestyle. I just fail to see how a monogamous male and female couple that choose to never have kids is somehow more elite and better than a monogamous homosexual couple that have good moral values and are contributing to society. Sure, its different, but are we REALLY that intolerant that we will run to our religion to damn them when its really the 'creepy' factor you feel that fuels your dissaproval?
I'm a Christian, I don't know how God feels about homosexuals, nowhere is it explicitly stated. Therefore I reserve judgement and realize if a person is kind, good hearted, a contributor to society, and a good person in the ways christ preached, is he somehow less than a heterosexual male who parrots the church but in his own life guilty of lying, misleading, and cheating? Is a person who is 'good' and full of grace in everyway somehow null and void because their sexual preference is different from yours?
"I'm a Christian, I don't kno
July 11, 2007 - 11:07 ET by exLib"I'm a Christian, I don't know how God feels about homosexuals, nowhere is it explicitly stated. "
---
Say What???????
Which translation of the Bible do you read?
I can quote you at least a dozen scriptures, if not more, about how God Feels about homosexuality, or homosexuals - There's a difference.
If you are really interested send me a private message and I'll send you a study on it.
Not to minimize your passio
July 11, 2007 - 11:09 ET by MightyMouthNot to minimize your passion on this but... all I was saying is that a gay Iranian legislative body would have a much "keener" fashion sense than their anti-sodomite counterparts. :-p
BTW the biblical case against homosexual behavior has been well documented here on countless threads.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sorry, I just had to tease ab
July 11, 2007 - 11:12 ET by Roger the ShrubberSorry, I just had to tease about the "legitimate" comment! No offense meant!
haha no worries, I just reali
July 11, 2007 - 11:48 ET by Binxlyhaha no worries, I just realized myself how that may have come off. I always try to explain myself as well as I can.
Wear that scarf around your n
July 11, 2007 - 11:05 ET by Roger the ShrubberWear that scarf around your neck, not around your head!
rotflmao...
July 11, 2007 - 10:50 ET by LionKingI cannot stop laughing...the images of enemy soldiers in PINK and flowers and dog-collars...ROTFLMAO
The IRANIAN parliament...that's good!!! Be careful or you could become the subject of a fataw.
I'm their worst nightmare,
July 11, 2007 - 11:04 ET by sarcasmoI'm their worst nightmare, I'm sure. Enough influence from the likes of me, and there'd eventually be a Tehran Hooters.
JMR
gay
July 11, 2007 - 08:39 ET by the mad poleI already said I don't care if your're fag, you are still my brother or sister and I still love you, not in love. Just stay with me, what you do for pleasure is not your life, We need to evolve. Sex is not a life pursuit for an evolved species .
For many it may not be a sexu
July 11, 2007 - 09:17 ET by BinxlyFor many it may not be a sexual thing. I know of one particular gay guy from college who dates men because he is celibate but the more romantic aspects he is much more femenine and he prefers the treatment he recieves from a man. To say homosexuality is PURELY about sex is as foolish as to claim that any form of marriage and or dating is about sex.
huh?
July 11, 2007 - 09:24 ET by the mad poleI thought flirting was considered sex
I certainly hope that was bei
July 11, 2007 - 09:35 ET by BinxlyI certainly hope that was being smart. I flirt with *anyone* jokingly. Guys and girls alike and Im def 100% heterosexual. Again, depends on the definition of 'flirting.' I know a few guys from college who considered anything up to sex 'mere flirting' so when they would sleep around girls couldn't act like it was something of 'value.'
flirting
July 11, 2007 - 09:47 ET by the mad poleI remenber a study about office behaviour a few years back that explained that it wasn't even innocent to have "friends" of the opposite sex if you were married because the underlinings were sexual in nature. Thus you were cheating
haha sounds like the writer l
July 11, 2007 - 09:56 ET by Binxlyhaha sounds like the writer lacked any sense of restraint. To think being social to the opposite sex was sexual in underlying nature is a very freudian and in my humble opinion, flawed idea.
i'm hip
July 11, 2007 - 10:03 ET by the mad poleI agree but my wife has never liked my even saying thank you to cute waitress
i'm hip
July 11, 2007 - 10:04 ET by the mad poledoubly bubbly
Of course it's ALL about sex.
