Every single Republican presidential candidate was invited to attend the 2007 Visible Vote forum dedicated to dealing with issues of concern to gay Americans. Every single Republican candidate declined to attend.
You know, in a recent poll 45 percent of Americans reported having a family member or friend who was gay or lesbian. Even setting aside people for whom gay rights are simple an abstract principle of justice, that’s nearly half of all Americans for whom gay issues are a friend’s issues, a family member’s issues. Every single Republican declined the chance to address those issues.
Wouldn’t you know it, but according to a July 2007 AP poll, the top Republican presidential candidate is “none of the above.” Sorry, completely unconnected there; a total non sequitur. Right.
(Source: CNN August 9, 2007; Associated Press July 17, 2007)
You say the Republicans are homophobic? What about Biden and Dodd that just “happened” to have “something else to do”?
The best ones yet are the great queer-loving Dems who say that they “support gay marriage” but “I don’t think we’re ready for it yet”, like John Edwards.
Or, better yet, everyone else who shows up to debate and promises everything to get elected, but when they get elected, forget about the fags.
I gave Biden and Dodd flack. And I didn’t call the Republicans “homophobic.” You did. You used other names, too. Interesting.
The case for governmental validation of potentially socially destabilizing, biologically illogical sexual behavior is non-existent.
I’d like to coin a new term. I am not the disfunctional one so “homophobic” is inappropriate usage however, “homonauseous” would definitely apply.
Howabout hatenauseous, Steve? It begins with the same word, and has the same deriviation.
Do you think that the government should just promote logical sexual behavior, then?
Interesting that you can only say “potentially” socially destabilizing. You admit, then, that homosexuality is not, in fact socially destabilizing, and only could be if something changed.
Ron Paul wasn’t there? Ron Paul, the man who says he stands up for freedom and all that?
Ron Paul is a homophobic bigot too? Oh, dearie me!
Homosexuality is at worst immoral, at best illogical and it is inappropriate and irresponsible to encourage/condone it or it’s validation. From a biological standpoint the primary function of copulation is reproduction. The “pleasure principle†would be the secondary function of the sexual genitalia, set in place to insure that the primary function of reproduction occurs. This pairing of necessary function with pleasure is either “a random evolutionary purposeful, mutative accident†(sound likely?) or an ingenious gift by design. Surely no one would suggest that the primary biological function of reproductive organs is pleasure would they? This would be an extremely illogical and self-serving thought although it is the very basis of the homosexual lifestyle. It is totally socially irresponsible to imply a status of normalcy, or worse to condone behavior, which is in fact, inevitably detrimental to the propagation and genetic continuance of the person/organism in which it appears. Such a trait, if genetic, would by its very nature make absurd the belief that the trait could survive beyond one generation and would also most certainly have to be viewed as a genetic flaw due to its negative impact on the generational survival of the host. In layman’s terms it would be a self-defeating virtual “dead-end†trait. It would seem that adaptive natural selection would make short work of such a situation. As a flawed genetic trait it would be worthy, by scientific standards, of corrective research like other genetic disease if it could survive beyond one generation. I have no ill will toward anyone caught in the web of choosing to define their very being and existence within the narrow scope of an awkward sexual lifestyle. Further, I find it insidious that some would advance a position that ultimately results in causing it’s subject to feel hopelessly in bondage to a behavior that is falsely alleged to be encoded into their DNA.Though sex within any relationship has varying degrees of self and mutual gratification, to define oneself within the confines of a lifestyle that defies the primary reason for the sexual act is not just elevating pleasure over function but doing away with function altogether. To then seek to have this misguided behavior called normal by others evidences an inner need for validation on the part of the one in error. The intentional use of “born that way” propaganda by those mindlessly pushing to advance the homosexual agenda via such anti-logic, only serves to mentally enslave those already within the lifestyle that believe these lies to a lifetime of illogical/immoral behavior. Do not be fooled, the misdirected behavior/bondage called homosexuality (whether conscious or sub-conscious) is an often rebellious, pleasure driven, biological/psychological/physiological short circuit of the reproductive mechanism. Human beings are gluttonous by nature so behavioral excesses logical or illogical, moral or immoral that bring pleasure are common among all of us; gay, straight, overweight, addicts etc. One is not necessarily worse than another but all must be recognized for what they are. The issue here isn’t whether some people will be homosexuals; it is whether they should be led to believe that they are forever hopelessly trapped in that behavior. I fully understand that some people will live the homosexual lifestyle and that their personal belief for their identity is their “choice†as inferred by the term “sexual preferenceâ€. I will never consider nor call homosexuality logical or a morally/socially acceptable lifestyle and I expect my governing officials to support sound logical behavior while condemning true hate. To ignore/excuse error or call what is wrong (or even just illogical) right is to make oneself complicit in it. And to lie to someone just to make them feel better about him/herself disqualifies one as a “true friendâ€.
If I, having 4 perfectly good limbs, choose to walk around on my hands that is my business but when I seek affirmation that my behavior should be considered “normal” I have crossed a line.
“Surely no one would suggest that the primary biological function of reproductive organs is pleasure would they?”
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
Well the pope wouldn’t say so, would he? But then the pope doesn’t have sex, or at least he’s not supposed to. The primary function of catholic reproductive organs is to produce more catholics who will give more money to the pope. That’s where that evolutionary branch is heading.
You go right ahead and seek out pain, Steve, if that’s what you think God wants. But I’m reading the part of the Bible where God saw what he had created and he saw that it was good. Pleasure too, and the family bonding that goes with it. What a tremendous–and just a little bit silly–gift from God. God must have a tremendous amount of love for us, a peculiar sense of humor as well.
If a whole movement, tons of thousands of people, decided to walk on their hands, and wanted affirmation of it, what’s wrong with that??? It would be odd to me, but why should I care? It wouldn’t effect me!
That’s the argument here.
Two men “marrying” doesn’t effect me or my family at all. Whether I believe in it or not, whether I think being gay is wrong or not, doesn’t matter! This is America, and people should be able to be whatever and whoever they want, as long as they are not hurting someone else. Two guys having manic sex in their bedrooms doesn’t effect me, or you! So get over it all ready!!!!!!
People like you are keeping us so stuck on stupid issues, that we can’t get to real problems! Bush pushing “sanctity of marriage” while hundreds upon hundreds on soldiers and innocent people are dying in Iraq. Millions of innocent people in Africa have died because they can’t eat, or don’t have education on HIV/AIDS. Bridges are collapsing!!!! Reality television is taking over the airwaves…. Two women being married is the LEAST of our problems.
LET IT GO BEFORE OUR COUNTRY COMPLETELY FALLS APART!!!!!!!
It wouldn’t affect you, Donny, unless you were secretly gay and trying to publicly live a straight life. Then it would bug the shit out of you.
This issue speaks directly to the fact that people can be whomever they want to be without official government sanctioning of it. There is no need to. You are right there are much more important issues to address so why do the homosexual activists keep advancing their own issues and not these more important ones?