July 11, 2007 - 10:32 ET by exLibIf it wasn't about sex there wouldn't be a problem.
The Bible is very clear that we are to love one another equally.
That means a man can love another man very deeply and NOT want to have sex with them.
I Samuel, David and Jonathan.
"We need to evolve. Se
July 11, 2007 - 09:27 ET by MightyMouth"We need to evolve. Sex is not a life pursuit for an evolved species ."
Seems fairly difficult to "evolve" without sex. Although I don't blindly believe in evolution (especially as it pertains to origins) it would seem homo sexual behavior is anti-evolution and therefore anti-nature or unnatural. Am I wrong?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM, "homo sexual behavio
July 11, 2007 - 09:32 ET by vrwc13MM, "homo sexual behavior is anti-evolution and therefore anti-nature or unnatural. Am I wrong?". Right you are and well put. It's Eve and Adam not Steve and Adam.
v
Again, human population is ou
July 11, 2007 - 09:37 ET by BinxlyAgain, human population is out of control in many places and if you are going to de-validate a homosexual relationship due to the lack of ability to pro-create then you in essence must also be against a heterosexual marriage that bears no children, correct?
No, I am not talking about
July 11, 2007 - 09:44 ET by MightyMouthNo, I am not talking about marriage. I am talking about what is natural vs what is unnatural. Homo sexual behavior is unnatural (in a secular sense as well as a biblical sense ...and IMO common sense). Take it to a logical conclusion; if all members of a species where to be "born" homosexual that species would cease to exist. The same cannot be said for all members being born heterosexual.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
God said go and multiply and
July 11, 2007 - 09:44 ET by vrwc13God said go and multiply and populate the Earth. Far as I know He hasn't said to stop yet!
Now for those who can't have kids, there is always adoption.
And (tongue -in-cheek) we conservatives have no problem with libs not pro-creating, our children will simply out vote their children (or lack thereof) in the next generation!
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
I can't disagree that common
July 11, 2007 - 10:35 ET by BinxlyI can't disagree that common sense-wise, if procreation is the main focus, but my point isn't people who *can't* have babies, I was refering to a couple who gets married out of love but has no desire for children of their own. In essence, sexual acts aside, both the childless hetero couple and the childless homo couple are equally infringing on 'God's will' for procreation.
My main concern is though its easy for someone who's life goals and desires coincide with 'God's will' to say 'its so simple! Don't you get it?!' Than someone who's goals and desires are considered 'UnGodly.'
grow
July 11, 2007 - 09:34 ET by the mad poleOur thoughts evolve from masturbation to deep thought. E+mc squared. We grow up and put the toys down
Not sure what you mean here
July 11, 2007 - 09:50 ET by MightyMouthNot sure what you mean here. But if we all "put the toys down" it sure would spell the demise of a large group of well evolved deep thinkers. What about the poor bastards who have to raise the kids to keep the species going? I know... I am one of em :-) And please don't tell me how gay couples can beat the system (nature) with artful insemination.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
what i mean
July 11, 2007 - 10:12 ET by the mad poleWhen I sat in my room waisting time, my thoughts would wander to sex and the thought process bored me. When I read and deeply thought about lthe meaning of life, I felt more alive and viable
Ah, you are describing gett
July 11, 2007 - 10:20 ET by MightyMouthAh, you are describing getting older. I'm with ya. However... :-) .... there is also something to be said for not giving up on youthful exuberance! You know, you're as young as you feel. AND there are some nifty drugs now days (so I have been told by TV and countless spam emails) to help in that area! $-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Ok, I'm going to save you som
July 11, 2007 - 10:23 ET by mandrakeOk, I'm going to save you some 'thinking' time. The meaning of life is to make money. It's as simple as that. Then you pass that money to your children so they can make more. As to the 'toys', whoever has the most when they die..WINS!
Come on, Leon. You should alr
July 11, 2007 - 08:39 ET by Roger the ShrubberCome on, Leon. You should already know that both sides will pander to their core, "out-Left" or "out-Right" each other, until the nomination, and then, suddenly, both candidates will "out-moderate" each other to death.
Roger,I know, it just seems l
July 11, 2007 - 08:49 ET by LeonRoger,
I know, it just seems like a tremendous waste of time. Plus, they run the risk of alienating voters that don't care for gays.
But it would be like the Repbulican party hosting a debate on some rinky dink evangelical network. What would be the point? You've already got their vote.
Your macro analysis is dead on, all I'm saying is that if I was in charge of the democratic party, I wouldn't put the debate on Logo.
I can see Republican candidat
July 11, 2007 - 08:55 ET by Roger the ShrubberI can see Republican candidates tripping over themselves to speak at a pro-life rally, or some other generic stereotypically-right wing cause type of event. But a debate on the 700 Club (is that even on the air still?) would be stupid. I see your point.
700 Club (is that even on t
July 11, 2007 - 08:57 ET by Free Stinker700 Club (is that even on the air still?)
Sadly, it still is.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in on
If Democrats *really* cared t
July 11, 2007 - 09:30 ET by BinxlyIf Democrats *really* cared to get tolerance out there (an I maintain that no organized group is for universal tolerance, only the *advancement* of their own subculture be it political or otherwise) is to openly discuss *why* people disagree with homosexuality, address the issues of it, and try to find a solution as to *where* the hostility comes from. ALSO to point out not *all* conservatives are homophobic gay bashers. I'm a registered Republican, a conservative in most areas, disagree with about 99% of liberal policies on government and how to run the country, but I'm *for* gay rights. I wasn't always. It wasn't until an intelligent, open-minded (on both sides) conversation took place with many good, educated people took place in my life that I realized my views may have been a bit fallible but so staunchly supported because, to me, 'its weird.' However, after hearing many *normal* gay people who live their lives like you and me or you and your spouse do, only then did I realize I think we staple the stereotypical permiscuous gay club scene to homosexuality in general. We should be speaking out against permiscuous behavior, reguardless of it being hetero or homosexual in nature. Instead, many turn a blind eye to heterosexual permiscuousness, sometimes use it as a social benchmark, yet we dismiss all gays as 'sex crazed perverts.'
If either side *truely* cared about homosexuals, they would also keep it *out* of politics. However, one side would like to label it as 'unsavory' and the other wants to *promote* it. What ever happened to just minding our own damn business? Who are any of us to judge anyways?
The left has already made this a "religious Issue"
July 11, 2007 - 10:47 ET by exLibThe left has already deified the title of homosexual.
People are getting fired publicly for calling someone a "fag" while the same cannot be said for people who openly slander any number of Conservative Christians, whether they be Catholic or Evangelical to name a couple.
Second there is the matter of indoctrination. I for one see the debate as settled in the Bible and that this is not a lifestlye I want described in public as normal or sold as normal.
I am 40 years old and have seen the debate go many different ways but I am most concerned that the homosexual lobby has found an image that it is selling to the public and you have bought it hook line and sinker.
In the 70's and the beginning of the 80s most homosexuals were miserable people who just didn't know how to help themselves. Starting with the lie of 1 in 10 and that AIDS was a heterosexual disease the media picked up the banner and began to present a "no negative" view of homosexuals.
Now, we have kindergarten to graduation indoctrination in the public schools and re-education camps in the College Campuses for anyone that doesn't toe -the line.
The goal, as I see it, is clear. Homosexuals, the ativists types, want to remove any religion and religious reference that would potentially condemn their acts from the public square.
Yet, what never gets discussed is the true end goal. Homo Marriage gets sigend into law and then anything that sets itself up against that becomes Illegal. Pages get removed from Bibles, Preachers or Evenagelists are fined or jailed for hatespeech and what was seen in 1st century Rome is here again.
See I am for the tolerance as
July 11, 2007 - 12:37 ET by BinxlySee I am for the tolerance aspect, and *true* tolerance, not the kind the left wants which is 'you MUST believe this or be wrong!'
I avoid all extremes. Its ok to have your own beliefs. If you think homosexuality is 'wrong' its your perogative, you shouldn't get beaten up or berated for that viewpoint. That said, homosexuals shouldn't get beaten up or berated by others either for being homosexual. I'm not for outlawing religions that view gays as bad, I'm not even for outlawing any religion, even those with violent undertones. I'm just annoyed at times that both sides come out and claim to have absolute authority on the issue morally and ethically. Religion has the bible and other religious tomes to back up their viewpoint while the other side has certain sciences (junk or not) in which they vault as their 'proof.' I simply see no reason why to even freaking care. As long as all education involving sex is about being safe, with no specific focus on either sexual lifestyle but the lifestyle as a whole (refer to sex acts not by gender but just by and large, contraceptives are universal in keeping STD risk down in sexually active people both hetero and homo and also keep education on abstinence as that is ideally the best way to stay sexually healthy and avoid situations like STDs or pregnancy for heterosexuals.)
Other than thatm the more we polarize this argument over who is right and wrong, the more divided we become. In all honesty, religion aside, what exactly bothers people about homosexuals so much?
Why they would do this is bec
July 11, 2007 - 09:16 ET by Gat New YorkWhy they would do this is because they have no choice without alienating Gays and Lesbians. Their problem is what they will say and admit to that could either hurt them with this group or hurt them in a general election.
Regarding your last point, assuming gays primarily vote for Democrats is a very false assumption.
gay?
July 11, 2007 - 08:12 ET by the mad poleI would like to know how anyone who has kissed Doris Day in film after film could be gay. But that is all I would ever want to know. One of my brothers is a homosexual and we never discuss bedroom activities and we have a great time together. He's a funny guy and smart and a pal. What you do in the bedroom should not determine who you are.
exactly mad pole. You hit i
July 11, 2007 - 09:40 ET by Binxlyexactly mad pole. You hit it perfectly, you're sexual preference should not determine who you are as a person or how others view you. You don't hear many people saying 'oh yeah that guy, hes a total hetero.' Its just sad because you *do* hear it the other way around, often times in blind assumption merely due to their personality traits.
Personality and style traits don't define your sexuality, and your sexuality does not define your character. I think you def got it down mad pole. :)
thanks
July 11, 2007 - 09:55 ET by the mad poleI am not smart or educated so there is hope for us all
This is probably the last w
July 11, 2007 - 08:40 ET by sarcasmoThis is probably the last week where McCain gets to be called "top tier" in media stories without flunking the laugh-test...And I agree about your colleague's joke, despite the serious journalism problems Fox News has and, so far, refuses to address...
JMR
I think this is a good thin
July 11, 2007 - 08:48 ET by charlietexasI think this is a good thing! Maybe Hillary will come out of the closet. Then Bill can find a real woman and so can Hillary. Life will finally make sense.
trapped
July 11, 2007 - 09:21 ET by the mad poleHow can she come out of the closet as long as Bill is around? That would make all this talk of forgiving him ring shallow. We would have a first lady and Bill
That's just like the Libs.to
July 11, 2007 - 09:26 ET by shannon20That's just like the Libs.to pander to less than 10% of the population, while dismissing 50% or more. The really bad part of this is, the Congressional Black Caucus is the ones sponsoring the debate with Fox, that these Libs. pulled out of. It's pretty clear that they have decided to throw the blacks under the bus, to get the gay vote. Well, atleast the blacks know now that they have been used all these years. The question is, will they do anything about it.
Of course, yet again, what wi
July 11, 2007 - 09:35 ET by Jack BauerOf course, yet again, what will not be mentioned is how antipathy to homosexuals and the homosexual "lifestyle" is always strongest amongst African-Americans.
Now, which party did blacks vote for 9 to 1 in the last election.
Oh yeah, that would be Democrat(ick)
You'd have thought the "
July 11, 2007 - 09:31 ET by Jack BauerYou'd have thought the "Peacock" network would have been the more apt venue for gay musings.
Or even 'apter' for those who attended Beserkely.
Special Interests
July 11, 2007 - 09:36 ET by exLibI find it pretty amazing that a group of people who basically demand that their "orientation" be treated as if it were a deity is not seen by anyone in the media as a concern or a threat.
Meanwhile a group 100x the size if not larger that does incredible amounts of good for the country as a whole is seen as a threat and a major concern by the media.
"If there are signs that
July 11, 2007 - 10:14 ET by Ten7sAgain, Gomorrah cannot be use
July 11, 2007 - 11:10 ET by BinxlyAgain, Gomorrah cannot be used (well it can, now its just flawed) as a benchmark for how homosexuality is defined 'wrong' by the bible. Again, bible scholars and many other historians have said at best the message is mixed, but after reading it myself, I find that the message speaks of the indescriminate spreading of the seed, the destruction of societal order, the idea that for a man and woman to have many partners indescriminately is the true crime. Many will then argue that homosexuals ruin family values, true, many do. However, what about the countless *heterosexuals* who are permiscuous and act much like the homosexual stereotype? Both are wrong, don't misunderstand, I just think heterosexuals who are staunchly against homosexuals come off *very* snide in their arguments as it is always easy for those who have the 'right' to act as if being 'right' is so simple. Again, wake up tomorrow the opposite sex, or wake up and find all your attractions you had to the opposite sex are now intensified to the same sex, and the same 'gross factor' usually felt about same sex is now evident to you toward the opposite sex.
Again I ask, would you just 'suck it up and deal?'
Im a proponent that God gave life as a gift. We are saved THROUGH faith and grace, not by who we choose to love, sexual or otherwise. If our hearts are right, if we treat others with the compassion we wish upon ourselves, that is true salvation. I'm so sick of people mourning their faith or using it to keep people the same. Whether he is against homosexuality or not, I think God would find it equally if not more upsetting to see his children wishing to enforce his will. Life is our gift, how we treat it is up to us.
Judgement comes afterward for all of us. Therefore it is no one's right to 'sell' or promote the idea that homosexuality is 'wrong' either.
Aside from the Scriptures that command it
July 11, 2007 - 11:30 ET by exLib"Whether he is against homosexuality or not, I think God would find it equally if not more upsetting to see his children wishing to enforce his will. Life is our gift, how we treat it is up to us. "
...
Where you come up with this stuff is beyond me. Even as a non-Christian I still could agrue to the basic tenents of the Bible.
I mean aside from the Great Commision (Matt 28:18-20), there are too many scriptures to name that Command us to Spread the Word, Fight the Good Fight, Stand up to unsound doctrine, etc.
I am starting to believe that you are what the Bible calls a Mocker.
PS - Bible Scholars tend to be unbelievers, at the least the ones that get the most publicity and teach in universities.
(And the people took note that the Apostles were Unschooled, Ordinary Men).
I don't just 'come up with th
July 11, 2007 - 12:54 ET by BinxlyI don't just 'come up with this stuff' it's my way of approaching the subject matter while still trying to bring common sense into the picture. Much of the bible can be viewed as contradicting to itself. Like I said, Im no bible scholar, never claimed to be. I am merely saying that for someone to believe so much in a faith that says 'do this, dont do that, never mind the reasons, its what I say so do it.'
Maybe its the rebellious spirit I had as a kid comming out, but most times when my parents used the 'because I said so' excuse is because whatever they were asking afforded them some quiet, one less chore they had to do, or they just had no real justifiable reason and just wanted their word followed. This is where I say, if God is infallible, then his will must make sense. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm saying I'm open to the idea that the bible, which is already been revised umpteen times and caused a central religion to now have many many different sects that disagree on everything from the major to minute, can be flawed. The bible is said as God's word, but it was not written by God himself. I know this is another cliche argument of many atheists or secular progressives but I am neither. I know of God, i have felt him in my life, and it my own, albeit humble, and personal belief that he is *not* a God of anger or wraith(sp). I just have no way of believing he would reward those who blindly follow, as opposed to those who, following Christ's main points of being a good person so to speak, choose to look deeper and perhaps separate the literal from the figurative.
The stories in the bible, to me, at least the parts I have read or been read, told of, are much like a storybook (although these are real, I am not calling them fiction.) However they are similar to a storybook in the sense that each occurance has a moral, a lesson to learn. Most speak to treating others with respect, honesty, and order. I am merely saying I believe while homosexuality is counterproductive to procreation, to say it is a damnable offense or that somehow you, a heterosexual, is superior to a homosexual is not only arrogant, but wrong.
Again, if homosexuality *is* wrong, what do you propose? A trip to church camp where they will be guilt tripped and scared into thinking if they don't 'fake it' and act straight, marry and have kids that they will experience unending pain and suffering? Even if these people's acts, homosexuality aside, were almost saint-like?
Also, when you answer that one, answer this, what would YOU do if YOU were gay? You won't be able to answer it cause, from my estimation, you aren't gay, but I can only imagine the inner torment those people go through. Especially when people are constantly throwing it into their face that God condemns their feelings. It would be like saying God condemns you for being you. Think about it.
Some answer binx
July 11, 2007 - 13:48 ET by exLibPure and simple, sin is sin and we all have things we struggle with and the goal is NOT to act on them. Sometimes, in a moment of impulse we do and regret and then we do what is called Repentance.
As I read it, the Bible calls us to admit that we sin (I john 1) when we do that we get into the light. As long as you don't admit that something is sin you are under judgement. Then you admit specific sin and confess it and get help from other like minded Christians and you make repentance a life-habit.
The Bible is full of sinners sinning, but the key is that they are willing to admit their mistakes and yet at the same time are sorrowful and regret their actions.
If "I was gay" which as I said earlier I patently reject the title, I would do what I said above.
As for those who chose to act that way, they are on their own, up and until they decide to repent.
When i was a liberal in the 70's through the 90s we prided ourselves on not having a moral compass and that all things were relative. However, as I said before the left of today has made science the new deity and have claimed that now THEY have the Absolute Truth. I do agree that it makes the debate more difficult, but I refuse to back down.
I can still love anyone and "Tolerate" them but I will not APPROVE of what they do, nor will I applaud it or condone it. Which, as I see it is what is being demanded today more and more loudly and more vociferiously.
If you know anything about the human condition you would know that feelings are a conditioned repsonse and can be changed. People who stay married do so because they have realized that "Feeelings" come and go and are sometimes are worst enemies.
The Bible Calls us to Deny Self, that is deny our impulses or we are not His Disciples, ie Christians.
And NO being Homosexual does not define a person and it's a real sad thing that people do that. We are all supposed to be children of God, then whatever is contrarty to the will of God we must change because we love God more than ourselves.
However we live in a world that is upside down. It's a pleasure seeking world that put's itself and feelings first.
Well, I guess I am in turn by
July 11, 2007 - 14:13 ET by BinxlyWell, I guess I am in turn by your standard, a heretic. I know *you* aren't calling me that, but I will abandon a supposed principle before I will abandon someone who is very much so a kind, yet different, person. Does that mean I am never to be absolved of sin? Maybe, by your view, most likely. I just cannot do it. I like certain things in life, they are not evil, they do not harm anyone nor even affect anyone outside of myself. Homosexuals, in essence, are the same. They have interests that while are not popular, are only affecting themselves and those who knowingly get involved with them.
The only reason I get upset is the people who say AIDS is proof God is against homosexuality. Two 'clean' people who practice in anal sex will not just *create* AIDS. AIDS *is* more prevelant among gay males than any sexually active demographic because they are more apt to be permiscuous without protection than other sexually active people. Thus the ACT of unprotected, permiscuous sex with many people is the the cause of AIDS, not homosexual sex. I know that was never a point you argued, but it is just a talking point of the religious opponents of homosexuality that is equally without base.
I can see only one reason God would ever rationally be against homosexuality and that is due to the inability to procreate. As I said however, if he holds scorn for them, what of women who choose to never bear children? There are many women ill-equipped to birth a child, so you'd think, to deny that gift would be equally blasphemous if you're judging them on the same playing field....
I have my own opinions on how homosexuality made it's way into the bible, but again, I mentioned before, when I feel someone has undoubtedly, and whole-heartedly made up their mind to a point that you have, that talking about it is going nowhere. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, my view of God would never judge you if indeed your staunch opposition of homosexuality was unfounded, yet it seems my defense of it is condemnable by eternal torment in the eyes of the God you describe. Again, I don't know, you could be right, but I find, for me at least, an open mind is a lot more productive than a sealed fortress.
I wonder if Ann Coulter will
July 11, 2007 - 10:56 ET by mattmI wonder if Ann Coulter will be invited...
LOGO
July 11, 2007 - 11:12 ET by m_zeplinWell, there they go again. Another group wanting their own pot. We have allowed anyone to have their own pot instead of all being in one melting pot. As long as this country is being divided by class, culture, lifestyles or ethnicity there will only be more and more pots.
Get in America's melting pot, follow the majority or get out.
Strength through diversity !!!!! Is that like divide and conquer?
melting pot...there is an old
July 11, 2007 - 11:52 ET by TruthMongermelting pot...
there is an old analogy about a frog in a pot of water, and if you bring it to a very slow boil the frog will never notice and eventually be killed...
As evidenced by this thread America is losing it's ethics and morals from the slow boil of the liberal agenda...
Damn, why am I always so correct while Leon/Sarc et al are always so hopelessly screwed in the head wrong about everything here?
It's lonely at the top:(...
No, it means strength lies in
July 11, 2007 - 13:00 ET by BinxlyNo, it means strength lies in the ability to see past our differences until we see our similarities and focus on those.
As for 'follow the majority or get out' that's hypocritical. You are angry cause the 'homosexuals want their own pot.' Then soon the worry is *they* will be the majority. Of course we can't have that. I swear, its so easy to be 'normal' until who you are is no longer 'normal' isn't it? Why does this 'normalcy' have to be even debated? People are different, you are no better or worse than anyone else when you are born, gay straight, transgender, whatever. Its your *acts* that define you. And no, I dont mean who you choose to sleep with, moreso how many people you choose to sleep with, not who you love, but whether or not you love or hate.
Let God Judge Not You
July 11, 2007 - 12:14 ET by redallthewayIf you don't like gays that's dandy but when did God appointment you judge jury and executioner. Dick Cheney's daughter is gay, Ken Mehlman is gay, Lindsay Graham is gay, Mark Foley the pedophile in training is gay. My point is there are nice gays and bad gays just like straight people.
Vitter, a self promoting religous man likes to visit prostitutes. So be it. He's a hypocrite in the mold of Clinton and Kennedy. I think this bothers me more than Dick Cheney's daughter having gay sex. But I don't want Vitter dead.
Lots of great Republicans are gay or have gay kids. You don't have to like them but please-
get a life and focus on the big issues.
Ah yes the old judge not le
July 11, 2007 - 12:39 ET by The Wicked ConservativeAh yes the old judge not lest you be judged. Every self-righteous sinners favorite Bible passage to silence critics. Trouble is they're already facing a terrible judgement day according to God's word. Trying to warn them of that is not judging them, it is an act of love. It's impopular to speak out about homosexuality, yet as a christian it's sin not to. Please don't quote the bible without reading it first. I'm against homosexuality just as I'm against abortion, adultery, theft or pornography (and myriad more). I'm against it because it leads to damnation for the person who the world has told them it's ok to do it.
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice.
Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
If condoning someone's right
July 11, 2007 - 13:10 ET by BinxlyIf condoning someone's right to be happy makes me a heretic regardless to all the kind, and good acts I've done as well as my strong sense of morality in treating others, then so be it. I couldn't conciously partake in an afterlife of joy, knowing good people who were simply 'not like me' were suffering for eternity for it, regardless of their good acts or good morals sexuality aside.
I do not worry though, God is not that way, at least not the God I know in my heart. God is not ambivalent to everything, but he is also no authoritarian to which he is described by many. If indeed homosexuality is wrong, then those 'afflicted' as they say, with homosexuality will be 'cured' upon death for they had never know the true error (assuming it IS an error) until they knew of God.
Binxly, the god you know in
July 11, 2007 - 13:32 ET by The Wicked ConservativeBinxly, the god you know in your heart would not condemn people to hell because he can't. The god in your heart is a false idol according to the bible, he doesn't exist. And much the same fate awaits an idolator, as a homosexual, a thief, an adulterer, a murderer, or any unrepentant sinner. My purpose is not to insult you or any homosexual for that matter. I want you to get a right understanding of God and get right with Him. This is why speaking out against the homosexual agenda is important to Christians. Read 1Corinthians 6:9-10, the Bible is the infallible word of God as far as God is concerned. He's a God of justice and mercy, the world now only wants to focus on the mercy. This is not the whole counsel of God. As for not being able to partake in an afterlife where sinners are punished, please reconsider the alternative which is described as a lake of fire.
Proverbs 14:8 The prudent understand where they are going, but fools deceive themselves.
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice.
Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
I do not decieve myself. My
July 11, 2007 - 14:20 ET by BinxlyI do not decieve myself. My God is the same God you speak of, I have no proof, no book of words, no burning bush. However, that night in my room when I asked for his presence, he was there. he is no golden calf, no entity in which advocates all acts as equal. Our God is not an angry God. As for the afterlife, the idea that one would not give up their place in paradise to another, perhaps less deserving, is something I personally cannot do. I am no saint. I am far from perfect. Yet, if I knew following one's heart in a positive, and productive, and loving way is wrong, then I will forever be wrong and I am ok with that. I'm aware if I am wrong (and in my heart I know I am not) then God will cast me aside along with many others to this lake of fire.
My question to you is, rationally and in good conscience, could you accept that sins committed in the term of less than a century, no matter how heinous, is deserving of *eternal* pain and suffering as punishment?
I can't, in my finite human
July 11, 2007 - 14:33 ET by The Wicked ConservativeI can't, in my finite human mind, even truly perceive eternity. Let alone question God's authority or justice. His justice is Holy and perfect. Do you want a right perception of how important God's law is to him? Examine what He did to save us lawbreakers. He Himself, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, the Word of God became a human to suffer and die for us in order to free us from the judgement we deserve. His condition for salvation? Repent, turn away from sin and follow him. So if there is anything He takes time to list as sin we must turn away from it. Binx, you seem like a really compassionate person but your understanding of God has been so watered down by the world that your sweet speech will lull sinners into a gentle rest from which they'll awake in hell.
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice.
Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
Well said WC... v
July 11, 2007 - 14:46 ET by vrwc13Well said WC...
v
BTW what does " NEW LIVI
July 11, 2007 - 14:22 ET by BinxlyBTW what does " NEW LIVING TRANSLATION " mean?
Seriously, are we editing God's word now?
NLT is a translation for pe
July 11, 2007 - 14:47 ET by The Wicked ConservativeNLT is a translation for people like me that don't speak King James english and don't know greek.
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice.
Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
Many versions/translations.
July 11, 2007 - 14:57 ET by vrwc13Many versions/translations. Need to be discerning on which to use. Here is a good source of them and one can use this site to view comparisons of verses. Enjoy!
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
my god Red, I can't believe i
July 11, 2007 - 13:03 ET by Binxlymy god Red, I can't believe it, you worded my view exactly. Thank you for being so succinct (sp) when obviously today being to the point (and spelling:-!) is not my day.
Make 'em wear skirts
July 11, 2007 - 16:42 ET by nkviking75Make all the candidates wear dresses for this debate. Even Hillary.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.